Reproductive Justice

Thinking about Foucault and his discussion around the distinction between the ‘mechanisms of repression and exclusion’ that come from a particular historical time and emerge out of some political or economic utility . . which over time, can come to be colonised and maintained by global mechanisms, such that we think of them as deeply entrenched normalised values or truths, when in fact, they are particular to the specific historical context from which they sprang (or can be). “The code they come to define is not of law, but of normalisation. “ my obvious jump is to reproductive rights and the historical context from which they sprang - which saw women’s primary societal value as being tied to their ability to bear and raise children - viewed at the time (and still now in many contexts) as ‘unproductive labour’ Foucault’s perspective suggests several perspectives on that issue:

Pro life discussions are often framed in terms of morality, religion and choice . . . but at a deeper level, does this surface the real economic “truth” about how we value women?
Does society (in this context, men) see reproduction as an extension of women’s unproductive labour - as an obligation not a right? whether unconsciously or consciously?
Is (some) men’s opposition to abortion, an attempt (albeit unconsciously internalised), to reinforce the idea that women’s bodies are primarily vessels for reproduction, that women’s value is primarily their ability to produce children, aligning further with broader patriarchal economic systems where women’s labour is devalued?
- Are we dealing with a historical internalized male belief, that the ‘means’ of production (ie. the reproduction of future labour) should be subject to control? Given that men are the primary economic actors, maintaining social order therefore requires women to be subjugated in this context.
- This preoccupation with women’s reproductive freedoms has been continually reinforced through informal mechanisms of social control like family expectations and institutional biases.
The medicalisation of reproduction could be seen as a mechanism of repression, under the guise of health and safety . .
Which makes me think differently about Riane Eisler’s Ted (above) in feeling disappointed at her presenting women’s rights in economic terms - is the fundamental “truth” of women's reproductive rights actually an economic one, that has ascended to the global level of “truth” and whilst we continue to grapple with women’s rights at a legal (sovereignty) level . . . the fact remains, that the historical source of this truth, and the mechanisms of its repression through discipline . . is ever present.

Another question which surfaced for me in reading about Nordic women and “rights”

Women in Iceland experience more equitable economic, social and political status than those elsewhere, but there is this idea of The Nordic Paradox which argues that even the “progress” on “rights” has not translated into lower rates of domestic violence for women in the nordic region. source. We would assume if Scandinavian countries afford greater rights to women across the board (and did so earlier than many other countries), that rates of domestic violence would be lower. Surprisingly, they are not. Despite the fact that Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland all rank in the top five of the World Economic Forum's gender-equality rankings, with scores of 81-91 per cent - a 2019 European Agency for Fundamental Rights survey showed the prevalence of physical / sexual-partner violence against women in the EU was substantially higher in the Nordic countries than the continent's average. 31 per cent of Finnish women have experienced physical violence from their partner or ex-partner at least once in their lifetime, this is just below Australian DV levels - source.

So what does this tell us? that progress on “rights” which I think Foucault would say rests in the dominion of “sovereignty”, does not necessarily delimit discipline (or mechanisms of repression) . . are they interconnected but also separate forces which function to articulate and assert power hence the paradox . . . how might it be useful to think about Foucault's work now in the context of women worldwide and reproductive justice?

Thinking about Foucault and his discussion around the distinction between the ‘mechanisms of repression and exclusion’ that come from a particular historical time and emerge out of some political or economic utility . . which over time, can come to be colonised and maintained by global mechanisms, such that we think of them as deeply entrenched normalised values or truths, when in fact, they are particular to the specific historical context from which they sprang (or can be). “The code they come to define is not of law, but of normalisation. “ my obvious jump is to reproductive rights and the historical context from which they sprang - which saw women’s primary societal value as being tied to their ability to bear and raise children - viewed at the time (and still now in many contexts) as ‘unproductive labour’ Foucault’s perspective suggests several perspectives on that issue:

Pro life discussions are often framed in terms of morality, religion and choice . . . but at a deeper level, does this surface the real economic “truth” about how we value women?
Does society (in this context, men) see reproduction as an extension of women’s unproductive labour - as an obligation not a right? whether unconsciously or consciously?
Is (some) men’s opposition to abortion, an attempt (albeit unconsciously internalised), to reinforce the idea that women’s bodies are primarily vessels for reproduction, that women’s value is primarily their ability to produce children, aligning further with broader patriarchal economic systems where women’s labour is devalued?
- Are we dealing with a historical internalized male belief, that the ‘means’ of production (ie. the reproduction of future labour) should be subject to control? Given that men are the primary economic actors, maintaining social order therefore requires women to be subjugated in this context.
- This preoccupation with women’s reproductive freedoms has been continually reinforced through informal mechanisms of social control like family expectations and institutional biases.
The medicalisation of reproduction could be seen as a mechanism of repression, under the guise of health and safety . .
Which makes me think differently about Riane Eisler’s Ted (above) in feeling disappointed at her presenting women’s rights in economic terms - is the fundamental “truth” of women's reproductive rights actually an economic one, that has ascended to the global level of “truth” and whilst we continue to grapple with women’s rights at a legal (sovereignty) level . . . the fact remains, that the historical source of this truth, and the mechanisms of its repression through discipline . . is ever present.

Another question which surfaced for me in reading about Nordic women and “rights”

Women in Iceland experience more equitable economic, social and political status than those elsewhere, but there is this idea of The Nordic Paradox which argues that even the “progress” on “rights” has not translated into lower rates of domestic violence for women in the nordic region. source. We would assume if Scandinavian countries afford greater rights to women across the board (and did so earlier than many other countries), that rates of domestic violence would be lower. Surprisingly, they are not. Despite the fact that Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland all rank in the top five of the World Economic Forum's gender-equality rankings, with scores of 81-91 per cent - a 2019 European Agency for Fundamental Rights survey showed the prevalence of physical / sexual-partner violence against women in the EU was substantially higher in the Nordic countries than the continent's average. 31 per cent of Finnish women have experienced physical violence from their partner or ex-partner at least once in their lifetime, this is just below Australian DV levels - source.

So what does this tell us? that progress on “rights” which I think Foucault would say rests in the dominion of “sovereignty”, does not necessarily delimit discipline (or mechanisms of repression) . . are they interconnected but also separate forces which function to articulate and assert power hence the paradox . . . how might it be useful to think about Foucault's work now in the context of women worldwide and reproductive justice?

Thinking about Foucault and his discussion around the distinction between the ‘mechanisms of repression and exclusion’ that come from a particular historical time and emerge out of some political or economic utility . . which over time, can come to be colonised and maintained by global mechanisms, such that we think of them as deeply entrenched normalised values or truths, when in fact, they are particular to the specific historical context from which they sprang (or can be). “The code they come to define is not of law, but of normalisation. “ my obvious jump is to reproductive rights and the historical context from which they sprang - which saw women’s primary societal value as being tied to their ability to bear and raise children - viewed at the time (and still now in many contexts) as ‘unproductive labour’ Foucault’s perspective suggests several perspectives on that issue:

Pro life discussions are often framed in terms of morality, religion and choice . . . but at a deeper level, does this surface the real economic “truth” about how we value women?
Does society (in this context, men) see reproduction as an extension of women’s unproductive labour - as an obligation not a right? whether unconsciously or consciously?
Is (some) men’s opposition to abortion, an attempt (albeit unconsciously internalised), to reinforce the idea that women’s bodies are primarily vessels for reproduction, that women’s value is primarily their ability to produce children, aligning further with broader patriarchal economic systems where women’s labour is devalued?
- Are we dealing with a historical internalized male belief, that the ‘means’ of production (ie. the reproduction of future labour) should be subject to control? Given that men are the primary economic actors, maintaining social order therefore requires women to be subjugated in this context.
- This preoccupation with women’s reproductive freedoms has been continually reinforced through informal mechanisms of social control like family expectations and institutional biases.
The medicalisation of reproduction could be seen as a mechanism of repression, under the guise of health and safety . .
Which makes me think differently about Riane Eisler’s Ted (above) in feeling disappointed at her presenting women’s rights in economic terms - is the fundamental “truth” of women's reproductive rights actually an economic one, that has ascended to the global level of “truth” and whilst we continue to grapple with women’s rights at a legal (sovereignty) level . . . the fact remains, that the historical source of this truth, and the mechanisms of its repression through discipline . . is ever present.

Another question which surfaced for me in reading about Nordic women and “rights”

Women in Iceland experience more equitable economic, social and political status than those elsewhere, but there is this idea of The Nordic Paradox which argues that even the “progress” on “rights” has not translated into lower rates of domestic violence for women in the nordic region. source. We would assume if Scandinavian countries afford greater rights to women across the board (and did so earlier than many other countries), that rates of domestic violence would be lower. Surprisingly, they are not. Despite the fact that Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland all rank in the top five of the World Economic Forum's gender-equality rankings, with scores of 81-91 per cent - a 2019 European Agency for Fundamental Rights survey showed the prevalence of physical / sexual-partner violence against women in the EU was substantially higher in the Nordic countries than the continent's average. 31 per cent of Finnish women have experienced physical violence from their partner or ex-partner at least once in their lifetime, this is just below Australian DV levels - source.

So what does this tell us? that progress on “rights” which I think Foucault would say rests in the dominion of “sovereignty”, does not necessarily delimit discipline (or mechanisms of repression) . . are they interconnected but also separate forces which function to articulate and assert power hence the paradox . . . how might it be useful to think about Foucault's work now in the context of women worldwide and reproductive justice?

Thinking about Foucault and his discussion around the distinction between the ‘mechanisms of repression and exclusion’ that come from a particular historical time and emerge out of some political or economic utility . . which over time, can come to be colonised and maintained by global mechanisms, such that we think of them as deeply entrenched normalised values or truths, when in fact, they are particular to the specific historical context from which they sprang (or can be). “The code they come to define is not of law, but of normalisation. “ my obvious jump is to reproductive rights and the historical context from which they sprang - which saw women’s primary societal value as being tied to their ability to bear and raise children - viewed at the time (and still now in many contexts) as ‘unproductive labour’ Foucault’s perspective suggests several perspectives on that issue:

Pro life discussions are often framed in terms of morality, religion and choice . . . but at a deeper level, does this surface the real economic “truth” about how we value women?
Does society (in this context, men) see reproduction as an extension of women’s unproductive labour - as an obligation not a right? whether unconsciously or consciously?
Is (some) men’s opposition to abortion, an attempt (albeit unconsciously internalised), to reinforce the idea that women’s bodies are primarily vessels for reproduction, that women’s value is primarily their ability to produce children, aligning further with broader patriarchal economic systems where women’s labour is devalued?
- Are we dealing with a historical internalized male belief, that the ‘means’ of production (ie. the reproduction of future labour) should be subject to control? Given that men are the primary economic actors, maintaining social order therefore requires women to be subjugated in this context.
- This preoccupation with women’s reproductive freedoms has been continually reinforced through informal mechanisms of social control like family expectations and institutional biases.
The medicalisation of reproduction could be seen as a mechanism of repression, under the guise of health and safety . .
Which makes me think differently about Riane Eisler’s Ted (above) in feeling disappointed at her presenting women’s rights in economic terms - is the fundamental “truth” of women's reproductive rights actually an economic one, that has ascended to the global level of “truth” and whilst we continue to grapple with women’s rights at a legal (sovereignty) level . . . the fact remains, that the historical source of this truth, and the mechanisms of its repression through discipline . . is ever present.

Another question which surfaced for me in reading about Nordic women and “rights”

Women in Iceland experience more equitable economic, social and political status than those elsewhere, but there is this idea of The Nordic Paradox which argues that even the “progress” on “rights” has not translated into lower rates of domestic violence for women in the nordic region. source. We would assume if Scandinavian countries afford greater rights to women across the board (and did so earlier than many other countries), that rates of domestic violence would be lower. Surprisingly, they are not. Despite the fact that Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland all rank in the top five of the World Economic Forum's gender-equality rankings, with scores of 81-91 per cent - a 2019 European Agency for Fundamental Rights survey showed the prevalence of physical / sexual-partner violence against women in the EU was substantially higher in the Nordic countries than the continent's average. 31 per cent of Finnish women have experienced physical violence from their partner or ex-partner at least once in their lifetime, this is just below Australian DV levels - source.

So what does this tell us? that progress on “rights” which I think Foucault would say rests in the dominion of “sovereignty”, does not necessarily delimit discipline (or mechanisms of repression) . . are they interconnected but also separate forces which function to articulate and assert power hence the paradox . . . how might it be useful to think about Foucault's work now in the context of women worldwide and reproductive justice?

Thinking about Foucault and his discussion around the distinction between the ‘mechanisms of repression and exclusion’ that come from a particular historical time and emerge out of some political or economic utility . . which over time, can come to be colonised and maintained by global mechanisms, such that we think of them as deeply entrenched normalised values or truths, when in fact, they are particular to the specific historical context from which they sprang (or can be). “The code they come to define is not of law, but of normalisation. “ my obvious jump is to reproductive rights and the historical context from which they sprang - which saw women’s primary societal value as being tied to their ability to bear and raise children - viewed at the time (and still now in many contexts) as ‘unproductive labour’ Foucault’s perspective suggests several perspectives on that issue:

Pro life discussions are often framed in terms of morality, religion and choice . . . but at a deeper level, does this surface the real economic “truth” about how we value women?
Does society (in this context, men) see reproduction as an extension of women’s unproductive labour - as an obligation not a right? whether unconsciously or consciously?
Is (some) men’s opposition to abortion, an attempt (albeit unconsciously internalised), to reinforce the idea that women’s bodies are primarily vessels for reproduction, that women’s value is primarily their ability to produce children, aligning further with broader patriarchal economic systems where women’s labour is devalued?
- Are we dealing with a historical internalized male belief, that the ‘means’ of production (ie. the reproduction of future labour) should be subject to control? Given that men are the primary economic actors, maintaining social order therefore requires women to be subjugated in this context.
- This preoccupation with women’s reproductive freedoms has been continually reinforced through informal mechanisms of social control like family expectations and institutional biases.
The medicalisation of reproduction could be seen as a mechanism of repression, under the guise of health and safety . .
Which makes me think differently about Riane Eisler’s Ted (above) in feeling disappointed at her presenting women’s rights in economic terms - is the fundamental “truth” of women's reproductive rights actually an economic one, that has ascended to the global level of “truth” and whilst we continue to grapple with women’s rights at a legal (sovereignty) level . . . the fact remains, that the historical source of this truth, and the mechanisms of its repression through discipline . . is ever present.

Another question which surfaced for me in reading about Nordic women and “rights”

Women in Iceland experience more equitable economic, social and political status than those elsewhere, but there is this idea of The Nordic Paradox which argues that even the “progress” on “rights” has not translated into lower rates of domestic violence for women in the nordic region. source. We would assume if Scandinavian countries afford greater rights to women across the board (and did so earlier than many other countries), that rates of domestic violence would be lower. Surprisingly, they are not. Despite the fact that Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland all rank in the top five of the World Economic Forum's gender-equality rankings, with scores of 81-91 per cent - a 2019 European Agency for Fundamental Rights survey showed the prevalence of physical / sexual-partner violence against women in the EU was substantially higher in the Nordic countries than the continent's average. 31 per cent of Finnish women have experienced physical violence from their partner or ex-partner at least once in their lifetime, this is just below Australian DV levels - source.

So what does this tell us? that progress on “rights” which I think Foucault would say rests in the dominion of “sovereignty”, does not necessarily delimit discipline (or mechanisms of repression) . . are they interconnected but also separate forces which function to articulate and assert power hence the paradox . . . how might it be useful to think about Foucault's work now in the context of women worldwide and reproductive justice?

Reproductive Justice

Thinking about Foucault in the context of women worldwide and reproductive justice