Modern Feminism - What's the deal?

[Endus]

As for my stance on the child support laws that do stand -

It is flawed, and it needs to be changed... but it is not sexist.

I agree, FWIW. I've been arguing against them, but my argument is that they were created at a time when the circumstances were different, when women were NOT considered equals of men, and when abortion was both illegal and risky, and birth control was either illegal or rare. They're antiquated, but not inherently sexist.

[Zhangfei]

Except for the fact that dictionaries are not authorities on the definitions of words. Instead, they describe how words are used, and are subject to change, just like everything else in society. In fact, dictionaries are updated because of people like me, and if we updated the definition of feminism in most modern dictionaries, you might begin to see the definition listed as 'a label misused by overzealous women to falsely empower their pro-women agenda.'

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.

It's already a term that carries with it a significant amount of negative stereotype, all the more reason to question the reasons why anyone would want to use it at all.

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.

Except for the fact that each one of those terms aside from feminist, are the only term we have to describe those people.

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.

In the case of female human rights activism, we have 'female rights advocate/activist,' and then we have the (might as well be slang) term 'feminist.' You have yet to come up with a good reason why we should ever use that word.

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.

If a man doesn't want to have a child, and the woman carries to term despite that, I'm not seeing a huge difference here between this and a sperm donor, except that they actually had sex. He used birth control (we're assuming; I stated earlier that NOT using birth control could be argued to be consent to procreate), so he was stating he didn't want a child to come out of it.

Hell, we could even argue that she's using his genetic contribution against his will. I'm not saying it should be criminal, but he does not want a kid, and was clear about that through the use of birth control.

Just out of interest; what if the woman outright lies, misleads or the man assumes the woman is on birth control so he does not use any? Additionally, we have to acknowledge no birth control is 100% effective so the risk of pregnancy is universal.

So fathers separated form their children who faithfully pay child support, then lose their job and can no longer pay are rightfully considered criminals in your eyes? And biology is to blame for that?

Biology isn't to blame, the man's actions and responsibilities are. You can be jailed for defaulting or avoiding paying for other things too, you know.

[Eroginous]

It's in this thread. There's no need to be lazy.

You've answered my specific hypothetical before? In this thread? Care to provide a link? Or are you just dodging some more?

Perhaps you should learn the definitions of connotation and denotation? Oh wait... that would mean you would have to believe a dictionary, which you can't do unless you want to engage in cognitive dissonance. Yes, dictionaries are ultimately malleable; they change with the times. Which means... their definitions change. It does not mean you get to ignore a static definition because it's inconvenient for you. When the definition of a word changes, the dictionary changes. This is fairly self evident to the most casual of observers due to what you yourself said; dictionaries change. Now, I understand that you're very upset right now... but you have to remember. We're speaking English.

1. No one here is upset.

2. English does not appear to be your first language, so it's understandable that you are confused about the purpose of a dictionary.

3. Whether or not I 'believe' what a dictionary says a word is defined as, has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Like I said before, you keep taking things out of context to argue points I am not making.

4. The definitions of words change because of how they are used and what they are used for, not because a dictionary changes. Like I also said before, a dictionary is NOT an authority on the meaning of words. They never have been, they never will be.

I'm not saying that I'm blaming you for the way some feminists act. I'm blaming you for ignoring the English language and labeling an entire movement according to a subset because you've compromised your objectivity.

Ironically, my objectivity is why I'm bringing up the subject of usefulness regarding a label. On top of that, you just got done blaming the existence of stereotypes against feminism on 'people like me.' Now you want to say that there's no correlation between the stereotypes which are attributed to feminists, and the way they act?

Seriously? Who's compromising their objectivity now?

I read through the greater part of it. When your message became evident, I stopped caring; it wasn't worth my time beyond that point. You're glorifying your example beyond its merits. But then again... I suppose I shouldn't expect someone who doesn't know what a dictionary is to put together a cohesive hypothetical scenario.

I wouldn't expect someone who can't even take an objective look at their own usage of certain words to have anything but a misunderstanding of what constitutes a cohesive hypothetical scenario. You don't have to agree with my example, it was pretty vulgar. But dismissing it out of hand while claiming it had limited merit is dishonest at best.

The point of my example wasn't to be shocking or to glorify the idea that men are victims too. The point was to get the almighty 'feminist' to sit down and offer an opinion on the sort of hypothetical situation that's not commonly fought for. Instead of looking at the example and offering a logical conclusion to the questions it asks, you've hid behind your pseudo intellectual rants about how I'm dumb and you're not.

The more dishonest you are, the worse it looks for you and your feminism.

[DisposableHero]

That is not related to the child support laws; saying that they are the same is disingenuous. As for my stance on the child support laws that do stand -



It is flawed, and it needs to be changed... but it is not sexist.

Well, I was not the one who said child support laws were sexist. I happen to agree with your stance on them. What I consider sexist is that men have no form of legal parental surrender available to them, while women have a few.

[starlord]

I would argue that a stance that states that sex is for procreation and that having sex means you are risking parental responsibility is a socially conservative stance. That doesn't mean I'm ascribing other socially conservative stances to them. THAT is a straw man. I don't like labelling people with broad swaths, I'm making a point about a single attitude on a single subject, no more.

The point is, if it is the act of sex that generates the parental responsibility, rather than the outstanding relationship of genetic contribution (and I think my argument is clear it is NOT either of those, though I'm open to another explanation than what I presented if anyone has one), we need to approach this with modern sensibilities about sex and birth control. If birth control, including abortion, can prevent a child being born, then a child is NOT a necessary result of sex, and so enforcing a cultural attitude that says "sex = child = parental responsibility" is an outdated and contradictory system.

It's a holdover from when birth control and abortion WEREN'T the safe and legal options they are today, and that attitude was what made sense. But they are. So it doesn't make sense any more, really.

are you suggesting that parenthood should be abolished altogether? maybe all children should belong to the state, cause since birth control exists parental responsibility is defunct.

well, good luck with that.

its really amazing the mental gymnastics people will do..

---------- Post added 2013-02-27 at 10:03 AM ----------

Well, I was not the one who said child support laws were sexist. I happen to agree with your stance on them. What I consider sexist is that men have no form of legal parental surrender available to them, while women have a few.

they have every form of surrender women do.

---------- Post added 2013-02-27 at 10:06 AM ----------

That's carrying the child to term. The debate is over what the legal terrain should be BEFORE that stage. Nobody has been arguing that a parent of a child should be able to up and say "NOPE, tired of being a dad, he's all yours, I'm out." We've been arguing about a change in the law that occurs BEFORE there's a child to consider.

there is no functional difference between abandoning a child after its born, and "once its born im going to abandon it."

[Cybran]

they have every form of surrender women do.

We can't prevent the child from being born and absolve ourselves from all responsibilities. We are the mercy of the womem's decission.

[Zhangfei]

We can't prevent the child from being born and absolve ourselves from all responsibilities. We are the mercy of the womem's decission.

That's not a bonus right women have. Men have the same right to control their own body. Women still have the same options available to men.

[starlord]

We can't prevent the child from being born and absolve ourselves from all responsibilities. We are the mercy of the womem's decission.

you can very easily prevent a child from being born. in any case, abortion is not surrender.

[Deleted]

Let's drop the dictionary discussion. It's going nowhere as it is and it's not related to the thread at hand, not anymore.

[Zhangfei]

Let's drop the dictionary discussion. It's going nowhere as it is and it's not related to the thread at hand, not anymore.

Can we interpret this as taking feminism is legitimate as defined by feminists and what's found in dictionaries then?

[Kasierith]

You've answered my specific hypothetical before? In this thread? Care to provide a link? Or are you just dodging some more?

If you think that the purpose of a hypothetical is to specifically answer that hypothetical, than it really illustrates that you know absolutely nothing about what you're doing. A hypothetical is used to illustrate a single aspect. The hypothetical doesn't mean anything, at all; the aspect that it is illustrating is what matters. This here is why your hypothetical was such an underwhelming, sensationalized, ridiculous mockery of a hypothetical.

1. No one here is upset.

Than be objective.

2. English does not appear to be your first language, so it's understandable that you are confused about the purpose of a dictionary.

Going after people because they know how a dictionary is used is kind of silly on your part.

3. Whether or not I 'believe' what a dictionary says a word is defined as, has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Like I said before, you keep taking things out of context to argue points I am not making.

You argue that the definition set in the dictionary does not matter. Reality disagrees with you.

4. The definitions of words change because of how they are used and what they are used for, not because a dictionary changes. Like I also said before, a dictionary is NOT an authority on the meaning of words. They never have been, they never will be.

Saying that a dictionary does not mean anything because it is malleable essentially amounts to ignorance. Dictionaries are absolutely the authority on denotation. I suggest you look up the difference between denotation and connotation before replying.

Ironically, my objectivity is why I'm bringing up the subject of usefulness regarding a label. On top of that, you just got done blaming the existence of stereotypes against feminism on 'people like me.' Now you want to say that there's no correlation between the stereotypes which are attributed to feminists, and the way they act?

Perhaps you should go to something easier, so that you can brush up on your comprehensive skills.

"I'm not saying that I'm blaming you for the way some feminists act. I'm blaming you for ignoring the English language and labeling an entire movement according to a subset because you've compromised your objectivity." Did I ever say there was no correlation between peoples' actions and the views that other people have a result? No, I didn't. I very specifically said I was blaming you, and people like you, for extrapolating the views of a small group and putting them on an entire group of people. You have about the same level of intellectual integrity as saying that every social conservative is an insane racist homophobic pig because they're just like Westboro Baptist Church.

Seriously? Who's compromising their objectivity now?

You compromised it the moment you started discounting the dictionary. It exists for a reason.

I wouldn't expect someone who can't even take an objective look at their own usage of certain words to have anything but a misunderstanding of what constitutes a cohesive hypothetical scenario. You don't have to agree with my example, it was pretty vulgar. But dismissing it out of hand while claiming it had limited merit is dishonest at best.

The point of my example wasn't to be shocking or to glorify the idea that men are victims too. The point was to get the almighty 'feminist' to sit down and offer an opinion on the sort of hypothetical situation that's not commonly fought for. Instead of looking at the example and offering a logical conclusion to the questions it asks, you've hid behind your pseudo intellectual rants about how I'm dumb and you're not.

Please, point out when I have said you are dumb, or when I have engaged in pseudointellectualism. Being ignorant on certain matters does not make one stupid; it means you don't know much about something specific. For example, I am not dumb for not knowing anything about coding. That said, it would make me appear stupid if I were to engage in a discussion about coding while having no knowledge at all of the topic at hand.

Your hypothetical's only merit was sensationalism. I really, really couldn't care less about a hypothetical if you can't remain objective in it. Especially since I have already answered the rather poorly placed concept that was contained within the hypothetical. You are, however, revealing more and more exactly how biased you are in this discussion.

The more dishonest you are, the worse it looks for you and your feminism.

Ahhh, extrapolating my views to all of feminism.... do you really not see how you are, again and again, showing how short sighted you are in this matter?

[Cybran]

That's not a bonus right women have. Men have the same right to control their own body. Women still have the same options available to men.

We don't. Once the condom breaks and the woman is pregnant It's game over. We are destined to pay for a mistake that the woman decided to prepetuate and abuse for finantial support.

And don't start with the bleeding heart routine about "child support being for the child not the woman". The money goes to the woman. She can get a new TV, Jewellery or new breats with it while the kid gets scraps. She is encouraged to demand finantial aid from the father that wanted no child to begin with.

[starlord]

the doublethink going on here is really interesting:

since a fetus isnt the same as a child, women can get abortions.
since women can get abortions, men should be able to abandon their children. because aborting a fetuses is the same as abandoning children.
men dont have obligations to fetuses because they are not the same as children, but men should be able to give up their responsibilities to a child when its a fetus, because they are the same.

[Tinykong]

That's not a bonus right women have. Men have the same right to control their own body. Women still have the same options available to men.

I'm going to take another crack at this:

We've established that each person has a right to control their own body. We've established that abortions are legal and safe.

If a woman becomes pregnant, and does not want to have the baby, she can have an abortion.
If a woman becomes pregnant, and wants to have the baby, but the man does not, why can he not legally dissolve his obligation to financially support the child?

If you say that it is because being a single mother is difficult and it's "for the child," then isn't that the mothers obligation since it was her sole decision to have the child?
If you say that is is because the woman has control over her body, how does the man walking away from being financially responsible effect her body or choice in any way?

[Endus]

Just out of interest; what if the woman outright lies, misleads or the man assumes the woman is on birth control so he does not use any? Additionally, we have to acknowledge no birth control is 100% effective so the risk of pregnancy is universal.

If the man assumes but didn't ensure, that's on him. If the woman lies or misleads him in an attempt to get pregnant by him, he should NOT have any parental responsibility to that child, unless he wants it.

And no; birth control IS 100% effective. Not every individual method, for sure, but in the event that condoms/birth control medication/etc fails, there is still abortion.

are you suggesting that parenthood should be abolished altogether? maybe all children should belong to the state, cause since birth control exists parental responsibility is defunct.

Holy straw man, Batman. That isn't even remotely similar to anything I've described.

Also, are you not aware that you CAN give up parental responsibility altogether? That's basically what adoption and legal abandonment entail, you know.

there is no functional difference between abandoning a child after its born, and "once its born im going to abandon it."

There are plenty of laws in Western nations that allow parents to abandon their children in a neutral environment, legally. This is already the case.

[Zhangfei]

We don't. Once the condom breaks and the woman is pregnant It's game over. We are destined to pay for a mistake that the woman decided to prepetuate and abuse for finantial support.

You both chose to have sex, right? Equal. You both have the right to control your own body, right? Equal. You both are responsible for a child when it's born, right? Equal. I fail to see what your emotive language proves apart from a misunderstanding of basic human rights and responsibilities.

And no; birth control IS 100% effective. Not every individual method, for sure, but in the event that condoms/birth control medication/etc fails, there is still abortion.

Which I think returns to my point that the consenting couple should know the other's stance on abortion before copulation. I don't think purely using a condom is enough grounding to equate to abandoning parental responsibility.

If a woman becomes pregnant, and does not want to have the baby, she can have an abortion.
If a woman becomes pregnant, and wants to have the baby, but the man does not, why can he not legally dissolve his obligation to financially support the child?

This train of argument goes back to "why can men get a vasectomy but a woman can't? It's not equal!" sort of argument. Biology makes people different, you'll just have to suck it up. It's still equal rights being applied.

[Endus]

the doublethink going on here is really interesting:

since a fetus isnt the same as a child, women can get abortions.
since women can get abortions, men should be able to abandon their children. because aborting a fetuses is the same as abandoning children.
men dont have obligations to fetuses because they are not the same as children, but men should be able to give up their responsibilities to a child when its a fetus, because they are the same.

Again, women can legally abandon newborns in many states and countries. There are safe zones that allow for the infants to be dropped off, because the alternative for some of these women is to abandon the baby in a dumpster.

[Tinykong]

You both chose to have sex, right? Equal. You both have the right to control your own body, right? Equal. You both are responsible for a child when it's born, right? Equal. I fail to see what your emotive language proves apart from a misunderstanding of basic human rights and responsibilities.

Pregnancy doesn't have to result in the birth of a child. The birth of the child is the choice of the mother, and the father should also be allowed to determine his responsibility.

Each has a choice to maintain or dissolve responsibility. Equal.

[Elim Garak]

Hey, how about a man demands that a woman who got pregnant accidentally (failed contraception) and decided to keep the baby - returns his property (body part)? That is sperm, which she took into possession without man's consent?

[Zhangfei]

Pregnancy doesn't have to result in the birth of a child. The birth of the child is the choice of the mother, and the father should also be allowed to determine his responsibility.

Each has a choice to maintain or dissolve responsibility. Equal.

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. 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?

Hey, how about a man demands that a woman who got pregnant accidentally (failed contraception) and decided to keep the baby - returns his property (body part)? That is sperm, which she took into possession without man's consent?

That biological fact is the basis for the law. His sperm became the baby and thus it's partly his possession and responsibility!