reproductive labour

I’m starting to catch on how every single insult, slur, criticism and hatred towards women is only used to justify violence towards them, it’s never “ah women are so harmful and damaging i wish they would get away from me and leave me alone”, it’s always “she deserves to be raped and killed, stupid *slur*”

If there was really anything bad or harmful in women, nobody would want to be around them. But instead, everyone is demanding to be around them, to have access to them as if they’re a commodity, to be nurtured and pleasured and catered to, to control their reproductive powers and labour, and in the end, to get the chance to abuse and utterly destroy women who’ve done all that for them. Women are used and exploited as source of everything good in life, and then on top of that have their social image damaged for the sake of justifying destruction and violence towards them. We’re now at a point where a woman refusing to be used as a resource by men is viewed as selfish and harmful, merely for refusing to be a slave! Women haven’t deserved even one single bit of violence from men, and not a single slur or social stigma that burdens their life.

So for the lot of you who are still blissfully unaware of French presidential elections:

Here are our main candidats:

- Marine Lepen: candidate of the nationalist/white pride party. Believed to be at the head of the election for the first round. Looks like Donald Trump if he was a ‘competent’ politician. Literally the antichrist, because her father is definitively Satan and we should have drown her in the village pond when we had the chance. We didn’t, now she will bring the apocalypse upon us. (is accused to have stolen 300 000€ from the European parlement)


- François Fillon: Margaret Tatcher with worse hair and eyebrows. Candidate of the catholic pride and the anti-gay. Is Harassed by a duck which accuses him of having stolen 900 000€ to the French parlement and of having too many sugar daddies. Uses to be the leader of the election, it was before the duck business. (he is now official charged for fictitious employments).


- Emmanuel Macron: Populist for bobos (bourgeois who think themselves of the left but not to the point of actually doing something for others). As just given is program two weeks ago. Doesn’t seem confident on foreign policy. Thinks that forbidding smartphone in middle school will put an end to social reproduction. Thinks that labour code doesn’t apply to young people. Thinks anti-gay have been humiliated when gay marriage was established. Is supported by NM Rothschild & Sons. Is believed the be second in the first round of the election.


- Benoit Hamon: Lying hobbit. No seriously he really looks like a hobbit (ask @onestenrepublique) and is already withdrawing some of his promises. Socialist party candidat but his party isn’t really supporting him. Will probably not win.


Jean-Luc Mélenchon: Angry socialist that passes for an angry communist. Is against the European Union. Will appear to the masses through holograms to teach them about Marx and the working class’ struggle. Populist too. Is stealing votes from Hamon.

If you want to have even worse nightmare just let me add that the closest constitution to the French one is the Russian one…

I can’t reblog the post because op blocked me but there’s a post going around to the tune of “this women’s march was organised by black, latina and palestinian women activists but white women just wanna be cissexist and talk about their pussies” and I’m actually furious.

1) Do you honestly think woc don’t have vulvas? That we are somehow unaffected by anti abortion laws and laws making it harder to access birth control? Do you think that our activist struggles are somehow unrelated to the exploitation of our bodies and reproductive labour? Do you honestly not think that a single woc has ever held a “get your rosaries off my ovaries” sign? lmao

2) Sentiments like these show a clear lack of knowledge (or maybe simply a lack of care) about our histories with regards to slavery and colonialism. There is a very long and painful history of black women’s bodies being used as a means of economic production during slavery, of native women being raped to further colonialist expansions in the americas, of poor immigrant latinas being sterilised in prisons. Our oppression differs from that of our men because of the exploitation of our reproductive capabilities so to act like any discussions of this is a “white thing” is so incredibly insulting especially considering the pain of our foremothers.

3) This is just neoracism. Racialized misogyny with an approved progressive stamp. It’s clear that our experiences, our histories and our realities mean nothing to these people as we are merely a prop in their antifeminist attempts to silence women and obscure the realities of our oppression.

cool facts abt bees bc im all excited abt them now

  • most bees are solitary; the only social bees are european honeybees and the stingless social bees native to australia and south america (see previous post)
  • theyre technically called “eusocial” because theyre not just social in the sense that they aggregate together, which many insects do, but because they have cross-generational stratified social systems with rigidly-divided labour and reproductive activities. there are RULES yo
  • the only other eusocial insects are ants, which belong to the same taxonomic order as bees and wasps; and termites, which belong to the same order as the cockroaches
  • so it’s accurate to say that “bees and ants are social wasps” and “termites are social cockroaches” which is cool to me for some reason
  • eusocial insects communicate to each other using INTENSELY complex pheromone systems ie. they talk to each other using smells
  • e.g. an alarm pheromone released by a scared bee is what tells all her bee friends to come form a swarm of death
  • ants and bees both use haplodiploid sex determination mechanisms, whereby the females have 2 sets of chromosomes and the males only have 1
  • the way this works is: the queen can decide which sex of offspring to produce based on whether or not she fertilises her eggs. females are produced from fertilised eggs, and have genes from both the queen and her mate; males are produced from unfertilised eggs, so ONLY have their mother’s genes (and only half of them)
  • yes it’s true that only female bees do any work. the males (drones) literally just sit in the hive and do. nothing. i dont know why evolution did this. 
  • same for ants actually. all the ants in antman should have been female but what can u expect from the mcu amirite
  • i lie when i say that males do nothing because there is one (1) important event in their life and that is: going on an Epic Icarian Journey vertically up into the sky to discover which of them will be the Chosen One and win the heart (chromosomes) of the princess
  • by which i mean: when she’s ready to mate, the princess leaves the hive and flies upwards into the sky. all the males follow her. she keeps flying up and up and up as the males fall away one by one and the last male still flying beside her wins and becomes the father of the new hive. then he dies
  • (cool but irrelevant fact abt termites: in termites the male doesnt die,but stays on to live in the nest. this gives termite colonies both a king and a queen. animorphs lied to u im so sorry)
  • only female bees can sting because the sting is formed from a modified ovipositor (the egg-laying organ). males don’t have it so they cant sting
  • having said that, most bees WONT sting (in fact pretty much only honeybees will, though the fun part of that is that their stings also happen to be barbed and envenomated so they really make it count)
  • most of the native australian bees (which are the only ones i really know about) won’t sting you unless really really really scared, and the social ones literally can’t because their stings evolved to be useless for,, whatever reason. they can still bite, but it’s really just annoying more than painful. however they do somehow know to go for the eyes and nose which i can testify to from personal experience
  • we do have a date for the evolution of eusocial bees (i cant remember the exact number but i think it was sometime in the triassic??) whatever the cool part is how they discovered it, because as u can imagine it would be pretty difficult to find explicit fossil evidence of a group of bees living together in a rigidly-stratified generationally-overlapping labour- and reproductively-divided social system
  • OR so we thought because,,, the very fact of bees living together brings about morphological changes. specifically, the abdomen of worker bees will be smaller, compared to the abdomens of solitary female bees, because workers dont have to lay eggs. they have queens for that
  • so essentially: the way we got the earliest current date for the evolution of eusociality is,, someone found a tiny bee fossilised in amber, with a tiny sting (so we know its female) and a tiny abdomen (so we know she couldnt lay eggs)
  • hence: social bee
  • PALAEONTOLOGY IS GR8

ceramicsun  asked:

What, then, do you consider to be the structural causes of sexual violence?

It depends how far back we want to look. We could start on the very surface and say that income inequality between men and women is a huge determinant of women being dependent on men in their lives in a way which makes them vulnerable to sexual violence. Or we could look a little deeper at the sexual division of labour between men and women and how, in order to maintain women’s free reproductive labour (in the technical sense of their labour reproducing men’s ability to perform labour) men must structurally subordinate women and how this structural subordination requires both material and symbolic acts to be sustained, including misogyny and attitudes towards sexual violence. Ultimately it is this stuff which needs to be rooted out. Alexandra Kollontai and Lise Vogel both talk about the structural causes of sexual violence in a really accessible and clear way and I think they’re both worth reading. Ultimately this just isn’t a problem with an easy or satisfying solution. 

The left, as we have known it, as important as it has been, cannot remain the same force until it adequately counters these developments. Therefore it is important for the left to recognise that the constitution of the global working classes is very different now. In many ways the left is still dealing with this notion of the working classes as male, or white male, as in the case of the US. I think feminism, radical feminism, radical anti-racist and anti-capitalist feminism helps us to do the reconceptualisation that is necessary in order to produce a left that is more in line with the vast changes that have occurred in the era of global capitalism, recognising the feminisation of the working class, the structural shifts in the global economy, of the fact that some industries are largely populated by women, industries that rely on reproductive labour, of care industries, domestic service, health care, etc. It seems to me that in many ways, unions around the world are not willing to recognise those changes. To organise the unorganised, at this moment, is to organise women.
—  Angela Davis

Interesting speculation.

Feminists, get ready: pregnancy and abortion are about to be disrupted

Hold onto your ovaries folks, womb transplants are here. Ten UK women have been approved for the procedure, and babies born from donated uteruses could crawl among us as early as next year.

Leaving aside the ethical considerations of womb transplantation, our ability to gestate humans in novel locations is developing so quickly that it’s worth looking ahead to the next development: artificial wombs, or ectogenesis.  

What would it mean for the uterus – and therefore, the biological necessity of women’s reproductive labour – if it were to become obsolete?

Unlike other contested biotechnologies like human cloning, the demand for surrogacy speaks to a natural community of probable supporters for ectogenesis.

The distinction between work and home, the public and the private, is grounded in the structure of the capitalist society. The development of the capitalist mode of production required the socialisation of the basic processes of commodity production, the development of large-scale factory production and work outside the home. … The consequence for women of this separation is that their work, domestic labour, has been consistently depreciated within the community, the economy and the political system. The traditional tasks of housework and child-rearing have not been considered in relation to production because they do not represent a source of surplus value. The division between home and work has had a further consequence for women in that it has given rise to the belief in a ‘woman’s place’ being in the home rather than in the world of work and production; this, despite the fact that in reality many women are engaged in both housework (and the reproduction of labour power) and wage labour. The ideology of women’s place being in the home has served to perpetuate the existing sexual division of labour and to effectively limit the forms of women’s participation in the public domain (e.g., part-time, short-term or ‘temporary’ employment), making withdrawal into, and a predominant preoccupation with, or concern for, the home and family seem natural for women.
—  Women, Sexuality and Social Control: An Introduction - Carol Smart and Barry Smart