How Chinese Women Live

[IMPress Polly]

Having developed something of a penchant for video lately, it's fairly predictable that I'm going to continue that pattern again here. :grin: (Don't worry, I'll get off this phase before long, I'm sure.)

On this International Women's Day, I thought it appropriate to focus on the social and economic plight of, well, international women. I've already shown you a documentary on the history of the modern feminist movement in the United States, what it accomplished up to the year 2000 or so and what remained to be done in terms of establishing gender parity in this country as of that general time frame. Now I think it's time we looked at the plight of women abroad. Since China is the world's second most robust superpower today, I thought the plight of Chinese women might be the most appropriate choice of all in that connection. Most Chinese women still live in the nation's vast countryside and the 2007 BBC/PBS documentary below reveals what their everyday lives are like in considerable detail. It's a stark reminder of how far the stature of Chinese women has fallen since the heights of the socialist Mao era. They endure perpetual poverty in addition to a horrendous combination of patriarchal feudal traditions that reduce them to a sub-human social standing and the consequences of capitalist development that separate them from their husbands (on whom they are completely dependent) for most of their lives simultaneously. It's the worst of both worlds! By the time you've finished watching this, it will be no mystery to you why rural Chinese women have the world's highest suicide rate. (By the way, China is the only country in the world in which women are more likely to commit suicide than men.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUSLXjzmgMs


Rampant sexism in China isn't confined to the countryside though. Although urban-dwellers in China tend to be substantially more affluent than their rural-dwelling counterparts (a testament to the positive impact of economic development on people's general well-being), nevertheless even women who live in cities endure much lower pay levels than their male counterparts and, as you'll see in the 2002 video below, a culture that demands physical perfection of them. Perfection that's defined not by them, but by men. The report aptly compares the explosion of cosmetic surgeries that girls and young women in urban parts of the country are getting to the old Chinese tradition of foot-binding, wherein families would bind a young girl's legs together to crush the bone and stunt her growth so that she'd be deemed more attractive to men. It also notably contrasts this culture with that of the also-flawed but more egalitarian Mao era, pointing out a cultural relapse on the issue of gender relations since the establishment of capitalism in the 1980s.

(I apologize for this video's disappointing lack of subtitles, as they're really needed from time to time. The report itself though is mostly in English and definitely worth watching nonetheless.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax3dRAEgosY&feature=fvwrel

[Chris]

Well, what do you expect under communism. The adoption of capitalism, albeit state-run, is introducing economic freedom, and, as Friedman explains in Capitalism and Freedom, that will drive personal freedom. Then women will be much better off in China.

[Peter1469]

WTF are they doing? I couldn't watch it.

Another reason is ignore moral equivalency arguments.

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
Well, what do you expect under communism. The adoption of capitalism, albeit state-run, is introducing economic freedom, and, as Friedman explains in Capitalism and Freedom, that will drive personal freedom. Then women will be much better off in China.

In the first place, China is a capitalist dictatorship. Even our own commercial press typically acknowledges as much anymore. The Marxist-sounding rhetoric the Chinese government wields means nothing. Their actions -- their policies -- are what count.

Now as to your argument on capitalism transforming the lives of Chinese women in a positive way over time, I think that's true to a point, but a little relative. First off, one must consider the level of gender parity that existed before Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms were implemented. The whole situation was much more egalitarian than today, both economically and socially, including between women and men. A big part of the subsequent retreat in such parity was the void that the rapid transition away from socialist economics left. The mainsay of the transition took place between 1979 and 1984, during which agriculture in general was re-privatized. The vast majority of Chinese people lived in the countryside at the time (a smaller majority still do, in fact). Problematically, this re-privatization occurred without accompanying economic development for most Chinese people, at least in the short run, leaving a cultural void for the old, pre-revolutionary patriarchal feudal traditions to fill. But of course the capitalist system has been expanded over time and has gradually started to develop the countryside (especially since the end of the Cold War, when the authorities introduced a policy of emulating the more or less laissez-faire "special economic zones" nationwide, considering them a going development model). This contradiction has warped everyday life most Chinese women into a near-unbearable nightmare, as you'll learn in the first video I linked to in the OP.

I do understand your point though when you say that the long-term trend is nonetheless toward a more urban, and therefore less feudal, less oppressive status quo for Chinese women. That's a fair enough point. In fact, that's precisely why I provided the second video: to show you a small glimpse of what the capitalist future (as contrasted with the combo feudal-capitalist present) holds for the average Chinese woman. In the first video, you see the present life of the typical Chinese woman. In the second, you see a key and defining aspect of how future generations of the typical Chinese woman will live. She'll live a lot like women here do, with much the same expectations, as you can see. Make sense?

[Chris]

In the first place, China is a capitalist dictatorship. Even our own commercial press typical acknowledges as much anymore. The Marxist-sounding rhetoric they wield means nothing. Their actions -- their policies -- are what count.

Now as to your argument on capitalism transforming the lives of Chinese women in a positive way over time, I think that's true to a point, but relative. First off, one must consider the level of gender parity that existed before Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms were implemented. The whole situation was much more egalitarian than today, both economically and socially, including between women and men. A big part of the subsequent retreat in such parity was the void that the rapid transition away from socialist economics left. The mainsay of the transition took place between 1979 and 1984, during which agriculture in general was re-privatized. The vast majority of Chinese people lived in the countryside at the time (a smaller majority still do, in fact). Problematically, this re-privatization occurred without accompanying economic development for most Chinese people, at least in the short run, leaving a cultural void for the old, pre-revolutionary patriarchal feudal traditions to fill. But of course the capitalist system has been expanded over time and has gradually started to develop the countryside. This contradiction has warped everyday life most Chinese women into a near-unbearable nightmare, as you'll learn in the first video I linked to in the OP.

I do understand your point though when you say that the long-term trend is nonetheless toward a more urban, and therefore less feudal, less oppressive status quo for Chinese women. That's a fair enough point. In fact, that's precisely why I provided the second video: to show you a small glimpse of what the capitalist future (as contrasted with the combo feudal-capitalist present) holds for the average Chinese woman. In the first video, you see the present life of the typical Chinese woman. In the second, you see a key and defining aspect of how future generations of the typical Chinese woman will live. She'll live a lot like women here do, with much the same expectations, as you can see. Make sense?


In the first place, China is a capitalist dictatorship.

What I said, polly:


...The adoption of capitalism, albeit state-run...



The Marxist-sounding rhetoric they wield means nothing. Their actions -- their policies -- are what count.

Marxism/socialism is defined as a centrally planned economy. State run. Capitalist dictatorship. Their policies match their rhetoric.



The whole situation was much more egalitarian than today, both economically and socially, including between women and men.

Then you deny your entire OP argument.



feudal-capitalist present

China is moving from a socialist present to a capitalist future. And as you see that is a good thing for its women.

(Feudal-capitalist is an oxymoron since capitalism replaced feudal, mercantilist economies.)

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
China is moving from a socialist present to a capitalist future. And as you see that is a good thing for its women.

On the contrary, measuring based on ownership, China hasn't been an essentially socialist country since the early 1980s. Many aspects of feudalism were spontaneously restored during the '80s for most of the country while the nation's leaders experimented with capitalism in a few selected locations. The collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991 put wind in the sails of the Dengist (i.e. pro-capitalist) faction of the Communist Party, enabling them to introduce a policy of expanding these capitalist experiments nationwide in early 1992. That policy is what has been pursued since.

And when you indicate that I said this was all good for women, that's just not true. In fact, the OP indicated quite the opposite: that socialism, albeit flawed, yielded more overall gender parity in China than what's been seen since in either the rural or urban settings. Capitalism is an improvement over feudalism, including in gender relations. That's the only point on which I agreed with you.


Feudal-capitalist is an oxymoron since capitalism replaced feudal, mercantilist economies.

The general rule is that the men move to the urban areas to work (because they have a better chance of finding a job) and send money home to their families in the rural parts of the country so that they don't go bankrupt and lose their land. That's what I was getting at. It's a transitory state of affairs that can be described as partially capitalist and partially feudal.

[Chris]

On the contrary, measuring based on ownership, China hasn't been an essentially socialist country since the early 1980s. Many aspects of feudalism were spontaneously restored during the '80s for most of the country while the nation's leaders experimented with capitalism in a few selected locations. The collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991 put wind in the sails of the Dengist (i.e. pro-capitalist) faction of the Communist Party, enabling them to introduce a policy of expanding these capitalist experiments nationwide in early 1992. That policy is what has been pursued since.

And when you indicate that I said this was all good for women, that's just not true. In fact, the OP indicated quite the opposite: that socialism, albeit flawed, yielded more overall gender parity in China than what's been seen since in either the rural or urban settings. Capitalism is an improvement over feudalism, including in gender relations. That's the only point on which I agreed with you.



The general rule is that the men move to the urban areas to work (because they have a better chance of finding a job) and send money home to their families in the rural parts of the country so that they don't go bankrupt and lose their land. That's what I was getting at. It's a transitory state of affairs that can be described as partially capitalist and partially feudal.

China has transformed from feudalism to socialism to state-run capitalism. Socialism I doubt as an improvement over feudalism. Capitalism, even state-run, is an improvement over both feudalism and socialism. The problem is state-run capitalism, akin to fascism, cannot sustain the growth and is counterproductive to freedom. It's free market capitalism Friedman argued led to personal freedom.

[Peter1469]

First we cannot know how China is doing- they are cooking the books like Greece did to get into the Euro Zone.

Second, China has peaked in its growth potential as an export economy (of cheap crap). It must transform itself into a consumer society to advance. There is no assurance that they can do this. If they can- just think of the money to be made with hundreds of millions of homes that need to replace their dirt floors with something that costs money.

Third, China has a housing bubble that makes the one in the US look like a rounding error. And their banks are in more debt that ours.

But China has recognized this and is taking action. They are trying to modernize their interior. They may pull it off. But we cannot say that they will at this point.

[ThirdTerm]

There is an emerging class of educated women in China and a Communist country usually enshrines gender equality and there were tens of thousands of working women in Soviet Russia. In my view, the lack of political freedom is a bigger issue than gender discrimination and those well-educated Chinese women often miss out on romances as the BBC reports just like their Western counterparts.

1898
Who are you calling "leftover"? Huang Yuanyuan (front) and her colleague Wang Tingting


Over 27? Unmarried? Female? In China, you could be labelled a "leftover woman" by the state - but some professional Chinese women these days are happy being single. Huang is a confident, personable young woman with a good salary, her own apartment, an MA from one of China's top universities, and a wealth of friends. Still, she knows that these days, single, urban, educated women like her in China are called "sheng nu" or "leftover women" - and it stings.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21320560

[IMPress Polly]

ThirdTerm: I have no doubt that there are those contented with their lives. (I've read that report too.) I'm talking about the majority though. 'Worlds' highest suicide rate' just kinda sticks out to me as a gauge of happiness, as does how well people say they have life when surveyed on the subject. As to the existence of equal treatment in China, what the government says and what the private sector does are not related. The fact is that, much unlike 40 years ago, you're significantly less likely to be able to find paid work in China if you're female, and women are paid far less than men for the same work most of the time. That's why it's the men who tend to be the ones who move to the cities to find work. It's just not as practical for the women to do so.

Peter: How China is doing depends on your standard of measure. The Dengist philosophy can be summed up as economic growth at all costs. And indeed that's exactly what they've got: economic growth at all costs. On the the one hand, while their growth rates are gradually dropping off to more normal levels, yeah they are indeed poised to overtake us as the world's leading economy within the next three or four years and to overtake us as the leading military power in the world by 2025 or so. That's a reality. That on the one hand. On the other hand, China today is among the most unequal, unhappy societies on Earth. It's all in what's important to you. Is GDP everything or is does how you grow the economy matter?

Democratization will eventually happen in China. The public demands it by something like a two-thirds majority if you've read recent opinion polls out of the country. The beginnings of democratization are already happening at the local level in selected communities. That's how the government proceeds: they experiment with a policy in a few areas and if the experiment is deemed a success, they gradually expand its reach and depth. The real question is when the country's economic policies will change. More than 60% of Chinese people believe that economic inequality is the country's main problem today. That's quite a commentary on a country that claims to be socialist, isn't it? Yet there is no sign of meaningful policy change to address that out of Beijing. Here's how I suspect that will go: I figure that, despite their present opposition to democracy, the minority Maoist faction of the Communist Party may wind up being the principal beneficiary of any politicized democratization that may eventually occur, precisely since they're the ones who are serious about tackling economic inequality. And that development may, in turn, change their minds about the evils of democracy. That's what I figure the long-term picture is, policy-wise. But that's decades down the road. The status quo will continue approximately unchanged for some time yet.

[Chris]

On the other hand, China today is among the most unequal, unhappy societies on Earth.

I have to ask what do you expect after decades of authoritarian communist rule, and now a transition that is still authoritarian rule but shifting toward capitalist freedom? The socialist try to force equality, how, by treating people unequally.

[Chris]

Let me state my point another way, if you've gone from authoritarian feudalism to authoritarian socialism to authoritarian capitalism, and nothing has changed regarding the position of women in society then what else could you possibly expect by shifting to authoritarian social democracy? That's insanity, repeating an action and expecting a different result.

The solution is not another form of authority but liberty.

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
Let me state my point another way, if you've gone from authoritarian feudalism to authoritarian socialism to authoritarian capitalism, and nothing has changed regarding the position of women in society then what else could you possibly expect by shifting to authoritarian social democracy? That's insanity, repeating an action and expecting a different result.

The essence here is the shift in economic systems. There are different social relations that correspond to feudalism, capitalism, and socialism. The most egalitarian of these tend to exist in concert with the degree of socialism in society, precisely because socialism is conceptually founded on the idea of equality. The most unfair system in terms of the distribution of wealth and power is feudalism, which relies on caste-like structures. Capitalism, in contrast, favors more spontaneity and individualism. Socialism values equality above other things. Accordingly, it isn't surprising to find that China's socialist period, the Mao era, was the country's most egalitarian as yet in just about every sense: both economic and social. That's not to say that one can't have authentic gender parity and markets at the same time. But it is to say that society plays a vital role in fostering equality of any and all forms. The market doesn't tend to do so spontaneously. It's no coincidence, for example, that the UN ranks Iceland and the Scandinavian nations as being the most equitable in gender terms. They are also the most equitable countries on Earth in other ways, including in terms of overall wealth distribution. There is an overlap there in the value systems of these countries. They're somewhat more socialistic than we are. And it's the socialistic aspects of their social and economic life that tend to produce the movement toward more gender parity.

This all speaks to what I was saying before about the overlap between liberalism and left and right wing political orientations respectively. Liberalism, being simply another way of saying laxity or individualism, is left wing to the extent that it increases equality (e.g. reproductive rights for women yield women similar sexual options to those men enjoy), and conservative right wing to the extent that they have the opposite effect (e.g. legalization of the sex industry increases exploitation of women). Liberalism is the defining virtue of capitalism. It's whole value system is built around liberalism; around personal independence. That can help improve social equality, depending on what the status quo is. There's considerable nuance to be applied here. But basically socialism is more equitable than the alternatives. All economies are mixed economies. The only question is what the proper overall lean is and what affect that lean will have on the culture. As for me, I believe a socialistic lean is to be favored. However, I also feel that Mao's policies went too far in that regard, particularly during the Great Leap Forward. The Great Leap Forward was an experiment aimed at transitioning from socialism to full-fledged communism. It was a disaster. In fact, even just the transition to a system of total economic planning yielded a drop-off in economic growth. The Chinese system seemed to strike the best balance during the cooperative period in 1953-55 and during the generally similar post-Leap period of 1963-66. Though the Maoists wrote most of the failures of the Leap program off to factors like flooding and diminishing economic relations with the Soviet Union during that same period, the truth was confirmed when the Khmer Rouge -- a group of Cambodian Maoists who took power in that country in 1975 (and incidentally they were the only Maoist group outside China to ever do so) -- attempted a similar experiment they called the Super Great Leap Forward beginning in 1976. The previous year, they had managed to pull off a decent harvest considering their circumstances. But after the Super Leap program was introduced, it all went south and the rate of starvation dramatically increased. If the basic program fails twice consecutively under difference circumstances, I lean toward the idea that it doesn't work. The moral here is that absolute collectivism obviously isn't closely bound up with human nature and that attempts to radically alter human nature to obliterate selfishness don't work. I've recently been watching an interesting documentary showing how the leaders of the present capitalist world economy are doing something similar, but in reverse right now: we are trying to radically alter human nature such as to obliterate all selfless impulses that people have. Neither of these ideas really works because people are a complex mixture of these opposing qualities. It's thus important for us to find the right balance.

[Peter1469]

Polly,
On the the one hand, while their growth rates are gradually dropping off to more normal levels, yeah they are indeed poised to overtake us as the world's leading economy within the next three or four years and to overtake us as the leading military power in the world by 2025 or so.

China's economy may over take the US economy soon. But they have some serious economic bubbles that will have to be dealt with- housing, and banking. China will not be anything more than a regional military power in 2025. I don't think that it will ever be a global military power. It is essentially a land power. For it to become a global military power it would have to develop a blue water navy. Now it has one small aircraft carrier. A aircraft carrier without an experienced crew, and will out its battle group is essentially a floating target. China has no doctrine for operating its carrier. It will take at lest one and maybe two generations to create that doctrine. An ensign today will have to serve for the next 20 years to create a competent captain of that carrier.

China also does seem to desire to be a global military power. Certainly they want to be an economic superpower, but not a global military power.

[Chris]

The essence here is the shift in economic systems. There are different social relations that correspond to feudalism, capitalism, and socialism. The most egalitarian of these tend to exist in concert with the degree of socialism in society, precisely because socialism is conceptually founded on the idea of equality. The most unfair system in terms of the distribution of wealth and power is feudalism, which relies on caste-like structures. Capitalism, in contrast, favors more spontaneity and individualism. Socialism values equality above other things. Accordingly, it isn't surprising to find that China's socialist period, the Mao era, was the country's most egalitarian as yet in just about every sense: both economic and social. That's not to say that one can't have authentic gender parity and markets at the same time. But it is to say that society plays a vital role in fostering equality of any and all forms. The market doesn't tend to do so spontaneously. It's no coincidence, for example, that the UN ranks Iceland and the Scandinavian nations as being the most equitable in gender terms. They are also the most equitable countries on Earth in other ways, including in terms of overall wealth distribution. There is an overlap there in the value systems of these countries. They're somewhat more socialistic than we are. And it's the socialistic aspects of their social and economic life that tend to produce the movement toward more gender parity.

This all speaks to what I was saying before about the overlap between liberalism and left and right wing political orientations respectively. Liberalism, being simply another way of saying laxity or individualism, is left wing to the extent that it increases equality (e.g. reproductive rights for women yield women similar sexual options to those men enjoy), and conservative right wing to the extent that they have the opposite effect (e.g. legalization of the sex industry increases exploitation of women). Liberalism is the defining virtue of capitalism. It's whole value system is built around liberalism; around personal independence. That can help improve social equality, depending on what the status quo is. There's considerable nuance to be applied here. But basically socialism is more equitable than the alternatives. All economies are mixed economies. The only question is what the proper overall lean is and what affect that lean will have on the culture. As for me, I believe a socialistic lean is to be favored. However, I also feel that Mao's policies went too far in that regard, particularly during the Great Leap Forward. The Great Leap Forward was an experiment aimed at transitioning from socialism to full-fledged communism. It was a disaster. In fact, even just the transition to a system of total economic planning yielded a drop-off in economic growth. The Chinese system seemed to strike the best balance during the cooperative period in 1953-55 and during the generally similar post-Leap period of 1963-66. Though the Maoists wrote most of the failures of the Leap program off to factors like flooding and diminishing economic relations with the Soviet Union during that same period, the truth was confirmed when the Khmer Rouge -- a group of Cambodian Maoists who took power in that country in 1975 (and incidentally they were the only Maoist group outside China to ever do so) -- attempted a similar experiment they called the Super Great Leap Forward beginning in 1976. The previous year, they had managed to pull off a decent harvest considering their circumstances. But after the Super Leap program was introduced, it all went south and the rate of starvation dramatically increased. If the basic program fails twice consecutively under difference circumstances, I lean toward the idea that it doesn't work. The moral here is that absolute collectivism obviously isn't closely bound up with human nature and that attempts to radically alter human nature to obliterate selfishness don't work. I've recently been watching an interesting documentary showing how the leaders of the present capitalist world economy are doing something similar, but in reverse right now: we are trying to radically alter human nature such as to obliterate all selfless impulses that people have. Neither of these ideas really works because people are a complex mixture of these opposing qualities. It's thus important for us to find the right balance.

Polly, as usual, you skim the surface jumping from one thing to another. For example, here you announce you're going to discuss economic systems, but never do, instead you skip to "social relations" which apparently mean "egalitarian"? And falsely claim some relation to economic systems, before jumping to political systems. It's really difficult to make heads or tails of any of it.



socialism is conceptually founded on the idea of equality

Sorry, but it is not. As an economic system it is founded on central planning. IOW, a few elite central planners decide all economic matters for the rest. It is thus inherently unequal. And in that regard it's little different than fuedalist economic system other than the elites are intellectuals instead of kings and queens.

Both feudalistic and socialistic economic systems thus depend on political means of authority to implement, authority imposed on the people.

Both are run by rule of man.



Capitalism, in contrast, favors more spontaneity and individualism.

Capitalism, in contrast, favors individuals as equals before the law competing and cooperating by economic means without any implication whatsoever of a central planning authority.



Accordingly, it isn't surprising to find that China's socialist period, the Mao era, was the country's most egalitarian as yet in just about every sense: both economic and social.

Except that it wasn't. Sure, it passed rules that forced equal outcomes, but such rules are imposed unequally on the people.



But it is to say that society plays a vital role in fostering equality of any and all forms.

Agree. But under authoritarian systems like socialism the power to do that is removed from society and placed in the hands of ruling central planners. Only free market capitalism leaves such power with society.



They're somewhat more socialistic than we are.

No they're not. They are now capitalistic.



Liberalism, being simply another way of saying laxity or individualism....

Good lord, I give up trying to respond to such, what, leave it nameless. Liberalism = laxity, where do you come up with this? Liberalism, classical liberalism, is about taking power from central planning authorities--be they feudalistic or socialistic--and putting that power in the hands of society.

[Adelaide]

Something that I find worrying that has influenced the US and Canada are the laws in China about having children (one-child policy), and sex selection relating to abortion. It's an increasing problem in Canada, primarily in women from China, where they select to abort female fetuses. As far as I know, this is also an issue in the US.

I have no problem with abortion, but I find it worrying that someone would abort a child due to the gender of the child. Not because a pregnancy would negatively affect their lives, or because they couldn't afford it or handle it, but because the fetus is female. I find that extremely troubling.

[Peter1469]

Something that I find worrying that has influenced the US and Canada are the laws in China about having children (one-child policy), and sex selection relating to abortion. It's an increasing problem in Canada, primarily in women from China, where they select to abort female fetuses. As far as I know, this is also an issue in the US.

I have no problem with abortion, but I find it worrying that someone would abort a child due to the gender of the child. Not because a pregnancy would negatively affect their lives, or because they couldn't afford it or handle it, but because the fetus is female. I find that extremely troubling.

Me too.

[Mister D]

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions although I'm sure many people understood where the cry for "abortion on demand" was likely to lead. We made that bed. Time to lie in it.

[Peter1469]

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions although I'm sure many people understood where the cry for "abortion on demand" was likely to lead. We made that bed. Time to lie in it.

Also the "gay gene". That is big on the abort list.

[Mister D]

Also the "gay gene". That is big on the abort list.

Anyone sort of abnormality (culturally specific or not) will be on the list as soon as it is known to have a genetic cause and can be detected early.

[IMPress Polly]

"Free abortion on demand" was a demand made by women's liberationists in a context wherein the technology of sonograms was more primitive than today. There's no way anyone could have foreseen the way this technology would ultimately be used for eugenic purposes. There is no fundamental problem with free abortion on demand. There is a fundamental problem with patriarchal attitudes that lead to one sex being preferred over the other. The essential thing is to overcome that attitude. ...However, I agree that outlawing what effectively is gender selection probably is a necessary component-part of getting past that attitude. They've started to crack down on it in China in recent years, and we've seen many other countries ban gender selection as well. I wouldn't protest if this particular restriction on abortion access were implemented.

Of course there are already three U.S. states for which this issue won't even be relevant by the end of year, since they're closing down their last abortion clinics altogether. Forced motherhood is not a virtue. (...Where you Obama Justice Department?!)

[Mister D]

"Free abortion on demand" was a demand made by women's liberationists in a context wherein the technology of sonograms was more primitive than today. There's no way anyone could have foreseen the way this technology would ultimately be used for eugenic purposes. There is no fundamental problem with free abortion on demand. There is a fundamental problem with patriarchal attitudes that lead to one sex being preferred over the other. The essential thing is to overcome that attitude. ...However, I agree that outlawing what effectively is gender selection probably is a necessary component-part of getting past that attitude. They've started to crack down on it in China in recent years, and we've seen many other countries ban gender selection as well. I wouldn't protest if this particular restriction on abortion access were implemented.

Of course there are already three U.S. states for which this issue won't even be relevant by the end of year, since they're closing down their last abortion clinics altogether. Forced motherhood is not a virtue. (...Where you Obama Justice Department?!)


Surely no feminist foresaw the direction in which their demands would take society. That's a problem most progressives have so don't think I'm picking on feminists. In any case, we're there and it's largely because of the ideology feminists espouse. Thanks for that.

[Peter1469]

"Free abortion on demand" was a demand made by women's liberationists in a context wherein the technology of sonograms was more primitive than today. There's no way anyone could have foreseen the way this technology would ultimately be used for eugenic purposes. There is no fundamental problem with free abortion on demand. There is a fundamental problem with patriarchal attitudes that lead to one sex being preferred over the other. The essential thing is to overcome that attitude. ...However, I agree that outlawing what effectively is gender selection probably is a necessary component-part of getting past that attitude. They've started to crack down on it in China in recent years, and we've seen many other countries ban gender selection as well. I wouldn't protest if this particular restriction on abortion access were implemented.

Of course there are already three U.S. states for which this issue won't even be relevant by the end of year, since they're closing down their last abortion clinics altogether. Forced motherhood is not a virtue. (...Where you Obama Justice Department?!)

It is a very good lesson in unintended consequences.

[hanger4]

Concerning the "gay gene",

Christian pro lifers and gay rights activists

will become strange bed fellows.

[IMPress Polly]

No need to exaggerate the implications, Mister D: I'm still definitely pro-choice. I'm simply okay with one justifiable restriction. :wink: (But you're welcome.)

[Mister D]

No need to exaggerate the implications, Mister D: I'm still definitely pro-choice. I'm simply okay with one justifiable restriction. :wink: (But you're welcome.)

What have I exaggerated?

I'm sure you are. I wouldn't expect a progressive feminist to take any responsibility for ideas gone awry. After all, you meant well. :rollseyes: