Is Feminism Still Relevant?

[Galeongirl]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

if women cannot control when they do and do not get pregnant, there can be no true equality since it's something that can never happen to a man. also, if a women should chose to end a pregnancy, it's her exercising full control over her body, she shouldn't haven't to seek permission from a man.

Agreed. The woman is the one carrying the baby, undergoing heavy mental and hormonal changes, and in the end the one to nurse the baby. Sure the man helps and everything, but if we're talking unwanted pregnancy, I don't see why, if the mother does not want the child, she should ask permission. It's her body after all.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

if women cannot control when they do and do not get pregnant, there can be no true equality since it's something that can never happen to a man. also, if a women should chose to end a pregnancy, it's her exercising full control over her body, she shouldn't haven't to seek permission from a man.

....or a woman who labels her as a slut simply for being pregnant before marriage.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

Agreed. The woman is the one carrying the baby, undergoing heavy mental and hormonal changes, and in the end the one to nurse the baby. Sure the man helps and everything, but if we're talking unwanted pregnancy, I don't see why, if the mother does not want the child, she should ask permission. It's her body after all.

This seems more like an argument for the right to have an abortion, and not about equality. I still do not see how the ability to have a legal abortion makes a woman equal to a man simply because males can't get pregnant. The inability to men to get pregnant makes us different, but not unequal. In fact, it could probably be argued that the ability to get pregnant makes women superior.

It seems you would need to show data like unequal pay for the same job or demonstrate the lack of promotion despite being more qualified to prove a woman is being treated unequally to men. And for the most part - these arguments are supported by hard evidence even though the world is slowly closing these gaps every year.

Having the right to terminate a life is not in the same discussion. If it was - then we would have to throw in a Muslim father's "right" to conduct honor killings to preserve his family's standing in the community. Would you say this is a matter of male/female inequality or a matter of murder?

The men and women that oppose abortion are standing up for the right of the growing child (from their perspective). This has little to do with the individual legal rights of a woman.

I think we can agree that there are physical/hormonal differences between men and women. I think we can also agree that a pregnancy takes place in a woman's body (at least for the next few decades) and it's a tough row to hoe. But I don't agree that terminating a pregnancy is matter of equality/non-equality - it is a matter of murder/non-murder.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Pearl

.

I get the sense that you feel threatened by any woman asking for equality and respect.

Whoa - where did that come from? I'm married to woman that has a career and I certainly want her treated with equality and respect. I want the same for my stepdaughter. I also try my best to treat everyone with equality and respect.

However, I don't think that men are being treated with equality and respect by many feminists - especially the ones in this video.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

if women cannot control when they do and do not get pregnant, there can be no true equality

Unless there is force - a woman has absolute control of this event at all times (with the exception of Mary about 33 BC).

It's one of the more obvious cause and effect behaviors in the animal kingdom.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

Unless there is force - a woman has absolute control of this event at all times (with the exception of Mary about 33 BC).

It's one of the more obvious cause and effect behaviors in the animal kingdom.

so it's up to the woman not to get pregnant?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

so it's up to the woman not to get pregnant?

You said...

Originally Posted by Irvine511

if women cannot control when they do and do not get pregnant, there can be no true equality

And I'm saying that legally, they DO control when they do and do not get pregnant.

[Irvine511]

And legal abortion is part of maintaining that control.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

And legal abortion is part of maintaining that control.

until birth?

[Galeongirl]

Originally Posted by AEON

This seems more like an argument for the right to have an abortion, and not about equality. I still do not see how the ability to have a legal abortion makes a woman equal to a man simply because males can't get pregnant. The inability to men to get pregnant makes us different, but not unequal. In fact, it could probably be argued that the ability to get pregnant makes women superior.

It seems you would need to show data like unequal pay for the same job or demonstrate the lack of promotion despite being more qualified to prove a woman is being treated unequally to men. And for the most part - these arguments are supported by hard evidence even though the world is slowly closing these gaps every year.

Having the right to terminate a life is not in the same discussion. If it was - then we would have to throw in a Muslim father's "right" to conduct honor killings to preserve his family's standing in the community. Would you say this is a matter of male/female inequality or a matter of murder?

The men and women that oppose abortion are standing up for the right of the growing child (from their perspective). This has little to do with the individual legal rights of a woman.

I think we can agree that there are physical/hormonal differences between men and women. I think we can also agree that a pregnancy takes place in a woman's body (at least for the next few decades) and it's a tough row to hoe. But I don't agree that terminating a pregnancy is matter of equality/non-equality - it is a matter of murder/non-murder.

That's not really the argument I was trying to make. I'll try to explain it differently.

The whole thing about gender equality I find ridiculous anyway, as we are biologically not equal. Google translate translate the word I'm looking for as equivalence, but I don't think that's it. What I mean is that we're not equal, but deserve equal, fair treatment. The whole quota with women at top functions, why? For the sake of having women there? No. The person most capable should be at the top, regardless of gender.

Abortion to me has nothing to do with this equality issue, simply because, as you said, men don't get pregnant. It is a private matter between a couple, or in the case of unwanted pregnancy of the woman. I do not see why the government should need to decide what happens to that woman and/or the pregnancy. As the consequences have such a grand impact on the woman's life, it should be her decision and hers alone.

What would your arguments be for making this ability superior? Because as far as I'm aware it is generally considered something that makes women weaker. Just as having a period each month. While men have none of these issues, they have an 'advantage' over us, or so to say. I don't necessarily agree with this, but I think that is the general consensus, coming from the times where women were considered less anyway. It's about time these views get updated to the 21st century.

I do not want to turn this into a great abortion discussion, as I still think it's a different matter altogether, but if we're going to consider honour killing a matter of equality? No. It is not. It is murder. Religion is also something I consider personal and I do not see why a person's connection or belief in God should be a reason for them to avoid our justice system. Killing in the name of God is still killing.

Abortion has nothing to do with this. It does not depend on beliefs and it is not murder. It's a rational decision made by weighing pros and cons. And IMO that decision belongs to the person actually having to undergo the procedure. The pregnant woman. We don't know her situation, we do not have to live with the consequences, whille she does. Who the hell gave us the right to decide what she has to do? Sounds pretty 18th century to me!

Originally Posted by AEON

You said...



And I'm saying that legally, they DO control when they do and do not get pregnant.

What's your view on abortion after a rape pregnancy then?

Besides that, birth control is never 100% safe. So there is always a chance. Then there's the drug-drug interaction with contraception that prevents most women on anti depressants to take it. There are a lot of different reasons that can cause pregnancy, and it is not always just the two people involved lazying and not using protection.

[jeevey]

Originally Posted by AEON

Unless there is force - a woman has absolute control of this event at all times (with the exception of Mary about 33 BC).

It's one of the more obvious cause and effect behaviors in the animal kingdom.

There are so many, many reasons why a woman may not have complete autonomy over when she has sex and whether she has adequate access to reliable birth control every time, both relational, economic and social. This comment shows a pretty significant grasp of the complexity of reproductive justice.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by AEON

And I'm saying that legally, they DO control when they do and do not get pregnant.

We do? Our bodies have a way of shutting themselves down during consensual and non-consensual sex?

You're making it sound like women have no choice but to be incubators. Abortion allows for that not to happen. Also, when it comes to pregnancy, two people are involved: the mother and the child, and they are not always on the same page.

Also, to be honest, just because a man's wife has a career does not mean he can't hold sexist views. There is more to women's rights than careers.

I sense a fear and disdain toward feminists in your posts. Just the way you sarcastically said "heroes" earlier says it all.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

until birth?

If you'd like to discuss the tiny fraction of late term abortions that are almost always done after the discovery of severe fetal deformities, we can do that. But the vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester.

I think we'd all agree that the fewer abortions the better, and comprehensive sex education along with easy access to birth control and emergency contraception is the best way to go about that.

Do you want every child to be a wanted child?

[jeevey]

As a note both about reproductive justice and later term abortion, here's an article.

The GOP’s Late-Term Abortion Strategy Is Backfiring - The Daily Beast

Diana Greene Foster and Katrina Kimport are professors in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences in the School of Medicine at the University of California in San Francisco. Between 2008 and 2010, Foster and Kimport studied the cases of 272 women who had received an abortion at or after 20 weeks of gestation, as well as of 169 women who received first-trimester abortions. These women were interviewed just one week after their abortions and asked a variety of questions including what led to the delay in their medical care....


The study found that young, low-income women are disproportionately more likely to seek abortions at or after 20 weeks. That’s partly because of the compounding circumstances young low-income women are more likely to face. Many in the study were either raising children alone, were depressed or using drugs or were experiencing domestic violence or tension. Half of the women having later-term abortions were unemployed, compared with just one-third of women having first-trimester procedures.


But the barriers to accessing abortion services weren’t limited to the conditions of these women’s lives but the context of medical access in their communities. Foster and Kimport found that first-trimester and later-term abortion seekers ranked roughly the same in terms of delays due to “not knowing about the pregnancy” or “trouble deciding about the abortion." But there were four barriers to abortion services that affected late-term abortion seekers twice as much as those who had first-term procedures:
1. Not knowing where to go for an abortion
2. Difficulty getting to the abortion facility
3. Raising money for procedure and related costs
4. Difficulty securing insurance coverage.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

If you'd like to discuss the tiny fraction of late term abortions that are almost always done after the discovery of severe fetal deformities, we can do that. But the vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester.

I think we'd all agree that the fewer abortions the better, and comprehensive sex education along with easy access to birth control and emergency contraception is the best way to go about that.

Do you want every child to be a wanted child?

I am basically saying that we should let science determine when human life begins - and make it illegal to terminate that life (inside or outside the womb). If science says 22 weeks - then it's 22 weeks. If science says it's at the point of conception - then it's at the point of conception.

If feminist do not accept the science of when human life begins - then they've become no better than the religious fundamentalist who claim "divine command" for their reasoning.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by jeevey

There are so many, many reasons why a woman may not have complete autonomy over when she has sex and whether she has adequate access to reliable birth control every time, both relational, economic and social. This comment shows a pretty significant grasp of the complexity of reproductive justice.

I have already agreed that when women are forced to have sex against their will - it is wrong.

[anitram]

It isn't as if "science" is a person.

Determining when life begins is dependent on your definition of "life". "Science" can't provide you with an answer until that definition is settled. And that definition is not going to be agreed upon by anyone.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by AEON

I am basically saying that we should let science determine when human life begins - and make it illegal to terminate that life (inside or outside the womb). If science says 22 weeks - then it's 22 weeks. If science says it's at the point of conception - then it's at the point of conception. If feminist do not accept the science of when human life begins - then they've become no better than the religious fundamentalist who claim "divine command" for their reasoning.

Many women, and their male partners, choose abortion due to not being emotionally and financially ready to raise a kid. It is something often agonized over and not taken lightly. Many who go through it see it as a sad and unfortunate decision. I admit that I wish people in that situation would choose adoption, because if you don't want it someone else may. It sounds like fair deal between the child and the mother, and even the father if he's the kind to care and not abandon the mother

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Pearl

We do? Our bodies have a way of shutting themselves down during consensual and non-consensual sex?

Can you please clarify?

Originally Posted by Pearl

Also, when it comes to pregnancy, two people are involved: the mother and the child, and they are not always on the same page.

I hear you saying that during the pregnancy there is another person involved, the child. And that these two persons sometimes are not "on the same page" - and because of this, the mother has the right to end the other person. By that logic, my wife still has the right to kill my 8 year old child if they disagree.

Originally Posted by Pearl

Also, to be honest, just because a man's wife has a career does not mean he can't hold sexist views. There is more to women's rights than careers.

I agree. I just don't think abortion is one of your "rights."

Originally Posted by Pearl

I sense a fear and disdain toward feminists in your posts.

There was a rumor once that the working title to Achtung Baby was "Fear of Women." As a male human being, I'm sure that no matter how informed and enlightened I may become - I will occasionally have a viewpoint that will expose some "fear" of the unknown. Even Stephen Hawking, one of the smartest people of the last 100 years, conceded that women are a "complete mystery." However, despite my occasional slip into Achtung-Hawking territory, removing the abortion debate from the larger Equal Rights discussion seems logical.

[jeevey]

Originally Posted by AEON

I have already agreed that when women are forced to have sex against their will - it is wrong.

It's not just rape. What about when women don't have access to health insurance or money for contraceptives? What about condom breakage? What about women who become pregnant while actually using the pill or IUD? (It does happen.) What about women with controlling or fundamentalist partners who oppose birth control? Or partners who aren't willing to wait while diaphragm or cervical cap gets settled? What about women who lack reliable transportation to get to drs appointments to get contraceptives? What about women who are drug addicted or mentally ill and can't manage a method reliably? All of these women--lots of them-- are not raped, but they do really do not have "absolute control" over when they have sex or when they become pregnant. This abortion in cases of rape only narrative just ignores the complexity of women's lives.