Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In this case, however, it really is at the expense of men. Feminists have actively opposed domestic violence resources being made available to men who are victims of violent women. Feminists promoted Title IX which has been applied solely to men's college sports programs, not women's. Feminists have campaigned against health insurance for women costing more, while saying nothing about life and car insurance costing men more. Feminists have advocated for more programs and spending for girls' education even after it was shown that boys are falling behind and some universities are now 2/3 female. Feminists have pushed the theory that women need to be made comfortable with coming forward about rape to the point where women are now free to make false rape allegations without consequence unlike any other crime. Feminists continue to push for more spending on healthcare issues which affect only women, even though such issues already receive far and away more funding than health issues which are specific to men. So yes, feminists do indeed push the interests of women at the expense of men.
There are problems, no sane person would disagree. These problems will be solved if action is taken. That action needs to not adopt a focus on masculinity/femininity. Basically, an organization/group that doesn't care if you're male or female, you get equal protection under the law. Many feminists already think like this, which is important to note. Some don't. I couldn't tell you which has the majority. It really doesn't matter, often the louder ones are extremists.
Quote:
Yes, I agree this was an appeal to emotion on the OP's part. However, so is the "you want to control women's bodies" argument that is all-pervasive on the pro-choice side. That's also an attempt to get people riled up. The debate is whether abortion should be treated as murder or not. Wanting to control women's bodies has nothing to do with it.
Of course it is. Almost any political/social issue gets a happy name in order to gain support. There's maybe a handful of honest names out there.
Quote:
I don't see what consent has to do with abortion. Investing in birth control and improving education are good ideas. We can invest in birth control and sex education and also ban abortion.
Consent is dealing with rape, and rather or not a rape victim should have the right to an abortion (which I've made a point to not identify as pro-choice or pro-life, but I fully believe a rape victim deserves the choice). Rape is a surprisingly complicated situation. Yeah, there are straight forward instances where it's forced and violent, but there are cases where person A gets caught up in the moment and proceeds with sexual acts without the consent of person B. Consent is important even outside of this issue though and I'm honestly shocked it's not the focus of sex education.
And I'm aware of investing in birth control and banning abortion. That was sort of my point. I was more just advocating for some kind of action to be taken rather than saying which side should win.
Quote:
Not really. I have yet to see feminists overly concerned with getting more men involved in female dominated careers. I have yet to see feminists advocating for having women sign up for selective service. I have yet to see them advocate for allowing men into womens' schools or womens' professional organizations the way they do about allowing women into mens'. I have yet to see feminists advocating for making the family courts less lopsided in favor of women. I have yet to see the feminists crusading about how much more lenient sentencing women get for committing the same crimes as men.
This is true, I won't argue that. I however would expect these things to get resolved over time. It may take some time, as all social movements do. One could argue the African America civil rights social issue lasted from the date slavery ended (arguably before I suppose) to only a decade or two ago.
I also hope that men aren't allowed in all women's schools and vice verca. It's not sexist unless one gender/sex says 'you can't form your own.' I personally see nothing overly positive about gender specific institutions, but having them exist isn't necessarily wrong.
Quote:
It may not be more dangerous than any other social movement, but it is dangerous. Ask the Duke Lacrosse players if out of control feminism doesn't have a noticeable and negative affect on society as a whole. How many abuse victims have not received adequate support and treatment because their abuser was female? How many fathers and children's relationships have been permanently damaged because the woman made up false allegations to get a better settlement in a divorce? How many men have died of prostate cancer because of breast cancer receiving seven times the funding even though the incidence and fatality rates between the two are the same? The feminist extremists may be the fringe, but their influence is much greater than their numbers.
To counter extremes like this, you need a separate social movement. Have a group that is for gender equality, that doesn't take on a name that implies female centered ideas. There are many feminists who technically already fit this definition, but they are harder to hear over the extremists. As I said early, the majority of issues that are being created today that are influenced by the feminist movement will be resolved in time, possibly now if action is taken.
So you are ready with your wallet to provide all kinds of extra services and increased educational budget costs to insure they have a great shot in life?
Again the assumption that "unplanned" pregnancies will continue at the current rate when abortion for any reason is done away with.
Do you really think women are too stupid and irresponsible to handle their own vaginas?
Conclusions. Homicide is a leading cause of pregnancy-associated injury deaths.
Give the man a choice and homicides will go down.
Quote:
Men who kill pregnant women are most likely romantically involved with their victims and see the pregnancy and unborn child as obstacles and burdens in their lives. They may not want a child, may want to pursue an extramarital affair or may want to keep an affair secret.
"The usual reason when it involves a man is the [unborn] baby. The baby is causing a complication in his life," said Pat Brown, profiler and chief executive officer of The Pat Brown Criminal Profiling Agency....
"If it's a husband, like you saw in the Scott Peterson case, he sees the unborn child and his wife as an obstacle to the life he wants to lead, a burden, a lifelong obligation of child support, and he doesn't want that lifelong obligation," said Brown. "The only way he sees to solve his problem is to get rid of her. He can't let her live because there is still that lifetime of responsibility."
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonBeam33
So, if a father doesn't want to have to support a child, you think an appropriate response to just go ahead and kill the mother too? Sick, man. Really, really sick.
This is what we call a strawman argument. My argument is that men should have the right to avoid pregnancy consequences.
I see the normal crowd has gathered, spouting the same tired, old arguments. In my experience, the ones who yell the loudest have the least to contribute to discussions of abortion. I wonder how many of you have ever actually encountered a real, live woman whose has terminated a pregnancy. You might be surprised at who we are and what we have to say. It is tragic really that nobody ever stops to ask, because you might learn something if you could stop yelling long enough to listen. But you won't. You never do.
In this case, however, it really is at the expense of men. Feminists have actively opposed domestic violence resources being made available to men who are victims of violent women. Source?
Feminists promoted Title IX which has been applied solely to men's college sports programs, not women's.
The purpose of Title IX was to ensure that women have the same access that men already had.
Feminists have campaigned against health insurance for women costing more, while saying nothing about life and car insurance costing men more.
So you and the MRA can lobby life and car insurance companies.
Feminists have advocated for more programs and spending for girls' education even after it was shown that boys are falling behind and some universities are now 2/3 female.
Boys are falling behind for a variety of reasons, many of which have to do with the organization of the US education system - not a feminist issue, that's an everybody issue. And what's wrong with universities being 2/3 female? There was a time when universities were 100% male.
Feminists have pushed the theory that women need to be made comfortable with coming forward about rape to the point where women are now free to make false rape allegations without consequence unlike any other crime.
The majority of rapes are still not reported because of attitudes like yours.
Feminists continue to push for more spending on healthcare issues which affect only women, even though such issues already receive far and away more funding than health issues which are specific to men.
I don't know if this is correct - I'd like a source - but even if it is, it doesn't really bother me. Women's healthcare issues were routinely ignored for decades in the medical field. Only recently have doctors started recognizing that men's and women's bodies are different - shock! - when it comes to medication, dosing, and specific treatments.
Not really. I have yet to see feminists overly concerned with getting more men involved in female dominated careers.
Men have never had to fight to become nurses or teachers. More men are entering these fields all the time. Women, however, had to fight to become doctors and lawyers.
I'm not even going to bother responding to your final paragraphs, which are pure hyperbole.
And show they were unmarried teens because before the 1970s it was common for young women to marry at 16-19.
True, but that wasn't the argument she was trying to make. She was trying to tie the reason so many children are left sick and starving in the streets is due to the legalization of abortion and the decreased responsibility people show today towards sex. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db89.pdf
Last edited by ~HecateWhisperCat~; 06-14-2014 at 07:25 PM..
And THAT^^^^, ladies and gentlemen, THAT is why Feminism is necessary.
Feminism is necessary because men don't have a choice? WTH does feminism even have to do with a man's choice? I'm not the only one supportive of a financial abortion law btw.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
