BBC News on gender identity law - mentions us!

[YetAnotherSpartacus]

The link is here

www.bbc.com/news/uk-40713645

I don't think women are oppressed because of their biology. To conclude so is to affirm the inevitability of patriarchy surely? Or at least to suggest that has some sort of basis in biological facticity - which is what feminism is supposed to be concerned with challenging.

I would argue that patriarchy arose from particular social and economic arrangements.

Oh I don't know, how about men start treating women properly - stop being so violent and abusive, stop raping, stop trying to control women's bodies and reproductive abilities, and so on and so on.

Unless you think that men are incapable of doing this? Why should women's differing biology mean it is inevitable that men oppress us?

Why should women's differing biology mean it is inevitable that men oppress us?

I don't think that. That's my exact point.

So what's stopping men from behaving properly and not oppressing women? Why have they been incapable of doing so up till this point? Why do they continue to control women's bodies and reproductive capabilities? What will it take to stop them from doing so? Why are all societies patriarchal in nature, to a greater or lesser extent? What social and economic arrangements are you referring to?

I would say that, similar to your racism example, patriarchy arose because women had a resource that men wanted to exploit (their reproductive capability) and had the power to do so (physically stronger than women, women vulnerable during pregnancy/breastfeeding)

That doesn't mean that that situation is 'natural' or 'right' in the same way that racism isn't.

The 2nd wave phrase 'biology isn't destiny' was originally meant to challenge that idea- that women are naturally weaker, more subservient, less rational because of their childbearing capabilities. Somehow it became warped to meaning 'biology isn't relevant' when it is abundantly clear that it is.

Women are not oppressed because they identify as women, they are oppressed because they are women with all that entails. When families in India or China are having sex selective abortions they don't ask the foetus if they like dolls or cars first. When 8 year olds are sold in marriage to 50 year old men no one asks them if they really feel like a boy.

The rad fem argument is that biology should not determine anyone's likes, interests or personality. It shouldn't restrict your choice of career, access to public services or health care, or any other aspect of your life but that doesn't mean that it isn't real and that it doesn't have a massive impact on how women are treated under patriarchy. In order to achieve a fair society and women's liberation from patriarch the old system needs to be torn down and radically new ways of looking at society need to be found.

In order to achieve a fair society and women's liberation from patriarch the old system needs to be torn down and radically new ways of looking at society need to be found.

Like what? What would it mean for women to have complete control of reproduction? Are we talking universal access to contraception and abortion; or are bio-genetic/eugenics/in vitro fertilisation possibly involved? Is there a possible biotechnological solution to male power?

What would, in your view, would be the ideal social system or set of resources by which women have complete control over who comes into the world?

So what's stopping men from behaving properly and not oppressing women?

Well that's a completely different question - rather like the one of what's stopping people mugging old ladies or committing fraud. They're arseholes? They don't care? They're stronger? They think they can get away with it? Their in a culture which allows them to get away with it? There are endless reasons why men do bad things to women.

Suprised the Beeb managed to get a quote out of Justine.

Yes user, endless reasons that all point in the same direction because they can because they live in a patriarchal society that allows them to.

I was pleasantly surprised at the reasonable tone of the article. And Paris didn't come across well by being so dismissive.

I went to a refresher training session earlier where a trans rights issue came up. I don't want to say what area but I can say not everyone agreed that trans feelings should trump women's. I'd say at least half the room of about 40 people felt they shouldn't, if not more.

What would, in your view, would be the ideal social system or set of resources by which women have complete control over who comes into the world?

You're looking at this down the wrong end of the telescope (an ongoing problem of yours on this thread, I'd suggest). The point is not giving women control over who comes into the world. The point is giving women control over their own bodily autonomy, because anything else is a form of slavery. Ask yourself what would happen if (as in fact happens) we give men control over "who comes into the world"? Suppose no woman wants to give a particular man the chance to become a biological father? How would he "take back control"? Rape? Forced surrogacy? Until he can develop an artificial womb, any means which would give him control over women's fertility is morally wrong.

Again, to hammer the point home: it's not about giving women control over who they bring into the world, it's about giving them control over what happens to their own bodies.

Yes exactly PricklyBall Sofia Vergara's embryo case comes to mind.

Sorry accidentally pressed post, her ex is known to be controlling and abusive and oo and behold it's like he's using the embryos as a way in to gain control over her life again. It just opens up avenues for abusive men to gain/keep control over women.

Again, to hammer the point home: it's not about giving women control over who they bring into the world, it's about giving them control over what happens to their own bodies.

But surely, the latter can only exist if women have the former?

I'm not quite sure what 'complete control' of 'bodily autonomy' means (the statement applies a Cartesian dualism: a separate body over which the self has control); or whether it even exists for anyone.

All I'm suggesting is that..well...firstly that I don't believe the oppression of women is simply a consequence of the woman's reproductive capacity, or a matter of women lacking complete control of their bodies (because no one has complete has complete control of their own body). The true factors are culturally and psychologically far more knotty than that..

And secondly I'm suggesting that there is an uncomfortable eugenic impulse detectable in some areas of feminist discourse at the moment. The debate surrounding the very real oppression of women would be more productive if it extended beyond this very reductive concept of biological labour. If anything, the fact that women give birth is completely excluded from pornography and other misogynist cultural scripts. To be explicit, the teen (daughter) or MILF (mother) are the dominant misogynist characterisations in porn, with a pervasive implication of regressive, incestuous transgression rather the genetic furtherance of patriarchy.

Reproduction was certainly a key a factor of patriarchy in a historical era when there was a 20% infant mortality rate and women were seen as chattel; or when powerful dynasty and feudal families relied upon them to create male heirs; but how many men really want to have children now? The whole Judd Apatow schtick suggest the complete opposite. If anything the role of the father and husband is being eschewed in favour of a permanent adolescence of casual sex and masturbation. These concepts of female reproductive labour and domestic enslavement, though still relevant to some degree, apply less and less in post-industrial, porn saturated consumer societies.

I just think this stuff about reproductive labour is a kind of vulgar biological Marxism that gets no one anywhere. Furthermore, I'm not sure about this economised idea of a child as a PRODUCT of labour.

user

I would love you, from a selfish POV to change your name to something more memorable, to distinguish you from all the other users. Some of whom are much less erudite

Thanks Identifies, will do..

"The true factors are culturally and psychologically far more knotty than that.." what do you think they are?

In 21st century UK we have the ability to allow women to decide when or if they are pregnant. We have the ability to allow women to end a pregnancy if they don't want to be pregnant. Why would you want to restrict women from deciding at any point what to do with their body?

If anything, the fact that women give birth is completely excluded from pornography and other misogynist cultural scripts.

No it isn't. It is a fetish for some men and catered to in the sex industry.

Why would you want to restrict women from deciding at any point what to do with their body?

I don't, and I don't think most misogynist men do either. Well, some do but this isn't, as far as I can tell, the main issue today. I really don't want to speak for the female sex as a whole, but the common complaint of most of my young female friends and colleagues is not that men have sex with them in order to get them pregnant and entrap them in a marriage; it's that they have sex with them and disappear out the back door. Abortion rights are right at the bottom of the list for MRA's. In fact, if a woman wants to get rid of her baby that's going to save the 21st century, sexually entitled manchild a whole lot of bother. There's no room for a baby in his mum's basement. He'd probably walk them to the clinic.

No it isn't. It is a fetish for some men and catered to in the sex industry.

Not to any significant degree it isn't.

I agree that things have moved on and changed dramatically over the last hundred years and that the Marxist analysis is simplistic at best (although that dosent mean it isn't a helpful model, a model is by definition a simplification of the whole)

It is no coincidence that the past 70 years have seen the largest leap forward in women's rights in history and I would argue that the availability of contraception has been a hugely pivotal part of that social change.

What you then get is very interesting I think. Historically women have been controlled so that men can reproduce and be secure about their bloodline. It was important for those women to be protected and kept pure. However there was a second class of women who were unpure and it was ok for them to be treated however men wanted too. They had lost their value and therefore were not worthy of protection.

Since the direct link between sex and reproduction has been broken (in the west) and men can now find out with certainty if they are the father of a child the purity of women has lost some of its value in society. This combined with the easy access to porn has created an increasingly sexualised layer of additional expectations on women (Brazilians and all that) however the continued use of gendered slurs like slut indicate that there is still some value seen in female purity, just nowhere near as much. So women are now under pressure to be open and up for all or any sorts of sex/kink whilst not accidentally crossing the invisible line into becoming a 'whore'.

I'd like to see some evidence that men don't want to have children now. In my experience they want to have their cake and eat it.

What are you on about? There are women in NI who cannot access abortions, and therefore have to go through the risks of pregnancy or risk an illegal abortion or somehow try and fund a trip to mainland UK. Women in the rest of the UK can't have an abortion unless 2 doctors agree, and then only up to 20 weeks. Tough shit if you're past 20 weeks, you have to take on the risks of pregnancy and child rearing (or the psychological issues around adoption), or risk an illegal abortion. Of course it's a "main issue" for women.

My impression is that the men's rights types have the shortage of women available to be wives and mothers as one of their major issues.