I wrote a letter to my MP about this one. He assured me he would vote in favour of gay parenting rights, which was nice, but it still bothers me hugely that this sh*t passes for acceptable politics. Not that this would be any better, but I would also be interested to know whether the Tories think that a child brought up by a male couple should have access to a female role model?
The repealing of cannabis reclassification, anti-choice bills shrinking the abortion window, and now THIS and talking about fvcking "traditional family values".
You can keep track of what's going on in this and other abortion-related debates here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/may/20/health.houseofcommons1
this in itself is bad enough, but what its part of is even worse: a moralistic ring-wing agenda for traditional family values, which though undefined, imply heteronormativity, monogamy, gender division of labour etc.
even if they weren't making the classic philosphical error of assuming that what is natural equates to what is good, monogamous family units are not really 'natural' as for most of the existence of homo sapiens sapiens, polygynous societies have been the norm. No one is arguing for a return to traditional 'hunter gatherer' values.
When exactly was this golden period when the traditional family thrived? Before 1991, when rape within marriage was made illegal? Before domestic violence cases began to be prosecuted? In countries where women are bought and sold into forced marriages? When was our 'broken society' fixed? for ****'s sake!
I can't believe that members of our front bench opposition party believe that the breakdown of the traditional family has CAUSED more poverty...when poverty is really the root cause of so many social issues. Also, I am assuming that poverty rates have been declining since the 1950s, coinciding with the decline of marriage?
Why aren't male adopting couples being discussed? Do they require a 'female role model' to be eligible?
What is it that this male role model is supposed to be contributing to the child's life? Good old fashioned sexism and masculinity norms. Brilliant.
i think it's not being covered because these are all amendments and suggestions to the embriology bill... men would not benefit from IVF whether they had a a female role model to get in or not.
Thankfully this bill was rejected today... the number of people i hear in support of a conservative government does not please me... I suppose this is a taste of what they're pushing.
men would not benefit from IVF whether they had a female role model to get in or not.
Good point. I'd forgotten for a moment there that the Tories were at all misogynistic ...
Anyone who's upset by this whole course of events may be interested in a society Sof, Tom, Mary, myself, and some others are trying to pass through the union at the moment: FemSoc, the feminist social/support group. We would also have optional political things to do for those who wish, some of which will involve canvassing against the Tories at the next election. If you fancy being involved, talk to one of us! I'm very excited. Slash disgusted with the state of the world.
God, the more I read about this 'importance of the father' the more it becomes clear how not only anti-Sapphic but anti-woman this whole thing is. I have the penis; I make the rules! Heaven forbid women actually have something men struggle to own! Not that I see men as at all superfluous, or the ability to give birth as the winning card in a lengthy one-upmanship campaign, but, for Christ's sake, there's threatened penis all over this bill. And if a significant number of elected politicians are that unable to see beyond their schlongs then I don't see how we can expect anything resembling social progress. JUST GET OVER IT AND STOP TRYING TO CONTROL F*CKING EVERYTHING, YOU HATE-ENABLING SCUM, AND THEN PERHAPS WE'LL BE WITHIN STRIKING DISTANCE OF SOMETHING RESEMBLING A FUNCTIONING SOCIETY *shakes fist*
I think that most of the people who would claim the importance of male role models feel equally about female role models, but here these aren't being threatened.
Same-sex or single parent adoption by men, might be something who's discussion might bring about similar sentiments, especially when "traditional family" is involved.
This way of thinking is a product of the false idea that there are certain things only a woman can do, and certain things only a man can do. This is false in the work place (something which, after so much hard work and progress, it would be political suicide to suggest), and it is false in the home.
It's never said WHAT these attributes are, because it'd be a majorly bad move to say "only men can be a, b, c or d". Yet they need to refer to these outdated untruths. Even if they're forced to imply them. Because without them there is no argument.
Men certainly can't birth children, nor can they breast feed. But apart from those shortcomings there is no difference between what man or woman can give a child. They can certainly both offer love, understanding, compassion, knowledge, support and encouragement.
(Soc sounds good - hell hath no fury like a male feminist - if you ever want one)
That is very true, but the fact that women are being calculatedly threatened by this, by men, and men are not being so threatened, makes this an act of misogynism. It does all make me angry, though. Thank God none of the motions passed.
Also, if FemSoc goes through Tom will be our men's officer; we are very much into welcoming the male feminists. We don't want one; we want several!
If anyone is interested, there's a few tories on this facebook group Against Tory Plans to Ban IVF Treatment for Lesbians who are actually really fun to argue with as they are completely fooking blinkered... you can find a link to it from my profile, feel free to join us on there
__________________
Nic // LGBT Society Events Officer 05/06 // LGBT Assembly Chair 05/06 - NUS LGBT Society of the year 2006(winners) //
LUU honarary life member - Awarded 2006 // LGBT Assembly Mentor 2006 -Onwards.
Contact me at nicturner_85@hotmail.com
on a seperate note............. YAY!!!!!!!! We can have baby treatment & be recognised as the legal parent on birth certificates!
__________________
Nic // LGBT Society Events Officer 05/06 // LGBT Assembly Chair 05/06 - NUS LGBT Society of the year 2006(winners) //
LUU honarary life member - Awarded 2006 // LGBT Assembly Mentor 2006 -Onwards.
Contact me at nicturner_85@hotmail.com
Hey! just thought Id make a bit of a defense of the Conservative Party here ....
Firstly, the idea to make a male role-model a requirement for IVF is indeed retarded and Im not going to defend the party on bringing it up
However the Conservative Party's record on social policy is not as awful as people would like to assume:
Lets look at the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill thats been mentioned so far:
There are a number of Conservative Party MPs who voted against the abortion bill including George Osbourne (Shadow Chancellor), Francis Maude (Chairman of the Conservative Party) Malcolm Rifkind (Former Foreign Secretary), Michael Howard (Former Party Leader and Home Secretary) - incidently sadly Alan Duncan (openly Gay shadow cabinet member voted in favor of it for some reason :s)
However my point is that there are social liberal members of the party which are very influential. A Conservative Government would be very unlikely to bring up controversial issues up again due to the views of such prominent members and the split it could create within the party. More people within the party voted against the abortion bill then voted in favour of it.
So the conclusion I'm making is that it is very misguided to make the Conservative Party out to be mysogynistic.
fair cop gov - however this was pushed by the leader of said party. And he's kinda influential also ain't he?
But it is good to know that the entire part isn't doo lally, who knows mr. cameron might fall off his bike before the next elections and they could be landed with some liberal conservative (aside: did i just say that?) leader.
But atm, no, it's cameron. As a potenial leader, he may well risk some sort of party split for something he believed was right... and if this proposal and other stuff is to be taken as a sample of that judgement, who in their right mind would make him the person who makes the biggest decisions in the country!
Edit: Not to forget; the rest of the party put him there! He's down with them!
Jacob I agree entirely that Cameron is the figurehead, but I think after seeing how devisive policies like this are, he will have learnt his lesson and stop being so stupid and just concentrate on policys which are maybe more concern for parliament at the moment (i.e. economic recession).
My point was to really stress that the Conservative Party, more so than Labour and Lib Dems (not a subjective statement based on my opinions but political surveys have shown this) has a very wide catchement for members and as such is a very diverse party.
Cameron is indeed a massive knob and I did not vote for him.
For other peoples refference though: http://www.theyworkforyou.com has a section based n how MPs voted on certain issues and here are some interesting ones (people can look up their own MP and such:
Gordon Brown: Voted moderately for equal gay rights. Hillary Benn: Voted moderately for equal gay rights. David Cameon: Voted moderately for equal gay rights. Nick Clegg (leader of the ever so fabulous ... not Lib Dems): Has never voted on equal gay rights. George Osbourne: Voted moderately for equal gay rights Glenda Jackson (Labour MP and Oscar Winner): Voted very strongly for equal gay rights. Nick Herbert (Conservative party MP): Voted very strongly for equal gay rights. Anne Widdecombe (AKA Satan): Voted very strongly against equal gay rights.
I could do this for all MPs but I really cant be bothered ... check it out yourself its really interestin (not just for gay rights)
Okay ... yes, that is interesting, and I'm sure we could all do with more education regarding particular MPs' voting trends etc, but what does 'voted moderately for' actually mean? It said my MP in Bristol 'voted moderately for' gay rights but, when I sent him a letter expressing my concerns that he fully support the issue, he said he was completely committed to supporting gay rights, which suggests to me a 'voted strongly for' label ... I only challenge this because I think it's important to question these things, not because I don't think it's possible that you'd made a good point, Matt.
The "voted moderately/strongly" label is pending not on just how they voted but how often they turned up to vote.
My MP has the "strongly for" label because he voted in favour of all the bills that the website decided where relevant to gay rights and was absent from less than half. Gordon Brown has only ever partaken in ONE vote on gay rights in his entire time as a member of the Labour Government (since 1997) and he voted in favour of it - hence has the moderate label.
I think the website also ranks different votes on how relevant they are:
For example: The vote for Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations is considered more relevant than Adoption and Children Bill in terms of gay rights so how they voted in that bill is considered more important in terms of their record of gay rights. Although I'm not sure on that.
"The MP's votes count towards a weighted average where the most important votes get 50 points, less important votes get 10 points, and less important votes for which the MP was absent get 2 points. In important votes the MP gets awarded the full 50 points for voting the same as the policy, no points for voting against the policy, and 25 points for not voting. In less important votes, the MP gets 10 points for voting with the policy, no points for voting against, and 1 (out of 2) if absent."
My MP apparently voted moderately against equal gay rights. according to the formula probably only the fact that he was absent 6 times (and therefore picked up half points) means he wasn't strongly against equal gay rights. He voted against the equality act. I am outraged!
hmmmm just saw and read all this. its really worrying to think that people like that are in power. But i think that sometimes role models do matter, for the case of either parent. studies have shown that children brought up without a positive male/female (delete where applicable) role model are more likely to suffer in a variety of ways which its a bit late for me to be goin into. now, i'm not saying that this means that a law should be passed, completely contrary i think its disgusting, and i hate all forms of legislation that force others views down our throat and enhance the 'nanny-state' we have found ourselves in. maybe instead of forcing ppl to do things and instead educating them on statistical and psychological findings (in this case atleast) so that they can make their own choices and actually, infact, maybe even change the trends as they are pre-eminantly aware and ready for any possible negativity one may suffer from a missing role model - and more stable kids are always a good thing
__________________
Mrs Doyle: I have cake!
Father Ted: No thanks, Mrs Doyle.
Mrs Doyle: Are you sure, Father? They've got cocaine in em!
Father Ted: WHAT?
Mrs Doyle: Oh, no, not cocaine. God, what am I on about. No, what d'you call them. Raisins.
Its obvious that specific gender role models shouldn't be enforced by law. for the practicalities (how the hell would you police it?) let alone the moral implications.
But I think the real issue is that most of us would agree that gender 'role models' for children are unimportant and that good parenting is completely independent of gender identity. Why should a child need strongly masculine and strongly feminine influences? What possible benefit has this?
Arguments for gender role models in parenting are in my experience based on arbitrarily heteronormative (sorry, word of the year I know) tradition rather than in evidence.
EVEN if studies can show a correlation between gender ambiguous parenting and 'more stable' kids this in no way establishes causation because of all the other factors that might be associated with 'unconventional' family units, such as social exclusion.
I wouldn't vote the tory party if my life depended on it. This is the oh so lovely party that in the 80's refused to intervene in the aids crisis and attempt to educate about it, cut all of the funding from LGBT community groups, created a rise in homophobic attitudes and pushed section 28 through. Now most, if not all of us have been affected by that horrible piece of legislation which stood for 15years and saw schools scared to death of taking any sort of stance against homophobia/homophobic bullying... even now only 6% of schools have a bullying policy that adequately covers LGBT bullying. If you were lucky enough to make it through school without any hassle for being gay, then good for you, however take it from someone who went through a hell hole of a school... lifes not so easy when the people who are there and meant to put a stop to incidents like that just ignore it. Since section 28 was scrapped numerous tory MP's have publicly stated that they want to see it bought back into power. Just because a few tory MP's have recently voted in favour of some LGBT laws doesn't mean that the whole party is in favour of LGBT stuff.
The argument with the removing the need for a father, so eloquently put by the tories was that been raised by anyone other than a mother and father created feral youths and social breakdown. If a party is that far out of touch with the country that it blames the lack of genitalia of one parent for creating little ****s... they shouldn't be given power. The problem is much deeper rooted in this countries crackpot criminal justice legislation.
Other than that any party spearheading the idea and movement to privatise prisons really does need a serious reality check. To make serious money for the fat cat bosses and shareholders of private prisons cut back on staff up to the point where there are 2 officers on a wing to watch over 200 inmates... bear in mind that you need a minimum of 3 staff to do control and restraint procedures. The staff are also that poorly trained that I (as a rank below an officer in a public sector prison) am more qualified to be on the wings than a private sector officer. Throw into the equation that the current private sector prisons hold upto cat B offenders (high risk - violent offences ranging from ABH to murder) and that 95% of all escapes are from private prisoner custody officers supervision, you should be starting to get the picture of just how dangerous they are, not only for staff but for the safety of the public, which prisons are designed to protect. For more of an idea look at the panorama documentary about Rye Hill prison.
The tory policy seems really shaky and poorly thought out, David Cameron didn't help matters last year by bumbling from one dumb initiative "hug a hoodie" to another and completely contradicting himself. I've not seen, heard or read about one actual piece of policy they've come up with that sounds any good. The only reason that they have gained popularity recently is because labour have dropped that many bollocks and a majority of the voting public are too thick to realise that if they put their votes into another party, that party might actually break this 'two party system' we have where voters flip flop from one to the other depending on how bad the current one is doing, even if they think the other party are just as bad if not worse & don't really wanna vote for them anyway.
__________________
Nic // LGBT Society Events Officer 05/06 // LGBT Assembly Chair 05/06 - NUS LGBT Society of the year 2006(winners) //
LUU honarary life member - Awarded 2006 // LGBT Assembly Mentor 2006 -Onwards.
Contact me at nicturner_85@hotmail.com
I think IVF is funded by the couples Finn, it's a private medically thing, not NHS.
Tories & Labour are awful, just look at their track records, they've been screwing the country up consistently everytime they've been in power. For all their flaws, Labour must be given some due for alot of the changes with regards 2 LGBT rights, other than that I still think they r ****.
Lib Dems aint really had a chance on the big scale, but it has 2b said that from experience of living in areas where Lib Dems have been voted in, they've done alot of good in those areas & sorted out alot of the problems there. They r also running the Homophobia is Gay campaign & alot of the MPs I met when I was lobbying parliament seemed to be genuinley interested in what I had 2 say and the issues affecting LGBT people. Unlike a delightful Tory MP who told a room full of LGBTers that he thought gay rights had come along way and were accepted in society as his 5yr old daughter had come home from school calling things gay (the not so good way of gay) and we should be satisfied with that. Tosser.
__________________
Nic // LGBT Society Events Officer 05/06 // LGBT Assembly Chair 05/06 - NUS LGBT Society of the year 2006(winners) //
LUU honarary life member - Awarded 2006 // LGBT Assembly Mentor 2006 -Onwards.
Contact me at nicturner_85@hotmail.com
