Self-selective removal of oneself and those of probable left-leaning male partners from the gene pool* is certainly one strategy left-leaning women could try in the fight for a political environment where their rights are protected and progress further. Probably a terrible strategy, but certainly one that could be chosen.
I respect any individual's bodily autonomy and am not trying to make a statement in favor of men having a right to access or anything like that. It's just an illogical movement if the goal is a society that has more individuals likely to support women's rights - the gamble that thirsty men of the left will somehow save the day or that it would affect men on the right is kind of silly unless we're assuming that there is a statistically meaningful amount of (secretly) left leaning women out there choosing right wing men as partners. (I wonder if anyone has tried to focus a campaign on seeing if the latter group exists in a sizable amount and can be convinced to be vote left - somebody should look into that and see how it works out. /s)
It's almost like 4B is something that the right wing would push to further their current advantage in household size in the US...
*I am not seriously implying politics are a matter of genetics (though parents commonly pass down their politics to children in their household via social means), but plenty of people on the right do believe in their own "good genes" versus the "bad genes" of the left and I'm leaning on their perspective for sarcastic effect here.
Downvoting to save words in your reply - nice. Have another upvote.
Your most recent reply actually conveys meaning/makes a specific versus broad point. To that point, I don't necessarily think they were making a eugenics based argument (though I would agree with you in dismissing an argument based on that) since they didn't explicitly state the reason for mentioning the movie was because they believe in some idea of politics being genetic versus simply being most effectively passed down via social means from one's parents while living with them through adolescence. Call me crazy, but I think most of the folks posting here should be given the benefit of not assuming they're talking about eugenics until they are explicitly promoting it versus something more widely accepted, such as the aforementioned idea that it's highly likely that parents pass down their politics through social means to their children. I could, of course, be wrong and maybe they were intending to make a eugenics based argument, but they weren't specific enough to divine that. All of that said, I should edit the phrasing in a sarcastic comment I made elsewhere about removing oneself from the gene pool being a bad strategy since I probably wasn't clear enough to get across that I was using the very real right-wing perspective where they favor their "good genes" over others' "genes" for added effect.
Your initial (decidedly vague) comment, as quoted, presents a false choice as if the person you were replying to was worrying about a future problem that is totally disconnected from the current topic of discussion, but they're not and I don't think the person you were replying to gave any reason for one to infer that they were ignoring the current issue in favor of some future issue. If they were talking about disconnected topics/problems then what you were saying would make more sense (or if you had been more specific, like in your followup, that would help too). It's as if the person noticed a ceiling was leaking and exclaimed to someone suggesting to just put a bucket under it "Ignoring a leak is exactly how my neighbor ended up needing to replace their roof, I don't think the bucket plan is a good plan in the long term!" and you were there to reply "Don't tell them to worry about the roof, they need to fix the leak!" It's not wrong, it just doesn't really say anything or lead to further thought beyond the loop and comes across as a "calm down!"