"How Feminism Hurts Men"

[Ryrin]

I understand that, Jak, really I do. It's just that this is such a personal issue that I think it should be left up to each individual, their physician and their clergy person if they so choose.

 

The United States is not a theocracy and imposing religious beliefs by enacting laws is dangerous, in my opinion.

[Rasheta Ardashir]

 

 

The United States in not a theocracy and imposing religious beliefs by enacting laws is dangerous, in my opinion.

 

100% this. 

[Aiel Heart]

Thank you Fnorrll and blank and be sure to let me know if you feel I am crossing any lines in that regard.
 

"Too tired to put this response in words that make sense right now, but I do not believe I said you had to be Catholic. I believe I merely state that I was, and gave my view on these issues."

This is what you said: Unfortunately, dear, truth isn't objective. There are some things that are always right or always wrong. Terminating a life is always going to be wrong--and stopping a heartbeat and brainwaves is murder.

Surely you are not unaware that others believe differently? In this case it is not "always." An unborn fetus in Jewish law is not considered a person.
 
I am aware that others believe differently, but one's belief does not change the truth of the matter. One can believe that a frog is a type of reptile. It seems a lot like a reptile, but it is in fact an amphibian. You may not agree with that classification, but that is its classification nonetheless. Many people try to pick various points when life "begins"--at a certain number of weeks of development, at birth, at some age after birth--when scientifically we can say that that human life starts at the very beginning. Now, due to the politics that have been involved in this issue since before we had the technology to fully explore this, most people still consider it to be something we can't definitively state, but, as previously stated, what people believe doesn't change the truth of what is. 

"Freedom" isn't about being able to do whatever we want and having no consequences, because there is always going to be a consequence.

Do you view a child as a consequence?
 
A child is something which results from the action of sex, yes. A positive consequence in my view, but a consequence nonetheless. To clarify this statement--nearly everything we do is going to have some impact on our futures, and has some kind of aftermath. The word "freedom" as it is used now means that you can do anything you want and there will be no aftermath whatsoever, which unfortunately isn't the case. 

"Many women who have abortions feel forced into it."

In this country, there is no "forcing" women to have abortions. What we do have though, is a group of people who want to control women's reproductive capacities, legally, by forcing them to carry unwanted pregnancies. There are a number of women who have difficulties after abortion because they have been told by others they have committed murder, sins, killed their "child" etc.
 
If you live in the United States (which I believe you do) then you are sadly mistaken within your first statement. There are many girls that do not want to have abortions and but feel pressured into it (as I have stated before), and I have talked to those girls. I've heard stories afterwards of women who wanted to keep their child, but wanted the approval of their family more. It tore their hearts apart. 
There are women who willingly have them, and I weep for those women as well as their hearts also become broken. There are many who chose that road, but then felt so empty afterwards, even though many weren't involved in any sort of religion and had the full support of their families. They know inside that something very wrong had happened.  For far to many, this pain is a truth, not a truth forced on them, but one that cam from with in them, and denying that is doing a great injustice to those women. 


Would you like to talk about premature births? I've had two and spent months in the NICU with both of them. Ditto for working with the disabled. It's been decades. The slippery slope fallacy is just that, a fallacy.
I feel that we are getting a little off the topic of feminism with premature births and working with those who have disabilities. I also don't see what point you're trying to make here precisely  

"Women are prohibited from becoming priests in certain denominations."
Now, to address the first part of that quote, as it was an affront against my religion.

If women being unable to become priests is an "affront to your religion" I would suggest that you try to change that from within. If not, it is a simple statement of fact.
 
If you would read the rest of my address to this statement again, your comment insinuating that my church was sexist because of women being able to be priests was the affront, not that women are unable to become priests. That is something that I fully support about my Church, and it is also something that is not going to change because it is another one of those things that is not subjective to opinion, but rather merely is. Women cannot be priests. For further details on why, please see my original post. 

"Something I've found common among many mainstream feminists (this may not be true in this situation) is the overwhelming attitude of "people/teens are going to have sex, so we're just going to make sure it's safe" which basically says "there's no way anyone is going to be able to control themselves, but we can at least make it so there are no consequences" which I find to be very demeaning to people actually. We are so much more capable than that.
However, the "higher standard" I spoke of referenced back to a conversation that was earlier in this thread which said something along the lines of how men needed to take more responsibility in the way that they treated women or something to that nature. Both men and women have a lot of improving to do."

It appears you are saying that choosing to have sex with a partner and taking precautions is an act taken when one is out of control. I think it's quite the opposite.
A condom can be put on quickly, and if a woman is on birth control for any reason than she is automatically "taking precaution." So, by your thinking, any time a couple like this decides to have sex they are being "perfectly responsible" about it? Is it still being responsible if the couple are just two teenagers sneaking around behind their parents' backs? 

So should those of us who don't agree with abortion and birth control be forced to pay for it via taxes that then feed into the "healthcare" which these two "services" are now included in?

As in insurance premiums/health care taxes? Of course. A man will never get pregnant but the policy includes prenatal care. I may never get cancer but I do think oncology should be a covered service. Should the gay man with AIDS not have funding for treatment because some people don't "believe" in homosexuality? What about the person who smokes? Should we withhold funding because we don't want to pay for the consequences of smoking? And obesity? What if we "believe" gluttony is wrong? Should the overweight Type II diabetic be out of luck?

The point of all of this is that we should basically stay out of other people's beds and wombs.

The "of course" is creating a double standard. If everyone should be free to "live our own beliefs" then we should not be forced to pay for what we believe to be the mass murder of children? You've been creating a case that women shouldn't be forced to live by the beliefs of others; why should I be forced to live by your beliefs?

There's also the fact that many of the services you mentioned are ones that people need to live a healthy life. They are services that allow peoples bodies to continue to function longer even after their body has begun to shut down in some way. With birth control and abortion, they are not allowing the body to become healthy, they are in fact inhibiting the body and harming it--and in one case ending a life and dismembering a body. 

 

I feel like I'm getting too unglued by this conversation, so I'm backing out for now. Thank you everyone for your insights :) 

[Guest]

 

 

Thank you Fnorrll and blank and be sure to let me know if you feel I am crossing any lines in that regard.

 

"Too tired to put this response in words that make sense right now, but I do not believe I said you had to be Catholic. I believe I merely state that I was, and gave my view on these issues."

 

This is what you said: Unfortunately, dear, truth isn't objective. There are some things that are always right or always wrong. Terminating a life is always going to be wrong--and stopping a heartbeat and brainwaves is murder.

 

Surely you are not unaware that others believe differently? In this case it is not "always." An unborn fetus in Jewish law is not considered a person.

 

I am aware that others believe differently, but one's belief does not change the truth of the matter. One can believe that a frog is a type of reptile. It seems a lot like a reptile, but it is in fact an amphibian. You may not agree with that classification, but that is its classification nonetheless. Many people try to pick various points when life "begins"--at a certain number of weeks of development, at birth, at some age after birth--when scientifically we can say that that human life starts at the very beginning. Now, due to the politics that have been involved in this issue since before we had the technology to fully explore this, most people still consider it to be something we can't definitively state, but, as previously stated, what people believe doesn't change the truth of what is. 

 

she said "person" - not humann, but person. soem peple use person and human to synonomously but obviusly the way she used it, it is not - person in thiis instance is an entity who is consierederd to have fulll right and equality amongstt a tribe, obviusly indicated by sayin a foetus is not a person as defind by jewish law. my culture folows same logic - there is what we considr the blood, the biollogical species which cantt deny, but then we have diferent degress of moral consideration. chilld up until certain age is not considred person, though animalls are considered persons. as you say, a foetus is geneticaly a human and it is a livingg thing - but i dont know where that somehow meanns that scientificaly, that automaticaly means theyy shuold have same moral considration as what yuo or my or the jews or anyone elses people woulld consider a "person" (and this is meanin behind earlierr statment that person is in no means a scintific word). i also mighht add that if you go to any scientist who isnt tryin to sell you somethinng because hes hard up for grants, the firstt thing they shuold tell you is science does not prove anythinng - it can only reject inferior hypotheses. as someone i know put it, we cant even prove graviity exists. and you are claimin that a field that fundamentaly admits the complex ambiguity of knowledge is absolut and irrevocable truth for yuor argument? yeah...there is onlly one thing that tries to say its truth is absollute and irrevocable - thats called religion. but anyways, assumming that science is th absolute truth as you seem suggestt, still holds that personhoood and rights aer subjective, not anythng imprintd in your dna, that much sholld be obvious i woulld think. if you wannt to believe that finne but respect th scientific process if dont know how it works and respect othre peoples cultures.

 

"Many women who have abortions feel forced into it."

 

In this country, there is no "forcing" women to have abortions. What we do have though, is a group of people who want to control women's reproductive capacities, legally, by forcing them to carry unwanted pregnancies. There are a number of women who have difficulties after abortion because they have been told by others they have committed murder, sins, killed their "child" etc.

 

If you live in the United States (which I believe you do) then you are sadly mistaken within your first statement. There are many girls that do not want to have abortions and but feel pressured into it (as I have stated before), and I have talked to those girls. I've heard stories afterwards of women who wanted to keep their child, but wanted the approval of their family more. It tore their hearts apart. 

There are women who willingly have them, and I weep for those women as well as their hearts also become broken. There are many who chose that road, but then felt so empty afterwards, even though many weren't involved in any sort of religion and had the full support of their families. They know inside that something very wrong had happened.  For far to many, this pain is a truth, not a truth forced on them, but one that cam from with in them, and denying that is doing a great injustice to those women. 

so in the unitedd states thhey drag women to abortionn doctor or rip babies uot of thier arms and then throww them in the sewer? if not, then ther is no "forcing" anything - feelin presured to do something is nevre forcing. i cuold be presured into killing somone, and i would stil bear same responsbility as if no one had beenn ther presuring me, becaus i made that choice, not undr threatts but just under pressure, and evn if i was bein threatned and it was cler i woulld be hurt or kiled if i didnt do it, then stil does not change the fact that i made the choice, thogh shoulld be more lenient perhaps in consideration becuse i did it to save myself. no need to evn go to that extreme example - im prety sure most americans dont get threattened to be killedd or tortured by their familly (it happens bu im guessin not very much or i wuld have heard of it), onlly shunned, which is very hard and in som cases severe, but stil makin the choice whethre think the foetus is worth sufferin for to let live or not, no forcin involved.

 

"Women are prohibited from becoming priests in certain denominations."

Now, to address the first part of that quote, as it was an affront against my religion.

 

If women being unable to become priests is an "affront to your religion" I would suggest that you try to change that from within. If not, it is a simple statement of fact.

 

If you would read the rest of my address to this statement again, your comment insinuating that my church was sexist because of women being able to be priests was the affront, not that women are unable to become priests. That is something that I fully support about my Church, and it is also something that is not going to change because it is another one of those things that is not subjective to opinion, but rather merely is. Women cannot be priests. For further details on why, please see my original post. 

we alredy rwent over this , "certin denominations dont let women be priests" is statment of fact. it insinuates thatt is cause of patriarchy/male dominance (and alredy went ovre how this is at lest a resonable assertion to make), which othres may take as bad - how you want to intrpret that, ofensive or unoffensive, is entirely yuor own choice though. If shhe takes patriarchy as somthing negative, sorry again, your not goin change her minnd, especialy not with yuor resoning which in all apearance is patriarchical in origin as well imo. you fullly supoort it and dont want it change, which is great for you, but there is such thing as ways and views othre than the catholic way.

 

[Ryrin]

Thank you, Taltos. You elaborated accurately on my post.

[Jak 0' the Shadows]

That's just the thing, Ry, I don't believe it just for religious reasons. I also believe it for what I believe is overwhelming scientific evidence. I 100% agree that making laws for religious reasons is skating on thin ice.

[Guest]

That's just the thing, Ry, I don't believe it just for religious reasons. I also believe it for what I believe is overwhelming scientific evidence. I 100% agree that making laws for religious reasons is skating on thin ice.

"overwhelming scientific evidence" that you couldnt provide othre than bandying around your bias and claiming it is scientiific. if that was your overwhelming scientific evidence, it is evidence, but unfortunatly was not even approaching scientific objectivity. as i said to heart the scientific fact that a foetus of a human is ofm the human species (duh) and it is alive dos not bestow it with value-laden rights and moral considerations unless you, the individual or culture, decide to give it that. if you cant read that then there is some sortt of personal problem you have because i looked over this more than once and not much errors to confuse

[Elgee]

Taltos, I think Jak is saying it's difficult (sometimes impossible for some) to understand your posts due to the amount of typing and/or spelling mistakes as well as the fact that you don't use paragraphs. For many people (myself included) it's difficult to impossible to read walls of text. This is a great pity, since your posts are quite often very imformative and thought provoking, provided one can actually decipher them.

 

ps: Thank you Fnorrll and Blank, for reminding us all to keep it WT/W :)

 

(For those of you who don't know, or have forgotten, that means that whilst you're free to state your opinion here, it's not the D&D section so keep it friendly and polite.)

[Elgee]

This is an interesting one:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/06/02/female-named-hurricanes-kill-more-than-male-because-people-dont-respect-them-study-finds/

 

...Wow. Just ... wow.

 

People are probably going to get highly upset with me here but my opinion is that if someone is such an idiotic, dumb, inherently knee-jerk hind-brain-operated neanderthal sexist ... twat ... as to automatically assume a hurricane is weaker because it has a female name, then ... Darwin rules.

[The_Fnorrll_Reborn]

So what if it's second name is katrina? It's first name is effin hurricane! I'm gettin the heck out of dodge, baby!

 

In all seriousness I'd love to see the gender model of the sample audience they looked at. Just wondering if women are just as likely to make this assumption as men.

[Tsukibana]

BWAHAHAHAHA, Fnorrll - I have a sudden image of a stuffy English butler "A Miss Katrina is here to see you, sir - Miss Hurricane Katrina"

 

I hate you soo much. :P 

[Jak 0' the Shadows]

That hurricane thing is so funny. Some people are just stupid. 

[The_Fnorrll_Reborn]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-27769747

 

Personally I think it's a real crying shame this women is being attacked by other women over a fairly innocent remark. Her comment that women should be strong individuals who should know how to stand up for themselves apparently just isn't feminist enough for pro feminists today, no sir, they would rather teach all men not to rape than take the simple precaution of learning how to defend themselves.

 

Perhaps we should get rid of the police force and prisons and teach people of both genders not to commit any crimes while we are at it.

[Tsukibana]

Mind-boggling - So, teaching my niece to incapacitate ANYONE before they have a chance to hurt her is bad??

Who knew? *shrug*

[Elgee]

Ai jai jai ... *shakes head*

 

There will NEVER be a 100% success rate in ANYthing, so searching for and applying solutions from as many angles as possible is only common sense and logic!

 

Also ... go Tsuki!

[Daruya]

Do it, Tsuki!  A friend of mine teaches self-defense classes to women. His classes are geared toward getting away vice fighting and overcoming the attacker.  As it turns out, my youngest (15) likes his daughter (also 15). I've told J, not only does K know how to protect herself, she's got a dad that could kill you with his bare hands and not even break a sweat!    I took a few of his classes and was surprised how effective the techniques were.  When we practiced on others in the class, we tried to go easy on them because we didn't want to hurt them.  When we practised on him, he very firmly told us "DON'T HOLD BACK. Give me all you've got because I want to know that have a good chance of getting away from a real attacker." 

[Tsukibana]

That's how I do it. When she puts me on my ass, I reward her :)

[Daruya]

I'd click a "Love" button on your post if there was one, Tsuki!

[Wildfire Sedai]

I took a Rape Aggression Defense System class in college.  It was taught by a women.  our final was to "escape" from an "attacker" in two ways: 1. with our eyes closed and he could just grab us 2. walking a straight line with him harrassing us and we couldn't do anything until he attacked us.  He was padded to the hilt and we were padded as well. 

 

Dar: Your friends class reminds me of that class.

[michellem]

[Alaksuleiel]

That's brilliant Mish :D

[Rasheta Ardashir]

That's brilliant Mish :D

*agrees with Elli* That's super well said. 

[WolfbrotherKronos]

Love that Mish.

[Brandie]

That pretty much wraps it up beautifully

[Jak 0' the Shadows]

I have nothing to add. That about sums it up perfectly.