Gimbutas argued that the “Kurgan” people introduced Indo-European languages into the lands they conquered, as well as new cultural systems based on domination of warriors and kings over the general populace and the domination of men over women. She stated that the Kurgan invasions of Europe began about 4400 BCE and lasted for several millennia.
[I]n declaring Marija Gimbutas’s Kurgan hypothesis “magnificently vindicated,” Lord Colin Renfrew, considered by many to be “the grand old man” of his field, opened the floodgates. He implicitly gave permission to other scholars to reconsider all of Gimbutas’s theories and perhaps eventually to restore her to her rightful place as one of the most–if not the most–creative, scientific, ground-breaking archaeologists of the twentieth century, “the grand old lady” of her field.
One thing that all these petitions have in common is some version of the following: “Women and girls have the right to discuss policies which affect them, without being abused, harassed or intimidated, and we condemn all attempts to undermine or limit the rights of women to self-organise, and call on the party to actively support these essential freedoms.”
Thousands of signatories across all political parties cannot be dismissed as easily as individual feminist activists who have borne the brunt of the battle so far.
The subject of single-sex spaces refuses to go away. It needs to be discussed openly without fear of reprisals.
From the Girl Guide Association and the YHA, to the NHS and the police, policies and practices have been rewritten which put women and girls at risk and contravene equality law.
Everyone wants to be seen as tolerant and inclusive and to get those rainbow-coloured diversity ticks and awards without thinking the issue through. What we are seeing is policy capture, right across the board.
So while it is encouraging to see this plethora of petitions as people wake up to the very real threat to women’s sex-based rights, the culture has already started to change and we’re in danger of seeing women’s hard-won protections being eroded.
For some time now I have ceased to describe myself as ‘gender critical’, as I don’t think this fits in with my beliefs. I see gender as a harmful hierarchical system of power and stereotypes, it is purely cultural so has no meaning outside of human societies. Being a critic to me implies the system can be fixed, I do not think this is the case (see for example my post on How Modern or Third Wave Feminism Benefits Men).
I take an abolitionist stance on gender, I believe it damages everyone particularly girls and women, homosexual and bisexual men and of course trans males. It always strikes me as odd that transgender individuals never argue for gender abolition, whereas I can see that it is gender that provides them with the ideas, artefacts and stereotypes they build their identities around, the problems they face while doing so are of course themselves caused by gender, which punishes feminine males.
A map that tracks more than 3,000 Scots women who were accused of being witches in the 16th and 17th Century has been published for the first time.
“The tragedy is that Scotland had five times the number of executions of women. The idea of being able to plot these on a map really brings it home. These places are near everyone.
“There does seem to be a growing movement that we need to be remembering these women, remembering what happened and understanding what happened.”
For insisting on public debate about the real-life risks of a big official tick for self-declared gender change, Murphy has copped a Twitter ban (for “hateful” pronoun crime) and last month Massey University in New Zealand became the latest institution of higher learning to cancel her speaking event, citing “health, safety and wellbeing obligations”; she shifted venues.
Sydney University political scientist Bronwyn Winter, a well-known gender-critical feminist, says she has had to organise local talks and discussions “in a clandestine way” with a video released afterwards.
“I feel like I’m part of the feminist resistance, forced underground — it’s that, or deal with confrontation and the risk of physical harm.”
The Australian asked Human Rights Commission president Rosalind Croucher, Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins, and Anna Brown of the LGBTIQ+ group Equality Australia if gender-critical feminists were entitled to put their views without abuse, threats and claims they were “hateful transphobes”.
The commission issued a short statement, saying it supported “freedom of speech for everyone in Australia, provided that speech does not vilify or incite hatred of a person or group of people”.
The commission did not reply when asked if it agreed with trans activists that it was hate speech to define a woman by her sex, and to warn of self-identified trans status — officially endorsed without robust public debate — as a potential threat to the rights and protections of women.
Ms Brown did not reply to The Australian’s request for comment.
In August, Equality Australia circulated an activist petition calling on Melbourne University to cancel a “transphobic and queerphobic” speaking event on campus — “The future of sex-based rights”, with speakers including lesbian feminist philosopher Holly Lawford-Smith. The petition claimed this talk would put trans students and staff “at risk” and was likely to “attack” their identities. The event went ahead.
A national coalition of women’s and lesbian groups wrote to Ms Brown earlier this month calling on her to speak up “in support of civil and full debate on these critical issues (arising from self-identified trans claims) concerning equality for lesbians and all women”.
The letter says women defending “sex-based rights” are being “routinely no-platformed, vilified, sexually harassed, threatened or bullied into silence.
This week, a bill was passed in the Australia’s Northern Territories which decriminalises every aspect of the sex trade. The bill also gives pimps and punters the right to take women to court for damages if they don’t “complete service” or if they withdraw consent.
Its supporters argued that decriminalisation would help legitimise currently illegal businesses, but why would anyone wish to legitimise businesses that abuse women? In fact, under these laws, illegal prostitution expands, because the eyes of the police are no longer on the industry.
Sex trade apologists claim that legalisation prevents prostitution from going underground; prevents the involvement of underage girls; and reduces trafficking. By referring to prostitution as “sex work”, the punters as “clients”, and the pimps as “managers”, this vile and exploitative trade instantly become sanitised.
There is even a euphemism for trafficking: “migration for sex work”. During the slave trade, a profiteer in the West Indies suggested: “Instead of slaves, let them be called assistant planters and we shall not then hear such violent outcries against the slave trade by pious divines, tender-hearted poetesses and short-sighted politicians.”
I spent time in legal brothels in Australia when researching my book on the sex trade, and found that, contrary to the propaganda, the women are not safe, and only the pimps and punters benefit.
Sex trade survivors are dead against legalisation. “Under legalisation, there is more violence, because the men feel protected and entitled, [and] more trafficking and underage girls, because legalisation creates a warm welcome for pimps,” says Sabrinna Valisce who was prostituted in legal and illegal brothels in both Australia and New Zealand.
Sex is not a human right. The only rights we should be concerned with when it comes to prostitution is the right of women and girls not to be bought and sold.
By The Carter Center’s Human Rights Program In his book “A Call to Action: Women, Religion, Violence and Power,” Jimmy Carter identifies 23 actions to advance the rights of women …
No country allows the sale of human beings, so why is surrogacy still legal? Even if it’s ‘altruistic’, there’s a price to pay.
This week, Sweden took a firm stand against surrogacy. The governmental inquiry on surrogacy published its conclusions, which the parliament is expected to approve later this year. These include banning all surrogacy, commercial as well as altruistic, and taking steps to prevent citizens from going to clinics abroad.
Surrogacy may have been surrounded by an aura of Elton John-ish happiness, cute newborns and notions of the modern family, but behind that is an industry that buys and sells human life. Where babies are tailor-made to fit the desires of the world’s rich. Where a mother is nothing, deprived even of the right to be called “mum”, and the customer is everything. The west has started outsourcing reproduction to poorer nations, just as we outsourced industrial production previously.
In reality, “altruistic” surrogacy means that a woman goes through exactly the same thing as in commercial surrogacy, but gets nothing in return. It demands of the woman to carry a child for nine months and then give it away. She has to change her behaviour and risk infertility, a number of pregnancy-related problems, and even death. She is still used as a vessel, even if told she is an angel. The only thing she gets is the halo of altruism, which is a very low price for the effort and can only be attractive in a society where women are valued for how much they sacrifice, not what they achieve.
Men are happier when both partners contribute financially – but get stressed when their female partner earns 40% of household income.
Gender identity norms clearly still induce a widely held aversion to a situation where the wife earns more than her husband.