This is a Premium feature
The Feminist case for opposing lockdowns(17 Posts)
"The Duluth wheel of Power and Control was developed by researchers in Duluth, Minnesota, in the early 1980s after speaking to many abused women. The inner circle has eight sections, and Her Majesty’s Government has exhibited behaviour that can be analysed using this framework."
I don't think this is particularly helpful. Many of the sections of the wheel apply equally to women and men, this analysis casts the general population as the abused and the government as abuser, which is arguable but as the general population are male and female this does not add up to a feminist analysis.
I think there is a feminist analysis of lockdown to be made, you could argue that the burden of lockdown falls disproportionately on women (as carers, and mothers) but this isn't it.
I had a quick read but couldn't see what the proposed alternative was - just life as usual and let the virus spread?
The terrible effects of lockdown are obviously numerous but what is the comparator here? Just checking in case I missed it.
Black and white thinking is really not helpful. Why does anybody think that lockdowns are effective, let alone the only appropriate responce? Why does the government need to rely on the tactics of an abuser to force compliance? What can justify this behaviour?
I can understand why parallels would be seen. For data, we are told that hundreds of thousands of people are trans, when they're not. They just fit under an expanded definition that seems to include almost anyone who's heard of it. And with the pandemic, accurate data has been a persistent issue.
If the definition of the issue is taken out of discussion (as in this piece), and you just have to accept that it is what you're told it is, and no one is allowed to challenge it. Then all the rights that are changed, also can't be challenged. Sounds familiar.
I think there are many parralles between the tactics of TRAs and those who advocate for an extreme lockdown.
"You just want trans people to DIE!"
Sounds very much like...q
"You just want grandma to DIE!"
Meanwhile science cliches are chucked about with glee. Its wierd how many people with I LOVE SCIENCE in their bios also believe that women have penises and thats viruses have a curfew...
but, trans people aren't dying and people with covid are
how is this a feminist analysis?
Just cos you use the word feminist on the women's rights section, doesn't mean you aren't talking completely out of your arse.
A lot of the problem with restrictions in the UK compared with other countries is because we've had a lot of 'guidelines' and 'recommendations' rather than legally enforceable rules and we've had very light enforcement rather than a much heavier handed response.
Johnson has emphasised that this is in our own interests rather than trying to impose rules straight away. We've had a carrot approach which has been followed up with restrictions if its failed.
You are conflating authoritarism with other things. Feminism by its nature is rooted in liberalism - primarily because authoritarism is usually led by men making decisions and thus they have a political blind spot to the problems women face.
And ironically our lockdown has been more on the liberal side than the authoritarian in many respects - and this has been its achilles heel because it has relied on persuading people rather than forcing people.
In terms of social pressure to enforce compliance, this really broke down after the first lockdown because there was a breakdown in social consensus for various reasons.
So I really don't think you know what you are talking about yourself never mind being able to construct a cohesive argument.
There are feminist issues to do with lockdown, but lockdown itself is a public health initiative.
If you want to talk, OP, about how to ensure women can access DV services in lockdown, or the increase in workload for women who are mothers forced to work and homeschool simultaneously, or how an economic recovery needs to factor in the needs of women, that's cool.
If you just want to talk lockdown denialist nonsense and call it feminist, nope.
Lockdowns in my country have successfully suppressed or eliminated Covid, buying us time to support both life and economy until the vaccine comes along. Anyone trying to tell me women are worse off where I am compared to women in the UK right now, because lockdown, will get short shrift.
From the outside looking in, it seems to me that UK women are getting the worst of both worlds - restrictions without the success of actual lockdown. Ending up with all kinds of poor outcomes - health, financial, economic - while also paying a high cost on terms of lives lost, infections, ongoing disruptions, long Covid etc.
a breakdown in social consensus for various reasons.
a breakdown in social consensus for various reasons.
Code for: we got sick of the 'we are all in it together' shit and how it turned into pretty everyone for themselves in terms of attitude and the curtain twitchers didn't have the power they thought they did.
I think there was one particular reason for the consensus breaking down but some of us have decided to act responsibly nevertheless
Nobody wants to engage with the argument. Have any of you accusing me of being a lockdown denialist actually read the article? You are straw manning.
Minimising and denying is the tactic of an abuser.
I did engage - I asked what the comparator strategy was and you didn't answer.
And I did draft a wider post but thought it polite to wait for your response so I could engage in the right context.
Why is it that female leaders worldwide have been amongst those with the strictest lockdowns and have taken the earliest interventions?
And at this point they look to have had much more favourable outcomes than those who have been more relaxed in approaches to lockdown.
Johnson, Trump and Brasil's Bolsonaro have reputations for being amongst the 'most toxic masculine' leaders and particularly right leaning and and have had the weakest lockdowns. And have also had the most deaths.
I genuinely dont have a fig what your argument actually is or what you are basing it on.
It just looks to me that you are trying to shoehorn a feminist argument using the duluth wheel which doesn't fit rather than having a debate about authoritarian v libertarian approaches to lockdown or early v late interventions which are far more appropriate.
Minimising and denying is the tactic of an abuser
Accusing others of this is also a darvo technic...
This sentence can be used by anyone. It doesn't mean anything unless its appropriate.
Someone disagreeing with you, and thinking you are not making a cohesive argument is not a legitimate usage of the phrase.
When used in this manner its DARVO.
We are allowed to disagree and say "you are talking cobblers" without being accused of abusing or minimising.
Im sorry but this looks a lot like a misusage just because you haven't had people falling over themselves to agree with you.
Please login first.