Modern Feminism - What's the deal?

[starlord]

So what you're saying is I can take a child with no consequence if it is currently being born because it isn't yet claimed?

I will do my best to refrain from insults but that is akin to condoning slavery, "claim"? It's your child! What on earth do you think it is? Out to the highest bidder?

i think you misunderstood my point; its not considered anyones child until its born. mothers ade usually easier to identify than fathers, however.

[Zhangfei]

The best way for her to keep her bodily autonomy without her being able to enslave the man for the rest of his life is to give men the option to absolve finantial claims made against them for children they wanted aborted.

No man has been enslaved. They just have their legal responsibilities that they always have enforced and are always expected. It's expected if you abandon the mother with a 2 year old child you initially wanted, but now don't. A justifiable application of law is not "slavery."

Plus your casual use of the idea of slavery is just a tad bit offensive.

[Cybran]

You consider wanting a child "abusing a biological advantage." What a lovely turn of phrase for being willing to give birth and become a mother despite a dismissive and unsupportive partner.

I consider forcing a man to pay for a child the woman wanted abuse of personal autonomy.

---------- Post added 2013-02-27 at 08:48 PM ----------

How can you "abuse" your own rights to yourself? An ugly tattoo? Self-harm?

Please tell me you are acting dumb? He means that:

Bodily autonomy in itself is not abuse.

Bodily autonomy combined with sexist anti-male laws can be used as a tool to force men to pay for women.

[Tinykong]

They don't have a "right" to dissolve responsibility though. You are deliberately misunderstanding what rights are at work. The only right during pregnancy that matters is a right to control your own body.

They have a right to have an abortion, which ends their responsibility. Men should be allowed to legally end their responsibility, as well. It's not a right now, but it should be.

How does the father ending his responsibility effect the mother's choice? If she can't afford the baby, why is it fair that the man is forced to pay for her choice?

Men can't get pregnant so it doesn't apply, but men have the right to get a vasectomy and a woman can't. That's inherently inequal according to you?

Women can get sterilized, too.

---------- Post added 2013-02-27 at 06:50 PM ----------

No man has been enslaved. They just have their legal responsibilities that they always have enforced and are always expected. It's expected if you abandon the mother with a 2 year old child you initially wanted, but now don't. A justifiable application of law is not "slavery."

If he didn't want the child during pregnancy, having your wages garnished for 18 years to pay for the choice of another person is pretty much indentured servitude.

[starlord]

Again. No. There is NO requirement that they be "unable to provide for it properly". You think it cries at a pitch that's a half note off and don't want a baby that doesn't cry perfectly? You're a millionaire heiress with nothing but free time? Doesn't matter, you can still drop the infant off and abandon it, no questions asked.

Seriously, educate yourself as to the laws on this.

i never said there was a check, thats not the purpose and you know it. its to prevent the children from being killed in secret. thats not at all like a man refusing to pay some money to support it.

And the entire point was that if the suddenly-pregnant woman decides that she can't support herself and a child without the father's support, she can get an abortion. There's no child, yet. There's still plenty of time to cancel the pregnancy. If she chooses to go forward, knowing the father won't be providing support, she's accepting sole responsibility.

Because, y'know, women do that all the freaking time already. Being a single mother isn't all puppies and rainbows, but many women manage it just fine without any support from the father. I'm not going to claim I can make that decision for them, but I absolutely do say they're capable of making that decision for themselves.

my entire point is that abortion is in no way a justification for men abandoning their children. they are not the same at all.
if you think it should be "just cause", very well. but thats a different (though equally ridiculous) kettle of fish.

[Eroginous]

But then you'd be falsely attributing a word without evidence. I know of no feminist who is like that. I certainly am not an "overzealous woman" but I am a feminist. I'm pro-equality.

Not even close. You're telling me there's never been an overzealous woman who misuses the label of feminism to falsely empower their pro-woman agenda? Why do you think that stereotype exists? Whether or not it's representative of you or even the majority of feminists is largely irrelevant. The fact that some women done exactly that is what creates the stereotype and makes it possible to see that listed as a definition for the word in a dictionary at some point in the future.

Just because there's two feminists here who desperately want to believe that dictionaries are authorities on the definitions of words, doesn't mean it's remotely true.

That's confirmation bias. I associate strongly positive stereotypes with it, and strongly negative stereotypes with anti-feminists. Hell, I have "strongly negative" attitudes towards plenty of demonyms that aren't always exclusive. Exonian is one.

It's not confirmation bias to understand and discuss the positive or negative effects associated with using a specific label or term. I'm trying to get you to understand that the use of the term 'feminism' to describe oneself is not all sunshine and rainbows across the spectrum of humanity. That there's at least some reason to question using that term altogether.

No they're not. Footballer = soccer player, defender, striker, midfielder, false 9, false 7, libero, sweeper, goalkeeper, left-back, right-back, centre-back, full-back, wing-back, left midfield, right midfield, winger, defensive midfielder, attacking midfielder, trequarquista.

American = Alabaman, Alaskan, Arizonan, Arkansan, Californian etc.

Englishman = Devonian, Janner, Somersetter, Grockle, Cockney, Mockney, Dorseter, Midlander, Brummie, Geordie etc.

I think this line of argument is completely defunct. You understand set theory? All feminists DO believe in human rights, they just study and specialise in one area. Like a striker is always a footballer, but not all footballers are strikers. I don't get why this is difficult for you.

First of all, there's a fundamental difference between calling someone an 'American' and calling them an 'Alaskan.' All Alaskans might be Americans, but not all Americans are Alaskan.

Secondly, not all human rights activists are feminists, and not all feminists are human rights activists. You can find feminists who couldn't give two shits about the rest of humanity, just like you can find human rights activists who couldn't give two shits about feminism.

Lastly, you're not a feminist because you believe in women's rights. You're a feminist because you call yourself a feminist, regardless of what you actually believe in. The feminist agenda is not the same as the women rights agenda, not by any stretch of the imagination.

It's an academic term. It has a reasonable definition. Tens of millions of people associate with it. Your argument lies in a flawed concept of "well it could be defined more broadly." That'd be like saying the concept of "Christian" is defunct, we should call them "the religious." It still defines them but it's less accurate.

It's not about accuracy, it's about usefulness. If every single women's rights activist began insisting that they are not 'feminists,' they are instead 'women's rights activists,' your argument falls flat on it's face, and then the term 'feminist' would surely be discarded regardless of how accurate or reasonable its definition is.

My entire point in this thread is to discuss the usefulness of the terms and labels associated with feminism. I've provided accurate and reasonable arguments against the notion, and all you've done is provide arguments from semantics and authority.

[Zhangfei]

I consider forcing a man to pay for a child the woman wanted abuse of personal autonomy.

No court in the land sees it that way and that's not how rights work but ok then!

Please tell me you are acting dumb? He means that:

Bodily autonomy in itself is not abuse.

Exactly! It's not abuse.

Bodily autonomy combined with sexist anti-male laws can be used as a tool to force men to pay for women.

I've never seen an "anti-male law" passed, especially as men dominate politics, but when you see one that's real, rather than imagined, point me that way!

They have a right to have an abortion, which ends their responsibility. Men should be allowed to legally end their responsibility, as well. It's not a right now, but it should be.

It's not a right. The right to your own body is mutually applicable.

To be blunt, because I think you don't understand what rights are, but to emphasise this fallacy you keep suggesting men have a right to an abortion too.

Women can get sterilized, too.

And men can have their insides opened up and scooped out.

If he didn't want the child during pregnancy, having your wages garnished for 18 years to pay for the choice of another person is pretty much indentured servitude.

More emotive language. I suppose me getting a mortgage is indentured servitude just because I wanted to live somewhere, oh woe is me, how tough is my life etc etc etc.

[Endus]

i never said there was a check, thats not the purpose and you know it.

yeah, when they are unable to provide for their children or are deemed unsuitable.

You can't deem anyone unsuitable unless you're evaluating whether they qualify as unsuitable. Yes, you did say there were requirements, right there. That's why I corrected you.

And yes, I know that's not the purpose, that's why I corrected you.

my entire point is that abortion is in no way a justification for men abandoning their children. they are not the same at all.

Yes, because if there's an abortion, there was never a child to abandon. The argument is, if the man waives his responsibilities, the woman is making the decision whether to have a child alone or to abort. The same way she would if he were a sperm donor. He's not "abandoning his child", because there was never a child of his to abandon when he made that decision.

[Tinykong]

It's not a right. The right to your own body is mutually applicable.

You keep repeating this bodily autonomy line like if you say it enough, everyone will just concede. However, it has nothing to do with bodily autonomy. It has to do with a man being able to end his responsibility to the pregnancy.

To be blunt, because I think you don't understand what rights are, but to emphasise this fallacy you keep suggesting men have a right to an abortion too.

They don't, but they should, through legal means to dissolve their financial obligation.

And men can have their insides opened up and scooped out.

More emotive language.

More emotive language.

FFS, the hypocrisy.

I suppose me getting a mortgage is indentured servitude just because I wanted to live somewhere, oh woe is me, how tough is my life etc etc etc.

If you chose to get a mortgage, and used the state to garnish someone else's wages to pay for your decision, yeah, that's indentured servitude.

[starlord]

You can't deem anyone unsuitable unless you're evaluating whether they qualify as unsuitable. Yes, you did say there were requirements, right there. That's why I corrected you.

And yes, I know that's not the purpose, that's why I corrected you.

them abandoning their kids like that in lieu of going through the proper channels would be indicative of their inherent unsuitability. thats the point, to avoid the dumpster or neglect.

Yes, because if there's an abortion, there was never a child to abandon. The argument is, if the man waives his responsibilities, the woman is making the decision whether to have a child alone or to abort. The same way she would if he were a sperm donor. He's not "abandoning his child", because there was never a child of his to abandon when he made that decision.

sperm donation is highly regulated, however. the key difference is both parties agreed beforehand, which is more like adoption than getting cold feet and fleeing the scene.

[Tinykong]

them abandoning their kids like that in lieu of going through the proper channels would be indicative of their inherent unsuitability. thats the point, to avoid the dumpster or neglect.

sperm donation is highly regulated, however. the key difference is both parties agreed beforehand, which is more like adoption than getting cold feet and fleeing the scene.

If protection is used, why does the act of sex suddenly constitute an agreement to be a parent?

[Zhangfei]

You keep repeating this bodily autonomy line like if you say it enough, everyone will just concede. However, it has nothing to do with bodily autonomy. It has to do with a man being able to end his responsibility to the pregnancy.

But that's a special right you want to award to men that women don't have, to supposedly "balance out" a right that men ALREADY have.

They don't

Yes they do. It's the same right.

FFS, the hypocrisy

Do you understand what "emotive" language is? Rather than crass language? It would make sense, actually, that you are swayed more by emotion than reason.

If you chose to get a mortgage, and used the state to garnish someone else's wages to pay for your decision, yeah, that's indentured servitude.

I suppose if you hit someone's car and pay for it, it's indentured servitude. I suppose buying stuff is indentured servitude. I don't think you know what it means.

[starlord]

If protection is used, why does the act of sex suddenly constitute an agreement to be a parent?

because protection has no impact on childrens rights?

[Tinykong]

because protection has no impact on childrens rights?

Unborn children have no rights.

[Zhangfei]

because protection has no impact on childrens rights?

A lot of them seem to think intent means consequences don't count.

Unborn children have no rights.

And born children do.

[DisposableHero]

And born children do.

Unborn children can't become born children against their mother's will. They can become born children against their father's will.

[starlord]

Unborn children have no rights.

thats right, thats why no one is considered a parent until a child is born of them.

[Tinykong]

Do you understand what "emotive" language is? Rather than crass language? It would make sense, actually, that you are swayed more by emotion than reason.

Right, because equating elective female sterilization to "having your insides opened up and scooped out" isn't emotive at all.

I suppose if you hit someone's car and pay for it, it's indentured servitude. I suppose buying stuff is indentured servitude. I don't think you know what it means.

You completely missed the point, not surprisingly, that you chose to get the mortgage and forced someone else to pay for it.

[Endus]

them abandoning their kids like that in lieu of going through the proper channels would be indicative of their inherent unsuitability. thats the point, to avoid the dumpster or neglect.

Did you seriously just argue that the desire to abandon your parental responsibilities is proof that you're unsuitable for being a parent and thus should not be held legally liable for said responsibilities?

I don't think that supports your argument.

[Tinykong]

And born children do.

Who is talking about a man being able to dissolve his responsibility toward a child that he agreed to support before it was born?

No one.