Should single men have right to exploit women's bodies?

[USS Monitor]

At this point I wonder if OP is a false flag operation to make feminism look bad. Just fits too well with my preconceptions.

No, Chess is actually being serious.

You never really know.

[Herador]

No, Chess is actually being serious.

You never really know.

Stormfront's been known to do it with black people.

[Stellonia]

...a trojan horse conceived by the transexual MP De Sutter in order to grant to the men the privilege to exploit women even more!

Chess, your allegation that some transwomen are really just men collaborating with the patriarchy is disgusting.

Regarding the topic itself, I would say that it is wrong to characterize surrogacy as "exploitation." However, I oppose this measure because studies suggest that single-parent households are not the best option for children: jech.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/09/jech-2014-205058.full#http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/09/jech-2014-205058.full

[Galloism]

...a trojan horse conceived by the transexual MP De Sutter in order to grant to the men the privilege to exploit women even more!

Chess, your allegation that some transwomen are really just men collaborating with the patriarchy is disgusting.

Regarding the topic itself, I would say that it is wrong to characterize surrogacy as "exploitation." However, I oppose this measure because studies suggest that single-parent households are not the best option for children: jech.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/09/jech-2014-205058.full#http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/09/jech-2014-205058.full

Of course, that would also extend to things like sperm banks and be gender neutral in objection.

This is a radical feminist thread, so none of that shit, y'hear?

[Salandriagado]

...a trojan horse conceived by the transexual MP De Sutter in order to grant to the men the privilege to exploit women even more!

Chess, your allegation that some transwomen are really just men collaborating with the patriarchy is disgusting.

Regarding the topic itself, I would say that it is wrong to characterize surrogacy as "exploitation." However, I oppose this measure because studies suggest that single-parent households are not the best option for children: jech.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/09/jech-2014-205058.full#http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/09/jech-2014-205058.full

Sure, they aren't ideal. But are they better than temporary fostering or group homes? Because those are the alternatives that are actually available.

[USS Monitor]

Chess, your allegation that some transwomen are really just men collaborating with the patriarchy is disgusting.

Regarding the topic itself, I would say that it is wrong to characterize surrogacy as "exploitation." However, I oppose this measure because studies suggest that single-parent households are not the best option for children: jech.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/09/jech-2014-205058.full#http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/09/jech-2014-205058.full

Sure, they aren't ideal. But are they better than temporary fostering or group homes? Because those are the alternatives that are actually available.

In this case, the alternative is not having the kid in the first place. We're talking about banning people from hiring women to birth children for them, not banning people from adopting kids that are already born.

[Chessmistress]

Sure, they aren't ideal. But are they better than temporary fostering or group homes? Because those are the alternatives that are actually available.

In this case, the alternative is not having the kid in the first place. We're talking about banning people from hiring women to birth children for them, not banning people from adopting kids that are already born.

Exactly.
I already said that I support adoption by same-sex couples.

You never really know.

Stormfront's been known to do it with black people.

*Sarcastic mode one*
You catched me.
I'm the representative of a little group of white racist straight men
This is our first site
http://sverigeskvinnolobby.se/en/projec ... otherhood/

The Swedish Women’s Lobby strongly opposes surrogacy motherhood. Our position is that surrogacy is a trade with women’s bodies and children, as well as a threat to women’s basic human rights and bodily integrity.

The Swedish Women’s Lobby is, together with several other organizations, working on the campaign “Feminist no to surrogacy“. The campaign is politically and religiously independent and takes a strong standpoint against surrogacy on feminist grounds. We support the resolution adopted by the European Parliament in April 2011, stating that surrogacy is an exploitation of the woman’s body and her reproductive organs.

The Swedish Women’s Lobby is against legalization of all forms of surrogacy motherhood. Read our policy paper on surrogacy motherhood here.

At the European Women’s Lobby’s General Assembly in 2013, the member organisations agreed to work against all forms of surrogacy motherhood.

Surrogacy is presently not legal in Sweden. However there is no legislation that regulates the trade. In February 2016, a Swedish governmental commission presented a report in which they conclude that surrogacy should not in any form be legalized in Sweden (SOU 2016:11, see page 47 for an English abstract).

We infiltrated European governments and the Council of Europe, check here, on our main site:
http://www.womenlobby.org/spip.php?page ... =surrogacy

That's wy the Council of Europe voted 83 vs 77 in our favor.

This is our Fuhrer
https://www.byline.com/project/43/article/861
And those are the minister of propaganda
https://www.byline.com/project/43/article/853
And the minister of weapons
https://www.byline.com/project/43/article/800

We are also to launch an attack against porn
http://sverigeskvinnolobby.se/en/project/porn-free/
In collaboration with the minister for concentration camps
http://www.roks.se/about-roks-1
Check here
http://www.roks.se/search/node/porn
And we also advocate apartheid:
http://www.roks.se/nyheter/2014-12-09/r ... separatism

At this point I wonder if OP is a false flag operation to make feminism look bad. Just fits too well with my preconceptions.

Straw feminism at its finest.

You're even smarter, and you got the full picture.
In fact all the organizations I just linked doesn't exist.
We're just three hackers who created all those sites, then infiltrated NS as part of our evil plan.


*end of sarcastic mode*

[The Anti-Social Socialists]

If I may be so bold, I would suggest that a resolution to such a dilemma would simply occur through these single males utilising methods which are commonplace among homosexual (particularly male homosexual) couples, in the adoption of a child.

In my opinion, as a woman is responsible for any child she carries, in the sense that the woman is the one that carries the baby to term, at the very least, such a responsibility should never be forced upon her via surrogacy, or undesired pregnancies of any kind. It is, therefore, the right of the woman to contradict the right of the man if the matter concerns producing children, with respect to this particular issue, particularly as other avenues exist through which the single male may start a family.

[Gyrenaica]

I'm not feminist, but this... just no.

[Salandriagado]

Sure, they aren't ideal. But are they better than temporary fostering or group homes? Because those are the alternatives that are actually available.

In this case, the alternative is not having the kid in the first place. We're talking about banning people from hiring women to birth children for them, not banning people from adopting kids that are already born.

Urgh, I got confused between different discussions, sorry.

[Salandriagado]

I'm not feminist, but this... just no.

Try reading the thread, not just the title.

[Pirelin]

At this point I wonder if OP is a false flag operation to make feminism look bad. Just fits too well with my preconceptions.

No, this is pretty common. It's the result of white-hating Marxist professors in universities.

[Stellonia]

...a trojan horse conceived by the transexual MP De Sutter in order to grant to the men the privilege to exploit women even more!

Chess, your allegation that some transwomen are really just men collaborating with the patriarchy is disgusting.

Chessmistress, you have yet to either justify or apologize for your "Trojan horse" claim.

[Esternial]

In this case, the alternative is not having the kid in the first place. We're talking about banning people from hiring women to birth children for them, not banning people from adopting kids that are already born.

Exactly.
I already said that I support adoption by same-sex couples.

Stormfront's been known to do it with black people.

*Sarcastic mode one*
You catched me.
I'm the representative of a little group of white racist straight men
This is our first site
http://sverigeskvinnolobby.se/en/projec ... otherhood/

The Swedish Women’s Lobby strongly opposes surrogacy motherhood. Our position is that surrogacy is a trade with women’s bodies and children, as well as a threat to women’s basic human rights and bodily integrity.

The Swedish Women’s Lobby is, together with several other organizations, working on the campaign “Feminist no to surrogacy“. The campaign is politically and religiously independent and takes a strong standpoint against surrogacy on feminist grounds. We support the resolution adopted by the European Parliament in April 2011, stating that surrogacy is an exploitation of the woman’s body and her reproductive organs.

The Swedish Women’s Lobby is against legalization of all forms of surrogacy motherhood. Read our policy paper on surrogacy motherhood here.

At the European Women’s Lobby’s General Assembly in 2013, the member organisations agreed to work against all forms of surrogacy motherhood.

Surrogacy is presently not legal in Sweden. However there is no legislation that regulates the trade. In February 2016, a Swedish governmental commission presented a report in which they conclude that surrogacy should not in any form be legalized in Sweden (SOU 2016:11, see page 47 for an English abstract).

We infiltrated European governments and the Council of Europe, check here, on our main site:
http://www.womenlobby.org/spip.php?page ... =surrogacy

That's wy the Council of Europe voted 83 vs 77 in our favor.

This is our Fuhrer
https://www.byline.com/project/43/article/861
And those are the minister of propaganda
https://www.byline.com/project/43/article/853
And the minister of weapons
https://www.byline.com/project/43/article/800

We are also to launch an attack against porn
http://sverigeskvinnolobby.se/en/project/porn-free/
In collaboration with the minister for concentration camps
http://www.roks.se/about-roks-1
Check here
http://www.roks.se/search/node/porn
And we also advocate apartheid:
http://www.roks.se/nyheter/2014-12-09/r ... separatism

Straw feminism at its finest.

You're even smarter, and you got the full picture.
In fact all the organizations I just linked doesn't exist.
We're just three hackers who created all those sites, then infiltrated NS as part of our evil plan.
:rofl:

*end of sarcastic mode*

Huh.

You put a lot of effort in your sarcasm.

[Oneracon]

At this point I wonder if OP is a false flag operation to make feminism look bad. Just fits too well with my preconceptions.

No, this is pretty common. It's the result of white-hating Marxist professors in universities.

This is getting pretty old... though bonus point for not saying "cultural Marxist"

[Galloism]

Chess, your allegation that some transwomen are really just men collaborating with the patriarchy is disgusting.

Chessmistress, you have yet to either justify or apologize for your "Trojan horse" claim.

I wouldn't hold my breath. Chess is basically exhibit A of the sexism and hate that's been rising more and more within the feminist movement, with a thin veneer of "umm, patriarchy, and um, substantive equality! That's what we call it when we're being sexist!"

[Oneracon]

Chessmistress, you have yet to either justify or apologize for your "Trojan horse" claim.

I wouldn't hold my breath. Chess is basically exhibit A of the sexism and hate that's been rising more and more within the feminist movement, with a thin veneer of "umm, patriarchy, and um, substantive equality! That's what we call it when we're being sexist!"

Given that Chess self-identifies as "moderately TERF", that is hardly surprising

[Kravanica]

I wouldn't hold my breath. Chess is basically exhibit A of the sexism and hate that's been rising more and more within the feminist movement, with a thin veneer of "umm, patriarchy, and um, substantive equality! That's what we call it when we're being sexist!"

Given that Chess self-identifies as "moderately TERF", that is hardly surprising

So if RadFem means radical feminist then what does TERF mean?

[Galloism]

Given that Chess self-identifies as "moderately TERF", that is hardly surprising

So if RadFem means radical feminist then what does TERF mean?

trans-exclusionary radical feminist.

[Kravanica]

So if RadFem means radical feminist then what does TERF mean?

trans-exclusionary radical feminist.

-_-

These fucking people.

[Catholostab]

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2016/10/no-single-men-do-not-have-right-reproduce
Excerpt:

We know we are right in thinking that one cannot challenge patriarchy without fundamentally revising our understanding of family structures. Where we have gone wrong is in assuming that a revision of family structures will, in and of itself, challenge patriarchy. On the contrary, it can accommodate it.

This is why all feminists – and indeed anyone serious about tackling patriarchy at the root – should be deeply concerned about the World Health Organisation’s new definition of infertility. Whereas up until now infertility has been defined solely in medical terms (as the failure to achieve pregnancy after 12 months of unprotected sex), a revised definition will give each individual “a right to reproduce”.

According to Dr David Adamson, one of the authors of the new standards, this new definition “includes the rights of all individuals to have a family, and that includes single men, single women, gay men, gay women”

“It puts a stake in the ground and says an individual’s got a right to reproduce whether or not they have a partner. It’s a big change.”

It sure is. From now on, even single men who want children – but cannot have them solely because they do not have a female partner to impregnate – will be classed as “infertile”. I hope I’m not the only person to see a problem with this.

I am all in favour of different family structures. I’m especially in favour of those that undermine an age-old institution set up to allow men to claim ownership of women’s reproductive labour and offspring.

I am less enthusiastic about preserving a man’s “right” to reproductive labour regardless of whether or not he has a female partner. The safeguarding of such a right marks not so much an end to patriarchy as the introduction of a new, improved, pick ‘n’ mix, no-strings-attached version.

There is nothing in Adamson’s words to suggest he sees a difference between the position of a reproductively healthy single woman and a reproductively healthy single man. Yet the difference seems obvious to me. A woman can impregnate herself using donor sperm; a man must impregnate another human being using his sperm.


In order to exercise his “right” to reproduce, a man requires the cooperation – or failing that, forced labour – of a female person for the duration of nine months. He requires her to take serious health risks, endure permanent physical side-effects and then to supress any bond she may have developed with the growing foetus. A woman requires none of these things from a sperm donor.

This new definition of infertility effectively enshrines a man’s right to do to women what patriarchy has always done to them: appropriate their labour, exploit their bodies and then claim ownership of any resultant human life.

Already it is being suggested that this new definition may lead to a change in UK surrogacy law. And while some may find it reassuring to see Josephine Quintavalle of the conservative pressure group Comment on Reproductive Ethics complaining about the sidelining of “the biological process and significance of natural intercourse between a man and a woman”, that really isn’t the problem here.

Men do not have a fundamental right to use female bodies, neither for reproduction nor for sex. A man who wants children but has no available partner is no more “infertile” than a man who wants sex but has no available partner is “sexually deprived”.

The WHO’s new definition is symptomatic of men’s ongoing refusal to recognise female boundaries. Our bodies are our own, not a resource to be put at men’s disposal. Until all those who claim to be opposed to patriarchal exploitation recognise this, progress towards gender-based equality will be very one-sided indeed.

More sources:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/he ... 48750.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10 ... ew-defini/

As rightly stated in the first article, such definition is going to basically give to the men the "right" of exploiting women through the practice of commercial surrogacy!
In order to protect the freedom and the dignity of women, the Council of Europe very recently rejected the so-called "surrogacy guidelines" that were, in fact, a trojan horse conceived by the transexual MP De Sutter in order to grant to the men the privilege to exploit women even more!
http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_715312.asp

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), a human rights organisation, has voted to reject a proposal to introduce international guidelines on surrogacy and children's rights.

It voted 83 to 77 against a draft recommendation to create 'European guidelines to safeguard children's rights in relation to surrogacy arrangements', prepared by rapporteur Professor Petra De Sutter, a member of the Flemish Green Party.

The report included proposals to ban 'for-profit' surrogacy as well as recommending that the Council of Ministers work with the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) on private international law issues concerning children born through surrogacy arrangements, including legal parenthood.

Distinct from the European Union, the Council of Europe was set up in 1949 by various European states, including the UK, to promote democracy and human rights. While it has itself no law-making power, it performs an advocacy role and campaigns on rights issues. Its parliament includes MPs from national parliaments across the European Union, Turkey and Russia.

It was not the first time the Council of Europe has declined to draw up guidelines on surrogacy, a topic on which there is divided opinion across Europe. A previous vote against the draft report by the Council of Europe's Social Affairs and Health Committee in March was preceded by a protest rally in Paris against surrogacy.

In the latest draft recommendation, Professor de Sutter said she believed that members of the Committee were 'too divided on the human rights and ethical issues related to surrogacy' and that she did not believe a 'majority exists on whether or not altruistic surrogacy arrangements should be allowed'. As such, the report was updated to relate only to for-profit surrogacy and its impact on children.

Professor de Sutter said that she did not herself believe that altruistic surrogacy arrangements should be prohibited. It had been alleged that her support for certain surrogacy practices and connections to clinics in India represented a conflict of interest but these allegations were dismissed by the Committee in January this year.

Earlier this year, over 100,000 European citizens signed a petition for PACE to vote in support of a ban on surrogacy, while the European Parliament of the EU passed a resolution condemning all forms of surrogacy in December 2015. In Italy, 50 'lesbian and activist women' signed a petition last month against 'the commercialisation of women's bodies', reports The European Post.

Surrogacy remains regulated at a national level across Europe. In the UK, surrogacy is permitted while 'commercial' surrogacy is prohibited by legislation. But some countries, including France and Italy, adopt more restrictive approaches.

Feminists have been accused by the surrogacy lobby of "being against women self-determination", pretending that self-determination would make people immune from liabilities (including political liabilities), including not just only political liabilities against other women but also against the human rights of the children: it's not just only that women and children must not be reduced to objects, it's even that self-determination is real just only if it's free from the needs and the disparity in the balance of power, between those who have wealth and power and those without it.
With surrogacy women become objects enlisted in auction catalogues of brokers, catalogues on which customers can choose according to the physical and mental features of the women (including the sexual tastes and even the level of education) then such customers can set contracts that should make everybody literally cringe for the absolute loss of dignity that such contracts underlies.
Now "thanks" to the corruption within WHO, even after a victory within the Council of Europe, women have to face again this very huge problem, worldwide, and even in Europe, probably the first will be UK, where it's very likely that, even due the Brexit, the practice of surrogacy will be totally allowed, even for purely commercial purposes.

Personally I think that's a shame and that all women should stand against such blatant attack, just like it recently happened in Poland.

What do you think NSGs?

what point are you actually trying to get across here. Surely the surrogacy is voluntary, and denying gay people the right to use surrogate mothers is harming equality. If a woman chooses to do this then how is it fair to deny them that

[Greater Pareidolia]

So if RadFem means radical feminist then what does TERF mean?

trans-exclusionary radical feminist.

What on earth is that? Are we making up things now? Because if so I am a trans-Yithian pulmonary capacitor.

[Galloism]

trans-exclusionary radical feminist.

What on earth is that? Are we making up things now? Because if so I am a trans-Yithian pulmonary capacitor.

It's mostly a disparaging term not used by TERFs themselves - it is talking about feminists who hate trans people - especially trans women mostly because they view men trying to become women as appropriating women's struggles and invading a space that should be reserved only for women.

Many hate trans-men as well, because they view them as traitors to other women by trying to become the oppressor.

I won't say it's a big group, but it is a rather existent, if stupid, set of ideologies.

[Settrah]

it is talking about feminists who hate trans people - especially trans women mostly because they view men trying to become women as appropriating women's struggles and invading a space that should be reserved only for women.

Obviously they miss the irony of themselves being of cisgender privilege, and therefore by SJW logic being the oppressors themselves.

Many hate trans-men as well, because they view them as traitors to other women by trying to become the oppressor.

Which most RadFems are in behaviour anyway. Well, the ones in charge anyway. The rest are just hivemind.

Plus being against the individualism and autonomy that Liberal Feminism promotes, actually does make RadFems traitors to other women.

[Galloism]

it is talking about feminists who hate trans people - especially trans women mostly because they view men trying to become women as appropriating women's struggles and invading a space that should be reserved only for women.

Obviously they miss the irony of themselves being of cisgender privilege, and therefore by SJW logic being the oppressors themselves.

Many hate trans-men as well, because they view them as traitors to other women by trying to become the oppressor.

Which most RadFems are in behaviour anyway. Well, the ones in charge anyway. The rest are just hivemind.

Plus being against the individualism and autonomy that Liberal Feminism promotes, actually does make RadFems traitors to other women.

I believe I very specifically commented that's a stupid series of ideologies.