Down With Feminism

I've simply and calmly explained what's wrong with your attitude and what logical fallacies you commited. Nice try, though. 2/10.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

See, this is why you keep getting emotional. Now I have an attitude problem, according to you. Can you not discuss a topic without making negative comments? What has this to do with the subject-at-hand, which is feminism?

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

Don't compromise yourself. No point in flogging a dead horse.

I'm done here. Have a nice day.

sure, men can have an opinion on abortion. but they shouldn't get to decide what women do with their bodies and that's currently what's happening. men, you'll never have to go through an abortion or pregnancy, so no, your thoughts on the subject are not nearly as crucial, in my humble opinion

__________________
letterboxd

Well, as a straight woman you will most probably never want to marry a person of the same sex. That being said, I think your opinion on the matter of same sex marriages is not that crucial.

sounds good to me.

Whether or not an unborn child is part of "their bodies" is the entire point of dispute, so nothing is really argued by simply asserting that it is. It's the equivalent of me saying "sure, women get to control their bodies, but they shouldn't get to decide a baby should die, and that's currently what's happening."

I think there are a few clear problems with this:

First, I doubt you'd care to apply this logic in other contexts. Does a non-soldier's opinion on whether to go to war matter less? How about a non-police-officer's on the issue of bruality? How about a poor person's on how taxes are spent?

Second, I don't know what it means to say it's not "as crucial." It's not any more or less logically valid, and doesn't become so based on the gender of the speaker.

Third, this implies a gender split which doesn't actually exist: women are generally more likely to be pro-life than men, not less.

What makes you think this?

i know; i'm obviously arguing from the standpoint of thinking it's not a baby.


lol here we go

war effects every citizen in this country; whether or not a woman decides to kill the fetus growing inside her, not so much.

i'm not sure what you mean by the police officer one; wouldn't a non-citizen's opinion mean more, since they're the ones being brutalized?

ok, but i'd still rather see more women and less men in the position of power on this ****, regardless.

I mean, we could all just assume we're right and say things based on that which have no applicability otherwise, but why bother? If I told you I thought you were okay killing babies, would you think that was a fair, productive, and worthwhile thing for me to say?

Yeah, there goes that pesky Yoda, responding to what people say with measured, relevant objections. I'm such a pill.

There's no way you can think this is a scalable principle. Do you get to have an opinion on the death penalty, even though whether or not an inmate is injected tomorrow doesn't directly effect you?

Everybody in a free society has a stake in whether or not innocent people are killed. Of course they do.

In this analogy, the comparison is the "you'll never have to go through this" part. The implication, it seems, is that men's opinion should count for less because they'll never have to face the decision. Similarly, those of us who are not police officers never have to face the danger of not knowing if someone has a gun or wants to harm them, etc.

Even if they were pro-life? Are you generally happy when Republican women are elected?

There was a Marist poll last year that showed women were more likely to think that abortion should never be allowed, and that it should only be allowed early in pregnancy, for example.

It gets thornier if you try to boil it down to just pro-life or pro-choice because most Americans are somewhere between the "always" and "never" camps. But there are surveys that have it the other way. So let's just say it's roughly even (which many, many surveys show). That's enough to establish that trying to frame this as a gender issue doesn't really work. You're as likely to guess someone's position on abortion by flipping a coin as you are by knowing their gender, so it's obviously not something as simple as men lacking empathy, or whatever the underlying implication is.

i literally said 'in my humble opinion' for a reason. i mean, we can argue whether or not it's a baby or a fetus, but... actually no we can't. or we wont. or i won't, anyway. cause we've done this before.

how dare you.

yeah i get to have an opinion. that part was worded weird. like, i've never said they shouldn't get an opinion. in fact, i said the opposite.

i don't disagree.

i guess. but for me the analogy doesn't work because both are people in yours and in mine, i only see one as a person.

i mean yeah. i honestly think if more women were in charge, you'd see more women supporting abortion. no i ain't got source on this, but i do feel like a lot of women who are pro-life are influenced by their husbands or fathers or whatever

Not sure if you’re referring to me, but I never implied that men are lacking empathy.

As a Roman Catholic, I hardly dare discuss my views with members of our congregation. In fact, it’s best not to. Having no children is rather frowned upon, let alone my pro-life stance.

It’s wrong to abort a fetus. No question about that, IMO. But, I will not tell another woman what to do with her body & her life. That would be hubris in the extreme, IMO. Ergo, I feel that no man should give his opinion either. And he definitely should not pass laws prohibiting abortion.

My beef with the pro-life folks is that they infantilize a woman by taking away her right to choose & then they give her an infant to take care of. An infant she never wanted.

And don’t get me started on the people who terrorize women (and murder doctors) when they go to the abortion clinic for their procedure.

That’s about all I am going to say on the subject. I’ve gone way off topic.

Eh, sort of. For all the talk on here about abortion, often with the same people, I'm genuinely struggling to think of sustained discussions that were about the actual point of disagreement, as opposed to people just sort of swiping at each other from some layer of abstraction or questioning each other's motives ("you just want to control women"/"shoulda thought of that before you had sex"/whatever).

I've been trying to get bitchier. I think it's going well.

Yeah, my response was phrased wrong too, actually. My bad. Rephrased: is your opinion on the death penalty "less crucial" because you're not the one on death row?

It seems like you must on some level, if you're saying people's opinions on this can matter less because of their gender.

My general posture is that living in a free society means everyone gets a 100% equal say (at least in theory, if not always in practice) in all things that effect that society, full stop, no exceptions, and no dilutions. No ranks or tiers, officially or unofficially, especially on big questions of life and death and the general kind of place we want to be.

Whether or not the unborn count as people is just as much a universal question as when people become legal adults or are allowed to vote. Moreso, really, since the risks of getting it wrong are so much worse.

You don't need to agree with me about that for this part, though. We're establishing a principle about whether people's opinions matter more or less based on how much something personally affects them. If not having to face possible criminals and violence each day doesn't dilute your opinion on whether an officer's reaction is reasonable, not having to face a possible pregnancy doesn't dilute a man's opinion on whether or not unborn children are people.

Oof. This is a pretty disdainful thing to say. I know a lot of very intelligent, very independent women who would not take kindly to being told their beliefs on this were not entirely their own. I'm married to one of them, and was raised by another.

Nope, wasn't referring to you. Possibly not even anyone here. It's a response to any attempt to frame this as a gender dispute, or implying that a man's inability to be pregnant makes his opinion on personhood less meaningful.

I would think that even pro-choice people would be able to acknowledge what a unique problem pregnancy, with two human bodies occupying the same space, presents for issues of bodily autonomy, but they seem to always take a hardline approach of "nope, not a human at all, no issue, just her body." I find it difficult to believe most pro-choice people literally believe this. It seems more like a way to nip the whole argument in the bud, to pick an unnervingly appropriate idiom.

I don't think women are infantilized by not being given carte blanche over the unborn any more than I'm not infantilized by not being allowed to control anyone else's fate. But if they are, men are certainly being infantilized under current law, too, given that they're reduced to spectators, yet simultaneously obligated to support the child even if it's birthed against their wishes.

Anyway, I've said this before, but if you offered pro-life activists and politicians an abortion ban in exchange for a massive increase in child welfare programs and adoption, they'd jump at it in the same heartbeat that began at six weeks.

You know what, you're just a liar.

Ad hominem attacks are not allowed here.

I'm genuinely unsure of where to draw the line on that one, since it's sort of a claim about the content of what someone is saying and not just straight name calling. But let's err on the side of civility when possible: if you think someone is lying, just say that, as opposed to extrapolating it into "liar."

Thanks in advance.

The issue with feminism is that its a term thats been bastardized because people have different interpretations on what it is like with gender and racism. Also i think people become to sensitive when discussing it no matter what side of the issue your on it seems like someones ready to jump in and attack. I know as someone generally on what would be called the anti sjw side ive found myself ready to flame someone who I technically agreed with and ive had people do the same to me.

Yeah well, when someone is just going to deny what they said and did immediately after saying it, I don't know what else to call it.