Feminist preoccupation with power

Post Reply New Topic

Reproductive control, is at the core of power for the sexes. The pill in 1960, provided the first real opportunity for women to exercise control over reproduction, and Roe vs. Wade extended that right in 1973.

There is evidence that the feminist movement would not of had success in the US, without the ability to control reproduction. It allows a woman control/power over areas of life, that were not afforded in previous decades.

And there is some evidence provided by research that "the pill" has changed mate preferences for females, for a less masculinized male, because ovulation has been linked to female preferences for masculinized males.

Western cultures are becoming more egalitarian and less patriarchal in the course of the last several decades as a direct result of the pill and abortion rights.

In fact research indicates that the pill and abortion rights are responsible for higher levels of satisfaction among women, over and above any of the other women's rights gained from the 60's to the 90's, in the feminist movement.

http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/adds/silviap/EJ_women_rights.pdf

Men still have the advantage in reproductive control in middle eastern countries where patriarchy is a way of life. This battle of power between the sexes is at the core of why some of these cultures fear the influence of the west. It threatens reproductive control and the power that men have over women in these countries.

However, the Arab Spring movement is having a little impact from within some of the countries in the middle east and northern Africa. Elective abortion, though is still illegal in most of these countries

http://www.voicesofthearabspring.org/1/post/2012/01/-abortion-in-the-middle-east-and-north-africa.html

Any time there is an a debate over abortion rights, the emotions run high, but many of those core emotions rest on the evangelical patriarchs that remain in the US, and those that refuse to relinquish the rights to reproductive control, that there is some evidence that is literally changing the face of mankind, in western cultures.

That's a powerful force.

It is evident in almost every area of media, where masculinity is not the cultural ideal of what it used to be. Starting with Boy George in the Eighties. There is no way that could have happened in the 50's.

LGBT rights and acceptance have been affected and are continuing to be impacted by women's rights, in a positive manner, as well other minority rights.

Testosterone levels have dropped significantly among men born after the 1980's as compared to longitudinal studies of older males.

Many theories have been proposed as to why; many environmental factors could play a role, but it is obvious that if women are choosing less masculine men as mates, because of the pill, since 1960, that this is having an effect on culture, as well the potential for biology.

This likely impacts almost every arena in life; even potentially the symptoms of some ASD's, through the fact that birth control has led to the ability to delay starting of families into the decades of life in the 30's and the 40's, recently shown as a potential factor associated with ASD's.

And, also with higher levels of socio-economic stress, where raising a family with both parents employed, has become the norm required for subsistence, likely leading to potential higher levels of prenatal stress for some, that research suggests may be associated with ASD's.

It is no wonder that this thread has gained the attention that it has, second to the many abortion threads that are much a part of the same issue. As well as issues in the political divide, and with organized religion

The last great frontier for women's rights in the US, is health care for all; already established in many other egalitarian tilted societies. The current approximation of this opportunity would likely not have been possible without the pill, abortion rights, and the women's rights movement.

The democratic party is largely the egalitarian party and the republican party remains as the patriarchal core. Feminine and Masculine elements of each party are evidently proportioned as well in this manner.

Health care extends the potential for reproductive control, as well as control over economic decisions for those that are economically disadvantaged, of which women are still represented in greater numbers than men.

It is Custard's last stand for the remnants of a patriarchal society. The pill was the beginning of the end of patriarchy in western societies. There was really no turning back after that point.

If health care reform stands in the US, and Obama is re-elected; woman's rights, the pill, and Abortion Rights, can take significant credit, for these changes in Society.

Not to mention Nancy Pelosi, one of the most powerful faces of modern feminism, as well as the most villified, even by some whom call themselves feminists, in her part for doing whatever it took, to accomplish the goal of health care reform, in the US.

The remaining opposing forces are jumping through incredible hoops, to try to prevent it from happening. It is likely those forces will grow smaller and smaller as we go into the future, in part, potentially because of biological changes in human beings, as well as cultural changes, started by the introduction of "the Pill", in 1960.

The overall feminist movement in the West, in the last half a Century, is powerful stuff.

If some in the Middle East get scared enough over the threat of it spreading to their countries, there is the eventual potential that, in part, that fear could lead to nuclear conflict.

A potential Ultimate Battle over the power of reproductive control.

Hopefully, forces from within those countries that seek a more egalitarian way of life, can prevent that potential from happening.

It's a question of hygiene, because the function of armpit and crotch hair is to act as a sponge for sweat and other things. Not sure if that's what its intended to do or if its just a side effect. Eww disgusting. On that note, I remove most of my body hair regularly and given some of the "reveals" here, I'm guessing I as a man is less hairy than quite a few of the women in here.

Body hair in general is disgusting.

The greater point of it all, which went right over your head when you dove into the semantics of the whole thing

was that, Hyperlexican's moronic comment that "any man who cares ain't worth my time" was similar to the whole "the outside doesn't matter" thinking,

which is BS to begin with.

Hence why I brought up the homeless person to illustrate that people say such things but they are platitudes. It's like "the customer is always right" the truth is the customer is generally a moron.

I know you didn't ask me, but I'll answer anyway.

Yummy!

You're right. Free healthcare will let you get any medical procedure you need no matter how expensive.

I don't see anything wrong with it, but it's not my taste. So that prompts a question back to you: What do you think about a woman with no body hair? I am fully aware that it's unnatural, but I like it, and I don't see anything wrong with it. It's just a taste like any taste.

I stopped showering back in 1998 because I decided that any woman who cared wasn't worth it...

Why didn't I think of quitting work back then, for the same reason?

There is something to be said for mutual accommodation, as opposed to getting relationship-ready with an "arms-closed" (inflexible, unwelcoming) approach.

It's a question of hygiene, because the function of armpit and crotch hair is to act as a sponge for sweat and other things. Not sure if that's what its intended to do or if its just a side effect. Eww disgusting. On that note, I remove most of my body hair regularly and given some of the "reveals" here, I'm guessing I as a man is less hairy than quite a few of the women in here. Body hair in general is disgusting.

The greater point of it all, which went right over your head when you dove into the semantics of the whole thing was that, Hyperlexican's moronic comment that "any man who cares ain't worth my time" was similar to the whole "the outside doesn't matter" thinking, which is BS to begin with. Hence why I brought up the homeless person to illustrate that people say such things but they are platitudes. It's like "the customer is always right" the truth is the customer is generally a moron.

Look at it this way. Shaving is not always gender based. If you are a man and you are a professional body builder then you would shave your whole body in order to show off your muscles.

It's a question of hygiene, because the function of armpit and crotch hair is to act as a sponge for sweat and other things.

that is perfectly natural and not unhygienic at all. the body hairs help us to emit pheromones as we are intended to do, and they harbour helpful bacteria.

EDIT: i should add that people who shave their hair off have the same sweat and other fluids that the rest of us do... it just sits on the skin instead of getting wicked away to evaporate. think for a moment about a bald-headed person in the hot sun, with the sweat running down and dripping off their shiny head. then imagine a person with head hair... their hair keeps the scalp, face, and neck largely free of sweat.

Yeah, but part of being intimate with someone doesn't involve me showing my face into their scalp... I figure if there is a 5 second rule for food on the floor there is a 5mm rule for bodyparts that I put my mouth on. Armpit hair is just unsexy.

Yes but if women refuse to shave why do they insist on wearing tank tops ?

that's a reaction to the aesthetics, which is what i took issue with. anyone that cared about the aesthetics was not someone who i would have sex with, because the aesthetics involve unequal expectations between the genders and it is an unnatural process. if someone didn't find my natural state attractive (i.e. hairy) it would make no sense to be intimate with them.