COMMENTS: 53
Artificial Wombs and Pregnant Men
June 6, 2006 |
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
Advertisement
If we turn our backs on the debate, it will just go on without us. And we know how that turns out already. Just look at what happened with birth control pills. The pill was developed and tested in the 1950s entirely by male researchers -- one of whom, Harvard's John Rock, was a devout Catholic. Rock pushed for a dose cycle of the pill that would replicate women's monthly menstrual cycle, essentially so that it could be, like the rhythm method, a God-approved form of birth control. The Pope disagreed, but the monthly pill cycle stuck, despite the fact that the pill could completely eliminate menstruation for as long as a woman wished, and there was no evidence that this was any less healthy than a monthly menstrual cycle.
Let's think here, people -- if women and feminists had been involved in the process of developing the pill, there is no goddamn way we would have let them take away the possibility of a pill to eliminate our "little visitor." No woman likes to bleed once a month. It's messy, it's crampy, occasionally there are embarrassingly stained clothes and sheets. Only men would deem it "better" for us to keep on putting up with this biological annoyance even after finding a cure for it. Luckily, there are now a handful of birth control products on the market, such as Seasonale and Lybrel, that do eliminate periods as well as prevent pregnancy. It only took 50 years.
That's why any feminist worth her sodium chloride should be charging into the debate on genetic engineering with a list of demands. Hell, yes, we want to change the biology of reproduction -- and we want to change it now.
The primary goal of a feminist genetic engineering project is to cut the reproductive process loose from patriarchy and male domination. One simple way to do that is to make sure feminist politics are front and center in any discussion about how we will use genetic engineering to eliminate harmful birth defects. I think we can all agree that it would be great to make sure babies aren't born with holes in their hearts, but what about girl babies born with small breasts? Can't you just see some clueless researcher claiming that women with small breasts are "harmed" psychologically, and that therefore we should engineer all women to have big ones? Feminists need to shut that shit down right away.
But what do we want? First of all, we want genetic engineering to transform the way families work, perhaps by making it possible for two women to create a baby without male intervention -- or for more than two parents to create a baby. (Researchers in Japan have already bred a healthy baby mouse out of genetic material from two females, and researchers in England are working on a human baby that will have genetic material from two women and one man.) Either way, you've got new parental formations, and hopefully this biological change will lead to child care being meted out more equally -- or at least challenge our preconceptions about what it means to be a "mommy" or a "daddy."
We also want artificial wombs, so that women don't have to stay home from work while gestating their fetuses. We need technologies that will at last close the "baby gap" in workplaces where women fall behind their male colleagues during pregnancies and their children's early development. Plus, we want men to be able to participate as fully in the reproductive process as possible. That's why male pregnancy and lactation should be a goal of feminist genetic engineers. We don't want merely to liberate ourselves from the reproductive process; we want to bring men into it as our equal partners.
New family structures, artificial wombs and pregnant men are just the very beginnings of what feminists should be demanding when it comes to the genetic transformation of our species. Let's get out of the streets and into the lab!
Annalee Newitz is a surly media nerd who thinks mpreg stories are the wave of the future.
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
COMMENTS ( 53 )
READ COMMENTS
LOGIN OR
REGISTER TO POST A COMMENT
Comments are closed-
Pregnant and lactating men...uh-huh.
Posted by: medstudgeek on Jun 6, 2006 1:17 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: medstudgeek on Jun 6, 2006 1:17 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think you're going to get a lot of men to sign up for this, unless you're going to force it on them, which doesn't sound quite right to me.
The artificial womb thing doesn't sound so bad, gay men could use it. You could also take the X chromosomes from each father, or one x and one y if you wanted a boy. The catch with men is that two Y chromosomes isn't viable.
The artificial womb thing doesn't sound so bad, gay men could use it. You could also take the X chromosomes from each father, or one x and one y if you wanted a boy. The catch with men is that two Y chromosomes isn't viable.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: XYY Males
Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: XYY Males
Posted by: medstudgeek
Comments are closed-
Cure?
Posted by: moonwatcher on Jun 6, 2006 1:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: moonwatcher on Jun 6, 2006 1:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since when is menstruation a disease?
If there are women who want to eliminate their periods altogether, that's up to them, but there are plenty of us who don't mind the so-called mess. I, for one, would much prefer to bleed once a month rather than take a pill every day that can cause blood clots and heart attacks down the line, especially since birth control is unnecessary for those of us who don't sleep with men.
And it seems unlikely to me that the original bleed-once-a-month pill just "stuck"--mightn't Tampax and their ilk have had something to do with it?
If there are women who want to eliminate their periods altogether, that's up to them, but there are plenty of us who don't mind the so-called mess. I, for one, would much prefer to bleed once a month rather than take a pill every day that can cause blood clots and heart attacks down the line, especially since birth control is unnecessary for those of us who don't sleep with men.
And it seems unlikely to me that the original bleed-once-a-month pill just "stuck"--mightn't Tampax and their ilk have had something to do with it?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Cure?
Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Cure?
Posted by: medstudgeek
Comments are closed-
Hmm....
Posted by: midge on Jun 6, 2006 2:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: midge on Jun 6, 2006 2:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a nice thought, but I'm often wary of our attempts to control or redesign complex natural mechanisms that we often don't fully comprehend or appreciate, with our often biased and unwise views of what is better-and that goes for all of us. Look at how we've tried to control what we percieve as behavioral problems in children and force them into behavior we've deemed as normal by pumping them with drugs like Rittalin and Prozac. And the way we've attempted to control the environment, which works in complex ways we don't fully understand (a good example of this is the way large areas of marshland in southern Louisiana that act as a natural buffer against flooding from hurricanes were drained, worsening the damage from Hurricane Katrina). From what I've read, pregnancy and the menstrual cycle are two of those complex natural mechanisms that we don't know enough about-and are probably too foolish-to start controlling in this manner. Not to say we don't know an awful lot, but from what I've read it seems like everyone treats it as a process confined to the reproductive organs when it effects the entire body in ways from the obvious to the very subtle. And, in our fast-paced, materialistic culture, we often only see things through the lens of how convenient they would be, or how much they'd add to our success, not all the ways-tangible and intangible-they'd add to the human experience. I wouldn't say this article looks at it through that lens-the greater equality and flexibility that the author believes this would give people could certainly add to the human experience. I wouldn't say it appreciates nature though. And if we use genetic engineering and similar technology to help realize our own vision of the world, whose to stop other groups of people with other philosophies from doing it? Were does it stop?
I, for one, would have not wanted and do not want a pill which will eliminate menstrual periods, because the processes involved are not limited to the reproductive organs but involve and effect the entire body. For instance, the surges of estrogen that occur just before a period are crucial in building bone density for women in their teens and twenties, who probably aren't getting enough calcium as it is. Estrogen can strongly effect mood, secondary sex characteristics and sexual drive, even kidney function (like the water retention that occurs during periods). Because it is so systemic and complex, controlling and redisigning the menstrual cycle has the potential to go dangerously awry and hurt more people than it helps. If it's the choice between osteoporosis than can lead to a fracture at the age of 60 that could cause my health to subsequently deteriorate, or breast cancer, or depression, and the once a month inconvenience of my period (which, heavy and painful though it sometimes is, is pretty minor by comparison), I'll gladly take the latter!
Pregnancy is an even more complex process, and involves and effects the entire body. We're probably a long way from actually doing it, and from what I know, I think to actually alter men's bodies enough to do it you'd practically have to turn them into, well, women. And while I know they're possible, I don't think artificial wombs could ever compare to the real thing-that environment is just too intricate and complex.
Sorry if all this sounds pessimistic and/or too traditional, and I humbly apologize if I got any info wrong, but it's just that I've read about and seen what happens when we attempt to control nature too much without either fully understanding or fully appreciate it, and it's not pretty. And, as a disabled person, I'm pretty wary about our attempts to redesign ourselves in our own narrow, limited views of perfection, which would probably weed out folks like me pretty quickly despite all the ways in which we've added to the human experience. So forgive me but it's not something I take lightly.
I, for one, would have not wanted and do not want a pill which will eliminate menstrual periods, because the processes involved are not limited to the reproductive organs but involve and effect the entire body. For instance, the surges of estrogen that occur just before a period are crucial in building bone density for women in their teens and twenties, who probably aren't getting enough calcium as it is. Estrogen can strongly effect mood, secondary sex characteristics and sexual drive, even kidney function (like the water retention that occurs during periods). Because it is so systemic and complex, controlling and redisigning the menstrual cycle has the potential to go dangerously awry and hurt more people than it helps. If it's the choice between osteoporosis than can lead to a fracture at the age of 60 that could cause my health to subsequently deteriorate, or breast cancer, or depression, and the once a month inconvenience of my period (which, heavy and painful though it sometimes is, is pretty minor by comparison), I'll gladly take the latter!
Pregnancy is an even more complex process, and involves and effects the entire body. We're probably a long way from actually doing it, and from what I know, I think to actually alter men's bodies enough to do it you'd practically have to turn them into, well, women. And while I know they're possible, I don't think artificial wombs could ever compare to the real thing-that environment is just too intricate and complex.
Sorry if all this sounds pessimistic and/or too traditional, and I humbly apologize if I got any info wrong, but it's just that I've read about and seen what happens when we attempt to control nature too much without either fully understanding or fully appreciate it, and it's not pretty. And, as a disabled person, I'm pretty wary about our attempts to redesign ourselves in our own narrow, limited views of perfection, which would probably weed out folks like me pretty quickly despite all the ways in which we've added to the human experience. So forgive me but it's not something I take lightly.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» No, she's RIGHT
Posted by: medstudgeek
Comments are closed-
can somene get that genie back in the bottle?
Posted by: weiwuwei on Jun 6, 2006 2:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: weiwuwei on Jun 6, 2006 2:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this reminds me of what someone, I think Einstein, once said about how our technological development has eclipsed our spiritual development, our ability to discern wisely. Or from Jurassic Park .."they were so busy figuring out how to do it they forgot to ask if they should do it"(or something like that). Seriously, this is so far out it's hilarious in a way. I know the technology jenie is out of the bottle and will eventually find it's way into every aspect of our lives, and this story shows that; i mean artifical wombs and lactating men? This shows that Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.
i don't have any suggestions as to how, and yes it sounds idealistic, but it seems that we need a worldwide pandemic of deep "spiritual awakening"(i don't mean any from of organized, purposeful "religion") so we can step back and consider where we're going, to ask if we're still in charge of the use of technology(or ever were) or if it's in charge of us. It'd be funny if it wasn't so scary. In other words, are we insane or not? It seems we are, as some traditions say, deep asleep in a dream. Enough babbling for now. Good article; thanks for posting it.
i don't have any suggestions as to how, and yes it sounds idealistic, but it seems that we need a worldwide pandemic of deep "spiritual awakening"(i don't mean any from of organized, purposeful "religion") so we can step back and consider where we're going, to ask if we're still in charge of the use of technology(or ever were) or if it's in charge of us. It'd be funny if it wasn't so scary. In other words, are we insane or not? It seems we are, as some traditions say, deep asleep in a dream. Enough babbling for now. Good article; thanks for posting it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
this is a joke, right?
Posted by: mwildfire on Jun 6, 2006 5:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: mwildfire on Jun 6, 2006 5:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm hoping she's just kidding here. It shouldn't take a great deal of thought to realize that messing around with this stuff is reckless. By the way, the Einstein quote is, "It has become appallingly clear that our technology has surpassed our humanity." I don't know whether there is a God, and if so, how many or what kind, but I'm pretty sure of this: it ain't us. The human race does not have the wisdom to make these decisions. Just Say No is the correct decision--at least until such time, in the distant future, when we have evolved far beyond our current state.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: this is a joke, right?
Posted by: Aussie Kim
Comments are closed-
Biological annoyances
Posted by: Pseudo Morals on Jun 6, 2006 9:34 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Pseudo Morals on Jun 6, 2006 9:34 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't mind having my period, and don't consider it an annoyance any more than any other bodily function. The writer is way off on this one.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Biological annoyances
Posted by: ann83
Comments are closed-
Science
Posted by: Aussie Kim on Jun 6, 2006 10:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Aussie Kim on Jun 6, 2006 10:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many women no little or nothing about science. ("Math is hard!" "Don't ask me - I'm just a girl!")
Until education is improved, which seems unlikely where many of you come from since religion is apparently taking over, and girls and women are taught to embrace and learn about science, the derth of feminists taking part in debates about genetic engineering is likely to continue.
Until education is improved, which seems unlikely where many of you come from since religion is apparently taking over, and girls and women are taught to embrace and learn about science, the derth of feminists taking part in debates about genetic engineering is likely to continue.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» and some of us
Posted by: sln70
» RE: and some of us
Posted by: Aussie Kim
» your generalization about women
Posted by: sln70
» RE: your generalization about women
Posted by: Aussie Kim
Comments are closed-
Male lactation
Posted by: Samantha Vimes on Jun 7, 2006 3:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Samantha Vimes on Jun 7, 2006 3:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It surprises me how squeamish most people are about that. Men have all the necessary equipment, it just needs to be activated-- and there are a number of cases on record where nature activated it. Men stuck with the care of a motherless baby have sometimes sponateously lactated while allowing the infant to suckle for comfort.
As human milk is the best food for a baby, it seems to me that in cases where the father is willing (and by father I mean any male taking on the role, rather than necessarily genetically bonded), science should be prepared to make it easier.
As human milk is the best food for a baby, it seems to me that in cases where the father is willing (and by father I mean any male taking on the role, rather than necessarily genetically bonded), science should be prepared to make it easier.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Male lactation
Posted by: Aussie Kim
Comments are closed-
artificial wombs?
Posted by: sweetmorganlefey on Jun 7, 2006 4:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: sweetmorganlefey on Jun 7, 2006 4:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to carefully consider this kind of thinking. In my opinion, artificial wombs smack too much of creche raised society. When was the last time you read Brave New World?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Hmmm...
Posted by: mothersmovement on Jun 7, 2006 5:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: mothersmovement on Jun 7, 2006 5:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Doing away with embodied pregnancy so women can hold their own workplaces that cater to the ideal of male autonomy doesn't sound much like progress to me. It might be better to change the underlying culture of the workplace so that high-achieving workers getting pregnant and having babies is considered normal rather than problematic. The suggestion that women would want to have biological children but avoid pregnancy is also a privileged perspective. I'm not sure all women of all races and classes would be prepared to dismiss pregnancy and childbirth as another inconvenient body thing or a career setback.
I may be old fashioned, but I like to think there is a way to assure women's equality without resorting to biotechnology. Men don't need to have the capacity to gestate an embryo or lactate to have an equal role in caring for children. But they do need to live in a society where men aren't penalized for realigning their use of time and labor, as women are today when they bear and care for children. I agree that genetic engineering is a feminist issue, but I'm not confident that technology alone can resolve the fundamental problems of gender and social reproduction.
I may be old fashioned, but I like to think there is a way to assure women's equality without resorting to biotechnology. Men don't need to have the capacity to gestate an embryo or lactate to have an equal role in caring for children. But they do need to live in a society where men aren't penalized for realigning their use of time and labor, as women are today when they bear and care for children. I agree that genetic engineering is a feminist issue, but I'm not confident that technology alone can resolve the fundamental problems of gender and social reproduction.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Hmmm...
Posted by: WitchyNy
» Thanks for saving this thread!
Posted by: sln70
Comments are closed-
Biography line
Posted by: BlueTigress on Jun 7, 2006 8:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: BlueTigress on Jun 7, 2006 8:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you read her biography tagline, Annalee is one of the women who fantasizes about about getting men pregnant.
I think if you presented her with the real thing she would be fascinated and revolted at the same time.
I think if you presented her with the real thing she would be fascinated and revolted at the same time.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
corporate control of reproduction?? *fuck you bitch*
Posted by: Annapurna1 on Jun 7, 2006 11:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Annapurna1 on Jun 7, 2006 11:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
theres NFW im going to let big govt and big business tell me not to get pregnant so that i can be a better corporate suit, while they can grow your genetically transformed species in their glass jars. and neither will any feminist worth her sodium chloride.
feminism is about opposing abusive, patriarchal systems, and corporations are necessarily the most abusive patriarchies of all; nor does it matter if the board-of-directors is all female. children raised in negative family environments often become criminals. have you given any thought at all as to how these kinless "children", procreated and educated by corporations for corporations, will act as citizens?? im sorry, but the fire is not the way out of the frying pan.
for you to be talking about feminism is like dick cheney lecturing the russians about democracy. take this bullshit and send it packing to the white arayan nation.
feminism is about opposing abusive, patriarchal systems, and corporations are necessarily the most abusive patriarchies of all; nor does it matter if the board-of-directors is all female. children raised in negative family environments often become criminals. have you given any thought at all as to how these kinless "children", procreated and educated by corporations for corporations, will act as citizens?? im sorry, but the fire is not the way out of the frying pan.
for you to be talking about feminism is like dick cheney lecturing the russians about democracy. take this bullshit and send it packing to the white arayan nation.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Enthusiasm is no substitute for knowledge
Posted by: zil on Jun 7, 2006 11:18 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: zil on Jun 7, 2006 11:18 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is enthusiastic but lacks substance. Margaret Sanger cannot be ignored when discussing birth control; the paragraph on that bit really oversimplifies how the Pill came to be. Yes, it could have been done better but let's not blame just the Catholic guy involved - it's too easy, and it diminishes the argument. I've taken birth control that limited my periods to 3 times a year; it also caused weight gain and the most horrific mood swings ever - i don't trust something that stops a natural process in my body. Having a period each month is not something that's going to stop you from reaching your potential - and I had godawful periods in my teens and early twenties. Research dollars would be better spent on the HPV vaccine and breast cancer research than stopping that pesky period. Finally, that bit about artificial wombs and taking men out of the process of reproduction - you must be joking. Put down your copy of Herland and get with it. Why would you want to separate yourself from the creation of your child? That really is wack - in the interest of full disclosure, I don't have kids, but if/when I choose to, all that yucky morning sickness and so on comes with the territory. I wish feminists would stop trying to be just like men - Ilove men, but I sure as hell don't want to be one. And if I chose to have a child over a career; well, I've made a choice. Life is full of trade-offs; if career is my main goal, then I fit in the kid or vice versa. It's time for feminism to celebrate the differences in women and men, and the things that make us uniquely female or male.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
This stuff is already happening
Posted by: Kelly on Jun 7, 2006 11:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Kelly on Jun 7, 2006 11:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IVF technology already allows embryos to be screened for genetic diseases before implantation. Sex can be artificially selected as well, and it's just a matter of time before desirable characteristics can be selected for as well. Amniocentis and ultrasound allow for malformed fetuses to be aborted (and Midge, as cruel as it seems, severely handficapped children are far more expensive to raise, a burden not every family is prepared to take on. Especially in cases which are obviously unlike yours--i.e., the child is mentally handicapped and will never be independent or the child simply will not survive to adulthood). As for an artificial womb, you can hire a real one if you don't want to gestate your own fetus. Young women in desparate straights already sell eggs and surrogacy time--not to mention wet-nursing and acting as domestic labor and nannies. I seriously do hope that technology soon arrives allowing lesbian couples to conceive without donor sperm, but face it, reproduction has already been commodified and exploits the poor while feathering the nests of those who can afford it. For that matter, reproduction has been commodified and exploited by men throughout history. Annalee is right, though, it would be nice to see a few nursing or pregnant men around --it might make them a little more sympathetic to what women go through, both in terminating or gestating a pregnancy. Wasn't Arnold Schwartenegger pregnant in one of his films?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
a trans person's perspective
Posted by: Seabrook on Jun 7, 2006 1:59 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Seabrook on Jun 7, 2006 1:59 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
great article!
i think that it would have been even stronger had you focused some on the possibility for collaboration between feminists and trans activists concerning biotech.
for instance, lots of trans women (myself included) would very much appreciate being able to give birth. so its not just a question of enabling men to give birth, its also a question of enabling female-identified folks to give birth if and when they choose to.
also, i know a number of trans men who would particularly appreciate getting rid of their period.
and finally, its not just women with small chests who could get genetically engineered out of existence, its also intersex folks (who already face genital mutilation at birth).
when feminist organizations and activists get down to transforming the biotech industry, i'll be there for the fight!
i think that it would have been even stronger had you focused some on the possibility for collaboration between feminists and trans activists concerning biotech.
for instance, lots of trans women (myself included) would very much appreciate being able to give birth. so its not just a question of enabling men to give birth, its also a question of enabling female-identified folks to give birth if and when they choose to.
also, i know a number of trans men who would particularly appreciate getting rid of their period.
and finally, its not just women with small chests who could get genetically engineered out of existence, its also intersex folks (who already face genital mutilation at birth).
when feminist organizations and activists get down to transforming the biotech industry, i'll be there for the fight!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: a trans person's perspective
Posted by: medstudgeek
Comments are closed-
It's now or never, ladies.
Posted by: Chuck Norris on Jun 7, 2006 7:41 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Chuck Norris on Jun 7, 2006 7:41 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These scientists are screwing with the best creator of all, Mother Nature...If they keep it up, something will inevitably go wrong, and a disaster will happen. These people are crossing the thin red line, and if they have a brain in their skull, they will stop before they DO screw something up. I believe that the usefulness of modern medicine is grossly overexaggerated. Let Nature take her course.
Dancing with the Black Mamba of genetics is a BAD idea.
Dancing with the Black Mamba of genetics is a BAD idea.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Don't Worry The Techies Will Fix It
Posted by: davelwhite on Jun 7, 2006 10:57 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: davelwhite on Jun 7, 2006 10:57 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have no background in biology but as an IT director for liberal nonprofits I have discovered a phenomenon which I call "Don't Worry the Techies Will Fix It." My favorite from my last job was the problem where the managers were all starting to distrust each other and hoard their files from other people they didn't like, and somehow I, as the IT Person, was supposed to create a database that would "improve interdepartmental communication." Of course I told them that I could make a database but I couldn't make them put any of their files into it, whereas if they would just share the files, they wouldn't need a database at all. Would it suprise you to know that one thing I have learned from 15 years in IT is "sometimes paper is the best technology"?
So how does this relate to feminism? Well, if the author wishes to explore new ways of parenting, no lab work is necessary. Three parents mixing genetic material is probably a biological gamble since even the better-developed cloning technology leads to massive amounts of miscarriages and birth defects (although you'd need to ask a biologist to be sure). But three parents can easily raise a child right now. All they have to do is decide to do it together, and either adopt, or have two people of the opposite sex make a baby the old fashioned way. (They don't even have to be straight-- doing the deed might be uncomfortable, but so is getting stuck in Guatemala unexpectedly for a month during an adoption, which happened to a lesbian couple I know. People go through a lot to have kids.)
The hope expressed in this article is that somehow, magically, the possibility of two women or three people BIOLOGICALLY parenting the same child will overcome the current cultural resistance to people creating these innovative family forms-- just like my database was going to magically convince the managers to share their files. But that's not how it works. If the culture doesn't change, co-parenting circles of friends will still be as rare as $2 bills, and lesbians will still be parenting in the closet. But if it does change-- and I'll be the first to admit that the acceptance of new egalitarian forms of family is slow in coming-- there will be no need to monkey with millions of years of physical evolution and risk kids with birth defects.
The same human bodies that we live in today have been used throughout history to coparent in tribes, create all different kinds of extended families, implement formalized rituals of committed friendship, and create both egalitarian and patriarchal gender roles. Our bodies are already ready-- are our minds?
Dave
So how does this relate to feminism? Well, if the author wishes to explore new ways of parenting, no lab work is necessary. Three parents mixing genetic material is probably a biological gamble since even the better-developed cloning technology leads to massive amounts of miscarriages and birth defects (although you'd need to ask a biologist to be sure). But three parents can easily raise a child right now. All they have to do is decide to do it together, and either adopt, or have two people of the opposite sex make a baby the old fashioned way. (They don't even have to be straight-- doing the deed might be uncomfortable, but so is getting stuck in Guatemala unexpectedly for a month during an adoption, which happened to a lesbian couple I know. People go through a lot to have kids.)
The hope expressed in this article is that somehow, magically, the possibility of two women or three people BIOLOGICALLY parenting the same child will overcome the current cultural resistance to people creating these innovative family forms-- just like my database was going to magically convince the managers to share their files. But that's not how it works. If the culture doesn't change, co-parenting circles of friends will still be as rare as $2 bills, and lesbians will still be parenting in the closet. But if it does change-- and I'll be the first to admit that the acceptance of new egalitarian forms of family is slow in coming-- there will be no need to monkey with millions of years of physical evolution and risk kids with birth defects.
The same human bodies that we live in today have been used throughout history to coparent in tribes, create all different kinds of extended families, implement formalized rituals of committed friendship, and create both egalitarian and patriarchal gender roles. Our bodies are already ready-- are our minds?
Dave
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Missed the point
Posted by: mdoty on Jun 8, 2006 1:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: mdoty on Jun 8, 2006 1:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think everyone missed the point: Don't you think it is about time women took control of their reproductive life from the control of men...white men at that?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Missed the point
Posted by: Aussie Kim
» So what would you think about a male pill?
Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: So what would you think about a male pill?
Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: So what would you think about a male pill?
Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: Missed the point
Posted by: Logic's Edge
Comments are closed-
most of u are missing the point
Posted by: nwellington on Jun 8, 2006 3:57 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: nwellington on Jun 8, 2006 3:57 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we can all bang on for days about the dangers of messing with complex body functions, the morality of it all etc. The reality is that this will go on without our input regardless - hell loads of us protested against war and look where that got us. Whether or not I want to bleed each month or even have children is irrelevant. Just saying no isn't an option - we need to face the reality that men will decide these things for us unless we stand up and be counted. Dakota abortion ruling should be warning enough that faced with a declining and ageing population authorities will stoop who knows how low to ensure breeding continues and increases - I for one want to influence how this happens -not to be merely informed when its all too late. And don't think the "bigger boobs" thing won't happen either - you can get a boob job paid 4 by the public health system in brazil because of the 'stress caused' by being born with small boobs.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: most of u are missing the point
Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: most of u are missing the point
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: most of u are missing the point
Posted by: Annapurna1
Comments are closed-
RE: GM Watch
Posted by: dca on Jun 8, 2006 3:35 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: dca on Jun 8, 2006 3:35 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hi! Thought some of you might be interested in reading more about the many problems and potential problems with genetic engineering, genetic modification, on the GM Watch web site.
Lots of very interesting articles and posts in the ARCHIVE section of their site where you can browse through many articles/posts they have collected on different aspects of this by month. Can also find a lot of good background information on the companies, groups, individuals involved in and promoting GE stuff.
I have learned a lot over the past few years from this group. Very interesting! I think they mostly focus on genetic engineering and food crops, but also look at problems with genetic engineering and 'pharma crops,' gene therapy, genetically engineered drugs, conflicts of interest in research, and problems with mainstream 'scientific' publications and research, etc. Take a look at the different articles in the archive section posted there over the past year and can get a better idea of what the kinds of real living nightmare stuff that is going on in biotech.
Lots of very interesting articles and posts in the ARCHIVE section of their site where you can browse through many articles/posts they have collected on different aspects of this by month. Can also find a lot of good background information on the companies, groups, individuals involved in and promoting GE stuff.
I have learned a lot over the past few years from this group. Very interesting! I think they mostly focus on genetic engineering and food crops, but also look at problems with genetic engineering and 'pharma crops,' gene therapy, genetically engineered drugs, conflicts of interest in research, and problems with mainstream 'scientific' publications and research, etc. Take a look at the different articles in the archive section posted there over the past year and can get a better idea of what the kinds of real living nightmare stuff that is going on in biotech.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Disturbing article
Posted by: jdylarid on Jun 10, 2006 1:30 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: jdylarid on Jun 10, 2006 1:30 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ms. Newitz's argument that emerging technologies should be more under "the people's" control is commendable, in a general sense.
However, arguing in favor of bioengineering men to lactate and creating artificial uteruses is a perverse and convoluted detour from the underlying opinion stated above. It's made even worse by the argument she posits in favor of it--the ability of women to avoid having to take time off from their jobs, assumed to be in the corporate environment. All of the women I know who have been pregnant and also worked were thrilled to avoid work for several months. Very few of them wanted to go back. (My wife included.)
As a sometime-stay-at-home-dad, I am intimately aware of the contributions that men can make, just as they are, to the raising of their children. No genetic engineering required. All that's required is the will to do so, something that genetic engineering cannot achieve. (And hopefully never will.)
It's disturbing (but not at all surprising) that a "progressive" website like Alternet would host articles that essentially encourage a total war between humanity and nature, an accurate moniker for the biotechnological deconstruction of gender. This is at least somewhat ironic, given the positions on environmental issues that Alternet takes. There are appropriate uses of knowledge and scientific inquiry relative to human biology. People of course DO have a right to be educated about their reproductive capacities, and make informed decisions as to whether or not they will reproduce, and how many children they will have, and at what age. However, the biotechnological deconstruction of gender is not of a piece with reproductive education, curing diseases, etc.
Is there really a *substantial* difference between the "neo-con"/corporatist worldview that seeks to destroy and/or subjugate all competing economic and cultural systems on earth, and the advanced-technology-as-our-savior view of Ms. Newitz? Obviously there are differences, but are these views really opposed to one another? Both seek to radically and rapdily alter the human condition via technology. Ms. Newitz pays lip service to bottom-up control of such technologies (as do the neo-cons actually, via "democracy"). But is this at all realistic?
As someone who has actually spent time in "developing world" countries, those that are most viscerally effected by the "neo-con"/corporatist paradigm, I can safely say that most people (including women) in these societies would view Ms. Newitz's suggestions in much the same manner that that they view depleted-uranium-cluster-bombs: with abject horror.
However, arguing in favor of bioengineering men to lactate and creating artificial uteruses is a perverse and convoluted detour from the underlying opinion stated above. It's made even worse by the argument she posits in favor of it--the ability of women to avoid having to take time off from their jobs, assumed to be in the corporate environment. All of the women I know who have been pregnant and also worked were thrilled to avoid work for several months. Very few of them wanted to go back. (My wife included.)
As a sometime-stay-at-home-dad, I am intimately aware of the contributions that men can make, just as they are, to the raising of their children. No genetic engineering required. All that's required is the will to do so, something that genetic engineering cannot achieve. (And hopefully never will.)
It's disturbing (but not at all surprising) that a "progressive" website like Alternet would host articles that essentially encourage a total war between humanity and nature, an accurate moniker for the biotechnological deconstruction of gender. This is at least somewhat ironic, given the positions on environmental issues that Alternet takes. There are appropriate uses of knowledge and scientific inquiry relative to human biology. People of course DO have a right to be educated about their reproductive capacities, and make informed decisions as to whether or not they will reproduce, and how many children they will have, and at what age. However, the biotechnological deconstruction of gender is not of a piece with reproductive education, curing diseases, etc.
Is there really a *substantial* difference between the "neo-con"/corporatist worldview that seeks to destroy and/or subjugate all competing economic and cultural systems on earth, and the advanced-technology-as-our-savior view of Ms. Newitz? Obviously there are differences, but are these views really opposed to one another? Both seek to radically and rapdily alter the human condition via technology. Ms. Newitz pays lip service to bottom-up control of such technologies (as do the neo-cons actually, via "democracy"). But is this at all realistic?
As someone who has actually spent time in "developing world" countries, those that are most viscerally effected by the "neo-con"/corporatist paradigm, I can safely say that most people (including women) in these societies would view Ms. Newitz's suggestions in much the same manner that that they view depleted-uranium-cluster-bombs: with abject horror.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Disturbing article
Posted by: Seabrook
» "bottom-up control of biotech" == oxymoron
Posted by: Annapurna1
» Annalee Newitz is a surly media nerd who thinks mpreg stories are the wave of the future.
Posted by: Sojourner
Comments are closed-
Why should we do it???
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jun 10, 2006 7:03 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jun 10, 2006 7:03 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... Because every other time we have meddled in extremely complex systems it has resulted in no problems whatsoever!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» No stranger to irony, it seems.
Posted by: Sojourner
Comments are closed-
A question...
Posted by: bornxeyed on Jun 11, 2006 8:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: bornxeyed on Jun 11, 2006 8:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm probably wrong but I'm pretty sure I've read that woman can stop their menstruation simply by not taken the week of placebo pills in each pack of 28 birth control pills. Is this true?
If it's true what else could it be but a male plot that it isn't widely known.
If it's true what else could it be but a male plot that it isn't widely known.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Appalled
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Jun 12, 2006 6:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Jun 12, 2006 6:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is such a horrible article, I'm almost left speechless.
Female-only conception?
Engineering lactating, breast-feeding men?
You question how responsible the medical and scientific community is and then make suggestions like these? Let me assure your readers that the goals of genetic engineering are to (1) cure serious genetic diseases, and (2) modify domestic animals and plants to be hardier and more nutritious. Not to create new species of humanity!
Female-only conception?
Engineering lactating, breast-feeding men?
You question how responsible the medical and scientific community is and then make suggestions like these? Let me assure your readers that the goals of genetic engineering are to (1) cure serious genetic diseases, and (2) modify domestic animals and plants to be hardier and more nutritious. Not to create new species of humanity!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "Not (YET) to create new species of humanity!"
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: Appalled
Posted by: dca
Alternet Comments:
» RE: XYY Males
Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: XYY Males
Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: Cure?
Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Cure?
Posted by: medstudgeek
» No, she's RIGHT
Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: this is a joke, right?
Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Biological annoyances
Posted by: ann83
» and some of us
Posted by: sln70
» RE: and some of us
Posted by: Aussie Kim
» your generalization about women
Posted by: sln70
» RE: your generalization about women
Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Male lactation
Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Hmmm...
Posted by: WitchyNy
» Thanks for saving this thread!
Posted by: sln70
» RE: a trans person's perspective
Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: Missed the point
Posted by: Aussie Kim
» So what would you think about a male pill?
Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: So what would you think about a male pill?
Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: So what would you think about a male pill?
Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: Missed the point
Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: most of u are missing the point
Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: most of u are missing the point
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: most of u are missing the point
Posted by: Annapurna1
» RE: Disturbing article
Posted by: Seabrook
» "bottom-up control of biotech" == oxymoron
Posted by: Annapurna1
» Annalee Newitz is a surly media nerd who thinks mpreg stories are the wave of the future.
Posted by: Sojourner
» No stranger to irony, it seems.
Posted by: Sojourner
» "Not (YET) to create new species of humanity!"
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: Appalled
Posted by: dca
Comments are closed-
Pregnant and lactating men...uh-huh.
Posted by: medstudgeek on Jun 6, 2006 1:17 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: medstudgeek on Jun 6, 2006 1:17 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think you're going to get a lot of men to sign up for this, unless you're going to force it on them, which doesn't sound quite right to me.
The artificial womb thing doesn't sound so bad, gay men could use it. You could also take the X chromosomes from each father, or one x and one y if you wanted a boy. The catch with men is that two Y chromosomes isn't viable.
The artificial womb thing doesn't sound so bad, gay men could use it. You could also take the X chromosomes from each father, or one x and one y if you wanted a boy. The catch with men is that two Y chromosomes isn't viable.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: XYY Males
Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: XYY Males
Posted by: medstudgeek
Comments are closed-
Cure?
Posted by: moonwatcher on Jun 6, 2006 1:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: moonwatcher on Jun 6, 2006 1:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since when is menstruation a disease?
If there are women who want to eliminate their periods altogether, that's up to them, but there are plenty of us who don't mind the so-called mess. I, for one, would much prefer to bleed once a month rather than take a pill every day that can cause blood clots and heart attacks down the line, especially since birth control is unnecessary for those of us who don't sleep with men.
And it seems unlikely to me that the original bleed-once-a-month pill just "stuck"--mightn't Tampax and their ilk have had something to do with it?
If there are women who want to eliminate their periods altogether, that's up to them, but there are plenty of us who don't mind the so-called mess. I, for one, would much prefer to bleed once a month rather than take a pill every day that can cause blood clots and heart attacks down the line, especially since birth control is unnecessary for those of us who don't sleep with men.
And it seems unlikely to me that the original bleed-once-a-month pill just "stuck"--mightn't Tampax and their ilk have had something to do with it?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Cure?
Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Cure?
Posted by: medstudgeek
Comments are closed-
Hmm....
Posted by: midge on Jun 6, 2006 2:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: midge on Jun 6, 2006 2:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a nice thought, but I'm often wary of our attempts to control or redesign complex natural mechanisms that we often don't fully comprehend or appreciate, with our often biased and unwise views of what is better-and that goes for all of us. Look at how we've tried to control what we percieve as behavioral problems in children and force them into behavior we've deemed as normal by pumping them with drugs like Rittalin and Prozac. And the way we've attempted to control the environment, which works in complex ways we don't fully understand (a good example of this is the way large areas of marshland in southern Louisiana that act as a natural buffer against flooding from hurricanes were drained, worsening the damage from Hurricane Katrina). From what I've read, pregnancy and the menstrual cycle are two of those complex natural mechanisms that we don't know enough about-and are probably too foolish-to start controlling in this manner. Not to say we don't know an awful lot, but from what I've read it seems like everyone treats it as a process confined to the reproductive organs when it effects the entire body in ways from the obvious to the very subtle. And, in our fast-paced, materialistic culture, we often only see things through the lens of how convenient they would be, or how much they'd add to our success, not all the ways-tangible and intangible-they'd add to the human experience. I wouldn't say this article looks at it through that lens-the greater equality and flexibility that the author believes this would give people could certainly add to the human experience. I wouldn't say it appreciates nature though. And if we use genetic engineering and similar technology to help realize our own vision of the world, whose to stop other groups of people with other philosophies from doing it? Were does it stop?
I, for one, would have not wanted and do not want a pill which will eliminate menstrual periods, because the processes involved are not limited to the reproductive organs but involve and effect the entire body. For instance, the surges of estrogen that occur just before a period are crucial in building bone density for women in their teens and twenties, who probably aren't getting enough calcium as it is. Estrogen can strongly effect mood, secondary sex characteristics and sexual drive, even kidney function (like the water retention that occurs during periods). Because it is so systemic and complex, controlling and redisigning the menstrual cycle has the potential to go dangerously awry and hurt more people than it helps. If it's the choice between osteoporosis than can lead to a fracture at the age of 60 that could cause my health to subsequently deteriorate, or breast cancer, or depression, and the once a month inconvenience of my period (which, heavy and painful though it sometimes is, is pretty minor by comparison), I'll gladly take the latter!
Pregnancy is an even more complex process, and involves and effects the entire body. We're probably a long way from actually doing it, and from what I know, I think to actually alter men's bodies enough to do it you'd practically have to turn them into, well, women. And while I know they're possible, I don't think artificial wombs could ever compare to the real thing-that environment is just too intricate and complex.
Sorry if all this sounds pessimistic and/or too traditional, and I humbly apologize if I got any info wrong, but it's just that I've read about and seen what happens when we attempt to control nature too much without either fully understanding or fully appreciate it, and it's not pretty. And, as a disabled person, I'm pretty wary about our attempts to redesign ourselves in our own narrow, limited views of perfection, which would probably weed out folks like me pretty quickly despite all the ways in which we've added to the human experience. So forgive me but it's not something I take lightly.
I, for one, would have not wanted and do not want a pill which will eliminate menstrual periods, because the processes involved are not limited to the reproductive organs but involve and effect the entire body. For instance, the surges of estrogen that occur just before a period are crucial in building bone density for women in their teens and twenties, who probably aren't getting enough calcium as it is. Estrogen can strongly effect mood, secondary sex characteristics and sexual drive, even kidney function (like the water retention that occurs during periods). Because it is so systemic and complex, controlling and redisigning the menstrual cycle has the potential to go dangerously awry and hurt more people than it helps. If it's the choice between osteoporosis than can lead to a fracture at the age of 60 that could cause my health to subsequently deteriorate, or breast cancer, or depression, and the once a month inconvenience of my period (which, heavy and painful though it sometimes is, is pretty minor by comparison), I'll gladly take the latter!
Pregnancy is an even more complex process, and involves and effects the entire body. We're probably a long way from actually doing it, and from what I know, I think to actually alter men's bodies enough to do it you'd practically have to turn them into, well, women. And while I know they're possible, I don't think artificial wombs could ever compare to the real thing-that environment is just too intricate and complex.
Sorry if all this sounds pessimistic and/or too traditional, and I humbly apologize if I got any info wrong, but it's just that I've read about and seen what happens when we attempt to control nature too much without either fully understanding or fully appreciate it, and it's not pretty. And, as a disabled person, I'm pretty wary about our attempts to redesign ourselves in our own narrow, limited views of perfection, which would probably weed out folks like me pretty quickly despite all the ways in which we've added to the human experience. So forgive me but it's not something I take lightly.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» No, she's RIGHT
Posted by: medstudgeek
Comments are closed-
can somene get that genie back in the bottle?
Posted by: weiwuwei on Jun 6, 2006 2:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: weiwuwei on Jun 6, 2006 2:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this reminds me of what someone, I think Einstein, once said about how our technological development has eclipsed our spiritual development, our ability to discern wisely. Or from Jurassic Park .."they were so busy figuring out how to do it they forgot to ask if they should do it"(or something like that). Seriously, this is so far out it's hilarious in a way. I know the technology jenie is out of the bottle and will eventually find it's way into every aspect of our lives, and this story shows that; i mean artifical wombs and lactating men? This shows that Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.
i don't have any suggestions as to how, and yes it sounds idealistic, but it seems that we need a worldwide pandemic of deep "spiritual awakening"(i don't mean any from of organized, purposeful "religion") so we can step back and consider where we're going, to ask if we're still in charge of the use of technology(or ever were) or if it's in charge of us. It'd be funny if it wasn't so scary. In other words, are we insane or not? It seems we are, as some traditions say, deep asleep in a dream. Enough babbling for now. Good article; thanks for posting it.
i don't have any suggestions as to how, and yes it sounds idealistic, but it seems that we need a worldwide pandemic of deep "spiritual awakening"(i don't mean any from of organized, purposeful "religion") so we can step back and consider where we're going, to ask if we're still in charge of the use of technology(or ever were) or if it's in charge of us. It'd be funny if it wasn't so scary. In other words, are we insane or not? It seems we are, as some traditions say, deep asleep in a dream. Enough babbling for now. Good article; thanks for posting it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
this is a joke, right?
Posted by: mwildfire on Jun 6, 2006 5:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: mwildfire on Jun 6, 2006 5:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm hoping she's just kidding here. It shouldn't take a great deal of thought to realize that messing around with this stuff is reckless. By the way, the Einstein quote is, "It has become appallingly clear that our technology has surpassed our humanity." I don't know whether there is a God, and if so, how many or what kind, but I'm pretty sure of this: it ain't us. The human race does not have the wisdom to make these decisions. Just Say No is the correct decision--at least until such time, in the distant future, when we have evolved far beyond our current state.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: this is a joke, right?
Posted by: Aussie Kim
Comments are closed-
Biological annoyances
Posted by: Pseudo Morals on Jun 6, 2006 9:34 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Pseudo Morals on Jun 6, 2006 9:34 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't mind having my period, and don't consider it an annoyance any more than any other bodily function. The writer is way off on this one.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Biological annoyances
Posted by: ann83
Comments are closed-
Science
Posted by: Aussie Kim on Jun 6, 2006 10:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Aussie Kim on Jun 6, 2006 10:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many women no little or nothing about science. ("Math is hard!" "Don't ask me - I'm just a girl!")
Until education is improved, which seems unlikely where many of you come from since religion is apparently taking over, and girls and women are taught to embrace and learn about science, the derth of feminists taking part in debates about genetic engineering is likely to continue.
Until education is improved, which seems unlikely where many of you come from since religion is apparently taking over, and girls and women are taught to embrace and learn about science, the derth of feminists taking part in debates about genetic engineering is likely to continue.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» and some of us
Posted by: sln70
» RE: and some of us
Posted by: Aussie Kim
» your generalization about women
Posted by: sln70
» RE: your generalization about women
Posted by: Aussie Kim
Comments are closed-
Male lactation
Posted by: Samantha Vimes on Jun 7, 2006 3:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Samantha Vimes on Jun 7, 2006 3:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It surprises me how squeamish most people are about that. Men have all the necessary equipment, it just needs to be activated-- and there are a number of cases on record where nature activated it. Men stuck with the care of a motherless baby have sometimes sponateously lactated while allowing the infant to suckle for comfort.
As human milk is the best food for a baby, it seems to me that in cases where the father is willing (and by father I mean any male taking on the role, rather than necessarily genetically bonded), science should be prepared to make it easier.
As human milk is the best food for a baby, it seems to me that in cases where the father is willing (and by father I mean any male taking on the role, rather than necessarily genetically bonded), science should be prepared to make it easier.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Male lactation
Posted by: Aussie Kim
Comments are closed-
artificial wombs?
Posted by: sweetmorganlefey on Jun 7, 2006 4:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: sweetmorganlefey on Jun 7, 2006 4:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to carefully consider this kind of thinking. In my opinion, artificial wombs smack too much of creche raised society. When was the last time you read Brave New World?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Hmmm...
Posted by: mothersmovement on Jun 7, 2006 5:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: mothersmovement on Jun 7, 2006 5:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Doing away with embodied pregnancy so women can hold their own workplaces that cater to the ideal of male autonomy doesn't sound much like progress to me. It might be better to change the underlying culture of the workplace so that high-achieving workers getting pregnant and having babies is considered normal rather than problematic. The suggestion that women would want to have biological children but avoid pregnancy is also a privileged perspective. I'm not sure all women of all races and classes would be prepared to dismiss pregnancy and childbirth as another inconvenient body thing or a career setback.
I may be old fashioned, but I like to think there is a way to assure women's equality without resorting to biotechnology. Men don't need to have the capacity to gestate an embryo or lactate to have an equal role in caring for children. But they do need to live in a society where men aren't penalized for realigning their use of time and labor, as women are today when they bear and care for children. I agree that genetic engineering is a feminist issue, but I'm not confident that technology alone can resolve the fundamental problems of gender and social reproduction.
I may be old fashioned, but I like to think there is a way to assure women's equality without resorting to biotechnology. Men don't need to have the capacity to gestate an embryo or lactate to have an equal role in caring for children. But they do need to live in a society where men aren't penalized for realigning their use of time and labor, as women are today when they bear and care for children. I agree that genetic engineering is a feminist issue, but I'm not confident that technology alone can resolve the fundamental problems of gender and social reproduction.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Hmmm...
Posted by: WitchyNy
» Thanks for saving this thread!
Posted by: sln70
Comments are closed-
Biography line
Posted by: BlueTigress on Jun 7, 2006 8:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: BlueTigress on Jun 7, 2006 8:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you read her biography tagline, Annalee is one of the women who fantasizes about about getting men pregnant.
I think if you presented her with the real thing she would be fascinated and revolted at the same time.
I think if you presented her with the real thing she would be fascinated and revolted at the same time.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
corporate control of reproduction?? *fuck you bitch*
Posted by: Annapurna1 on Jun 7, 2006 11:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Annapurna1 on Jun 7, 2006 11:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
theres NFW im going to let big govt and big business tell me not to get pregnant so that i can be a better corporate suit, while they can grow your genetically transformed species in their glass jars. and neither will any feminist worth her sodium chloride.
feminism is about opposing abusive, patriarchal systems, and corporations are necessarily the most abusive patriarchies of all; nor does it matter if the board-of-directors is all female. children raised in negative family environments often become criminals. have you given any thought at all as to how these kinless "children", procreated and educated by corporations for corporations, will act as citizens?? im sorry, but the fire is not the way out of the frying pan.
for you to be talking about feminism is like dick cheney lecturing the russians about democracy. take this bullshit and send it packing to the white arayan nation.
feminism is about opposing abusive, patriarchal systems, and corporations are necessarily the most abusive patriarchies of all; nor does it matter if the board-of-directors is all female. children raised in negative family environments often become criminals. have you given any thought at all as to how these kinless "children", procreated and educated by corporations for corporations, will act as citizens?? im sorry, but the fire is not the way out of the frying pan.
for you to be talking about feminism is like dick cheney lecturing the russians about democracy. take this bullshit and send it packing to the white arayan nation.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Enthusiasm is no substitute for knowledge
Posted by: zil on Jun 7, 2006 11:18 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: zil on Jun 7, 2006 11:18 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is enthusiastic but lacks substance. Margaret Sanger cannot be ignored when discussing birth control; the paragraph on that bit really oversimplifies how the Pill came to be. Yes, it could have been done better but let's not blame just the Catholic guy involved - it's too easy, and it diminishes the argument. I've taken birth control that limited my periods to 3 times a year; it also caused weight gain and the most horrific mood swings ever - i don't trust something that stops a natural process in my body. Having a period each month is not something that's going to stop you from reaching your potential - and I had godawful periods in my teens and early twenties. Research dollars would be better spent on the HPV vaccine and breast cancer research than stopping that pesky period. Finally, that bit about artificial wombs and taking men out of the process of reproduction - you must be joking. Put down your copy of Herland and get with it. Why would you want to separate yourself from the creation of your child? That really is wack - in the interest of full disclosure, I don't have kids, but if/when I choose to, all that yucky morning sickness and so on comes with the territory. I wish feminists would stop trying to be just like men - Ilove men, but I sure as hell don't want to be one. And if I chose to have a child over a career; well, I've made a choice. Life is full of trade-offs; if career is my main goal, then I fit in the kid or vice versa. It's time for feminism to celebrate the differences in women and men, and the things that make us uniquely female or male.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
This stuff is already happening
Posted by: Kelly on Jun 7, 2006 11:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Kelly on Jun 7, 2006 11:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IVF technology already allows embryos to be screened for genetic diseases before implantation. Sex can be artificially selected as well, and it's just a matter of time before desirable characteristics can be selected for as well. Amniocentis and ultrasound allow for malformed fetuses to be aborted (and Midge, as cruel as it seems, severely handficapped children are far more expensive to raise, a burden not every family is prepared to take on. Especially in cases which are obviously unlike yours--i.e., the child is mentally handicapped and will never be independent or the child simply will not survive to adulthood). As for an artificial womb, you can hire a real one if you don't want to gestate your own fetus. Young women in desparate straights already sell eggs and surrogacy time--not to mention wet-nursing and acting as domestic labor and nannies. I seriously do hope that technology soon arrives allowing lesbian couples to conceive without donor sperm, but face it, reproduction has already been commodified and exploits the poor while feathering the nests of those who can afford it. For that matter, reproduction has been commodified and exploited by men throughout history. Annalee is right, though, it would be nice to see a few nursing or pregnant men around --it might make them a little more sympathetic to what women go through, both in terminating or gestating a pregnancy. Wasn't Arnold Schwartenegger pregnant in one of his films?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
a trans person's perspective
Posted by: Seabrook on Jun 7, 2006 1:59 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Seabrook on Jun 7, 2006 1:59 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
great article!
i think that it would have been even stronger had you focused some on the possibility for collaboration between feminists and trans activists concerning biotech.
for instance, lots of trans women (myself included) would very much appreciate being able to give birth. so its not just a question of enabling men to give birth, its also a question of enabling female-identified folks to give birth if and when they choose to.
also, i know a number of trans men who would particularly appreciate getting rid of their period.
and finally, its not just women with small chests who could get genetically engineered out of existence, its also intersex folks (who already face genital mutilation at birth).
when feminist organizations and activists get down to transforming the biotech industry, i'll be there for the fight!
i think that it would have been even stronger had you focused some on the possibility for collaboration between feminists and trans activists concerning biotech.
for instance, lots of trans women (myself included) would very much appreciate being able to give birth. so its not just a question of enabling men to give birth, its also a question of enabling female-identified folks to give birth if and when they choose to.
also, i know a number of trans men who would particularly appreciate getting rid of their period.
and finally, its not just women with small chests who could get genetically engineered out of existence, its also intersex folks (who already face genital mutilation at birth).
when feminist organizations and activists get down to transforming the biotech industry, i'll be there for the fight!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: a trans person's perspective
Posted by: medstudgeek
Comments are closed-
It's now or never, ladies.
Posted by: Chuck Norris on Jun 7, 2006 7:41 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Chuck Norris on Jun 7, 2006 7:41 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These scientists are screwing with the best creator of all, Mother Nature...If they keep it up, something will inevitably go wrong, and a disaster will happen. These people are crossing the thin red line, and if they have a brain in their skull, they will stop before they DO screw something up. I believe that the usefulness of modern medicine is grossly overexaggerated. Let Nature take her course.
Dancing with the Black Mamba of genetics is a BAD idea.
Dancing with the Black Mamba of genetics is a BAD idea.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Don't Worry The Techies Will Fix It
Posted by: davelwhite on Jun 7, 2006 10:57 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: davelwhite on Jun 7, 2006 10:57 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have no background in biology but as an IT director for liberal nonprofits I have discovered a phenomenon which I call "Don't Worry the Techies Will Fix It." My favorite from my last job was the problem where the managers were all starting to distrust each other and hoard their files from other people they didn't like, and somehow I, as the IT Person, was supposed to create a database that would "improve interdepartmental communication." Of course I told them that I could make a database but I couldn't make them put any of their files into it, whereas if they would just share the files, they wouldn't need a database at all. Would it suprise you to know that one thing I have learned from 15 years in IT is "sometimes paper is the best technology"?
So how does this relate to feminism? Well, if the author wishes to explore new ways of parenting, no lab work is necessary. Three parents mixing genetic material is probably a biological gamble since even the better-developed cloning technology leads to massive amounts of miscarriages and birth defects (although you'd need to ask a biologist to be sure). But three parents can easily raise a child right now. All they have to do is decide to do it together, and either adopt, or have two people of the opposite sex make a baby the old fashioned way. (They don't even have to be straight-- doing the deed might be uncomfortable, but so is getting stuck in Guatemala unexpectedly for a month during an adoption, which happened to a lesbian couple I know. People go through a lot to have kids.)
The hope expressed in this article is that somehow, magically, the possibility of two women or three people BIOLOGICALLY parenting the same child will overcome the current cultural resistance to people creating these innovative family forms-- just like my database was going to magically convince the managers to share their files. But that's not how it works. If the culture doesn't change, co-parenting circles of friends will still be as rare as $2 bills, and lesbians will still be parenting in the closet. But if it does change-- and I'll be the first to admit that the acceptance of new egalitarian forms of family is slow in coming-- there will be no need to monkey with millions of years of physical evolution and risk kids with birth defects.
The same human bodies that we live in today have been used throughout history to coparent in tribes, create all different kinds of extended families, implement formalized rituals of committed friendship, and create both egalitarian and patriarchal gender roles. Our bodies are already ready-- are our minds?
Dave
So how does this relate to feminism? Well, if the author wishes to explore new ways of parenting, no lab work is necessary. Three parents mixing genetic material is probably a biological gamble since even the better-developed cloning technology leads to massive amounts of miscarriages and birth defects (although you'd need to ask a biologist to be sure). But three parents can easily raise a child right now. All they have to do is decide to do it together, and either adopt, or have two people of the opposite sex make a baby the old fashioned way. (They don't even have to be straight-- doing the deed might be uncomfortable, but so is getting stuck in Guatemala unexpectedly for a month during an adoption, which happened to a lesbian couple I know. People go through a lot to have kids.)
The hope expressed in this article is that somehow, magically, the possibility of two women or three people BIOLOGICALLY parenting the same child will overcome the current cultural resistance to people creating these innovative family forms-- just like my database was going to magically convince the managers to share their files. But that's not how it works. If the culture doesn't change, co-parenting circles of friends will still be as rare as $2 bills, and lesbians will still be parenting in the closet. But if it does change-- and I'll be the first to admit that the acceptance of new egalitarian forms of family is slow in coming-- there will be no need to monkey with millions of years of physical evolution and risk kids with birth defects.
The same human bodies that we live in today have been used throughout history to coparent in tribes, create all different kinds of extended families, implement formalized rituals of committed friendship, and create both egalitarian and patriarchal gender roles. Our bodies are already ready-- are our minds?
Dave
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Missed the point
Posted by: mdoty on Jun 8, 2006 1:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: mdoty on Jun 8, 2006 1:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think everyone missed the point: Don't you think it is about time women took control of their reproductive life from the control of men...white men at that?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Missed the point
Posted by: Aussie Kim
» So what would you think about a male pill?
Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: So what would you think about a male pill?
Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: So what would you think about a male pill?
Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: Missed the point
Posted by: Logic's Edge
Comments are closed-
most of u are missing the point
Posted by: nwellington on Jun 8, 2006 3:57 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: nwellington on Jun 8, 2006 3:57 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we can all bang on for days about the dangers of messing with complex body functions, the morality of it all etc. The reality is that this will go on without our input regardless - hell loads of us protested against war and look where that got us. Whether or not I want to bleed each month or even have children is irrelevant. Just saying no isn't an option - we need to face the reality that men will decide these things for us unless we stand up and be counted. Dakota abortion ruling should be warning enough that faced with a declining and ageing population authorities will stoop who knows how low to ensure breeding continues and increases - I for one want to influence how this happens -not to be merely informed when its all too late. And don't think the "bigger boobs" thing won't happen either - you can get a boob job paid 4 by the public health system in brazil because of the 'stress caused' by being born with small boobs.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: most of u are missing the point
Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: most of u are missing the point
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: most of u are missing the point
Posted by: Annapurna1
Comments are closed-
RE: GM Watch
Posted by: dca on Jun 8, 2006 3:35 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: dca on Jun 8, 2006 3:35 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hi! Thought some of you might be interested in reading more about the many problems and potential problems with genetic engineering, genetic modification, on the GM Watch web site.
Lots of very interesting articles and posts in the ARCHIVE section of their site where you can browse through many articles/posts they have collected on different aspects of this by month. Can also find a lot of good background information on the companies, groups, individuals involved in and promoting GE stuff.
I have learned a lot over the past few years from this group. Very interesting! I think they mostly focus on genetic engineering and food crops, but also look at problems with genetic engineering and 'pharma crops,' gene therapy, genetically engineered drugs, conflicts of interest in research, and problems with mainstream 'scientific' publications and research, etc. Take a look at the different articles in the archive section posted there over the past year and can get a better idea of what the kinds of real living nightmare stuff that is going on in biotech.
Lots of very interesting articles and posts in the ARCHIVE section of their site where you can browse through many articles/posts they have collected on different aspects of this by month. Can also find a lot of good background information on the companies, groups, individuals involved in and promoting GE stuff.
I have learned a lot over the past few years from this group. Very interesting! I think they mostly focus on genetic engineering and food crops, but also look at problems with genetic engineering and 'pharma crops,' gene therapy, genetically engineered drugs, conflicts of interest in research, and problems with mainstream 'scientific' publications and research, etc. Take a look at the different articles in the archive section posted there over the past year and can get a better idea of what the kinds of real living nightmare stuff that is going on in biotech.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Disturbing article
Posted by: jdylarid on Jun 10, 2006 1:30 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: jdylarid on Jun 10, 2006 1:30 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ms. Newitz's argument that emerging technologies should be more under "the people's" control is commendable, in a general sense.
However, arguing in favor of bioengineering men to lactate and creating artificial uteruses is a perverse and convoluted detour from the underlying opinion stated above. It's made even worse by the argument she posits in favor of it--the ability of women to avoid having to take time off from their jobs, assumed to be in the corporate environment. All of the women I know who have been pregnant and also worked were thrilled to avoid work for several months. Very few of them wanted to go back. (My wife included.)
As a sometime-stay-at-home-dad, I am intimately aware of the contributions that men can make, just as they are, to the raising of their children. No genetic engineering required. All that's required is the will to do so, something that genetic engineering cannot achieve. (And hopefully never will.)
It's disturbing (but not at all surprising) that a "progressive" website like Alternet would host articles that essentially encourage a total war between humanity and nature, an accurate moniker for the biotechnological deconstruction of gender. This is at least somewhat ironic, given the positions on environmental issues that Alternet takes. There are appropriate uses of knowledge and scientific inquiry relative to human biology. People of course DO have a right to be educated about their reproductive capacities, and make informed decisions as to whether or not they will reproduce, and how many children they will have, and at what age. However, the biotechnological deconstruction of gender is not of a piece with reproductive education, curing diseases, etc.
Is there really a *substantial* difference between the "neo-con"/corporatist worldview that seeks to destroy and/or subjugate all competing economic and cultural systems on earth, and the advanced-technology-as-our-savior view of Ms. Newitz? Obviously there are differences, but are these views really opposed to one another? Both seek to radically and rapdily alter the human condition via technology. Ms. Newitz pays lip service to bottom-up control of such technologies (as do the neo-cons actually, via "democracy"). But is this at all realistic?
As someone who has actually spent time in "developing world" countries, those that are most viscerally effected by the "neo-con"/corporatist paradigm, I can safely say that most people (including women) in these societies would view Ms. Newitz's suggestions in much the same manner that that they view depleted-uranium-cluster-bombs: with abject horror.
However, arguing in favor of bioengineering men to lactate and creating artificial uteruses is a perverse and convoluted detour from the underlying opinion stated above. It's made even worse by the argument she posits in favor of it--the ability of women to avoid having to take time off from their jobs, assumed to be in the corporate environment. All of the women I know who have been pregnant and also worked were thrilled to avoid work for several months. Very few of them wanted to go back. (My wife included.)
As a sometime-stay-at-home-dad, I am intimately aware of the contributions that men can make, just as they are, to the raising of their children. No genetic engineering required. All that's required is the will to do so, something that genetic engineering cannot achieve. (And hopefully never will.)
It's disturbing (but not at all surprising) that a "progressive" website like Alternet would host articles that essentially encourage a total war between humanity and nature, an accurate moniker for the biotechnological deconstruction of gender. This is at least somewhat ironic, given the positions on environmental issues that Alternet takes. There are appropriate uses of knowledge and scientific inquiry relative to human biology. People of course DO have a right to be educated about their reproductive capacities, and make informed decisions as to whether or not they will reproduce, and how many children they will have, and at what age. However, the biotechnological deconstruction of gender is not of a piece with reproductive education, curing diseases, etc.
Is there really a *substantial* difference between the "neo-con"/corporatist worldview that seeks to destroy and/or subjugate all competing economic and cultural systems on earth, and the advanced-technology-as-our-savior view of Ms. Newitz? Obviously there are differences, but are these views really opposed to one another? Both seek to radically and rapdily alter the human condition via technology. Ms. Newitz pays lip service to bottom-up control of such technologies (as do the neo-cons actually, via "democracy"). But is this at all realistic?
As someone who has actually spent time in "developing world" countries, those that are most viscerally effected by the "neo-con"/corporatist paradigm, I can safely say that most people (including women) in these societies would view Ms. Newitz's suggestions in much the same manner that that they view depleted-uranium-cluster-bombs: with abject horror.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Disturbing article
Posted by: Seabrook
» "bottom-up control of biotech" == oxymoron
Posted by: Annapurna1
» Annalee Newitz is a surly media nerd who thinks mpreg stories are the wave of the future.
Posted by: Sojourner
Comments are closed-
Why should we do it???
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jun 10, 2006 7:03 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jun 10, 2006 7:03 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... Because every other time we have meddled in extremely complex systems it has resulted in no problems whatsoever!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» No stranger to irony, it seems.
Posted by: Sojourner
Comments are closed-
A question...
Posted by: bornxeyed on Jun 11, 2006 8:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: bornxeyed on Jun 11, 2006 8:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm probably wrong but I'm pretty sure I've read that woman can stop their menstruation simply by not taken the week of placebo pills in each pack of 28 birth control pills. Is this true?
If it's true what else could it be but a male plot that it isn't widely known.
If it's true what else could it be but a male plot that it isn't widely known.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Appalled
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Jun 12, 2006 6:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Jun 12, 2006 6:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is such a horrible article, I'm almost left speechless.
Female-only conception?
Engineering lactating, breast-feeding men?
You question how responsible the medical and scientific community is and then make suggestions like these? Let me assure your readers that the goals of genetic engineering are to (1) cure serious genetic diseases, and (2) modify domestic animals and plants to be hardier and more nutritious. Not to create new species of humanity!
Female-only conception?
Engineering lactating, breast-feeding men?
You question how responsible the medical and scientific community is and then make suggestions like these? Let me assure your readers that the goals of genetic engineering are to (1) cure serious genetic diseases, and (2) modify domestic animals and plants to be hardier and more nutritious. Not to create new species of humanity!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "Not (YET) to create new species of humanity!"
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: Appalled
Posted by: dca
PROGRESSIVE WIRE
Stop the Execution of an Innocent Man!
DNA testing could free Hank Skinner before Feb. 24 execution date.
Vancouver's Games Will Be the Gayest Olympics Ever
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
Starbucks' Cop-Out to Gun Nuts: Customers Served Coffee While Strapped
