The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Proctopeo]

As they say, a fool and their money are soon parted.

I know nothing about websites; how long does 33 grand hold you out for?

Well, they only have a few staff members. I don't think they have an office. I'd imagine their biggest expense is server maintenance, which can be surprisingly substantial. If the 33,000 is their primary cash influx, and its being used only to cover day-to-day expenditure, I'd imagine they won't last long. But, if its being used to recover from an unexpected disaster, then they'll last until the next disaster.

So, let's just say a fifty-fifty chance that this is the end for them. Gets all the icky statistical and sleuthwork junk out of the way.

[Giovenith]

So as some of you might have begun to notice, a fire is a-kindling on social media: The idea that the Manchester attacks primarily constitutes as a misogynistic attack against women and girls since it was at an Ariana Grande concert, i.e., a female singer with primarily female fans. "An attack on girl culture" is more specifically being issued.

The protests are what you might expect: men were hurt and killed too, why are they being erased by you making it all about the female victims? How do you know the attacker's motivation was a "girly" concert and not just a place with a lot of people?

The counter answers are what you expect: the male victims are important, but it doesn't erase the weight of the misogynistic motivations. "Islam has misogynistic angles so you'd have to be blind not to draw this connection."

As of right now, I can see both sides points, but I'm erring on the side of not throwing our arms and howling a mournful feminist cry for womanhood's salvation until there's actual solid proof that the attacker did in fact choose the venue for its representation of Western female culture and not just because it was the nearest large crowd. Considering how radical Islamists would view Grande's "style," I wouldn't put it past them to have those motivations, but there's a very real risk of driving this serious issue off a cliff by getting doped up on righteous rage over an as-of-yet unfounded assumption. There is a huge difference between "It would make sense" and "It's what actually happened."

[Jello Biafra]

I agree that it's too soon to ascribe motive, especially since it was only a few years ago that terrorists attacked an Eagles of Death Metal concert.

[Hirota]

Sounds rather familiar. Look at how boko haram were portrayed as kidnapping hundreds of girls, yet barely a mention of the thousands of boys killed or indoctrinated to their cause.

[Galloism]

My honor has been impugned, and I am duty bound to respond. Per ancient tradition, I will execute someone related to Sean Bean respond in the appropriate thread.

Arguing it was a gender-based attack is inherently a political statement, and was made for political gain.

Of course it was gender-based. It was designed to attack our women and children. How is that not obvious to you? ISIS themselves said that the concert was one of "prostitution". Their entire outlook hates the way that Western women dress, act, operate without male supervision, are free to some degree to do what they like, and celebrate themselves. They hate people like Ariana Grande because she facilitates this. They hate pop music, they hate pop culture, they hate Western culture and the emancipation of women. And apart from that their tactics of warfare are meant to be as demoralising as possible, so whereas (at least in some rose-tinted view of the past) it was always about men going to war and women and children being shielded, now it is about trying to horrify the West by totally attacking everything about our way of life - it is women and children first, in a sense, in this specific attack. But the aim is to attack as many different niches of our culture as possible so as to convince us that nothing is sacred and our entire culture is under attack in every way.

Which inherently means this isn't about attacking women. It's about attacking the west. The women and girls in this case were attacked as a proxy for attacking the west. The same way that when terrorists attacked a football stadium on the Paris Attacks, we didn't say that was an attack on men.

It's incidentally interesting that you're essentially arguing that ISIS targeted women because our society is sexist against men, that men are disposable, whereas the Salon article proposed it was because society was sexist against women. You are most demoralized when the thing you love most is destroyed.

The article in question WAS a political move. That's why it was hypocritical to complain about politicizing it, and then immediately politicizing it.

This particular attack was about women and children, and that is not hard to see unless you have some kind of misguided, lost-little-boy, useless, sad hang-ups about feminism.

Personal attacks on other posters are sad. Again, this was an attack on the British. The direct victims were proxies for the public at large. It doesn't matter whether the victims are men, women, boys, girls, puppies, or nuns, as long as the public is terrified.

This explains it.

Exactly - it's not about gender. It's about demoralizing us.

In November 2015 members of an Isis network killed more than 150 people in a concert hall, bars and on the streets outside a football international in Paris. In Germany, it was Berlin’s Christmas market that was attacked.

Why this shift, and why are such targets so apparently attractive to a terrorist?

One reason is that the more obvious targets – the military bases, embassies, government offices, airports and so on – are better protected than they were a decade ago. Terrorist targets are often determined by what is feasible, not by what fits a master plan.

Another reason for the shift is that al-Qaida, now relatively weaker than before, and Islamic State, which has become pre-eminent among jihadis, differ on tactics and strategy, even if their aims coincide. The veterans of al-Qaida prioritise building support for their extremist project and try to strike targets that they believe potential sympathisers will regard as legitimate. They may justify some attacks as being in line with their reading of Islamic law which calls for fair retaliation – in their case for Muslim casualties of western military actions. Others can be justified by deeming citizens of western nations collectively responsible for the acts of their governments. But even al-Qaida would probably consider killing teenagers at a concert to be beyond the pale.

Not Isis however. The group relies on escalating brutality to terrorise target populations, whether in the west or the Middle East.

One factor behind the focus on “lifestyle” targets is longstanding. Isis described Monday night’s concert as “shameless”, much as it described victims of its murderous attack in Paris in 2015 as “hundreds of pagans gathered for a concert of prostitution and vice”.

As you can plainly see there, they have a problem with Western culture because they believe that the emancipation of women is "prostitution" and that music in general is "vice". Their view towards music is like that of the puritans.

Yes, they hate music and concerts. This is not gendered any more than the attack on the football stadium in France was gendered.

I understand if feminism is not something that you particularly like, and I don't really care whether you think that pointing out the demographic of this attack or of an Ariana Grande concert as being predominately women and children is a political statement, but this event was centred mainly around women and children (and might I also add, the LGBT community, to a lesser degree).

But if you flat out deny that this particular attack was meant to kill and maim women, children and families - mostly the females in families and particularly the young ones - then you either have no idea who Ariana Grande is, which is fine, but I suspect that by now at least you probably do have some idea, or you are wilfully denying something that is plain as day and accusing those who point out the attackers' intentions of making an attempt at "political gain". I think I know what world you live in, and it has to be discarded out of mind when women and children are being blown up. To make denying that female victimisation is an element to this a central point is really misdirected and quite inappropriate and pointless. Someone has to tell you that there is a time for this type of point scoring and there is a time to get real. And that is a sad indictment on society and those in OUR societies who have the audacity to ignore the victimisation of women and girls even as they are being deliberately targeted and blown into oblivion in a Western country because of how they live and celebrate their lives.

Rather, it's important to note who the targets of the attack were. It's not the people killed. Those are NEVER the targets of terrorism. The targets of terrorism is the living public. It's the fear. That's the point. The victims, themselves, are not chosen because they want to kill THOSE people. The victims (and venue) is chosen because it will scare the most people. This is how terrorism works.

If we all want to harken back to the good old days of the '50s, for example, when not only the President, but actual Elvis, had Elvis hair, and women were all in the kitchen and so on and so forth - well, we can also harken back to a time when the men had the conviction and the self-respect and the dignity to actually stand up for their women when people, anyone, decided to attack them in an organised way for who they are.

Strawman. None of us want to go back to the 50s. We want people treated equally.

To summarise what I am saying with logic, because, you know, feminism is so hormonal and is not actually a philosophy of sociology (it is the latter), I could say, "Pointing out your view that someone who says it was a gender-based attack constitutes a political statement, when indeed it was a gender-based attack, is, in effect, arguing that it is debatable as to whether it was a gender-based attack, and that is inherently a political statement, and was made for political gain. And it is you who has turned this mass murder into a political statement about gender in doing so."

To borrow a few phrases from a few feminists.

Is teaching women's studies or feminist theory inherently political? Is it a political act with specific consequences? I suppose I would answer yes, but... (as I do many other questions associated with feminist theory), Yes, but what does it mean to teach young coeds about sex-role stereotypes and women's history and feminist revisions of the canon?

Katie Kent

Here we aim to construct an analytical framework for exploring the process of feminist knowledge transfer, which we consider to be inherently political, dynamic, and contested.

The politics of feminist knowledge.

Bell Hooks argued that feminism is by its nature political, and "lifestyle feminism" was a scourge.

Hell, "the personal is political" was/is so common a slogan among feminists it has its own wikipedia page.

The article was inherently political, immediately after decrying other people making it political.

Now, one could also argue ISIS started that bandwagon. They made it political even in the planning stages.

[Costa Fierro]

Claiming a terrorist attack on a concert predominantly attended by women and girls and calling it a "gender motivated" attack or an attack on feminine/girl culture is like claiming an attack on a football match is an attack on male/boy culture because it's an event predominantly attended by men and boys. It requires mental gymnastics worthy of a gold medal and a complete and utter ignorance of what makes terrorists attack the targets they do.

Concerts are a place where a lot of people are gathered in one place. A bomb in a tunnel filled with people is going to cause the most amount of damage. It would be no different to setting off a bomb in a bus or a football match or a train, because it's a crowded place with somewhat lax security and bombs are easily concealed. The bomber could have easily stepped on a bus at rush hour or walked into a metro station and blown it up.

The only thing that comes close to anything related to gender is that he gained infamy for attacking women and children. That's it. People are more upset about the fact that kids as young as eight years old died in the attack rather than it being some sort of feminist rallying cry.

[Giovenith]

What is this thread's opinion on nuns and women who decide to become nuns? Is there anything feminist about deciding to become a nun?

Old question is old, but I felt like answering.

I think from a historical perspective, nuns did actually play what might be called a "feminist" role in life. Becoming a nun not only meant that you had an alternative to being at the beck and call of your husband, but nuns were often the most well-educated, respected, and socially influential women of their time. For much of history, it was a pretty sweet deal for women.

In the modern day though? Meh. Much of the cultural attitudes and structures that once made becoming a nun appealing are no longer in place (women are not subservient to their husbands and they can openly pursue education), so now-a-days it just boils down to the principle of people being able to do whatever the hell they want. It's just another possible life choice, not really good, not really bad. Most of the criticisms I have with the nun lifestyle would have less to do with feminism and more to do with criticism of religion in general.

[Luminesa]

What is this thread's opinion on nuns and women who decide to become nuns? Is there anything feminist about deciding to become a nun?

Old question is old, but I felt like answering.

I think from a historical perspective, nuns did actually play what might be called a "feminist" role in life. Becoming a nun not only meant that you had an alternative to being at the beck and call of your husband, but nuns were often the most well-educated, respected, and socially influential women of their time. For much of history, it was a pretty sweet deal for women.

In the modern day though? Meh. Much of the cultural attitudes and structures that once made becoming a nun appealing are no longer in place (women are not subservient to their husbands and they can openly pursue education), so now-a-days it just boils down to the principle of people being able to do whatever the hell they want. It's just another possible life choice, not really good, not really bad. Most of the criticisms I have with the nun lifestyle would have less to do with feminism and more to do with criticism of religion in general.

Dah. I see. Well, nuns are still very active in helping communities, they are teachers and nurses, and take care of the poor and less fortunate. I think they are still important, and many nuns I've seen are very strong, very happy women. Though, then again, I've held an affinity toward nuns, priests, and people in the consecrated life ever since I was little.

[Giovenith]

Old question is old, but I felt like answering.

I think from a historical perspective, nuns did actually play what might be called a "feminist" role in life. Becoming a nun not only meant that you had an alternative to being at the beck and call of your husband, but nuns were often the most well-educated, respected, and socially influential women of their time. For much of history, it was a pretty sweet deal for women.

In the modern day though? Meh. Much of the cultural attitudes and structures that once made becoming a nun appealing are no longer in place (women are not subservient to their husbands and they can openly pursue education), so now-a-days it just boils down to the principle of people being able to do whatever the hell they want. It's just another possible life choice, not really good, not really bad. Most of the criticisms I have with the nun lifestyle would have less to do with feminism and more to do with criticism of religion in general.

Dah. I see. Well, nuns are still very active in helping communities, they are teachers and nurses, and take care of the poor and less fortunate. I think they are still important, and many nuns I've seen are very strong, very happy women. Though, then again, I've held an affinity toward nuns, priests, and people in the consecrated life ever since I was little.

I know they do, and I could get into my thoughts on that, but again, they don't have much to do with feminism.

[Galloism]

What the hell, since this is a feminism thread, let's talk about a women's issue that DOES need to be addressed by feminism and in a more complete way. The MRA thread is over thataway.

Gallup Poll.

It is, apparently, statistically true that most workers prefer a male boss over a female one. I'm not sure why, as I've worked for both male and female bosses and there's jerks and good ones of both genders, with little in the way of differce in quantity of either, but it is statistically true, so let's go with it.

26% of men prefer a male boss, while 14% of men prefer a female boss. 58% of men don't care. (I'm aware this doesn't add to 100% - probably rounding issue)

Among women, 39% of women prefer a male boss, while 25% of women prefer a female boss. 34% don't care. (There also seems to be a rounding issue.)


It appears men are less likely to care, while women have a stronger specific preference. The preference of women skews more strongly in favor of a male boss than a female one as well, compared with men.


The second section asks about people who currently have a male/female boss how they prefer. This part isn't broken down by gender of the respondent.

Of those who have a male boss, 41% prefer a male boss, compared with 15% who prefer a female boss and 43% with no preference.

Of those with a female boss, 33% prefer a male boss, compared with 27% who prefer a female boss, and 38% with no preference.


Compared with the numbers above, there seems to be a skew in favor of your current boss's gender relative to the mean. However, this is a gendered issue that appears to affect women.

What say ye, NSG? How can this problem be addressed?

[Jello Biafra]

What the hell, since this is a feminism thread, let's talk about a women's issue that DOES need to be addressed by feminism and in a more complete way. The MRA thread is over thataway.

Gallup Poll.

It is, apparently, statistically true that most workers prefer a male boss over a female one.

I am not at all surprised by this and will happily store this poll for future use. Nice find.

Compared with the numbers above, there seems to be a skew in favor of your current boss's gender relative to the mean. However, this is a gendered issue that appears to affect women.

What say ye, NSG? How can this problem be addressed?

I feel like there are qualities that make someone a good boss in current business culture that are not compatible with the female gender role. Either business culture will have to change, or gender roles will need to become more fluid.

[Hirota]

Or...the main source of bias that we know of (women) change their ways and stop being so fussy over what genitals their boss has.

[Luminesa]

What the hell, since this is a feminism thread, let's talk about a women's issue that DOES need to be addressed by feminism and in a more complete way. The MRA thread is over thataway.

Gallup Poll.

It is, apparently, statistically true that most workers prefer a male boss over a female one. I'm not sure why, as I've worked for both male and female bosses and there's jerks and good ones of both genders, with little in the way of differce in quantity of either, but it is statistically true, so let's go with it.

26% of men prefer a male boss, while 14% of men prefer a female boss. 58% of men don't care. (I'm aware this doesn't add to 100% - probably rounding issue)

Among women, 39% of women prefer a male boss, while 25% of women prefer a female boss. 34% don't care. (There also seems to be a rounding issue.)


It appears men are less likely to care, while women have a stronger specific preference. The preference of women skews more strongly in favor of a male boss than a female one as well, compared with men.


The second section asks about people who currently have a male/female boss how they prefer. This part isn't broken down by gender of the respondent.

Of those who have a male boss, 41% prefer a male boss, compared with 15% who prefer a female boss and 43% with no preference.

Of those with a female boss, 33% prefer a male boss, compared with 27% who prefer a female boss, and 38% with no preference.


Compared with the numbers above, there seems to be a skew in favor of your current boss's gender relative to the mean. However, this is a gendered issue that appears to affect women.

What say ye, NSG? How can this problem be addressed?

Gender shouldn't make a massive difference, if you do a good job at your work it really shouldn't matter.

That being said, my preference slightly leans toward having a male boss. I'm simply more comfortable with having some guys in the room to work with.

As for influencing women to become CEOs and whatnot, however, if a girl wants to run a business or become the head of an existing one, encourage her to do so. Education is the best way to achieve anything.

[Costa Fierro]

I'm not surprised a lot of guys don't really give two shits about the genitalia of their boss. They're going to be more focused on holding their job down and getting paid.

[Giovenith]

I'd have to see more research before making an opinion more complicated than, "Well that's stupid."

My best guess is that stereotypes are at play. I think there is some truth in what feminists say about domineering behavior we find excusable in men being considered "bitchy" in women (though I have seen many use this principle as an excuse to actually be bitchy and pass it off as "confident"). It's not as open and blatant as some would make it out to be, but I do see it to varying extents. There seems to be this wavering feeling that a woman who is more on the cold and excessive working side is "unstable" - not crazy, but like people feel she needs to lighten up, maybe rethink her life priorities, or that the stress is slowly but surely undoing her. There's this nose-wrinkling wariness of being "shrieked at," that the high pitch of a woman's voice makes being yelled at or talked to sternly less serious/scary and more unpleasant/annoying. There's this unspoken concern that a higher-up working woman's children are being neglected, not so much through the conscious thought "Women belong in the kitchen!", but like this weird inability to see her as acting anything like a suit-wearing hardass... or that she could have a male partner filling in when she's not around.

When men are cold and dedicated to the job, it's not necessarily seen as healthy per say, but kind of like a common necessary sacrifice. We're used to icons of grizzled old veterans of the profession who may have problems at home as a result of their habits, but only as an unfortunate consequence of an admirable dedication to their job. If they have any personal issues from it, they'll just sigh, wash down some scotch, and trudge on until retirement... right? i.e., No one is afraid of a workaholic man "snapping." We also just sort of assume they must have some kind of arrangements for their kids.

That's how it is from my perspective anyway. It's hard to put it all into proper words. It's also one of those things where I think simultaneous sexism is at play - it's not one sex getting the shaft, or one sex getting the shaft and the other getting unintended consequences as a result, but the expectations of the genders working in tandem to screw each of them over. For women, there is the expectation that they must be consistently warm, approachable, and merciful, and that they're hurting themselves unnecessarily when they would probably be more happy with a more home-oriented life (if not necessarily being a stay at home mom). For men, there is the expectation that even though we know their work habits might not be healthy, it's still somehow permissible for them to continue that way, even admirable. Men are expected to sacrifice so much of their core into a single-minded purpose for the sake of it, and women are seen as in danger of hurting themselves if they try to do the same thing... few consider that the woman might be strong enough to take it, or that the man might be getting hurt.

Like I said, very subjective though, this is just my outlook.

[New Edom]

I'd have to see more research before making an opinion more complicated than, "Well that's stupid."

My best guess is that stereotypes are at play. I think there is some truth in what feminists say about domineering behavior we find excusable in men being considered "bitchy" in women (though I have seen many use this principle as an excuse to actually be bitchy and pass it off as "confident"). It's not as open and blatant as some would make it out to be, but I do see it to varying extents. There seems to be this wavering feeling that a woman who is more on the cold and excessive working side is "unstable" - not crazy, but like people feel she needs to lighten up, maybe rethink her life priorities, or that the stress is slowly but surely undoing her. There's this nose-wrinkling wariness of being "shrieked at," that the high pitch of a woman's voice makes being yelled at or talked to sternly less serious/scary and more unpleasant/annoying. There's this unspoken concern that a higher-up working woman's children are being neglected, not so much through the conscious thought "Women belong in the kitchen!", but like this weird inability to see her as acting anything like a suit-wearing hardass... or that she could have a male partner filling in when she's not around.

When men are cold and dedicated to the job, it's not necessarily seen as healthy per say, but kind of like a common necessary sacrifice. We're used to icons of grizzled old veterans of the profession who may have problems at home as a result of their habits, but only as an unfortunate consequence of an admirable dedication to their job. If they have any personal issues from it, they'll just sigh, wash down some scotch, and trudge on until retirement... right? i.e., No one is afraid of a workaholic man "snapping." We also just sort of assume they must have some kind of arrangements for their kids.

That's how it is from my perspective anyway. It's hard to put it all into proper words. It's also one of those things where I think simultaneous sexism is at play - it's not one sex getting the shaft, or one sex getting the shaft and the other getting unintended consequences as a result, but the expectations of the genders working in tandem to screw each of them over. For women, there is the expectation that they must be consistently warm, approachable, and merciful, and that they're hurting themselves unnecessarily when they would probably be more happy with a more home-oriented life (if not necessarily being a stay at home mom). For men, there is the expectation that even though we know their work habits might not be healthy, it's still somehow permissible for them to continue that way, even admirable. Men are expected to sacrifice so much of their core into a single-minded purpose for the sake of it, and women are seen as in danger of hurting themselves if they try to do the same thing... few consider that the woman might be strong enough to take it, or that the man might be getting hurt.

Like I said, very subjective though, this is just my outlook.

I think a lot of it is culture shock we're still experiencing. Women and men occupy different sub cultures in our society.

So how women customarily deal with one another tends to be different from how men deal with one another. I find some women don't know how to deal with the middle ground between shouting at people and being too soft spoken.

Another problem I've noticed is that some women grow up learnig to be literally bossy. I'm sure you've seen those women, and those tropes around women, who treat the men they are associated with like children. That can also be a problem.

[Hirota]

If they have any personal issues from it, they'll just sigh, wash down some scotch, and trudge on until retirement... right?

That might explain why I've started drinking a glass or two when I get home.

[Chestaan]

I'm sorry but are you calling the practice of women choosing to become impregnated in exchange for monetary compensation contrary to women's rights? All because of the fact that some of the women are poor? What the hell happened to bodily sovereignty? Surely women have the right to carry an unborn child, if they have the right to abort it? Especially because, in the case of the latter, they're doing it because they're poor?

Yes. I believe that it is not truly a free choice for a woman in dire economic conditions to rent out her womb to wealthy people for them to use.

Women's (and men) bodies are theirs to dispose of, but not to sell. Human beings, and their limbs/organs, are not for sale.

But then is any choice truly free? I mean work is just as little a free choice as surrogacy.

Simple solution to the surrogacy issue would be to ban the use of payment for surrogacy. If you are worried about that being circumvented, make it the case that only family members may act as surrogates.

[Chessmistress]

Yes. I believe that it is not truly a free choice for a woman in dire economic conditions to rent out her womb to wealthy people for them to use.

Women's (and men) bodies are theirs to dispose of, but not to sell. Human beings, and their limbs/organs, are not for sale.

But then is any choice truly free? I mean work is just as little a free choice as surrogacy.

Simple solution to the surrogacy issue would be to ban the use of payment for surrogacy. If you are worried about that being circumvented, make it the case that only family members may act as surrogates.

It wouldn't truly solve the problem, it's still against women's dignity
https://agensir.it/europa/2016/02/01/fr ... nationale/

Women, feminists, philosophers, researchers in various disciplines as well as lesbians, the latter in particular, call for the universal abolition of GPA, corresponding to the practice of surrogate motherhood. They are fighting against the commodification of women’s bodies, paid and exploited to give birth to children that will be “handed over to their customers.” They have jointly promoted a Conference (Les Assises) that will be held on February 2 in the Salle Victor Hugo of the Assemblée Nationale in Paris, under the presidency of Laurence Dumont. The purpose of the initiative is to bring together policymakers, feminist associations and organizations for the defence of human rights throughout Europe in order to highlight and oppose “a social practice that violates the fundamental rights of the human person.”

Marie Jauffret is the president of CoRP, one of the associations that promote the Assises alongside with the “Collectif National pour les Droits des Femmes” and the “Coordination Lesbienne en France”. “We reject –Jauffret said – the practice of surrogate motherhood, namely, the fact of making available to someone else the organs and the life of a woman for nine months”, while at the same time” strip her completely of her motherhood.” The fact of placing birth and the child himself at the centre of a system of production and exchange inevitably infringes human rights. We believe that laws represent the furrow whereby humanity is defined. Only laws can ensure justice, peace, freedom, equality, and the dignity of human beings.

“Today these rights are being questioned by neo-liberalism and by the development of biotechnologies that risk reducing people at the level of biological matter or products.”

Commodification of pregnancy, alienation of the people involved, often even exploitation. Far from being an individual act – remarked the associations – this social practice is carried out by companies that deal with human reproduction within an organized system of production, which includes clinics, doctors, lawyers, agencies etc. The French associations are worried precisely about such “deviations”. “However, I wouldn’t describe the trafficking of mothers as a mere ‘deviation’”, pointed out Marie Jauffret. “It were as if slavery were described as a ‘deviation.’”

“The practice in itself is contrary to the dignity of women whose body, as well as sexual and reproductive services, are not up for loan as such practice constitutes a violation of fundamental human rights. And it also violates the dignity of children who are not up for sale or donation.”

Such practice is a result of a deeply unequal global market at all levels, namely: “sexist exploitation, economic exploitation and North-South exploitation.”

The first part of the Paris conference will draw a balance of the situation at international level. Panel speakers include, inter alia, Sheela Saravanan, who wrote several articles on the infanticide of girls, violence against women and the business of surrogate motherhood in India. In the second part of the meeting participants will address the possibilities of concrete action in view of the universal abolition of the practice of GPA. At the end of the Assises, associations will present a “Charter” that can be signed online:

“We Call on France and other European countries to respect the international conventions for the protection of human rights that they have ratified and to oppose firmly any form of legalization of surrogate motherhood at a national or international level.”

Furthermore, in the name of the equal dignity of all human beings, we also call on them to act firmly to abolish the practise of surrogacy at an international level, in particular by promoting the elaboration, adoption and effective implementation of an international convention for the abolition of surrogate motherhood.”

Feminists from both France and Sweden are particularly active against surrogate motherhood, and they're absolutely right.

[Chestaan]

But then is any choice truly free? I mean work is just as little a free choice as surrogacy.

Simple solution to the surrogacy issue would be to ban the use of payment for surrogacy. If you are worried about that being circumvented, make it the case that only family members may act as surrogates.

It wouldn't truly solve the problem, it's still against women's dignity
https://agensir.it/europa/2016/02/01/fr ... nationale/

Women, feminists, philosophers, researchers in various disciplines as well as lesbians, the latter in particular, call for the universal abolition of GPA, corresponding to the practice of surrogate motherhood. They are fighting against the commodification of women’s bodies, paid and exploited to give birth to children that will be “handed over to their customers.” They have jointly promoted a Conference (Les Assises) that will be held on February 2 in the Salle Victor Hugo of the Assemblée Nationale in Paris, under the presidency of Laurence Dumont. The purpose of the initiative is to bring together policymakers, feminist associations and organizations for the defence of human rights throughout Europe in order to highlight and oppose “a social practice that violates the fundamental rights of the human person.”

Marie Jauffret is the president of CoRP, one of the associations that promote the Assises alongside with the “Collectif National pour les Droits des Femmes” and the “Coordination Lesbienne en France”. “We reject –Jauffret said – the practice of surrogate motherhood, namely, the fact of making available to someone else the organs and the life of a woman for nine months”, while at the same time” strip her completely of her motherhood.” The fact of placing birth and the child himself at the centre of a system of production and exchange inevitably infringes human rights. We believe that laws represent the furrow whereby humanity is defined. Only laws can ensure justice, peace, freedom, equality, and the dignity of human beings.

“Today these rights are being questioned by neo-liberalism and by the development of biotechnologies that risk reducing people at the level of biological matter or products.”

Commodification of pregnancy, alienation of the people involved, often even exploitation. Far from being an individual act – remarked the associations – this social practice is carried out by companies that deal with human reproduction within an organized system of production, which includes clinics, doctors, lawyers, agencies etc. The French associations are worried precisely about such “deviations”. “However, I wouldn’t describe the trafficking of mothers as a mere ‘deviation’”, pointed out Marie Jauffret. “It were as if slavery were described as a ‘deviation.’”

“The practice in itself is contrary to the dignity of women whose body, as well as sexual and reproductive services, are not up for loan as such practice constitutes a violation of fundamental human rights. And it also violates the dignity of children who are not up for sale or donation.”

Such practice is a result of a deeply unequal global market at all levels, namely: “sexist exploitation, economic exploitation and North-South exploitation.”

The first part of the Paris conference will draw a balance of the situation at international level. Panel speakers include, inter alia, Sheela Saravanan, who wrote several articles on the infanticide of girls, violence against women and the business of surrogate motherhood in India. In the second part of the meeting participants will address the possibilities of concrete action in view of the universal abolition of the practice of GPA. At the end of the Assises, associations will present a “Charter” that can be signed online:

“We Call on France and other European countries to respect the international conventions for the protection of human rights that they have ratified and to oppose firmly any form of legalization of surrogate motherhood at a national or international level.”

Furthermore, in the name of the equal dignity of all human beings, we also call on them to act firmly to abolish the practise of surrogacy at an international level, in particular by promoting the elaboration, adoption and effective implementation of an international convention for the abolition of surrogate motherhood.”

Feminists from both France and Sweden are particularly active against surrogate motherhood, and they're absolutely right.

If a woman, of her own free will and free of coercion and monetary incentives, decides to use her body to help her male friends have a child, or indeed help her female friend who cannot carry a baby to term, then who are you or anyone else to say that she cannot make that decision about her own body? Her body, her choice.

[Lady Scylla]

It wouldn't truly solve the problem, it's still against women's dignity
https://agensir.it/europa/2016/02/01/fr ... nationale/



Feminists from both France and Sweden are particularly active against surrogate motherhood, and they're absolutely right.

If a woman, of her own free will and free of coercion and monetary incentives, decides to use her body to help her male friends have a child, or indeed help her female friend who cannot carry a baby to term, then who are you or anyone else to say that she cannot make that decision about her own body? Her body, her choice.

She ignores that argument. Something about it being representative of patriarchy and male-oppression or some other bullshit bla-bla-bla. The irony is that just about all of her beliefs are oppressive in nature, and detrimental to women as a result. An irony that, unfortunately, doesn't seem to be realized.

[Giovenith]

I think a lot of it is culture shock we're still experiencing. Women and men occupy different sub cultures in our society.

So how women customarily deal with one another tends to be different from how men deal with one another. I find some women don't know how to deal with the middle ground between shouting at people and being too soft spoken.

Another problem I've noticed is that some women grow up learnig to be literally bossy. I'm sure you've seen those women, and those tropes around women, who treat the men they are associated with like children. That can also be a problem.

A lot of it can be chalked up to cultural growing pains, yes. If that's the case, then the only real cure is time itself.

However, while I don't doubt that women who try too hard to be domineering exist, the issue here is how we distinguish between when it's actually them being unusually bull-headed vs. whether we're perceiving the behavior that way because it's coming from a woman whereas it would be tolerated more from a man. A lot of feminists jump to that conclusion, yes, and they shouldn't, but that doesn't mean the possibility isn't still there. People have been shown to carry double standards for the sexes even unconsciously, the problem is proving or disproving it in certain cases or environments, because otherwise you're just flinging around accusations about people's thoughts and behaviors.

[Ors Might]

But then is any choice truly free? I mean work is just as little a free choice as surrogacy.

Simple solution to the surrogacy issue would be to ban the use of payment for surrogacy. If you are worried about that being circumvented, make it the case that only family members may act as surrogates.

It wouldn't truly solve the problem, it's still against women's dignity
https://agensir.it/europa/2016/02/01/fr ... nationale/

Women, feminists, philosophers, researchers in various disciplines as well as lesbians, the latter in particular, call for the universal abolition of GPA, corresponding to the practice of surrogate motherhood. They are fighting against the commodification of women’s bodies, paid and exploited to give birth to children that will be “handed over to their customers.” They have jointly promoted a Conference (Les Assises) that will be held on February 2 in the Salle Victor Hugo of the Assemblée Nationale in Paris, under the presidency of Laurence Dumont. The purpose of the initiative is to bring together policymakers, feminist associations and organizations for the defence of human rights throughout Europe in order to highlight and oppose “a social practice that violates the fundamental rights of the human person.”

Marie Jauffret is the president of CoRP, one of the associations that promote the Assises alongside with the “Collectif National pour les Droits des Femmes” and the “Coordination Lesbienne en France”. “We reject –Jauffret said – the practice of surrogate motherhood, namely, the fact of making available to someone else the organs and the life of a woman for nine months”, while at the same time” strip her completely of her motherhood.” The fact of placing birth and the child himself at the centre of a system of production and exchange inevitably infringes human rights. We believe that laws represent the furrow whereby humanity is defined. Only laws can ensure justice, peace, freedom, equality, and the dignity of human beings.

“Today these rights are being questioned by neo-liberalism and by the development of biotechnologies that risk reducing people at the level of biological matter or products.”

Commodification of pregnancy, alienation of the people involved, often even exploitation. Far from being an individual act – remarked the associations – this social practice is carried out by companies that deal with human reproduction within an organized system of production, which includes clinics, doctors, lawyers, agencies etc. The French associations are worried precisely about such “deviations”. “However, I wouldn’t describe the trafficking of mothers as a mere ‘deviation’”, pointed out Marie Jauffret. “It were as if slavery were described as a ‘deviation.’”

“The practice in itself is contrary to the dignity of women whose body, as well as sexual and reproductive services, are not up for loan as such practice constitutes a violation of fundamental human rights. And it also violates the dignity of children who are not up for sale or donation.”

Such practice is a result of a deeply unequal global market at all levels, namely: “sexist exploitation, economic exploitation and North-South exploitation.”

The first part of the Paris conference will draw a balance of the situation at international level. Panel speakers include, inter alia, Sheela Saravanan, who wrote several articles on the infanticide of girls, violence against women and the business of surrogate motherhood in India. In the second part of the meeting participants will address the possibilities of concrete action in view of the universal abolition of the practice of GPA. At the end of the Assises, associations will present a “Charter” that can be signed online:

“We Call on France and other European countries to respect the international conventions for the protection of human rights that they have ratified and to oppose firmly any form of legalization of surrogate motherhood at a national or international level.”

Furthermore, in the name of the equal dignity of all human beings, we also call on them to act firmly to abolish the practise of surrogacy at an international level, in particular by promoting the elaboration, adoption and effective implementation of an international convention for the abolition of surrogate motherhood.”

Feminists from both France and Sweden are particularly active against surrogate motherhood, and they're absolutely right.

You don't see the irony in how little effort it would take to twist those arguments and yours into supporting the illegalization of abortion, do you?

[Galloism]

It wouldn't truly solve the problem, it's still against women's dignity
https://agensir.it/europa/2016/02/01/fr ... nationale/



Feminists from both France and Sweden are particularly active against surrogate motherhood, and they're absolutely right.

If a woman, of her own free will and free of coercion and monetary incentives, decides to use her body to help her male friends have a child, or indeed help her female friend who cannot carry a baby to term, then who are you or anyone else to say that she cannot make that decision about her own body? Her body, her choice.

You assume, without evidence, that radical feminists want women to have free choices.

This is clearly not true.

[Chestaan]

If a woman, of her own free will and free of coercion and monetary incentives, decides to use her body to help her male friends have a child, or indeed help her female friend who cannot carry a baby to term, then who are you or anyone else to say that she cannot make that decision about her own body? Her body, her choice.

You assume, without evidence, that radical feminists want women to have free choices.

This is clearly not true.

I now see the error of my ways