Does anyone else agree with feminism?



Page 69 of 106 [ 1585 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72 ... 106  Next
Page:

puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:00 pm
Posts: 9121
Location: Cottonopolis

Wed Apr 04, 2012 2:13 am

AspieRogue wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
he is still the father, regardless. yes it can occur without the consent of both parties, but that doesn't mean one party is less responsible. having sex carries a risk of pregnancy. if a person is that concerned about pregnancy, they should not be engaging in sex. it's pretty straightforward.



No, it's not. Also , this line of thought is exactly what anti-birth control abstinence advocates preach to women. Plenty of women wish to enjoy sex without having to worry(that much) about unwanted pregnancy. And the legality of abortion and birth control means they can. Why do men deserve any less? I'm sick and tired of women trying to push the responsibility for their own bodies onto men! :x Since she can abort the darn fetus without the fathers consent, then I say it is SHE who bears the responsibility for pregnancy. Using reproductive coercion to control someone else is completely unacceptable and it's time for the courts to put a stop to it.

BTW, would you tell this to a woman who got pregnant against her wishes because her partner cut a small slit in the condom he was using? Or secretly flushed her BC pills down the toilet and replaced them with a placebo??


FWIW, I agree with you in theory. I don't know how it would work in practice, though.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 7:00 pm
Posts: 7593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

Wed Apr 04, 2012 2:17 am

AspieRouge why would a man need to cut a hole in a condom when you can still get a girl pregnant wearing a condom?



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 7:00 pm
Posts: 2177

Wed Apr 04, 2012 2:39 am

hyperlexian wrote:
people make a choice - have sex and risk pregnancy, or don't have sex and have no risk at all. i personally don't care if people have sex or not, but if a couple has sex and the birth control accidentally fails, they are both responsible.


I ultimately agree with that, on the basis that both parents have to take financial responsibility and only the woman can decide if she wants to have the child, since she is the one who is pregnant. But the "have sex and risk pregnancy" argument doesn't really sit well with me.

The same argument is used by conservatives who argue against abortion. They too view pregnancy as a risk of having sex and demand that women take responsibility for their mistake / accident / sin by carrying an unplanned embryo or fetus to term, no matter how inconvenient or medically ill-advised it might be. In this case, it is obvious that the argument is insulting and degrading. Women shouldn't be punished for having sex. But neither should men be punished, imho.

Of course we can't force women to abort because the father of the fetus doesn't want the financial responsibility. The high cost of raising a child is a general problem that also affects low-income families, who would love to have children but can't afford them. The solution is obvious and logically follows from the so-called intergenerational contract.

In times when children were the only form of old-age insurance, it made sense for parents to pay for their own children (who were also used as cheap laborers and farmhands from an early age). Nowadays, we have taken things to a larger scale. Children no longer provide for their parents and grandparents; instead, retirees are provided and cared for by the entire workforce of younger generations. Since we collectively benefit from everybody's offspring, it is only fair that a nation collectively pays for its children.

This would go a long way towards creating more socio-economic equality and equal educational opportunities, as well as more gender equality. Many children are raised by single mothers, and the meager alimony payments of low-income fathers -- which might not always arrive on time or sometimes not at all, or the checks turn out to be bad -- don't even begin to cover the cost of raising a child. So in the end, many mothers pay the lion's share of child support. This shouldn't be the case.

Socialized child care would also provide a great incentive for couples in countries with low birth rates. And it is consistent with the idea that children are persons with human rights, not the property of their parents. Children are essentially citizens who are unable to provide for themselves, and they should be financially supported just like any other member of society who can't earn a living. In my opinion, this makes a lot more sense than tax breaks for married couples who may or may not have children.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:00 pm
Posts: 2122

Wed Apr 04, 2012 4:43 am

CrazyCatLord wrote:
Socialized child care would also provide a great incentive for couples in countries with low birth rates. And it is consistent with the idea that children are persons with human rights, not the property of their parents. Children are essentially citizens who are unable to provide for themselves, and they should be financially supported just like any other member of society who can't earn a living. In my opinion, this makes a lot more sense than tax breaks for married couples who may or may not have children.


Yeah.... that pretty much disgusts me, as a person who hates paying for other people's life choices.



HisDivineMajesty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:00 pm
Posts: 1364
Location: Planet Earth

Wed Apr 04, 2012 4:48 am

TellEmSteveDave wrote:
I'm a male and I agree with feminism, I think it's wrong to discriminate against someone because of their gender or sexual orientation. Also it's perfectly natural for men be in touch with their feminine side and vice versa.


And that's where feminism has gone too far - men are being discriminated against.
If a certain percentage of women have to be put in corporate boardrooms regardless of competence, competent men are refused those positions based on their gender.
Now, if that happened to women, it would certainly be branded sexism.



Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 7:00 pm
Posts: 9770
Location: Dallas, Texas

Wed Apr 04, 2012 5:42 am

I think I'd be in agreement with most of WP (hey, now there's a rarity), that this guy goes too far: (Unless these two are both into this kind of role playing.)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqo6lngxmhE[/youtube]


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


HisDivineMajesty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:00 pm
Posts: 1364
Location: Planet Earth

Wed Apr 04, 2012 6:34 am

That's actually a very good idea. :)



Orr
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 7:00 pm
Posts: 569

Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:03 am

Humor aimed at bigotry is often enjoyed by the bigoted. It appeals on more than one level.


_________________
'You seem very clever at explaining words, Sir,' said Alice. 'Would you kindly tell me the meaning of the poem called "Jabberwocky"?'


Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 7:00 pm
Posts: 9770
Location: Dallas, Texas

Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:39 am

Feminism is outdated, because we're entering an age where people are starting to reject being labeled by society for the genitalia they possess ("man", "woman"), rather than for who they are as persons. If you're a "female" who identifies as a male, what are you? Don't you have the right to be a male, if that's how you identify? And vice versa. And then there's transgender. So, "feminism" changes its meaning for those who reject being labeled by others. It would become merely a belief in supremacy of the feminine -- be that feminine nature in a "male", in a "female", or in a "transgender" person.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 7:00 pm
Posts: 8800

Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:52 am

Interesting little article on the subject

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinio ... 75793.html

Quote:
Consider the images of women that leap out from the front pages of popular magazines -- or the way they appear in music videos. Women in movies, on TV, or in video games are much more likely than men to be dressed in revealing clothing or portrayed in ways that emphasize their sexual appeal. It is not enough to be able to sing: To become successful in the world of popular music, a woman has to sell herself as a sex object as well. From Madonna to Rihanna, a sexual image is at least as important as their sound -- perhaps much more.

The sexualization of women and girls begins early. Underwear and bathing suits for prepubescent girls might now include padded "bras." Makeup for pre-teens is no longer uncommon.

Girls learn quickly their cup size is more important than their intelligence. We don't seem to grow out of it either, as the burgeoning cosmetic surgery industry reveals. The message is clear: Physical attractiveness is the measure of a woman's value.

Consider the fact we have grey-haired male news anchors like Peter Mansbridge, but female anchors are usually much younger -- or doing their best to fake it. It is the difference between being respected for ability rather than appearance.

A 2007 study by the American Psychological Association on the sexualization of girls documents that popular magazines consistently encourage girls to focus on becoming objects of desire for males. Recent television shows like Toddlers and Tiaras feature girls as young as three competing in beauty pageants, complete with fake eyelashes and padded "breasts."

Getting out of this mindset was supposed to be what feminism was about. The idea women were not simply sexual objects or useful domestic labour took decades of struggle to gain ground. Women have ideas and ambitions worth valuing on their own terms. Yet today, feminists are parodied as shrill and angry females who hate men, and are always overreacting to "harmless" behaviour.

Empowerment in the post-feminist era is supposedly about being sexually available and uninhibited. Perhaps that was the ideal of female behaviour airlines implied when they required their flight attendants to be attractive and unmarried (therefore "available"). It is not surprising then that Pan Am, a new television series about flight attendants in the days before 1978, has achieved popularity. Perhaps we haven't come so far after all.



MissConstrue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:00 pm
Posts: 19686
Location: Missouri

Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:54 am

And if you're a female who doesn't fit what society tells you, what are you? Oh wait you're a guy because women are only suppose to be "feminine" whatever the fck that means. As for feminism, if it hadn't been for the movement women would still be scrutinized like they are today only worse. Seriously some of the people in this thread make me sick to my stomach. The attitudes are still the same with exception to some who are see both sides. Are there females who are extreme with their views? Yes but very few compared to the amount of bashing I'm not only seeing on this thread but in general. Go back to the kitchen...alright I'm leaving. Anyway if anyone wants women to be a traditional stepford wife might as well bring up the men who should work for a living because there is good proportion who not only don't work but don't help in raising the kids.


_________________
Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.
-Thomas Paine


Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 7:00 pm
Posts: 9770
Location: Dallas, Texas

Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:59 am

Well, at least you're not bitter.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


MissConstrue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:00 pm
Posts: 19686
Location: Missouri

Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:01 am

ArrantPariah wrote:
Interesting little article on the subject

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinio ... 75793.html

Quote:
Consider the images of women that leap out from the front pages of popular magazines -- or the way they appear in music videos. Women in movies, on TV, or in video games are much more likely than men to be dressed in revealing clothing or portrayed in ways that emphasize their sexual appeal. It is not enough to be able to sing: To become successful in the world of popular music, a woman has to sell herself as a sex object as well. From Madonna to Rihanna, a sexual image is at least as important as their sound -- perhaps much more.

The sexualization of women and girls begins early. Underwear and bathing suits for prepubescent girls might now include padded "bras." Makeup for pre-teens is no longer uncommon.

Girls learn quickly their cup size is more important than their intelligence. We don't seem to grow out of it either, as the burgeoning cosmetic surgery industry reveals. The message is clear: Physical attractiveness is the measure of a woman's value.

Consider the fact we have grey-haired male news anchors like Peter Mansbridge, but female anchors are usually much younger -- or doing their best to fake it. It is the difference between being respected for ability rather than appearance.

A 2007 study by the American Psychological Association on the sexualization of girls documents that popular magazines consistently encourage girls to focus on becoming objects of desire for males. Recent television shows like Toddlers and Tiaras feature girls as young as three competing in beauty pageants, complete with fake eyelashes and padded "breasts."

Getting out of this mindset was supposed to be what feminism was about. The idea women were not simply sexual objects or useful domestic labour took decades of struggle to gain ground. Women have ideas and ambitions worth valuing on their own terms. Yet today, feminists are parodied as shrill and angry females who hate men, and are always overreacting to "harmless" behaviour.

Empowerment in the post-feminist era is supposedly about being sexually available and uninhibited. Perhaps that was the ideal of female behaviour airlines implied when they required their flight attendants to be attractive and unmarried (therefore "available"). It is not surprising then that Pan Am, a new television series about flight attendants in the days before 1978, has achieved popularity. Perhaps we haven't come so far after all.



No surprise there.


_________________
Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.
-Thomas Paine


MissConstrue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:00 pm
Posts: 19686
Location: Missouri

Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:13 am

Ragtime wrote:
Well, at least you're not bitter.


Ditto and welcome back.


_________________
Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.
-Thomas Paine


ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 7:00 pm
Posts: 4921
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

Wed Apr 04, 2012 9:29 am

Ragtime wrote:
Feminism is outdated, because we're entering an age where people are starting to reject being labeled by society for the genitalia they possess ("man", "woman"), rather than for who they are as persons. If you're a "female" who identifies as a male, what are you? Don't you have the right to be a male, if that's how you identify? And vice versa. And then there's transgender. So, "feminism" changes its meaning for those who reject being labeled by others. It would become merely a belief in supremacy of the feminine -- be that feminine nature in a "male", in a "female", or in a "transgender" person.

LOLwut?
Who do you think is responsible for that? :lol:
You do know feminist groups are some of the greatest champions of transgender rights?


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


Display posts from previous:  Sort by  


Page 69 of 106 [ 1585 posts ] Go to page Previous  1 ... 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72 ... 106  Next
Page:




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Jump to: