What do you think about feminism

Post Reply New Topic

Feminism is just as important as any other civil right. Feminism means among other things, the right to control your own body. I can't demand that you give me an organ, even if not getting it means that I die. It's the same with a developing baby in the womb. It has no right to demand a woman's body, even if that means it will die.

Under that idea I have three rebuttals,
1. It would still be child neglect resulting in death (Just like you cannot kick your child out of your home into the cold even though it is your house)
2. The child already has access to your body, and so it would be more akin to taking back an organ you already donated. The decision to "Donate" was when you had sex instead, unless you were raped, of which the rapist is the one at fault.
3. The right to control your own body has limits, if you are severely anorexic and refuse to eat, you can be forcibly hospitalized and forced to eat. That for instance, only affects the one person but this affects two. In prisons and law it is also way easier to lose your right to control your body than you right to live, showing that life generally comes first.

Since birth has a significant risk of death, it doesn't matter if it already has "access" to your body. A tiny collection of human cells cannot be compared to a fully developed child with nerves and a brain. Also, it's not unethical to starve yourself to death. It may be against the law, but if the law is your guide, the law allows abortion.

You have a very naive view. Why would a woman want to carry a man's child, a man she probably hates and fears, and every time she would look at that child it would serve as a reminder of the rape? Fact is, the pregnancy is a result of a violation of the woman's body, therefore making the pregnancy void. If the woman does however noit want to have an abortion, the prerogative is on her.

Mhm. Try saying that to my neighbour's sister who will never be able to walk, talk, eat by herself, is legally blind, has severe difficulties breathing, in a wheelchair, has severe sensory issues, seizures, and will probably die before she's 18.

I never advocated for eugenics or genocide. The mother is best placed to decide whether she has the time and resources that she can allocate to ensure the disabled child would be provided with as good a quality of life as possible. If she decides that she can't provide that, then the right thing to do would be to not have that child, as it would be unfair on that child and could lead to neglect or worse.

There is also the fact that pregnancies can get in the way of studies or a career. Why would a woman put up with carrying a foetus for 9 months, and all the issues that come with it, potentially fall behind in studies or lose their job, just to put the baby up for adoption at the end of it? Makes literally no sense to me.

A child who is outside the womb, and is capable of living and breathing on it's own, with it's own complex set of thoughts and emotions, is completely different to a foetus who cannot.

You have contradicted yourself with the rapist point (see above). What if the woman pulled all the stops to prevent getting pregnant, yet still did?

Anorexia is a form of body dysmorphia, a mental health condition. Are you suggesting that all women who have abortions are also mentally ill?

You have a very naive view. Why would a woman want to carry a man's child, a man she probably hates and fears, and every time she would look at that child it would serve as a reminder of the rape? Fact is, the pregnancy is a result of a violation of the woman's body, therefore making the pregnancy void. If the woman does however noit want to have an abortion, the prerogative is on her.

The child is as much hers as it is the rapists.
And, if you were hit in a bar for instance, you wouldn't simply slap the one who hit you, and then go to his house and cut of his wife's arm. If you want, punish the rapist twice fold in the case of pregnancy, heck transfer all his assets into the raped women's name, with crud like that you can be as harsh on as you want, but it is his fault that the raped women was pregnant, not the kid.

Mhm. Try saying that to my neighbour's sister who will never be able to walk, talk, eat by herself, is legally blind, has severe difficulties breathing, in a wheelchair, has severe sensory issues, seizures, and will probably die before she's 18.

I would. I would gladly tell her that her life has value and that I don't want her dead now or ever.

I never advocated for eugenics or genocide. The mother is best placed to decide whether she has the time and resources that she can allocate to ensure the disabled child would be provided with as good a quality of life as possible. If she decides that she can't provide that, then the right thing to do would be to not have that child, as it would be unfair on that child and could lead to neglect or worse.

Adoption is another, far better, option. And doctors can be predatory when that happens, constantly recommending abortion, over stating the disability, giving the bleakest outlook possible, some times even telling parents that would be bad people to keep their child. The abortion rate for down syndrome, which becomes more manageable each year, for instance, clearly doesn't reflect the parents actual ability.

There is also the fact that pregnancies can get in the way of studies or a career. Why would a woman put up with carrying a foetus for 9 months, and all the issues that come with it, potentially fall behind in studies or lose their job, just to put the baby up for adoption at the end of it? Makes literally no sense to me.

Because women are capable. They are capable of handling both if they have to, or if not, are capable of picking back up if they need to. Inconvenience isn't a good reason to end a life.

A child who is outside the womb, and is capable of living and breathing on it's own, with it's own complex set of thoughts and emotions, is completely different to a foetus who cannot.

You can never prove thoughts or emotions either way, many adults are not capable of breathing on their own, and man children are born, and live, unable to breath on their own. Not a good way to prove humanity. Also, there is little difference between a child one hour before it is born, and an hour after.

You have contradicted yourself with the rapist point (see above). What if the woman pulled all the stops to prevent getting pregnant, yet still did?

No contradiction, it is simply that that individual argument applies less to rape, and the child is not the one at fault. The biological function of sex is reproduction, in consensual sex pregnancy is a risk that you should always consider.

Anorexia is a form of body dysmorphia, a mental health condition. Are you suggesting that all women who have abortions are also mentally ill?

I'm saying it shouldn't matter, mental heath doesn't determine rights as humans.


I really think we might want to cut this short though, do to us getting away from the point of the thread, and I don't want that to get the tread locked, or upset the poster.

You need to revisit biology, only in the first two weeks does an embryo even look like a "Clump of cells" and technically, we all are from conception to death, a bunch of cells. Abortion also poses a risk of death, in a less controlled and under reported setting. Also, the brain starts development very early and only stops in the mid twenties, most aborted embryos and fetuses did in fact have a brain.

If you think it is okay to starve yourself to death, and unethical to try to stop someone from doing it, it shows that at the most basic level our morals oppose each other. I was showing that generally, and especially legally, in nearly every other case life is treated as above control.

I do not think it would necessarily be unethical to try and stop someone from starving themselves to death. Abortion is far safer than childbirth, you can even do it with pill, by mail. But it is dangerous when it's illegal.

Fine. I'll create a separate thread.

Feminism is great. It's a shame to see so many in this thread who have a twisted idea of what feminism constitutes these days - certainly the "man haters" you are complaining about are a fringe within a fringe, and it seems rather silly to focus on them rather than the sensible majority. Also strange to see the claim that those "man haters" are somehow representative of "modern" feminism, rather than second-wavers who can't keep up with the progressive march of third and fourth wave feminism.

I don't have any time for Radical Feminism, which is a specific ideology rather than just "feminism but more radical". Radfems are ideologues, which is bad in itself, but also have bad ideas. Essentially they believe that there is no biological basis to gender, and so reject evidence-based solutions to issues caused by biological gender, and also reject the existence of trans and sometimes non-binary people.

We already have words for equality and egalitarianism. Those words are "equality" and "egalitarianism." Having been raised by a feminist and "educated" in the public school system by others, I can say now as an adult, unambiguously and without reservation, that feminism is as close to cancer as anything non-physical can be. It is and has, for at least as long as I have been alive, always been an irrational hate cult and female supremacy movement.

A lot of people live very sheltered lives in a tiny world, so they cannot understand that "a fate worse than death" is not always a metaphor. Their involuntary cruelty scares me more than the deliberate kind.

Hedonic adaptation.
Look it up.

I think that first wave feminism was necessary. I really dislike today's brand of feminism. I wouldn't mind it if women in North America were standing up for the rights of women all around the world.

That’d be racist as Muslim nations in Middle East and Africa treat women like s**t but saying anything would mean your racist against Muslims.

You're illustrating my point perfectly - you've never met anyone who's life is sheer torture, day in, day out, nor have you had the misfortune of helplessly watching people screaming and begging you to end their suffering. Or babies who only know months of agony before dying. Despite your current lack of understanding and compassion, I wish you'll never have such experiences.

The average man has became obsolete in a modern feminist society. Women no longer need a man for his money because they have the ability to earn their own. Men can be criticised by women but they are not allowed to criticise women and call women out on their nonsense. Men criticising women is regarded as sexism. Men regularly get sacked if they dare criticise or speak out against women in the workforce. Feminism gives women only benefits and women rarely face consequences for their actions. Average men are struggling to find their identity and adjust to a modern feminist world.