Quote:
|
Originally Posted by knox
I don't know.
I don't agree with this whole preaching "natural" child birth, when certain drugs and C-sections can make it a loss less painful. I do believe that should be a woman's choice. I would never mind being cut open, but certain places (like the uk) do not give you the choice. I think it's probably more a money thing rather than "it's better for you" thing, since most doctors saying that are male and never went through that bullshit themselves.
In the case of the UK, I think it's a contradiction that they won't perform C-sections when requested by a woman (even women who have a phobia of childbirth), but they allow women to choose to get an abortion. I guess that means the whole motivation behind these decisions is more economic than "giving women the choice over their own bodies and reproductive systems".
But you're forgetting that women who wanna be mothers want to go through pregnancy and the whole hormonal thing and the whole experience.
Life changing or not, it's an important part of developing a connection, instincts for both men and women.
The idea that women have to take "control" in order to eliminate sexism and that it would make anything better is kind of naive and absurd. Would genocide, discrimination and war not exist if all societies were matriarchalist? Doubt it. That suggests that men are not victims of sexism - and they are, only not as harshly, generally. It also suggests some kind of pre-established behaviour. Sort of like what happened in the past 20 years, when being a housewife and a mother is seen as being a bum and a submissive twat. So now, women are forced to be a housewife, a mother, a sucessful professional, behave like men in the workspace, behave like a sex beast at home, be thin, young, well-dressed and educated, otherwise, YOU ARE NOT LIBERATED.
Being liberated is a lot of work.
|
i agree about the women who want to go through pregnancy, however won't we soon be facing the question - why keep creating women that even have that particular biological system in the first place? and yes you are totally right with the developing a connection point. it's been discovered that one of the most crucial stages in parents and child developing a bond is just after birth, when their close contact causes certain enorphin like chemicals to be released into the parents brains. and so for mothers who have a history of substance abuse, their brains are less capable of experiencing this chemical release as strongly, and so the bond can be less strong that it could have been. my point is why leave all these processes intact for the sake of some sort of naturalism. after all, by even eating food you are altering the structure and composition of your brain. so when we begin to map and master these components of the human body why wouldn't we start altering and refining them, hell why wouldn't we even scrap them alltogether and develop something else?
what i'm proposing is not that women "take control" of the existing order, but that the creatin of a new social order (something we are in dire need of) must necessarily liberate women from the position they have now instead of replicating it. i don't know enough about histories examples of matriarchys, but don't they open up a whole new realm of potential benefits compared to what we have now?
and like you say, being "liberated" is hard work, and its a strain that people can only seem to bear fictiously. i see it more as capitalisms innovative compromise with the discontent that always threatens to destroy it, and it seems to mask a lot of the unfair demands that women are actually burdened with.