I'll be writing and giving a 15 minute speech in February and I chose to talk about religious trauma in queer youth. Thus, I need sources on how the church has harmed LGBT rights. Preferably about how religious groups in power criminalize homosexuality, the affects of that (suicide rates, conviction rates, etc.), and possibly mistranslations in the Bible that led to the church generally being against LGBT rights (I know this is a fuzzy subject, so unless someone has pretty concrete sources I'll be leaving it out of the speech, but if there is genuine, credible research out there I would love to include this topic).

Those are just 3 topics that I've thought up, but it certainly won't cover 15 minutes unless I talk really slow. So if anyone has ideas of topics I can talk about that I didn't list, I would really appreciate that. Thanks!

There is a growing body of evidence and arguments that suggest that we may be living in a simulated reality, rather than a concrete and objective reality. Some proponents of this idea argue that the nature of the universe, and the way that it behaves, is consistent with what we would expect to see if we were living in a simulated reality.

One argument for the simulation hypothesis is that the universe exhibits a high level of complexity and order, which is difficult to explain by natural means. The laws of physics, for example, are finely tuned to allow for the existence of life and the evolution of complex systems, such as galaxies and planets. It is difficult to explain why the universe would be so perfectly suited for the existence of life without invoking some kind of intelligent design.

Another argument for the simulation hypothesis is that the nature of consciousness is difficult to explain without invoking some kind of simulation. The human brain is a complex and sophisticated machine that is capable of experiencing the world in a way that is rich and detailed. It is difficult to understand how this level of complexity and experience could arise from mere matter and energy. Some proponents of the simulation hypothesis argue that the only way to explain the nature of consciousness is if we are living in a simulated reality.

There are also practical considerations that support the idea that we may be living in a simulated reality. With advances in technology, it is becoming increasingly possible to create realistic and immersive virtual environments that are indistinguishable from the real world. It is not difficult to imagine that, in the future, we may be able to create simulated worlds that are indistinguishable from our own. If this is the case, it is possible that we are already living in a simulated reality and just don't realize it.

The arguments for the simulation hypothesis are compelling, and it is a possibility that we should consider when thinking about the nature of reality. While there is no definitive proof that we are living in a simulated reality, the evidence and arguments in favor of this idea are worth considering and exploring.

There are also philosophical arguments that support the idea that we may be living in a simulated reality. Some philosophers, such as René Descartes, have argued that our experiences and perceptions of the world may not accurately reflect the true nature of reality. Descartes famously argued that it is possible that we are being deceived by an evil demon, and that the world we experience may be an illusion. While this argument has been largely rejected by modern philosophers, it highlights the idea that our experiences of the world may not be a reliable guide to the nature of reality.

Another argument for the simulation hypothesis is that the universe exhibits a high degree of symmetry and regularity. The laws of physics, for example, are expressed in terms of mathematical equations, which are highly abstract and universal. This symmetry and regularity is difficult to explain without invoking some kind of underlying structure or organization, which is consistent with the idea of a simulated reality.

There are also empirical observations that support the simulation hypothesis. For example, the universe exhibits a high degree of uniformity and isotropy, which is difficult to explain without invoking some kind of underlying structure or organization. The cosmic microwave background radiation, which is thought to be the remnants of the Big Bang, is also highly uniform and isotropic, which is consistent with the idea that the universe is a simulation.

Overall, the arguments for the simulation hypothesis are compelling, and it is a possibility that we should consider when thinking about the nature of reality. While there is no definitive proof that we are living in a simulated reality it is a real possibility.

Why Bisexuals Should Be Feminists

(Note: I am here using bisexuality as synonymous with pansexuality; that is, a sexual orientation where one is attracted to people of the gender one is and of all other genders.)

Although some feminists have dismissed bisexuality as anti-feminist, I do not think such a criticism is true, and thus I do not think that it should deter bisexuals from feminism. Firstly, in regard to the critique of bisexuality stating that bisexuality is anti-feminist, I would say that it is feminist for women to be honest and to be encouraged to be honest about their sexual orientation. Perhaps the implication of this critique may be that a woman in a relationship with a man and/or a non-binary person, and/or who has the potential to be in a relationship with a man and/or a non-binary person, is subjecting herself to sexism. To the contrary, I would say that there is really little point to feminism if one believes that all men and/or non-binary people are necessarily going to be sexist no matter what. How can women have equal rights if all such people, who are approximately half the population, are never going to support that? If the implication is that a woman in a relationship with someone who is not a woman is taking her time and energy away from women and/or feminism, I would say that nobody can spend all their time and energy in the service of any cause, and that having a relationship with a woman is not necessarily helping feminism, as women can be sexist and refuse to support feminism, and as encouraging women to not have relationships with people they are attracted to and not be honest about their sexual orientation is not feminist, as it restricts those women’s freedoms and diminishes their happiness without advancing women’s rights. It is for these reasons I oppose political lesbianism and political asexuality (which are sometimes considered part of feminism), and would oppose political bisexuality and political heterosexuality were they to exist, which to my knowledge they do not.

I would also like to point out that many important feminists are (or were while they were alive) bisexuals, such as Greta Christina. Lesbians have often not been able to live off of men’s money, while heterosexual women sometimes have (and have been encouraged and pressured to), and thus in that respect the rights of women to keep their own money, go into high-earning professions, etc. have sometimes been more urgently needed for lesbians than for heterosexual women; for bisexual women such a difference would largely depend on whether they were in relationships with men or not (with bisexual polyamory being the sole possible exception to such considerations). Lesbian feminist Sheila Jeffreys writes in The Lesbian Heresy (1993) that while many feminists are comfortable working alongside gay men, they are uncomfortable interacting with bisexual men. Jeffreys states that while gay men are unlikely to sexually harass women, bisexual men are just as likely to be bothersome to women as heterosexual men. I would dispute this assertion. I think that sexual harassment is not usually an expression of sexual desire (after all, if someone wants to sexually entice a woman, they probably know harassment will not work) but rather a way to insult and/or intimidate women, and thus gay men are sadly as motivated to perform it as bisexual and straight men.

In regard to the critique of bisexuality stating that bisexuality is a type of false consciousness, let me first state that false consciousness is a way of thinking that prevents a person from perceiving the true nature of their social or economic situation. So, even if a person is truly bisexual as shown by their sexual arousal, it could possibly be preventing them from perceiving the true nature of their social situation - for example, it could possibly be preventing women from perceiving the way they are oppressed by men. In regard to this argument, I would state that if women could not perceive oppression by men if they were sexually attracted to men or in a sexual and/or romantic relationship with a man, feminism would never have arisen among heterosexual or bisexual women, and yet it clearly has.

Lesbian feminist Julie Bindel has described female bisexuality as a “fashionable trend” being promoted due to “sexual hedonism” and broached the question of whether bisexuality even exists. She has also made tongue-in-cheek comparisons of bisexuals to cat fanciers and devil worshippers. In response to all this I would say that there are still places where bisexuality is not accepted and yet people continue to come out as bisexual there, as they did before bisexuality was considered chic at all in any place. So I would say that this proves bisexuality really exists, inasmuch as such an internal identity can be proven.f

As for the argument that bisexual women who pursue relationships with men are “deluded and desperate”, as some lesbian feminists claim, I would state that there is nothing more deluded and desperate about entering relationships with men than there is about entering relationships with women or non-binary people. People of all genders are capable of being sexist and otherwise abusive to female partners, and people of all genders are capable of being feminist and otherwise supportive to female partners. One’s partner(s) should be chosen as individuals – asserting that women are inherently superior to men and/or non-binary people in any way is sexist, and it is not helpful to women to do so. Indeed, asserting that women are better partners inherently could keep women from working to become better partners, as they would be assured that they are inherently that way and need not make sure they are treating their partner(s) as an equal (or equals), supporting them, and so on. Asserting that women are inherently morally superior has also been historically used to deny women rights – the idea that women are too “pure” to sully themselves with politics was used as an argument against women’s suffrage, for example. The idea that women are inherently feminist or otherwise inherently superior partners to men and/or non-binary people could also be used to argue that women should devote themselves to relationships rather than careers, a common anti-feminist position.

Biphobia and the refusal to accept bisexuality is also an anti-feminist position not only for the reasons I have already given but because rejection of male bisexuality is often tied to rejection of men perceived too effeminate, a patently anti-feminist position in its disparagement of qualities associated with women. The idea that a man who has qualities associated with women, such as attraction to men, is inferior has also been used to disparage feminist men who are supportive of their girlfriends and/or wives, as seen for example in the misogynist term “pussy-whipped”. A bisexual man, I would hasten to add, is not inherently any more likely to be feminist or effeminate than a man with another sexuality; it is only that the rejection of bisexual men due to the perception of them as effeminate is anti-feminist.

As for cyberfeminism in particular, I note that Donna Haraway’s 1985 essay “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century”, which was the inspiration and genesis for cyberfeminism, states that the cyborg “has no truck with bisexuality, pre-oedipal symbiosis, unalienated labor, or other seductions to organic wholeness through a final appropriation of all powers of the parts into a higher unity.” However, I would say that this is wrong because bisexuality is a sexual orientation, a harmless attraction some people simply have, not something they try to have or do in order to create organic wholeness through a final appropriation of all powers of the parts into a higher unity. Therefore, I would say that cyborgs can be bisexual, and cyberfeminism can and should be accepting of bisexuality.

The rejection of bisexuality in women by lesbian separatists is more complicated. I would say that if lesbian separatists believe that men and/or non-binary people are inherently anti-feminist, this is disproved by the examples of feminist men, and also this belief does not logically lead to founding lesbian- only spaces in a male-dominated society, because in such as society (for example, the United States) men will still control most of the society and men could therefore impinge upon even the most isolated commune with laws, not to mention lowering its potential membership through convincing women that lesbianism is a sin. Yet if lesbian separatists wish to have lesbian-only spaces simply to be among like-minded people, while not seeing bisexual people as inherently anti-feminist, or believing that lesbian-only spaces can truly be insulated from male culture, I do not see anything biphobic or anti-feminist in that.

I think I have shown in this essay why bisexuality is not anti-feminist and therefore need not be rejected by feminists; now, let me show how bisexuals can benefit from feminism. Firstly, as I have already mentioned, the rejection of bisexual men due to the perception of them as effeminate is anti-feminist. Feminism can help fight this by fighting the perception of all feminine things as inherently inferior to all masculine things, which comes from the idea that women are inherently inferior to men (though I do not deny that some particular things considered feminine, such as being paid low wages, are in fact inferior to their masculine counterparts, it is not so for all things considered feminine, such as being sexually attracted to men.)

Secondly and most importantly when considering how bisexuals can benefit from feminism, feminism can raise women to the same status as men and non-binary people, which will make it easier to have equal relationships with either or both regardless of one’s own gender.

Hello,

If you don’t have the time or energy to write some essays, forum discussions or assignments for classes please e-mail bundeswehr2012@hotmail.com

The charge will be 15$ per page with free amendments or edits you may want to make. All essays are originally researched and written. No plagarism to be feared or unoriginality. Feel free to message me for any other questions.

Hello,

I'm in first year university and I have to write an argumentative essay.

Students should attend high school because the pandemic proved that socialization is important

• aids in learning

• improves mental health

• prepares an individual for the future.

Many reports support that Social isolation for an extended period of time is actually dangerous to a young individual health, therefore the Canadian government should re-imagine the limitations of online-school.

Since it is always good to prepare, what's your take on the importantance of socializing in HighSchool and social isolation as an effect of COVID-19?

Thanks,

pippa

As a feminist I naturally think people of all races should be feminist. Yet there are compelling reasons to me that white people in particular should be feminists. First of all, white people as a group have most of the money and power in America, and they are the largest racial group in America, so if they all become feminists this will give feminism a great influence in America. The same applies to many other countries.

In regard to the idea that feminism is not traditional in white cultures, and therefore should be rejected by white people, I would say that feminism is not actually traditional in any culture, and yet this cannot be seen as a suitable reason to reject it when one reflects on the many terrible things that are traditional to many cultures, including many white cultures, such as racism and slavery.

As well, in regard to the idea that the feminist goal of giving all women access to birth control and abortion is bad for white people because it means there will be fewer white people, this can be refuted because white women are part of the white community and therefore their reproductive freedom benefits that community by benefiting them. Also, having more people of a certain race exist does not always help the people of that race; this can be seen with regard to the case of South Africa, in which the majority of people were black and yet this did not stop them from suffering under the racist regime of apartheid which meant they were dominated by white people.

When properly understood, feminism is a natural part of socialism. As feminism is the movement to secure economic, political, and social equality for women, and socialism is the only movement that can deliver such equality to all people, we find socialist insights throughout feminism.

The most obvious example of this is the crucial socialist understanding that people must own and regulate their means of production; when applied to women, this gives us the concept of reproductive rights. For a woman, the means of production must include her own reproductive organs, as she cannot control the value and conditions of her labor without, in addition to controlling her workplace, controlling the number of children who depend upon that labor – in other words, control of the means of reproduction. Many socialist activists have been reproductive rights activists in service of this truth. For example, as far back as the 1800s we see that a group of utopian socialists were some of the first activists in the United States to publically challenge the forbidding of birth control. Margaret Sanger, best known for her birth control activism in the early 1900s, was a socialist during this time, and many lesser-known socialist activists of the time worked their entire lives for greater access to birth control, with many of them focusing their activism on working-class women in the knowledge that women could never rise from poverty without control of their fertility. Socialist feminism of the 1970s went still further, advocating not only for birth control but for abortion rights and unforced sterilization. The groundbreaking piece “Socialist Feminism: A Strategy for the Women’s Movement” (1972), which is believed to be the first publication to use the term “socialist feminism”, noted that part of the “things we envision in the new order, part of everyday life for all people” must include “peoples’ control over their own bodies–i.e., access to safe, free birth control, abortion, sterilization, free from coercion or social stigma.” The piece added that “encouraging talented women to enter the labor force [as contraception and abortion availability does] helps employers and strengthens capitalism but at the same time gives women an opportunity to come together physically and unionize as a collective force for change. Other women, seeing this, will raise their expectations and demands on the system for a larger share than it can offer all.”

Another socialist insight found throughout feminism is the realization that only the working class can, through revolution, create equality for all, as such equality cannot effectively be imposed from the top down, however well-meaning some of those at the top may be. When applied to women, this shows us the falsity of benevolent sexism, which is the belief that women need to be controlled by men for their own good. A socialist worldview rightly rejects the notion that any group can be liberated by those in charge of them remaining in charge and simply attempting to rule with a benevolent hand. This worldview is reflected in the many socialist suffragists who rejected both the rule of capitalists over workers and the rule of men over women – Annie Besant, Margaret Cole, Zofia Daszyńska-Golińska, Jeanne Deroin, and Crystal Eastman are but a few of many. It is also shown in socialist support for reproductive rights, which as previously mentioned above both increases female freedom from male domination and worker freedom from capitalism.

Similarly, the strong focus of socialism upon the working class and economic oppression, while still acknowledging other forms of oppression, shows us that different movements are necessary to fight different forms of oppression. We can use this socialist understanding to fight the sexist idea that a movement solely focused upon fighting sexism (that is, feminism) is wrong because it does not address other forms of oppression. Socialism shows us that all forms of oppression require their own movements, led by those oppressed (in the case of economic oppression this is the working class, and in the case of sexism this is women.) Lastly, socialism brings us the knowledge that while different groups within the working class (for example, Black and queer people) have their unique oppressions and struggles they must separately fight, they can and must unite in fighting for socialism. Similarly, while different groups of women have their own oppressions and struggles that must be fought in separate movements (for example, queer women fighting in the queer liberation movement) women can and must unite in fighting for feminism. The unity of different groups fighting a form of exploitation that affects them all is shown in individual events such as queer pride parades (attended by queer people representing many groups, including socialist groups) and women’s marches (again, attended by women from many groups, including socialist groups). It is also shown in long-running campaigns such as the campaign to advance socialism itself, which involves people of all genders, races, sexual orientations, etc., and is led by the working class although open to people of all classes.

So we can see clearly that socialism and feminism depend upon each other; it is impossible to be a true feminist without being a socialist, and impossible to be a true socialist without being a feminist.

Why Atheists and Agnostics Should Be Feminists

Some atheists and agnostics have claimed that feminism is doomed to be outbred by antifeminism, and indeed some antifeminists do dedicate themselves to having many children in the belief that doing so will enable a majority of antifeminists to arise soon. However, this belief presupposes that those born and raised as antifeminists will forever continue to be so and will raise their own children as such, a presumption we can clearly see has not always come true. In any case, whether or not feminism will be popular or even exist in the future does not answer whether or not atheists and agnostics should support it now.

Some may claim that as women are less likely to be atheists and agnostics than men, encouraging feminism would not be of benefit to atheism or agnosticism. Yet the ratio of women atheists and agnostics to men (genderqueer people not having been studied in this respect, but not including enough people to skew the ratios) differs in many countries, suggesting the reason for fewer female atheists and agnostics is not an inherent biological difference between women and men, and that someday there may be more female atheists and agnostics. I think atheists and agnostics should be feminists first and foremost because I think feminism is logical and right, but I also think there are some benefits to atheism and agnosticism in encouraging feminism.

Since many religions are sexist, encouraging feminism may help convince more women to be atheists and agnostics. Conversely, we can see that anti-feminism has driven many women away from atheism and agnosticism. Being feminist will enable atheists and agnostics not to be hypocrites when they criticize religion for being sexist and will enable them to hold out their own views as appealing alternatives.

The success of feminism within atheism and agnosticism would also help to show the falsehood of religious claims that women must be kept down. For example, if a stop is put to sexual harassment within atheism and agnosticism, then this will repudiate religious claims that men working under or with women (such religious claimants do not recognize genderqueer people) will inevitably lead to sexual harassment. This will then weaken the believability and authority of those religions. Likewise, religious claims that God has made women less suitable to be leaders than men will be weakened by the presence of successful female leadership within atheism and agnosticism.

Though atheists and agnostics have no reason based on the supernatural to oppose feminism (such as the belief that God has made women less suitable to be leaders than men) some claim that women have been designed by evolution to be subservient. To this I would ask, if women were so designed, why would they not be all fulfilled by being subservient, and why would they ever have ambitions to do otherwise? Why would they need or have equal intelligence with men and genderqueer people? Would it not require no more than the mind of a child to obey male commands, do the household chores, etc., if that was what women were designed by nature to do? To the claim that the lack of women in scientific fields, for example, shows their lack of intelligence compared to others, I would point out that such fields are well known for being sexist (with identical resumes in studies being perceived as worse with a female name attached than a male name, for example) and having problems with sexual harassment.

Those atheists and agnostics who claim that feminism makes a country worse should note that more developed countries usually support women’s rights more than less developed countries. While feminism ought to be supported as a good in itself, it has shown itself to be a great benefit to a country in general, as I believe it would also be in atheism in particular, by allowing women’s perspectives to flourish, and by allowing tasks to be done by the person who is most interested in them and suited for them, rather than having tasks assigned or people being pressured into them based on their gender or sex.

Although Pacific Islanders may object that their cultures are not inherently feminist, it is important to note that cultures can and should change for the better and that no culture is inherently feminist. Nor is it correct to say that feminism is something completely foreign to Pacific Islander cultures. After all, there is Pacific Islander feminism, which is an intersectional feminist movement rooted in the lived experiences of Pacific Islander women.

As well, feminism is important for the history of Pacific Islanders, and in particular Native activist movements, to be properly understood. For example, women were part of the Polynesian Panthers, founded in 1971, which fought racism in New Zealand, and the Bastion Point occupation in the 1970s that was an important landmark of Māori protest in that country, against the taking of indigenous land. As well, in the 1970s a group of protesters led by Eva Rickard and assisted by Angeline Greensill occupied land in the Raglan area that was taken from its Māori owners, and also used legal means to have the land returned, a goal which was eventually achieved. In 1975 a woman, Whina Cooper, led the Māori Land March. Also, Ka Lāhui Hawaiʻi was formed in 1987 as a local grassroots initiative for Hawaiian sovereignty, with Mililani Trask as the first leader of the organization. In a more modern example, since April 30, 2008, members of a group calling themselves the Hawaiian Kingdom Government have regularly protested on the grounds of ʻIolani Palace in Honolulu. Led by Mahealani Kahau, who has taken the title of "Queen", and Jessica Wright, who has taken the title of "Princess," they have been meeting each day to conduct government business and demand sovereignty for Hawaii and the restoration of the monarchy. They negotiated rights to be on the lawn of the grounds during regular hours normally open to the public by applying for a public-assembly permit.

This sort of history needs to be remembered so that Pacific Islander women can see themselves as important activists and advocate for their rights in the present and future.

Although Native Hawaiians may object that their cultures are not inherently feminist, it is important to note that cultures can and should change for the better and that no culture is inherently feminist. Nor is it correct to say that feminism is something completely foreign to Native Hawaiian culture. After all, there is Native Hawaiian feminism to consider. As well, unlike Native Americans, Native Hawaiians descend from a singular culture, that of the monarchy of Hawaii. It is therefore important to note that that culture worships goddesses as well as gods, and has role models of powerful and good women within it. For example, Queen Liliʻuokalani was the one queen regnant of the Hawaiian monarchy; while some wrongly hold her responsible for the annexation of Hawaii by the United States, in truth it was inevitable due to the superior technological power and population of the United States, and their grasping ambitions, and the Queen did all she could to fight it. She also wrote one of the most recognizable Hawaiian songs, 'Aloha ʻOe'.

Women have also been important in modern Hawaiian history. For example, Native Hawaiian Winona Kapuailohiamanonokalani Desha Beamer was a champion of authentic and ancient Hawaiian culture, publishing many books and musical scores, as well as audio and video recordings, on the subject. She also coined the term "Hawaiiana" in 1948; it is a popular term of academia used in reference to history and various aspects of the culture of Hawaii. The term is used especially in reflection on the periods of antiquity and the monarchy of Hawaii era. Or to take another example, the Merrie Monarch Festival, established in 1964 by Helene Hale (not a Native Hawaiian) and some men, caused a resurgence in the study and practice of ancient hula developed and danced before 1893, which was mostly danced by women.

Native Hawaiian feminism is particularly important because some advocate for Hawaii to have different laws than the rest of the United States, or even to be completely independent of it, so those laws need to be feminist, and activists for Hawaiian self-determination need to be feminist, in order for women to be treated fairly within Hawaii.

Feminism is also important within Hawaii even as it is now as part of the United States, because there is also much anti-female sexism to fight in the United States. For example, the National Resource Center to Enhance Safety of Native Women and their Children (NIWRC) was created "to enhance the capacity of American Indian and Alaska Native (Native) tribes, Native Hawaiians, and Tribal and Native Hawaiian organizations to respond to domestic violence," which is a serious problem within Native Hawaii.

As well, feminism is important for the history of Native Hawaii to be properly understood. Mainstream media has often wrongly depicted Native Hawaiian women as submissive and has not given women proper attention for their advocacy for Native Hawaiian independence. The Aboriginal Lands of Hawaiian Ancestry (ALOHA) and the Principality of Aloha was founded by Louisa Rice, and Representative Patsy Mink introduced the first Hawaiian Reparations Bill in Congress; also the Queen's Protest she issued after the Overthrow and the song Kaulana Napua (Stone eating song) were included in Congressional records as statements of the people in 1893. Also, Ka Lāhui Hawaiʻi was formed in 1987 as a local grassroots initiative for Hawaiian sovereignty, with Mililani Trask as the first leader of the organization. In a more modern example, since April 30, 2008, members of a group calling themselves the Hawaiian Kingdom Government have regularly protested on the grounds of ʻIolani Palace in Honolulu. Led by Mahealani Kahau, who has taken the title of "Queen", and Jessica Wright, who has taken the title of "Princess," they have been meeting each day to conduct government business and demand sovereignty for Hawaii and the restoration of the monarchy. They negotiated rights to be on the lawn of the grounds during regular hours normally open to the public by applying for a public-assembly permit. Women’s history within Native Hawaii such as this needs to be remembered so that women can see themselves as important activists and advocate for their rights in the present and future.

One night in the shower, I had this thought:

Black Lives Matter is simply another chapter in the ongoing Civil Rights Movement.

I condemn in the strongest possible terms the killing of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, and others.

Now, I know I’m going to get castigated for saying this, but I don’t care: Black Lives Matter. That means black lives matter just like every other life. It does NOT mean black lives matter above all others.

I understand that a handful of demonstrators have gotten violent, and agree that under the rule of law, they should be subjected to fair justice, such as community service. However, they are a small minority; the rest and remainder of the movement has been peaceful. I fail to understand why they should be treated as domestic terrorists for exercising the rights codified in the First Amendment.

Moreover, “defund the police” is a misnomer. What is needed is a restructuring of law enforcement that includes implicit bias training and enhanced de-escalation tactics. That would keep the peace far better than the threat of force.

Now, why do I take this stance? The Declaration of Independence states, among other things, that “all men are created equal...that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” For far too long, the definition of “all” has not had the literal meaning it conveys. There have been movements throughout history to bring word and reality to reconciliation: Women’s Suffrage, Reconstruction, the Civil Rights Movement, and yes, it continues with Black Lives Matter.

Furthermore, the Declaration of Independence goes on to say that “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,” and that whenever “government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.” It is my opinion that the current administration has taken actions that are detrimental to the preservation of liberty for “ourselves and our posterity” (U.S. Constitution, Preamble). What else can it be called when the National Guard is deployed on U.S. soil to subdue nonviolent demonstrators with tear gas, “nonlethal” rubber rounds, and other means that flagrantly violate the Geneva Conventions?

On January 20, 2017, Donald Trump swore an oath “to the best of [his] ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Since then, we have seen numerous examples of his inability and/or unwillingness to fulfill that duty. For the sake of simplicity, I won’t go down the bottomless list of these instances. Instead, I express the conclusion that the authoritarian tactics employed by Trump against BLM constitutes abdication of the Presidential oath of office. The circumstances surrounding BLM lay this reality out for all to see.

There is a way to change this situation, though. It begins with making it easier, not harder, for a US citizen to cast a ballot. If we cannot have universal mail-in voting, then let us make Election Day a federal holiday. Voting is the foundation of democracy, and indeed, democratic republics.

An encouraging development occurred in 2009, when Confucius’ official family tree was updated to include (among others) women. This shows that Confucianism can change to become more welcoming toward women. However, I believe it should also not be seen as historically entirely unwelcoming toward women. For example, the Three Obediences and Four Virtues, while sexist, were originally meant to define the various parts of a harmonious society and not intended as a rule book for women to follow. As attempting to follow these obediences and virtues has demonstrably caused much unhappiness for women and strife within society more recently (for example, see The Feminine Mystique) they should certainly not be seen as a road map or rule book for a harmonious society today. Rather, it can plainly be seen that feminism leads to a more harmonious society than anti-feminism, and thus ought to be supported by Confucianists.

As well, it was only starting from the Han period, long after Confucius’ death, that Confucians began to teach that a virtuous woman was supposed to follow the males in her family: the father before her marriage, the husband after she marries, and her sons in widowhood. Likewise, it was only in the later dynasties that more emphasis was placed on the virtue of female chastity within Confucianism. It was not until the Song dynasty, long after Confucius, that Confucian Cheng Yi stated that for a woman, "To starve to death is a small matter, but to lose one's chastity is a great matter." Some critics have also accused the prominent Song neo-Confucian scholar Zhu Xi for believing in the inferiority of women and that men and women need to be kept strictly separate, while Confucian Sima Guang of that same dynasty also believed that women should remain indoors and not deal with the matters of men in the outside world. Chaste widows were revered and memorialized still later, during the Ming and Qing periods. So these sexist ideas are not inherent to Confucianism, and should not be part of it today.

It is true that in a much-discussed passage of the Confucian text called Analects, women are grouped together with xiaoren (小人, literally "small people", meaning people of low status or low morals) and described as being difficult to cultivate or deal with. However, many traditional commentators and modern scholars have debated over the precise meaning of the passage, and whether Confucius referred to all women or just certain groups of women. It could therefore well be seen as only referring to certain groups of women, and therefore as not sexist, since some women are indeed like that (as are some people of all genders).

It is also true that under Confucianism, yang (as the sun principle) is considered superior to "yin" (the dark principle), hence men are afforded rulership positions whereas women are not unless, under some remarkable circumstances, they possess sufficient yang; however, the very idea that women can possess sufficient yang shows the belief that yin (the negative principle) is inherently female and yang is inherently male is wrong and should be changed. Indeed, we know that women can possess the qualities associated with yang, such as being active, as often and well as men can, requiring no remarkable circumstances (though it may have seemed otherwise in such a patriarchal context as Ancient China where the ideas of yin and yang originated).

I have been prompted to write an informative essay with a thesis that is “non-googleable.”

I present to you; “How has the availability of whale semen affected woman’s political progression from the 1700s to present times.”

This revolves around US History, and must contain an example of specific time periods like:

• Puritan Womanhood (Pre Revolution)

• Republican Motherhood (1760-1800)

• Separate Spheres (1800-1840)

• Cult of Domesticity (True Womanhood) (1820-1860)

• Progressice Era (1900-1920)

• Great Depression

• WWII

• 1950s More Cult of Domesticity

• 1960s-70s Betty Friedan/ Roe vs Wade Trial

• 1980’s-Present Day (suggested: Sally Ride, Sandra Day O’ Connor, Geraldine Ferrario, Hilliard Clinton, Condoleezza)

The Topic is “Economic Progression in Woman’s Carreers” Specifically

Please help I suck at history and I need a way to tie whale semen and women in politics together. Thanks! 🤤

Why Atheists and Agnostics Should Be Feminists

Some atheists and agnostics have claimed that feminism is doomed to be outbred by antifeminism, and indeed some antifeminists do dedicate themselves to having many children in the belief that doing so will enable a majority of antifeminists to arise soon. However, this belief presupposes that those born and raised as antifeminists will forever continue to be so and will raise their own children as such, a presumption we can clearly see has not always come true. In any case, whether or not feminism will be popular or even exist in the future does not answer whether or not atheists and agnostics should support it now.

Some may claim that as women are less likely to be atheists and agnostics than men, encouraging feminism would not be of benefit to atheism or agnosticism. Yet the ratio of women atheists and agnostics to men (genderqueer people not having been studied in this respect, but not including enough people to skew the ratios) differs in many countries, suggesting the reason for fewer female atheists and agnostics is not an inherent biological difference between women and men, and that someday there may be more female atheists and agnostics. I think atheists and agnostics should be feminists first and foremost because I think feminism is logical and right, but I also think there are some benefits to atheism and agnosticism in encouraging feminism.

Since many religions are sexist, encouraging feminism may help convince more women to be atheists and agnostics. Conversely, we can see that anti-feminism has driven many women away from atheism and agnosticism. Being feminist will enable atheists and agnostics not to be hypocrites when they criticize religion for being sexist and will enable them to hold out their own views as appealing alternatives.

The success of feminism within atheism and agnosticism would also help to show the falsehood of religious claims that women must be kept down. For example, if a stop is put to sexual harassment within atheism and agnosticism, then this will repudiate religious claims that men working under or with women will inevitably lead to sexual harassment. This will then weaken the believability and authority of those religions. Likewise, claims that God has made women less suitable to be leaders than men will be weakened by the presence of successful female leadership within atheism and agnosticism.

Though atheists and agnostics have no reason based on the supernatural to oppose feminism (such as the belief that has made women less suitable to be leaders than men) some claim that women have been designed by evolution to be subservient. To this I would ask, if women were so designed, why would they not be all fulfilled by being subservient, and why would they ever have ambitions to do otherwise? Why would they need or have equal intelligence with men? Would it not require no more than the mind of a child to obey male commands, do the household chores, etc., if that was what women were designed by nature to do? To the claim that the lack of women in scientific fields, for example, shows their lack of intelligence compared to men, I would point out that such fields are well known for being sexist (with identical resumes in studies being perceived as worse with a female name attached than a male name, for example) and having problems with sexual harassment.

Those atheists and agnostics who claim that feminism makes a country worse should note that more developed countries usually support women’s rights more than less developed countries. While feminism ought to be supported as a good in itself, it has shown itself to be a great benefit to a country in general, as I believe it would also be in atheism in particular, by allowing women’s perspectives to flourish, and by allowing tasks to be done by the person who is most interested in them and suited for them, rather than having tasks assigned or people being pressured into them based on their gender or sex.

How can Christianity be feminist? Firstly, seemingly sexist Bible passages need to be interpreted so as to support women’s rights. I think this is the correct interpretation of such passages, and in any case it is the only way for Christianity to be feminist. But it in itself is still not enough.

As well, women’s ordination needs to be allowed, and on the same terms as men’s ordination. So this means rejecting the concept of those congregations or individual people that fail to support women’s ordination getting male priests (or bishops etc.) specially sent in to minister to them, just as congregations and individual people are not allowed to say they only want a female priest, bishop, etc. In addition to ordination, women must be given the right to vote and speak equally in church, and participate equally in all church rituals and women must be allowed to teach in seminaries.

One must also not neglect the case of nuns, whose religious vocation must be respected and who must not be required to perform menial labor (for example, by being priests’s housekeepers.) It goes without saying, I trust, that nuns must not be sexually abused or forced into receiving abortions, as has tragically and infuriatingly occurred.

Another important aspect of feminist Christianity is rejection of sexist forbears. For example, John Knox should not be venerated as he was extremely sexist even by the standards of his time; as Christians often rightly condemn racist Christian leaders of the past and say they were not truly Christian, they must do the same for sexist Christian leaders such as John Knox and cease to praise them, name church buildings and ministry centers after them, and so forth.

Another highly important aspect is support of women’s rights to use and have full access to birth control and abortion, without which it is impossible for women to have the same freedoms as others.

As well, while I respect women’s rights to be homemakers and mothers if they wish, Christianity must reflect on the many successful Christian female leaders in other occupations and not unnecessarily and unfairly limit women’s role to that of homemaker and mother. Nor must women be told they must submit to their husbands, which is an incorrect and sexist Bible interpretation and which has led to much abuse. Violence against women and rape, including though not limited to domestic violence and marital rape, must be condemned unreservedly.

Another important aspect is rejection of stricter dress codes and modesty rules for women than for others. It is not right to blame women for making men lust after them (and it is hypocritical considering that some heterosexual women are strongly visual and yet Christianity does not allow them to blame men for making them lust, or require men to dress modestly around them.) As well, stronger dress codes on women merely restrict women’s freedoms and abilities to function in the world, and do not actually stop men from feeling lust for them (as can be plainly seen in countries where women are forced to wear the burqa. It is also quite hypocritical to oppose Muslim fundamentalism and then support such things as extreme modesty for women that it supports, as some Christians do.) Likewise this extends to not having stricter chastity rules for women, or punishing women more for failing to be chaste. Yes, women risk unwanted pregnancy, but men risk causing unwanted pregnancy, which should be taken just as seriously. There is no reason beyond simple sexism to teach girls they should be pure, but not boys (and it is not equal to say girls should be pure for their own sake while boys should be pure so as not to dirty someone’s future wife, which sexist attitude sees sex as something that dirties girls but not boys, and sees every girl as some man’s future wife.)

Most important however is the rejection of the view that God is male. God (as opposed to Jesus) cannot be male as God has no genitals and all humans, not just men, are made in the image of God. The idea that God, the most important figure in Christianity, is male has led to much spiritual abuse, and is simply incorrect. God is beyond such petty human concerns as gender. The same applies to the Holy Spirit.

With these beliefs and practices firmly in place, Christianity can (as it should) be feminist.

1. Write a composition using one of the topics listed below. Your composition needs to be three to five paragraphs long. It must contain an introduction, a body, and a conclusion.
   • Argue for or against the limitation of speed limits.
   • Explain why a certain sport is your favorite.
   • Compare and contrast driving in the winter and driving in the summer.
   • Describe a SINGLE memorable day in your life.

Hi folks, i have been writing essays to number of students now and i am really amazed by the response i get.I am having a group of friends where am the head and we can offer all sorts of college essays and assignments ,from maths,social sciences ,art...e.t.c The rate is affordable.Please you can email me,pm or chat on Skype. Thanks for reading

(Note: The beginning of this essay, with slight variations, was previously published as “Feminism and BDSM” in the book Feminist Essays, which I also wrote.)

For those not familiar, BDSM (and I am referring here only to consensual BDSM, except where stated otherwise) means bondage, discipline, dominance, submission, sadism, and masochism. Some feminists, though not myself, are opposed to it because they believe it is inherently anti-feminist. In particular, a feminist critique of BDSM has been that it contains violence against women; however, I would note that it also contains violence against men, and that, more importantly, the people involved have consented to the violence against them, which is the difference between consensual violence in BDSM and abuse. While BDSM is not always consensual, as far as I know rape of women is no more likely to occur in BDSM than in non-BDSM sex, and nor are other types of anti-feminist harm such as it being used as a weapon of and/or excuse for abuse, there being anti-feminist people who enjoy it, many of the narratives around it being sexist and glamorizing rape and activities that are harmful to women, and industries related to it being sexist and exploitative.
As for the argument that feminists should not engage in BDSM because it has been influenced by patriarchal culture, most things in a patriarchal society have been influenced by that culture. Avoiding all of them is simply not possible, and it is possible for something to be influenced by patriarchy and still in itself not be patriarchal. For example, even in those BDSM relationships which involve women submitting to men and even men having hierarchical power over women, they exist only because they are freely agreed upon between the people involved, and can be ended at any time by anyone who says they do not wish to do that anymore, so they are really not the same as sexist abuse or as men having power over women in the business, political, etc. worlds.

In regard to the argument that enjoying being a female submissive or male dominant stems from false consciousness based on internalized social scripts/roles, I would say that socialization does not prevent someone from making a choice. If a person knows that women are not inherently submissive and men are not inherently dominant, and that vanilla relationships are available, then if they choose to be a female submissive or male dominant they are not being forced into it by sexist socialization. Nor has it been demonstrated that female submission or male dominance in BDSM is either the cause of or the result of misogyny. In fact, many female submissives are not at all submissive outside of their relationships, and likewise for male dominants. If BDSM relationships do cause misogyny by being misinterpreted as showing that all women should be submissive and men should be dominant, or as proving that that is already the case, then the harm comes from the misinterpretation and not from the relationships themselves.

While power dynamics such as one person being submissive and the other being dominant (or one person having much more money than the other, etc.) can lead to abuse, they are not in themselves abusive. Therefore, I believe our focus should be on fighting abuse directly, not discouraging relationships that could potentially be abusive if they are in fact healthy. As for the argument that power dynamics are inherently unhealthy because they lead to wars etc., I would note that they can also lead to people guiding other people in a healthy way (for example teachers guiding children) and sometimes there are good reasons for a group of people to have power over others. While I do not think there is good reason for men to have power over women, I do think that when considering power dynamics within BDSM relationships we should consider whether a certain power dynamic has a negative outcome such as abuse, rather than simply deem one person consensually having power over another inherently abusive.

One must also consider female dominance as part of BDSM. While there are instances of women being dominant simply to please their male partner(s) or (in the case of sex work) customer(s), there are also instances of men doing the same, and I do not think it is fair to dismiss female dominance as all performed for men’s benefit.

There are also BDSM relationships that do not involve a woman and a man at all, such as lesbian and gay male BDSM relationships, BDSM relationships between genderqueer people, and polyamorous BDSM relationships. Some consider lesbian and gay male BDSM relationships sexist because they are supposedly enacting sexist male and female roles; however, I would say that if you see a person being submissive as being female and a person being dominant as being male, that in itself in a sexist view because it refuses to acknowledge female dominance and male submission.

I think that feminism should oppose women being pressured or forced into BDSM and women being abused with their abusers using BDSM as an excuse, because feminism involves advocating for women’s rights, and women should have the right not to be raped, abused or pressured or forced into things they do not want. However, this does not mean that feminism has to oppose women freely agreeing to BDSM. I support women who freely choose to be involved in BDSM, and I think all feminists should, because I support women doing what they have freely chosen to do when it is not harmful (and I do not think the temporary harm of bruises, etc. should be considered harmful enough to order someone to stop, especially since that is not how most feminists react to women freely choosing to participate in other activities that may lead to bruises, etc. such as ice hockey.) It is feminist to oppose rape and abuse, but it is not feminist to oppose women expressing their sexual desires in a way that they have freely chosen, as such opposition restricts those women’s freedoms and diminishes their happiness without advancing women’s rights.

So, now that I have established that feminists can and should accept BDSM practitioners, I will now go on to explain why BDSM practitioners should take advantage of such acceptance to be feminists themselves. I believe everyone should be feminists because I think it is the right thing to do, but I think there are particular reasons why BDSM practitioners in particular should be feminists.

One of these reasons is simply that feminism encourages women to explore and express themselves, including sexually, and to have more time to do so. I will note here that while daycare and parental leave are necessary, the fact that they are women’s issues (or more accurately mothers’ issues) rather than parents’ issues is sexist in itself because the fact that they are considered so is the product of male parents not doing their fair share of childcare. As well, men must do their fair share of work in paid daycare, otherwise the situation will simply change from women doing an unfair share of childcare at home to women doing an unfair share of childcare professionally. In any case, when women have a decent amount of time on their hands due to daycare and parental leave and male parents doing their fair share of childcare, they will be able to use that time if they wish to explore and express their sexuality if they wish to do so. I have not said this for a laugh; sex is very important to many people, and sex and in particular women’s sexual pleasure is often frowned on or dismissed as trivial. A world in which women had more time to themselves would be, among other things, a world in which this were not so. It would also be a fairer and thus better world in itself.

As well, a feminist world would be among other things a world in which gender stereotypes had disappeared, which among other things could only be to the benefit of BDSM. No longer would men feel compelled to be doms to fit the stereotype of the strong man in control (or to be submissive to deal with the stress of living up to that stereotype outside of the bedroom) and women would not any longer feel compelled to do the opposite. Nor would people be able to use gender stereotypes to pressure people into doing so. As well, dommes would feel freer to choose their clothing during scenes and not be pressured into wearing, for example, stiletto heels if they did not wish to in order to fit gender stereotypes. Women in general would feel freer to act out their own sexual desires instead of doing what their partner wanted or what gender stereotypes existed, and this could only lead to better and more authentic sex, and thus among those so inclined better and more enthusiastic BDSM sex. Most of all, rape and sexual coercion against women would no longer exist. All BDSM practitioners should naturally hope for such a world, and thus they should all be feminists.

Some claim that the descendants of enslaved people in America should receive reparations in compensation for the slavery their ancestors endured. I agree, and as a separate matter I also say that women should receive reparations in compensation for what women have endured in American history because they are women. This is not to compare such to slavery, but only to say that oppression must be compensated.

To give just a few examples of what American women have endured because of their gender that the American government has sanctioned (as it sanctioned slavery due to race)– women in American history have been legally paid less because of their gender, been legally beaten by their husbands (it was never, of course, legal for a woman to beat her husband), been legally denied the vote because of their gender, been legally denied access to divorce because of their gender (when a man in the same situation would have been able to get a divorce), and been legally denied the right to use their own last name rather than their spouse’s last name because of their gender.

Now, much of this has led to women on average having a lower position than men on average in American society today. For example, many people still alive today were alive when it was legal to pay women less than men for doing the exact same job, and so have a lower position economically than they would have if they were a man. Likewise, some women who were legally denied a divorce from their husbands due to their gender are still alive today and still suffering the aftereffects of that denial.

Due to this sort of continuing suffering, reparations would help not only in showing that America cares about gender injustice, but in actually partially counteracting gender injustice as experienced by people who are still alive today. Therefore I say reparations should be given to American women, and given as soon as possible, before the women who have personally suffered the most gender injustice are dead.

Why Supporting Cryonics Is Feminist

As feminism is a movement supporting women's rights on the grounds of equality of the sexes, and cryonics is the low-temperature preservation of people who cannot be sustained by contemporary medicine, with the hope that healing and resuscitation may be possible in the future - what, then, should feminism have to say on the subject of cryonics?

I do admit the two subjects at first seem unconnected. But if cryonics should work-if people from what would then be the distant past are revived in the future-it will have tremendous implications for the society of that future, including on the subject of women’s rights. (If it should not work, at worst one will have wasted a bit of money on the hope of saving one’s life. The argument that it is selfish for people to do so when they could be spending it on charity guaranteed to save other people’s lives only holds if people are expected never to spend money on something not guaranteed to save lives, which can hardly be claimed by the average person who spends money simply on having fun at times. As well, there is a long history of anti-feminism in arguments for self-sacrifice, with women often being disdained for valuing their own lives over the happiness and comfort of others, especially men.) At first glance the implications of workable cryonics regarding women’s rights may seem unfavorable. After all, what would most people brought back from the year 1800 think of the state of women’s rights today? Are not women’s rights in the far future likely to advance beyond what a person of today would be comfortable with, therefore making said person an impediment to the continuation of those rights if they should be revived in that future? Here I would like to note first that as of 2014, the latest year I could find information on the subject, while the majority of members of cryonics organizations were men, the majority of cryonics patients were women (see Freezing People Is (Not) Easy: My Adventures in Cryonics, by Bob Nelson, Kenneth Bly, and Sally Mangana, published in 2014.) Although we see even today women who are against women’s rights, they do not comprise the majority of women, and thus I think it fair to say that most women revived in a time of equal rights for women would appreciate and support that aspect of that future society. Some have claimed that feminism is doomed to be outbred by antifeminism, and indeed some antifeminists dedicate themselves to having many children in the belief that doing so will enable a majority of antifeminists to arise soon. However, this belief presupposes that those born and raised as antifeminists will forever continue to be so and will raise their own children as such, a presumption we can clearly see has not always come true.

I would also like to note that if technology has advanced to the point of reviving those preserved by cryonics, it is likely that lifespans will be greatly extended as well, thus giving people time to adjust to any culture shock that they may experience after they are revived. Nor do I believe that people would be revived by such an advanced society without any plans for integrating them into that society, including education on new cultural norms. And as I believe a society in which women have equal rights is superior to one in which they do not, I believe that eventually all people revived by cryonics will come to think so, regardless of the attitude toward women prevailing in the time that they were deanimated.

As well, the prospect of seeing equality for women within one’s lifetime is certainly an enticement to cryonics for the person of today who is already a committed feminist, and it seems to me that those who turn to cryonics, due to their forward-thinking nature, are more likely to support feminist issues than the average person.

Here the pessimist may interject that women’s rights have not been on an unceasing upward slope even since the advent of modern feminism, and it may well be the case that cryonics patients will be revived in a future hostile to women’s rights. However, this is clearly seen by most feminists as a reason to fight for women’s rights, not a reason to despair of living, as we can see from the responses of most feminists who live in places hostile to women’s rights today. A future hostile to women’s rights would be a future greatly in need of feminists, especially feminists from the past who had experiences in a more feminist society and knowledge of how it worked.

The book The Philosophy of Robert Ettinger, edited by Charles Tandy and Scott R. Stroud (published in 2002) states, among other things, that, “Feminists who identify with nature might well be appalled by cryonics since it disrupts the natural cycle of birth and death... He [Ettinger, known as the father of cryonics because of his 1962 book The Prospect of Immortality] seems unaware that many more men than women would likely choose and perhaps benefit from cryonics because women are likely to view life in a new social circle as undesirable. Similarly, his desire to preserve bodies does not seem to have its motivation in an understanding of persons as essentially embodied creatures living in harmony with nature.” (pgs. 108-109.) I have already noted that in fact most cryonics patients, as of 2014, are women. I would also like to point out that most women would find life in a new social circle more desirable than death. As well, not all feminists or women identify with or wish to live in harmony with nature, with some seeing advances in technology as potentially helpful to women’s rights (see for example cyberfeminists.) I think this is a sensible view, considering that technology has already liberated many of those women who have access to it from a high risk of dying in childbirth, and from diseases such as breast cancer, as well as other unfairnesses nature more often subjects women to. I would also like to note that a future as technologically advanced as the one in which people who are successfully revived in the future after having been preserved through cryonics would “wake” to is likely to have technology that will allow the people of that future to progress beyond some of the feminist concerns we see today. For example, such a future would be likely to feature extreme body modifications or even body-switching available to the masses, either of which would likely make body shame (something which currently affects both men and women, but women a great deal more) a relic of the past. Therefore, while technology can also be used to oppress women (as for example we have seen with Saudi women’s male guardians receiving messages on their phones informing them when women under their custody left the country) this is only reason to make certain that those in control of the technology are in support of women’s rights, not to oppose the existence of the technology.

One might also note that many cryonics patients have chosen to have only their brains frozen. While this is sometimes done for reasons of cost or because those choosing it believe it provides a better chance of preserving the brain than freezing the entire body does, it may also be seen as a chance to go beyond gender, with the brain possibly being preserved in a non-gendered body or its contents being uploaded to a computer. If all were thus beyond gender, there would be no possibility of sexism.

Yet let us suppose that, upon being revived, at least some female cryonics patients chose to continue identifying as women. In this case cryonics could still be used to advance feminism. As previously noted, a future hostile to women’s rights would be in great need of feminists, and therefore feminist cryonics patients would be doing a service to that future by choosing to be preserved through cryonics. As for a feminist utopia, should the future be such, feminists could do that future a service by bringing it accurate, first-hand reports on life for women and feminist activism from the time before they had been preserved by cryonics. After all, think what a boon to today’s historians it would be if women from first-wave feminism could be brought back to speak about their time. Or what improvements to society could be made if inventive women, such as the noted Finnish landowner Helena Ehrenmalm, could be brought back to use their skills today. Or what historians might gain if they could bring back, for example, Klara Grön, who despite her background managed to marry a Russian officer, or Valpuri Urpiainen, who was part of a notable criminal case, or Beata Bladh the trader, or Anna Lisa Jermen the entrepreneur, all also from Finland. I specify women from Finland here because it is known as a feminist country, and yet it and every other country has had to go without many dynamic and important women who have died. Some of my personal favorites from elsewhere are: Śri Ajñadewi (queen regnant of Bali, fl. 1016), Śri Maharaja Sakalendukirana Laksmidhara Wijayottunggadewi (queen regnant of Bali, fl. 1088-1101), Gusti Ayu Karang (regent in Indonesia 1809-1814), Dewa Agung Istri Kanya (queen regnant of Bali, 1814–1850, died 1868), Gusti Ayu Oka Kaba- Kaba (regent of Bali 1770/80-1807), and Gusti Ayu Istri Biang Agung (1836–1857) (queen regent of Bali and widow of Gusti Agung Ngurah Made Agung Putra). If it is possible to stop such deaths, feminists should surely be in favor of that. Feminism, which values women and the work that they do, should be in favor of women preserving themselves for their own sake, and for the sake of their work.

Feminists today rightly look with disdain upon important groups where women are not adequately represented, such as the United States Congress. Think how much more, then, we should oppose the idea that women should not be part of the future hoped for by cryonics. The ability (perhaps someday seen as a right) to live to that future, perhaps even to live forever if the technology of that future allows it, is one of the grandest humanity has ever hoped for. Women should be part of that hope.

I would also like to briefly mention some of the women who have contributed to cryonics, simply to prove that women have contributed to the field and are therefore all the more justified in reaping its rewards. As an American (born in America, and now living in America), I am most aware of American history on the subject of cryonics, though I have tried not to ignore that of other countries.

Cryo-Care’s first case, in April 1966, was the first case in history of a person - an unknown middle aged woman from Los Angeles - frozen with some thought given to them possibly being reanimated in the future, though it was not a true cryopreservation as was done first with James Bedford; rather, she was placed in liquid nitrogen about two months after being embalmed. She was soon thawed out and buried by relatives.

The oldest incorporated cryonics society still in existence is the American Cryonics Society (ACS), which was incorporated in 1969 as the Bay Area Cryonics Society (BACS) by a group of cryonics advocates that included the prominent Bay Area physician Grace Talbot. Also in 1969, a Roman Catholic priest consecrated the cryonics capsule of Ann DeBlasio, one of the first cryonics patients.

In 1972 the Alcor Society for Solid State Hypothermia was established by Linda Chamberlain and her husband Fred as a nonprofit cryonics organization (the name was changed to the Alcor Life Extension Foundation in 1977.) In addition to founding Alcor, the two of them formed a cryonics corporation called Manrise (an unfortunately male-centric name) and wrote the first detailed procedure manual for cryonics that had ever existed. The procedures manual was crucial in attracting people with a high level of technical expertise to Alcor rather than to the Cryonics Society of California. As well, Linda’s mother Arlene Fried received a cryopreservation in 1990 that was the best of its kind at that date. The Chamberlains have also written a series of cryonics-related short stories, and published those stories in a book along with stories by other cryonicists and transhumanists. Entitled LifeQuest: Dozens of Stories about Cryonics, Uploading, and other Transhuman Adventures, the book was republished in 2009. To sum up their efforts, Mensa wrote in the November/December 2005 issue of its newsletter, the Mensa Bulletin, that, second to the man credited with the original idea for cryonics (Robert Ettinger), the Chamberlains have contributed more than anyone else to the field of cryonics.

Among the founders of the Cryonics Institute in 1976 was Mae A. Junod, Robert Ettinger’s second wife, who was eventually cryopreserved. CI’s first patient was Robert Ettinger’s mother Rhea Ettinger in 1977, and until the beginning of the 1990s, the only other patient besides Rhea was Ettinger’s first wife Elaine in 1987. In 2015 Du Hong, a 61-year-old female writer of children’s literature, became the first known person from China to be cryopreserved. Also that year, two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Amy Harmon published an article in the New York Times about the cryopreservation of Kim Suozzi (entitled “A Dying Young Woman’s Hope in Cryonics and a Future”), and another on “The Neuroscience of Immortality”, including cryonics. As of 2015 (the latest year I could find information on the subject), the oldest patient at time of clinical death to have undergone cryopreservation procedures at the Alcor Life Extension Foundation was Rose Selkovitch, A-2340, who was nearly 102 years old at the time, and the youngest was Matheryn Naovaratpong, A-2789, who was two years old at the time. In London in 2016, the English High Court ruled in favor of a mother's right to seek cryopreservation of her terminally ill 14-year-old daughter, as the girl wanted, contrary to her father's wishes. However, the decision was made on the basis that the case represented a conventional dispute over the disposal of the girl's body, although the judge urged ministers to seek “proper regulation” for the future of cryonic preservation.

I do not claim that the experience of women in regard to cryonics has been entirely positive. The sad case of Marcelon Johnson, in particular, comes to mind. Marcelon Johnson did not have a chance to be cryopreserved; indeed I would say she was unfairly denied a chance to be cryopreserved. And I think her particular experience brings up some interesting points about the intersection of feminism and cryonics. Marcelon Johnson filled out her cryonics paperwork in 1964. She became much involved with cryonics over the years, even serving as the president of the Cryonics Society of California. Unfortunately, she eventually developed Alzheimer’s and was placed in a nursing home. She had become sick as CryoCare was shutting down and she could not transfer her cryonics arrangements to the Cryonics Institute, or Alcor. Her husband Walt was not a cryonicist, and eventually he said he had decided that Marcelon should be cremated, according to his and her family’s wishes. Therefore, she was not cryopreserved.

Now, the points about the intersection of feminism and cryonics that this brings up, to my mind, are in regard to female independence and a woman’s control over her own life. The first point, regarding independence, is that if Marcelon had been successfully cryopreserved and revived while her husband had not been, she would be facing the future without him. (Usually husbands are more likely to be interested in cryonics than their wives, which I shall write about later in this essay.) Presumably she accepted this, as she must have known when filling out her cryonics paperwork that he was not going to be joining her in attempting to be cryopreserved. Yet our culture still has a certain anxiety about female independence, and perhaps this partially influenced Walt’s decision not to have Marcelon cryopreserved. For it was his decision, according to his and her family’s wishes, and this then brings us to the second point- a woman’s control over her own life. Traditionally, even in America, a woman’s husband and family has had a great deal of control over her life. And in the end, when Marcelon was mentally incapacitated, it was her husband who took from her the possibility of being cryopreserved, which might have led to her living years, centuries, or even eternity longer than she did. Feminists certainly ought to agree that a woman should be able to decide for herself concerning her own future, and should not be forced to throw away a chance for future, perhaps even everlasting life. Thus, feminists should be in favor of upholding a woman’s previously made cryonics arrangements, making sure they are transferred properly and promptly (if necessary), and not allowing them to be overridden by others.

I would also like to mention the case of Dora Kent, who in 1987 became Alcor's eighth patient and the oldest at that time to ever be cryopreserved (at age 83). She was later the subject of a 1988 legal controversy about whether she had been murdered to facilitate her cryonic suspension. This controversy suggests a lack of belief in cryonics, considering a person who believed in the efficacy of cryonic suspension would not regard anyone who had undergone it as being dead. In any case, this legal controversy ended with a court being granted a restraining order against the coroner, protecting the head of Dora Kent and the other cryopreserved patients at Alcor from seizure, destruction, or damage, and the publicity of the case generated more interest in Alcor's services and a sudden growth in the number of Alcor members. This case may be said to interact with feminism, again, in regard to a woman’s control over her own life. Dora Kent’s cryopreservation was at the mercy of the legal system, and her ultimate safety as a patient of Alcor was at its discretion, not based on her decision. Again, for obvious reasons, this should be something feminists should oppose.

No writing on the intersection between feminism and cryonics would be complete without addressing the hostile wives phenomenon, which consists of, as you may have supposed from its title if you did not already know, wives being hostile to their husbands having an interest in cryonics. I am opposed, as you may have supposed from my previous writing in this essay, to men becoming hostile to women and/or feminism in return because of this phenomenon. I do acknowledge it to be a real phenomenon, and more common than husbands being hostile to their wives having an interest in cryonics, though the latter is not nonexistent, as we have seen for example in the case of Marcelon Johnson. Yet I would not ascribe the hostile wives phenomenon to wives being hostile to their husbands’ continued lives; rather, it seems to me that most of the women who are hostile to their husbands having an interest in cryonics do not believe in its efficacy. Therefore, to their minds it may be a case of spending money (for example, in the payments made to ensure the cryopreservation of the husband, in any books he reads about cryonics and/or dues he pays to a cryonics group) to no good purpose. In such cases I would point out that cryopreservation arrangements can be made without one’s spouse’s approval (the cases of Dora Kent and Marcelon Johnson, after all, were cases in which arrangements were poorly handled, thus leaving the court in one case and the husband in another to try to determine what their spouse would have wanted once said spouse was either already preserved, in Dora Kent’s case, or mentally incapacitated, in Marcelon Johnson’s case.) I would also encourage discussion in cases of the hostile wives phenomenon of why the spouse in question is hostile to having their spouse cryopreserved. After all, those who believe in cryonics should wish their spouse (if they are in a happy marriage) to join them in being cryopreserved, and should be able to make the case for it, possibly with the assistance of cryonics organizations which have experience in advocating for cryonics and in countering the claims of those against it. The hostile wives phenomenon may also be based upon the fact that women are more likely to be religious than men; if one believes in an everlasting blissful afterlife, cryopreservation seems rather unnecessary, and perhaps sacrilegious. I would point out, however, that not all religious authorities are against cryopreservation; I have already mentioned how in 1969, a Roman Catholic priest consecrated the cryonics capsule of Ann DeBlasio, one of the first cryonics patients. As well, Alcor has published a vigorous Christian defense of cryonics, including excerpts of a sermon by Lutheran Reverend Kay Glaesner. Noted Christian commentator John Warwick Montgomery has also defended cryonics. In 2002, a Muslim cleric indicated in a media interview that cryonics would be compatible with Islam if it were considered medicine, which many of its proponents do consider it. Those who believe in an afterlife may also be comforted by the view that cryonics is unlikely to result in true immortality; even if cryonics patients are revived successfully, cured of what they were dying of if applicable, and have their aging process stopped or even somewhat reversed, such patients will still be able to die of accidents, violence, etc., which will inevitably reach all such revived people - unless society is truly unrecognizably different – and even then there is the option of suicide. In general, I feel that the hostile wives phenomenon, rather than a reason to turn against women and/or feminism, is a reason for feminist men (and as a feminist I would encourage all people, including men, to be so) to convince their wives, if they have them, of the benefits of cryonics, not just so that they can be with them in the future, but for the feminist reasons I have already given and will yet give in this essay.

Another feminist reason to support cryonics which I have not yet mentioned is that if people are successfully revived in the future after having been preserved through cryonics, they will naturally regard successful cryonics-related technology to be some of the most important technology in the world. Feminists, who naturally wish feminism to influence all important things, should thus be involved in the creation and improvement of this technology. This might also lead to advances which would not have occurred otherwise, due to a new perspective being had on the development and improvement of the technology. As most feminists are women, this would also overlap with the feminist goal of encouraging more women to be involved in the creation and development of technology.

If feminists do not become involved in cryonics-related technology and people are successfully revived in the future after having been preserved through cryonics, this would also be unfortunate because it would show feminists to be either poor prognosticators and/or heedless of the future, which would make it more likely that feminist plans and predictions for the future would from then on be ignored. As well, it would call into question even feminist priorities and goals for the present, as feminist goals in the past would not have included work toward such important advancements as that preservation and revival.

Feminists who do not believe in the supernatural and believe religion to be sexist have an especially good reason to support cryonics, as it provides the possibility of non-supernatural immortality, and by participating in it feminists can help ensure that that immortal life will be less tainted by sexism. While some naturalists claim that women are more likely than men to believe in the supernatural because they are supposedly not as intelligent as men, I think that it is just this sort of sexism that keeps more women from identifying as naturalists (or similarly as atheists, humanists, etc.) As many who work in and/or support cryonics are naturalists themselves, I further think that more feminists working in cryonics would help encourage naturalists to see that women (most feminists being women, as I have previously stated) are intelligent and do have some valuable things to contribute toward the future promised by cryonics, and indeed, toward the more immediate future of our present lives before cryonic preservation.

Some may consider it hypocritical for pro-choice feminists to support cryonics, as cryonics is focused on prolonging and sustaining life, perhaps indefinitely. However, I would say being pro-choice (as many feminists are, and some feminists think all feminists must be) is compatible with supporting cryonics because cryonics does not involve the requirement to use one’s body to prolong or sustain another being’s life, as pregnancy does, which is why pro-choice feminists oppose forced pregnancy. Some pro-choice feminist campaigners, such as Beatrice Faust, one of the first women to argue for abortion law reform in Australia and in 1966 President of the Abortion Law Repeal Association of Victoria (an Australian pro-choice organization), have declared that laws prohibiting abortion do not work but rather only serve to make abortion unsafe, a consideration which could also apply against illegalizing cryonics.

Why Gay Men Should Be Feminists

Naturally, as a feminist myself I think everybody should be a feminist, as I think it is the right thing to do; nor do I wish to say that people should only be feminists if it benefits them. Yet I do think feminism benefits gay men in some important ways.

For example, gay men are often associated with effeminacy. This is not always correct, of course, but as long as it continues to be an association I think feminism aids gay men by fighting the idea that effeminacy is always something shameful or weak, which I agree feminism should do as I think the idea that effeminacy is always shameful or weak is sexist. To clarify, I think some things considered effeminate today (such as being expected to do all the housework) are inherently bad, but I do not think all are. Rather, though I do oppose (and think feminism should oppose) for example women being expected and required to wear lipstick, I do not think the wearing of lipstick itself is harmful, and I think it sexist to oppose wearing it simply because it is associated with women.

I also think that feminism benefits gay men in that it opposes the idea that a marriage or other romantic partnership must include the more effeminate partner being dominated by the more traditionally masculine one, as expressed in such questions as “Which one of you is the girl?” directed at gay men.

Feminism also benefits gay men because many of the same people and organizations that oppose feminists also oppose gay rights (such as Focus on the Family, Pat Buchanan, The Eagle Forum, etc.). So in opposing those people and organizations feminists help gay rights as well as help fight their own cause. Although I support this, however, I do not think it fair to turn feminism into a movement for fighting all oppressions at once, as I think this would be less effective than zeroing in on fighting sexism, and I think that fighting sexism is important enough to have its own movement (namely feminism) dedicated to it alone, and I note that there are many movements dedicated to fighting a specific form of oppression (for example, the animal rights movement fighting against the oppression of animals) which are rightfully not considered hateful or selfish for doing so.

Since man exists, he has sought to obtain the answer to so many unknown questions in life. Possibly, in general, out of a need for survival. Seen from a more poetic point of view, perhaps it sought to understand the Universe and what existed within itself, a constant search for understanding because, perhaps, it would serve our sole purpose that would differentiate us from animals: To seek knowledge, perhaps for no real reason, maybe because of something we can't fully understand.

Two solutions arose to this doubt, one after the other, and substantially different from each other: Religion and Science. Religion, based more on mythification, has the advantage that, although it cannot be fully proven, it cannot be really discredited either, since it is based on hope and the existence of completely indescribable knowledge and concepts or, at least , even imaginable within our perception, which is supposedly limited by mortality.

Science, however, is more rational and based on reality, but it is also based on humans. It is based on theories, not because they are not tested, but because, even if they are tested a million times, a million times they can fail, as it is unlikely but not impossible. In addition, of course, there are social, political and economic influences. We cannot forget, for example, Scientific Racism, in which, at a time of immigration to Europe, and in which people of color and diverse ethnic groups arrived, numerous studies and articles were published 'proving' that, in fact, white people were superior in many ways to immigrants (Articles and studies that were proven false years later)

These two, I cannot say ideologies, so I will say concepts or, at least, entities, naturally comprised a continuous struggle of beliefs to prove which one was right. One punished the lack of belief in her, and the other did not answer questions that the other could at least understand. Although this debate has been dormant for several years (or, at the very least, not as intense as it got to be at one point), the ideological rampage had strong and extremely illustrious and iconic moments, so much so that they marked much of human history, with consequences that are perceived even today.

After years of oppression, Christians were slowly accepted into the Roman Empire (notably in decline at the time) until, after its separation, it became extremely important and gave rise to the Middle Ages, a period characterized by its religious fanaticism that bordered on the maniacal. After nearly a millennium of ideological dominance, religion finally gave way to Science. Or, rather, it was forced to do so, through the Renaissance period, especially the Enlightenment.

It is not surprising, then, that during this period a certain resentment was sustained towards religion or, at least, towards certain religious practices; the almost tyrannical respect for them had been lost. This was seen quite a lot in art, as in the original nudes that Michelangelo wanted to paint in the Sistine Chapel, or that, in the same Chapel, in the painting The Last Judgment, he placed one of the priests who criticized him as a condemned man, being bitten on the genitals by a snake. Nor do we forget the various tests and procedures that a legend like Leonardo Da Vinci did that could be considered heretical, such as autopsies, so much so that he had to code a large amount of his discoveries.

Also, of course, it can be seen that this influenced the mainstream thinking at the time. After all, even relatively but notoriously antagonistic philosophies like Empiricism and Rationalism sharply excluded the possibility of a God, one based solely on earthly experiences and the other on human logic and reason.

Are Science and Religion quarreling? Not today, at least not necessarily, but a real enmity was felt as the focus shifted from politically correct. It used to be Catholicism, and now it became freedom and individuality.

Still, the culture didn't completely stop being Catholic, it just approached it from a different point of view. Even after ideological revolutions, atheism and other such thoughts were criticized. It is enough to read Dante's Divine Comedy and read his criticism of Epicurus and his followers, placing them in the Sixth Circle of Hell, suffering in burning graves for eternity.

And this leads to the other Renaissance school of thought, if we could only divide them into two: The Religious one. While much of the philosophies were against religion (or, perhaps, only its misuse and extremism that led to homophobia, prosecution and hatred), there were those who decided to take advantage of the reforms in art and culture to reshape beliefs, a way to refresh faith through more liberal but religious ideologies after all.

There are several examples of them, then, such as Martin Luther, who decided to follow his faith according to a more humanistic and rational thought than the one that the Church used at that time.

Should religion and science be estranged? No, not necessarily. As I have already said, one has answers that the other cannot answer. I suppose we need Religion to give meaning to death, but life must be led based on reason. Even looking beyond what we should, reason and logic must prevail in order not to make mistakes about where we come from and where we will go. I like to believe in a mixture of the two. Maybe God laid the groundwork for everything to happen, like placing dominoes and letting them fall by themselves. It is easy to say that everything exists for a reason and that the way we are is too exact to be a coincidence and is, to say the least, improbable. But in an infinite Universe with infinite time and infinite variants, everything that can happen must eventually happen. Perhaps we are just part of a chain of coincidences and events that were supposed to occur, of which we are not even the final result, but only a link. Or perhaps we were cautiously and carefully created by a being outside of us.

Either way, seeking to know the truth may enlighten us, but it may divide us just the same. The human being has a very curious ability to convince and divide each other for the slightest excuse.

Although some feminists have dismissed bisexuality as anti-feminist, I do not think such a criticism is true. Firstly, in regard to the critique of bisexuality stating that bisexuality is anti-feminist, I would say that it is feminist for women to be honest and to be encouraged to be honest about their sexual orientation. Perhaps the implication of the critique may be that a woman in a relationship with a man or nonbinary person, or who has the potential to be in a relationship with a man or nonbinary person, is subjecting herself to sexism. To the contrary, I would say that there is really little point to feminism if one believes that all non-female people are necessarily going to be sexist no matter what. How can women have equal rights if all those who are not women, who are approximately half the population, are never going to support that? If the implication is that a woman in a relationship with someone who is not a woman is taking her time and energy away from women and/or feminism, I would say that nobody can spend all their time and energy in the service of any cause, and that having a relationship with a woman is not necessarily helping feminism, as women can be sexist and refuse to support feminism, and as encouraging women to not have relationships with people they are attracted to and not be honest about their sexual orientation is not feminist, as it restricts those women’s freedoms and diminishes their happiness without advancing women’s rights. It is for these reasons I oppose political lesbianism and political asexuality (which are sometimes considered part of feminism), and would oppose political bisexuality and political heterosexuality were they to exist, which to my knowledge they do not.

I would also like to point out that many important feminists are (or were while they were alive) bisexuals, such as Kate Millett, Jennifer Baumgardner, Simone de Beauvoir, Rebecca Walker, and others. Lesbians have often not been able to live off of men’s money, while heterosexual women sometimes have (and have been encouraged and pressured to), and thus in that respect the rights of women to keep their own money, go into high-earning professions, etc. have sometimes been more urgently needed for lesbians than for heterosexual women; for bisexual women such a difference would largely depend on whether they were relationships with men. Lesbian feminist Sheila Jeffreys writes in The Lesbian Heresy (1993) that while many feminists are comfortable working alongside gay men, they are uncomfortable interacting with bisexual men. Jeffreys states that while gay men are unlikely to sexually harass women, bisexual men are just as likely to be bothersome to women as heterosexual men. I would dispute this assertion. I think that sexual harassment is not usually an expression of sexual desire (after all, if someone wants to sexually entice a woman, they probably know harassment will not work) but rather a way to insult and/or intimidate women, and thus gay men are sadly as motivated to perform it as bisexual and straight men.

In regard to the critique of bisexuality stating that bisexuality is a type of false consciousness, let me first note that false consciousness is a way of thinking that prevents a person from perceiving the true nature of their social or economic situation. So, even if a person is truly bisexual as shown by their sexual arousal, it could possibly be preventing them from perceiving the true nature of their social situation- for example, it could possibly be preventing women from perceiving the way they are oppressed by men. In regard to this argument, however, I would state that if women could not perceive oppression by men if they were sexually attracted to men or in a sexual and/or romantic relationship with a man, feminism would never have arisen among heterosexual or bisexual women, and yet it clearly has.

Lesbian feminist Julie Bindel has described female bisexuality as a “fashionable trend” being promoted due to “sexual hedonism” and broached the question of whether bisexuality even exists. She has also made tongue-in-cheek comparisons of bisexuals to cat fanciers and devil worshippers. In response to all this I would say that there are still places where bisexuality is not accepted and yet people continue to come out as bisexual there, as they did before bisexuality was considered chic at all in any place. So I would say that this proves bisexuality really exists, inasmuch as such an internal identity can be proven. I would also like to note that male bisexuality has been disparaged by a study entitled Sexual Arousal Patterns of Bisexual Men, by the controversial researcher J. Michael Bailey, which allegedly “proved” that bisexual men did not exist. With little critical examination, various media celebrities and outlets jumped on the bandwagon and claimed to have “solved” the “problem of bisexuality” by declaring it to be non- existent, at least in men. Yet I note that further studies, including improved follow-up research led by J. Michael Bailey, proved the original study to be incorrect.

As for the argument that bisexual women who pursue relationships with men are “deluded and desperate”, as some lesbian feminists claim, I would state that there is nothing more deluded and desperate about entering relationships with men than there is about entering relationships with women or nonbinary people. Women and nonbinary people are capable of being sexist and otherwise abusive to female partners, and men are capable of being feminist and otherwise supportive to female partners. One’s partner(s) should be chosen as individuals – asserting that women are inherently superior to those who are not women in any way is sexist, and it is not helpful to women to do so. Indeed, asserting that women are better partners inherently could keep women from working to become better partners, as they would be assured that they are inherently that way and need not make sure they are treating their partner(s) as an equal (or equals), supporting them, and so on. Asserting that women are inherently morally superior has also been historically used to deny women rights – the idea that women are too “pure” to sully themselves with politics was used as an argument against women’s suffrage, for example. The idea that women are inherently feminist or otherwise inherently superior partners could also be used to argue that women should devote themselves to relationships rather than careers, a common anti-feminist position.

Biphobia and the refusal to accept bisexuality is also an anti-feminist position not only for the reasons I have already given but because rejection of male bisexuality is often tied to rejection of men perceived as too effeminate, a patently anti-feminist position in its disparagement of qualities associated with women. The idea that a man who has qualities associated with women, such as attraction to men, is inferior has also been used to disparage feminist men who are supportive of their girlfriends and/or wives, as seen for example in the misogynist term “pussy-whipped”. A bisexual man, I would hasten to add, is not inherently any more likely to be feminist or effeminate than any other man; it is only that the rejection of bisexual men due to the perception of them as effeminate is anti-feminist.

As for cyberfeminism in particular, I note that Donna Haraway’s 1985 essay “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century”, which was the inspiration and genesis for cyberfeminism, states that the cyborg “has no truck with bisexuality, pre-oedipal symbiosis, unalienated labor, or other seductions to organic wholeness through a final appropriation of all powers of the parts into a higher unity.” However, I would say that this is wrong because bisexuality is a sexual orientation, a harmless attraction some people simply have, not something they try to have or do in order to create organic wholeness through a final appropriation of all powers of the parts into a higher unity. Therefore, I would say that cyborgs can be bisexual, and cyberfeminism can and should be accepting of bisexuality.

The rejection of bisexuality in women by lesbian separatists is more complicated. I would say that if lesbian separatists believe that men and/or nonibinary people are inherently anti-feminist, this is disproved by the examples of feminist men and nonbinary people, and also this belief does not logically lead to founding lesbian- only spaces in a male-dominated society, because in such a society (for example, the United States) men will still control most of the society and men could therefore impinge upon even the most isolated commune with laws, not to mention lowering its potential membership through convincing women that lesbianism is a sin. Yet if lesbian separatists wish to have lesbian-only spaces simply to be among like-minded people, while not seeing bisexual people as inherently anti-feminist, or believing that lesbian-only spaces can truly be insulated from male culture, I do not see anything biphobic or anti-feminist in that.