I quit shaving a while ago for basically political reasons (in particular, to get away from the idea that being or looking "feminine" means involves removing a part of my female body) but I've never thought about these "beauty" practices in terms of transhumanism before. That's an interesting framework, and I think it's especially interesting to look at how people's apparently individual choices still contribute to an ever-stiffer competition for everyone else, and what it costs to walk away from that competition.
I just shaved for the first time in months. I've been experimenting with going longer and longer between. I think it's a great political statement, and my own little "f-you" to societal "beauty" standards.
On “making [my] body fit more easily into the expectations of others”: I haven’t worn makeup or shaved for years. It’s a combination of not caring to spend time/money/energy on those things and, on the other hand, wanting to bring my authentic appearance to the world. Purely a personal choice and I think there’s lots of room for freedom on this.
Recently, during the obvious/conspicuous part of my second pregnancy, I found myself struggling a lot with people’s probable expectations of my appearance. It seems like past a certain point, a visibly pregnant belly is the *only* aspect of my body and even my self that some people seem to see or care or ask about. It seems like people almost have an expectation that a visibly pregnant woman ceases to be anyone or anything else. I found myself becoming hyperaware of my clothing/accessory/media/activity choices in an effort to visually convey that, though I was glad and grateful to be carrying a baby, I was much more than a mere gestator. Anyway. Idk if this precisely fits the question, and some of the self-consciousness is definitely just my own hangups, but I think there’s a possible element of wider societal expectations of women’s bodies in there too.
Another thing that comes to mind is purity culture dress expectations, but I’m not going to do a deep dive into that right now...
I have somewhat the opposite experience of being pregnant. I like that how I look is PREGNANT, and therefore I don't have to fit other appearance boxes—it feels like I have a pass.
I know that's definitely not everyone's experience, though!
Hi, I've read this substack for a while, and this is my first comment. Thank you for creating this space for dialogue. I do not diet and have not done so since my daughter was born eight years ago. Dieting is glossed as a healthful practice, which makes it difficult to resist. Because there are so many conflicting messages about dieting, I do not cast aspersions on anyone who determines the evidence is in favor of dieting. But based on my own experience with dieting and the many conversations I’ve had with friends who are still dieting as they enter their forties, dieting seems to be primarily (or sometimes exclusively) about making our bodies meet the expectation of others. And that expectation is to look like you’re at peak fertility your entire life. Maturity, growth, and moving into other stages of life are not allowed.
The funny thing is that we’re supposed to look like we’re at peak fertility but we’re not actually supposed to be fertile! I agree with you, Leah, to a certain extent that artificial birth control can be corrosive and dehumanizing. My own experience with birth control has had corrosive aspects, mostly when it was the default option (presented by my doctors, peers, the wider culture) that I passively accepted. But has it always been corrosive for me? No, not when I actually thought about the pros and cons of the technology and had a conversation with my husband about whether or not it was truly appropriate for us. Will I come around to your way of thinking, Leah? It’s very possible because you make some excellent, resonant points. But it also feels more complicated. At the very least, I hope that at the individual and cultural level, we can be more intentional about assessing whether we’re using technology (be it birth control, cars, AI, etc.) in service of our flourishing or whether we’re contorting ourselves to meet the demands of technology.
I want to agree with your desire to "assess[] whether we’re using technology ... in service of our flourishing or whether we’re contorting ourselves to meet the demands of technology," but I have serious doubts that it's really possible to disentangle these things. There are so many cases where the "demands" of technology present themselves as a set of artificially constrained choices, so that your situational pursuit of flourishing turns out to be the same thing as collaborating with a dehumanizing system. Leah's idea of "a breast pump designed for your boss" is probably the best example I can think of -- given that I have to be separated from my baby, pumping serves him and me, but on another level the real reason I'm doing it is to accommodate my job. (Of course a mother might also pump, say, because she wants to feed her baby breast milk but can't nurse directly for medical reasons, so I want to be clear I don't mean it's just a bad technology. I certainly agree with you that it's complicated!)
I suppose the demands of technology are so pernicious because they don’t seem like demands. It seems like we’re being given a choice where perhaps there really is no choice. Or the demand is presented as a path to liberation, so of course we would be foolish to not take that path (but, again, there may not really be a choice, so there goes the liberation).
To your point that a situational pursuit of flourishing can be a collaboration with a dehumanizing system, I agree that people make all sorts of decisions that benefit (or seem to benefit) them but are hurtful to those around them (such decisions and their consequences drive the plots of countless novels and movies). But I hesitate to assume that a “system” is totally dehumanizing or totally humane. “System” is one of those words that I hear and read a lot, but I’m not sure my definition matches what others define it as. To me, “system” = the prevailing social order. Okay. That’s big, complex, all-encompassing. The actions a single person takes within the “system” are likely going to have both negative and positive consequences, perhaps many of them invisible or unacknowledged, both for that person and for the people around them. But to say that person is collaborating in a dehumanizing system (or, for the optimist, collaborating in a beautiful and humane system), seems too simple. I guess I’m saying that I understand your point and agree to the extent that I think it’s important to recognize our interdependence and consider the potential impact of our decisions on others. I just wonder if there’s another frame/lens to use to think about such decisions, other than asking “am I or are we complicit with a system or against it.” Such a frame already has me tied up in a knots. I don’t have a clue as to what a more helpful lens (to me, at least) would be.
"To say: 'this part of being human isn’t adapted for the modern world.'"
Many of our ancestral human qualities aren't adapted to the modern world. Apparently, for example, our jaws are shrinking but our teeth aren't, leading to tooth crowding our ancient ancestors rarely had:
Modern medicine is a form of "survival transhumanism" – and it's generally a good thing! The sagacity to know when to reach for a medical solution and when to refuse (and which medical solution to reach for if you're not refusing) is tough, though.
The little sliver of human suffering I've witnessed despite my fairly sheltered life leaves me reluctant to reproach others for, say, using AD(H)D meds just because their work or school isn't a great fit for them. Brokering peace with the body and brain God gave you is, like chastity, an admirable goal – but also one, like chastity, it's fairly normal to fail at.
In a recent study, 17% of youth with the same tissue disorder that runs in my family reported gender dysphoria, wayyyy above the general-population rate. Which makes sense to me! While men with the disorder can suffer intensely, testosterone is the closest thing to a cure for it. So transitioning stands to offer natal females symptomatic relief. Meanwhile, natal males with the disorder might feel "sissified", a poor fit for masculine stereotypes. The disorder is also under-recognized, marginalizing, even gaslighting, those who have it:
People try to solve their problems with the tools available to them: if some better tool could be available to them, but isn't, they use the tools they have. It bugs me that those who transition get so little credit for rationality from many traditionalists, though I consider myself mostly-traditionalist (I suspect many self-styled traditionalists are less committed to accepting bodily limits than they suppose: many seem pretty cool with boob jobs on natal women, for example).
Regarding the artifice of fashion, specifically, I found this reflection by a historical dressmaker and re-enactor interesting:
She emphasizes that the sheer artifice of previous eras' "fashionable shape" gave her more bodily privacy and mental comfort than she has in modern clothing, not because more skin was covered (depending on the neckline, it may not have been!), but because complying with fashionable ideals (ideals she takes as given, and perhaps for social creatures like us, they are, even if the specific form they take isn't) in clothing with "negative ease" (clothing that makes your body conform to it rather than conforming to your body) is more attainable for a wider variety of natural body types, taking pressure off people to, well, "look good naked". Rather than modifying bodies themselves to fit fashion, the clothing modifies.
Makeup isn't clothing, but it's also artifice, disguise, and in that sense privacy. Contouring one's face for public consumption every morning is a hassle, but growing awareness that contouring can be rather convincing is beneficial, in a way. Pressure to be "naturally beautiful" by changing the body itself (however unnaturally) can be intense. Simply knowing a good contouring job can create a passable illusion of change to one's natural features lets slip how much artifice even what's supposedly natural may involve.
I really appreciate this comment! Certainly there are a lot of modifications to base human living that I deeply appreciate (thanks again, antibiotics from last week!).
My suspicion is that frequently, when there's a conflict between us-as-we-are and a new shape we could fit into, baseline humans are assumed to be the problem that has to be fixed.
>What Illich and Ellul would have us consider is that the human-built world is not, in fact, built for humans. And, of course, this is to say nothing of what the human-built world has meant for the non-human world. What’s more, it may be paradoxically the case that the human-built world will prove finally inhospitable to human beings precisely to the degree that it was built for humans without regard for humanity’s continuity with the other animals and the world we inhabit together.
I think my biggest question (though I have a lot of questions!) is in a world where abortion is criminalized, who do pro-lifers want to be punished when abortions do occur, and how? For Leah in particular--I know that your goal is to have a world where abortion is unthinkable and no one *wants* to have one or give one, but right now we aren't in that world, and I don't really see how we could get there without using coercion to prevent abortions in the near future. So I think I would really like to see you comment on the specifics about what sort of coercion you want to see in pro-life laws.
I would like the focus to be on doctors, with the most appropriate initial penalty being losing a license for performing an unlawful medical procedure.
The reaction post-Dobbs has suggested that, for the most part, doctors are unwilling to break the law period, and it's not a question of having to ratchet up the penalty for a deterrent effect. The bigger challenge has been clear safe harbors about what is *not* covered by the bans, where doctors in states that say explicitly in their statute "ectopic pregnancies are excluded from this ban" have professed uncertainty about whether the procedure is banned.
Losing a license to practice is not a small thing for a doctor. And hospitals create their own hoops to jump through to stay on the right side of the law, which can slow down life saving treatment.
I do find the surprise around the consequences for women odd given that we do have a lot of case studies of what these restrictions look like in action - from US Catholic hospitals pre Dobbs (not to mention myriad other country’s data).
Have you talked with Catholic hospitals about their approach? I bet they’d speak to you on the record.
On ectopic pregnancy, there isn’t always a sure fire diagnosis - 30% of the time an ultrasound won’t pick it up, and other tests aren’t conclusive. A doc jeapordizing their career and their family’s well being by giving a woman a potentially life saving abortion vs waiting until she’s about to die and you absolutely can legally save her can seem sane under these restrictions.
I'm curious to what extent you think this professed uncertainty reflects genuine doubt about the law, as opposed to a desire to maximize the "dangers" of abortion restrictions as a form of propaganda (or perhaps something in the middle, like understanding the law but still being afraid that it will be misapplied).
I think it is a mix of both. I grew up pro-choice—and I thought of pro-lifers as people who hated women above all else. If you think the other side's primary goal is persecution, it's very hard to trust any promises made. (I think the facetiousness of TRAP laws undermines the pro-life movement's ability to represent itself and its laws as plain-dealing).
Most of the pro-lifers STILL hate women, I'm not sure where you are getting your information from. There is STILL an underlying motive of "reinforcing God's punishment of Eve" behind many of these individuals, and many of the men who push this ideology want women to be punching-bag sex slaves. Go on twitter and follow some of the accounts that post endlessly on behalf of pro-life causes. These are often the same men who endlessly shill for full legalization of prostitution, child marriage and the development of robotics to replace women, to eradicate women for obedient man-made manufactured robotic dolls.
They demand women to be men's house slaves and baby breeder machines while men engage in depravity outside the marriage, including homosexuality, including transition to become "cyborg femmes", and while men engage in other high tech pleasures. They want us to be the free disposable scullery maids and diaper-changers for the violent and abusive elderly these men themselves don't feel "lowly enough" to deal with. These men almost all fetishize pre-teen girls. Perhaps THAT is why they demand an increase in infants... they want fresh little girls to choose from. These men demand the right to "dump the old meat" at no cost to men and get new "pieces of meat". They say all women who reach age 25-30 "hit the wall" and are therefor worthless and "useless eaters". Women are not human beings to them. They are also encouraged by the manosphere and violent p0rnography to see women as pieces of meat to "pump and dump".
There will never be a "culture of love" surrounding unplanned pregnancies, either. It is seen as a way to "trap" women and "make them obey". It's much more difficult for a woman to escape an abuser with a screaming infant, and men KNOW this. Hence why men often cheat, abuse, "transition" or "come out" once the wife is pregnant or right after she gives birth. Men will use technology to enslave us further, and then replace us with man-made technology (artificial wombs and female robotics), if not lobotomize us into compliance and obedience with technology first.
I was also going to ask Magdalen's question and I wnat to push a little harder here. We are also rapidly moving to a post-Roe world where the default for most people seeking abortions where it is illegal is going to be abortion pills by post. In this scenario would the organizations responsible for mailing the pills be targeted or would the women taking the pills be targeted? What about in situations where there is no longer a doctor or organization connected with the abortion? I find the unwillingness by pro-lifers to punish the woman having the abortion to be the most clear case of faulty logic on the abortion issue from the pro-life side and the answers given often feel like they are evading the underlying question about moral responsibility. It seems to me that if one views abortion as a murder then the most culpable person in an abortion is the woman aborting her child. At what point would the woman seeking an abortion be justly punished and what lies at the heart of the hesitation to punish her?
"It seems to me that if one views abortion as a murder then the most culpable person in an abortion is the woman aborting her child. At what point would the woman seeking an abortion be justly punished and what lies at the heart of the hesitation to punish her?"
Yep, let me address this directly. I think the law is a teacher, and ours has been a false teacher for a long time. I was a Planned Parenthood donor before I changed my mind. I think there has to be a bigger shift in perspective before it's *true* that people who seek abortions are in the moral position of murderers, even when they end a life. Having a false belief about the world can diminish our own culpability, but it doesn't blunt the consequences of acting based on that false understanding.
I also think that RBG is correct that abortion has been treated as load-bearing, as women's admission fee to be treated equally. It's a sharper example of the tendency to have our stability and comfort premised on another's suffering (cf the manufacture of goods in sweatshop conditions). I want to take it off the table as an option, because it is wrong, and a society that sets this as the cost for women to be equal is anti-woman as much as it anti-baby.
I respect the logic here but I am uncertain if this is what underlies most pro-lifers moral intuitions against punishing women. I have spoken with many pro-lifers who provide a justification for their hesitation towards punishing women that is rooted more in the compassion for the unique situation that a woman is in when she chooses to have an abortion - and this is not just limited to the hard cases of rape and incest. I think there is a moral intuition that people have around how one body hosting another within itself *is* a different moral situation and I don't think there will ever be a world where a majority of people's moral intuitions agree that abortion = murder on a 1:1 basis.
I think your logic, to quote you directly "there has to be a bigger shift in perspective before it's *true* that people who seek abortions are in the moral position of murderers, even when they end a life" should apply equally to doctors though, right? They also don't believe they're ending lives. So I don't find this a convincing justification that doctors should be punished and women seeking abortions shouldn't.
That's why I think the appropriate penalties aren't the ones given for premeditated murder but are aimed at making it hard to continue operating as a doctor.
Where do you see this legislative "bridge" going? From my perspective I find it difficult to imagine getting to a world where most doctors who perform abortions do so with intent to murder, or where most women who obtain them intend to end a life. I don't think, like you said above, that the pro-life movement is anti-woman, but I genuinely don't see any productive path for coercion on the pro-life side.
Maybe one way to phrase this question is that this is the level of coercion you think is merited right now. What do you think will be merited in 10 years? Twenty years?
Over the past few days I’ve been sharing the news of my third pregnancy in three years. You wouldn’t believe how that seems to rock everyone else’s world (even acquaintances). Shock and concern (due to the workload) make sense to me, but some negative reactions indicate that others think I’ve done something wrong with my body by taking this on.
I'm sorry that's the reaction you've been getting! I hope with a little time, people can shift more toward joy in a baby, and that they can channel their surprise or concern toward planning how to help you.
Oh, I'm sorry. We recently had 3 children in 3 years, as well. I was more selective and reserved in telling folks about the 3rd pregnancy because of fear of this.
I think my biggest question as labor/delivery hover near (St. Luke pray for me and baby Luke!) is how post roe policy will effect postpartum conversations doctors have with patients. Will we see an opening up to life or will we see more pressure on women to contracept or even undergo elective surgery to avoid pregnancy?
I rejoice in Roe’s overturning, but I worry that women are in more danger of being pressured to remove parts of themselves.
My biggest question for you in a post-Roe world is how you think we make the leap from rampant criminalization and the culture of fear and coercion it creates to a culture of love for one another.
We've seen children and parent's digital records scoured for evidence of obtaining abortion pills. We've seen women suffering miscarriage being investigated for abortion (and then being denied appropriate timely care!). We're seeing (attempted) criminalization of driving across state lines to secure abortions for young rape victims (and everyone else). We see neighbor urged to turn against neighbor with legislation like SB8.
Imo the biggest outcome of Dobbs is the growth of our security state, the second biggest is growth in maternal mortality rates. Both of which were clear and probable outcomes warned about for years in the run up to Dobbs, with ample data from international studies and domestic research to back them up.
Now, many on the Right are quite vocal and quite adamant that the way we get from a culture of fear to a culture of "love" is simple: fascism. And they're on track! They're implementing the classic 20th century fascist playbook! But with 21st century digital surveillance and a greater emphasis on 'protecting babies' (though about the same emphasis on 'trans people are scary').
Which imo makes being anything less than clear on your alternative approach... well, worrisome at best.
"Imo the biggest outcome of Dobbs is the growth of our security state, the second biggest is growth in maternal mortality rates."
I think it's pretty clear that the number of babies born who would have died in utero is going to be a much larger change than either of these. And, because of the children living, I would predict the much bigger shift in bad outcomes for women will be an increase in maternal *poverty*, more than in maternal mortality.
One faction of the pro-life movement (including Notre Dame's Women and Children First initiative) is very focused on how to acknowledge how much children require of their moms and their community and to try to meet that gap. The GOP as a whole is not so interested in this project!
In theory, there are enough Left-Right votes for some big expansions of family policy (e.g. Romney's child allowance plan) but I don't believe McConnell is remotely interested in passing any bipartisan wins. There were some good things in the omnibus for support for mothers (anti-pregnancy discrimination and support for pumping at work). I work with Families Valued on lobbying conservatives to support meaningful family leave and other supports.
If the GOP is not interested (and I agree! they're not!) and the work to support women and babies continues to live predominantly on the left / within the Democratic party... then what is real outcome of the women and children first initiative? And other similar conversations happening at the state level?
I think unless these conversations include a real and scathing critique of the lack of services currently available in states passing anti-abortion legislation and a genuine concern re: the negative impacts of poorly written policy, they serve as little more than cover for the growing fascist movement on the Right to say, 'see! we care about mothers and babies! really we do!'.
I think unions are one of the best ways to support women, babies and families. Everyone benefits from stable work and good salaries!
But also advocacy groups pushing for real safety nets, mutual aid organizations, worker centers, domestic violence organizations, groups that support pregnant women in the justice system, community based organizations, faith communities...
I think the war on recreational drugs has a different character (repeated users, addiction, etc). I don't think there's a big profit for illicit drug dealers to sell abortion drugs—you won't have regulars, it's hard to advertise to potential customers, the window to sell is very limited, etc.
Practically speaking, I think they'll be hard to catch! Again, unlike with recreational drugs, this can be a one-time event where the two people don't know each other and won't meet again. I think it will remain a part of the abortion landscape in America, but I think it won't make a lot of sense as an investigation priority, since it is very hard to catch and will be much rarer than medication abortions where they are legal.
As others have mentioned, I generally eschew shaving and makeup, but one that hasn't been mentioned yet, I believe, is shapewear. I used to always wear a girdle-type piece while dressing up when I was younger (I'm 49, a little younger than most people who wore those), but I have since decided they are too uncomfortable to be worth it. I also once tried on Spanx and was so horrified by my inability to breathe that it was a one-time event. My body looks the way it looks, and I choose breathing over flattening and smoothing everything.
When I was in my early 20's (50 years ago), I opted for compromise: one unshaved leg for me and one one shaved for the world. Now I shave them both, with longer periods in between.
The biggest place where I practice transhumanism, and where I have the most mixed feelings about it, is in delaying having a baby. Emotionally, relationally, and physically I would probably prefer to become pregnant right after I get married this summer. But logistically, I don't really see any way to make it work before the end of my PhD (I'm not against birth control, but friends in my program who are have delayed marriages partially for this reason). I have pretty complicated feelings about the structure of academia in the US and how it incentivizes building your family at a very particular time.
Unrelated, my biggest question about post-Roe policy is whether any state legislatures will pass laws which punish women for having an abortion and if yes or no, why or why not.
I don't understand your post. Women (and men) have been practicing birth control for thousands of year and woman and men have also been making themselves more attractive to each other for thousands of years. What does this have to do with the "modern world"?
Also, based upon your logic, when a man uses a condom when having relations he's also "turning off" a basic bodily aspect of being a man.
> Also, based upon your logic, when a man uses a condom when having relations he's also "turning off" a basic bodily aspect of being a man.
Agreed. Claiming that sex and reproduction can be pared off from each other is a very radical claim and proponents tend to underestimate how much this "fix" disrupts.
I quit shaving a while ago for basically political reasons (in particular, to get away from the idea that being or looking "feminine" means involves removing a part of my female body) but I've never thought about these "beauty" practices in terms of transhumanism before. That's an interesting framework, and I think it's especially interesting to look at how people's apparently individual choices still contribute to an ever-stiffer competition for everyone else, and what it costs to walk away from that competition.
I just shaved for the first time in months. I've been experimenting with going longer and longer between. I think it's a great political statement, and my own little "f-you" to societal "beauty" standards.
I want to give up shaving, but can't quite bring myself to do it. Well, when it's warm anyway.
On “making [my] body fit more easily into the expectations of others”: I haven’t worn makeup or shaved for years. It’s a combination of not caring to spend time/money/energy on those things and, on the other hand, wanting to bring my authentic appearance to the world. Purely a personal choice and I think there’s lots of room for freedom on this.
Recently, during the obvious/conspicuous part of my second pregnancy, I found myself struggling a lot with people’s probable expectations of my appearance. It seems like past a certain point, a visibly pregnant belly is the *only* aspect of my body and even my self that some people seem to see or care or ask about. It seems like people almost have an expectation that a visibly pregnant woman ceases to be anyone or anything else. I found myself becoming hyperaware of my clothing/accessory/media/activity choices in an effort to visually convey that, though I was glad and grateful to be carrying a baby, I was much more than a mere gestator. Anyway. Idk if this precisely fits the question, and some of the self-consciousness is definitely just my own hangups, but I think there’s a possible element of wider societal expectations of women’s bodies in there too.
Another thing that comes to mind is purity culture dress expectations, but I’m not going to do a deep dive into that right now...
I have somewhat the opposite experience of being pregnant. I like that how I look is PREGNANT, and therefore I don't have to fit other appearance boxes—it feels like I have a pass.
I know that's definitely not everyone's experience, though!
Hi, I've read this substack for a while, and this is my first comment. Thank you for creating this space for dialogue. I do not diet and have not done so since my daughter was born eight years ago. Dieting is glossed as a healthful practice, which makes it difficult to resist. Because there are so many conflicting messages about dieting, I do not cast aspersions on anyone who determines the evidence is in favor of dieting. But based on my own experience with dieting and the many conversations I’ve had with friends who are still dieting as they enter their forties, dieting seems to be primarily (or sometimes exclusively) about making our bodies meet the expectation of others. And that expectation is to look like you’re at peak fertility your entire life. Maturity, growth, and moving into other stages of life are not allowed.
The funny thing is that we’re supposed to look like we’re at peak fertility but we’re not actually supposed to be fertile! I agree with you, Leah, to a certain extent that artificial birth control can be corrosive and dehumanizing. My own experience with birth control has had corrosive aspects, mostly when it was the default option (presented by my doctors, peers, the wider culture) that I passively accepted. But has it always been corrosive for me? No, not when I actually thought about the pros and cons of the technology and had a conversation with my husband about whether or not it was truly appropriate for us. Will I come around to your way of thinking, Leah? It’s very possible because you make some excellent, resonant points. But it also feels more complicated. At the very least, I hope that at the individual and cultural level, we can be more intentional about assessing whether we’re using technology (be it birth control, cars, AI, etc.) in service of our flourishing or whether we’re contorting ourselves to meet the demands of technology.
"The funny thing is that we’re supposed to look like we’re at peak fertility but we’re not actually supposed to be fertile!"
This is well put!
I want to agree with your desire to "assess[] whether we’re using technology ... in service of our flourishing or whether we’re contorting ourselves to meet the demands of technology," but I have serious doubts that it's really possible to disentangle these things. There are so many cases where the "demands" of technology present themselves as a set of artificially constrained choices, so that your situational pursuit of flourishing turns out to be the same thing as collaborating with a dehumanizing system. Leah's idea of "a breast pump designed for your boss" is probably the best example I can think of -- given that I have to be separated from my baby, pumping serves him and me, but on another level the real reason I'm doing it is to accommodate my job. (Of course a mother might also pump, say, because she wants to feed her baby breast milk but can't nurse directly for medical reasons, so I want to be clear I don't mean it's just a bad technology. I certainly agree with you that it's complicated!)
I suppose the demands of technology are so pernicious because they don’t seem like demands. It seems like we’re being given a choice where perhaps there really is no choice. Or the demand is presented as a path to liberation, so of course we would be foolish to not take that path (but, again, there may not really be a choice, so there goes the liberation).
To your point that a situational pursuit of flourishing can be a collaboration with a dehumanizing system, I agree that people make all sorts of decisions that benefit (or seem to benefit) them but are hurtful to those around them (such decisions and their consequences drive the plots of countless novels and movies). But I hesitate to assume that a “system” is totally dehumanizing or totally humane. “System” is one of those words that I hear and read a lot, but I’m not sure my definition matches what others define it as. To me, “system” = the prevailing social order. Okay. That’s big, complex, all-encompassing. The actions a single person takes within the “system” are likely going to have both negative and positive consequences, perhaps many of them invisible or unacknowledged, both for that person and for the people around them. But to say that person is collaborating in a dehumanizing system (or, for the optimist, collaborating in a beautiful and humane system), seems too simple. I guess I’m saying that I understand your point and agree to the extent that I think it’s important to recognize our interdependence and consider the potential impact of our decisions on others. I just wonder if there’s another frame/lens to use to think about such decisions, other than asking “am I or are we complicit with a system or against it.” Such a frame already has me tied up in a knots. I don’t have a clue as to what a more helpful lens (to me, at least) would be.
"To say: 'this part of being human isn’t adapted for the modern world.'"
Many of our ancestral human qualities aren't adapted to the modern world. Apparently, for example, our jaws are shrinking but our teeth aren't, leading to tooth crowding our ancient ancestors rarely had:
https://stanfordpress.typepad.com/blog/2018/05/why-cavemen-needed-no-braces.html
Modern medicine is a form of "survival transhumanism" – and it's generally a good thing! The sagacity to know when to reach for a medical solution and when to refuse (and which medical solution to reach for if you're not refusing) is tough, though.
The little sliver of human suffering I've witnessed despite my fairly sheltered life leaves me reluctant to reproach others for, say, using AD(H)D meds just because their work or school isn't a great fit for them. Brokering peace with the body and brain God gave you is, like chastity, an admirable goal – but also one, like chastity, it's fairly normal to fail at.
In a recent study, 17% of youth with the same tissue disorder that runs in my family reported gender dysphoria, wayyyy above the general-population rate. Which makes sense to me! While men with the disorder can suffer intensely, testosterone is the closest thing to a cure for it. So transitioning stands to offer natal females symptomatic relief. Meanwhile, natal males with the disorder might feel "sissified", a poor fit for masculine stereotypes. The disorder is also under-recognized, marginalizing, even gaslighting, those who have it:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36600979/
People try to solve their problems with the tools available to them: if some better tool could be available to them, but isn't, they use the tools they have. It bugs me that those who transition get so little credit for rationality from many traditionalists, though I consider myself mostly-traditionalist (I suspect many self-styled traditionalists are less committed to accepting bodily limits than they suppose: many seem pretty cool with boob jobs on natal women, for example).
Regarding the artifice of fashion, specifically, I found this reflection by a historical dressmaker and re-enactor interesting:
https://youtu.be/DyWnm0Blmh4?t=373
She emphasizes that the sheer artifice of previous eras' "fashionable shape" gave her more bodily privacy and mental comfort than she has in modern clothing, not because more skin was covered (depending on the neckline, it may not have been!), but because complying with fashionable ideals (ideals she takes as given, and perhaps for social creatures like us, they are, even if the specific form they take isn't) in clothing with "negative ease" (clothing that makes your body conform to it rather than conforming to your body) is more attainable for a wider variety of natural body types, taking pressure off people to, well, "look good naked". Rather than modifying bodies themselves to fit fashion, the clothing modifies.
Makeup isn't clothing, but it's also artifice, disguise, and in that sense privacy. Contouring one's face for public consumption every morning is a hassle, but growing awareness that contouring can be rather convincing is beneficial, in a way. Pressure to be "naturally beautiful" by changing the body itself (however unnaturally) can be intense. Simply knowing a good contouring job can create a passable illusion of change to one's natural features lets slip how much artifice even what's supposedly natural may involve.
I really appreciate this comment! Certainly there are a lot of modifications to base human living that I deeply appreciate (thanks again, antibiotics from last week!).
My suspicion is that frequently, when there's a conflict between us-as-we-are and a new shape we could fit into, baseline humans are assumed to be the problem that has to be fixed.
I like how L.M. Sacasas puts it here: https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/the-human-built-world-is-not-built
>What Illich and Ellul would have us consider is that the human-built world is not, in fact, built for humans. And, of course, this is to say nothing of what the human-built world has meant for the non-human world. What’s more, it may be paradoxically the case that the human-built world will prove finally inhospitable to human beings precisely to the degree that it was built for humans without regard for humanity’s continuity with the other animals and the world we inhabit together.
I think my biggest question (though I have a lot of questions!) is in a world where abortion is criminalized, who do pro-lifers want to be punished when abortions do occur, and how? For Leah in particular--I know that your goal is to have a world where abortion is unthinkable and no one *wants* to have one or give one, but right now we aren't in that world, and I don't really see how we could get there without using coercion to prevent abortions in the near future. So I think I would really like to see you comment on the specifics about what sort of coercion you want to see in pro-life laws.
I would like the focus to be on doctors, with the most appropriate initial penalty being losing a license for performing an unlawful medical procedure.
I expected, post-Dobbs, for there to be more doctors who deliberately and publicly broke the law as civil disobedience. To my knowledge, only one doctor has come forward (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/18/texas-abortion-provider-alan-braid/), and he did so pre-Dobbs, in response to Texas's strange SB8 ban.
The reaction post-Dobbs has suggested that, for the most part, doctors are unwilling to break the law period, and it's not a question of having to ratchet up the penalty for a deterrent effect. The bigger challenge has been clear safe harbors about what is *not* covered by the bans, where doctors in states that say explicitly in their statute "ectopic pregnancies are excluded from this ban" have professed uncertainty about whether the procedure is banned.
Losing a license to practice is not a small thing for a doctor. And hospitals create their own hoops to jump through to stay on the right side of the law, which can slow down life saving treatment.
I do find the surprise around the consequences for women odd given that we do have a lot of case studies of what these restrictions look like in action - from US Catholic hospitals pre Dobbs (not to mention myriad other country’s data).
More here: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/25/opinion/sunday/roe-dobbs-miscarriage-abortion.amp.html
Have you talked with Catholic hospitals about their approach? I bet they’d speak to you on the record.
On ectopic pregnancy, there isn’t always a sure fire diagnosis - 30% of the time an ultrasound won’t pick it up, and other tests aren’t conclusive. A doc jeapordizing their career and their family’s well being by giving a woman a potentially life saving abortion vs waiting until she’s about to die and you absolutely can legally save her can seem sane under these restrictions.
I'm curious to what extent you think this professed uncertainty reflects genuine doubt about the law, as opposed to a desire to maximize the "dangers" of abortion restrictions as a form of propaganda (or perhaps something in the middle, like understanding the law but still being afraid that it will be misapplied).
I think it is a mix of both. I grew up pro-choice—and I thought of pro-lifers as people who hated women above all else. If you think the other side's primary goal is persecution, it's very hard to trust any promises made. (I think the facetiousness of TRAP laws undermines the pro-life movement's ability to represent itself and its laws as plain-dealing).
Most of the pro-lifers STILL hate women, I'm not sure where you are getting your information from. There is STILL an underlying motive of "reinforcing God's punishment of Eve" behind many of these individuals, and many of the men who push this ideology want women to be punching-bag sex slaves. Go on twitter and follow some of the accounts that post endlessly on behalf of pro-life causes. These are often the same men who endlessly shill for full legalization of prostitution, child marriage and the development of robotics to replace women, to eradicate women for obedient man-made manufactured robotic dolls.
They demand women to be men's house slaves and baby breeder machines while men engage in depravity outside the marriage, including homosexuality, including transition to become "cyborg femmes", and while men engage in other high tech pleasures. They want us to be the free disposable scullery maids and diaper-changers for the violent and abusive elderly these men themselves don't feel "lowly enough" to deal with. These men almost all fetishize pre-teen girls. Perhaps THAT is why they demand an increase in infants... they want fresh little girls to choose from. These men demand the right to "dump the old meat" at no cost to men and get new "pieces of meat". They say all women who reach age 25-30 "hit the wall" and are therefor worthless and "useless eaters". Women are not human beings to them. They are also encouraged by the manosphere and violent p0rnography to see women as pieces of meat to "pump and dump".
There will never be a "culture of love" surrounding unplanned pregnancies, either. It is seen as a way to "trap" women and "make them obey". It's much more difficult for a woman to escape an abuser with a screaming infant, and men KNOW this. Hence why men often cheat, abuse, "transition" or "come out" once the wife is pregnant or right after she gives birth. Men will use technology to enslave us further, and then replace us with man-made technology (artificial wombs and female robotics), if not lobotomize us into compliance and obedience with technology first.
I was also going to ask Magdalen's question and I wnat to push a little harder here. We are also rapidly moving to a post-Roe world where the default for most people seeking abortions where it is illegal is going to be abortion pills by post. In this scenario would the organizations responsible for mailing the pills be targeted or would the women taking the pills be targeted? What about in situations where there is no longer a doctor or organization connected with the abortion? I find the unwillingness by pro-lifers to punish the woman having the abortion to be the most clear case of faulty logic on the abortion issue from the pro-life side and the answers given often feel like they are evading the underlying question about moral responsibility. It seems to me that if one views abortion as a murder then the most culpable person in an abortion is the woman aborting her child. At what point would the woman seeking an abortion be justly punished and what lies at the heart of the hesitation to punish her?
"It seems to me that if one views abortion as a murder then the most culpable person in an abortion is the woman aborting her child. At what point would the woman seeking an abortion be justly punished and what lies at the heart of the hesitation to punish her?"
Yep, let me address this directly. I think the law is a teacher, and ours has been a false teacher for a long time. I was a Planned Parenthood donor before I changed my mind. I think there has to be a bigger shift in perspective before it's *true* that people who seek abortions are in the moral position of murderers, even when they end a life. Having a false belief about the world can diminish our own culpability, but it doesn't blunt the consequences of acting based on that false understanding.
I also think that RBG is correct that abortion has been treated as load-bearing, as women's admission fee to be treated equally. It's a sharper example of the tendency to have our stability and comfort premised on another's suffering (cf the manufacture of goods in sweatshop conditions). I want to take it off the table as an option, because it is wrong, and a society that sets this as the cost for women to be equal is anti-woman as much as it anti-baby.
I respect the logic here but I am uncertain if this is what underlies most pro-lifers moral intuitions against punishing women. I have spoken with many pro-lifers who provide a justification for their hesitation towards punishing women that is rooted more in the compassion for the unique situation that a woman is in when she chooses to have an abortion - and this is not just limited to the hard cases of rape and incest. I think there is a moral intuition that people have around how one body hosting another within itself *is* a different moral situation and I don't think there will ever be a world where a majority of people's moral intuitions agree that abortion = murder on a 1:1 basis.
I think your logic, to quote you directly "there has to be a bigger shift in perspective before it's *true* that people who seek abortions are in the moral position of murderers, even when they end a life" should apply equally to doctors though, right? They also don't believe they're ending lives. So I don't find this a convincing justification that doctors should be punished and women seeking abortions shouldn't.
That's why I think the appropriate penalties aren't the ones given for premeditated murder but are aimed at making it hard to continue operating as a doctor.
Where do you see this legislative "bridge" going? From my perspective I find it difficult to imagine getting to a world where most doctors who perform abortions do so with intent to murder, or where most women who obtain them intend to end a life. I don't think, like you said above, that the pro-life movement is anti-woman, but I genuinely don't see any productive path for coercion on the pro-life side.
Maybe one way to phrase this question is that this is the level of coercion you think is merited right now. What do you think will be merited in 10 years? Twenty years?
Over the past few days I’ve been sharing the news of my third pregnancy in three years. You wouldn’t believe how that seems to rock everyone else’s world (even acquaintances). Shock and concern (due to the workload) make sense to me, but some negative reactions indicate that others think I’ve done something wrong with my body by taking this on.
I'm sorry that's the reaction you've been getting! I hope with a little time, people can shift more toward joy in a baby, and that they can channel their surprise or concern toward planning how to help you.
Oh, I'm sorry. We recently had 3 children in 3 years, as well. I was more selective and reserved in telling folks about the 3rd pregnancy because of fear of this.
I think my biggest question as labor/delivery hover near (St. Luke pray for me and baby Luke!) is how post roe policy will effect postpartum conversations doctors have with patients. Will we see an opening up to life or will we see more pressure on women to contracept or even undergo elective surgery to avoid pregnancy?
I rejoice in Roe’s overturning, but I worry that women are in more danger of being pressured to remove parts of themselves.
My biggest question for you in a post-Roe world is how you think we make the leap from rampant criminalization and the culture of fear and coercion it creates to a culture of love for one another.
We've seen children and parent's digital records scoured for evidence of obtaining abortion pills. We've seen women suffering miscarriage being investigated for abortion (and then being denied appropriate timely care!). We're seeing (attempted) criminalization of driving across state lines to secure abortions for young rape victims (and everyone else). We see neighbor urged to turn against neighbor with legislation like SB8.
Imo the biggest outcome of Dobbs is the growth of our security state, the second biggest is growth in maternal mortality rates. Both of which were clear and probable outcomes warned about for years in the run up to Dobbs, with ample data from international studies and domestic research to back them up.
Now, many on the Right are quite vocal and quite adamant that the way we get from a culture of fear to a culture of "love" is simple: fascism. And they're on track! They're implementing the classic 20th century fascist playbook! But with 21st century digital surveillance and a greater emphasis on 'protecting babies' (though about the same emphasis on 'trans people are scary').
Which imo makes being anything less than clear on your alternative approach... well, worrisome at best.
"Imo the biggest outcome of Dobbs is the growth of our security state, the second biggest is growth in maternal mortality rates."
I think it's pretty clear that the number of babies born who would have died in utero is going to be a much larger change than either of these. And, because of the children living, I would predict the much bigger shift in bad outcomes for women will be an increase in maternal *poverty*, more than in maternal mortality.
One faction of the pro-life movement (including Notre Dame's Women and Children First initiative) is very focused on how to acknowledge how much children require of their moms and their community and to try to meet that gap. The GOP as a whole is not so interested in this project!
In theory, there are enough Left-Right votes for some big expansions of family policy (e.g. Romney's child allowance plan) but I don't believe McConnell is remotely interested in passing any bipartisan wins. There were some good things in the omnibus for support for mothers (anti-pregnancy discrimination and support for pumping at work). I work with Families Valued on lobbying conservatives to support meaningful family leave and other supports.
If the GOP is not interested (and I agree! they're not!) and the work to support women and babies continues to live predominantly on the left / within the Democratic party... then what is real outcome of the women and children first initiative? And other similar conversations happening at the state level?
I think unless these conversations include a real and scathing critique of the lack of services currently available in states passing anti-abortion legislation and a genuine concern re: the negative impacts of poorly written policy, they serve as little more than cover for the growing fascist movement on the Right to say, 'see! we care about mothers and babies! really we do!'.
What does it mean to support women and babies?
Creating opportunities for affordable family formation? Creating opportunities for husbands and fathers to have stable work that pays a good salary?
I think unions are one of the best ways to support women, babies and families. Everyone benefits from stable work and good salaries!
But also advocacy groups pushing for real safety nets, mutual aid organizations, worker centers, domestic violence organizations, groups that support pregnant women in the justice system, community based organizations, faith communities...
Re: post-Roe policy - are there policies for restricting medication/pharmaceutical abortions that wouldn’t replicate the problems of the war on drugs?
I think the war on recreational drugs has a different character (repeated users, addiction, etc). I don't think there's a big profit for illicit drug dealers to sell abortion drugs—you won't have regulars, it's hard to advertise to potential customers, the window to sell is very limited, etc.
I think there will be groups that are distributing the drugs because they are doing it as an act of care for women. This New Yorker piece is a good profile of the kind of cell distributing abortion pills illegally in Texas: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/10/17/the-post-roe-abortion-underground
Practically speaking, I think they'll be hard to catch! Again, unlike with recreational drugs, this can be a one-time event where the two people don't know each other and won't meet again. I think it will remain a part of the abortion landscape in America, but I think it won't make a lot of sense as an investigation priority, since it is very hard to catch and will be much rarer than medication abortions where they are legal.
But to be clear, when a person in one of these cells is caught, you’re in favor of the long sentences they’d face?
As others have mentioned, I generally eschew shaving and makeup, but one that hasn't been mentioned yet, I believe, is shapewear. I used to always wear a girdle-type piece while dressing up when I was younger (I'm 49, a little younger than most people who wore those), but I have since decided they are too uncomfortable to be worth it. I also once tried on Spanx and was so horrified by my inability to breathe that it was a one-time event. My body looks the way it looks, and I choose breathing over flattening and smoothing everything.
When I was in my early 20's (50 years ago), I opted for compromise: one unshaved leg for me and one one shaved for the world. Now I shave them both, with longer periods in between.
Ha!
The biggest place where I practice transhumanism, and where I have the most mixed feelings about it, is in delaying having a baby. Emotionally, relationally, and physically I would probably prefer to become pregnant right after I get married this summer. But logistically, I don't really see any way to make it work before the end of my PhD (I'm not against birth control, but friends in my program who are have delayed marriages partially for this reason). I have pretty complicated feelings about the structure of academia in the US and how it incentivizes building your family at a very particular time.
Unrelated, my biggest question about post-Roe policy is whether any state legislatures will pass laws which punish women for having an abortion and if yes or no, why or why not.
I don't understand your post. Women (and men) have been practicing birth control for thousands of year and woman and men have also been making themselves more attractive to each other for thousands of years. What does this have to do with the "modern world"?
Also, based upon your logic, when a man uses a condom when having relations he's also "turning off" a basic bodily aspect of being a man.
> Also, based upon your logic, when a man uses a condom when having relations he's also "turning off" a basic bodily aspect of being a man.
Agreed. Claiming that sex and reproduction can be pared off from each other is a very radical claim and proponents tend to underestimate how much this "fix" disrupts.