Is Feminism Still Relevant?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
that's impressive. :up:

Thanks. I'm still hypocrite though. I haven't thrown out all my leather shoes and belts...but it's a move in the right direction.

I think I posted about my switch to veganism a few months ago. I saw some of those videos on youtube - that was enough.
 
I remember reading about your switch. :)

What are your views on the death penalty? Just wondering whether you take an absolute life stance (like the RC Church).
 
At least during the last line of discussion - we've moved the abortion debate into the arena it belongs (bioethics) and away from the arena it does not belong (feminism).

I don't think it's necessarily that black and white. But let's say for the sake of argument that it is.

The issue is that a great many (not all, but many, probably most) strong opponents of abortion generally also support policies that limit access to contraception, limit sex ed in schools, limit funding to contraception centres, promote pharmacists refusing to give out birth control and/or Plan B medications, don't think employers should pay for birth control and on and on. To me, when they take these positions, abortion must then be seen as a woman's issue since the restrictions they are talking about all in the end contribute to more and more abortions. Does that make sense to you?
 
I don't think it's necessarily that black and white. But let's say for the sake of argument that it is.

The issue is that a great many (not all, but many, probably most) strong opponents of abortion generally also support policies that limit access to contraception, limit sex ed in schools, limit funding to contraception centres, promote pharmacists refusing to give out birth control and/or Plan B medications, don't think employers should pay for birth control and on and on. To me, when they take these positions, abortion must then be seen as a woman's issue since the restrictions they are talking about all in the end contribute to more and more abortions. Does that make sense to you?

Let's not forget the idea that miscarriages must be investigated or the law that all women seeking an abortion must undergo a sonogram. These reasons take a woman's right to choose to a whole new level.
 
I remember reading about your switch. :)

What are your views on the death penalty? Just wondering whether you take an absolute life stance (like the RC Church).

I used to support the death penalty for those guilty of murder. Now, in theory, I think that with our new understanding of brain chemistry - the chance of "healing" exists - or will soon exist.

That being said - if one of my children were murdered, I would terminate the killer if I had the chance. It wouldn't be the "right" thing to do, but I think that I would be so emotionally hijacked, it wouldn't matter. I would also immediately turn myself in and serve my sentence.
 
I don't think it's necessarily that black and white. But let's say for the sake of argument that it is.

The issue is that a great many (not all, but many, probably most) strong opponents of abortion generally also support policies that limit access to contraception, limit sex ed in schools, limit funding to contraception centres, promote pharmacists refusing to give out birth control and/or Plan B medications, don't think employers should pay for birth control and on and on. To me, when they take these positions, abortion must then be seen as a woman's issue since the restrictions they are talking about all in the end contribute to more and more abortions. Does that make sense to you?

I'm trying to understand - but I'm still confused. Is it not true that the same people that oppose contraception and sex education, do so for both males and females?

For my own clarification - are you suggesting that pregnancy is the result of a lack of contraception and understanding that sexual intercourse may lead to an unwanted pregnancy?
 
I'm trying to understand - but I'm still confused. Is it not true that the same people that oppose contraception and sex education, do so for both males and females?

For my own clarification - are you suggesting that pregnancy is the result of a lack of contraception and understanding that sexual intercourse may lead to an unwanted pregnancy?

Yes, it affects both men and women.

But the lack of access to education and birth control has a far greater impact on women than it does on men. Men do not become pregnant. Men can impregnate a woman and walk away. Sometimes they'll be held financially responsible (to the extent that they can provide which is often nothing), many times they won't. The single mother is then left with the burden of raising a child on often a low income, without significant education, and so the cycle of poverty begins.

Plus, birth control like the pill or IUD is far more effective than condoms, which is the only form a man is able to provide on his end.
 
Yes, it affects both men and women.

But the lack of access to education and birth control has a far greater impact on women than it does on men. Men do not become pregnant. Men can impregnate a woman and walk away. Sometimes they'll be held financially responsible (to the extent that they can provide which is often nothing), many times they won't. The single mother is then left with the burden of raising a child on often a low income, without significant education, and so the cycle of poverty begins.

Plus, birth control like the pill or IUD is far more effective than condoms, which is the only form a man is able to provide on his end.

I will concede these points about the lack of available contraception perhaps being an Equal Rights issue. However, it still seems true that women knowingly engage in sex without protection, and they know this increases the chances of pregnancy. And as you said - men don't get pregnant - so it seems that the ultimate/final line in the sand responsibility regarding pregnancy lands on the woman. Because you can't have it both ways. You can't say that only women have the right in determining the life/death of the unborn child, yet somehow both genders share in the responsibility of the pregnancy in the first place.

The feminists seem to claim that women have absolute control of their body. If this is true, this means they also have absolute control over the sexual activities of that body. Sexual activity may result in pregnancy. Therefore, women have absolute control of when they get pregnant.

Since women have absolute control of when they get pregnant, it should be of no surprise when another human organism starts forming in their womb sometime after sexual intercourse. Science seems to indicate, this human organism is in fact, a human life, and as such - has rights. And one of those rights - is the right to life. This right to life supersedes any inconvenience to the mother - who voluntarily brought the life into existence by her decision to have sexual intercourse.
 
I will concede these points about the lack of available contraception perhaps being an Equal Rights issue. However, it still seems true that women knowingly engage in sex without protection, and they know this increases the chances of pregnancy. And as you said - men don't get pregnant - so it seems that the ultimate/final line in the sand responsibility regarding pregnancy lands on the woman. Because you can't have it both ways. You can't say that only women have the right in determining the life/death of the unborn child, yet somehow both genders share in the responsibility of the pregnancy in the first place.

The feminists seem to claim that women have absolute control of their body. If this is true, this means they also have absolute control over the sexual activities of that body. Sexual activity may result in pregnancy. Therefore, women have absolute control of when they get pregnant.

Since women have absolute control of when they get pregnant, it should be of no surprise when another human organism starts forming in their womb sometime after sexual intercourse. Science seems to indicate, this human organism is in fact, a human life, and as such - has rights. And one of those rights - is the right to life. This right to life supersedes any inconvenience to the mother - who voluntarily brought the life into existence by her decision to have sexual intercourse.

I know this is an argument that will never end, but I just have to speak up.

I really hope you realize that contraception is not 100% effective. Yeah, there are some women who don't use contraception during sex and that isn't wise of them if they don't want to get pregnant. But to say we have absolute control over our bodies and what happens to it is completely false.

When feminists "seem" to claim that we have absolute control over our bodies, it simply means no one, especially a man, has dominion over our bodies. That is what feminists declare. We have been treated like property for centuries, with men controlling our bodies for us, and we don't want that anymore. That is what we are fighting for.

Men don't know what it is like to be a woman. They never will because they don't have the same bodies. So for men to tell us what to do with our bodies, how we should treat it and what we do have control over is completely wrong, and even foolish.
 
This right to life supersedes any inconvenience to the mother - who voluntarily brought the life into existence by her decision to have sexual intercourse.



this attitude is why it's a feminist issue. as if women get abortions because they don't want to be inconvenienced.

it's so reductive about human sexuality and so dehumanizing to women and so excuses men from anything and so enables them to divide women up into virgins and sluts.

if you could get pregnant, you'd feel much differently.
 
this attitude is why it's a feminist issue. as if women get abortions because they don't want to be inconvenienced.

it's so reductive about human sexuality and so dehumanizing to women and so excuses men from anything and so enables them to divide women up into virgins and sluts.

if you could get pregnant, you'd feel much differently.

You seem to be arguing that men DO have a shared responsibility in the pregnancy - and if they share in the responsibility, they also share in the consequence. And if they share in the consequence, doesn't that mean that men should have an equal voice in whether or not the child is born or aborted?

If you are stating that only a mother has a consequence, then only the mother has the responsibility. Again - you can't have it both ways.
 
"Inconvenience" is either a poor choice of word or a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.

Perhaps - it was a summary of the phrasing used by other posters (such as unwanted, mother and child not on the same page, not financially ready...etc).
 
I really hope you realize that contraception is not 100% effective. Yeah, there are some women who don't use contraception during sex and that isn't wise of them if they don't want to get pregnant. But to say we have absolute control over our bodies and what happens to it is completely false.
There is only one 100% biologically effective way not to get pregnant. Everything else contains various degrees of risk.

When feminists "seem" to claim that we have absolute control over our bodies, it simply means no one, especially a man, has dominion over our bodies.
Fair enough. I agree with you since I accept the premise that no human life should have dominion over another human life.

That is what feminists declare. We have been treated like property for centuries, with men controlling our bodies for us, and we don't want that anymore.
I had nothing to do with how women were treated in the past. I can't be held accountable for the actions of people that have been dead for hundreds of years.

That is what we are fighting for.
You already have it in most Western countries. It is illegal to have dominion over a woman's body. You've won.

Men don't know what it is like to be a woman.
well, some "men" probably do, but I get your point.

They never will because they don't have the same bodies.
And you will never understand what it's like to have a male body - that seems irrelevant.

So for men to tell us what to do with our bodies, how we should treat it and what we do have control over is completely wrong, and even foolish.
You can do whatever you want to your own body. However, you do not have the right to exercise dominion over another human life - whether that life is in a womb, incubator, or kindergarten class.
 
There is only one 100% biologically effective way not to get pregnant. Everything else contains various degrees of risk.

Fair enough, but that doesn't mean a fetus' rights matters much more than what the mother goes through.

Fair enough. I agree with you since I accept the premise that no human life should have dominion of another human life.

Then please don't tell me what I should do with my body. You're not God, a doctor, or the man I'm in a relationship with.

I had nothing to do with how women were treated in the past. I can't be held accountable for the actions of people that have been dead for hundreds of years.

No, AEON. I was explaining to you what it means to be a woman, what's on our minds and what we are trying to overcome. Where did you get the idea that I was blaming you for anything? I'm confused.

You already have it in most Western countries. It is illegal to have dominion over a woman's body. You've won.

And conservatives are still fighting to overturn that. Look at some of the GOP Congressional candidates last year. Doesn't matter if they lost their elections. The fact that there are still men today trying every way possible to control women's bodies is frightening for a lot of women.

well, some "men" probably do, but I get your point.

"Men"? What, those men aren't real men because they have more empathy for women? That's what it sounds like you are saying.

And you will never understand what it's like to have a male body - that seems irrelevant.

And with that, it is clear that this is a losing battle for you. Your answers seem desperate. In fact, they sound sexist, and reek of fear of women.

Are you against abortion or are you against a woman owning her body? It is either or.

You can do whatever you want to your own body. However, you do not have the right to exercise dominion over another human life - whether that life is in a womb, incubator, or kindergarten class.

Uhm, you just said earlier that it is illegal to own a woman's body. Abortion is legal.
 
"Men"? What, those men aren't real men because they have more empathy for women? That's what it sounds like you are saying.
No, I was referring to gender reassignment - that they would understand how it was to be both a man and a woman.

fear of women.
Would have made an epic album title.

Are you against abortion or are you against a woman owning her body? It is either or.
False dichotomy. I don't accept the premise that abortion is equal to owning your own body.


Pearl, you seem like a warm, caring, intelligent, and thoughtful woman. And I think I should apologize for the coldness that is coming across in my posts. I shouldn't treat this issue as if it is a group math assignment - yet I'm probably coming across that way. I'm sorry about that.

I am trying to remove the emotional, subjective opinions and focus on the biological facts. However, as anitram pointed out - that just might not be possible.
 
False dichotomy. I don't accept the premise that abortion is equal to owning your own body.

That I realize, and it is an issue that will be debated forever.

Pearl, you seem like a warm, caring, intelligent, and thoughtful woman. And I think I should apologize for the coldness that is coming across in my posts. I shouldn't treat this issue as if it is a group math assignment - yet I'm probably coming across that way. I'm sorry about that.

Thanks AEON. I don't think you really do fear women, just probably don't understand what it is like to be one - and you don't have to get gender reassignment to. Just a little consideration, empathy, putting yourself in someone's shoes, etc.

I am trying to remove the emotional, subjective opinions and focus on the biological facts. However, as anitram pointed out - that just might not be possible.

It isn't possible. I really think that, and so the debate will rage on to who knows when.
 
If you are stating that only a mother has a consequence, then only the mother has the responsibility. Again - you can't have it both ways.

I don't understand this logic at all.

There are plenty of real life examples where two parties have responsibility for an event but only one party lives with the consequences.
 
I don't understand this logic at all.

There are plenty of real life examples where two parties have responsibility for an event but only one party lives with the consequences.

Yeah - the logic is weak on that, I admit. I need to rework what I'm trying to express on this point. There just seems something off in the attitude that men share half the blame of the pregnancy, are legally responsible for at least half the finances of a child (can also share in half the blessing)- yet, have zero say in what happens to that child in the womb. It seems, pro-choice advocates only want the male in the discussion as the burning effigy.

Yet - let's leave men out of the discussion for a moment - it still seems true that women who voluntarily engage in sex certainly understand that pregnancy may be a result (and pregnancy is still possible with birth control - even if the odds are lower). After covering what we have about the scientific evidence pointing that there is a real possibility that a human life begins at conception - an "unwanted" pregnancy is not enough moral justification for an abortion after voluntarily sexual intercourse.

Also, there has been several mentions that a female is in full control over her own body. On this point I agree 100%. I think that pro-choice advocates would also agree that young female toddlers and infants have the right to exist and not be harmed, even though they are certainly dependent on adults for protection and are not yet in full control over their own bodies. However, pro-choice advocates don't extend that same sentiment to the young female in the womb. Does this young female (which is determined at the moment of conception by the chromosomes) also have the same rights as the female infant and toddler - if human life begins at conception? (which we have seen is a real scientific possibility)?

One thing seems for certain - that at the moment of conception, a new, functioning, self-directing, human organism begins that is only in need of nutrition and a proper environment to survive until maturity. And it is the last time we will have a clear line between a human and non-human organism. It's the only point that is not debated. And that is probably why the Church and other pro-life advocates (and I predict science) use the moment of conception as the starting point of human life.
 
why, look: rape insurance.



Michigan will join more conservative states in requiring residents who want health insurance coverage for abortions to buy an extra policy, after Republican legislators passed the law Wednesday over the objections of Democrats who pleaded for them to take the issue to voters instead.

The citizens' initiative approved 62-47 by the House and 27-11 in the Senate — almost entirely along party lines — will become law in March without the signature of Republican Gov. Rick Snyder, who vetoed similar legislation a year ago. The anti-abortion group Right to Life collected more than 300,000 signatures to put the legislation before lawmakers, who also had the option of letting it go to a statewide vote next November.

The law prohibits insurance companies from offering abortion coverage as part of both public and private health plans, except when a woman's life is at risk. Employers and individuals who want abortion coverage must buy supplemental policies, known as riders.

Michigan is the ninth state to restrict private plans from covering the procedure. Seven of the states — Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and Oklahoma — allow patients to purchase riders, just as Michigan will. Utah doesn't allow even supplemental coverage of elective abortions but lets general plans cover the procedure when the woman's life in endangered, her health is severely compromised or in cases of rape, incest or fetal impairment.

Several conservative states have approved broad abortion limits in recent months, but Michigan is a swing state that has generally stayed away from the tougher restrictions.

Michigan's law won approval after emotional debate on the chamber floors, which included Democratic female legislators telling personal stories in opposition to what they called "rape insurance" legislation that is among the most misogynistic they have seen.

Trying to hold back tears, Democratic Senate Minority Leader Gretchen Whitmer of East Lansing disclosed that she was raped more than 20 years ago.

"Thank God it didn't result in a pregnancy because I can't imagine going through what I went through and then having to consider what to do about an unwanted pregnancy from an attacker," she said. "If this were law then and I had become pregnant, I would not be able to have coverage because of this. How extreme, how extreme does this measure need to be?"

Opponents said 4 percent of Michigan's population shouldn't be able to dictate health care for women, a reference to the number of people who signed the petition to bring the issue to lawmakers. But Right to Life said abortion isn't health care and applauded legislators for standing firm.

Republican Rep. Margaret O'Brien of Portage said in an interview after session that she rejects the "notion that women only have one way of thinking" about abortion. She noted that federal law says abortion riders sold through the new government health insurance exchange can't cost less than $1 a month, so comprehensive abortion coverage should be available.

"I respect the seriousness of the emotions. I went through an unplanned pregnancy. I've counseled people who've been raped that has resulted in pregnancies. ... But I've also seen women who've embraced those babies through rape and seen that that child shouldn't be punished for the horrendous act that happened to them."

Michigan Puts Restrictions on Abortion Insurance - ABC News



remember guys, conservatives only want limited government and lower taxes which means more freedom for all. they aren't at all motivated by racism or misogyny.
 
Rape victims better pay up for the extra insurance riders. Seems fair.
 
remember guys, conservatives only want limited government and lower taxes which means more freedom for all. they aren't at all motivated by racism or misogyny.

They are for freedom. Their freedom. Everyone else is unworthy to enjoy that freedom.

(I know you're being facetious, but I'm just saying...)
 
You know, this probably belongs on the Pope thread as it's the latest from him, but I think it's very appropriate in relation to a lot of proposals like this (and the general hysteria over the ACA):

The many situations of inequality, poverty and injustice, are signs not only of a profound lack of fraternity, but also of the absence of a culture of solidarity. New ideologies, characterized by rampant individualism, egocentrism and materialistic consumerism, weaken social bonds, fueling that “throw away” mentality which leads to contempt for, and the abandonment of, the weakest and those considered “useless”. In this way human coexistence increasingly tends to resemble a mere do ut des which is both pragmatic and selfish.
 
why, look: rape insurance.







remember guys, conservatives only want limited government and lower taxes which means more freedom for all. they aren't at all motivated by racism or misogyny.

Are you suggesting that all conservatives are motivated by racism and sexism? Or are you only suggesting that some conservatives are motivated by these two things?
 
Are you suggesting that all conservatives are motivated by racism and sexism? Or are you only suggesting that some conservatives are motivated by these two things?


I'm suggesting that the limited-government ethos is window dressing -- it's still, for some, about social issues, specifically abortion.
 
Totally. The invasiveness and control in abortion legislation is evidence that there's a cognitive dissonance about government power among very right conservatives. The same people who can't be compelled to purchase insurance can compel women to have a compulsory vaginal probe? Sure.
 
I'm suggesting that the limited-government ethos is window dressing -.

The Libertarians are in this camp - and they don't seem to be carrying the torch for social issues.

But I do agree that the many (if not most) of the Republicans are still struggling to realize that we are in the post-Falwell world.

However, there are people on both sides of the political fence that feel abortion is still wrong (for instance - many Catholics are "liberal" on social justice issues, yet oppose abortion).
 
You know, this probably belongs on the Pope thread as it's the latest from him, but I think it's very appropriate in relation to a lot of proposals like this (and the general hysteria over the ACA):

You know I often think most of the '-isms' would be solved with a generally less competitive society, our economics has had a large hand in how we view other people.
 
Back
Top Bottom