Women's Rights, Equality and Politics

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

And once again, I'm sick of and done with your baseless accusations of mistreatment when in fact you are the one peppering your responses with insults and character aspersions. See ya around.

Ciao.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

But, is it still relevant to you?

To an extent. Why does that matter though, I am not the only woman in the world. Feminism is to benefit all of us, not just me.

May you have a career

Yes, but I make less for the same work than my male colleagues and always have. I have to work harder to be recognized and promoted. I am also called a bitch when a man would be called assertive, and not taken seriously by many men I meet in business dealings. This is true of many career women.

and be a slut?

Yes, but sexually free women are denigrated by our society.

Does anybody fault you for that, does anybody say you cannot, is there any men or laws that are dominating you and standing in your way in this regard?

Those were just some examples, not a complete list and not necessarily a personal list.

But yes, there are laws regarding prostitution, abortion access and combat- just to name a few things-that prevent women from self determination.

In the US, social services are very lacking and women find themselves forced to work when they might rather be home with their children, millions of women have no health insurance which is very important for prenatal and childbirth among other things.

Anyway, there are women elsewhere in the world who cannot even leave their homes. I, personally, I have a fairly large amount of freedom, bought for me by the feminists before me. That doesn't change the fact that women elsewhere do not share those freedoms with me, so I am a feminist for them as well.

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

To an extent. Why does that matter though, I am not the only woman in the world. Feminism is to benefit all of us, not just me.

I think what benefits women, men and children is what benefits women, men and children. I don't know that we disagree.

Yes, but I make less for the same work than my male colleagues and always have. I have to work harder to be recognized and promoted. I am also called a bitch when a man would be called assertive, and not taken seriously by many men I meet in business dealings. This is true of many career women.

And you can prove that there is no other reason for that other than because of gender inequality?

Yes, but sexually free women are denigrated by our society.

By women or men?

But yes, there are laws regarding prostitution, abortion access and combat- just to name a few things-that prevent women from self determination.

I would argue that abortion laws deny people their basic right to life which is more important but who am I to really have an opinion on that that disagrees with you on that matter.

In the US, social services are very lacking and women find themselves forced to work when they might rather be home with their children, millions of women have no health insurance which is very important for prenatal and childbirth among other things.

Yeah, I think that sucks though I consider women persons and therefore humanism should be fighting that fight.

Anyway, there are women elsewhere in the world who cannot even leave their homes. I, personally, I have a fairly large amount of freedom, bought for me by the feminists before me. That doesn't change the fact that women elsewhere do not share those freedoms with me, so I am a feminist for them as well.

My problem is that in this case you have defined feminism at least by a Pro-Choice stance. See, we're having problems with definitions, I wonder if you could help me with that so that I can say whether or not I'm feminist.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

Really? Wow, I'm sure it's all the Church's fault.

The RCC's stance on birth control leaves millions of women with the undesireable choice of going against their religious beliefs or actively choosing the size of their family.

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The RCC's stance on birth control leaves millions of women with the undesireable choice of going against their religious beliefs or actively choosing the size of their family.

Or using NFP, abstinance, taking responsibility for their own choices based on a natural law that sex causes pregnancy, it is not soley recreation for sale.

[Beth]

Well, I got pregnant using NPF, so I don't really see it as reliable enough for me.

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by Beth

Well, I got pregnant using NPF, so I don't really see it as reliable enough for me.

Yeah, it's not a hundred percent.

That's why Catholicism still supports it, it's still open to the creation of life, trying to space births using natural means.

My Mom conceived me while she was menstruating, even though that's gross to talk or think about, she shouldn't have gotten pregnant and according to NFP she should have been safe but that didn't happen and here I am.

I got pregnant with my third child just after I finished breast feeding my second, talk about an accident that one was and yet, my son is my precious little guy. He's just infatuated with me.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

I think what benefits women, men and children is what benefits women, men and children. I don't know that we disagree.

We don't. I am a humanist as well. I consider feminism a subset of humanism, so we don't disagree there, either.

And you can prove that there is no other reason for that other than because of gender inequality?

I can evidence it, if you'd like. There are many studies regarding pay and promotion disparities between the genders in all kinds of fields.

By women or men?

Both in many cases. I think it's an unfair societal dictate.

I would argue that abortion laws deny people their basic right to life which is more important

We disagree on this issue for two reasons.
1. Our definitions of personhood are different
2. Our feelings regarding the rights of persons are different

but who am I to really have an opinion on that that disagrees with you on that matter.

You can certainly disagree with me on the abortion issue and have your own opinion, that is your right as a person and a woman. I am not sure why you threw this in.

Yeah, I think that sucks though I consider women persons and therefore humanism should be fighting that fight.

True, but women and children suffer disproportionately, and "humanism" doesn't seem to have much hold in our political arena.

My problem is that in this case you have defined feminism at least by a Pro-Choice stance.

No, I didn't. I gave you an example of some laws that go against women's self determination.

See, we're having problems with definitions, I wonder if you could help me with that so that I can say whether or not I'm feminist.

I defined it for you. How you read into it is your choice.

Here it is again. "My idea of feminism is self-determination, and it's very open-ended: every woman has the right to become herself, and do whatever she needs to do. "

If you need to be pro-life, I support your right to hold that opinion. If you want to be a stay at home mom, I support that too. I support your right to do and think as you want.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

Or using NFP, abstinance, taking responsibility for their own choices based on a natural law that sex causes pregnancy, it is not soley recreation for sale.

NFP has a dismal failure rate. And I am including married people, not just recreational sex. Abstinence isn't much of an option in marriage.

There are Catholic women in poor countries who can't afford that failure rate, one more mouth to feed can make or break the survival of a family in some situations, sweetie. Just because you could afford your third who was an "oops", doesn't mean everyone can.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

Really? Wow, I'm sure it's all the Church's fault.

Uh, no... it's not all the Church's fault, but the Church is a major and visible player in the dissemination of such information, making it culpable. But it's not alone; it's right in there with all the other fundamentalist shades of theistic ignorance and stupidity.

So... If you don't want abortion, don't get one. It's that easy.

It's not for you, or anyone other than the woman and her physician, to determine how any pregnant woman may approach the issue.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

Yeah, it's not a hundred percent.

That's why Catholicism still supports it, it's still open to the creation of life, trying to space births using natural means.

Most methods of contraception are not a hundred percent. Why aren't they all supported? My current girlfriend got pregnant (21 years ago) with a Copper 7 in place.

[natasha]

There are Catholic women in poor countries who can't afford that failure rate, one more mouth to feed can make or break the survival of a family in some situations, sweetie. Just because you could afford your third who was an "oops", doesn't mean everyone can.

They could afford it if they had enough faith and prayed hard enough. God provides. Also, if they can't control their sexual urges -- and it's mostly the man, because women don't have any -- then they deserve what they get. Plus, they need to make more offerings in church to ensure their method of birth control works correctly. But then, attempting to control the rate of birth is wrong, so, they get what's coming to them for being so selfish by wanting to have sex without procreation.

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Uh, no... it's not all the Church's fault, but the Church is a major and visible player in the dissemination of such information, making it culpable. But it's not alone; it's right in there with all the other fundamentalist shades of theistic ignorance and stupidity.

So... If you don't want abortion, don't get one. It's that easy.

It's not for you, or anyone other than the woman and her physician, to determine how any pregnant woman may approach the issue.

Where are the thread police just when you need 'em?

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

Where are the thread police just when you need 'em?

You're the one who insisted this discussion of feminism be about abortion. What are you complaining about?

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

You're the one who insisted this discussion of feminism be about abortion. What are you complaining about?

It's not abortion but the definition of feminism is, right? And if there has been any arguement about abortion, I didn't start it.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

It's not abortion but the definition of feminism is, right? And if there has been any arguement about abortion, I didn't start it.

Actually, from what I can tell, it looks as though you introduced the topic here:

Originally Posted by Sweetie

My problem is that in this case you have defined feminism at least by a Pro-Choice stance. See, we're having problems with definitions, I wonder if you could help me with that so that I can say whether or not I'm feminist.

That's post #132, in response to Brandi. Brandi subsequently denied the claim you made in this post, and my perusal of the posts in this thread supports that denial as well.

I would also note that pro-choice does not define feminism. There are anti-abortion women who are feminists as well. I would say that it seems as though a sizeable majority of women who are feminists are pro-choice, as self-determination and self-actualization are cornerstones of feminism, and an anti-abortion stance as the result of following what a church directs, like so many clueless sheep, is antithetical to feminism, at least as I understand it.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

And if there has been any arguement about abortion, I didn't start it.

From Post #3 on this thread:

Originally Posted by Sweetie in response to Adora's OP

Then you argued:

"because of the gross gender imbalance in society, males have had more free time, privilege and resources to become part of the political system."

Which is just great but has very little meaning in a world where anti-lifers have already had the victory, where women run and win offices and where women hold positions of power. They have the free time, priveledge and resources to become part of the political system today so what happened before is of very little account when it's the Pro-Life movement of today that we are speaking of.

If that isn't about abortion, I don't know what it's about.

[Adora]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

And if there has been any arguement about abortion, I didn't start it.

Actually, you did Sweetie. I made this thread to seperate your claims about women in politics and social equality from the abortion thread, but because you had no ability to back up your claims of supposed equality and political same-footing, you constantly and pointlessly drew the issue back to abortion.

You've made your bed, now sleep in it. See VM's post about your comments and "anti-lifers".

Originally Posted by Godfry

as self-determination and self-actualization are cornerstones of feminism

*twitches* Sorry Godfry, just a bone to pick: "Self-Actualisation" didn't enter the vocabulary of feminism (or anything else, for that matter) until the 70s Human Potential Movement. And just as a random aside: I really fucking hate the concept, and more often than not, actual psychological philosophies of "self-actualisation" have run counter to feminism, since it reduces social problems to individual ones and therefore removes the possibility for wider political and social change. I just prefer to use the term female autonomy, since it's the real cornerstone phrase that has constantly been used since feminism first formed properly in the 1800s, and doesn't have so much, er, pop-psychology baggage attached to it. Many may argue that they're the same thing, but I don't. Dunno if you've got me ignored or not... but I figure I may as well point it out anyway...

[godfry n. glad]

Adora!

I've never placed you on ignore.

I will accept your correction. However, I don't particularly care for the "autonomy" term, as it carries a connotation of of separatism that I personally dislike. As for self-actualization, I didn't use it as exactingly as did you and I am a product of the 1970s, when I reached adulthood and women became a more important part of my life. My usage was meant to convey that women have the capability to develop their own identities, and are free of being reflections of their fathers or husbands. It may well have been a misusage on my part.

I'm not familiar with the "autonomy" usage. My studies of the American Woman Sufferage movement seem to show more of a push to empowerment and economic enfranchisement. They wanted a piece of the action, rather than autonomy as I understand it. In the 19th century in the US, many of the activists for woman sufferage come from christian women volunteers. A healthy number of these came from the Women's Christian Temperance Union, activists in attempting to reduce domestic violence against women. Quite unsurprisingly, the liquor industry was the most visible deep pocket opponent of women's sufferage.

The focus of the 1970s renaissance of women's activists, as I remember it, was access to economic power. Earning power and boardroom power. Equal pay for equal work. It still is, for that matter, but those who would take control of women's decisions about their own bodies has taken an inordinate amount of time and energy away from what I consider a more important objective. You see, I still think that abortion should be a non-issue. If you object to abortions, don't use them and educate others as to viable and workable options....there is no need to prohibit abortion entirely. To do so is to force your morals on others.

I think every pregnant woman should have the decision of what to do with her life. She can choose to have the child and raise it (but I would recommend another adult presence and home care of children until they are at least five years of age), have the child and adopt it out, have the child and sell it, or abort the fetus. That choice is hers.

[Adora]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

However, I don't particularly care for the "autonomy" term, as it carries a connotation of of separatism that I personally dislike.

Eh, that's cool. I guess it's just a personal preferences thing, really. In the end, they both really mean the same thing - an individual's ability to be their own person free from damaging negative social prejudices. One's just from a more moden historical context that I have "issues" with.

It may well have been a misusage on my part.

Nono, that's cool. You got it right. It's just a hangup I have with the term.

I'm not familiar with the "autonomy" usage. My studies of the American Woman Sufferage movement seem to show more of a push to empowerment and economic enfranchisement.

Which one such as myself would argue was part of the wider movement for autonomy. The way I understand the term (autonomy) to mean when applied to feminism was things like economic independence from husbands and patriachal relations (ie- economic enfranchisement) and social empowerment through trying to stop people defining Woman-as-'Other'-to-Man. It's the overarching philosophy most feminists have of woman-as-woman (the way men had it, being the Default), rather than woman-as-opposite-to-man and man-as-opposite-to-woman etc, without the requirement of the dualistic prejudice.

And the ignore thing was just because I'd lost track of who had put me on ignore, who had me on ignore-lite (heh), and who didn't.

[livius drusus]

The HH/Sweetie/Scarlatti discussion was split to this thread.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Adora

And the ignore thing was just because I'd lost track of who had put me on ignore, who had me on ignore-lite (heh), and who didn't.

You can keep track of who has placed you on ignore? Is that one of the options here? What's "ignore-lite"?

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

You can keep track of who has placed you on ignore? Is that one of the options here? What's "ignore-lite"?

She's able to keep track to some extent due to the fact that a couple people have announced that they have her on ignore. There's no way to tell who has you on ignore otherwise. Ignore-lite is ignoring without the use of the software ignore feature.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

She's able to keep track to some extent due to the fact that a couple people have announced that they have her on ignore. There's no way to tell who has you on ignore otherwise. Ignore-lite is ignoring without the use of the software ignore feature.

Oh, okay. Nevermind.

[livius drusus]

Ignore-lite is ignoring without the use of the software ignore feature.

I thought it was having someone on ignore but clicking on "View this post" enough that you kinda read their posts anyway.