Any movement that is influential in moulding the shape of the sexual revolution should not be immune to constructive criticism.
I wrote in an earlier post that I was disappointed with the reaction of one particular website, feministing.com to the criticisms I had of feminism. Their reaction was to ban me from posting completely. Perhaps what I had to say does not come under the realm of constructive criticism for some, but I believe my point to be important and I don’t think I deserved to be named a troll for having a different opinion.
The sad fact about this is that I am not the only one who has complained about being shut out from discussion for holding a divergent viewpoint. I have heard many accusations of feminist websites and blogs deleting comments from their websites that they disagree with. I wouldn’t have necessarily agreed with such a criticism if it wasn’t for my own experiences which showed me the complaints were not entirely false.
Of course it is the prerogative of individuals to ban posters or delete comments on their own web spaces. If they want to do such things, it is well within their rights (and powers) as individuals to do so. However, it doesn’t shed the feminist movement in a positive light when members shun and ignore those who are questioning their ideas. It gives me the distinct impression that feminist arguments are weak since so few are willing to hold their ideas up to scrutiny. Why are the feminists that I have been in contact with so far been so unwilling to communicate with me just on the account that I disagree with them? It makes you wonder, right?
I also find it fascinating upon reading an FAQ written by a website known as feminist 101 when the author states how annoying it is to have to explain their viewpoints all the time. What a shame. Perhaps if feminists viewed people that didn’t understand feminism with less impatience and disdain (i.e. actually feel flattered that people ask questions about their viewpoints rather than annoyed) more people would have sympathy for their movement.
Like it or not, feministing.com is a very popular website, it certainly does have a voice and influence in moulding the shape of the sexual revolution in the future. Unfortunately the members who post at that site are not open to honest criticism, they distance themselves from it or ignore it completely – and I think it is this factor that makes them and their movement for young feminism dangerous.
At the same time, I understand that my ideas will be held up to public scrutiny, as indeed they should be. I think it is important to always be asking questions. I am always wary of social movements that censure criticism.
I blog because I think constructive criticism is an important aspect that movements should take note of. I am interested in criticising those elements in gender movements that I consider lacking in judgement and rationality. Of course, people will do the same of my posts, for the same reasons. In the process of critique and adjustment, movements can make sure that they align themselves for the society they intend to help and change.
This is why I blog.
Related Articles
The sexual revolution is still revolting…er… evolving
Individually and collectively, we are responsible for how the sexual revolution develops in the present and into the future
Any movement that has the potential to mould the shape of the sexual revolution should be solution-orientated rather than promoting a victim mentality
96 Comments
September 26, 2007 at 11:15 pm
What a misrepresentation. What the FAQ states is that it is annoying to have discussions requiring a moderately advanced knowledge of feminist theory disrupted by people asking questions about the basics. What’s wrong with wanting to continue the discussion they were already having instead of derailing that discussion to answer questions that distract from the original issue?
That’s why Feminism101 exists: it’s a place where those basic questions are answered.
September 26, 2007 at 11:56 pm
How is that a misrepresentation?
What you said and what I wrote translate as roughly the same message.
From what you stated on the FAQ and here again on this message board it does appear to me that you see people who do not own the same knowledge of feminism as a ‘distraction’ and that their questions were derailing the discussion. I am not saying your website is a bad thing, I just noted that the tone sounds unfairly impatient with people with honest questions to ask.
If there is such a wide gap between “advanced feminist theory” and “the basics” as you indicate, is there any wonder why people are asking “basic questions”?
I often read feminists bemoaning that they are misunderstood. Do I really need to point you in the direction as to why that may be the case?
September 28, 2007 at 2:42 am
But why are people looking for basic information butting into advanced discussions to find it?
To take the analogy to a ridiculous extreme, if a forum is knowledgeably discussing problems with resonating frequencies of outer electron shells disrupting their particle accelerator experiment, is it wrong for them to be impatient with somebody who not only jumps up and asks them to explain what an electron is, but challenges the knowledgeable to prove to them that electrons actually exist?
It is so easy to find basic information using the web, and interrupting other people’s knowledgeable discussions to demand that they spoonfeed the questioner material that can be found in any high school library is downright rude. FF101 is meant to act as gateway to people finding further information on their own as much as a quick answer resource, and I don’t apologise for telling people that interrupting other people’s discussions to demand that their questions are addressed is irritating and rude. Such people should learn some courtesy, and they might just get treated with some in return.
September 28, 2007 at 9:04 am
Maybe so. If feminism were really particle physics, but it isn’t.
Are people aware of these so-called “advanced discussions” are taken place? What is really so “advanced” about feminism that the average laymen cannot understand it? Maybe that reflects my lack of knowledge of feminism, but I cannot see how a social philosophy requires a language for advanced that is different from a laymen.
Those people who are really asking ‘dumb’ questions in rude ways are trolls. The best thing to do with them is ignore them. Honest questions, even about the basics, should be welcomed in my opinion, and your tone over on that site, in frankness, is very dismissive and condescending.
It is my opinion, and I do not apologise for it. I don’t actually think my comment misrepresents your attitude one iota. I am not criticising your site, just your tone.
September 30, 2007 at 4:52 am
Sheesh, I aim for a little levity, acknowledge that my extension of the analogy is hyperbole, and you still try and get a gotcha from it.
All social theories all use lots of jargon. It saves time when everybody involved knows one word that distils a lot of contributing concepts.
Let’s just start with the A’s, shall we?
Aesthetics, agency, alienation, anomie, a posteriori, a priori, authority: these are all jargon terms in social theory which have precise theoretical meanings which don’t always align with the “commonsense” understanding of those words that are also in common usage. Feminism is far from unique in this.
I don’t agree that honest questions should be welcomed at any time no matter what else is happening. If people are having a substantive discussion using lots of jargon as shorthand, demanding that they drop the jargon makes what was a lively and interesting discussion for them become drawn-out and tedious.
I don’t apologise for being dismissive of the idea that anyone has the right to disrupt a lively and enjoyable discussion and make it tedious purely for their own benefit. It’s unmannerly for someone to insist on such excessive consideration.
My site lays out the information for people to find it if they wish. I don’t intend to mollycoddle and spoonfeed them further than that.
September 30, 2007 at 12:35 pm
It was never a conscious decision on my part to misrepresent the intentions for your site. I made an observation based on my own understanding of the word choices you made. It is possible you are a good-natured person who really did intend to help others understand feminism; the written word isn’t always the perfect medium for communication, so it is very easy for a reader to misunderstand your intentions.
I have no problem with the idea of your website. Actually, I think your site is a good idea and ultimately (if you ignore the tone you employ for a moment) your intentions are good. I will reiterate: I am not criticizing you, or your website, just the tone of your writing.
From the point of view of someone like me who doesn’t know a great deal about the details of feminism, I felt that your site condescends and treats me (as a reader) with an air of disdain and impatience.
When I first came across your site, I read that the reason you set it up was because “people find ignorant questions frustrating” which didn’t give me the impression that you set up the site to help me understand, but rather to stop certain people interrupting your important discussions. I found that your choice of words in places gave the impression that you were dismissive and impatient rather than engaging and interested in communicating your understanding of feminism to others.
When you write things such as “the knowledgeable can send the uninformed here instead” it made me think that you consider all feminists to be more knowledgeable than non-feminists. That may be the case if by “knowledgeable” you mean “knowledgeable about feminism”. Even so, it is not unrealistic that a person may not identify themselves feminist but still have a good working knowledge of feminist theory. It is possible that you don’t really think feminists are more knowledgeable than non-feminists, however I am a reader of your site, and I only have the words you choose to use to form a picture of your intentions.
You could have stated that the reason you wanted to set up the site was to introduce more people to feminism, that you think introducing them to feminism will help them, you could have offered your audience a good reason to ask questions and to get involved. Instead you bemoan the fact that people ask you questions that you consider “ignorant”, you complain that these questions upset and disrupt discussions with other feminists, you equate the troll-like behavior of rude people with rude questions with those who may have found their site themselves (as I have) or with those who may have wanted to ask genuine questions and start a honest discussion.
I think you too readily assume that the people with honest questions to ask, and those who barge in to ask them, are the same type of person. They are not.
I have said this before but it needs repetition, those who succeed in derailing discussion with antagonistic questions and rudely demand answers are trolls. They have nothing better to do than cause as much disruption and flame wars as possible. Trolls are not interested in the topic at hand; they do not care for FAQs, nor do they wish to be explained the basics so they better understand.
Yet it seems to me that the large part of your intention behind your site is to stop trolls derailing your arguments; it appears you are creating an FAQ for trolls. If you were creating a website in aid of people who are genuinely interested in learning about feminism, I hope you would treat them a little more like equals and not suggest that their questions were ignorant or that their interest is rude.
October 1, 2007 at 2:29 am
Bingo! The blog is quite open that it’s purpose is to prevent the disruption of discussions elsewhere, and that the FAQs are particularly meant as a place to point trolls who try for “aha, you silly feminists never thought of this, didya!” crap. However, it is also meant to be a resource for the genuinely curious, whom I have no wish to needlessly antagonise. After all, very few trolls are going to go on to read the links I provide in the FAQs, it’s only the genuinely curious who are likely to do that.
Anyway, I have just updated the page to remove the word “ignorant”. You’re not the first person to take issue with it. I have to accept that others find that word confrontational, which was never my intent. There’s lots of things that I am ignorant about, because my brain only has so much memory capacity. I don’t take people pointing out that I am ignorant of certain matters as an insult, merely as a matter of fact. However, if it’s getting people bent out of shape it is counterproductive.
October 1, 2007 at 9:10 am
I have a lot of respect for you tigtog. You can accept constructive criticism and that is a good thing.
I am ignorant in some respects also, I have made various mistakes in the choice of wording in my writing, and people have responded in ways to my work that have baffled me as to their (in my view) leap of logic. Writing can be an imperfect medium, as I said.
Anyway, good luck with your blog, I wish you success with it.
October 3, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Twenty three hundred words debating the shade of grey….
October 3, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Aye, Joe. Tis the way life seems to be – and communication on the internet
Haven’t seen you around these parts for a while? What have you been up to?
October 3, 2007 at 8:11 pm
I like the mission you’ve chosen, emmah, and I’ll visit as it occurs to me to. It had occured to me to start a couple of discussion points on your forum, but everything I wanted to start promised to be huge.
To give you some idea, I’ll direct you to this blog, and you should probably start at the bottom (first post).
October 3, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Please do not be concerned about lengthy posts. Feel free to write as much as you like. It is about time there is honest and (if needed) lengthy discussions on topics of this magnitude. If I am honest, there are a lot of moments where I feel overwhelmed by the material I have on this subject! I have also been meaning to start some kind of discussion up on there too, but finding the words (and the time) to write posts at the moment is a challenge in itself. I
I am also in the process of sorting stuff out in my head – I have just embarked on this journey at the moment so it is a bit scary (I know that sounds odd – I know what I mean
)
October 16, 2007 at 8:11 am
I am just getting into this however bear with me. The lack of discourse or the denial thereof, is a precursor that leads torward stagnancy in any movement either social, political, or both.
Many feminists have completed the cycle of ignorance and doublethink. They are eternally discriminated against and oppressed therefore anything that proves otherwise is considered a “book worth burning”. Many political sites allow for opposing views, some don’t however many do. I would say that debate is one of the keystones of our society.
One of the singular characteristics of many feminist blogs/websites, is their refusal to debate, and their insistence to censor all of it. I myself am knowledgeable and well read on several of the supposed feminist “classics”, it doesn’t matter that I consider most of them to be bullshit, I still read them to hear what they have to say. Many feminist websites refuse to do even this.
-Strength and Honor-
October 16, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Welcome to the site, Abaddon.
I agree with your statement, it is an issue that I have observed also.
In my experience I have often been met with accusations of being “brain-washed” if I so much as utter an opposing view of feminism. Believe it or not, the unwillingness to open up to views other than their own is not as gender biased as some might thing. They refuse to listen to men and women.
I find that very odd, indeed.
October 18, 2007 at 7:46 pm
I have thought a few times about getting involved in this discussion, but it’s gotten too murky for me. Hurts my head. I’ll just sit here in my pantiless state of skirthood and watch.
October 24, 2007 at 6:36 am
I’m with Teri. I wish it really were particle physics ~ that might be less weirdly unfathomable. Ow. Poked myself in the eye with my mascara wand again.
October 24, 2007 at 7:04 pm
LOL! Fair enough. I think Joe Visionary’s comment above summed up the discussion for me!
I have no idea why anyone would spend their time and effort setting up a 101 blog for the benefit of trolls (or more specifically to get them off your back) but then, each to their own
October 24, 2007 at 8:45 pm
I have no wish to make anyone’s head hurt by belaboring this discussion, but I do have a question for you, Emmah.
Given what you have seen on MABTW (and what proliferates elsewhere on the Web) do you not see any need for a *kind* of feminism? What I mean is, on these sites you have boys/men who go so far as to say they do not want to continue to extend to women equality of opportunity-they shouldn’t vote, they shouldn’t work, they shouldn’t go to college, they shouldn’t handle finances, i.e. they just don’t belong in the public sphere *at all*, and while I’m sure for some it is tongue in cheek/mere venting, I don’t think that is the case for all.
I ask this because while I have never belonged to any feminist organization, I do feel I am a feminist in that I have a family history that gave me clear examples of women denied access (or whose access was certainly circumscribed) to economic independence and redress of the law and how this made them extremely vulnerable and powerless to change the awful situations they were in.
Of course, you might argue that one shouldn’t take any of this seriously, as we are unlikely to lose the right to vote/work/study any time soon, and yet there are many people (some known to us) who insist “feminism” (and all it has brought about) is a short-term experiment, set to fade in our children’s and grandchildren’s time. Would you see that as a good thing?
October 24, 2007 at 9:32 pm
I almost addressed this question and then realized it was specifically for Emmah. Besides, it was already making my head hurt.
October 24, 2007 at 9:46 pm
By all means weigh in, Teri, but maybe take some Excedrin first, and no calling anybody a m*th*rf*ck*r. C*cks*cker maybe, m*th*rf*ck*r no.
October 24, 2007 at 9:58 pm
I think when discussing feminism it is easy to conceptualize it into a simple package which it isn’t. Feminism has many different levels, many different (often opposing) theories on men and women. There many types of feminist from radical to liberal and many shades between. Feminists often disagree with each other, as do theologians within churches…
It is too easy to label “feminism” as the bad guy (or should I say, gal) responsible for all faults and problems in society – but the reality is, nothing is as simple as that.
I don’t think that feminism is as responsible for female independence as some would have us believe. Yes, the ideas of feminism have got to make a large part of the changes, but there were other aspects that are significant also, and somewhat unrelated to the movement (I think).
Take for example the contraceptive pill, I think this is one invention that has managed to enable women to be far more independent since they could decide if they wanted to have children or not. It frees women from being dependent upon support from a patron and enables her to enter the workplace.
I think feminism in its current form may die, but that would be the result of either a backlash, or not being able to evolve to be relevant to women in future eras. At this moment in time, I don’t see oppression of women by men, at least not in the western world. Elsewhere women live far more unfair and troubled lives than we (in the west) do.
Of course, feminism was once relevant, and is still relevant in certain countries.
I still think the sexual movement needs to balance itself out as there are inequalities on both sides, but society often takes a long time to make adjustments and perhaps eventually society will grow out of feminism or men’s rights movements because both genders will be concerned not only for the rights of only one gender above the other – in other words men and women care about men and women, not men for men or women for women.
I don’t think the men on MABTW are thinking of solutions when they demand women should no longer get the vote or have their rights. That would be moving backwards, not forwards. Yet, these men say these things hoping to punish a whole group of the crimes of a few. I find that odd, but understandable in context of their clear frustrations with the world as it is.
I am not sure I have answered all those really thoughtful questions CatA, I know I am frustrated that I cannot give all the answers. However, this is why I set this site up, to discuss these kind of issues. I think honest discussion on this topic has long been overdue.
I have another question, however. Do we need a “type” of feminism? Could we not create an alternative to it? What would that alternative be (other than the men’s rights movement)? That is a disucssion I would like to have with someone. Can we find an alternative to mens rights vs. womens rights? I find the polarization to be part of the whole problem with gender issues.
October 24, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Ha ha, CatA! (Had to say that before I read Em’s response. I’ll be back!)
October 24, 2007 at 10:23 pm
I have been totally trying to come up with a different word than feminism.
October 24, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Well, I was going to say in my post that I would consider my “feminism” to be a kind of humanism, and I still think it is, but I would have to characterize it as feminism also, in that it is a reaction to the backlash I see going on in my country.
I went to college in the early to mid 80s, and I have to say back then I thought of feminism, when I thought of it at all, as quaint and antiquated, something that had outlived its usefulness or was a really “fringy” and somewhat crazed movement, and even now, for the most part, I don’t feel discriminated against as a woman.
However, back in those Dark Ages of my college years, in my country, we started to see the rise of the far right, which seemed and still seems hell-bent (if I may use the phrase) on rolling back the rights of women, a case in point being the reproductive rights of women. For instance, just recently President Bush appointed Dr. Susan Orr as Acting Deputy Assistant for Population Affairs at the Office of Public Health and Science.
A quote concerning Dr. Orr:
In a 2000 Weekly Standard article, Orr railed against requiring health insurance plans to cover contraceptives. “It’s not about choice,’ said Orr. “It’s not about health care. It’s about making everyone collaborators with the culture of death.”
I realize in Britain a considerably different state of affairs probably reigns, but I feel as though in my country trouble looms.
October 24, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Oh I just remembered. I already came up with the word! Genderous!
Yes, I was fluctuating between the words feminism and humanism myself, CatA ~ neither really applies fully.
I do not believe that feminism has had an entirely negative influence on this country any more than civil rights has. Important things done. And equality of women was not perpetuated entirely by women, just as civil rights has not been perpetuated only by people of one race.
Sure, people have a hard time finding balance. That is human nature. Which is why I’m a misanthropist.
October 24, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Interesting you mention the political right as an issue. I have read a few theories that feminism would sit on the left side of the spectrum politically. Some even link it to communism, but I am not sure if that is some kind of “cold war” speak (?!)
Reproductive rights is a very touchy issue. I don’t think rolling back those rights would stop contraceptives existing, or abortions from happening. Abortion isn’t a new thing, it has been around for centuries. The difference being that today there are safer ways for women to do this thanks to medical science. Women in the past would do horrendus things to end their pregnancies.
I am not sure this issue would come under women’s rights or simply the democratic right to have all the options available to you. I don’t think it is any politicians place to deny the right to choose to anyone. I don’t see the right as being anti-women, since I get the feeling a lot of anti-abortionists tend to be religious. I could be wrong, though.
I urge to you google the video, “keep your jesus off my penis”, it is quite a funny response to this issue (amongst others) that are occuring in the US at the moment. Let me know what you think of it.
October 24, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Oh and humanism is an alternative I may choose.
October 24, 2007 at 11:47 pm
I want to reply, but right now I have to go cook dinner. I take my wifely duties seriously…heh heh.
October 24, 2007 at 11:49 pm
“I am not sure this issue would come under women’s rights or simply the democratic right to have all the options available to you.”
The burden will always fall on the woman, in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. Oh, I know what they howl about on MABTW, but the bottom line is that this will always be a matter of greater impact on women than on men. You give up your body for 9 months and your soul forever, but until men can feel the full impact (physically, socially, culturally) of pregnancy, it will remain at bottom a woman’s rights issue. Having been involved with several nieces’ lapses of judgment, I can tell you that once an unwanted pregnancy occurs, there IS no happy ending. Someday I’ll write about the boomerang adoption; but now, twelve years (!) after the fact, it’s still too painful.
Ooh. I didn’t even know I was that outspoken about the issue. Back to my pathetic shoe closet to rummage around. Carry on.
October 24, 2007 at 11:57 pm
*Teri waits for her shoes to show up in the mail*
When my son’s girlfriend got pregnant, her stepfather hit the roof (of course). He expected my son to run off and do his own thing and so pressed for them to marry immediately. I advised him that I would not allow this. He said he felt it would make my son take his responsibility toward the child more seriously. I disagreed. He said, “What do we do when we disagree?” I said, “How about if we ask them what they think?” They said they want to ultimately marry, but would rather not right now. Stepfather submitted to this idea.
Now… my son has taken fatherhood very seriously. He and mommy make very good parents and my son has now asked her to marry him. They very much preferred to have it occur by way of choice (especially her).
Did I step out of line by insisting that stepdaddy not be allowed to dictate this to them? (If you ask him, I sure did. He does NOT like being told what to do by a woman. And he’s never spoken to me since.)
Someone like MansVoice would say that, on the surface, I stepped on that man’s pride. If anyone knew the whole story, that man has stomped out his own pride long ago. But that’s another story.
October 25, 2007 at 5:42 am
Pregnancy is something that has occured since the begining of time obviously, and yes women do bear the physical brunt of it all. I have said this over @ MABTW several times over. However many Men have contrived to make pregnancy easier on women It’s one of the basic purposes of women, sorry ladies you cannot get around nature, she can be a bitch.
@Emmah:
Sorry to interrupt your discussion however I have one point of contention in your discussion.
Exibit A:
I don’t think the men on MABTW are thinking of solutions when they demand women should no longer get the vote or have their rights. That would be moving backwards, not forwards. Yet, these men say these things hoping to punish a whole group of the crimes of a few. I find that odd, but understandable in context of their clear frustrations with the world as it is.
Some of the Men there advocate this, however as with anything there are extremes. I will note the extreme feminist viewpoints of Men as an example. However many of the Men on there, and on the net have a much more balanced view. Do I think that women should have a vote? Sure, what they do with it is another matter entirely. Personally I don’t think that anyone should have a vote until they have proven themselves capable of a rational thought process, and the ability to understand the issues at hand.
I find that MABTW, while a place to vent frustration and express anger is a worthwhile place for pointing out female hypocrisy and ignorance of Male issues. When you say they aren’t “doing” anything worthwhile I disagree. They are starting to come together and find things that they agree upon, which is the beginning of any movement.
@Zogmama:
Hello again:) I disagree with this statement:
“The burden will always fall on the woman, in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. Oh, I know what they howl about on MABTW, but the bottom line is that this will always be a matter of greater impact on women than on men. You give up your body for 9 months and your soul forever, but until men can feel the full impact (physically, socially, culturally) of pregnancy, it will remain at bottom a woman’s rights issue.”
I am certain that I am one of the “howlers” that you mentioned, however I disagree with much of your statement. First it comes off from a womans perspective ONLY. It’s a womans rights issue ONLY.
Yes I agree that the impact of pregnancy is a burden on women, it always has had much more of an effect upon women. You fail to notice that it is Men that have invented things that make pregnancy and labor easier for women. You fail to take into account its effect upon Men that have or tried to be a part of their childrens lives. You have failed to take note of a Mans perspective what-so-ever. I have borne the brunt of it myself, not in a physical manner but in the manner that Nature has decreed, to support a woman that is pregnant with my child as best I can.
Please spare me the “nine months” talk, and the “I will never know what its like” as well because I do know what its like zog. I have been there. This dismissive attitude is one of the main problems in Male-Female relations.
While Men don’t HAVE to be a part of their childs life, many do choose to do so and are treated as second-rate by such attitudes. I think many Men absorb this attitude from women, that they aren’t necessary, that their opinions aren’t valid, simply because they cannot get pregnant. The end result? Well you can see it throughout society. Fatherless homes, Men stop caring, because no one cares what they think. They are secondary, not equal or even considered.
@ Cathouse Teri:
I don’t think that you were wrong at all. Marriage isn’t for everyone, nor is it the cure-all that some may think. If your son truly loves her then he will choose the right path. He may make mistakes along the way but who doesn’t? I was just like him in a way. I took my responsibilities very seriously as well. I know what it feels like to have a over-bearing parent on the other side of the equasion.
-Strength and Honor-
October 25, 2007 at 6:28 am
Nice.
October 25, 2007 at 6:40 am
@Abaddon: I believe you’re carrying another discussion entirely, from another site, and on another topic, over to this thread. You are, of course, free to disagree with me. However, you’ve read into a short statement much that goes beyond what I am talking about here and now.
My point, which I will express in a more clear manner, is that a woman who is making her way in the world, in school, or building a career, can choose to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. That is often the best choice, and adoption is wonderful. However, her life is derailed during that period in a way that a man’s is not. That is what my statement is about, not about what happens afterward if the baby is kept. I know your story, and you think you know mine. This isn’t about single parenthood right now, it’s about choice in pregnancy, not what happens beyond that.
“Please spare me the “nine months” talk, and the “I will never know what its like” as well because I do know what its like zog.”
You know about children being raised by a single parent. You don’t know what it is to be pregnant.
October 25, 2007 at 7:21 am
Yup yup.
October 25, 2007 at 8:28 am
@abaddon, you stated: “When you say they aren’t “doing” anything worthwhile I disagree. They are starting to come together and find things that they agree upon, which is the beginning of any movement.”
Hang on a moment. I never actually said that they weren’t doing anything worthwhile. I said that they were not coming up with solutions. These are two different statements.
You say yourself that a lot of guys on there are venting, there is certainly a function to that, but venting alone does not create solutions. There is a time and a place to vent, and then there is a time and a place to consider solutions to the issues.
The men on MABTW, the ones that suggest women should no longer get the vote, say such things out of anger, frustration and, yes, to vent. I think even these men know that to go down this route is not a solution. They are not in the place of considering solutions, MABTW isn’t there for solutions or answers, it is more a common ground for men who need to vent. That is how I see it.
October 25, 2007 at 10:52 am
@Emmah:
How does one come up with a solution? How does one define a problem? I would think by exchanging thoughts, ideas, frustrations, ecetera, ecetera.
You may not like MABTWs premise, and truthfully I don’t agree with all of it myself as I have said many times before. What you (in my view) are talking about is Time. We aren’t going about things in a timely manner. We simply sit there and complain(bitch) about things. I agree with you to some degree, but I cannot change that right now.
@Zogmama:
You stated: ” “The burden will always fall on the woman, in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. Oh, I know what they howl about on MABTW, but the bottom line is that this will always be a matter of greater impact on women than on men. You give up your body for 9 months and your soul forever, but until men can feel the full impact (physically, socially, culturally) of pregnancy, it will remain at bottom a woman’s rights issue.”
I stated: I am certain that I am one of the “howlers” that you mentioned, however I disagree with much of your statement. First it comes off from a womans perspective ONLY. It’s a womans rights issue ONLY.
Yes I agree that the impact of pregnancy is a burden on women, it always has had much more of an effect upon women. You fail to notice that it is Men that have invented things that make pregnancy and labor easier for women. You fail to take into account its effect upon Men that have or tried to be a part of their childrens lives. You have failed to take note of a Mans perspective what-so-ever. I have borne the brunt of it myself, not in a physical manner but in the manner that Nature has decreed, to support a woman that is pregnant with my child as best I can.
You stated: My point, which I will express in a more clear manner, is that a woman who is making her way in the world, in school, or building a career, can choose to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. ”
My point, which I will express in a more clear manner, is that a woman who is making her way in the world, in school, or building a career, can choose to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.”
Yes she can, and only her. Thats it. No one else. That was my point in the last post. You just didn’t see it or refused to see the dismissive attitude I was talking about.
“That is often the best choice, and adoption is wonderful. However, her life is derailed during that period in a way that a man’s is not. That is what my statement is about, not about what happens afterward if the baby is kept.”
Indeed, and I agree with your statement. I also said that everything that you said is entirely from a female perspective, and continues to be. Do you honestly think that a Mans course throughout life isn’t affected by a child from a woman that he cares about?
“I know your story, and you think you know mine. This isn’t about single parenthood right now, it’s about choice in pregnancy, not what happens beyond that.”
Choice in pregnacy i.e: your choice, her choice in pregnancy. I have an idea about your situation, nothing more. You haven’t shown me anything besides the outline. You know my story, that is true.
“Please spare me the “nine months” talk, and the “I will never know what its like” as well because I do know what its like zog.”
You know about children being raised by a single parent. You don’t know what it is to be pregnant.”
You speak from ignorance zog. I have been both a father with child, and a father without. I fail to see how I dont know what it is to be pregnant.
-Strength and Honor-
October 25, 2007 at 2:10 pm
@Abaddon: You find me dismissive and ignorant; I’ve patiently explained that I’m talking about nine months, and not what happens beyond that. I’m speaking about the physical realities of what a woman experiences during pregnancy, and the social and cultural impact during pregnancy. You use that as a reason to call me dismissive. That’s a bit like criticizing someone who says “I ride the train to work” for coldly ignoring the options of automobile, bicycle, and bus transportation. Huh?
Yes, I speak only from a woman’s perspective. That’s because I’m a woman and I don’t feel it is appropriate for me to tell a man’s story. That would be rude and foolish. If you want to tell your story, then tell it. It’s not necessary to try to negate my story first. Your perspective is, I believe, welcome here and I have no reason to try to minimize your ideas. I would appreciate the same courtesy, but I don’t expect it.
As for my speaking from “ignorance,” if you can understand that I was talking about pregnancy, and pregnancy only in this thread, then y’all come back after you’ve experienced morning sickness, miscarriage, back labor and an episiotomy. Hey, we can talk single parenthood. It sucks, sometimes. But I’m not the enemy, dude. I’m a woman with a unique set of experiences, just as you are a man with your own. It’s about respect and being open-minded enough to learn.
October 25, 2007 at 2:30 pm
@Emmah: You’ve started an important conversation here. Feminist? How feminist? I think there are a great many women and men who fall somewhere on a spectrum that leaves them with less of a voice than capital-F feminists. For myself, I grew up in the seventies, when there was important and seminal work being done. Now that I’m the mother of boys, I see that in some arenas the pendulum has swung too far the other direction. That is truly human nature. Taken from a historical long view? I think we’re doing well, overall. There will always be extremists, and they will always have a more vocal platform than the vast majority of folks who live quiet lives and whose perspectives lie somewhere much nearer the middle.
October 25, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Abaddon ~ I’m sorry, this may have been addressed elsewhere so forgive me if I repeat. Why do you capitalize the word “men” and not the word “women?”
Also, I can’t figure out what you and Z are trying to clarify. Pregnancy is clearly a woman’s issue. Child rearing, although it often falls to the woman, is not just a woman’s issue. As for men (Men) being the reason for the discoveries and inventions that make labor and delivery more tolerable, who the fuck do you think gave birth to those men?
October 25, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Sorry for the foul language, Em. Sometimes “heck” just doesn’t do it.
Also, this is an amazing article, which I’m sure you’ve all already read, but thougth I’d share it anyway.
http://www.annielondonderry.com/learn.html
October 25, 2007 at 7:38 pm
I think we are all talking past each other.
Zog is right to say that men do not know what it is physically like to be pregnant. I think Abaddon has agreed that it is a physical toll upon the mother, more so than the father.
Life has handed a bunch of inequalities between men and women in this respect. It is a mixed blessing for both parties at best. Women do have to endure the physical side of pregnancy which is a very huge toll upon her body.
I know some men are like Abaddon in that they would dearly love to be a part of their children’s lives, yet there are also men out there who have no interest in their children. Unfortunately in these cases, it is the women that is left alone with the full weight and responsibility of a baby – I am sure being a single mother is one heck of a tough job. I bet Zog will attest to that.
On the other hand, the very fact that men do not carry the baby seems to mean that they have less ability to make choices as to what happens to their child. Hey I guess life is a bitch to both sexes in this respect.
Abaddon makes a good point that it is frequently ignored that men are also affected by the birth (or expectancy) of their child, the social, psychological and emotion ramifications of such a responsiblity upon a new father is overlooked. Not to say that is what has happened here, or that anyone here is ignoring that, or that they haven’t considered it. I am sure a lot of ladies here have and do consider that aspect. I am talking about a wider attitude pervasive in society in general.
October 25, 2007 at 7:47 pm
It is truly a tragedy that a man’s child can be in a woman’s womb and she has all the power to make or break that baby. As you point out, it’s an unfair balance that is just part of nature. It’s unfortunate that a man might be involved with a woman who becomes pregnant, and he wants the baby and she doesn’t. He simply cannot insist that she carry that baby to term based on his decision alone. It’s unfair. But no one said life would be fair.
However, if I were a man, I would fight to the death to maintain my rights to my child.
October 25, 2007 at 7:53 pm
I think the ‘talking past’ happens when we go farther afield from the topic at hand. I apologize if I’m guilty of that.
I was thinking back to when I was pregnant with my second child, and finished my part of a lengthy project. It was the right time to look for and interview for a new job, particularly since I was the primary breadwinner at the time. Unfortunately, I was well into my second trimester, and interviewing was nearly futile. Since interviewers aren’t allowed to ask when the baby is due, nor what your plans are for taking leave, they take one look at the belly and tell you that they don’t think you’d be a good ‘fit’ for the job.
That’s what was behind my original comment; there’s much to be mined regarding parenthood as well, but it wasn’t my intent to go there.
October 26, 2007 at 4:21 am
Emmah, concerning your post above and what has contributed to women’s independence, I don’t think you can so easily separate the issue of birth control from the larger feminist cause. Yes, it was a technological advance, but the larger issue of birth control has always carried a lot of social baggage.
To illustrate, I bring up a boogey-lady much reviled by a certain lupine blogmaster, Margaret Sanger, and her championing of birth control.
I have been thinking about whether or not she would have been better served if she had put this forth as an issue for larger humankind, rather than as a women’s issue, but given the times I don’t know that this would have made sense. She was heir to a history that placed all things concerning childrearing and childbirth squarely in the realm of women’s concerns; it may have been only natural to frame it in these terms. She did link it to issues of poverty and the disempowered, which did make the issue a more universal, whole family concern, but I think it was viewed mostly as a women’s concern back then, which even now colors the issue.
It’s funny, one of her arch enemies was this gentleman. (get a load of that portrait…and here’s something I didn’t know, J. Edgar Hoover was an admirer!!!). He was a big proponent of chastity laws, and public decency, and so on…but Margaret Sanger was no proponent of licentiousness. She did not seem to view human sexuality in any but the most clinical and practical of lights, as something whose destructive force was to be contained and neutralized.
I think in one way you are right, in that some branches of feminism spent a lot of energy framing such issues as us vs. them, or rather us-not-them, but as I said, the baggage of history, and particularly that of the Victorian Era preceding the beginning advocacy of birth control, might not have allowed otherwise.
Okay, now I’ve done it. I’ve gone and given my ownself a headache. Sometimes I just can’t shut my mind off…somebody tell a joke…
October 26, 2007 at 4:45 am
~In 1873 Comstock created the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, an institution dedicated to supervising the morality of the public. Later that year, Comstock successfully influenced the United States Congress to pass the Comstock Law, which made illegal the delivery or transportation of both “obscene, lewd, or lascivious” material as well as any methods of, or information pertaining to, birth control. George Bernard Shaw coined the term comstockery, meaning “censorship because of perceived obscenity or immorality” ~
Now, I can read something like this and say, “Holy hell!” and move on. I choose not to dwell on such things, as it makes me quite ill about how humankind can behave. And then when I see that there are men of this day and age who actually admire this man. Then I really get down.
All I can say is, “Holy hell!”
Now my head hurts again.
October 26, 2007 at 5:24 am
@ Zog: I offer my apologies for my words if they offended you. I had a bad night last night and was a little cranky (couldn’t sleep/long day at work out in the cold). While this isn’t an excuse for rudeness on my part, all I can do is offer my apology. I know you aren’t an “enemy” per se, nor do I consider you one.
I agree that I misinterpreted your post and I agreed that the physical aspects of pregnancy are indeed a womans burden to bear. My points were a little off from yours and that was my fault.
@ Cathouse Teri: ” As for men (Men) being the reason for the discoveries and inventions that make labor and delivery more tolerable, who the fuck do you think gave birth to those men?”
I manage to converse around here without slinging foul words Teri, I imagine a woman of your intelligence can do the same.
To anwser your question: women have given birth to those Men. I will add that there are probably several inventors that had no idea who their mother was. Giving birth to a child, has no bearing on how it will grow up. Raising it is another matter entirely. Those men saw the death, pain, and complications of women not only as a womans problem but as one of THEIRS as well. That was my point in all of this. Many women today view the entire process as THEIRS alone, completely excluding men or belittling his part in the entire matter. I consider that to be more than a little selfish.
“It is truly a tragedy that a man’s child can be in a woman’s womb and she has all the power to make or break that baby. As you point out, it’s an unfair balance that is just part of nature. It’s unfortunate that a man might be involved with a woman who becomes pregnant, and he wants the baby and she doesn’t. He simply cannot insist that she carry that baby to term based on his decision alone. It’s unfair. But no one said life would be fair.”
I agree that life isn’t fair, nor is it “equal” in my belief. I also agree that it’s a tragedy that men have no say in whether or not they can have their children. I think that its a tragedy that women have sole discretion over whether or not a baby is to be born even though we are all “equal”.
Whats stopping him from insisting that his child be born? Aren’t we “equal” Teri? I am constantly amazed at the hypocrisy on this issue. On one hand, many women talk about the “miracle” of childbirth. They talk about how precious life is, and how much their contribution should be appreciated. Daily I hear about the “wonders” of childbirth. I agree with this, it is truly a wonderful thing to be a part of.
On the other hand, you can have the same women as complete advocates of abortion as birth control. As soon as they decide that “they” don’t want the child, then this “wonderful” “beautiful” process becomes nothing more than an unwanted, unneeded burden that needs to be extracted from their life ASAP and as cheaply as possible.
Sounds a little hypocritical from my view, but who am I to say anything? I am only a Man. For the record, I am not Pro-Anything, women have this right and personally I think they should, just like voting. What they DO with it is entirely another matter.
-Strength and Honor-
October 26, 2007 at 5:54 am
It never ceases to amaze me how people react to “foul” words. Cursing defies intelligence? That doesn’t make any sense to me. Would it have been a different statement if I’d said, “Who do yo think gave birth to those men?” I doubt it.
There is no balance in the fact that women are the ones who give birth. There is no balance in the fact that a man can more readily leave the pregnancy situation. Does this mean that men always run? Not at all. Does it mean that women always do the noble thing? Nope.
It means we are a bunch of humans doing human things. My problem is in saying that men are responsible for most of the things that matter. When they could not have been born without a woman. Regardless of whether or not they knew her. You insult my intelligence by stating that there is a difference between giving birth to a child and raising a child. Do we all here really not know this??
Also, does this mean you won’t be answering my pointed question about the capitalization issue, Abaddon?
October 26, 2007 at 6:11 am
The tragedy of men not having any say in the birth of their children makes it seem as if that’s the majority of men. I don’t believe so. Thoughtful people in loving relationships are more commonplace, though less dramatic.
As for the perceived inequality of women having the ability to decide or choose, it’s a direct counterbalance to the fact of rape. Perhaps it’s not a stretch to believe that abortion and rape, one controlled by women, the other controlled by men, are two equally tragic weights which balance some cosmic scale.
And, yeah, what about Men and women?
October 26, 2007 at 6:19 am
Crap, Z, that last full paragraph is DARK. I don’t necessarily disagree, but oh the horror, the horror…
October 26, 2007 at 6:25 am
But…what about Men vs. women…
October 26, 2007 at 6:42 am
@CatA: I should have put an “M for Mature” warning on that one. I’ve been constructively criticized for ascribing more nobility to my fellow humans than they deserve, but I’m a fatalist and a realist at my core. I’m pretty sure that any person who decides to live through abuse at gunpoint, betrayal, and assorted physical indignities is not going to believe in unicorns and rainbows forever. One can be an optimist and a realist at the same time. I happen to believe it’s the best way to live.
October 26, 2007 at 8:29 am
“On the other hand, you can have the same women as complete advocates of abortion as birth control. As soon as they decide that “they” don’t want the child, then this “wonderful” “beautiful” process becomes nothing more than an unwanted, unneeded burden that needs to be extracted from their life ASAP and as cheaply as possible.”
Of course abortion is abused, what technology or system isn’t?
However, I don’t think women (and I am talking in general here) see abortion as a form of birth control but as a last resort. It is a very difficult decision to make for a lot of women, for some it is the best (for others, only) option given their circumstances.
I do think that in any democratic society there should be options open. Banning abortion will only result in women having back-alley illegal ones and putting themselves at grave risk in doing so.
Having a child is a special thing, but if you don’t have the resources or the committment to raising children, the best option is to not have that child. It is unfair to bring children into the world not being properly looked after and unwanted. Whether not having the child means aborting it or giving it up for adoption is the decision that individuals make on their own conscience.
October 26, 2007 at 8:33 am
@CatA – I can see your point, and for the most part I agree. I don’t think the invention of birth control is isolated from feminism, nor do I think it is the only aspect that contributed to the changes that led to role changes for women.
October 26, 2007 at 5:21 pm
I’m beginning to think that anything that women do that men (these MABTW men anyway) don’t like is labeled feminism. I’m not even sure if there’s anything at all that a women does that they do like. Which is odd, because I’d be willing to bet that every one of them would like a woman in their lives. And seek to make that happen. In which case, would they then have to conclude that SOME women (or at least one) are okay? Tolerable? Or perhaps they seek to find one who is alright with their patriarchal (and misogynistic, I might add) views about women? How would a man like that raise a daughter? (I believe wolfe was posed this question before, but I don’t recall his answer.) For a bunch of men who want balance, or at least to have the scales tip in their direction, I sure see a lot of cutting of noses to spite their faces.
October 27, 2007 at 7:46 am
Long post here, sorry about that but I am a lone Man posting on several different comments.
@Cathouse Teri:
At what point did I call you a feminist Teri? As far as I can tell, never.
Since I am a member of the MABTW board, and I am a Man, I will take your comment as somewhat directed at me.
As to having a woman in my life, I have had several over the past few years, I just don’t want any MORE in my life. I have had quite my fill of users, liars, whores, parasites and kidnappers. Do I think all women are like that? Sometimes I do, when I get pissed off (I am a human not a robot) but for the most part I think that there are women out there that are definitely relationship material. Actual human beings without an eternal chip on their shoulder. Women that are self-aware, not just selfish.
Will I marry her if I meet her? Hell no. How about I just put my balls out on a table and give her a mallet to smash them with whenever she gets “bored” or “upset”. Will I have a child with her? Hell no, I am already a slave, and I refuse to have any more shackles placed upon me.
A lot of women want to get married and have kids. Some don’t but a lot of them do. I have nothing to provide to these women in that case.
Some women already have kids, and have wanted me to be a “Male authority figure” for their children. “Male authority figure” is in my view just a weak replacement for a father, you should have chosen differently woman or PERHAPS not ripped them away from him in spite and then expect other Men to take up the slack. They ask me to raise children that do not bear my genes, which is a little hypocritical from my perspective.
Fundamentally, they reinforce the principle that Fathers are disposable and interchangable while mothers aren’t. Sure their kids are sometimes good kids (sometimes not) and I realize that they are the future, and I will treat them as such, with respect, compassion, and kindness or in the case of bad ones, I will ignore them. However I am not going to raise someone elses kid, when I could be raising my own.
As to the capitalization question that you posed Teri, I simply forgot it. Heres the anwser. I have debated feminists, lesbians, ect ect, on gender issues. During this time I was subjected to a variety of “words” that they used to demean Men. Womyn, pigs, rapists, ect ect. I simply capitalized Men and refused to do so with women. It enrages them to no end, and allows an opening for me. It became a habit. Habits are hard to break. Thats it.
I see that you ladies are interested in actual discussion, with at least a willingness to hear my side of the issue without libel. Fair enough, I will stop doing that as of right now on this board if that is your main concern.
@zogmama: ” As for the perceived inequality of women having the ability to decide or choose, it’s a direct counterbalance to the fact of rape. Perhaps it’s not a stretch to believe that abortion and rape, one controlled by women, the other controlled by men, are two equally tragic weights which balance some cosmic scale.”
Perhaps so zogmama, perhaps so. However rape is a felony punishable by anywhere from 10 years to life-imprisonment in the civilized world and is an almost sexually specific crime i.e.: men rape women. Whereas abortion is a right guaranteed to women. I fail to see any balance from that perspective socially or a “cosmic” one. I do like the wording though.
Look I am sure all of you ladies consider abortion an important issue, I do as well. However much of this discussion is based off of the idea that men and women are “equal” or are deserving of such an ideal correct? Heres my take on it.
Women base the idea of “choice” on the idea that it’s her body and her choice to decide if she wants to have a child or not. I think we can all agree upon this is the precept for legalized abortion. So women get to have abortions, which in my view is similar to prostitution, it’s been around for a loooooooong time, and I seriously doubt it’s going to go away just because someone thinks it’s “immoral” and tries to suppress it. Much better to legalize and at least make it safe for everyone involved.
I digress, so women get the right to have an abortion. Ok, moral issues aside this gives a woman the right to kill/dispose of a child that she feels she doesn’t want. I am not going to get into the science/legality of if a fetus is actually a human being at all, its not really the point of my argument and I am sure it would send many of you up in arms. When women get the “choice” they as well get the pill. Female birth control in a pill form. They get the choice to have kids either way. If they screw up with the pills, then they get abortion as well. Fair enough, sounds good to me.
Along comes the child support crusade. Apparently strong, independent, women that have a majority of “choices” in the matter of reproduction (that men don’t I might add) still haven’t stopped them from having children with men that refuse to do so. So they need support for the children that they “chose” to have. A little hypocritical but fair enough, sounds reasonable to me.
But here come us smelly, selfish, hairy, neanderthals, voicing our “misogynistic” opinions. I guess we’re not supposed to have those when it concerns children or women or us for that matter. We shouldn’t be able to have a “choice” in the matter whatsoever. That might make it “unfair” to women. You say “my body, my choice”, and yet its your decision entirely to use my body and my mind to pay for your “choice” without me having any “choice” in the matter at all.
-Strength and Honor-
October 27, 2007 at 9:12 am
My head hurts again.
October 27, 2007 at 9:53 am
You can always take a pill for that Teri
-Strength and Honor-
October 27, 2007 at 2:19 pm
“Sure their kids are sometimes good kids (sometimes not) and I realize that they are the future, and I will treat them as such, with respect, compassion, and kindness or in the case of bad ones, I will ignore them.”
That statement makes me sad. Even the bad kids are the future, and if you ignore them, they aren’t going to turn good. Oh, I realize they don’t carry your genes and you stated you find the concept of step-parenting somewhat hypocritical, but it makes me sad anyway. To be clear, I’ve had no thought of ever remarrying, and that’s a big reason why. Then again, I’m an ignorant, bleeding heart woman (and mother) who believes bad kids are made, not born.
October 27, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Abaddon ~ I did not mean to prescribe the entirety of my MABTW rant to you. I already know you are not interested in finding a woman. I do believe that ultimately, you do not want to live your life without a companion. Naturally. I am also not a fan of marriage. I did my 18 years of hard time and I think another sentence would be fairly uncomfortable.
It is also a very hard thing to be involved with someone who has children. I have a brother-in-law who approached that challenge very sensibly. He did not ride in and try to be the authority figure, but he was respected as the husband of the children’s mother. They all have very healthy and strong relationships now. Sadly, as compared to the many family situations I’ve observed, my sister is exceptional and so is her husband.
It does seem that a very small percentage of the population really is relationship material. Which only makes sense. I mean if a good mate were easy to find, why would we appreciate them when we did?
You, Abaddon, have much to work through. By your own admission. So even if you found a woman who was prepared to be a good partner, you are not quite ready to be one yourself. There is time to sort that all out. You are still young.
October 27, 2007 at 7:03 pm
I can certainly see Abaddon’s perspective. I can also see why a lot of men might feel they were a spare part rather than essential or at least important to the lives of their children.
I am not really sure how men and women can conquer this kind of hypocrisy. I think at the root of it is the assumption (as Abaddon said) that there is some sort of equality between the sexes when the reality is, there is no such thing. There are certainly aspects of our basic biology that make equality very difficult to reinforce. I have been thinking this for quite some time now, and Abaddon has hit the nail on the head for me. So, thank you for that long post – very useful.
I don’t view Abaddon as any sort of representative of MABTW at all. I would like for all in this forum treat each other as individuals.
Abaddon, your viewpoints are important because the whole idea behind this site is to get a male AND female viewpoint across. Don’t think you won’t be listened to because you are a man, I think most here are willing to at least attempt to understand.
The other aim to get men and women actually TALKING TO each other not AT each other or PAST each other. It won’t be easy, and not everyone will agree, but as long as the discussion is respectful of those involved, that is fine.
October 27, 2007 at 7:08 pm
I would also be interested to know what you would see changed? Would you rather see society actually looking at the situation and admitting that it isn’t equal, or would we have to come up with practical means of making it more equal? Is it even possible to make such a situation equal?
Bear in mind these are just thoughts off the top of my head at present. It just would be interesting to see how such an issue may possibly be rectified.
October 29, 2007 at 8:27 pm
[...] we are responsible for how the sexual revolution develops in the present and into the future Any movement that is influential in moulding the shape of the sexual revolution should not be immune… Any movement that has the potential to mould the shape of the sexual revolution should be [...]
October 30, 2007 at 11:50 pm
I don’t know if Abaddon is monitoring this thread any more, but I have a question for him or anyone who cares to weigh in on the fathers’ rights / child custody system in the US. Britney Spears lost primary custody to her ex-husband due to her failure to comply with judge’s orders (otherwise known as “the system”) regarding appropriate environment for her sons and her drug/alcohol use.
Does this not indicate that the system works (sometimes, anyway) in the best interest of the children? The judge has given primary custody to the parent who makes less money, but provides a more stable environment for the children. In this case it’s Kevin (babies’ daddy), and he voluntarily curbed his party lifestyle to work “within the system” for the benefit of his boys. I doubt that he’ll ever regret it, either.
Just my two cents.
November 4, 2007 at 3:52 am
Well, I’ve been holding back waiting to see if anyone else would put in their 2 cents, but seein’s as nobody is…I think it *does* prove the system works, and I have my own anecdotal personal experiences that back up the fact that increasingly justice in this area is gender-blind. The one dismal commonality in the Britney example and my 2 homespun examples is substance abuse…
November 5, 2007 at 1:48 am
@Emmah: Sorry for the length inbetween posts, my computer is slowly but surely making its way to the junk heap.
Ok you said: “I would also be interested to know what you would see changed? Would you rather see society actually looking at the situation and admitting that it isn’t equal, or would we have to come up with practical means of making it more equal? Is it even possible to make such a situation equal?”
I think along similar lines. I think that to seriously entertain the idea of change, people need to start THINKING differently. Political change is meaningless to me honestly. All political change reflects is a change in thinking on a broader scale. I can bring up a few items that I think need to change to stop the gender “war” or just unfairness in general.
I think that the idea that men and women are equal is bullshit. I think that we can be equal under the law, however biologically it’s never going to happen. We are different, bottom line. Much of western societies problem is what I like to call the “McDonalds” effect. We try to make everything the “same”, “equal”, ect ect. It doesn’t work. Have you noticed that everyone is fighting? Blacks on whites, whites on blacks, mexicans against blacks and whites, women against men, on and on and on. We need to stop and we need to stop NOW. Our society is becoming more and more, based upon conflict and it’s killing us. We should be basing much of familial law on WHEN, not IF. We should be concerned with HOW not WHY.
I think that both genders need to step back and seriously look at what is going on in this society. We need to look at the strife and pain that this “war” is causing. The fact that I am writing here, gives my argument creedence.
Any ideal/idea which says that we are equal, should be scrapped. We need to start recognizing that we aren’t and realizing our strengths and weaknesses. There needs to be BALANCE.
@Zogmama: “You said: I don’t know if Abaddon is monitoring this thread any more, but I have a question for him or anyone who cares to weigh in on the fathers’ rights / child custody system in the US. Britney Spears lost primary custody to her ex-husband due to her failure to comply with judge’s orders (otherwise known as “the system”) regarding appropriate environment for her sons and her drug/alcohol use.”
The only reason why this is happening is because the parents of those children are FAMOUS. They actually have money to afford a LAWYER. It’s PUBLIC, do I have to go on? They actually have to follow the RULES because everyone is WATCHING them. I have watched drug addicted mothers recieve their children again and again after they “got off of the drugs” for the fifth time. Why? They choose to do so BECAUSE they CAN zog. They know that they will be coddled either way. Why? Because no one is watching them or punishing them when they screw up. The ONE time that a women recieves “equality” in this case, and everyone makes a big noise about it. Wow, I am amazed. /sarcasm
You also said: ” Does this not indicate that the system works (sometimes, anyway) in the best interest of the children? The judge has given primary custody to the parent who makes less money, but provides a more stable environment for the children. In this case it’s Kevin (babies’ daddy), and he voluntarily curbed his party lifestyle to work “within the system” for the benefit of his boys. I doubt that he’ll ever regret it, either.”
No it doesn’t. All I see are two drug ridden addicts fighting over money and kids. Honestly zog, I have told you before and I will tell you again, the system isn’t worth working within. For every Kevin Federline, I can show you a thousand broken men that did the same thing and got screwed for it.
-Strength and Honor-
November 5, 2007 at 2:42 am
White flag, then. I could provide examples to the contrary ’til the cows come home, but you’ll focus on your POV only, Abaddon. Too bad. Teri, I hope you’ll post on your experiences, if not here, then on your blog. I do believe that the better parent sometimes prevails, and I do not believe that the system never works. Unlike some, you won’t see me preaching on ‘always’ and ‘never.’ The more mature one becomes through life’s experiences, the more open one becomes to others’ ideas and input.
November 5, 2007 at 3:07 am
My anecdotal experience: My brother-in-law now has sole custody of his 3-1/2-year-old, as the mother was addicted to crack cocaine. He did everything right, did what the courts asked him to, stuck it out while she was in rehab. She relapsed and in the process totaled a brand new truck not belonging to her, and now her parental rights are terminated, and rightly so. She was given a chance, she blew it, and justice was swift.
November 5, 2007 at 11:21 am
Fair enough Zog.
November 5, 2007 at 10:43 pm
I think that part of the trouble lies in the fact that the state or any external government owned body cannot accurately judge what is right for the child. Indeed, who always can? Is it always a clearcut choice where one parent is 100% responsible and the other not? I doubt that. In some cases it is a an agony of choice between both poor parents.
Some might argue that a child is better off looked after by a bad parent than looked after by the cold and clinical foster care/adoption service. I know that in the UK the way the system is generally run is often NOT in the best interests of the child, it just thinks it is.
I don’t know. I cannot speak from experience, but I can from observation.
I agree with Abaddon that at least the concept of equality in the sense of “men and women are the same” needs to be realigned to reality – there are certain aspects to the experience of being a man and being a woman that are by nature unfair and unequal.
That said, there are still a lot of issues that men and women share in common too. So perhaps we should start thinking along the lines of “Men and Women: The same but different?”
November 11, 2007 at 11:19 am
CatA said:
To illustrate, I bring up a boogey-lady much reviled by a certain lupine blogmaster, Margaret Sanger, and her championing of birth control.
I am sorry for bringing this up so late in the conversation, but Mararet Sanger is nothing more than a bigot and into eugenics. Why don’t you actually READ what she says CatA instead of just being a fucking lamb?
-Strength and Honor-
November 12, 2007 at 12:09 am
@Abaddon I know you are passionate and angry about this subject – there is nothing wrong with that. However calling CatA or anyone a “fucking lamb” is going too far.
November 12, 2007 at 6:12 am
Eh, don’t sweat it any on my account, Emmah, he’s not hurting my feelings. He’s just unmannerly, but that’s no surprise, I’ve seen his exchanges with zog.
Regarding M. Sanger, I guess I cannot agree with you, Abbaddon. I do think she had some sketchy ideas about eugenics, and had friendships with some who had far more extreme views on the subject than she did. My understanding is that she believed the human race to be “perfectable,” and thought that certain people should not reproduce. This was not tied to any ethnic or racial group, but rather was in regard to what she referred to as the “feeble-minded,” and was rooted in a faulty and imprecise understanding of genetics, and perhaps an overly “maternalistic” attitude; reflective of a larger paternalism. That said, my husband has 2 brothers who are “mentally challenged” or “feeble-minded” or as some on-line acquaintances have said, merely “stupid.” I would not like to see either one of these men become fathers, and neither would my husband. Does this make us devils?
I did run across one quote of hers that I found reprehensible, regarding Australian natives, and that she speculated they were a more primitive kind of human being. This was a stupid, uninformed remark and I think that were she alive now she would have come to regret it, because I think she was not an active bigot, but rather regrettably absorbed some of the prejudices of her time without examining them.
She was not without faults, but I just don’t believe she is the monster many would make her out to be, and her aim in doing what she did was to free the most vulnerable people (namely the poor) from an endless cycle of having too many children they could not afford.
As the granddaughter of a woman who had 16 pregnancies, 11 live births and 2 stillborns, was chronically ill and died in her late 40s of those illnesses, I can say I’m glad for the work Margaret Sanger did, all the while appreciating the irony that if it weren’t for my grandmother’s predicament, I probably wouldn’t be here (my mother was the 10th child). I’m glad I have had options my grandmother never had, and I’m glad Margaret Sanger prevailed against Anthony Comstock.
November 12, 2007 at 8:56 am
I confess I am a bit disappointed. Abaddon, you always seemed polite on MABTW, even to the women that were trolling. Yet here you have become very attacking towards certain posters, I would like to understand why.
November 13, 2007 at 6:34 am
My apologies CatA and Emmah. Shall I read off some of Ms. Sangers more poingant remarks or have you already had your fill of them ?
-Strength and Honor-
November 13, 2007 at 10:36 am
I don’t think that I am “attacking” anyone when I call out a known racist and bigot Emmah. The fact that CatA holds her in such regard is what makes me angry. This women has advocated the elimination of the entire black race.
Do I recite Mein Kampf? No. How is it any different Emmah?
-Strength and Honor-
November 13, 2007 at 7:37 pm
I know full well who Sanger is. Please don’t insult my intelligence, Abaddon.
You are right to attack CatA’s opinion on Sanger, I just don’t see the need to attack CatA, I believe you were. That is the issue as far as I am concerned.
November 14, 2007 at 1:54 am
I do not believe Sanger ever advocated for extermination of the black race. I think that is a particular spin some anti-abortion and other groups have put forth in their ongoing efforts to undermine any who advocate(d) for reproductive rights, though I do not level this charge at any particular commenter here.
Here, though, is a woman who would probably to label Sanger a racist, as it would go a long way to advancing her fight against Planned Parenthood, but she just cannot find the evidence:
“So, was Sanger also a racist, like Lothrop Stoddard? Sometimes pro-lifers quote editions of the magazine she founded, The Birth Control Review, in which officials from Nazi Germany were published. Others point to ominous-sounding quotes from her letters, including a letter written to Clarence J. Gamble, M.D., in which she wrote that “we don’t want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…”
But Sanger did not edit the Review during the time the Nazi articles appeared, and she frequently expressed disgust at German Fascism. The quote from the Gamble letter is also not definitive proof Sanger was a racist.
From the context, it appears as though she was (rather sloppily) explaining a misconception, not advocating racial cleansing. Moreover, she did not evince racist attitudes in other letters and speeches.
So it seems as though Sanger was a eugenicist, who wanted to restrict the “unfit” (the poor, those of supposedly lesser intelligence, or those with disabilties, etc.) from having children, but not a racist, because she did not consider members of other races “unfit” on account of their race.
So does she get off scot-free on the racism charge? Well, not quite. As we saw with the example of Lothrop Stoddard, Sanger worked with racists and did not make a move to check their racist thinking. More seriously, she also promoted a eugenic ideology that led in the end to the gas chambers. Once society starts judging who is “fit” and “unfit” and determining on that basis who should not reproduce, the inalienable value of every human being is quickly denied.”
To my mind, it would seem that if anyone could take issue with Margaret Sanger’s policies, it would be members of the physically or mentally disabled population, and here is what Ellen Chesler, author of “Woman of Valor: Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control Movement in America” has to say on this subject:
“…There would be no “cradle-competition” between the haves and have-nots, she insisted, because all women, rich and poor alike, would voluntarily limit their childbearing when presented with the option to do so. The one exception-the one population for whom enforced contraception might be necessary-were the physically or mentally incompetent, who could not themselves understand the benefits of smaller families …thus [she] refused to consider that the handicapped may also be worthy, that the rights of the individual, in any event, must reign supreme in a truly democratic society…She was, of course, not alone in these oversights…Eugenics, for the moment, remained popular with a wide range of progressive thinkers who simply failed to anticipate that the enforcement of hereditarian reforms was likely to foster the very discrimination by ethnicity, race, and class that they denounced and worked elsewhere to combat. Like Ellis [Henry Havelock Ellis] Margaret was intent that biology be incorporated into social reform as a theoretical matter, but never really came to terms with how to do so in practice…Indeed, her idealism may help explain why she so blithely invited the support of powerful eugenicists, whose underlying assumptions were a good deal more offensive than her own. It is also important to remember that eugenicism remained, for the moment, still a well-established intellectual enterprise and actually gave birth control a patina of respectability…The fierceness of her attachment to the superiority of a sexual ethic governed by science, rather than by ignorance and fear, blinded her to troubling questions about the rights of the individual to reject the behavior she prescribed.”
So I stand by my above comment. In my reading on the web about certain quotes of hers, and of the biography I quoted, I don’t think the evidence is there to make the charge that she supported racial extermination, nor do I think comparing her to Hitler is valid.
November 14, 2007 at 1:56 am
Hmm, sorry about the paragraph spacing, it’s a little messy…
November 14, 2007 at 2:04 am
Also, second paragraph should read “Here, though is a woman who would probably *love* to label Sanger a racist…”
November 16, 2007 at 11:51 pm
I’m not well read, but I daresay it seems that we should all bear in mind the context of the times in any discussion of Margaret Sanger. ‘Twas a long time ago, and while her views may not have been especially politically correct, they wouldn’t have been so shocking as we find them now, particularly as regards the ‘feeble-minded.’ Hell, I’m not ready for a nursing home yet, but I was taught in school that babies born with Down Syndrome were called ‘mongoloid.’
When all is said and done, I think that the bottom line is whether her work did more good than evil, and whether her intentions were good or evil. No Hitler, she.
November 24, 2007 at 3:36 am
Emmah, you asked….
“I have another question, however. Do we need a “type” of feminism? Could we not create an alternative to it? What would that alternative be (other than the men’s rights movement)? That is a disucssion I would like to have with someone. Can we find an alternative to mens rights vs. womens rights? I find the polarization to be part of the whole problem with gender issues.”
Here’s an answer: A Gender Balanced Society would be represented by the two genders holding hands.
With the Man’s hand understanding and holding Women’s Rights and the Women’s hand understanding and holding His.
Each needs to be caretaker of the rights of the other. The protector and champion of them.
Then we’ll have a fair society.
Just an idea.
November 24, 2007 at 3:36 am
I would avoid the idea of another “-ism”.
November 24, 2007 at 5:26 am
I’ve just finished catching up on the above 80 posts! Wow! You guys all covered a lot of ground, and passions run high, as is to be expected for it is our ideals and dreams of how life should be, and how we want it to be, that are tied up in this discussion.
As far as I am concerned, when it comes to pregnancy for a couple in a relationship the idea that only the woman is pregnant is false. She may be physically carrying the child, yes. However, I think to Gender Balance Society one should say “We are pregnant.” Not, “I am pregnant.” This statement denies reality, and shared responsibility. It marginalizes the man and his part in the creation of life, and for me, that is discrimination. The child is ours if I truly am the father. I believe I should have the right to have a DNA check to ensure that fact and that this should be an equivalent right to that of the woman’s right to give birth or not.
If there is no mutual commitment to a relationship and raising a family then: “We are not pregnant.” We however, are responsible for the birth or death of the unborn child and if the former is the choice then we are responsible for that child once delivered, and the full range of options open to us in society are at our disposal for us to consider and come to an agreement on. This is a matter for negotiation.
An interesting possibility strikes me. It is now possible for me, as a man, to have a family without having a partner in my life. All I need are eggs, a surrogate mother to carry the baby to term and my own body’s DNA package carried in my sperm. Given this is technologically possible, I don’t see any reason why I should have to have a partner. If I’m willing to raise children and have the capacity to do so, then I will explore that right and carry it out. I would not say that this would be my preferred choice, but my own experience of women is very similar to Abaddon’s. This doesn’t mean I embrace all his ideas. But I certainly understand where he is coming from. Women may not need a man to have and raise a child. But equally, I no longer need a woman to raise children for me, if I wish to and can supply and fulfill all requirements necessary to the health and future of the infant. I’m glad to know that this is possible. It opens up my options as a man to have a family–meaning to have children.
I find this rather sad to contemplate. But I do think society is heading in that direction at this point in time; apparently there are now for the first time in history, more single women on the planet than there have ever been in history.
That said, I’d rather focus on enabling relationships to work and support the idea of Gender Balancing Society and discuss how we–as men and women–can cooperate to make that happen. Focusing on the polarizing ideas that create the problem, to the exclusion of imagining how we could change those polarizing notions doesn’t seem to take things in a constructive direction.
November 26, 2007 at 2:54 pm
I feel sad for future generations of children. Ask a child of divorced or separated parents if they believe they’ve missed out on something by having a single parent. If they’re out of earshot of the parent to whom they feel most loyal, I’d be willing to bet all the money in my purse that they wish they’d had two parents to raise them.
It’s not whether you or I need another parent to conceive or raise children. It’s what’s best for the children that should remain the highest priority. Until anyone’s begun raising a child (not hypothetically, but really), the whole discussion is moot.
November 26, 2007 at 7:42 pm
I ask this question – what IS best for children? Most of the time adults don’t know what is best for themselves
It isn’t as simple as having two parents raising them – but it is also a matter of whether or not said parents are unhappy together. I think that parents that are unhappy together are not much better for children either.
There is no simple answer, unfortunately.
November 27, 2007 at 10:20 pm
[...] On Gender Movements and Their Critics « Engender Truth [...]
December 14, 2007 at 9:59 am
Emmah that subject has been up for debate for a long time. I grew up in a nuclear home myself, and can find nothing better than 2 loving parents that are focused on their family as a way to produce children that are prepared for society. I may not be the best example of it, however then again I don’t go to shopping malls and execute fellow citizens at a whim either. I also manage to hold a job as well.
What is best “for the children” you ask? Love simply put. Not money, nor power, nor gender or any of the things that the “court” puts out on its list of important items. One can be miserable in the sight of riches, and happy with the basics of life (read poor).
For the most part children love unconditionally, and that love should be returned in the same manner or in the long run, bad things tend to happen. I know this, which is why I am so passionate about this subject. I have raised my children, until I wasn’t “allowed” to. I have loved unconditionally, and was given nothing for it except a bill.
I think much of this lies within the fact that women control a great deal of the reproductive process. Perhaps if men had a “choice” or perhaps even a pill, or some form of contraceptive (besides condoms and such), much of this argument wouldn’t exist at all.
@ Cat A: Ms. Sanger is a eugenicist, which in my view, is much worse than a racist or a bigot. She advocates the “trimming” down of those that aren’t “fit”. Fit meaning fit to live. How did she plan to go about that anyways? That was never mentioned in your shiny little report. Perhaps we should all go to http://www.stormfront.org and talk about how we can solve the jewish problem while we are copiously lauding Ms. Sangers remarks.
-Strength and Honor-
December 14, 2007 at 7:29 pm
@Abaddon -I also grew up (and remain) in a nuclear family, Abaddon.
I thought those were going out of fashion, but I think they do still exist. My family are extremely important to me.
Sometimes I find the concept of “reproductive independence” utterly bizarre. Don’t take this to mean that I disagree with men getting “reproductive independence” since women can also claim the same thing but under such unfair conditions…men demand this independence as a protective reaction which is understandable, given the climate between men and women at present.
What I find most bizarre is that the act of sex is ultimately about men and women creating a life together. Like it or not, sex necessarily needs a man and a woman to achieve conception. So where the heck has this idea of ‘ sexual independence’ come from? My idea of sexual independence taken way too literally is masturbation
– jokes aside, does anyone else see how strange the whole idea of being sexually “independent” is when the sex act itself is by nature and design INTER-dependent?
Forgive me if I overlook your points on Ms. Sanger – I do know of her – but not much about her. I need to do some reading before I can count myself as armed enough for the sparring match soon to come
… it may be a good idea to continue the discussion on the Engendertruth forums if you like?
December 14, 2007 at 8:25 pm
[...] the rationale of a being with oddly designed ears! If you already think that nature is just a big joke like I sometimes do, please feel free to take a read of what Holly Lisle has to say about this [...]
December 15, 2007 at 4:48 am
Well, Emmah, I’d be glad to take it to the forums if you would prefer narrow argument on M. Sanger to not clutter up this thread. What do I have to do to get into them, just log in?
I had no idea my purpose on the Internet would be as Margaret Sanger’s champion! I really believe she was motivated by a desire for people to better their lives, and she really thought birth control was key to this. I agree with her on this. I do not think she was without flaws, but I do not think she is the demon many web sites make her out to be.
However, I’ll say no more just now, suffice it to say that “my shiny report” did not address what she would do about “trimming” the unfit, because she had no such plan. She was not what is called a “negative eugenicist,” meaning she never advocated for the extermination of any persons; rather, she believed in promoting the “fitness” of the human race by not allowing the physically or mentally incompetent to procreate. In this she was partially mistaken (this controversy still rages on), although as I brought up before I have mentally retarded brothers-in-law whom I would never want to see in a parental role. Fortunately (and somewhat sadly, too, for one of them), this is a situation that is mostly a self-limiting one; they have as yet not met any women interested in that sort of relationship with them. You must remember also that Margaret was an advocate of this kind of eugenics before anyone had seen the egregious extremes it would be taken to in Nazi Germany.
It’s odd Abaddon brings up “the Jewish problem” and storm front. Margaret, who was raised a Catholic, married a Jewish man, which could not have been that common for her day.
Awright, enough already.
December 23, 2007 at 6:27 am
A few points if you will.
Was M. Sanger a eugenicist? Yes.
Did M. Sanger advocate the death/sterilization of those considered “unfit”? This would include the mentally retarded, blacks, and the poor? Yes.
Do I have to go on? I don’t think so.
The fact that you give M. Sanger a pass, strikes me as somewhat odd. A woman whose core beliefs are at complete odds with much of western societies basic moral structure.
I mention stormfront and the “jewish” problem because these are the same people that believe in eugenics as well. You give this woman creedence simply because she is a feminist and a woman. She is a racist bottom line. Yet for some reason we are listening to how she was “pressured” into it. It’s not her fault. Many of the people she associated with were racists. Her own words condemn her and yet here we are still debating the subject.
I am sure I could come up with a “shiny report” about how Hitler improved the economy of Germany during WWII and how that was a good thing. Lets just overlook the fact that millions of people died at his hands. Lets just overlook the fact that those lines of thought have caused enough pain and hardship for millions of people.
Lets just treat humanity like a “herd” and kill off those that we consider “unfit” to breed.
-Strength and Honor-
December 23, 2007 at 6:54 pm
We will not agree on this, so I guess it’s time to drop it. I don’t believe she was a racist and as I pointed out, she never advocated the killing of people with disabilities. If I thought she was a racist and did advocate for such, I wouldn’t be defending her; I’m not a big fan of Hitler, you know.
If you read all I posted, you would see that I don’t wholesale “give her a pass.” I think she was vain and single-minded in her vision, and because of this made some bad choices (mainly in her choice of friends). Her flaw was that while she herself was not a racist, and was not a believer in negative eugenics, she didn’t speak out to condemn these beliefs in some of the people whose influence and power she courted. This was bad judgment and has given ammunition to her detractors lo these many years later.
At heart, though, I think she really wanted to ease the misery of the poor she saw around her, and she sought to do that by giving families control over their own reproduction, so they could afford to provide for the children they had. She saw it as a way to allow the poor to become upwardly mobile.
Anyway, I’m done. I said what I believe and tried to show why I believe what I believe about her. You may say my beliefs about her are mistaken; I say yours are. We have reached an impasse.
P. S. -Eugenics is still in practice, even in the West. Parents can get a test if a woman is pregnant, to see if, say, she is carrying a child with Tay-Sachs disease. If she is, the parents have the option to abort. Fortunately, through genetic screening and counseling of prospective parents, carriers can now be identified and the risks quantified. The incidence of children born with it in populations in which Tay-Sachs was prominent has plummeted. Eugenics in action, and, yes, aspects of it are still controversial.
December 24, 2007 at 5:14 am
I am going to try this one more time myself. I will use small words, and try to speak concisely.
FACT: M. Sanger was a RACIST. She affiliated with racists, and worked hand in hand with them. Her coalition if you will, targeted black communities. They also targeted poor ones as well. A persons right to live must end when he/she doesn’t seem to make it above the poverty level, or perhaps has a touch too much color in his/her skin.
M.Sanger and her coalition specifically targeted black and poor communities, hired religious and political leaders from the aforementioned communities, and used them as pawns to orchestrate her and her coalitions plans.
Her own words condemn her “We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
FACT: M.Sanger was a EUGENICIST. Personally I could care less about whether or not she was a “positive” or “negative”. It’s pretty much the same thing in my book, the only difference is time. The pattern of thought is the same. She didn’t kill them outright like Hitler did, she just wanted to exterminate them a few generations ahead by reducing their population to nothing.
As to your P.S. and the rest of your argument: I don’t deny the fact that some of her interest was in helping women gain control over their reproduction, and helping the poor as well.
However the intentions behind her reasoning were far from good at best. I fail to see why a woman who is both an acknowledged racist and bigot is basically idolized by feminism. Why we sit here and recite verse from her books as if she is some sort of hero.
I realize that eugenics is practiced in western society as well CatA. However I do believe there is a great difference between aborting a child with Tay-Sachs, or discouraging couples that are likely to have a child with Tay-Sachs, and advocating the elimination of an entire race or class through birth control or enforced sterilization.
Where exactly is she different from Hitler again? Perhaps she didn’t control an entire country, and perhaps she didn’t murder millions of people, however she sure did try didn’t she? With similar reasons as well.
-Strength and Honor-
December 24, 2007 at 5:48 am
IMPASSE.
December 24, 2007 at 11:28 am
Fair enough.
-Strength and Honor-
December 26, 2007 at 12:04 pm
@ Emmah: My apologies for the tardiness of my response to your response. You must pardon me, the holidays are a hard time for me.
“@Abaddon -I also grew up (and remain) in a nuclear family, Abaddon.
I thought those were going out of fashion, but I think they do still exist. My family is extremely important to me.”
-I agree, and this in my view is the “extended”part of the nuclear family. I think along the same lines that you do. I respect my Father and Mother and being raised as such, I believe that I deserve the same respect as a Father. This is why I am the way I am I suppose. I think that the way I feel should be a given. However I am willing to entertain different viewpoints as I have for years.
I look upon the rise of the nursing home and to be honest I am sickened by them. I agree that there are many genuine instances where older people should be instituted, however not at the rate that they are today. Parents aren’t replaceable , parents aren’t livestock. As they took care of you when you were a child so should you take care of them. Society should reflect this, however it doesn’t. Parents/Elders are considered trash for the most part.
“Emmah said:Sometimes I find the concept of “reproductive independence” utterly bizarre. Don’t take this to mean that I disagree with men getting “reproductive independence” since women can also claim the same thing but under such unfair conditions…men demand this independence as a protective reaction which is understandable, given the climate between men and women at present.”
It is bizarre in my view Emmah. The entire act itself represents a joining of the sexes. How it happens is different entirely.
“What I find most bizarre is that the act of sex is ultimately about men and women creating a life together. Like it or not, sex necessarily needs a man and a woman to achieve conception. So where the heck has this idea of ‘ sexual independence’ come from? My idea of sexual independence taken way too literally is masturbation
– jokes aside, does anyone else see how strange the whole idea of being sexually “independent” is when the sex act itself is by nature and design INTER-dependent?”
Much like the nature of life and even this society Emmah. We simply co-exist on a greater level. For a woman to say that men or fathers aren’t necessary is much like me saying that women are the same. It doesn’t work, nor will it ever. We ignore basic facts about our biology and minds when we fight this useless war. We ignore everything this planet has shown us about how we grew up here. This is how stubborn we are, we would rather fight amongst ourselves than be happy in the fact that as a species we have made it. Top of the food chain ma…
-Strength and Honor-