Taliban befreien Buben aus Sexsklaverei

Gepostet am 19. August 2021

Interview mit Claudia von Werlhof

Gepostet am 18. Mai 2021

Genitale Selbstbestimmung

Gepostet am 13. Mai 2020 Aktualisiert am 13. Mai 2020

Beschneidungsforum@Beschneidungsf1·11. MaiWWDOGA 2020 – Godula Kusack „Jede Form von Genitalbeschneidung ist ein irreversibler Eingriff in die körperliche und damit auch in die seelische Integrität eines Kindes.“ #FGM#IGM#MGM#Kinderrechte#Genitalbeschneidung#Zirkumzision

Explorer of the Mother Right

Gepostet am 3. Mai 2020

Johann Jakob Bachofen

Explorer of the Mother Right

What was the reason that about 150 years ago the Swiss Johann Jakob Bachofen, descendant of one of the most distinguished families of Basel ventured to publish a thesis which was most appalling for the 19th century? It must have been his unbreakable conviction that his theory must be right, otherwise he would not have risked to lose his high reputation and his good name as respectable judge. He was the first one who held the position that there had been a phase in history of mankind when women were the predominating gender. He named this phase – Mother Right, today we use the term ‚Matriarchy‘ or ‚Matriarchate‘.

Johann Jakob Bachofen was the first one who fought for the acceptance of the matriarchy as historical fact. Like Don Quixote fighting windmills he struggled his whole life against the contemporary attitude that his theory of the Mother Right was nonsense. A critic of his time called his research ‚higher rubbish‘. Unfounded criticism, lack of understanding and mockery hurt him very much but it didn’t stop him to go his way consequently. He didn’t get any acknowledgment for his work during lifetime, only some decades after his death he has got a partial rehabilitation following the discovery of remote cultures whose society was matriarchal.

What do we know about his life? He was born on December 22nd, 1815, in Basel as the first son of an old-established rich family in Basel. His family owned a ribbon factory, the production of ribbons out of silk was the foundation of their wealth. The ancestors of the father had been merchants throughout but the family of Bachofen’s mother, the highly respected Merian family, had brought forth many politicians and scholars. Already in school Johann Jakob Bachofen stood out because of his achievements. Also as student he excelled. He studied law and ancient sciences in Berlin and Göttingen. Already at an age of 23 he finished his studies with a voluminous doctoral thesis. Then he went to Paris and England for two year. At home again he soon became professor for Roman law, judge of his home town and got a political position. But after a few years he quitted the professorial and the political position. The reason why he did this was because he had been accused that he has got these positions only on account of his high social standing. For a quarter of a century he studiously worked as judge for his home town, but he complained: Can someone be more afflicted when he has the feeling to be selected for an office but it is impossible for him to do this One? Till the age of 50 he stayed unmarried and lived at home with his parents. In 1865 he married the beautiful and elegant Louise Elisabeth Burckhardt who was 30 years younger than him. In 1866 his one and only son was born. He kept in touch with many scholars and scientists throughout Europe, but he was also opposed to scholars whose theory he thought to be wrong. So he was a grim antagonist of the historian Theodor Mommsen whose critical historiography just accepted clear and definite historical facts. He undertook several long journeys to Italy, France, Spain and Greece where he did research intensively. Especially in Italy he found his fulfillment. So he mentioned in his autobiography that by feeling the splendour of the country he had led a richer life than any king of the world.

The last two decades till his death (November 25th, 1887) he led the silent life of a scholar. Bachofen described his way of life in following word: In the deciding moments of life we rarely act in free self-determination. What seems to be our work basically is higher guidance. We think to choose our profession and actually we are chosen by it. His motto of life was: We are all constrained to put our goals higher than our strength permits to avoid that in the end we reach less than they allow. Finally his wish was: Not by the result, by the efforts I want to be judged.

Alexis Giraud-Teulon

Alexis Giraud-Teulon was one of the few ones who already recognized Bachofen’s genius during his lifetime. The Genevan scientist was a great admirer of his »Mother Right«. They much corresponded by letter, and thus Giraud-Teulon picked up many ideas of Bachofen and re-used them for his own research work. The esteem by Giraud-Teulon was a great mental benefit for Bachofen, because most contemporary scientists denied Bachofen’s work and didn’t take it seriously. In his book »La Mère chez certains peuples de l’Antiquité« (English: The Mother at certain peoples of antiquity) Giraud-Teulon picked up the idea of the Mother Right, but he transformed it in this way that he didn’t see it as a general stage of human development but as a special appearance which can only be traced at certain peoples of antiquity. Actually, his point of view is widely accepted today. He assigned this special social order to pre-Indo-European cultures. So he traced a cluster of matriarchal peoples which spread from Asia Minor across North Africa till Spain and the Canaries, those were the ancient Carians, Lycians, Nubians (=Ethiopians) and Libyans. Concerning the Amazons he disagrees with Bachofen. He thinks that there had never existed Amazon nations. He believes that the Amazon myth has been inspired by matriarchal priestesses who carried weapons and defended their temples against the patriarchal invaders. The book »La Mère chez certains peuples de l’Antiquité« as eBook in PDF format (1,72 MB size of file): => Download

Giresun Adasi Project

---

B o o k s

Johann Jakob Bachofen: Myth, Religion and Mother Right The very first scientist, who most profoundly proved that there had existed an age when women dominated, was Johann Jakob Bachofen. You should read his well-founded theories in his book: Myth, Religion and Mother Right.

http://www.myrine.at/Bachofen/bachofen_e.html

Mehrheit der Deutschen gegen Beschneidungsgesetz

Gepostet am 3. Mai 2020 Aktualisiert am 3. Mai 2020

Infratest-Umfrage

Mehrheit der Deutschen gegen Beschneidungsgesetz

Für den Bundestag ist die Angelegenheit erledigt, für das Volk noch nicht: Laut einer repräsentativen Studie ist die Mehrheit der Deutschen nicht einverstanden mit dem jüngst verabschiedeten Gesetz zur Beschneidung von Jungen. 22.12.2012, 14.17 Uhr

Streitthema Beschneidung (Operationsbesteck): Keine Volksmehrheit für Gesetzgebung Oliver Berg/ dpa

Hamburg/Berlin – 70 Prozent der Deutschen lehnen das vor rund zwei Wochen vom Bundestag mit großer Mehrheit beschlossene Gesetz zur Beschneidung von Jungen ab. Das ergab laut einer Vorabmeldung der „Frankfurter Allgemeinen Sonntagszeitung“ eine repräsentative Umfrage von Infratest dimap im Auftrag des Vereins Mogis (Missbrauchsopfer gegen Internetsperren).

Lediglich 24 Prozent der 1000 am 18. und 19. Dezember Befragten halten das Gesetz für richtig. Die Regelung für religiös motivierte Beschneidungen, wie sie in der jüdischen und islamischen Kultur üblich sind, wurde am 12. Dezember von 434 Abgeordneten im Bundestag gebilligt, 100 stimmten dagegen, 43 enthielten sich. Das Gesetz besagt, dass Beschneidungen von Jungen im Kleinkindalter zulässig sein sollen, wenn die Eingriffe nach Regeln ärztlicher Kunst erfolgen. Allerdings dürfen die Knaben in den ersten sechs Lebensmonaten auch von Angehörigen einer Religionsgemeinschaft beschnitten werden, die für das kulturelle Ritual speziell ausgebildet wurden.

Nötig wurde die Neuregelung nach einem umstrittenen Urteil des Landgerichts Köln, das die Beschneidungen aus religiösen Gründen als strafbare Körperverletzung gewertet hatte. Eine wochenlange öffentliche Debatte über die erzieherische wie religiöse Autonomie der Kindeseltern einerseits und dem Grundrecht auf körperliche Unversehrtheit andererseits folgte. Besonders belastet wurde die Diskussion durch die historische Vergangenheit Deutschlands im Dritten Reich, da sich immer wieder die Frage stellte, ob Deutsche vor allem jüdischen Mitbürgern ihre kulturellen Bräuche verbieten dürften.

Ein alternativer Gesetzentwurf, der eine Beschneidung nur bei Jungen ab 14 Jahren bei deren ausdrücklicher Einwilligung erlauben wollte, fand im Bundestag keine Mehrheit. Auch Änderungsanträge, mit denen weitere Auflagen für die Zulässigkeit religiöser Beschneidungen eingeführt werden sollten, erhielten keine Mehrheit. bor/dpa

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/studie-mehrheit-der-deutschen-gegen-beschneidungsgesetz-a-874473.html

In a Victory for Women in Sudan, Female Genital Mutilation Is Outlawed

Gepostet am 3. Mai 2020

A new law criminalizes genital cutting, a harmful practice that nine in 10 Sudanese women are said to have endured. But some warned laws alone cannot eliminate the practice.

By Declan Walsh

• April 30, 2020

CAIRO — Sudan’s new government has outlawed the practice of female genital mutilation, a move hailed as a major victory by women’s rights campaigners in a country where the often dangerous practice is widespread.

The United Nations estimates that nearly nine in 10 Sudanese women have been subjected to the most invasive form of the practice, which involves the partial or total removal of external female genitalia and leads to health and sexual problems that can be fatal.

Now, anyone in Sudan who performs female genital mutilation faces a possible three-year prison term and a fine under an amendment to Sudan’s criminal code approved last week by the country’s transitional government, which came to power only last year following the ouster of longtime dictator Omar Hassan al-Bashir.

“This is a massive step for Sudan and its new government,” said Nimco Ali of the Five Foundation, an organization that campaigns for an end to genital mutilation globally. “Africa cannot prosper unless it takes care of girls and women. They are showing this government has teeth.”

Genital mutilation is practiced in at least 27 African countries, as well as parts of Asia and the Middle East. Other than Sudan and Egypt, it is most prevalent in Ethiopia, Kenya, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Djibouti and Senegal, according to the United Nations Population Fund.

“The law will help protect girls from this barbaric practice and enable them to live in dignity,” said Salma Ismail, a spokeswoman in Khartoum for the United Nations Children’s Fund. “And it will help mothers who didn’t want to cut their girls, but felt they had no choice, to say ‘no.’”

“Now,” she added, “there are consequences.”

Experts warn, however, that a law alone is not sufficient to end the practice, which in many countries is enmeshed with cultural and religious beliefs, considered a pillar of tradition and marriage, and supported by women as well as men.

“This is not just about legal reforms,” Ms. Ismail said. “There’s a lot of work to be done to ensure that society will accept this.”

In Egypt, for instance, genital cutting was banned in 2008 and the law amended in 2016 to criminalize doctors and parents who facilitate the practice, with prison sentences of up to seven years for performing the operation and up to 15 if it results in disability or death.

Yet prosecutions are rare, and the operations continue quietly, with 70 percent of Egyptian women between 15 and 49 having been cut, mostly before they reach the age of 12, according to the United Nations.

Earlier this year, a 12-year-old Egyptian girl died on an operating table at a private clinic as a retired doctor performed genital mutilation without an anesthetic. In February, the Egyptian authorities referred the doctor and the girl’s parents for prosecution.

As global and local campaigns to end the practice have grown in recent years, some communities have slowly begun to turn against genital cutting, which is often seen as a rite of passage in communities of various faiths. In some places, campaigners have come up with alternative initiation ceremonies.

One such program among the Maasai in Kenya, where cutting has been outlawed since 2011, has reportedly helped saved at least 15,000 girls from the practice.

Most Sudanese women undergo what the World Health Organization calls Type III circumcision, an extreme form of the practice in which the inner and outer labia, and usually the clitoris, are removed. The wound is then sewn closed in a practice known as reinfibulation that can cause cysts, lead to painful sex and prevent orgasm.

Word of the new law has yet to reach many Sudanese, as a result of a strict lockdown to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

“The timing has been unfortunate,” said Ms. Ismail, of the United Nations. “Everyone was preoccupied with Covid-19,” she added, referring to the disease caused by the coronavirus.

Still, attitudes had already been shifting. Six of Sudan’s 18 states enacted laws to restrict or ban genital mutilation, beginning in 2008, but the measures were applied with limited success and resulted in no prosecutions, according to a report by 28 Too Many, a campaign group.

In 2016, Mr. al-Bashir, the country’s ruler of three decades, tried to introduce a national law banning the practice, but the effort was quashed by religious conservatives. The transitional government that replaced Mr. al-Bashir, a power-sharing arrangement between civilian and military leaders who have agreed to steer Sudan to elections in 2022, has overcome that hurdle.

Under Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, women ministers lead five government ministries, and the government has repealed unpopular Bashir-era laws that dictated what women could wear or study, or even where they could congregate in public.

Tensions between military and civilian leaders have led to political turbulence, and even stoked fears of a possible military coup, inside the transitional government. Even so, significant changes have taken place.

The minister for religious affairs, Nasr al-Din Mufreh, recently attended a ceremony marking International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation. “It is a practice that time, place, history and science have shown to be outdated,” he said, adding that it had no justification in Islam.

The minister said he supported the campaigners’ goal of eliminating the practice from Sudan by 2030.The Campaign to Stop Female Genital CuttingShe Ran From the Cut, and Helped Thousands of Other Girls Escape, TooJan. 13, 20184 Women With Lives Scarred by Genital Cutting: Could a Surgeon Heal Them?May 24, 2019Report Finds Gradual Fall in Female Genital Cutting in AfricaJuly 22, 2013

Declan Walsh is the Cairo bureau chief, covering Egypt and the Middle East. He joined The Times in 2011 as Pakistan bureau chief, and previously worked at The Guardian. @declanwalsh A version of this article appears in print on May 1, 2020, Section A, Page 20 of the New York edition with the headline: In Victory For Women, Sudan Bans Cutting Rite. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

• https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/30/world/africa/sudan-outlaws-female-genital-mutilation-.html

Eine kritische Analyse: Was hinter der Corona-Krise steckt

Gepostet am 29. März 2020 Aktualisiert am 29. März 2020

Brief an die Mitdenkenden
Hinter Corona
Von Claudia von Werlhof

Liebe Alle, hier eine Zusammenfassung dessen, was ich unter anderem mit Eurer Hilfe bisher über die Corona-Krise gelernt habe. Die Corona-Erkrankung ist vom Umfang, Verlauf und den Todesfällen her gesehen allgemein mit einer nicht allzu schweren Grippewelle zu vergleichen, obwohl es keine Grippe im üblichen Sinne ist (Wodarg, Donner u.a. Ärzte). Dennoch wird daraus etwas anderes gemacht, einer Politik der WHO/Bill Gates (einem Hauptfinanzier der WHO, Engdahl) folgend, die für Corona ihre Definition der Pandemie extra heruntergestuft hat, damit entsprechende Maßnahmen ausgerufen oder geltend gemacht werden können. Das Geschehen wird aufgebauscht (Wilcock), die Testmethoden sind wissenschaftlich nicht gesichert und extrem fehlerhaft (Bumbar), und den Corona-Todesfällen werden andere, die gar nichts damit zu tun haben, zugerechnet, wie in Italien.

Generell gilt sogar, dass Grippewellen bis zu zehn Mal mehr Todesfälle hervorrufen als Corona (Gates). Deswegen wurden aber noch nie irgendwo der unbefristete Not- oder gar Ausnahmezustand ausgerufen, eine Mobilmachung angeordnet und eine Ausgangssperre verhängt – also das gesamte öffentliche Leben angehalten, und das auch noch unbefristet! Dass es also bei der Corona-Krise um die Gesundheit der Menschen geht, kann ausgeschlossen werden. Sonst hätten im Übrigen weder die Atomkraftwerke noch die Gen- und Nanotechnik oder das Geoengineering zugelassen werden können, von derzeit 5G ganz zu schweigen.

Dass der neue Corona-Virus gen- und nanotechnisch manipuliert, also kein einfacher Grippevirus ist, das scheint inzwischen festzustehen. Vielleicht existiert er auch in verschiedenen, sozusagen experimentellen Formen. So ist der italienische nicht wie der chinesische. Der eine ist besonders heftig, der andere macht nicht immun, und wer weiß, was noch alles sichtbar wird, also ob er am Ende tatsächlich als eine Art Biowaffe gelten muss (Queck).

Der jeweilige Ursprung des Virus in verschiedenen Ländern ist ebenfalls unklar. Jedenfalls kommt er nicht von irgendwelchen Fischmärkten. Er könnte auch einfach per Flugzeug gesprüht worden sein und werden, wofür es einige Hinweise gibt (Fotos über Norditalien, Rocchesso). Auf diese Weise wäre die Ansteckung vielleicht auch durch den bloßen Aufenthalt im Freien möglich.

Wie ist das Ganze also zu interpretieren?

Wer hat ein Interesse an diesem Drama einer künstlichen angeblichen Naturkatastrophe? Was bewirkt und was bedeutet sie? Das ist es, was wir noch nicht wirklich wissen. Es ist die große Unbekannte in diesem eindeutig politischen Spiel mit der „Gesundheit“, welches hier erstaunlicherweise mit der ganzen Welt gespielt wird und werden kann.

Pharmaindustrie, Impfbefürworter, Zwangsimpfungen (Gates; Chossudovsky) mit unabsehbaren Folgen, z.B. eingebauten Nanosensoren und Implantaten zur physisch-psychischen Integration der Menschen in das Internet of Things (Digitalisierung, Agenda ID2020; Koenig), also das Ende der Bürger-, ja, Menschenrechte auf diesem Wege, sind heute angesichts des laufenden technischen Fortschritts denkbar.

Bill Gates propagiert für die Zukunft ein allgemeines Impf-Zertifikat, ohne das niemand mehr verreisen können soll (Gates)! Ja, woran denken wir denn da? Wir sollen bald, wenn es denn einen Impfstoff gibt, also alle gezwungen werden können – die Dänen haben es auch schon beschlossen – uns dieser völlig undurchsichtigen „Gesundheits“- Maßnahme zu unterwerfen, um dadurch am Ende überhaupt erst krank und vor allem kontrollier-, ja manipulierbar zu werden? Dann hätte die künstliche Krise im Namen der Gesundheit dazu gedient, die Menschenrechte abzuschaffen und womöglich weltweit eine Diktatur einzuführen!

Und damit wäre klar geworden, dass der Feind nicht der Virus war, sondern der letztere eine Waffe gegen den eigentlichen Feind: uns!

Doch auch schon im Augenblick trifft es die Menschen überall und generell, ob infiziert oder nicht. Denn das plötzliche Anhalten des normalen öffentlichen und privaten Lebens – wie in einer Art Schubumkehr – führt gerade zum Absturz der Klein-. Mittel und nationalen Wirtschaft weltweit! Das nützt den Konzernen, die deren Märkte übernehmen werden, nachdem die epochale Verschuldung, die jetzt zur „Rettung der Wirtschaft“ inszeniert wird, alle in die Schuldenfalle treiben wird (Beispiel Griechenland).

Der ganz große, „kontrolliert“ herbeigeführte Finanzcrash

Vielleicht ist es der ganz große Finanzcrash (Wolff), der damit nun absichtlich und „kontrolliert“ herbeigeführt wird, ohne, dass es Widerstände oder erkennbar „Schuldige“ gäbe. So könnte das Finanzsystem ein letztes Mal geplündert werden, dann neugestaltet, inclusive Währungsreform, eventueller Bargeldabschaffung, Inflation und neuer, inzwischen 4., industrieller Revolution.

Die letztere bestünde in der – gerade auch von den „Grünen“ gepredigten (Rifkin; EU-Kommission) – breiten Anwendung neuer Technologien von Nano- über Gen- und KI- bis zum Geoengineering und ihrer kybernetischen Vernetzung zur „Konvergenztechnik“ (v.a. Freeland).

Das US- Militärmanöver „Defender Europe 2020“ mit Zigtausenden von Soldaten, das gleichzeitig – und ohne Masken oder Abstände (Dinucci) – von April bis Juni in Europa stattfindet, wird gewiss auch damit zusammenhängen. Wenn größere Zusammenbrüche und -stöße geschehen sollten, dann ist die internationale „Ordnungsmacht“ schon da, um Gröberes zu verhindern. Aber wer weiß, was sie sonst noch geplant hat.

Am Ende stünde eventuell tatsächlich die viel beschworene Neue Weltordnung, die über die UNO/WHO als MMK, eine Art von „Medizinisch-Militärischem Komplex“, bereits in Erscheinung tritt, indem sie alle Politiken weltweit als Sanitäts-Diktatur organisiert und – derart vorgeblich moralisch legitimiert – nirgendwo auf längeren Widerspruch oder gar Widerstand stößt. Im Gegenteil, sämtliche PolitikerInnen sprechen heute weltweit eine identische Sprache zur Krise, als hätten sie sie auswendig gelernt.

Jacques Atali: „Eine kleine Epidemie wird ausreichen, um die NWO einzurichten“

Es ist zu erwarten, dass die jeweiligen Maßnahmen zur Einschränkung des Lebens in den nächsten Tagen und Wochen noch zunehmen können und von einer Situation nach der Ausrufung des allgemeinen Kriegszustandes nicht mehr zu unterscheiden sein würden. Dazu können auch Enteignungen, Rationierungen, Bankenschließungen und das zeitweise Abschneiden von der Grundversorgung, etwa im Transport-, Lebensmittel- und Energiebereich gehören. Jetzt, im Schatten der angeblichen Katastrophe, die nach Aussage des UNO-Generalsekretärs die gesamte Menschheit bedroht so wie vorher der „Klimawandel“, ist irgendwie alles möglich.

Es ist sogar denkbar, dass im Laufe des Jahres neue epidemische Schübe auftreten werden, falls die Einhelligkeit der Unterstützung der genannten Maßnahmen nachlassen sollte (z.B. Wefferson).

Das baldige Erreichen eines buchstäblichen Kriegszustandes legt zumindest die zeitliche Aufstellung jener Gruppe nahe, die davon ausgeht, dass dies alles zu unserem Wohle geschehe und mit der Ausrufung der Befreiung der Völker durch u.a. Donald Trump enden werde. Aus meiner Sicht wird mit dieser völlig intransparenten Initiative allerdings nur dazu beigetragen, dass die Opposition stillhält, anstatt sich – wie die österreichische Protest-Gruppe um Inge Rauscher sowie die deutsche um Ansgar und Helene Klein – endlich gegen die Zwangsmaßnahmen zu wehren, die uns allen inzwischen ohne plausible oder juristisch legitimierte Rechtfertigung – und das noch auf unabsehbare Zeit – auferlegt wurden (Rauscher; vgl. a. Klein in Deutschland).

Die erheblichen, auch außerökonomischen Folgen, welche die neue „Hausfrauisierung“ in Gestalt einer Art von allgemeinem Hausarrest, erweiterter Hausarbeit und überall buchstäblich „aufgerüstetem“ Homeoffice-Techno-Knast bereits haben, sind noch gar nicht alle beschrieben. Aber die ersten toten, von ihrem Söhnen und Männern ermordeten Frauen sind zusammen mit einer offensichtlichen Zunahme „häuslicher Gewalt“, also der Gewalt gegen Frauen und Kinder, bereits zu beklagen.

Dies wird allerdings überdeckt vom Triumphgeschrei der digitalen Branche, die ihrer allgemeinen und beschleunigten Durchsetzung, selbst in den Grundschulen, nun entgegensieht. Was sollen die Gefahren, die angeblich von Leib und Leben, gar der Natur überhaupt drohen, wenn es doch nun möglich ist, ihnen qua Technik zu entkommen. Das angeblich bessere, gesündere und geschütztere „Leben“ ist ab nun das, in dem wir am besten gleich mit dem Computer und diversen Implantaten und Sensoren „verschmelzen“! (Kurzweil)

Umsturz in allen Bereichen: gegen uns!

Also warum wird eine derartige Vollbremsung und Umorientierung – weltweit – inszeniert? Ganz sicher nicht, um sie ohne weitere Konsequenzen in eine Phase der Re-Normalisierung auslaufen zu lassen, in der das alles nur wie ein böser Spuk erinnert werden wird. Sondern hier ist etwas ganz anderes zu erwarten, etwas, für das die derzeitige Situation die Voraussetzung ist, eine Voraussetzung, die mit Sicherheit nie mehr so ohne Weiteres geschaffen werden kann. Es ist die Voraussetzung für einen wirklichen Umsturz, einen politischen, ökonomischen, technologischen, sozialen, kulturellen und rechtlichen, wie er sich sonst niemals so umfassend bieten würde!

Dass dieser Umsturz zugunsten derjenigen stattfinden wird, die zurzeit unter dem Vorwand einer Epidemie ihrer Freiheits- und Bürgerrechte beraubt werden, ist mit Sicherheit nicht zu erwarten.

Wenn und wo es den Menschen unter den jetzigen Umständen gelingt, in einen Lern- und Reflexionsprozess über unsere bisherige Lebensweise einzutreten (Maaz), dann ist das zu begrüßen, wie es genauso auch zu erwarten war. Daraus können Bewegungen entstehen, die wir bestimmt dringend gebrauchen können. Aber es wird bisher gar nicht bemerkt, dass sich unsere Lebensweise ohnehin verändert, wenngleich in eine ganze andere Richtung, die bisher in ihrem „Wesen“ noch gar nicht erkannt wurde – eben eine technologische im Sinne von Mensch-Maschinen und „Cyborgs“, dem so genannten „Trans“- bzw. gar „Posthumanismus“, also einem „nach“ dem oder den Menschen (Sorgner, allg. Schirrmacher). Wir sind dabei gar nicht mehr vorgesehen – nämlich als Menschen so, wie wir uns bisher verstehen, wenn wir unsere Rechte, Besonderheiten und Freiheiten im Auge haben. Und genau die gehen uns ja nicht zufällig soeben verloren. Nach Gates &Co, also der WTO, soll das dann auch festgeschrieben, „zertifiziert“, werden!

In Richtung technischer Fortschritt, aber, wird bisher fast nur hoffnungsvoll geblickt, so, als wäre ein weiterer solcher Fortschritt auch „alternativ“ zu nützen. Er verspricht ja das „bessere Leben“, um das es uns allen geht! Was aber kommen soll, das ist der „Digi-Knast“ (Werlhof), unsere Existenz als „Information“ und „Ding“ neben anderen im „Internet der Dinge“, der Großen Maschine. Von „Leben“ in irgendeinem souveränen, spontanen oder etwa auch „gesunden“ und wirklich humanen Sinne kann dann sicher nicht mehr gesprochen werden.

Es muss daher schon langsam auch das Patriarchat in den Blick geraten, um zu verstehen, wo wir uns heute wirklich befinden, denn die Erfindung eines „neuen, besseren Lebens“ jenseits von Mutter Natur und allen anderen Müttern ist sein Thema seit bereits ein paar Jahrtausenden. Nun ist es fast am Ziel seiner Wünsche angelangt mit, aber auch ohne den uns unmittelbar bevorstehenden Umsturz, der vermutlich darin bestehen wird, die für diesen Fortschritt ohne Menschen im bisherigen Sinne nötigen Prozesse zu beschleunigen und zu verallgemeinern sowie überhaupt erst einmal durchzusetzen. Und das heißt – gegen uns, denn sonst wäre unsere laufende Kastrierung und Unterwerfung – unsere Mortifikation – ja gar nicht nötig (gewesen).

Es ist also wieder einmal alles umgekehrt zu dem, was wir denken und „wahr“-nehmen sollen. Aber dieses Thema ist in der hier gebotenen Kürze nicht weiter darstellbar. Ihr wisst, ich bin dran. Im Moment ist das 1. Gebot: Lasst euch auf keinen Fall impfen!

Eure Claudia

http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=26700

Links / Literatur:

Ärzte-Liste, 24.3.2020:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO2ZbMbtd_8

Attali, Jacques:
https://solidariteetprogres.fr/actualites-001/attali-une-petite-pandemie

Bumbar, Zakleo Se:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs_5DL2JUpk

Chossudovsky, Michel: After the Lockdown: A Global Coronavirus Vaccination Program…, Global Research, 24.3.2020

Dinucci, Manlio, Doctor Strangelove Takes Care of Our Health, Global Research, 25.3.2020

Donner, Monika:
http://www.monithor.at/analysen/covid-19-nr-2/

Engdahl. F. William: Coronavirus, Vaccines and the Gates Foundation, Global Resesrch 20.3.2020

Freeland, Elana: Under an Ionized Sky, Port Townsend, Feral House 2018

Gates, Bill: You Can’t Travel Without a „VACCINE CERTIFICATE“
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5oQp-GVMJU&feature=share

Klein, Ansgar und Helene: Sofortige Aufhebung aller in der „Corona-Krise“ verfügten Einschränkungen bürgerlicher Freiheiten! in NRhZ, Köln
http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=26699

Koenig, Peter: The Coronavirus COVID-19 Pandemic: The Real Danger is “Agenda ID2020”, auf Global Research, 12.3.2020

Kurzweil, Ray: Die Intelligenz der Evolution. Wenn Mensch und Computer verschmelzen, Köln 2016, Kiepenheuer & Witsch

Maaz, Hans Joachim:
https://youtu.be/btP6nLPL33c

Queck, Brigitte:
http://www.muslim-markt-forum.de/t1868f2-Coronavirus-offensive-Waffe-zur-biologischen-Kriegsfuehrung.html

Rauscher, Inge u.a.:
https://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20200325_OTS0110/offener-protest-brief-an-politik-und-medien-aufruf-zur-aufhebung-der-corona-zwangsmassnahmen-anhang

Rifkin, Jeremy: Der globale „Green New Deal“, Frankfurt a. M., Campus, 2019

Rocchesso, Ricardo:
https://www.nogeoingegneria.com/news/strani-movimenti-sul-cielo-del-nord-italia-durante-il-blocco-aereo/

Schirrmacher, Frank (Hg.): Die Darwin AG, Köln 2001, Kiepenheuer & Witsch

Sorgner, Stefan: Tranhumanismus, Freiburg 2016, Herder

Werlhof, Claudia von: Schöne „grüne“ Digi-Welt? Oder: Die neue „grüne Revolution“? NRhZ, 724, Köln. 6.11.19
http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=26316

Wefferson, Jeff:
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/03/22/russia-us-army-israel-using-low-dose-sarin-gas-to-supplement-cv19-deaths/

Wilcock, David:
https://www.facebook.com/therepugnantpilot/videos/239364494131225/

Wodarg, Wolfgang:
https://youtu.be/wwRbyqqvxn4

Wolff, Ernst:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYZ2gVs9U7o


Top-Bild: aus Karikatur von Kostas Koufogiorgos

Siehe auch:

Petition – gerichtet an Bundes- und Landesregierungen
Sofortige Aufhebung aller in der „Corona-Krise“ verfügten Einschränkungen bürgerlicher Freiheiten!
Von Helene und Dr. Ansgar Klein
NRhZ 740 vom 18.03.2020
http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=26699

Violence against women – it’s a men’s issue

Gepostet am 23. Februar 2020 Aktualisiert am 20. März 2020

Gay men exploiting surrogate mothers

Gepostet am 6. Dezember 2019

Questions of Power and Rights in Surrogacy

Questions of Power and Rights in Surrogacy: Is it acceptable for gay men to exploit surrogate mothers facing poverty, racism, eugenic forces and misogyny?

by Susan Hawthorne

Paper presented at Broken Bonds and Big Money: An International Conference on Surrogacy. Storey Hall, RMIT, Melbourne, 16 March 2019.

I am a lesbian. In my political activism over more than forty years I have repeatedly spoken out against homophobia as well as fighting against misogyny, ableism, racism and classism among other oppressions. Today, in my talk, I am going to criticise gay men who engage women to be surrogates so that they can fulfil their ‘desire’ for children. My criticism is for anyone – straight or gay – who acquires children through surrogacy. I am a critic of violence against women and have been especially outspoken on violence against lesbians. Just as when men charge women with chauvinism, it cannot stick because men are the dominant group. Likewise, when a lesbian is critical of the politics of some gay men, we have to remember that gay men have more power under patriarchal structures than do lesbians.

My view that gay men should not be engaging in surrogacy is not a hatred of gay men, but rather a political difference: a difference that I will spell out in my talk. I am not the first person to criticise gay men, indeed other lesbians and gays have also done so (see Klein, 2017; Solis, 2017; Bindel and Powell, 2018).

I support the words of Julie Bindel and Gary Powell who write:

We are a lesbian and a gay man who have been involved for many years in the struggle for gay and lesbian equality and for broader human rights issues. We both unequivocally oppose all forms of surrogacy as unethical; as legally, medically and psychologically dangerous; and as an abusive commodification of women and of babies that also carries significant and barely-reported health risks for the women and babies involved (Bindel and Powell, 2018).

Power

Power is at the centre of surrogacy, and it is misuse of power that we are talking about here. When one person has access to, and can exercise more, power than another it is a relationship of unequal power.

Consider the following sentences:

Kim Kardashian West has a baby through surrogacy. Kim Kardashian is very rich. Who does she ‘choose’ to be her ‘surrogate’. A rich woman? Not likely. 

I hated being pregnant, … But as much as I hated it, I still wished I could have done it on my own. The control is hard at the beginning. Once you let that go, it’s the best experience. I would recommend surrogacy for anybody (Fisher, 2018).

But, as contributors to Broken Bonds (Lahl, Tankard Reist, and Klein, 2019)  makeclear, giving up control is difficult and keeping control is more common among commissioning parents with dire consequences for the birth mothers.

Although she suffered placenta acreta during her own pregnancy, Kim Kardashian thought, nevertheless, that it would be okay for another woman to put her own health at risk in order that she, Kadashian, could have a third child.

Another sentence:

Elton John pays £20,000 to surrogate mother to have second son (Daily Mail Reporter, 2013).

The woman remains nameless, not only to the public but even on the birth certificate. Instead David Furnish (Elton John’s husband) is named as the mother.

This is Orwellian. In the real world women are mothers; men are fathers. What a dinosaur, say the critics of my position. I say, no I care about language, about truth in language, about being able to trust what I am being told and not resorting to fake news.

Anca Gheaus (2016) argues an even stronger point. She writes:

… a gestational mother acquires the moral right to parent in virtue of having gestated the child. Moreover, the reasons for holding the right are such that the right cannot be transferred to other individuals (Gheaus, 2016, pp.21; my emphasis).

This phrasing reminds me of the inability of a person to legally sell themselves into slavery (though the practice continues). There is a moral integrity encapsulated in these human rights that makes them incontrovertible.

At the centre of the surrogacy industry is a system of classism, racism, ableism and misogyny. In addition, the logic of eugenics drives surrogacy.

Classism

The Kardashians and Elton John are clear examples of classism. Class and sex go together. Men earn more than women whether they are heterosexual or gay. Men are able to exploit women easily and a two-man family is probably even better off than one with a man and a woman. Analysis of classism and racism in surrogacy is not new. Gena Corea (1985), Renate Klein (1989), Robyn Rowland (1992) and Janice Raymond (1995) have all noted the power differences and exploitations based differences of class and race.

Racism

It is clear that racism is an integral part of surrogacy considering the places in which women are used as surrogates. Sheela Saravanan for her book, A Transnational Feminist View of Surrogacy Biomarkets in India (2018), interviewed at least fifty women for her ethnographic study.

Kajsa Ekis Ekman summarises the use of poor women in surrogacy:

At a clinic in Anand in northern India, women give birth to Western children. White women’s eggs are inseminated with white men’s sperm, and the embryo is implanted in the wombs of Indian women. The children will show no traces of the women who bore them. They will neither bear her name nor get to know her. After giving birth to the children, the Indian women surrender them (Ekis Ekman, 2013, p. 125).

• Southeast Asia and South Asia have been leading places for surrogacy clinics and Sheela Saravanan documents how that has worked (Saravanan 2018) and the ways it continues in India (Saravanan in Lahl et al, 2019, pp. 91-100) even if foreigners are now technically no longer able to engage in surrogacy in India. Thailand, Cambodia and Nepal have now banned surrogacy. But Laos has opened clinics. Exploitation based on class and race continues. 
• Ukraine, Russia, Romania, Hungary, Georgia are all places to visit to get a baby through surrogacy. While the women here are white, they are poor and women from Eastern Europe are often still regarded as lesser beings by Westerners (Lahl et al, pp. 25-26; pp. 43-46; pp. 761-74; pp. 107-110; pp. 117-120). 
• In the US, where commercial surrogacy is legal in 11 states, it is African-American and Hispanic women who are frequently used by the surrogacy industry and if white women are, they are poor white women (Lahl et al, pp. 121-126). In the US, you can order twins born with two different fathers (Daily Mail, 2019).

Ableism

The Baby Gammy case in 2014 made headlines around the world. A child with Down syndrome “left behind in Thailand by his Australian commissioning parents, sex-offender father and his wife” (Klein 2017, p. 1; see also pp. 39-40). The push for a eugenic reproductive approach is the ultimate political oppression, namely the erasure of an entire class, sex, caste, religion or ethnic group. Children perceived as ‘less than perfect’ (Place, 2019) will be eliminated. As I put it:

When we hear of this it is usually referred to as ethnic cleansing, genocidal rape, mass murder and almost to a person—a decent person—it is regarded negatively. But when it comes to the erasure of people with disabilities before birth such negative connotations rarely manifest themselves (Hawthorne forthcoming 2020).

Surrogacy enables the intending parent to specify the genetic characteristics of the child and, in particular that the child should not be born with a disability.

Women who go through surrogacy as part of their contract can be required to undergo a ‘foetal reduction’ when multiple embryos develop. They can be forced to have a termination in the event that the expected child shows a disability in utero. Women can be left literally ‘holding the baby’ and not being paid the amount of money they agreed to because of a disability either in utero or appearing at birth.

Misogyny

As Renate Klein argues so cogently in her book, Surrogacy: A Human Rights Violation, three women are negatively affected by a surrogacy arrangement:

• The birth mother ‘the surrogate’ who puts her life at risk for the commissioning parents.
• If there is an egg donor – and in the case of gay men wanting a child, this is always the case (Eastman in Lahl et al, pp. 27-36) – then the egg donor’s health is jeopardised. The process of donating eggs is not simple and as Maggie Eastman points out it has left her with serious physical (terminal breast cancer) and psychological repercussions. 
• In a heterosexual couple, the new ‘mother’ can feel at a loss, can feel she is a failure and be deeply resentful towards the baby and the woman who gave birth to her/him..
• The child of the new parents will also end up questioning what has happened. Was I bought? Why did my birth mother never contact me (she was probably prevented from doing so)? Who are my blood relatives? These are the same questions adopted children ask (Mackieson, 2015).

Rights

A sentence I hear regularly in the media and in debates about surrogacy is that gay men have a ‘right’ to ‘family formation’.

Whose rights are we speaking about here? Not all gay men are rich, but I would venture a guess that the gay couples who engage a surrogate are not on low wages, are not working class.

People say, “I’m against surrogacy, but how else will those poor gay men have a baby?” Women are socialised to give and to continue giving at their own peril.

Before critics accuse me that none of this applies to Australia where we have only so-called altruistic surrogacy, women continue to provide their bodies to others. It is not unusual for lesbians to have children for gay men.

There is no right for anyone to have a child. Under the rules of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) numerous protocols are broken including that of selling of children and as Renate Klein documents the surrogacy industry violates Article 7 and Article 35 of the CRC (Klein, 2017, pp.100-101).

Julie Bindel and Gary Powell point out that an argument of ‘equality’ is being used to make it acceptable for gay men to engage in ‘surrogacy’. But as I noted at the beginning, there is no equality here, but rather a relationship of unequal power. Spanish writer, Raul Solis (2017 cited in Klein, 2017, pp. 153) coins the word ‘gaypitalismo’ to express his concern that gay men are swapping ‘being oppressed’ with becoming the oppressor after years of support from lesbians and heterosexual feminists in their battles against criminalised homosexuality.

Surrogacy is an industry in which we are creating a new stolen generation with consequences of transgenerational trauma as we have seen in the Bringing Them Home Report (1997) and Julia Gillard’s National Apology for Forced Adoptions (2013). But this time it is inherently a part of the industry. The baby is conceived in order to be taken away at birth. As Renate Klein points out in Surrogacy, pets are better treated and puppies and kittens are usually not removed from their mothers until 6 to 8 weeks old (I am not recommending this, simply pointing it out).

The surrogacy industry in Australia has a number of prominent gay men at its helm (Sam Everingham; Stephan Page). Surrogacy is also a big money earner: for IVF clinics; for lawyers; for brokers. And coming up in Taiwan is a kind of Baby Fair:

New York-based non-profit Men Having Babies (MHB) stages events across the world to provide advice and support to all LGBT+ people who want to become parents and plans to stage its first annual Asian event on March 9-10 in Taipei, Taiwan.

The two-day event, described as a ‘boot camp’, will include prospective ‘surrogate’ mothers, egg donors as well as lawyers, doctors and local clinics.

So whose rights are we talking about here? We need to be talking about the rights of poor women, of women whose poverty or desperation is caused by structural racism, of the disabled rejected because they did not fit the model of the perfect baby; of women once again subjected to misogyny.

Gay men in these days of equal marriage laws are perceived by the mainstream as a progressive force. And some gay men do behave as a progressive force. However, there is a distinct class of wealthy mobile gay men who are promoting surrogacy as a new freedom for gay men. But there is nothing progressive about exploiting women on the basis of poverty, ethnicity, disability or sex. There is no place for an industry based on misogyny, racism, classism and ableism. 

Originally posted on susanspoliticalblog.

Dr Susan Hawthorne has been a lesbian feminist for more than forty years. She is author and editor of 25 books of non-fiction, fiction and poetry, the most recent of which is Dark Matters: A novel (2017). In 2017 she was Winner, Penguin Random House Best Achievement in Writing in the Inspire Awards for her work increasing people’s awareness about epilepsy and the politics of disability. She is Adjunct Professor in College of Arts, Society, and Education, James Cook University, Townsville and Publisher at Spinifex Press. She acknowledges the many discussions that took place with Renate Klein in writing this essay.

References

Bindel, Julie and Gary Powell. 2018. ‘Gay Rights and Surrogacy Wrongs: Say “No” to Wombs-for-Rent’. Stop Surrogacy Now.

Corea, Gena. 1985. The Mother Machine: Reproductive Technologies from Artificial Insemination to Artificial Wombs. New York: Harper & Row.

Daily Mail Reporter. (21 January 2013). ‘Last of the big spenders! Elton John ‘paid £20,000′ to surrogate mother for giving birth to second son Elijah.’

Ekis Ekman, Kajsa. 2013. Being and Being Bought: Prostitution, Surrogacy and the Split Self. North Melbourne: Spinifex Press.

Fisher, Luchina. (14 March 2018). ‘Kim Kardashian West explains why she chose a surrogate for her third child’. ABC News.

Gheaus, Anca. 2106. ‘The normative importance of pregnancy challenges surrogacy contracts’. Analize—Journal of Gender and Feminist Studies. New Series. Issue No. 6. pp. 20-31.

Gillard, Julia. 2013. ‘National Apology for Forced Adoptions’.

Hawthorne, Susan. 2020. ‘Medical wars against the less than perfect: The politics of disability’. Forthcoming in Vortex. Mission Beach: Spinifex Press.

Klein, Renate. 1989. Infertility: Women Speak Out about Their Experiences of Reproductive Medicine. London: Pandora Press.

Klein, Renate. 2017. Surrogacy: A Human Rights Violation. Mission Beach: Spinifex Press.

Lahl, Jennifer, Melinda Tankard Reist and Renate Klein (eds.) 2019. Broken Bonds: Surrogate Mothers Speak Out. Mission Beach: Spinifex Press.

Laing, Lucy. (27 January 2019). ‘Baby “twins” have two different fathers after gay couple were both able to fertilise an embryo of a surrogate mother’. Daily Mail.

Mackieson, Penny. 2015. Adoption Deception: A Personal and Professional Journey. Melbourne: Spinifex Press.

Place, Fiona. 2019. Portrait of the Artist’s Mother: Dignity, creativity and disability. Mission Beach: Spinifex Press.

Raymond, Janice G. 1995/2019. Women as Wombs: Reproductive Technologies and the Battle over Women’s Freedom. Mission Beach: Spinifex Press.

Rowland, Robyn. 1992. Living Laboratories: Women and Reproductive Technologies. Sydney: Sun Books. Available from Spinifex Press.

Saravanan, Sheela. 2018. A Transnational Feminist View of Surrogacy Biomarkets in India. Singapore: Springer.

Solis, Raul. (25 March 2017). ‘Los Vientres de Alquilar: La cara mas brutal del ‘”Gaypitalismo”‘. Paralelo 36 Andalucia.

Taylor, Michael. (22 February 2019). ‘Gay parenting ‘boot camp’ moves to Asia to meet growing demand from China’. Essential Baby.

Wilson, Ronald and Dodson, Mick. 1997. Bringing Them Home Report: Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families. Australian Human Rights Commission.