A Crash Course in Feminism Mk. II (or, why everyone should be a feminist)

[Psychosplodge]

You're confused, pro-choice isn't necessarily pro-abortion. EG's earlier post for example.

[eldargal]

I cannot trust the 'sex is for procreation' crowd, lump them in with the 'food is fuel' crowd (I don't actually care if you don't like food and see it as fuel, it's the statement that that is how it is or should be for everyone that annoys me). Reducing the vast capacity of humans to take pleasure from many different sources and reducing it down to base mechanical needs. Soulless joy-fearing bourgeois prats.

- - - Updated - - -

You're confused, pro-choice isn't necessarily pro-abortion. EG's earlier post for example.

Yup. I'm not pro-abortion, in an ideal world abortion would only be done in the rarest of cases when the mother's life was at risk or the fetus was already deceased or hopelessly mutated to the point it would die shortly after birth anyway. But we aren't in an ideal world so it would be foolish to deny women access to a procedure many feel they need, ESPECIALLY when banning abortion does nothing to reduce abortion rates anyway, it just sees more mothers die. Something that is happening in the US right now where deaths related to botched abortions and dangerous pregnancies are now rising after a century and a half of decline.

[Erik Setzer]

As a mechanism to control women, basically.

Similarly, using such warped logic - but by now, I'm getting used to it from some people - the wanting to destroy children out of convenience and claiming it as a "right" is a mechanism for women to control the populace. They claim it's their right to decide who can live. Child is inconvenient? Kill it. Child is the "wrong" gender? Kill it.

You can try to turn it around, but you're using a lame argument here. I know you're an uber-feminist to the point sometimes I actually wonder if you're a troll (you go way too far in your rants about "gender representation" with toy soldiers in a hobby that most women don't want anything to do with... maybe if you care so much, try to convince other women to get involved, so there's a financial obligation to do so, or is that too logical and sensible for you?). But your default answer to anything you don't like is, "They're trying to hold women back!" If I just disagree with you, you'll jump right to claiming I'm a woman-hater, though I can guarantee you I have more real respect for women than you do, and certainly more than most men. It's this kind of absolutely stupid reasoning that makes it hard to debate or discuss with some people.

Even Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood, was against abortion. Despite her flaws (yeah, I know all about them, I hear them brought up every time I try to point out when someone gets something wrong about her), she was right in her approach to birth control. Contraception education. That's what PP was for. Sanger was 100% against abortion. And this is a woman who lost her mother way too early in her mother's life because the poor woman was used as a baby factory. So yeah, I'm on board with contraception education, and the use of contraception. I also know what abortion is, I will not lie about it and try to claim it's something else to make it sound morally okay.

I've also never said people shouldn't have sex. Yes, by all means, have sex. Use contraception! But do understand that it could fail. Biologically, the main - almost only - reason for sex is procreation. That's why it exists. That's not religion, that's freaking science. Our bodies evolved to make it pleasurable so people would do it more often to create more kids to keep the species going. So yeah, it's fun. But fun is not its primary purpose.

I'm not sure why teaching men and women to be irresponsible and telling them infanticide is convenient is somehow "controlling women." Well, I do know... It isn't. It's just a lame line thrown out by someone who can't defend their position otherwise, and has to resort to sillier arguments than the garbage I hear from anti-Muslim crowd or anti-LGBT crowd. It's as hypocritical, too. It's declaring women have the only right in a child's life, so even if the father wanted to keep a child they contributing to the conception of, they have no right in it. Using the claim, "The mother is carrying the child," is still finding an excuse for inequality, much the same as pointing out that men are stronger and thus it makes more sense for them to have more factory jobs, and if you think the latter is wrong then you have to also accept your own argument is wrong. You want privilege, not equality. Equality would be giving both parents an equal say in the matter. (Obviously, not applicable in cases where conception is done using a sperm donor, but in that case, it's hard to see someone going to the trouble of trying to be made pregnant only to then turn around and decide they didn't really want to once the kid's already growing.)

And I'm not for completely criminalizing abortion. It can be a medical necessity at times (even psychological in the case of some rapes, though it shouldn't be a default there... some women are able to carry the child and not only have no lasting issues but also love that child a lot). I also know that some women will continue to seek out an abortion for various reasons, and while I find it reprehensible - because it is - it's better to have clinics that you can make sure are clean and safe, rather than those women just going and getting it done by a doctor in a hidden "clinic" that will all too likely kill the mother as well as the child. (That's a point Mitt Romney actually got right when running for governor... and then he completely ditched it when running for president and pretended to be some new person.)

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, and the laughable claim that children in the womb aren't able to think or have memory or anything of the sort? Yeah, there's been plenty of scientific studies to prove otherwise. We begin learning before we get out of the womb. That's necessary. Serious, are people just that stupid, or do they rely on other people being stupid? Just because part of society wants to claim a child isn't a child just because it makes them feel better about killing the kid doesn't mean they're right. There's plenty of situations of kids being born prematurely, too, and that claim would mean they aren't capable of real thought or memory until they hit nine months, which obviously is completely false.

Doctors all over the world have been studying how learning begins in the womb, and "prenatal memory." Stop trying to deny science to back up your own claims. It's offensive and pretty sad.

[40kGamer]

And there are those of us who are pro-choice simply because we view anything that reduces the population as ‘a good thing’ though not necessarily ‘the right thing’. We also look forward to a day when natural procreation comes to an end and the species is propagated in a controlled manner. Since people, in the abstract not at the individual level, are incapable of being responsible the sensible solution is to remove the consequences. Then people can be truly free to drink, gamble and hump until their hearts are content.

[Erik Setzer]

Yup. I'm not pro-abortion, in an ideal world abortion would only be done in the rarest of cases when the mother's life was at risk or the fetus was already deceased or hopelessly mutated to the point it would die shortly after birth anyway. But we aren't in an ideal world so it would be foolish to deny women access to a procedure many feel they need, ESPECIALLY when banning abortion does nothing to reduce abortion rates anyway, it just sees more mothers die. Something that is happening in the US right now where deaths related to botched abortions and dangerous pregnancies are now rising after a century and a half of decline.

Being anti-abortion isn't "anti-women" but you seem to confuse it as such. (But, again, you seem to confuse a lot of things as "anti-women.")

I noted my opinion in a prior comment, but will repeat here: Abortion is reprehensible and shouldn't be done unless absolutely necessary. People should be taught how to avoid pregnancy if they want to have sex with other people, but should also understand it's a possibility. (Being the result of failed contraception myself, and a method that should have been a lot more successful than just a condom, I can vouch for that.) All efforts should be made to convince people not to have abortion, and that they understand what abortion really is.

At the same time, I do know people will still seek abortion for reasons other than valid medical reasons, and it's better to have clean, safe clinics for that, than to have people using back-alley doctors. (Similar to how ending prohibition made drinking a heck of a lot safer for everyone.) You can't outright ban it, but you can do your best to make sure it happens as rarely as possible. That's what Planned Parenthood was supposed to be... and then Sanger died, and the people who were in charge decided to go a different route.

When you have nearly 1.1 million abortions in a country in a year (2011, CDC), that's not "empowering women." When you have more abortions of black children than births in a year (as happened in New York City), that's not "empowering women." Those are signs of serious problems. But you can't say anything about that, or trying to stop that, without someone coming along and claiming you hate women and are some religious zealot nutjob.

It's like talking to the extreme anti-Muslim crowd, if you point out that ISIS isn't really indicative of Islam and give rational reasons, they just shout you down as some "Muslim-loving liberal." (I feel good about myself that this week I've been called a "radical liberal" *and* a "radical right-winger." Means I'm in the right spot.)

- - - Updated - - -

And there are those of us who are pro-choice simply because we view anything that reduces the population as ‘a good thing’ though not necessarily ‘the right thing’. We also look forward to a day when natural procreation comes to an end and the species is propagated in a controlled manner. Since people, in the abstract not at the individual level, are incapable of being responsible the sensible solution is to remove the consequences. Then people can be truly free to drink, gamble and hump until their hearts are content.

And then someone can control who gets to have kids and who doesn't. Well. That'll be a good idea.

Eh, it's not like messing with nature has ever had any bad consequences, right?

[40kGamer]

And then someone can control who gets to have kids and who doesn't. Well. That'll be a good idea.

Eh, it's not like messing with nature has ever had any bad consequences, right?

That's pretty well the point. Technology continues to reduce the need for human capital yet the world population continues to expand. There is no scenario where this disconnect between supply and demand is feasible or desirable.

[Eldar_Atog]

It's as hypocritical, too. It's declaring women have the only right in a child's life, so even if the father wanted to keep a child they contributing to the conception of, they have no right in it. Using the claim, "The mother is carrying the child," is still finding an excuse for inequality, much the same as pointing out that men are stronger and thus it makes more sense for them to have more factory jobs, and if you think the latter is wrong then you have to also accept your own argument is wrong. You want privilege, not equality. Equality would be giving both parents an equal say in the matter. (Obviously, not applicable in cases where conception is done using a sperm donor, but in that case, it's hard to see someone going to the trouble of trying to be made pregnant only to then turn around and decide they didn't really want to once the kid's already growing.).

Yes, the situation is unequal. The woman carries the child while the man risks nothing. He doesn't have to deal with the medical risks of pregnancy. He does not risk changes to his body. A woman spends about 2 years of her life dealing with the hormonal changes and medical risks. I have had multiple female friends deal with risky pregancies that nearly killed them. How often does a man risk his life to *********?

It is hypocritical to demand an equal say without equal risk.

[CoffeeGrunt]

you go way too far in your rants about "gender representation" with toy soldiers in a hobby that most women don't want anything to do with

And yet I know girls for whom this is a real concern, a friend's fiancee dropped Space Wolves for Dark Eldar partially because the former had no female models, while the latter does and looks much more sleek. Helps that the DE she has are much nastier, though!

But it's the same problem as people saying, "well if female characters would get girls reading comics, then why aren't they already reading our perfectly good male character comics that have occasional token females in it then? It's because their vaginas make it impossible to enjoy comics of course!"

[Mr Mystery]

Erik, please provide a complete list of 'valid medical reasons' for abortions.

Because right now your opinion is like a tallywhacker. Fine to have, and yours is yours. But don't try to ram it down my throat k?

As for anti-abortion legisilation not being entirely anti-woman.....you are aware of where babies actually come from yeah? Men can't get abortions because we can't get preggers.

[40kGamer]

Eh, it's not like messing with nature has ever had any bad consequences, right?

At this point our species has an almost entirely unnatural interaction with nature and the overall goal is to completely remove nature from the equation. It won't happen tomorrow but barring extinction of the species we will continue to move away from the natural world, for better or worse.