at seaburn in sunderland. it was crisp and cold across the country. here's a view of wintry conditions on dartmoor in devon. here is flossie — a giant schnauzer dog — enjoying the snow and sunshine in north yorkshire. and this is of course the angel of the north, presiding over the a1 near gateshead. time for a look at the weather. here's darren bett. hello. it will get warmer through next week. but it is going to be cold and frosty this weekend. some hazardous weather for anybody travelling this weekend, because there are some areas of fog already. and there is a continued risk of snow and ice, but this time probably further south. we have a few wintry showers moving away from eastern coasts and some snow in south—west scotland and icy conditions following the showers and fog

particularly in central and southern parts of england. frosty tonight, already temperatures are minus nine in scotland. there is the fog, the mist and low cloud. it will shrink and break up, sunshine coming through for many. but grey and murky in lincolnshire. some showers in north—west england and a cold day. temperatures one to that he celsius. coming into that cold air we have showers that are going but with thousands of civilian casualties, are israel's western allies now changing their tone?

more gazan civilians die as both sides blame each other for the failure to extend the truce. the us, egypt and qatar push for a new cessation of hostilities. we speak to the israeli military, a former member of qatar's intelligence service, and a one time top uk diplomat. also tonight, after newsnight�*s revelations this week about allegations of a "mafia—like" culture at another nhs trust, the boss of that trusts responds. joe's here with the latest. and in dubai, rishi sunak and keir starmer compete over climate change at the cop talks, but is the road to election success paved in green? plus, one of the most influential women in the modern feminist movement, gloria steinem, tells us how feminism has changed and the impact of cancel culture. we should not submit to cancel

culture. it is social pressure as censorship, and it is definitely not a good thing. good evening. hostilities have resumed, prisoners and hostages are no longer being exchanged, the bombing has restarted and civilians are now dying again in gaza as israel tries to finish off hamas after its attacks on october seventh. a barrage of rockets from hamas, designated a terrorist organisation by many western governments including the uk, landed in israel early this morning. civilians in the south of gaza, including those already displaced from the north, are now being told in leaflets dropped from the skies to take shelter in an even smaller area close to the egyptian border. israel says this is for their safety. palestinians say they fear they are being permanently pushed out of gaza. amid this a notable change of tone from the us and from the pm and leader of the opposition, both in the region, seeming to push for a renewal of the truce. is support offered after october the 7th starting to ebb away?

and what is the endgame here? here's joe inwood. after seven days of relative calm, this morning war returned to gaza. explosions. and with it, the sounds of loss. the first phase of the conflict claimed thousands of lives. israel's main ally said this time must be different. israel has the most sophisticated, one of the most sophisticated militaries in the world. it is capable of neutralising the threat posed by hamas while minimising harm to innocent men, women and children, and it has an obligation to do so. but israel is now operating on an even smaller area of land, even more densely populated, and still intent on the total destruction of hamas. we have two goals and two directives for this war effort. first of all, to bring the hostages home, to bring every last one of those hostages home.

and second of all, to make sure that hamas, who have turned gaza into this urban battleground, never have the power of government again. in khan yunis this morning, the message went out — "you have to evacuate immediately. this is a dangerous fighting zone. you have been warned." but this is the part of gaza where people once fled for safety. translation: we move one day from one place i to the other and another. from the north to the south, from the centre. who knows where next? and there is no electricity, no water, no food, no good living conditions. already this morning, it seems many did not get or could not heed the warning. according to the hamas—run health ministry, more than 100 people have already been killed. it all comes amidst an already dire humanitarian situation.

it is horrific. it's been attacks all day, at least where i am in the south. i have seen hits 50, 100 metres from a hospital. as we speak now, i am seeing massive explosions again. it is consistent, it's... it's seemingly everywhere. so this idea of nowhere safe in gaza rings very true when you are on the ground. hundreds of children hiding in a hospital, tens of thousands in shelters, who have already moved from somewhere that was bombed. it is a nightmarish day for people who are kind of living in a nightmare already. israel remains a nation in shock at the massacre of the 7th of october, the people killed and the hostages taken. it is thought 137 are still being held in gaza. 117 men, 20 women, ten of them over the age of 75. theirfamilies have been a constant voice in this conflict,

calling for diplomacy. today those calls resumed. translation: we demand they continue the exchange and find _ a way to keep going, so they can release more and more youngsters, soldiers, elders, everyone. we want everyone. and it is notjust the family is calling for diplomacy. —— and it is notjust the families calling for diplomacy. israel's allies seem increasingly concerned about the cost of conflict. i have said before that the number of civilian casualties and the scale of suffering has been far too high. so the return of hostilities is concerning to us all. i think the single most important thing is that we get back to the cessation of hostilities that we have seen over the last few days. tonight, as the fighting continues, a negotiated end seems further away than ever. all peace talks are said to have broken down. israel has said it will not be swayed from destroying hamas, but at what cost for the people of gaza?

joining me now isjonathan conricus, idf spokesperson, sir mark lyall grant, former permanent representative of the uk to the un, and nawaf al—thani, former qatari defence attache to the us and former director of qatar's defense intelligence operations. let's go first to jonathan. thank you very much forjoining us. eight weeks ago after those horrific attacks on the south of your country, western leaders gave israel almost full unconditional support for your attack back against hamas. rishi sunak going to meet your prime minister and saying, we support you. that seems to have changed now. i put it to you, those constraints and concerns are as a result of how you have conducted this attack in gaza. i think it is very important that we keep our aim i think it is very important that we keep ouraim on i think it is very important that we keep our aim on what needs to be done. i understand that people are concerned, i understand that everybody, we as human beings respond to scenes of hardship and

suffering, that is understandable. i also saw in your coverage that you are reflecting on what is going on in israeli society. what you did not reflect on was the absolutely adamant demand by israeli society at large to get the job done and to finish hamas. without israel doing that, there is no future for southern israel. simply put. if we stop fighting now, it would be like stopping a surgery midway, with a mess on the surgery board, with the mission incomplete, and nobody in any better situation. we have absolutely no other choice but to finish the fighting. but we do listen to what our friends and allies around the world say. they say that we have to defeat hamas, which we agree, they say that we have to... that the amount of

casualties is something they are very concerned by. we do listen and we do adapt our tactics accordingly. you use the analogy of surgery there, but this has not been precision surgery. how many hamas commanders have you killed versus the civilians? the children that have died, these ratios seem to be completely out of kilter. i do have died, these ratios seem to be completely out of kilter.— completely out of kilter. i do not think so, completely out of kilter. i do not think so. not— completely out of kilter. i do not think so, not at _ completely out of kilter. i do not think so, not at all. _ completely out of kilter. i do not think so, not at all. on - completely out of kilter. i do not think so, not at all. on the - think so, not at all. on the contrary. i think that as time will go contrary. i think that as time will 9° by. contrary. i think that as time will go by, we will have the intelligence and exact information of how many military combatants we have killed, and we will then put that up against the information that is disseminated by hamas and amplified in the world as if it was true about the amount of casualties in gaza. i am not saying there are no civilian casualties in gaza, i know that there are. casualties in gaza, i know that there are-— casualties in gaza, i know that there are. ., , ., ., there are. that is something of an understatement. _ there are. that is something of an understatement. according - there are. that is something of an understatement. according to - there are. that is something of an understatement. according to the | there are. that is something of an - understatement. according to the un, the world health organization, based on health ministry figures, thousands... on health ministry figures, thousands. . ._

on health ministry figures, thousands... hamas figures. thousands — thousands... hamas figures. thousands of _ thousands... hamas figures. thousands of children - thousands... hamas figures. thousands of children have l thousands... hamas figures. - thousands of children have died. do you deny that thousands of children have died? it you deny that thousands of children have died? , ., . have died? if you define children, eve bod have died? if you define children, everybody under _ have died? if you define children, everybody under 18, _ have died? if you define children, everybody under18, i— have died? if you define children, everybody under 18, i do - have died? if you define children, everybody under 18, i do not - have died? if you define children, i everybody under 18, i do not deny it, but many of those under 18 are also fighting age males. it is in the details here. i really ask you to be true to detail. it is not only about big headlines and attacking israel to stop if i could go back to the answer, i am not saying that civilians have not been killed, and we have been very consistent in what we have been very consistent in what we have been very consistent in what we have said and done. the fact that civilians are dying is also a lot, if not most of the responsibility lying on her mass —— lying on hamas. if they had let people evacuate, as we asked them to do, they were not been an arm's way. there still is the opportunity for people to be out of the fighting if they listen to our warnings and evacuate. but of the fighting if they listen to our warnings and evacuate. but it is our warnings and evacuate. but it is your armed — our warnings and evacuate. but it is your armed forces _ our warnings and evacuate. but it is your armed forces that _ our warnings and evacuate. but it is your armed forces that claim - your armed forces that claim precision warfare. there have been

hundreds, thousands of casualties of innocent civilians. on one measure, almost as many people have been killed and eight weeks, children have been killed as during the blitz in eight months. this is not precision warfare. can you acknowledge this is not precision warfare? ., ., ., ., ., warfare? know, and i do not think our data warfare? know, and i do not think your data is _ warfare? know, and i do not think your data is accurate _ warfare? know, and i do not think your data is accurate at _ warfare? know, and i do not think your data is accurate at all. - warfare? know, and i do not think your data is accurate at all. i - your data is accurate at all. i think if you compare the ratio of civilians, noncombatants, allegedly civilians, noncombata nts, allegedly killed, civilians, noncombatants, allegedly killed, according to hamas data, unverified, perhaps echoed but unverified, perhaps echoed but unverified, please let me finish, and verified by others, if you compare that to other similar combat in mossel and compare that to other similar combat in mosseland in compare that to other similar combat in mossel and in iraq, compare that to other similar combat in mosseland in iraq, in compare that to other similar combat in mossel and in iraq, in other places, including where british forces have fought, you will find that the ratio is not different. i understand that people feel and they see horrible images, and they hear testimonies, and i can understand that people respond to that, but let's bring this back to how it started and what needs to be done. we have no other choice but to defeat hamas. if we do not, southern

israel is not safe. that is an unsustainable situation. wide ijust want to clarify one thing. the white house gives this statement. gaza must remain palestinian land and cannot be reduced.— must remain palestinian land and cannot be reduced. we had similar messaues cannot be reduced. we had similar messages from — cannot be reduced. we had similar messages from the _ cannot be reduced. we had similar messages from the british - cannot be reduced. we had similar messages from the british prime l messages from the british prime minister. does the end game for israel involve gaza returning to the palestinians? i do israel involve gaza returning to the palestinians?— israel involve gaza returning to the palestinians? i do not think we have any aspiration _ palestinians? i do not think we have any aspiration to _ palestinians? i do not think we have any aspiration to do _ palestinians? i do not think we have any aspiration to do anything - palestinians? i do not think we have any aspiration to do anything in - any aspiration to do anything in gaza but get rid of hamas and ensure our security. if you are quoting white house statements, antony blinken also said that israel must defeat hamas. before he said anything else about how the manoeuvre and operations in the south should be conducted. i think thatis south should be conducted. i think that is very important and truthful to put front and centre of reporting. first and foremost, hamas must be defeated for the sake of stability, for the sake of the defence of israelis living in southern israel. also, if i may add, for the sake of people living in

gaza under the brutal terror regime of an internationally recognised terror organisation. we of an internationally recognised terror organisation.— of an internationally recognised terror organisation. we must leave it there. thank you very much - terror organisation. we must leave it there. thank you very much for. it there. thank you very much for joining us. mark, do you see a change of tone from western leaders, antony blinken, the prime minister? i think there has been a change of tone after— i think there has been a change of tone after seven weeks of this conflict — tone after seven weeks of this conflict. clearly it was very important that western countries showed — important that western countries showed 100% support for israel in response — showed 100% support for israel in response to the horrendous atrocities of the 7th of october. but even — atrocities of the 7th of october. but even when they were standing full square behind israel in public, private _ full square behind israel in public, private messages were being passed. you know. _ private messages were being passed. you know, joe biden was saying, do not make _ you know, joe biden was saying, do not make the mistakes we made after 9/11, not make the mistakes we made after 9m. be _ not make the mistakes we made after 9/11, be careful how you carry out this operation. everyone recognises publicly— this operation. everyone recognises publicly that israel is 100% right to defend itself and to do so by aggressive military campaign, which will aggressive military campaign, which wiii deter— aggressive military campaign, which will deter future hamas attacks, but how they—

will deter future hamas attacks, but how they do it is very important. what _ how they do it is very important. what is — how they do it is very important. what is happening now is that those private _ what is happening now is that those private messages are becoming more public— private messages are becoming more public in _ private messages are becoming more public in the light of the rising civiiian— public in the light of the rising civilian casualties that we are seeing — civilian casualties that we are seeing in _ civilian casualties that we are seeing in gaza.— civilian casualties that we are seeinr in gaza. , , ., ., seeing in gaza. lets bring in nawaf al-thani. qatar— seeing in gaza. lets bring in nawaf al-thani. qatar has _ seeing in gaza. lets bring in nawaf al-thani. qatar has had _ seeing in gaza. lets bring in nawaf al-thani. qatar has had a - seeing in gaza. lets bring in nawaf al-thani. qatar has had a big - seeing in gaza. lets bring in nawaf al-thani. qatar has had a big role | al—thani. qatar has had a big role in this. do you think from what you hearfrom your in this. do you think from what you hear from your contacts in qatar that there is any chance of this truce getting back up and running anytime soon? yell a macro to be honest, the qataris are optimistic that a truce could be reinstated. but it needs partners willing to do so. unfortunately, the actions that we have seen today are very disappointing. it makes it even more difficult to have another truce. do ou difficult to have another truce. do you sense that the geopolitics... obviously we get a situation like this in gaza, with the israelis, seems to come up every five or six years roughly, do you see any shift in the geopolitics of the region?

urination, other gulf nations have now got very sophisticated diplomatic... seem to have some influence and leveraged —— your nation. i influence and leveraged -- your nation. ., . influence and leveraged -- your nation. ~' ., ., nation. i think the main thing that chanced nation. i think the main thing that changed the _ nation. i think the main thing that changed the equation _ nation. i think the main thing that changed the equation this - nation. i think the main thing that i changed the equation this time was the severity of the attacks and response by the israelis. i think this is a humanitarian crisis like none other we have seen. but, yes, also the developing capabilities of countries like qatar, with diplomacy, having positive effects in the past, puts like deer countries like qatar and egypt, with the support of the us, any better place to mediate a resolution. we t to talk place to mediate a resolution. we try to talk about the endgame with the israeli representative. what replaces hamas in if anything? that's the big question and one that

western— that's the big question and one that western governments are asked, what happens _ western governments are asked, what happens the day after? even if israei— happens the day after? even if israel achieves its objective, destroying hamas militarily, which won't _ destroying hamas militarily, which won't be _ destroying hamas militarily, which won't be easy or quick, then what? who runs _ won't be easy or quick, then what? who runs gaza and how do you transition _ who runs gaza and how do you transition from conflict to some kind of— transition from conflict to some kind of political horizon for the palestinians? in the absence of that, _ palestinians? in the absence of that, israelwill palestinians? in the absence of that, israel will never be secure and there — that, israel will never be secure and there will be a recrudescence of this violence.— this violence. your country is hostinu this violence. your country is hosting the _ this violence. your country is hosting the hamas _ this violence. your country is hosting the hamas political. hosting the hamas political leadership in doha. can you see that changing? can you see gaza going back to the palestinian authority, something benjamin netanyahu said no to today? the something ben'amin netanyahu said no to toda ? ~ , ., ., to today? the minister of foreign affairs stated _ to today? the minister of foreign affairs stated that _ to today? the minister of foreign affairs stated that the _ to today? the minister of foreign affairs stated that the qatari - affairs stated that the qatari vision, which i believe is shared by many arab countries, is that there should be a unified palestinian authority, state, both over gaza and the west bank and that the

palestinian people should choose the form of that representation. so qatar did not mention any functional group, but support for the people of the palestinian authority and palestinian occupied lands, to achieve their own independence. unfortunately that is a very long way away from where we are today. i think the focus right now for the qataris, the negotiation teams, is to return to a state of a truce and then see what the next step is. we must leave it there. thanks for joining us. the chief executive of an nhs hospital trust at the centre of this week's newsnight investigation into patient safety has responded to his staff today in an email. four whistleblowers spoke to newsnight and alleged that patients had died unnecessarily and others were "effectively maimed" at a trust with a mafia—like culture. joe pike is here with me, but first here's a reminder of the allegations made on wednesday.

what do you think the priority was? the priority was to cover up what i was saying, and to ignore what i was saying, and continue as normal. when you know you have got an environment that is not conducive to patient care, and you have deaths on your hands that you knew about, could happen and has happened, then i don't see why that is not something that should be a criminal offence. so, joe, what's the latest? a lot of people seem to have been shocked by what the speaker there and the four anonymous whistle—blowers told us as part of the investigation. the story was picked up by some newspapers. the people most concerned are the almost 20,000 staff who work for university hospitals of sussex, whose chief executive is george finlay who today took a the step of sending a long all staff e—mail. he conceded that not all staff feel that the culture

supports them to raise concerns. the fact that the whistle—blowers are anonymous i think supports that. he says the way the organisation is described is not something he recognises but he cannot claim everything is perfect. we should point out that the trust pushed back on a lot of those allegations, saying there is no evidence of a toxic culture and they say the data does not back up claims that there were unnecessary deaths. they say there are robust systems in place and people can raise concerns about colleagues if they have them and official reports demonstrate that their cultural situation at their seven hospitals has changed. meanwhile sussex police are investigating 105 cases of alleged medical negligence and the force have told us that the investigation is at an early stage. thanks for the update. at the cop28 talks in dubai, both the conservative and labour leaders are attending, meeting world leaders, business bosses and environmentalists. and the broad message

sounds rather similar — a britain leading global decarbonisation efforts and winning in the new clean, green industries and jobs that inevitably follow this revolution. but within that broad consensus, an apparently fundamental dividing line for the election. labour tonight accusing the prime minister of complacency and denial and being off track on climate change targets. the government says labour's green investment strategy doesn't financially add up. here's ben at the wall. is the £28 billion green prosperity plan of labour and its shadow chancellor rachel reeve a responsible state investment programme in the face of global warming, or is it fiscally irresponsible? the latter is the charge made, with a renewed vigour, by rishi sunak�*s chancellor, jeremy hunt this week. the chancellor's argument, in a nutshell, is this. he's left himself, as a result of the tax cuts in the autumn statement, around £13 billion of headroom against his fiscal rules for debt to be falling as a share of gdp in five years' time.

and those rules are roughly the same as those chosen by rachel reeves. so, if labour were to borrow £28 billion a year to invest in clean energy and other net zero infrastructure spending by the end of the parliament, the labour party would be in breach of its own rules by around £15 billion. hunt argues this would either mean tax rises or a burst of inflation. how coherent is this? it's certainly true that if labour forms the next government, it would probably inherit very tight public finances and pressure to raise taxes to spend on public services. but the same would be true for the conservatives. economists argue that the spending envelopejeremy hunt has pencilled in for after 2025 is implausibly tight, implying further deep real term cuts in unprotected departments like justice and local government. and on the fiscal rules point? first, it's worth noting that labour's £28 billion includes existing planned green state investment by this government, so it's actually more like £20 billion.

second, it's important to be aware that there's a huge amount of volatility in borrowing forecasts from the obr. this shows each fiscal event since the office for budget responsibility was set up and underlying changes in expected borrowing in the fifth year ahead due to things like weaker growth or higher inflation. blue bars show more borrowing expected than previously, red bars show less borrowing than expected. the average change is 0.75% of gdp, or £20 billion in today's money. it could be worse, as in the pandemic, or it could be better, like after the most recent autumn statement. but based on past experience, always around £20 billion of uncertainty about the five—year forecast on average. that's the context for the suggestion labour's £20 billion borrowing plans would certainly mean it busting its fiscal rules. we shouldn't place too much stock in

one set of forecasts and what things will look like in 2029 and we shouldn't necessarily think that will govern the precise things that go into the party manifestos. the big picture is currently that jeremy hunt has not left himself much leeway against his fiscal rule by historic standards. and that would be the situation that the next government, led by either party, would inherit. it's also worth noting that even if labour did increase capital spending by £20 billion, public investment would still be on a declining path as a share of gdp, as you can see here. and economists increasingly agree that historically weak public investment by both parties is a cause of the weakness of our overall economic growth. and its weak economic growth that makes our public finances so tight. labour argues that its state investment plans are not only right this from a climate change perspective but also right for growing

the economy in the longer term, and that its investment plans are actually supported by uk business and industry. the conservatives clearly intend to try to make labour's green prosperity plan a "tax and spend" dividing line in next year's election. make no mistake there are tough trade—offs in these areas for whoever forms the next government. tory mp philip dunne, chair of the environmental audit committee, joins us now. interesting to see the prime minister and keir starmer over in dubai at the cop talks but isn't it inevitable that your election strategy will be turning climate change and decarbonisation into a wedge issue to try and claw back in the polls jell—o wedge issue to try and claw back in the pollsjell—o it was also good to see his majesty the king opening the conference, and i think the significant british presence demonstrates to the world that the uk has indeed been leading the debate in changing public policy in this country to show the way, as we did at cop26. this country to show the way, as we did at com-—

did at cop26. picking up the report we've 'ust did at cop26. picking up the report we've just had _ did at cop26. picking up the report we've just had about _ did at cop26. picking up the report we've just had about the _ did at cop26. picking up the report we've just had about the numbers, | did at cop26. picking up the report| we've just had about the numbers, i mean the labour party are all over the shop on this issue.— the shop on this issue. i haven't come here _ the shop on this issue. i haven't come here to — the shop on this issue. i haven't come here to talk _ the shop on this issue. i haven't come here to talk about - the shop on this issue. i haven't| come here to talk about partisan issues but you know, they were talking about 28 billion a year last week and then it became 28 billion in the second half of parliament and thenit in the second half of parliament and then it was 28 billion in the second labour term, assuming they win two in a row and now we hear that 8 billion of that has already been pledged by the conservatives. there is a significant waking up to be done by the labour party as to what they are actually offering the public. as to the next election, i think there's no question, the prime minister reaffirmed it in his speech a couple of months ago, there is consensus across the parties that we must get to net zero by 2050. the prime minister is clear that we will achieve that on the trajectory which is reviewed by the climate change committee. we had the chief

executive in front of our committee a week or so ago and he said that the announcements through the prime minister's speech in september and announcements since then have been broadly positive although he described it initially as a score draw, he said that several announcements since have been positive and we heard some of them today which we might go into. tdiked today which we might go into. talked about the concerns _ today which we might go into. talked about the concerns from _ today which we might go into. talked about the concerns from the - today which we might go into. talked about the concerns from the private i about the concerns from the private sector to see policy changing, going back and forth, your party lurching may be into a little bit... not exactly anti—green but some scepticism on the speed of the changes and that they wonder if their capital is safe in terms of their capital is safe in terms of the direction of travel on climate policy. i the direction of travel on climate oli . ., . �* , the direction of travel on climate oli _ ~' ., �* , , policy. i think what we've seen is that the prime _ policy. i think what we've seen is that the prime minister - policy. i think what we've seen is that the prime minister has - policy. i think what we've seen is - that the prime minister has grappled with some of the issues that were unresolved about the transition pathway and as chris stark, the chief executive of the climate change committee said, we are now getting into some of the difficult

areas of transition where we risk stranded assets and so on. in terms of the climate announcement, the government was clear that the mandate on motor manufacturers to sell an increasing portion of electric vehicles remains in place, so that by 2030, 80% of new vehicles need to be electric. this week we've seen nissan emitting £6 million to electric vehicle models in sunderland.— electric vehicle models in sunderland. ~ , ., ., ., sunderland. weight is a great node to leave it on _ sunderland. weight is a great node to leave it on but _ sunderland. weight is a great node to leave it on but i'm _ sunderland. weight is a great node to leave it on but i'm afraid - sunderland. weight is a great node to leave it on but i'm afraid we're l to leave it on but i'm afraid we're out of time. —— weight is a great note to leave it on. thank you. —— which is a great note. the face of the women's rights movements in the us during the 1970s and an icon of feminism, gloria steinem has spent the last 50 years focusing her efforts on advancing women's political participation and reproductive rights. now at 89 years old, steinem has sat down with faranak amidi for newsnight and bbc 100 women to discuss how feminism has changed over

the decades and the impact of cancel culture. we, you and i, have grown up in some form of patriarchy that says that even in the family, women are more responsible for taking care of infants and small children than men are, even though men are parents, too. so, that is where a lack of democracy begins, and that is the beginning of change that we all can make. we shouldn't feel helpless just because we are not changing something globally. the idea of domination and a lack of democracy begins in the family. and it is even more important and even more the cause of future conflict to grow up with that, with making discrimination and domination ok than national policies are.

what kind of change you wish to see, that you think hasn't been achieved, and you hope to see accomplished in your lifetime? well, the most obvious and simplest is that we can determine the fate of our own physical selves. so we can decide whether and when to have children, not to have children, you know, whatever it is about our physical selves because that is where our difficulty begins, because we happen to have wombs, and the desire to control wombs is very central to authoritarian systems. so, you know, it is clear that controlling reproduction is crucial. yet, when we talk about politics, we don't usually start there. clearly because we have a womb and men don't.

the desire to control the womb is often the first, or most