Feminism and women's rights and roles in a less stable climate(3 Posts)
Starting from a comment that Amibambini made in the board's first thread...
Feminism in a post-stable-climate world, that's an interesting and depressing thing to think about. I have a feeling that hard won rights and general civil liberties will go once the instability of mass migration and resource depletion kicks in, it will be back to survival of the fittest, and by fittest I mean strongest and most violent.
Yeah, the climate change and decline /collapse orientated discussion online is really dominated by men (some of whom do at least have egalitarian attitudes, it's not all right-wing gun toting preppers) so this doesn't get talked about anywhere near enough, and I think MN would be a good place to get more people talking about it.
The blogosphere and online discussion is also predominantly American: a country and continent with a lot more space and a hell of a lot more guns than Britain and Europe. So a lot of ideas floating about what society might end up like aren't actually based on the geographic environment we're in.
Obviously this isn't exactly a lighthearted topic, and it's not one that necessarily has a happy ending, but at least for those who aren't bright green total optimists, or deniers that climate change and resource depletion is even happening (regardless of cause) it seems worth talking about.
I have tended to think that the greatest threat to women's status would be worsened access to contraception, when [and yeah, every time I put when, feel free to replace with 'if', if you're less sure things will get this bad] it gets to the point that manufacturing and distribution and health services become unreliable. I think that women with formidable personalities will continue to be more acceptable as leaders than they were in the nineteenth century or whatever, but I do imagine a scenario where ambitious girls may have to choose between work/public service and relationships and kids, as they did in the first half of the twentieth century. And maternal and child mortality would be higher than we are currently used to too.
I think that, re. violence, a densely populated developed country, especially one with averagely rightward leaning politics, may be more likely to become more authoritarian (although, yes, with a bit more in the way of rioting and crime)... whereas in a big place like the States, with miles between rural homesteads, there would be a lot more lawlessness.
On a note of trying to make this a little more constructive: if I had a daughter, what would I do? (I wouldn't necessarily expect her to grow up into such a world, but that her generation's own kids might.) Give her the opportunity to learn, as much as possible, self-defence, confidence and leadership skills, and a range of practical skills that would be useful for anyone in a world with fewer resources (or just to save money): gardening, DIY and technology/appliance repairs, sewing, cooking, alongside the academic and IT stuff that contemporary education requires - both "boy" and "girl" stuff... Actually, this sounds like my own mum in abilities and interests (although she is not good with people).
It could go either way.
You could get a "Gilead"
Or something more like the old Eastern European countries ...
Remind me of that old Guardian joke.
Guardian headline "World ends tomorrow - Women most affected"
Join the discussion
Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Get started »
Please login first.