Monthly Archives: February 2022

Breeder is not for the faint of heart. The Danish film from director Jens Dahl and writerSissel Dalsgaard Thomsen follows the nefarious Dr. Ruben (Signe Egholm Olsen), a woman obsessed with reversing the aging process for her wealthy male clients. Her research involves kidnapping and impregnating women, then using the stem cells she harvests from the births. Though investor Thomas (Anders Heinrichsen) has misgivings about her methods, hes willing to look the other way until his wife Mia (Sara Hjort Ditlevsen) becomes one of the subjects. Finally deciding to act, he attempts to help his wife escape Dr. Rubens factory basement of horrors. But first, they must battle her psychopathic henchmen, the Pig (Jens Andersen) and the Dog (Morten Holst), along with the doctor herself who will stop at nothing to protect the promise of wealth, esteem, and immortality.

Devastating and cruel, Breeder is a rough watch and will likely be triggering for survivors of sexual assault, abortion, miscarriage, and the struggle to conceive. But through the atrocities Breeder depicts, Dahl makes a powerful statement about the importance of reproductive freedom and the lengths women must go for bodily autonomy.

Breeder is not subtle and Dahl does not pull any punches. The atrocities these women suffer are horrific. Brutal depictions of physical assault, bondage, torture, and rape are hard to stomach, as are images of crude birth and discarded bodies. But Dahl is honest in depicting the realities of birth and conception. He doesnt shy away from telling the truth even though it may be upsetting to watch. While carefully riding the line between portrayal and exploitation, Breeder is likely to be controversial and will definitely rub some viewers the wrong way. But one might argue that it is our patriarchal society actually exploiting women. Dahl is merely shining a bright light on a horrific reality and refusing to look away from the excruciating details.

However brutal his imagery, Dahl should also be praised for his unvarnished depiction of more healthy aspects of the female experience, namely breastfeeding and kink. Nursing is presented as a natural bodily function rather than an offensive act to be performed in secret shame. While many scenes revolve around the Dogs violent misogyny, Breeder also contains a scene of female masturbation and hints of consensual BDSM. Its a nuanced look at sex noting that its not the often taboo acts themselves that are the problem, but the intention behind them. There is a world of difference between consensual bondage designed for pleasure and restraint for the purpose of torture and control.

Breeders most obvious social commentary lies in its depiction of the physical and emotional harm caused by forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. The women kept captive in Dr. Rubens basement are reduced to their wombs, literally referred to as ovaries that can be bought and sold. They wait in cages and watch their bellies grow larger, preparing for a birth that may end up costing them their lives. Though an imperfect metaphor, the torture these women endure as they prepare to give birth can be equated with the experience of watching your body change by carrying an unwanted pregnancy for 40 weeks. Helpless to stop the transformative process, the relentless clock ticks toward a birth that will plunge the mother into an unknown future.

In a more overt metaphor, Breeder reveals the hypocrisy in the so-called pro-life movement, arguing that it is merely pro-birth. Dr. Ruben cares not for the children she is creating. She rips them away from their mothers minutes after birth and casts them aside as soon as their cellular purpose has been fulfilled. She forces these births because they allow her to amass her own personal power and wealth. Here she is similar to politicians who pass laws stripping away bodily autonomy designed to limit womens options and keep them in positions of subservience. A prisoner to their wombs, women without access to reproductive care are denied accommodations that would empower them to live lives of their own choosing.

Though the Pig and the Dog represent misogynistic men more than willing to reap the benefits of an oppressive system, the films more insidious villain is Dr. Ruben. She has sold out her gender for the power that comes from upholding the dominance of men. She is creating drugs that reverse the aging process thus allowing these billionaires to hold onto the wealth and authority theyve amassed on the backs of others. They will reign in perpetuity, never cycling out of society through generational change. She is assisting them in maintaining their stranglehold on the rest of civilization by allowing them to subvert the only true societal equalizer: time.

Dr. Ruben is an extreme example of a particular type of woman found in every powerful aspect of society; a crucial cog in the wheel of gender-based oppression. Having internalized the belief that she will never be worthy of power equal to that of a man, she attempts to climb as high on the patriarchal ladder as possible by making herself valuable to men. Dr. Rubens research is also a mirror of western medicine, developed with a white cisgender male in mind and only occasionally interested in studying other types of bodies.

The only woman she seeks to help is herself, searching for a way to extend female life so that she, too, can benefit from her wonder drug. This insidious goal reveals her understanding of the oppressive hierarchy she feeds. Knowing that society values women based on their youth and vitality, she seeks to extend her window of usefulness and desirability for as long as possible.

And what of Thomas? While his intentions are arguably good, he supports a system he knows to be exploitative. Hes been looking the other way and failed to inquire about practices he feels uncomfortable with because they benefit him personally. He represents all the men who bemoan the loss of reproductive rights knowing their own bodies are safe. Only when Dr. Rubens experiments threaten someone he loves is Thomas motivated to act. Though Mia is a relatable protagonist, her rescue highlights an unfortunate truth.

So often oppressive systems are allowed to continue in the shadows. Theyre only exposed when a member of the wealthy or powerful class is affected. Conversely, Thomass turn could be used as an object lesson for the importance of powerful people using their privilege to protect those who do not have any. He is a controversial figure in the film, but one we see every day in reality.

Though Breeder reveals many devastating truths, its power lies in Dahs unflinching but compassionate depiction of the women at its core. Held in dehumanizing conditions, they suffer horrific torture. They are treated as mindless vessels to create children, an echo of recent statements made on the floor of the US Congress in another attempt to overturn Roe v Wade.

A blunt comparison at the beginning of the film shows a horse in a stall, kept in confinement and brought out to fulfill his masters intentions regardless of his own will. But another comparison could be made to the immigrants and refugees held in cages at the US border. Separated from their children, many women have been denied medical care including abortions that would force them to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. Considered less than human because of where they were born, they are quickly discarded when their existence becomes inconvenient for the dominant culture.

Breeders conclusion is both brutal and cathartic, filled with affecting imagery and moving cinematic moments. But it is also representative of reality. We wont topple the patriarchy within our lifetimes and sometimes the victories only serve to reveal more pain. Breeders final act is simultaneously empowering and a cruel reminder that one villains defeat will not erase centuries of oppression. Its not enough to simply remove the oppressors from power; we must confront the system that allowed the oppression to continue unchallenged. Dahl also effectively shows the lingering trauma caused by prolonged abuse and sexual assault. Though the abuser may be gone, the pain remains. Its only in supporting each other that collective healing is possible. While Breeder is certain to be controversial, it is a heart-wrenching and terrifying film made all the more powerful because of its haunting plausibility and echoes of the society we currently live in.

Categorized: Movie News Reviews

Originally posted here:
Disturbing Breeder Makes a Powerful Argument for Reproductive Rights [Review] - Dread Central

Recently, Elon Musk announced progress toward clinical trials of a brain implant which he believes will allow paralyzed people to control technology with their thoughts. For those who call themselves transhumanists, this potential breakthrough is more than a tool to help the disabled. For transhumanists, Musks technology offers hope that someday humanity will evolve beyond the limits of our frail bodies and become Human+. Two decades ago, Kevin Warwick expressed his dream of transcending humanity this way:

I WAS BORN human.

This was merely due to the hand of fate acting at a particular place and time. But while fate made me human, it also gave me the power to do something about it. The ability to change myself, to upgrade my human form, with the aid of technology. To become cyborgpart human, part machine. This is the extraordinary story of my adventure as the first human entering into a Cyber World; a world which will, most likely, become the next evolutionary step for humankind.

But will this dream of Human+ end in nightmare? If we accept neo-Darwinian biology as the unimpeachable starting point for defining human personhood, transhumanists like Warwick are committed to some form of the following argument:

Premise 1: Evolving biological systems are the natural explanation for human personhood

Premise 2: Evolving biological systems are indeterminate

Premise 3: All emergent properties (mind, consciousness, soul, etc.) are contingent on the evolving biological system

Premise 4: Any emergent property that is contingent on an indeterminate biological system is itself indeterminate

Premise 5: Human personhood is a contingent property of the human body

Conclusion: Therefore, human personhood is indeterminate

In premises 1 through 5, human personhood is taken as a contingent property tied to the process of evolution. If these premises are sound, then the definition of human person can freely evolve with each new phase in the transhumanist program of self-enhancement.

The moral implications are significant. Without a fixed and final definition of human personhood, there is no foundation for a fixed and final ethic of human rights. After all, writes Michael Tennison, arguments for the moral impermissibility of enhancement fail when morality itself is the capacity to be enhanced.1 Tennisons admission may be jarring, but transhumanists consider the evolution of morality as a strength not a limitation of their mission.

Given the transhumanist argument that morality is contingent on evolutionary progress, it is easy to see how the Hippocratic Oath taken by doctors to do no harm becomes nothing more than a positive spin on death. Why should doctors try to save every human or limit experiments on people who will die anyway? If the greater good of immortality is the goal, then isnt it better if society takes advantage of the sick and disabled so that the rest of us can transcend the limits of our humanity?

Transhumanist advocate John Harris is aware of and unmoved by the potential for abuse. For Harris, society should not make a fetish of a particular evolutionary stage of human development.2 The anti-transhumanist ethic that limits experiments, argues Harris, is nothing more than a distraction from the higher moral obligation of society to rise above this current iteration of humanity. Therefore, the risk that a few people may be harmed, suffer, or die during human trials is outweighed by the transhumanist perception of a greater social good that advances the species.

The indeterminate nature of human personhood embraced by transhumanists underscores the need for a stable trans-cultural and trans-political ethic that protects the inalienable rights and sacred worth of the most vulnerable among us.

Consider this: What if humanness is not contingent on the natural process of evolution? What if premise 3 is wrong and humanness is contingent on the unchanging nature of the God who designed us? If human personhood itself transcends nature, then the foundation for protecting the rights endowed by our Creator remain outside societal standards and outside nature. No longer is Human+ the greater good; rather, the preservation of each human person becomes the highest immutable good. That said, the moral imperative to protect every life regardless of disability, genetic differences, or social distinctions such as race is not a barrier to exploring new biotechnologies that might help the disabled, But it does change our methods and our goal. If human personhood is contingent on God, then the pursuit of new technology is not for making us Human+, but to help us experience the fullness of the humanness that already exists within.

Notes

1 Michael N. Tennison, Moral Transhumanism: The Next Step, The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, no. 4 (2012): 410.

2 John Harris, Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010), 16.

Bibliography

Harris, John. Enhancing Evolution : The Ethical Case for Making Better People. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010.

Tennison, Michael N. Moral Transhumanism: The Next Step. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, no. 4 (2012): 405.

Warwick, Kevin. I, Cyborg 1st Illinois pbk. ed. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2004.

You may also wish to read: Is transhumanism really a form of liberation? The central transhumanist doctrine is that the body can be dispensed with. What are the consequences? Post Millennial editor Libby Emmons asks, what horrors will we inflict on others if we have forgotten what it means to inflict pain and to suffer?

and

Eugenics, transhumanism, and artificial intelligence If we were to succeed at creating an ethical decision-making AI, whose ethics would it abide by? The utilitarian goal of a sustainable future must be guided by a higher ethic in order to avoid grave mistakes of the past. (J. R. Miller)

See the rest here:
The Deadly Dream of Human+ Look at the Price Tag - Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence