Hello! Any suggestions on books/articles for feminism and bioethics? Thank you

Hey all
apologies if this is the wrong place to post.

I've been looking for, ideally analytic philosophical, literature on 'Coming to Consciousness'.

I'm looking through Feminist literature and literature in critical race theory, (marxian versions of this line of thinking are less useful to me)

would anyone have any suggestions?

(apologies if this is the wrong place to post)

I'm fairly new to Reddit and have gotten a lot out of joining the broader academic Reddit communities. My work, however, is in feminist philosophy and feminist moral psychology. I'd love to engage with other feminist academics and be able to pose some of my questions here rather than in the much larger and broader communities. But this sub doesn't seem to have much recent activity. Let's breath some life back into it?

What recent publications is everyone most excited about reading right now?

Although not extremely new, I am eagerly awaiting a copy of Alexis Shotwell's book Against Purity.

I'm interested both as a scholar of cultural studies and as a still-recovering victim of my very violent ex. I am especially interested (actually, right now, infuriated) in the callous minimization of male violence towards women in the IPV context.

A lot of the MRA position on this seems at first glance so risible as to be worth no analysis beyond laughing out loud. But my violent ex actively imported the MRA rhetoric about DV into our relationship and used it to justify/delude himself.

Also the concept of "family violence" as opposed to "male violence" troubles me - here in Australia "family violence" has been legislated into custody disputes, to the effect that women who have violent men in their lives are losing custody disputes because they've "exposed their children to family violence" - i.e., male violence they can't control.

Are there any titles tackling this topic?

Does anyone else hate the term "partner"? I'm currently in hospital (poisoned finger) and my ... well, the man I live with and love came to visit with my things. He asked a nurse for information about the treatment I was getting, how it was going etc, and the nurse asked "are you the husband? Partner?". I couldn't bring myself to go with "partner" so I lamely said "he's my very close friend". The nurse said "if he's not your husband or PARTNER and not next of kin, we can't give out that information. It was ridiculous! There he was, there I was, the patient. Or rather, "client". Anyway because I didn't promptly label my boyfriend as a "partner", we weren't given access to my medical file. Actually this post is also about the ludicrous administration of hospitals. When I was admitted I was with my brother ( he came with me in ambulance). My brother was put down as "next of kin". my BROTHER, therefore, can ask for my medical file but I can't!?!? Anyway, what are non-cheesy alternatives to "partner"? Our relationship is unremarkable except for the fact that we have separate bedrooms. Simply because while we often do sleep in the same room, we both like to have the option of our own space. But a lot of people seem to think this is strange. And means we're not really in a "relationship". Actually I think many relationships would benefit from the policy of "sharing a bed is not mandatory". Hmmm. To misquote Oscar Wilde's boyfriend, is this not "the love that dares not speak its name", but rather "the love that has no name to speak"?

I'm writing for the school paper on gender and Philosophy, particularly Philosophy of language. Now, as a fan of Wittgenstein and his kripke interpretation, I perceive the issues from those glasses:

1. That gender and sex are to be understood by performance and usage in language
2. That problems as 'defining gender as X is ignoring or discriminating a group' are not problems in themselves since definitions inheritanly do that, and the problem rests in fixating definitions as reality it self/using unhelpful definitions
3. That due to those the moral questions are mostly to be reduced to questions of usage, definition and purpose.

But I am aware of my ignorance. Question is how do you see gender and Wittgenstein's concepts interact? Is there a possibility to see Butler's and other thinkers work in comparison to them? Sorry if this post is badly worded or offensive :/

I was just wondering if there were any other university students around here who had taken a feminist bioethics course before, or had done a lot of reading in feminist bioethics. If so, how did you like it, what did you learn, and what criticisms can you offer it?

The core text I've used to study it was "Feminist Bioethics: At the Center, On the Margins" edited by Scully, Baldwin-Ragaven, and Fitzpatrick.

I commend the book on a good introduction to feminist bioethics as something that "starts from the premise that dominant ways of doing bioethics are fundamentally gendered" even though I came to often disagree with some of its examples backing up their claim that "the ontological and epistemological foundations of bioethics currently privilege ways of being and knowing that are culturally masculine, and thus inherently devalue that which is culturally constructed as feminine". Or rather, I disagreed with many of the authors' approaches of criticizing or devaluing ways of being and knowing that are culturally masculine instead of recognizing that these ways are culturally masculine because they are successful and thus associated with the dominant gender. They placed value on ways of being and knowing that are culturally constructed as feminine whereas I choose to acknowledge those as devalued for a reason and associated with the feminine to devalue women by association with flawed reasoning and critical thinking patterns.

I also felt that some of the authors were attempting to be, or could not help but to be purposefully obscure with their writing. For example, Rehmann-Sutter's opening statement in the book contains the phrase "bioethics has gone through many processes of mainstreaming, diversification, and re-mainstreaming... Feminist critics of mainstream bioethics have not only disturbed its concepts, methods, and practice, but also contributed significantly to what we would describe today as the mainstream in bioethics".

Some of the best parts of the book, to me, focused on how practical bioethics and biomedical routine had ultimately failed women: how women are usually minorities for control groups in testing drugs and treatments that by-and-large will be used on and by women, how the phrasing of certain procedures will be done in such a way to ignore female participants and patients of the procedures, how women's roles in prenatal development will be ignored or challenged, how the expected roles of women in society will deeply affect how she interacts with her medical practitioners and so on.

I was very touch and go on the sections that dealt with other minorities, particularly racially based, because as much as academic feminism seeks full intersectionality, some of it can still really reek of upper-middle class white woman supremacy. I found the sections dealing with non-white cultures to be talking about those cultures in the same way that male bioethicists talk about women as a group: as the Other, as an observable population to keep at arm's length. This is not to say I learned nothing from these chapters, but I felt very cautious about them.