Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Top Secret Researcher
#76 Old 15th Apr 2015 at 9:24 PM
Yes, of course he should have a say when they're in a couple. However, you were referring to a completely different concept. That's like saying "Oh, when I said 'nuclear bombs', I was really referring to nuclear reactors. They're the same thing, right?"

Don't use abortion language if you're not talking about abortion. And the only times I have heard feminists referring to a woman's choice to have a baby is in the context of abortion. I have never heard anyone say that a woman should force men in a relationship with them to have children if he doesn't want them.
Advertisement
Test Subject
#77 Old 15th Apr 2015 at 9:26 PM
Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
Yes, of course he should have a say when they're in a couple. However, you were referring to a completely different concept. That's like saying "Oh, when I said 'nuclear bombs', I was really referring to nuclear reactors. They're the same thing, right?"

Don't use abortion language if you're not talking about abortion. And the only times I have heard feminists referring to a woman's choice to have a baby is in the context of abortion. I have never heard anyone say that a woman should force men in a relationship with them to have children if he doesn't want them.


I never used abortion language, you were just misinterpretating me. I also never read you saying that a woman should force men in a relationship with the to have children if he doesn't want them. And that's exactly what my point is. If the couple wants to have a baby then the man has a say in it aswell and not just women, I never mentioned abortion until you brought that up.

If anything, it was just all misinterpretation and misunderstanding.
Top Secret Researcher
#78 Old 15th Apr 2015 at 9:31 PM
"Women's choice to have a baby" is abortion language and that is the ONLY use it has ever had. Any misinterpretation is all your fault.
Test Subject
#79 Old 15th Apr 2015 at 9:32 PM
Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
"Women's choice to have a baby" is abortion language and that is the ONLY use it has ever had. Any misinterpretation is all your fault.


The interpretator is the one who reads it, I meant it another way. You misinterpretated it. But that's none of my business. Instead of jumping into assumptions that I was talking about abortion you could atleast make an effort and try to understand what I meant. But nevermind.
Top Secret Researcher
#80 Old 15th Apr 2015 at 9:41 PM
If your words don't match your meaning, then you can hardly complain when someone doesn't telepathically pick up your true meaning. What, was I supposed to twist it in an unheard-of way to match a meaning that I had no way of intuiting? I am not a mind-reader, and neither is anybody on this site. If you want people to understand you, then use words right. If I say "Gay men should be stoned" and you get offended at it, then is it your fault for assuming I meant all gay men should be executed? No, it's mine for saying a word that means killing when I meant that we should distribute pot all throughout the gay community.

Stop blaming others for your poor communication skills, Mr. "just don't get offended if people want to verbally or even physically hurt you".
Lab Assistant
#81 Old 15th Apr 2015 at 9:45 PM
I think he was referring to keeping the baby and raising the baby (and requesting child support) when the husband would rather put up the baby for adoption. There is also the abortion pill but that is something different...

Hopefully helpful,

--Ocram

Always do your best.
Test Subject
#82 Old 15th Apr 2015 at 9:52 PM
Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
If I say "Gay men should be stoned" and you get offended at it, then is it your fault for assuming I meant all gay men should be executed?

Stop blaming others for your poor communication skills, Mr. "just don't get offended if people want to verbally or even physically hurt you".

--------------------------------------------------------
Off-topic:

Is that like a rethorical question? You're getting off-topic and besides, you're missing the point here buddy.

You're comparing apples to pineapples when you say "gay men should be stoned". I explained and double explained my point so you could understand it and you just kept tossing in the abortion-card, like what the fuck? And then you come to me saying that I am blaming you for "MY" (haha, you're funny) poor communicaton skills.

I see you took time to explore my posts, huh? Can you come up with anything constructive to the actual topic? Or is it all you can imply is that I am the Mr. just don't get offended if people want to verbally or even physically hurt you?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-topic:

I honestly don't get why would people even think about abortion when you say that the choice of having a baby is not only a woman's. A baby can NOT reproduce with just a woman's ovum, it needs a man's sperm! So the choice is not only the woman's but also the man's in the decision of having a baby during their relationships, and that's exactly what I meant this whole time! (No, I don't mean when a woman is aborting!)

And if they both happen to have a baby already, and if one wants to keep the baby (whether it's the father or the mother) it's their responsibility to take care of the baby TOGETHER. But that's a whole different story.
Top Secret Researcher
#83 Old 15th Apr 2015 at 10:17 PM
Quote: Originally posted by EnglishMuffin
You're comparing apples to pineapples when you say "gay men should be stoned". I explained and double explained my point so you could understand it and you just kept tossing in the abortion-card, like what the fuck? And then you come to me saying that I am blaming you for "MY" (haha, you're funny) poor communicaton skills.


Oh, you want to play this game, huh?

Quote: Originally posted by EnglishMuffin
the women's choice to have a baby


This phrase only refers to abortion. It has never meant anything else. If you heard feminists talking about it, then they were talking about abortion.

Quote: Originally posted by EnglishMuffin
What happens if they have equal say? Then that's a great thing actually. If the man wants it and the woman doesn't, then the answer should be no, the man should learn how to respect the woman's say aswell as if it would be the other way around. If the woman wants and the man doesn't want then she should respect his wish to not have a baby.


Tell me how this contradicts the idea that you're talking about abortion. It does not explain that your point was about a couple planning for a family. It does not clarify anything on this point.

Quote: Originally posted by EnglishMuffin
I am making my point clear, if a couple want to have a baby it's the woman's ASWELL as the man's choice TOGETHER. If one says NO then that means it's a NO.
No men wanting other women to have babies for him or women wanting sperm donations or anything like that.

I am talking about the COUPLE themselves choice, and it's limited to the couple themselves only.


Again, tell me how this clarifies the issue. You're still focusing on the couple and their choice, not on the fact that they are not having an abortion.

Quote: Originally posted by EnglishMuffin
If the woman comes saying she wants a baby and a man says no, then that means that the woman will have a baby just because she wants it? Where's the equality in that?


Again, this does not tell me that you are not talking about abortion.

Quote: Originally posted by EnglishMuffin
How I mean is ASK BEFORE YOU MAKE THE BABY, and not AFTER. That way you just don't come off as being a complete idiot.

And also... dude, no one here is talking about abortion, would you mind not pushing it into the conversation?


And this is finally where you make your point clear, four posts after I started talking about abortion. If I'm talking about abortion, then I'm referring to the choice after the pregnancy is established. This is obvious to anyone with a brain. Had you said "I mean before the pregnancy" at any point, your point would have been clear. Instead, you did not.

Nope. Instead you started insulting me.

Now, for the rest of the post.

Quote: Originally posted by EnglishMuffin
I see you took time to explore my posts, huh?


Yeah, I've commented in the Makeup thread before and check out all the debate threads.

Quote: Originally posted by EnglishMuffin
Can you come up with anything constructive to the actual topic?


Why, yes. Read the first page, where I give a thorough discussion of what feminism is. Or the second page, where I repeatedly comment on topics related to feminism.

Quote: Originally posted by EnglishMuffin
Or is it all you can imply is that I am the Mr. just don't get offended if people want to verbally or even physically hurt you?


Considering that you implied that men should not complain if they get assaulted, I think that's some major evidence that you cannot communicate well.


Quote: Originally posted by EnglishMuffin
I honestly don't get why would people even think about abortion when you say that the choice of having a baby is not only a woman's. A baby can NOT reproduce with just a woman's ovum, it needs a man's sperm! So the choice is not only the woman's but also the man's in the decision of having a baby during their relationships, and that's exactly what I meant this whole time! (No, I don't mean when a woman is aborting!)


Because men have been trying to stick their noses into the abortion debate for years. Just take a look at this thread.

Having a baby means giving birth, not just making the thing. If a woman does not want to have a baby, then that means that she would not want to give birth or to make it. Therefore, if a woman gets pregnant and she does not want to have a baby, then she will have an abortion. Was that language simple enough?

Also, babies do not reproduce. The parents reproduce. A baby should not be having sex.
Test Subject
#84 Old 15th Apr 2015 at 10:30 PM
Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
Oh, you want to play this game, huh?


Sure.

Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
This phrase only refers to abortion. It has never meant anything else. If you heard feminists talking about it, then they were talking about abortion.


Now you have a new meaning to it, isn't it great to learn new things in life?

Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
Tell me how this contradicts the idea that you're talking about abortion. It does not explain that your point was about a couple planning for a family. It does not clarify anything on this point.


I never talked about abortion until you threw in the abortion-card. You seriously are being obssesive with abortion, you should make a new thread about it.

Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
Again, tell me how this clarifies the issue. You're still focusing on the couple and their choice, not on the fact that they are not having an abortion.


Because that's exactly what I was talking about, the couple's decision, not abortion.

Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
Again, this does not tell me that you are not talking about abortion.


Abortion, abortion, abortion. Until it's not mentioned it's not being talked about.

Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
And this is finally where you make your point clear, four posts after I started talking about abortion. If I'm talking about abortion, then I'm referring to the choice after the pregnancy is established. This is obvious to anyone with a brain. Had you said "I mean before the pregnancy" at any point, your point would have been clear. Instead, you did not.


Praise the lord! You finally understand my point!

Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
Nope. Instead you started insulting me.


Was I? Oh that was when you started implying I'm Mr. just don't get offended if people want to verbally or even physically hurt you.

Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
Now, for the rest of the post.
Yeah, I've commented in the Makeup thread before and check out all the debate threads.


Kudos to you!

Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
Why, yes. Read the first page, where I give a thorough discussion of what feminism is. Or the second page, where I repeatedly comment on topics related to feminism.


That's really nice, I got to save my piece too, it's always good to share your opinions right?

Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
Considering that you implied that men should not complain if they get assaulted, I think that's some major evidence that you cannot communicate well.


You're just going full guesswork. I was pointing out that "men don't get raped" fallacy (notice the quotes there before you start some other shit).

Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
Because men have been trying to stick their noses into the abortion debate for years. Just take a look at this thread.


Will have a look at it, thanks.

Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
Having a baby means giving birth, not just making the thing. If a woman does not want to have a baby, then that means that she would not want to give birth or to make it. Therefore, if a woman gets pregnant and she does not want to have a baby, then she will have an abortion. Was that language simple enough?

Also, babies do not reproduce. The parents reproduce. A baby should not be having sex.


Although I agree with your point that is not exactly what I meant when I said "It's not just up to women to have a baby". And again I repeat, I am not talking about abortion. Yes, both men and women should talk about it and decide, if the woman does not want to then it's a definite no. But if the man also doesn't want the baby then it also should mean NO. And that's exactly what I mean, see how easy that is?

PS: No abortion was mentioned during the couple's decision part.
Top Secret Researcher
#85 Old 15th Apr 2015 at 10:58 PM
Quote: Originally posted by EnglishMuffin
Now you have a new meaning to it, isn't it great to learn new things in life?


You mean, one you invented? If you invent a new meaning for a phrase, then you cannot expect people to understand you.

Quote: Originally posted by EnglishMuffin
I never talked about abortion until you threw in the abortion-card. You seriously are being obssesive with abortion, you should make a new thread about it.


Yes, you did, by using abortion-specific language. If I say "quantum mechanics", then I do not need to say the word "physics" to be discussing physics. It does not matter if I secretly say "quantum mechanics" to mean a sex act illegal in 30 countries, if I say "quantum mechanics" on a discussion about physics, then people will assume I am discussing physics. You used abortion-specific language on a discussion about feminism, and feminism defines that phrase as meaning abortion.

It does not matter what you meant, it matters what you said. You cannot complain that people misunderstand you if you don't use words correctly.

Quote: Originally posted by EnglishMuffin
Because that's exactly what I was talking about, the couple's decision, not abortion.


Yes, at a point before conception. If the other person is discussing abortion, then they are discussing a couple's decision after conception. Therefore, mentioning that you're only talking about pre-conception decisions would be a good thing to talk about that. That is how discussions and communication work.

Quote: Originally posted by EnglishMuffin
Praise the lord! You finally understand my point!


Yes, because you finally said what you meant. That, you see, is a fundamental part of communication.

Quote: Originally posted by EnglishMuffin
Was I? Oh that was when you started implying I'm Mr. just don't get offended if people want to verbally or even physically hurt you.


No, I believe that
"You're just seeing the bad side from things here. Start looking at the bright side of things and you'll see that it's not really like that."
"You are just refusing to understand."
"What the fuck? How can you misinterpretate an obvious statement like that?"
"You're confusing two different things."
"you could atleast make an effort and try to understand what I meant."

All these statements came before I brought up the quote. You continuously insinuated that I was stupid and ignorant. That is insulting.

Quote: Originally posted by EnglishMuffin
Kudos to you!


Thank you. Now stop implying that I'm cyberstalking you. I'm living in the southern US, I know passive-aggressiveness when I see it.

Quote: Originally posted by EnglishMuffin
You're just going full guesswork. I was pointing out that "men don't get raped" (notice the quotes there before you start some other shit).


Not what you said in your clarification.
"I am sorry if you misinterpretated me. I really didn't mean to come off as a douchebag or anything. What I meant was, seeing how this society is, he should be prepared to face off all kind of offences he might come across with."

That doesn't sound like rape to me. Does this mean that even you can't understand the meaning of your own posts?

But anyway, that's not my point. See, words have meanings, even if you mean something different. If you use words that have a different meaning from what you intend to say, then people will see that meaning instead of the one you intend. This is because people cannot use telepathy to understand what you intend to say. For you to communicate with other people, you have to choose words in a way that matches what you intend to say. If people are continuously not understanding what you say, guess what? You are the common denominator. This makes you bad at communicating.

And "misinterpretated" is not a word. It's misinterpreted.

Quote: Originally posted by EnglishMuffin
Although I agree with your point that is not exactly what I meant when I said "It's not just up to women to have a baby".


I was explaining why "deciding not to have a baby" means abortion.

Quote: Originally posted by EnglishMuffin
Yes, both men and women should talk about it and decide, if the woman does not want to then it's a definite no. But if the man also doesn't want the baby then it also should mean NO. And that's exactly what I mean, see how easy that is?


You should say "before they try for a baby" to fully get your point across. I understand it because you've clarified that you're talking about pre-conception decisions, but for this to stand on its own, you need add as much information as possible. Then, even if you slip up, people will have context, unlike in your previous posts.

Quote: Originally posted by EnglishMuffin
PS: No abortion was mentioned during the couple's decision part.


Yes. Good job at not using abortion-specific language there.
1978 gallons of pancake batter
#86 Old 15th Apr 2015 at 11:38 PM
Quote: Originally posted by EnglishMuffin
Sure.
Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
Oh, you want to play this game, huh?
Please don't play this game. I hear there are much better ways to spend your time than trying to prove "the internet" wrong. Some of those don't involve making a mod with an itchy trigger finger uncomfortable. Just saying.

If gotcha is all you’ve got, then you’ve got nothing. - Paul Krugman
Forum Resident
#87 Old 16th Apr 2015 at 9:58 AM Last edited by KittyCarey : 16th Apr 2015 at 10:18 AM.
So, can I join in and try to steer the argument back to feminism?

I would be very surprised to discover a feminist who thinks that birth control sabotage, by either party, is in any way acceptable. The idea of forcing someone to become a co-parent, in fact, is much more tied to patriachal ideas that "a woman's most important role is to have children" and "men must provide for (pay for) his children and their mother" - and the idea behind shotgun weddings. If a women decides she wants a baby, her partner isn't keen, and so she destroys whatever birth control they're using without his knowledge - that's awful behaviour.

But the thing is, lots of pregnancies happen without a decision beforehand to try to get pregnant. Sometimes couples get lazy about birth control, or just really drunk, or they use birth control but are unlucky and it doesn't prevent a pregnancy. So the woman is pregnant, and now it's not a hypothetical baby but an actual embryo that's busy growing inside her and using her body. And getting rid of it requires medical intervention - even a medical abortion, from what I've heard, is fairly unpleasant even if the woman's primary emotion is relief. That's what everyone means by "a woman's right to choose", and that's what hugbug (and I) assumed EnglishMuffin was talking about.

Quote: Originally posted by AzemOcram
@KittyCarey
1. I agree that the wealthy individuals and the corporations should pay more in taxes. However, I do not believe it is a good idea to tax them above 75%. If you tax them too high, they move, taking their money and employees with them. I think that the payroll tax should be removed (because it is regressive) and the income tax lowered on the lower 20% of those burdened with income tax. I also think that there should also be a flat, non-refundable (no tax credits available) tax on artificial emissions of pollutants including carcinogens and greenhouse gasses with the rate being different for each pollutant (and proportional to their damaging effects). However, I do not think that giving free money, no-strings attached to the poor is at all a good idea.


It sounds like we agree much more than it looked like from your initial post, so I'm sorry if I misunderstood. The highest rate of tax you suggest is (a) higher than any real countries, as far as I know, and (b) a lot higher than anyone else I've come across who uses the sort of phrases you did. I certainly support the idea of pollution taxes.

The "giving free money, no-strings attached to the poor" thing is tricky. Yes, lots of people make bad decisions. But not letting adults have any control of their lives, treating them like kids, effectively, tends to lead to other problems. It feels like a punishment, and often leads to their behaviour regressing to their teenage years and trying to "rebel", or just poor mental health and even suicide. Yes, there are some people who will always make bad decisions. But for most people, if you trust them to be responsible, they will.

Quote: Originally posted by AzemOcram
2. I think that education should only be mandatory until age 16 but have public education paid for through grade 12 with special grants and scholarships for high performing high school graduates to help them attend higher education. I think there should be a minimum wage but a guaranteed minimum income is a hypothetical (it has yet to be successfully implemented anywhere) amount of money given to everyone in a constituency (some progressives want to guarantee all citizens of the USA to receive at least 5 times the poverty level regardless of work). I also think that the minimum wage should be tiered based off of education and hours (which means that overtime should also be tiered for every 10 hours so that someone working 20 hours a week gets paid more per hour than someone working 19 hours a week yet less than someone working 40 hours a week, those who work 30 hours a week get paid almost as much per hour as those who work 40 hours a week, those who did not pass 10th grade and only work 9 hours a week should only get nutrition credits and $5-10/hr--this will help prevent companies from taking advantage of workers who are only on the clock for 39 hours a week).
3. I like feminism. Equality is a good ideology. a) I guess that I have been most exposed to radicals who are not truly feminists but merely consider themselves such. b) Your explanations are good and I think your suggestion is best. It is also rather similar to some of the charities and missionaries that I am aware of that help the oppressed overseas.


The education thing - to me, that sounds an awful lot like "free education"... so yes, I'll agree with you. I didn't realise that anyone was actively campaigning for a minimum guaranteed income that's different from a minimum wage and benefits for the unemployed/ unemployable, so again I'll mostly agree with you there, though I don't see why working longer hours means you need to be paid more per hour (though I agree with penalty rates for unsociable hours). So I think this was just a bit of a misunderstanding.

As far as helping people in developing countries is concerned... that's what various people tried in the nineteenth/ early twentieth centuries. We're still trying to sort it out. I'm Australian, so have you ever heard of the Stolen Generations? Lots of indigenous children were taken away from their families. Many of those involved had the best of intentions (though some really didn't)... but it was a completely stupid idea and everyone ended up worse off. On behalf of my fellow citizens, I am very sorry. The way to make positive changes happen is to help and support those involved who want to sort it out themselves.
Lab Assistant
#88 Old 17th Apr 2015 at 7:07 AM
Quote: Originally posted by KittyCarey
I would be very surprised to discover a feminist who thinks that birth control sabotage, by either party, is in any way acceptable. The idea of forcing someone to become a co-parent, in fact, is much more tied to patriachal ideas that "a woman's most important role is to have children" and "men must provide for (pay for) his children and their mother" - and the idea behind shotgun weddings. If a women decides she wants a baby, her partner isn't keen, and so she destroys whatever birth control they're using without his knowledge - that's awful behaviour.


I've known some females that did some pretty awful things to get pregnant in attempts to keep their man, get child support money, or further their own baby-having agendas.... I definitely disagree with men having to pay child support for kids that came into the world due to their mothers' scheming/lying/what have you. I'm not sure of the best ways to defend men against that sort of thing, since it can get complicated and be difficult to assess these types of circumstances. I knew a girl who once grabbed a condom that her friend-with-benefits used out of a trashcan and inserted into herself to try to get pregnant because she was obsessed with him.... that's pretty messed up that someone would even try that. If it even worked, I could imagine them going to court for child support. How would the poor guy prove to a judge that he was responsible about his sexual practices by using a condom (though it would have been much more effective to leave the crazy ones alone, lol)? He would likely end up paying child support for that kid. Sorry that this isn't so much a reply as it is just me taking a little bird walk from what you said.

Quote: Originally posted by KittyCarey
So the woman is pregnant, and now it's not a hypothetical baby but an actual embryo that's busy growing inside her and using her body. And getting rid of it requires medical intervention - even a medical abortion, from what I've heard, is fairly unpleasant even if the woman's primary emotion is relief.


Ehhhh.... I'm hoping I dont incite something by admitting this, and hopefully those that oppose abortion will keep negative comments to themselves.... I have had an abortion. I don't feel the need to go into explaining the circumstances. I did, however, want to add that the actual procedure is mildly painful (physically speaking) but may also depend on a particular person's tolerance for pain. Not sure how my tolerance would stack up against others'. There are 2 ways that seem to be the most used: (1) having it basically vacuumed out (cannot for the life of me remember what the procedure is technically called), and (2) take a pill that will cause miscarriage (which I think the time-limit on this is shorter than the first method I mentioned, please do correct me if I'm wrong on that). I chose the first method. During the procedure I gritted my teeth and clenched my hands a bit from the pain, but it wasn't that painful. After the procedure (not sure if this is done everywhere) I was taken to a "Recovery Room" for about a half hour that I was monitored in before I left. By the end of the day I felt completely normal (physically). Hopefully I don't gross anyone out, but there was bleeding, as if I had my period, afterward. I do admit that my primary emotion was relief. I was also extremely embarrassed that I was pregnant in the first place, embarrassed of having to tell my mom since I couldn't pay for an abortion myself and was embarrassed for her that she had to take me to have it done, and I was embarrassed because I was always the person to preach to others about being safe when having sex.... I didn't feel like I killed something, I didn't feel like there was anything really living yet (yes, this point has already been debated of at which point is it really alive or whatever) I'm just explaining how I FELT. I had always had thoughts, even before the procedure took place, of probably pretty normal things: what would my baby look like? What would his/her personality be like? Would it be a boy or girl? Am I doing the right thing? Will others shun me if they find out that I was pregnant/had an abortion? It wasn't until I was about maybe 20 or 21 that I started feeling much emotion behind these thoughts (about 3 or 4 years after the abortion). I don't want to convey that I didn't take it seriously, I did, but I just didn't feel much of an emotional tie to the baby or to the abortion at the time. Now, I get a little emotional about it, sometimes I cry over it. My kid would be 7 years old right now. My current boyfriend would make an excellent father-figure to my child and I know he would be everything I would want him to be to him/her. Sometimes I have dreams about the abortion or about the baby, and sometimes I'll wake up with tears rolling down my face from crying while dreaming. I don't regret having the abortion, I think it was the right choice for the circumstances that I was in at the time. I do regret everything that played a role in my reasoning to have the abortion, things about my life at the time that were in my control to make different than they were. Anyways, just thought my experience might be helpful to share. If I offended anyone, I almost want to apologize because that's not my intention, but I'm not going to apologize because I do believe in a women's right to choose and don't think I should have to apologize to anyone for having an abortion, except myself anyways.
Instructor
#89 Old 17th Apr 2015 at 7:52 AM
Thanks for sharing this, @steph1417897 . That was very emotional to read and brave of you to share *hugsyou *

Me, me, me against them, me against enemies, me against friends, somehow they all seem to become one, a sea full of sharks and they all smell blood.
Lab Assistant
#90 Old 17th Apr 2015 at 8:07 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Gabrymato
Thanks for sharing this, @steph1417897 . That was very emotional to read and brave of you to share *hugsyou *


Thanks for that
Not always sure I want to share personal things on topics that are so controversial.
Forum Resident
#91 Old 17th Apr 2015 at 8:40 AM
Quote: Originally posted by steph1417897
Thanks for that
Not always sure I want to share personal things on topics that are so controversial.


Thanks for sharing from me too. It's brave of you, as it's not something that's easy to talk about.

And difficult decisions always leave you thinking "what if..." afterwards, even if you still think you made the right choice.
Test Subject
#92 Old 5th Nov 2015 at 4:55 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Mordecai and Rigby
Do you agree with it?

I honestly don't know if I could consider myself one or not. On one hand, people (especially on Tumblr) get very carried away with it. On another, it's highly criticized. Why? Because of the people who get carried away with it or have stupid reasons for wanting gender equality. Okay, I've never been "cat-called on the street" either, so I guess I can kind of see where the anti-feminists are coming from. But I'm a girl; wouldn't it be hypocritical for me to not be a feminist? I know there are women out there who consider themselves anti-feminists, but still.

Yes, it gets on my nerves when girls are stereotypically portrayed as "weak". But then I also listen to this, so I really don't know.


Ugh don't even get me started on the poor representation of women in media. Yes, we are sort of getting there, but there will always be a few dickheads who blatantly spout "I don't need feminism because..."
or the other type I detest, the men and women who label others as "feminazi's". I won't bore you with the details, but I have unfortunately met many men in my life who are totally against feminism, without
proper justification, I might add, and who in turn put down others for supporting it.
Its just a crying shame that humans can't recognize the need for others to feel equal.
In the west, we are getting there bit by bit,
but feminism will never not be relevant. You only have to look across water to see how far behind developing countries still are.
Women are not objects.
It makes me sad that most people can't just grow up and focus on what are ongoing issues.
For example
what's the deal with dress codes?
What's the deal with rape culture?
what's the deal with this negative connotation associated with the word feminism?
what's the deal with genital mutilation?
what's the deal with the tampon tax thing?
There are so mannnnny problems still out there.
Mad Poster
#93 Old 5th Nov 2015 at 1:55 PM
If we could all live by some basic rules, the world would be a better place. A few suggestions below:

1: Women and men are of equal worth, and it should show in their pay, selection for workplaces, and on other arenas. Jobs with equal education length should reflect in equal pay regardless of gender distribution.
2: Leave people alone on the streets, unless they show an actual interest in you (what people wear is not an excuse). Their body is theirs, not yours, and you have no right to rape them, rob them or beat them up for whatever reason (unless they attack you first, in which case self-defence is alright to the point where you manage to get back your stuff or get away).
3: People should be allowed to wear what they want to wear without anyone thinking the wrong thoughts.
3: Women and men are strong on different areas. Physical strength isn't everything.
4: Any 'sexist' taxes or anything of the sort should either have a counterpart for the other gender, or not exist at all. People shouldn't have to pay more for something they need just because they have the 'wrong' gender.
5: Any bodily mutilation should never be done without the person's knowing and willing conscent. Cutting off babies' body parts for religious reasons is wrong no matter if they're girls or boys. It is only okay if it is for life-saving purposes, and there's no other choice.
6: No one should feel the need to hide their faces or bodies for any other reason than protection for weather conditions.
7: No one should feel the need to be shameful for their bodies, or for looking or being different from others, whether it's because of cultural differences, genetic differences, disease, accidents, or other causes.
8: No one have the right to look down at other people, or treat them bad for any reason. Behind culture, genetics, gender, wealth or disease, we're all humans.
9: We should not show cruelty to animals, and make sure we treat our distant cousins with a degree of respect. Humans are also animals, just with a slightly different brain structure that somehow makes us think we're above nature. We tend to forget that. We should also treat nature with respect, or we'll end up destroying more of the Earth than we already are.
10: If people feel like showing themselves off in some way, they should be allowed to, on three conditions: Respect that doing so should be voluntary and without pressure, respect that people should be allowed to wear what they want as long as an acceptable minimum requirement of coverage and decency for that particular occasion is upheld (bikini for a funeral is probably stretching it too far), and similarly respect that not everyone feel comfortable with tits and other bits flying around in front of their faces, on TV-screens, public places, and otherwise.

---
As for abortion and women's right to their own bodies, it will probably always be a difficult area.

Women's bodies are theirs, and abortion before week 12 should be allowed, though I do think it's important that they get good information about the choice they're about to take. Not everyone is ready or capable to be a mother, and should not be forced to carry a baby they don't want. On the other hand, a lot of women regret the abortion, and they will have to live with it for the rest of their lives. Before week 12 the fetus is not self-sustained, and can not live outside the womb with or without medical help. Besides, fertilized eggs don't always turn into babies, but nobody seem to care about those that are flushed out naturally.

Abortion between week 12 and 20 should be on a case-by-case basis, but more in favor of the mother's health and wellbeing, and capability to be parents. If it turns out the baby is not healthy in some way, it should be up to the parents whether or not to keep the baby. You can say what you want about keeping diversity in the population, and how the child can enrich their life despite their differences, but having a sick kid is not easy on the family life, and not everyone can manage it. And if the disease or genetic mutation is bad enough, is it really okay to bring the baby into a life of pain and suffering, particularly if their medical problems can't be managed or fixed? It's a shady area, with lots of ethical issues, which is why I say case-by-case basis. Personally, I feel it's worse to abort a completely healthy baby, than a baby with some kind of disease or genetic mutation that will shorten their life or make their life difficult. But people tend to make more of a fuss about the latter. In any case, what's right for one set of parents won't be right for another, and whether or not to keep the baby, healthy or not, should be mainly up to them. I do not however support aborting babies just because they have the 'wrong' gender or hair coor or whatever, if they're otherwse healthy and fine. The limit should be drawn somewhere. If the couple wants a baby, the gender shouldn't have anything to say.

After week 20 it's a shady area, since the baby can potentially manage to survive with medical help from week 23-24. The bigger and more baby-like the fetus gets, the worse the abortion process is going to be for the mother, but also for the healthcare personnel. Many say it's horrible to be a part of ending a baby's life at 22 weeks, while they do everything they can to save a 23-weeker just across the hall. But if the mother's life is at risk, and there's no other way, then there's no other way.
Instructor
#94 Old 6th Nov 2015 at 12:58 AM
Simmer22, I agree with most of what you said, but have a few points:

Quote: Originally posted by simmer22
3: People should be allowed to wear what they want to wear without anyone thinking the wrong thoughts.


People can't help what they think, just what they do. As far as I care, think whatever you want about whoever you want. If it's just in your mind, it doesn't matter.

Quote: Originally posted by simmer22
5: Any bodily mutilation should never be done without the person's knowing and willing conscent. Cutting off babies' body parts for religious reasons is wrong no matter if they're girls or boys. It is only okay if it is for life-saving purposes, and there's no other choice.


Depends on what constitutes "mutilation," "knowing," and "consent." It's very easy to raise someone to think they should have something done for no real reason. Also, this brings up male circumcision. Anything against that? There aren't any negative side-effects of which I'm aware.

Quote: Originally posted by simmer22
6: No one should feel the need to hide their faces or bodies for any other reason than protection for weather conditions.
10: If people feel like showing themselves off in some way, they should be allowed to, on three conditions: Respect that doing so should be voluntary and without pressure, respect that people should be allowed to wear what they want as long as an acceptable minimum requirement of coverage and decency for that particular occasion is upheld (bikini for a funeral is probably stretching it too far), and similarly respect that not everyone feel comfortable with tits and other bits flying around in front of their faces, on TV-screens, public places, and otherwise.


These contradict in many cases. If some people flaunt, it sets a standard, which can make others feel self-conscious. There is a difference from dressing in revealing clothes and flaunting - it's attitude.

I'm not going to talk about abortion... I've had too many discussions about it already offline. I agree and disagree with some of what you said.
Theorist
#95 Old 6th Nov 2015 at 3:23 PM
Quote: Originally posted by pikeman101
Depends on what constitutes "mutilation," "knowing," and "consent." It's very easy to raise someone to think they should have something done for no real reason. Also, this brings up male circumcision. Anything against that? There aren't any negative side-effects of which I'm aware.


I've read that male circumcision reduces the pleasurable experience of intercourse since the foreskin would normally rub against the head. Of course, I can't speak from experience since I've been circumcised since after I was born (probably) and didn't even realize what it was and that it had been done to me till well into adulthood.

Resident wet blanket.
Instructor
#96 Old 6th Nov 2015 at 6:32 PM
Quote: Originally posted by GnatGoSplat
I've read that male circumcision reduces the pleasurable experience of intercourse since the foreskin would normally rub against the head. Of course, I can't speak from experience since I've been circumcised since after I was born (probably) and didn't even realize what it was and that it had been done to me till well into adulthood.


I've read that the foreskin can cause too much stimulation during intercourse, which can lead to discomfort and/or prem. E.
Top Secret Researcher
#97 Old 7th Nov 2015 at 3:52 AM
That's ridiculous. Something that made it uncomfortable to make babies would get fizzled out by natural selection, not by amputation. Also, it's just plain not true. And everyone seems to have more problems with circumcised peens.

Actually, circumcision deforms the penis. 20% of boys who get circumcised experience problems in the urethra that cause issues with bladder and urination. Men who get circumcised later in life don't have these problems.
Babies who get circumcised are often traumatized by the experience, and those who have gone through it are more prone to panic attacks, negative emotions, and PTSD than those who haven't.
There is also a chance of serious complications from the process, including infections, shock from blood loss, and death. I would say that death is a fairly negative side effect.

It probably only started in the first place as a sacrifice. It was common in some areas to practice bloodletting from the penis. The reasoning was that women bleeding from the genitals = time to start making babies, so obviously blood from the genitals = fertility. Circumcision was exceptionally bloody, too. It made an ideal sacrifice, since it shed blood and permanently took away part of the body - cutting and piercing also being ways to make sacrifices or prove manhood. Therefore, cut off part of your penis and you'd be more virile.
That's mostly conjecture, but it does fit with current knowledge about the way 'magic' worked.

My MTS writing group, The Story Board
Instructor
#98 Old 7th Nov 2015 at 6:31 PM
Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
That's ridiculous. Something that made it uncomfortable to make babies would get fizzled out by natural selection, not by amputation. Also, it's just plain not true. And everyone seems to have more problems with circumcised peens.

Actually, circumcision deforms the penis. 20% of boys who get circumcised experience problems in the urethra that cause issues with bladder and urination. Men who get circumcised later in life don't have these problems.
Babies who get circumcised are often traumatized by the experience, and those who have gone through it are more prone to panic attacks, negative emotions, and PTSD than those who haven't.
There is also a chance of serious complications from the process, including infections, shock from blood loss, and death. I would say that death is a fairly negative side effect.

It probably only started in the first place as a sacrifice. It was common in some areas to practice bloodletting from the penis. The reasoning was that women bleeding from the genitals = time to start making babies, so obviously blood from the genitals = fertility. Circumcision was exceptionally bloody, too. It made an ideal sacrifice, since it shed blood and permanently took away part of the body - cutting and piercing also being ways to make sacrifices or prove manhood. Therefore, cut off part of your penis and you'd be more virile.
That's mostly conjecture, but it does fit with current knowledge about the way 'magic' worked.


Okay. I said I read it, not that I remember where or whether the source was accurate. Good to know.
Instructor
#99 Old 12th Dec 2015 at 4:39 PM
Quote: Originally posted by SuicidiaParasidia
All of what hugbug993 said. You're pretty much a feminist already if you believe that women should be treated like people and reject outdated notions about what women "should" or "shouldn't" be. It's entirely possible to be rational and level-headed about a cause without taking away from the importance of the cause or indulging in poo flinging contests.


The problem with feminism is not feminists/women (and men) running around trying to be equal in all varieties imho. The problem is it´s common root in socialism as an ideology. Before feminism was invented people where doing the same thing. Women joined the work-force. Men wore make.up. People treated each other nice. Feminism causes more harm than it heals,because it is 1) an -ism, and 2) based in socialism. What feminism then does is inventing problems where there wore none. Like stating that men are oppressive rapists,-also historically,which is not true. Or that there is a deep "structural" sexism or racism within society that can only be remedied with more feminism. Personally,and as a woman, I find that sort of stupid.

"The only reason people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory. "
Top Secret Researcher
#100 Old 12th Dec 2015 at 5:13 PM
You do realize that in your country (Sweden), feminism has been around since the 1600's and socialism was invented in 1827, right?

My MTS writing group, The Story Board
 
Page 4 of 6
Back to top