The limits of choice

[Chessmistress]

I wish to expand a little the discussion, that seems to me just only focused on breast implants: though dr. Chambers suggests, as example, that the power of the State should be used to prohibiting women to have breast implants, OP is not just only about breast implants – there’s much more.
I want recall our OP, highilighting that breast implants is not the only issue, but just an example: this thread is not about just only breast implants.
This thread is about:
THE STATE SHOULD USE ITS POWER TO LIMIT THE CHOICES OF WOMEN WHEN THESE CHOICES ARE ENFORCED BY CULTURAL NORMS THAT ARE (OR ARE VERY LIKELY TO BE) MEANT MAINLY TO THE BENEFIT OF MALES?

Hello to all, I quite recently discovered this book through Feminist Review praising it as a potential new frontier for both liberal and feminist thought.
Basically the author argues about the real limits of choices.
She wrote that there are cultural practices harmful to women and enforced by societal norms (aka patriarchy) that hurts the health of women, like in example breast implants, and that these practices should be outlawed by a government that really keep care of gender equality and women wellbeing, for the purpose to send a message and to begin a real change of cultural norms harmful to women.
Of course, that can even be framed as a limitation to the freedom of women, but the point is: it's real freedom if women are enforced by patriarchal cultural norms to basically perform a violent and harmful modification of their bodies?

The author, a radical feminist from Cambridge University, UK
http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/people/teachi ... mbers-page

This is a little extract from the review, highlighting the example of breast implants
http://www.palgrave-journals.com/fr/jou ... 0832a.html

Chambers's use of the notion of ‘cosmetic knee implants’ to jolt readers into appreciating how thoroughly bizarre cosmetic breast implants are, in the absence of patriarchal norms and pressures: ‘Until breast implants seem as peculiar as knee implants, we cannot say that a woman chooses to have them for reasons divorced from patriarchy and thus that her decision is irrelevant to justice’ (p. 40).

And this is a better source, directly from the university of dr. Chambers:
http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/impact/fe ... -of-choice

"There are grounds for prohibiting actions that are done in response to unjust social norms that bring about significant harm." - Dr Clare Chambers

So, I ask again: what do you think NSGs? It's justified and/or fruitful prohibiting actions that are done by women in response to unjust patriarchal social norms, since these actions bring to women significant harm?

I want highlight another example of body modification culturally enforced by the patriarchy, hurting women and that is already prohibited: FGM.
There's - really - a moral difference between FGM, foot binding and breast implants or inflating lips?

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

The author, a radical feminist from Cambridge University, UK
http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/people/teachi ... mbers-page

Again, a white middle class feminist. What is it with linking materials from middle class feminists, as opposed to those from a variety of ethnic groups? I'd have more sympathy with a working class feminist.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

No, the state should NOT limit the choices of anyone as long as they are consenting to it and not harming others.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

No, the state should NOT limit the choices of anyone as long as they are consenting to it and not harming others.

That'd be the sensible option. Of course, sensibility is a concept alien to authoritarian fruitcakes.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

No, the state should NOT limit the choices of anyone as long as they are consenting to it and not harming others.

That'd be the sensible option. Of course, sensibility is a concept alien to authoritarian fruitcakes.

It doesn't make any sense how she can call herself feminist while limiting what a woman can do with her body, wear, feel, etc. etc.

[Chessmistress]

No, the state should NOT limit the choices of anyone as long as they are consenting to it and not harming others.

But the State is already taking action against FGM, and also, in China, they did it against foot binding.
What is the moral difference?
I know that both FGM and foot binding are more harmful than - i.e. - inflating lips or having brest implants, but, still, there's a moral difference?

A question for you: FGM should be allowed if the woman express her consent at a proper age? Like in example if she request FGM at the age of 18?

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

No, the state should NOT limit the choices of anyone as long as they are consenting to it and not harming others.

But the State is already taking action against FGM, and also, in China, they did it against foot binding.
What is the moral difference?
I know that both FGM and foot binding are more harmful than - i.e. - inflating lips or having brest implants, but, still, there's a moral difference?

A question for you: FGM should be allowed if the woman express her consent at a proper age? Like in example if she request FGM at the age of 18?

Yes, she should be allowed to do whatever SHE wants with HER body. As should any male. I oppose circumcision for children, but male and female, because it's not their decision. However, what they want to do with their body as adults is between them and their doctor.

[Chessmistress]

But the State is already taking action against FGM, and also, in China, they did it against foot binding.
What is the moral difference?
I know that both FGM and foot binding are more harmful than - i.e. - inflating lips or having brest implants, but, still, there's a moral difference?

A question for you: FGM should be allowed if the woman express her consent at a proper age? Like in example if she request FGM at the age of 18?

Yes, she should be allowed to do whatever SHE wants with HER body. As should any male. I oppose circumcision for children, but male and female, because it's not their decision. However, what they want to do with their body as adults is between them and their doctor.

I recognise you're a very coherent person and I respect you for that.
Another question: don't you think that even a 18 yo girl expressely requesting FGM could be (or "it's very likely to be") enforced to do so by the cultural norms surrounding her?

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Yes, she should be allowed to do whatever SHE wants with HER body. As should any male. I oppose circumcision for children, but male and female, because it's not their decision. However, what they want to do with their body as adults is between them and their doctor.

I recognise you're a very coherent person and I respect you for that.
Another question: don't you think that even a 18 yo girl expressely requesting FGM could be (or "it's very likely to be") enforced to do so by the cultural norms surrounding her?

First of all, the only places in which female circumcision is performed culturally are not places in which women actually have a lot of fucking rights. We are discussing place where they do.
So, no, she wouldn't be culturally pressured to be circumcised, and even if she were, it's none of your business to tell her what she can or cannot do. It's her body, you don't get to make choices for her under the guise of trying to protect her. You control your body, I will control my body.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

I recognise you're a very coherent person and I respect you for that.
Another question: don't you think that even a 18 yo girl expressely requesting FGM could be (or "it's very likely to be") enforced to do so by the cultural norms surrounding her?

First of all, the only places in which female circumcision is performed culturally are not places in which women actually have a lot of fucking rights. We are discussing place where they do.
So, no, she wouldn't be culturally pressured to be circumcised, and even if she were, it's none of your business to tell her what she can or cannot do. It's her body, you don't get to make choices for her under the guise of trying to protect her. You control your body, I will control my body.

Essentially, it's all a matter of first world problems, really. FGM can be practiced here, whereas it can be enforced in other countries. Perhaps if Chessmistress went to a country where women's rights were needed, then she'd see that she doesn't have it that bad. For one thing, she can openly express her views on a website.

[Chessmistress]

I recognise you're a very coherent person and I respect you for that.
Another question: don't you think that even a 18 yo girl expressely requesting FGM could be (or "it's very likely to be") enforced to do so by the cultural norms surrounding her?

First of all, the only places in which female circumcision is performed culturally are not places in which women actually have a lot of fucking rights. We are discussing place where they do.
So, no, she wouldn't be culturally pressured to be circumcised, and even if she were, it's none of your business to tell her what she can or cannot do. It's her body, you don't get to make choices for her under the guise of trying to protect her. You control your body, I will control my body.

"She shouldn't be culturally pressured to have FGM* - but even if she were, it's not business of others to tell her what she can do or not"
That's really interesting.
If she's culturally pressured, that doesn't means there are ALREADY others who are telling her what she should do?
Why a counter-social pressure would be bad?
I'm talking about counter-social pressure, not, as like dr. Chambers, prohibiting actions (aka ban), so, why a counter-social pressure would be bad given there's already a social pressure (performed by other people) on her?
The very best point of Dr. Chambers is, according me, that these decisions are not made in a vacuum, but already influenced by social pressure (patriarchal, against women, meant for the benefit of males). The point where I think dr. Chambers fail is her idea about prohibiting actions: it's even asymmetrical, prohibitions vs social pressure. I think that instead a symmetrical counter-attack, counter-social pressure vs patriarchal social pressure, would be more fair (and also less hurting for women).

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

First of all, the only places in which female circumcision is performed culturally are not places in which women actually have a lot of fucking rights. We are discussing place where they do.
So, no, she wouldn't be culturally pressured to be circumcised, and even if she were, it's none of your business to tell her what she can or cannot do. It's her body, you don't get to make choices for her under the guise of trying to protect her. You control your body, I will control my body.

"She shouldn't be culturally pressured to have FGM* - but even if she were, it's not business of others to tell her what she can do or not"
That's really interesting.
If she's culturally pressured, that doesn't means there are ALREADY others who are telling her what she should do?
Why a counter-social pressure would be bad?
I'm talking about counter-social pressure, not, as like dr. Chambers, prohibiting actions (aka ban), so, why a counter-social pressure would be bad given there's already a social pressure (performed by other people) on her?
The very best point of Dr. Chambers is, according me, that these decisions are not made in a vacuum, but already influenced by social pressure (patriarchal, against women, meant for the benefit of males). The point where I think dr. Chambers fail is her idea about prohibiting actions: it's even asymmetrical, prohibitions vs social pressure. I think that instead a symmetrical counter-attack, counter-social pressure vs patriarchal social pressure, would be more fair (and also less hurting for women).

Because you are no better than the ones telling her to get it done, if you tell her not to get it done. There should be freedom, not coercion. And yes, telling someone not to do something or making it difficult for someone to do something they want to do is coercion. Instead of making it unfairly difficult for people to get something they want, why don't you try to eliminate the coercion to do it?

[Chessmistress]

"She shouldn't be culturally pressured to have FGM* - but even if she were, it's not business of others to tell her what she can do or not"
That's really interesting.
If she's culturally pressured, that doesn't means there are ALREADY others who are telling her what she should do?
Why a counter-social pressure would be bad?
I'm talking about counter-social pressure, not, as like dr. Chambers, prohibiting actions (aka ban), so, why a counter-social pressure would be bad given there's already a social pressure (performed by other people) on her?
The very best point of Dr. Chambers is, according me, that these decisions are not made in a vacuum, but already influenced by social pressure (patriarchal, against women, meant for the benefit of males). The point where I think dr. Chambers fail is her idea about prohibiting actions: it's even asymmetrical, prohibitions vs social pressure. I think that instead a symmetrical counter-attack, counter-social pressure vs patriarchal social pressure, would be more fair (and also less hurting for women).

Because you are no better than the ones telling her to get it done, if you tell her not to get it done. There should be freedom, not coercion. And yes, telling someone not to do something or making it difficult for someone to do something they want to do is coercion. Instead of making it unfairly difficult for people to get something they want, why don't you try to eliminate the coercion to do it?

What is the way to eliminate coercion?

Costantinopolis explained very well what is the matter:

If you really want to change culture in a big way and in a short period of time, you have to do it by force.

So yes, if you think there is something very wrong with present-day culture that needs to be changed ASAP - regardless of whether you're coming from a liberal or conservative angle, whether you want to uphold women's rights or restore the importance of religion in society or whatever - then you will be naturally drawn to authoritarian measures. Because those are the only measures that can make big changes quickly. And that's ok. The state is the greatest tool for social change ever invented by human kind. Use it. Embrace it.

Those who oppose the use of state power to change culture are those who basically support the status quo.

I just want highlight again that that's exactly why Radical Feminists are even ready to temporary and apparently weird alliances, like in example when we marched right next christians in order to stop the legalization of prostitution: because we accept the idea that sometimes a certain amount of force is absolutely needed if we really wish to change things - in a democracy force can be achieved just only with a majority, we need numbers.
In example: Convention of Istanbul, a Radical Feminist policy protecting women from domestic violence performed by males, was passed even with a lot of conservative votes across 18 European countries.

Again, Costantinopolis, very telling:

socially-conservative and radical feminists...often share a common enemy: liberal capitalist society and the culture it promotes, which commodifies and degrades women.

Libertarians will bleat about the supposed "right" that people have to degrade and commodify themselves. I do not question the fact that some people do indeed enjoy being commodified and degraded. But those people are wrong.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Because you are no better than the ones telling her to get it done, if you tell her not to get it done. There should be freedom, not coercion. And yes, telling someone not to do something or making it difficult for someone to do something they want to do is coercion. Instead of making it unfairly difficult for people to get something they want, why don't you try to eliminate the coercion to do it?

What is the way to eliminate coercion?

Costantinopolis explained very well what is the matter:

If you really want to change culture in a big way and in a short period of time, you have to do it by force.

So yes, if you think there is something very wrong with present-day culture that needs to be changed ASAP - regardless of whether you're coming from a liberal or conservative angle, whether you want to uphold women's rights or restore the importance of religion in society or whatever - then you will be naturally drawn to authoritarian measures. Because those are the only measures that can make big changes quickly. And that's ok. The state is the greatest tool for social change ever invented by human kind. Use it. Embrace it.

Those who oppose the use of state power to change culture are those who basically support the status quo.

I just want highlight again that that's exactly why Radical Feminists are even ready to temporary and apparently weird alliances, like in example when we marched right next christians in order to stop the legalization of prostitution: because we accept the idea that sometimes a certain amount of force is absolutely needed if we really wish to change things - in a democracy force can be achieved just only with a majority, we need numbers.
In example: Convention of Istanbul, a Radical Feminist policy protecting women from domestic violence performed by males, was passed even with a lot of conservative votes across 18 European countries.

Again, Costantinopolis, very telling:

socially-conservative and radical feminists...often share a common enemy: liberal capitalist society and the culture it promotes, which commodifies and degrades women.

Libertarians will bleat about the supposed "right" that people have to degrade and commodify themselves. I do not question the fact that some people do indeed enjoy being commodified and degraded. But those people are wrong.

I don't give a fuck what some authoritarian wants me to do with my body, actually. It's not his and he can fuck right off if he tries to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body. And like I said, I will be getting plastic surgery one day - that includes breast implants and more. And that's my choice, not anyone else's.

And how do you stop coercion? First of all, you don't just coerce in the opposite direction.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

If you really want to change culture in a big way and in a short period of time, you have to do it by force.

Again, it worked out well in Mao's China, didn't it? Or how about Stalin's Russia? That turned out for the better. I mean, only a couple million people died combined, but come on! They were fighting for a greater good for their subjective moralities!

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

What is the way to eliminate coercion?

By not coercing back? That tends to help.

[Chessmistress]

If you really want to change culture in a big way and in a short period of time, you have to do it by force.

Again, it worked out well in Mao's China, didn't it? Or how about Stalin's Russia? That turned out for the better. I mean, only a couple million people died combined, but come on! They were fighting for a greater good for their subjective moralities!

These are two different things.
In Mao's China and Stalin's Russia these things were enforced through laws in an unilateral way (that's exactly what dr. Chambers propose: State should prohibiting actions - it means outlawing the practices she thinks are hurting Feminism).
My idea is very different: set up a counter-social pressure without outlawing the patriarchal social pressure.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Again, it worked out well in Mao's China, didn't it? Or how about Stalin's Russia? That turned out for the better. I mean, only a couple million people died combined, but come on! They were fighting for a greater good for their subjective moralities!

These are two different things.
In Mao's China and Stalin's Russia these things were enforced through laws in an unilateral way (that's exactly what dr. Chambers propose: State should prohibiting actions - it means outlawing the practices she thinks are hurting Feminism).
My idea is very different: set up a counter-social pressure without outlawing the patriarchal social pressure.

Constantinopolis was also supporting force and bans. So why were you so gung-ho about what he was saying?

[LA Cheese]

Wow! People are really taking the piss out of this OP. In any case, there are differing views on the issue of breast implants, even among males, as it is taken by some as a lack of authenticity on behalf of the female. For this reason, the statement about male patriarchy enforcing breast implants is only true to an extent. There is pressure, yes, but there is support as well for not getting them.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Wow! People are really taking the piss out of this OP. In any case, there are differing views on the issue of breast implants, even among males, as it is taken by some as a lack of authenticity on behalf of the female. For this reason, the statement about male patriarchy enforcing breast implants is only true to an extent. There is pressure, yes, but there is support as well for not getting them.

I have actually, irl, never met a man who enjoys implants. Which sucks because I'm going to get them regardless of what dudes want, but it would be nice if I could find the man who wants me to be the woman I want to be. Like damn, son. All these fuckers being like "But I like NATURAL best" okay but I don't so where are my dudes

[Chessmistress]

Wow! People are really taking the piss out of this OP. In any case, there are differing views on the issue of breast implants, even among males, as it is taken by some as a lack of authenticity on behalf of the female. For this reason, the statement about male patriarchy enforcing breast implants is only true to an extent. There is pressure, yes, but there is support as well for not getting them.

OP is not about the issue of breast implants.
OP is about the use of the force of State in order to prohibiting actions that are culturally enforced on women through patriarchal norms, when these "choices" hurt women.
Dr. Clare Chambers argue that, since these actions are not just only done in response to unjust cultural norms, but also harmful to women, the State should prohibiting such actions. Brest implants is just only one of these actions, and it's used by Chambers as an example - her idea about "prohibiting actions hurting women and enforced by the patriarchal norms" can be extended, in example, even to prostitution or pornography or strip clubs - since dr. Clare Chambers is a Radical Feminist, I'm pretty sure she was thinking even to, and maybe even more, to these things. Her last book is against marriage: I haven't read it, and I don't think she endorse a ban of marriage, but for sure she would be against some kinds of unbalanced relationships, relationships hurting women, basically advocating for "prohibiting actions" even against certain kinds of relationships - since she's against multiculturalism, that would mean prohibiting marriages as regulated in certain cultures.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Wow! People are really taking the piss out of this OP. In any case, there are differing views on the issue of breast implants, even among males, as it is taken by some as a lack of authenticity on behalf of the female. For this reason, the statement about male patriarchy enforcing breast implants is only true to an extent. There is pressure, yes, but there is support as well for not getting them.

OP is not about the issue of breast implants.
OP is about the use of the force of State in order to prohibiting actions that are culturally enforced on women through patriarchal norms, when these "choices" hurt women.
Dr. Clare Chambers argue that, since these actions are not just only done in response to unjust cultural norms, but also unhealthy, the State should prohibiting such actions. Brest implants is just only one of these actions, and it's used by Chambers as an example - her idea about "prohibiting actions hurting women and enforced by the patriarchal norms" can be extended, in example, even to prostitution or pornography or strip clubs - since dr. Clare Chambers is a Radical Feminist, I'm pretty sure she was thinking even to, and maybe even more, to these things. Her last book is against marriage: I haven't read it, and I don't think she endorse a ban of marriage, but for sure she would be against some kinds of unbalanced relationships, relationships hurting women, basically advocating for "prohibiting actions" even against certain kinds of relationships - since she's against multiculturalism, that would mean prohibiting marriages as regulated in certain cultures.

No body gives a fuck about your dumbass feminist writers. Can you please go like one fucking thread without fucking quoting them? Do you have any ideas of your own that you don't have to back the fuck up with opinion pieces?

[LA Cheese]

OP is not about the issue of breast implants.
OP is about the use of the force of State in order to prohibiting actions that are culturally enforced on women through patriarchal norms.

that was one of your examples though. there isn't much to an OP if the examples start taking hits. i qualified the notion that breast implants are culturally enforced on women through patriarchal norms.

can be extended, in example, even to prostitution or pornography or strip clubs - since dr. Clare Chambers is a Radical Feminist, I'm pretty sure she was thinking even to, and maybe even more, to these things.

I notice that Clare Chambers is in the philosophy department for feminist theory. I also notice this tends to be an area of philosophy that's nothing more than an ivory hot house. From these disassociated investigations, I find it hard to believe that Chambers would ever realize that 1) many people are happy to just find work and make money, 2) many people are fine with their occupations so that it support their family, 3) some women do not feel degraded by participating in these activities, and therefore 4) it's not the business of an academic to tell them it needs to change. I find this condescension towards women working in these areas, as well as your attempt at absolutely shaming their occupations, to be morally reprehensible, and in fact, bordering at more oppressive than any patriarchy

[Chessmistress]

OP is not about the issue of breast implants.
OP is about the use of the force of State in order to prohibiting actions that are culturally enforced on women through patriarchal norms, when these "choices" hurt women.
Dr. Clare Chambers argue that, since these actions are not just only done in response to unjust cultural norms, but also unhealthy, the State should prohibiting such actions. Brest implants is just only one of these actions, and it's used by Chambers as an example - her idea about "prohibiting actions hurting women and enforced by the patriarchal norms" can be extended, in example, even to prostitution or pornography or strip clubs - since dr. Clare Chambers is a Radical Feminist, I'm pretty sure she was thinking even to, and maybe even more, to these things. Her last book is against marriage: I haven't read it, and I don't think she endorse a ban of marriage, but for sure she would be against some kinds of unbalanced relationships, relationships hurting women, basically advocating for "prohibiting actions" even against certain kinds of relationships - since she's against multiculturalism, that would mean prohibiting marriages as regulated in certain cultures.

No body gives a fuck about your dumbass feminist writers. Can you please go like one fucking thread without fucking quoting them? Do you have any ideas of your own that you don't have to back the fuck up with opinion pieces?

Yes, and I have already exposed it.
My idea is that prohibiting actions can be good in some cases but not good in other cases, I think that in most cases a prohibition is wrong, especially when it hurts women, because women are almost always the victims, not the perpetrators, when it comes at harmful patriarchal practices.
A very clear example: prostitution.
The State should not prohibit women to sell our bodies.
The State should let women free to sell their bodies while criminalising customers buying them: that's the Nordic Model that is already law in Canada, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Northern Ireland, and it will be law even in France next October/November.
With the Nordic Model we let women free while directly hurting the males who are enforcing over them the patriarchal norms.
Applied, in example, to pornography, we have the idea of Natapoc: letting women free to being porn actresses but without being paid, while criminalising producers and fining buyers.
Applied, in example, to the issue of breast implants the equivalent would be letting women free to have breast implants while criminalising surgeons performing these breast implants.
I'm just starting to consider this option, because the idea of Socialist Tera about jailing patriarchal surgeons is very charming: these surgeons are performing modifications on women's bodies in order to better suit us to the patriarchal order, and that's an horrible idea.

[LA Cheese]

Applied, in example, to pornography, we have the idea of Natapoc: letting women free to being porn actresses but without being paid

work without pay?

i want equal pay for equal work.

i sure as hell don't want no pay for equal work.