/ft/ - Feminist Theory

Feminism general discussion

Reply
Name
Subject
Message

Max message length: 4096

Files

Max file size: limitless

Max files: 3

Captcha
Options
Password

Used to delete files and postings

Misc

(10.86 KB 263x379 Shulamith_Firestone.jpg)
Anonymous 08/27/2020 (Thu) 00:58:14 No. 360
>central figure in the early development of radical feminism and second-wave feminism and a founding member of three radical-feminist groups: New York Radical Women, Redstockings, and New York Radical Feminists >regarded pregnancy and childbirth as "barbaric" (a friend of hers compared labor to "shitting a pumpkin") >believed that "[T]he end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally." >urged the emergence of artificial reproduction so reproduction could be completely separated from the female body >schizophrenic I've never read any of her books but after reading her page on wikipedia I had to check again it was about a radfem cause at a point it seemed more like I was reading about a TRA. So basically she wanted the same loony stuff trannies do like "the end of sex distinction" and urged for reproduction to be "completely independent of women"? Plus, how can you claim to be a feminist at the same time you have so much despise for childbirth and pregnancy, when this is our natural biological roles in reproduction?
She suffered schizophrenia (when she was no longer politically active) as a result of losing her brother and best friend to suicide. You don't need to crazy-make her just because you disagree with her. It is somewhat barbaric, and definitely horrifying. It causes serious, long term damage to our bodies that the medical community and society purposely downplays. The fact that we have no control over our bodies is frightening. The fact that our bodies can be taken over and we forced to suffer through pregnancy due to no fault of our own is absolutely nightmarish. That's not to say that there isn't beauty in childbirth, either, though, because there definitely is. The loss of agency is absolutely terrifying though. It's also dishonest to frame what she's saying as being comparable to what the trannies want. The troons want to make us feel obsolete because they hate us and because they do already see us as walking wombs. We ARE oppressed on the basis of our reproductive ability and we're saddled with the responsibilities and consequences of it. Her intention was completely different and that intention matters. I disagree with the general idea of artificial wombs, but I get her point and it's nothing like what the troons want at its heart. She only wanted pregnancy to be detached from the idea of a female body so men wouldn't exploit, harm, and oppress them on that basis. But the fact is that they'll still hate us with artificial wombs, so. We'd still be 'othered' regardless.
>how can you claim to be a feminist at the same time you have so much despise for childbirth and pregnancy, when this is our natural biological roles in reproduction? That's the same as what Valerie believed. By making women independent of biological roles (through artificial wombs), they're free from societal impositions that men use to tread over them. Not in favor or against that logic but just want to point out that it's not a TRA-exclusive agenda.
>>363 I'm not "crazy-making" her, she was indeed schizophrenic. I didn't and I'm not saying she should be invalidated because of this alone though Lmao and yeah anon, once men substitutes us on reproduction by artificializing all of it we are surely gonna be free, they would totally happily leave us alone and share this world's resources with us even if we were completely useless to give continuity to the species Childbirth and pregnancy are not inherently barbaric or horrifying. It is a natural biological thing and part of what characterizes us as women and differenciates us from men. >That's the same as what Valerie believed >>364 She can fuck herself then. I would never advocate for men to usurp my reproductive capacities. Not to mention the fact that these women were literally relying on stuff like technological revolution and total artificialization of reproduction (achieved by men cause have never lead such fields) for a equal/better society for women to happen implying that otherwise we could't reach our goal
>>365 Anon, you only mentioned the schizophrenia as a way to subtly discredit her beliefs because you disagreed with her. It was very obvious. And the appeal to nature here is annoying. Sorry, lots of things are physiologically traumatic and legit horrific, yet natural. Female reproduction is unfairly exhaustive, destructive, and men literally use the fact that we are forced to deal with the result of them raping us and impregnating us, them controlling our access to contraception and abortion, against us. Being able to gestate is an extreme burden for many women, and a serious risk to their survival, especially for those that are vulnerable. I'm not sure why you've said: >Lmao and yeah anon, once men substitutes us on reproduction by artificializing all of it we are surely gonna be free, they would totally happily leave us alone and share this world's resources with us even if we were completely useless to give continuity to the species when I specifically said I don't agree with artificial wombs and I specifically said we'd be 'othered' regardless. Great that your general outlook of pregnancy is so positive, yes, our ability to bring life into the world is amazing, but it does rightfully terrify a lot of women and we ARE directly subjugated because of our ability to birth children.
>>365 >equal/better society for women That's not her intent at all. She desired to make men obsolete, as she goes past artificial wombs to discuss about immortality through technology that makes reproduction obsolete. For the time she wrote that it's something impossible, and impossible even now. Anyway, this thread isn't about Valerie so I'll stop. I just wanted to point out the myth that "all feminists must celebrate pregnancy".
>>369 >she desired to make men obselete And this is bad how...? >I just wanted to point out the myth that "all feminists must celebrate pregnancy". Nobody ever says this lmao, unless this is some tradfem shit?
>>370 >And this is bad how...? I take it you're okay with her idea now? >Nobody ever says this >>360 >how can you claim to be a feminist at the same time you have so much despise for childbirth and pregnancy, when this is our natural biological roles in reproduction?
Is OP the same tradcon as the person who runs around the board saying aborting fetuses that threaten your life is murder since 15-week fetus has proto-neurons? OP, why are you hellbent on invalidating women's negative experiences with childbirth, in a world where we are told constantly by men and their institutions that childbirth and pregnancy are totally great, ecstatic, and any woman who disagrees is a crazy evil bitch with a dozen pathologies? Why is "That is NATURAL" is such a STFU-worthy point for you? It's also natural to feel immense pain during intercourse for many mammals, that is why female cats scream, try to break loose and whack the male sometimes, for example. It's also natural for males to try and kill babies of other males so that the female ovulates and gives him a chance. It's also technically natural for human females to be in pain and potentically die during birth because bipedalism and heavy babies with really big heads don't fit together well. Now fucking what? Why do you think moids will respect us when they understand that we are creators of life or some shit? Historically speaking, recognizing that only makes them get womb envy, rage, and make up stupid storied where Big Sky Daddy makes whole universe with his dick, there's actually a small dude in every spermatozoon, and other fairytales, and then they make thing worse for us. Troon fantasies are just the newest iteration, but women wanting freedom from obligation of childbirth, it being one of the leading causes of death for young women worldwide, was a thing since forever, there are even species (such as chimps) where individual females refrain from reproduction. Do you think that males will fucking kill us all when they no longer get goodies like sex, servitude and sons from us? Wake up, they fucking kill and torture us when they get all that shit with a snap of their fingers, and take a peek at China and India where they get rid of females even if their men require wives to help bathe and feed them to function halfway-properly, lol. We never were in a bargaining position.
>>372 Based post, anon
>So basically she wanted the same loony stuff trannies do like "the end of sex distinction" idk about you but this is pretty much what being gender critical means to me. I oppose TRA ideology because it enforces gender roles. I want a world where male and female are just descriptions of body types and not sets of expectations. You just sound like a conservative.
Basically women are people first before they're mothers...? Not exactly controversial in some quarters. A shocker, I know.
>>372 I have never said that. I said aborting SIX MONTHS OLD babies doesn't seem right to me UNLESS the mothers lives are at risk and I'm certainly not a tradcon. Actually I've have considered myself a radfem so far but after reading all that stuff I'm a bit confused now
>>376 Wtf are you even on. You cannot abort a child that is already alive, that would be just be a killing. Unless this is some kind of Freudian slip where you conflated baby with fetus lmao.
>>377 fetus*. I said babies perhaps because I imagine them as babies cause a lot of them are born at this stage
You are retarded if you think artificial reproduction will make things better for us > But uhhh... men have always treated us bad!!! What a dumbass argument. So instead of changing this situation you wanna make things WORSE?
>>382 I'm serious when I ask this, but how could things get worse?
>>378 a lot of babies are born at 6 mos? lol ok. there's a huge difference between a 24 wk fetus and a 39 wk one.
>>387 Men dominate society. Women are already oppressed but let's take a second to imagine a world where men are capacle to give continuity to the species out of their cells only without the help of women. This would dramatically change parenthood and the position of women in societies. If we are not needed to give continuity to the species and we are not needed for the production of anything essencial, why would they offer us an equal position in society or any human rights at all? Our existence would not only be obsolete to them but perhaps even a problem. As human beings, we consume resources and why would they share/lose resources with/to us, when they don't need us for anything at all and have all the power to keep everything to themselves? They would have the power to eliminate us completely and that wouldn't change anything for them. Only one sex would be needed to create life. The capacity of childbirth and pregnancy are not the reason why we are oppressed, class society is what is. >>374 The end of sex distinction is impossible and I don't even understand why somebody would want this unless you're self hating in the same way a tranny is. As long as men and women are different, we are gonna be regarded as different and will be....different. That's why we have the different words MEN and WOMEN. Being against gender is not the same as denying that men and women are naturally and biologically different or "being against our biological differences", but being against differences that socially constructed and have no relation to our biology
>>391 >The end of sex distinction is impossible and I don't even understand why somebody would want this unless you're self hating in the same way a tranny is. As long as men and women are different, we are gonna be regarded as different and will be....different. Different how? According to whom? That argument you gave completely validates the traditionalist view that men should stick to 'man things' and women should stick to 'women things'. And then you just get into a yelling match about what things are for whom. Men and women will continue to grow up to be very different when treated differently according to a huge cluster of assumptions based on sex. Almost all the social differences are socially constructed, or at best hugely distorted. Male and female are body types. Masculine and feminine personalities are socially constructed, and even then they don't exactly line up with male and female.
>>382 >You are retarded No sperging out is needed. Your opinion on artificial wombs is 1:1 Dworkin's position on the matter, so there's a bigger authority on your side, if that is what you want. But that seems a bit of a simplification to me. They have always treated us worse. We are not responsible for their violence by not "bargaining" well enough. When we "had" to make 10-15 babies to fuel the unlimited growth and make up for dead babies, women were chattel and prized pedigree chattel. We still rely on the economy of unlimited growth, but western women no longer "deliver", and now there is an immigration crisis because we need to make up for that fact. Women no longer do the thing men "keep us around for" as many men will tel you, yet there is still less murder and violence of women in western nations than in "growing" nations. Men could start genociding us when homemaking appliances became a factor and made women unnecessary for housekeeping. But we're still alive. How come? Anyway, that's not a meaningful debate, as making women obsolete in reproduction is light years away. If that was so easy for the group in power to just kill off the unneeded undesirables plenty of ethnic conflicts would end within weeks and disability would be treated with electric chair. >>391 >The capacity of childbirth and pregnancy are not the reason why we are oppressed, class society is what is. Capitalism, you mean? Meaning there is no men's oppression of women, only class oppression? While going on about biological sexual roles that must be preserved at all costs? cool. >>378 > I imagine them as babies cause a lot of them are born at this stage No, and they are born with medical complications. I like to imagine a lot of things too, but that doesn't mean I need to bring my imagination into my politics to screw over women and girls with having unwanted children and being unwanted children. Just because you identify as a radfem doesn't mean every single opinion of yours is a radical feminist opinion. We all have to rethink carefully most things we ever learned though this lens, it's not just "i hate porn and TRAs", although that is good too.
>Plus, how can you claim to be a feminist at the same time you have so much despise for childbirth and pregnancy, when this is our natural biological roles in reproduction? How did this thread warrant 16 replies? Was it not obvious from this line that this is weak bait, if it wasn't already obvious from every line prior?
>>394 >Different how? According to whom? Really? >That argument you gave completely validates the traditionalist view that men should stick to 'man things' and women should stick to 'women things' >recognizing biological differences between men and women is the same as validating gender You realize it is contradictory and ilogical to be against trannies if you don't think there are any differences between men and women right? And no, cause just as you said, most of the things regarded as "women's thing" or "men's things" are not based on biological differences and are made up beliefs and wrong assumptions about the sexes that were created in order to place males and females into hierarchical classes. But rcognizing this does not exclude at all the fact that some things indeed fit into these categories (Childbirth for example is a "women's thing") because they are biological realities >>395 >They have always treated us worse No, almost every cenario has the potential of becoming worse. One is not living well as woman in Europe, but she is better off there than she is in Afghanistan >Women no longer do the thing men "keep us around for" as many men will tel you Yes we are, just not to the same degree as before >Men could start genociding us when homemaking appliances became a factor and made women unnecessary for housekeeping No cause eliminating women at that time and now would mean human extinction I'm curious to what you think is the reason men haven't eliminated us so far since you don't think it is because they need us for reproduction. They certainly aren't t good people who keep us alive just for the sake of it when they have the full capacity of eliminating us. It also certainly isn't that some of them supposedly love their moms. >Anyway, that's not a meaningful debate, as making women obsolete in reproduction is light years away. Of course it is and it is not so far away as you think. >>396 >How did this thread warrant 16 replies? Was it not obvious from this line that this is weak bait, if it wasn't already obvious from every line prior? >If you disagree with me it's bait
She was advocating for something which the final stage is transhumanism: just like transgender ideology. Some of the founding theories of radical feminism are in total contradiction to what it advocates for today
>>395 > Men could start genociding us when homemaking appliances became a factor and made women unnecessary for housekeeping. But we're still alive. How come? Because the human race would be gone in one generation if men decided to genocide *all* women over household appliances lmao. Are you special, anon?
(220.61 KB 706x683 Mai_yeah_ok3_ep3.png)
>>401 Naturally, I'm certain chinese and indian dudes think deep and hard about the implications of wide-spread infanticide and their current issues as a result of it when they starve their newborn daughters to death for a magrinal save up of family resources. Men are always so thoughtful and mindful of consequences of their violence, we could never understand their 4d megabrains, all the horribly illogical destructive shit they do is for the good of the species. In any case, why are you so goddamn rude? Did a child-free feminist pinch your hand in 5th grade or something? Why are you spegring so hard about a disagreement in distant future theories made by dead women during the initial development of the movement? Why do you need everyone to agree that "Shulamit is a crazy dumb bitch", when half the movement didn't agree with that theory of hers anyway? Is there something else you want to show to the class, OP? Maybe you want everyone to drop everything and panic about the ever imminent threat of General AI sex dolls, for example? Or is there some other prolific feminist who you want everyone to call a crazy dumb bitch due to her bad music taste or some shit?
>>402 Not the anon you're replying to but you have an IQ of 50. You clearly didn't understand the thread nor the points being made in here, instead you're just triggered cause we are criticizing shulamith and her ideas that go in total opposite directions with female emancipation or any feminism
>>402 I'm not even OP but it is funny to me that my aside comment struck such a nerve. Btw if the Chinese and Indians didn't know that they massively fucked up with cultural son preference, they wouldn't be trafficking in impoverished women from countries like Nepal.
>>404 Those countries trafficking in women is more of a "have my cake and eat it too" situation where they want to keep their shitty cultural practices like a son preference to the point of a gender imbalance while still doing nothing to change their societies for the better.
>>404 Thank you, captain obvious, for repeating my post's point. >>403 >AAA WERE ALL GONNA DIE SOON IF U DONT THINK SO UR A RETARD k BTW, did you learn what criticism and discussion supposed to look like on dangerhair tumblr?
>>404 >Btw if the Chinese and Indians didn't know that they massively fucked up with cultural son preference, they wouldn't be trafficking in impoverished women from countries like Nepal. lol what. do you really think human trafficking isn't a huge thing in countries where femicide isn't necessarily culturally sanctioned? cause germany and their terrible forced prostitution problem that they've had for at least 15 years would love to speak to you.
>>408 The rate of trafficking is rising specifically for the purpose of selling these women off as brides or forced breeding them, idiot. That's a meaningful distinction. >Chinese men pay around Rs 1.5 million to marry Nepali women, according to Senior Superintendent of Police Ishwar Babu Karki of the Anti-Trafficking Bureau. They also provide lavish gifts worth up to Rs 60,000 to potential brides, he said. This helps to convince the girls and their families that they will have a better life in China. >China’s now-repealed ‘one-child policy’ has led to a grossly-skewed sex ratio, with more men than women. In 2015, the sex ratio at birth was 113.5 boys for every 100 girls. This gender gap has made it difficult for many Chinese men to find wives and has fuelled demand for women trafficked from abroad. Once the women reach mainland China, they are resold to other men looking for wives. >According to a Human Rights Watch report on bride buying, “women and girls are typically locked in a room and raped repeatedly, with the goal of getting them pregnant quickly so they can provide a baby for the family. After giving birth, some are allowed to escape—but forced to leave their children behind. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1162563/nepali-women-are-being-trafficked-to-china-and-sold-as-wives#ixzz6XdCnetv9
>>409 i understand what you're saying, but that's not the point. the point is that either way, whether or not there are plenty of women around, men will capture and force women to do whatever they want, even just for "fun". it happens with startling frequency without "necessity", is the point.
>>412 Read carefully. The point is that the *increase* in trafficking is a *result* of China's one child policy and son preference, because millions of Chinese moids can't find a bangmaid in their own country now. That's a different reason for the increase in trafficking in countries like Germany since they legalized prostitution.
>>402 >Anon, men kill women nowadays!! So this proves that things couldn't be worse! Btw, why are you stating your opinion on here and discussing about a topic? Why are you critizing a woman's ideas? You clearly need everyone to agree with you!
>>414 U spergin' now, OP
>>413 yes anon, i understand that was the original original point, but like another anon said, men have the "have my cake and eat it too" mentality. and my point was that there are serious epidemics of men kidnapping and trafficking women even when there are plenty of women, they will capture and torture them in droves not out of "necessity". so like >>405 says, these indian men are not sitting around super preoccupied with the thought about how their actions have affected them 30 years later, and how to avoid this in future - they still want to harm, rape women to the point of death, and still encourage this culture, even when they're facing a shortage of women. anon said "if the Chinese and Indians didn't know they massively fucked up with cultural son preferences they wouldn't be trafficking in impoverished women from countries like Nepal" and it's just not true that they wouldn't be doing just that, even just to avoid the "masculinization" of their women, etc. if men really were concerned about the implications of their behavior and realize it, shit would be different in how they treat women. obviously they don't want to quit mistreating or gangraping them to the point of death them despite facing a serious shortage of them. that's not to say the trafficking problem isn't worsened by the effects of their sexism, but to say it wouldn't be happening at all is a little presumptuous given we know they traffick for fun whenever it's easy to exploit impoverished women and girls.
>>420 >>420 >"if the Chinese and Indians didn't know they massively fucked up with cultural son preferences they wouldn't be trafficking in impoverished women from countries like Nepal" and it's just not true that they wouldn't be doing just that, even just to avoid the "masculinization" of their women, etc. It didn't say that men wouldn't be trafficking women at all. It said that they wouldn't be trafficking *more* women from other countries. God you dumbasses love arguing against strawmans.
>>427 >It didn't say that men wouldn't be trafficking women at all. It said that they wouldn't be trafficking *more* women from other countries. So where do you see that here? >>404 >Btw if the Chinese and Indians didn't know that they massively fucked up with cultural son preference, they wouldn't be trafficking in impoverished women from countries like Nepal. Because that's literally all that was said. And your unnecessarily aggressive and condescending tone is really annoying.
>>428 >Because that's literally all that was said. Correct, that's all that was said, so to argue as if it said that trafficking would *never* occur otherwise is a straw man. The statement and follow up posts only highlight that trafficking has increased due to the circumstances surrounding China's one child policy and son preference, not that trafficking never happens elsewhere or that some trafficking wouldn't happen in China for other reasons. Respond to what is said, not what you made up in your head lol. >And your unnecessarily aggressive and condescending tone is really annoying. And I find the misrepresentation of arguments in order to needlessly debate petty shit really annoying. Maybe I should expect that from people on the internet though, the same way you should expect to see aggressiveness on image boards.
>>429 anon, when i said "at all" i didn't mean that anon was in effect saying there literally would be 0 cases, but that there wouldn't be what would be classed as a real "problem". as i said, we know men traffick and exploit women and girls whenever possible and for whatever reason. just because they're doing so with nepali girls and women doesn't actually mean they're cognizant and remorseful of their actions and will seek to not make those mistakes again because (and it isn't just in countries with legalized prostitution) they will literally exploit impoverished women and girls and they do treat them as chattel whenever possible. idk why you're trying to complicate this. them trafficking impoverished girls is not indicative of them being fully aware, though it is likely worsened by their retarded culture. it happens in slavic countries like mad. and the tone you think is so normalized on other imageboards isn't really so present on here.
>>360 >So basically she wanted the same loony stuff trannies do like "the end of sex distinction" Yes. Do realize that this is the end game of the loony stuff that GNC people do too. You blur gender roles, you abolish them, and then you abolish sex roles, which can only happen by abolishing sex. GNC women for example, are not happy with femininity being pushed on them, they're not happy with it as a concept either, and, assuming we lived in a genderless world, they would not be happy with being at such a biological disadvantage due to the burden of reproduction of our species. The distinction is in the path that this process could take and your optimism. Of course, there are many other ways to see things, but this is far from the craziest one. Trans is only reinforcing gender roles, because instead of being GNC men and women, they claim that they have to be the opposite sex to access the opposite sex's gender roles. Another problem is that they want those roles to keep existing, because their identity depends on them. Yet another problem is that because they use hormones, they are in reality transexual. They do not acknowledge their biological transitioning, nor are they doing it to achieve a 'body type'. They're doing it to achieve the look of the other sex as much as they can, because only the other sex can have X gender roles in their (and society's) mind. This is quite regressive, and rather than leading to the end of sex distinction, or even the end of gender distinction, it leads to the idea that a male can become female through surgery, hormone treatment, and gender roles and vice versa. This is still within a world with males and females. They must exist, otherwise there's nothing to transition from and to, so it's not a path to the end of sex. How much optimism you have in this ever happening, or the way in which you envision it happening if you see it as possible, is another matter. If we achieve the technology needed to outsource reproduction, it's unlikely that it'll be used to further women's goals, and especially every woman's goals. The most likely outcome is that it'll a commodity for certain rich women, or for certain rich men that would use it in evil ways (like Epstein's idea). If it became accessible to every woman, it's very likely that men wouldn't leave women alone anyway. They 'need' us for more than birthing kids. They also want us to let them fuck us, to cook for them, to clean for them, etc. If all of the previous could be outsourced? Then they would likely still look for the 'real thing' when they got bored. Being freed from only the burden of reproduction wouldn't be enough then. Sex would have to disappear for final 'peace'; in her view, that is. Some thought only maleness would have to disappear, but how, when they have the power? Some think we're doomed forever, others that women should just separate (not a long term solution), and we're seeing how attempts at reformation of the male sex is going. So in reality transcending sex is a hopeful, long term, technically achievable* solution. *If progress was linear. You need other sorts of social advances and global stability. There is also the question of whether, if it were possible, men would want to transcend sex at all rather than just be immortal men. >Plus, how can you claim to be a feminist at the same time you have so much despise for childbirth and pregnancy, when this is our natural biological roles in reproduction? She didn't despise it, she was realistic about it, and I wish more women were too. Imagine we lived in a world with no men, only women, and we reproduced through parthenogenesis, but still had to birth them of course. Do you think, when the technology was sustainably achieved, that the women in this world would not want to use it to free themselves of a hard, painful and often deathly nine month process with irreversible body changes? Really? Why, because we are one with nature? We don't need to reject our human gift of intelligence, you could sustainably achieve progress, it's men that are unable to do this, not us
>>524 >You blur gender roles, you abolish them, and then you abolish sex roles, which can only happen by abolishing sex This is the problem. I don't think sex roles should be abolished, only gender roles. I don't think abolishing sex roles is inevitable after abolishing most gender roles. It is not about "all natural things are good" but about accepting your biology. Men and women are different hence the fact humans are categorized in different two sexes. The problem is that men have made use of this fact to create false differences between the sexes: Say that women are less intelligent, for example. Transhumanism's final step is to abolish any differences between human beings or even replace humans with sexless robots. In the end, people who seek to abolish sex are no different from trannies. They are the same thing. It is the same self hating and denial/hatred of biology
>>525 We already have a very unstable coexistence between humans, I think this sort of things would only worsen it
>>525 What on earth are "sex roles" if they aren't gender roles?
>>524 No offense but you sound unhinged.
>>527 Behaviors directly linked to reproduction and physiological sex differences, like breastfeeding. Where you draw the line between biology and socialization is on you. Some examples are clear, others not so much. >>528 Like Firestone and all the second wave feminists that were biological essentialist or separatist?Because that's all I wrote there. You can ignore them but their ideas shaped radical feminism >>525 >I don't think sex roles should be abolished, only gender roles. But why? >about accepting your biology. You can accept your place and still work towards improving it. We accept that we get sick and are weak to certain pathogens because of our biology, but we still seek to destroy them and immunize ourselves to make our lives better, we're not accepting that part of human biology as just something that has to be. What do you think about aging and efforts to undo it or lengthen lifespans? Are they bad too because we wouldn't be accepting our biological mortality? >Men and women are different hence the fact humans are categorized in different two sexes. This is true, and I agree with you about the false differences. But the differences that there are, are not objectively in our advantage at all. Even in a very equal society, pregnancy will put a damper on a womans goals if only for a few months, and it would still carry risks of mortality and permanent negative effects on your health. Even if childcare was subsidized, it would still be a different route for a man who wants to pursue his dreams and have kids than for a woman who wants to do the same. There's also the physical strength issue, you cant trust men to 'give you rights' when they still have the physical upper hand and could take them away if things went south thanks to that. Last I heard most women even in the US didn't own guns either, not as many as men do, so we aren't equalizing the issue, just ignoring it. The disappearance of those characteristics is very futuristic, but if it were to happen, what are your arguments against it? Why should they be something that we should strive to keep? What do you do with the women like Firestone that saw things the way she did and could defend her views? Like, if this: >Transhumanism's final step is to abolish any differences between human beings or even replace humans with sexless robots. Happened in the right climate (not ours, not with men in power), why would it be bad? What would we lose and what would we gain? >It is the same self hating and denial/hatred of biology I dont think that you have to hate your biology to see its flaws, you can acknowledge them (acknowledging them as part of your biology, which you also acknowledge, is also the opposite of denial) and want to improve upon what you can to make your life better. You seem to be coming from a view of 'it's this way now and it must keep being this way', which I can't accept without reason.
>>525 Also what do you think about this >Imagine we lived in a world with no men, only women, and we reproduced through parthenogenesis, but still had to birth them of course. Do you think, when the technology was sustainably achieved, that the women in this world would not want to use it to free themselves of a hard, painful and often deathly nine month process with irreversible body changes? Really? Why, because we are one with nature? We don't need to reject our human gift of intelligence, you could sustainably achieve progress, it's men that are unable to do this, not us
>>528 stop tl;dr shaming
>>529 >Behaviors directly linked to reproduction and physiological sex differences, like breastfeeding. Where you draw the line between biology and socialization is on you. Some examples are clear, others not so much. They aren't roles if they aren't socially constructed, breastfeeding isn't a social role because men literally can't do it (except now I think about it, it is because women do have the option not to breastfeed but that doesn't undermine my point) >Where you draw the line between biology and socialization is on you. No it isn't if we let people draw the line wherever they like they can keep cold blooded logic as masculine and that's what we're trying to avoid.
>>529 >>529 i agree with you, anon. but let's be real, there are always going to be tons of women who romanticize the idea of having children and giving birth. back in the 60s and 70s there was probably a lot more hope for medical and scientific advancements, so i can understand why she thought this would possibly be a feasible option (and i agree with her in many respects). i just think it's pretty pie-in-the-sky now that we know what we know. just getting a fair number of women on board with coming to terms with the fact that our biology is an absolutely terrifying burden is a huge uphill battle that purposely and dishonestly gets warped into "you hate women!!!" and insane deflections and accusations, so the prospect of most women not wanting to give birth when pregnancy and giving birth is so wholesale celebrated is... very, very, very slim. they just straight up deny that it's dangerous or causes conditions that they'll have to suffer with longterm, or even in the short term. they deny that it makes us a million times more likely to end up in poverty, or end up in abusive relationships. they're completely lying about the complications, the peripartum and post-partum effects that cause them permanent damage. i don't see us changing the way many or most women feel about this issue when almost all of them are completely not living in reality on this topic. like you said, it's basically impossible for us to control the ways in which this technology would be utilized, and it won't be utilized for good, but without that awful influence, it could be totally great, in theory. there are other ethical concerns though for the child, and how feasible it would even be to replicate something this complicated without negatively affecting the child. i think it's pretty unlikely that children won't suffer in the pursuit of this technology. realistically, it's playing with fire too much to explore, and there would be no benefit in this society. but in theory, it's sensible
"Childbirth hurts :/" So your solutions to this and the dangers of childbirth is not only to give men the power to reproduct without women (Cause let me tell you something: There is no way to keep that from being used against us) but also to hope we can create technologies in the future that can change human race per se to the point where we eliminate sex and there are no longer women or men? This is like saying that in order for us to end racism we gotta eliminate race and make everyone have the same skin color and features. Or that in order to eliminate "homophobia" everyone's gotta be equally bisexual. Or that in order to eliminate fatphobia or big-nose-phobia everyone's gotta be fat and have big noses. You pretty much want to eliminate yourself and the things that differ you from others so you can be a mirror of your oppressor. If you're actually so worried about the dangers of childbirth, then you could advocate for technologies and medicine that can lower even more the death rates/complications/pain related to childbirt instead, not make childbirth completely disassociated from the female human body. This reads like sexual eugenics to me. Plus, you all gotta accept something: No matter how much you hate childbirth, pregnancy (like I do) or even kids, the biggest human instinct is that of reproduct. This is every animal's biggest goal on earth. It is deep rooted in our biology. Regardless of how dangerous it is, women and men are still gonna want to reproduct and it is pathetic and dumb to try to fight for the total end of childbirth by women. If you want to lower the amount of humans on earth, then that's another story. Poverty is an economical/social problem than be changed socially, you don't need to change the biology of humans in order to fix poverty. >i don't see us changing the way many or most women feel about this issue when almost all of them are completely not living in reality on this topic Big news for you: You are never changing it And I'm not even gonna go off on the subject of how it could affect children born out of total artificiality. The female's body and biology has several essencial mechanisms made for their children. The male one has too, but differently. Just the act of a mother holding her new born alters the chemistry of both of their bodies and it is something essencial to both for example. You don't need to be a social determinist in order to fight the biological determinist narrative. A lot of things are social, but some are biological. I'd recommend you to look more at the animal world and/or to the very beggining of our time here on earth, before patriarchy.
>>530 If we lived in a world with no men, everything would be different. It would be another world, another reality. But this is never happening until we create sexless robots and replace humans with them. And then we would be talking about robots and not human race anymore. Another thing is that even in this scenario you're imagining, women would still be essencially nedeed for reproduction
>>537 >>538 it's like you don't even read the posts you're responding to.
>>529 No, because of the made up crap in the first paragraph.


Delete
Report

no cookies?