Feminism discussion

[Res]

The ease of pregnancy and labor is really dependent from person to person... there's plenty of people it's not easy for, and it's always less easy than for a man. You can give the other partner a say but the ultimate decision has to be the pregnant person's to make.

[Tryhard]

Pregnancy and labor are easy compared to the actual raising of children. Once a man helps conceive a child, he's on the hook for the financial well being of the child at the very least. If he's not ready to be a parent psychologically or financially yet, he's SOL, and has no say. Conversely, if the women does not want the child, and the man does, he has no say.

I think both men and women should have a say. Many of the most vocal women on the subject I've interacted with have never had children either, but I don't want to think my experience in actually having kids makes me the end-all be-all authority on the subject. But just as I hate it when people try to ignore or silence me or whatever for being a women, I hate it when people try to say a man's opinion is any less valid because he doesn't have a uterus.

While raising a child is no small feat on its own, it isn't really related to abortion. Not that I think that a man is expected to pay for the childs wellbeing isn't unfair. Otherwise, I did say I was against men being told that it doesn't concern them at all because they are a man.

But if the man wants to abort the child, and the woman does not, his word should probably not count for as much as the womans who is carrying the child, as the only thing you can do is force the woman to abort the child, and she loses her autonomy from that.

[Augestein]

My stance does partially come from my bi-cultural experiences and partially from experiences of many other women. If nothing I say can convince you the effects of patriarchy then we'll have to agree to disagree.

It's not necessarily that I disagree with you on the case of what you're saying,because stuff like this:

Cooking is actually fairly easy--in the domestic sphere, it's seen as a woman's job. In the professional arena, it's actually one of the most hostile fields for women out there. This is due to, at least in part, that in the case of cooking, it's only a woman's job when it's done for free--which brings up another issue, which is the systemic devaluing of domestic labor. Domestic labor is seen as "less than" professional labor partially because it's historically attributed to women, and partially because it's unpaid. I feel that if there's some kind of subsidization for parents to stay at home for their child, perhaps that would incentivize parents of either gender to become stay-at-home parents more, since the impact of losing another salary would not be as strong and financially they would not be solely dependent on their spouses.

I believe in all honestly that I'd have to be completely insane to disagree with this. My question was more of a question to get a grasp on your beliefs on the subject (primarily because the first thing I quoted prompted me to reflect on my own thoughts, and second because I wanted to hear another opinion on the matter) -- I apologize if I've come off as rather problematic in my questioning. I also know a chef as well, and she has talked to me about the problems in her field at moments as well. It's why I actually chose the example because I have some knowledge on the subject already.

My stance does partially come from my bi-cultural experiences and partially from experiences of many other women. If nothing I say can convince you the effects of patriarchy then we'll have to agree to disagree.

However, we can agree to disagree on some aspects, because I just don't think the true issue is a patriarchal one necessarily even if historically there is a bit of a correlation with it. There are enough people in my eyes that don't receive its benefit to its existence to where I feel strongly enough to say that the issue is not entirely a patriarchal one. Or at least, not enough to bother with that as a problem. I feel as though using males primarily in society is one of those aspects that keeps the power vacuum as tightly knit as possible -- it automatically ostracizes an entire subgroup without even having to consider them. I can see how one can come to the conclusion of "patriarchy" on it, so it's not as though I cannot understand why you feel that way.

As for everyone else, I apologize if I kinda derailed it a bit on that note.

While raising a child is no small feat on its own, it isn't really related to abortion. Not that I think that a man is expected to pay for the childs wellbeing isn't unfair. Otherwise, I did say I was against men being told that it doesn't concern them at all because they are a man.

But if the man wants to abort the child, and the woman does not, his word should probably not count for as much as the womans who is carrying the child, as the only thing you can do is force the woman to abort the child, and she loses her autonomy from that.

It's one of those parts that's hard to determine all around. If we give the man the chance to abort and the woman does not, at best, we can have a man not having to raise or take care of the child while the woman does. Painful, but not as undesirable as the reverse.

On the flip side, if a man wants to have a child and the woman doesn't, the child is effectively terminated. The man can't raise the child because the child can't be conceived, but forcing someone to carry a child for someone else to birth it comes across as even more unethical because as stated, the woman in question loses her autonomy. ... Honestly the right answer seems to be find a way to safely create an artificial womb in this case... Which seems to be coming along quite nicely (I'm not savey on birthing children so I may be wrong on this however). I'm sure both parties wouldn't be entirely upset about that-- well at least not about the fate of the child if the woman doesn't have to pay for her offspring.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Augestein

[Rezzy]

The ease of pregnancy and labor is really dependent from person to person... there's plenty of people it's not easy for, and it's always less easy than for a man. You can give the other partner a say but the ultimate decision has to be the pregnant person's to make.

Oh, it's not easy for me either. I've felt like absolute crap for the last month or so. I try to stay positive, though. :D

Maybe it's the idealist in me, but I believe that both parents should play an equal role in raising the children, and I feel it's not fair on my part to expect the father to care for the children if he has no say one way or the other in the pregnancy or the future of the child.

While raising a child is no small feat on its own, it isn't really related to abortion. Not that I think that a man is expected to pay for the childs wellbeing isn't unfair. Otherwise, I did say I was against men being told that it doesn't concern them at all because they are a man.

But if the man wants to abort the child, and the woman does not, his word should probably not count for as much as the womans who is carrying the child, as the only thing you can do is force the woman to abort the child, and she loses her autonomy from that.

I would never advocate for the man to be able to force the woman to abort. I guess I should have been clearer. What I think a solution that would be fair would being able to let the man be able to surrender his parental rights and not be liable for child support payments in that case. As is, it's easier for a mother to surrender her parental rights, and I've known several women who have done so, but no men, so I'm not sure if that's even an option for them.

[Tryhard]

I would never advocate for the man to be able to force the woman to abort. I guess I should have been clearer. What I think a solution that would be fair would being able to let the man be able to surrender his parental rights and not be liable for child support payments in that case. As is, it's easier for a mother to surrender her parental rights, and I've known several women who have done so, but no men, so I'm not sure if that's even an option for them.

Hmm, what about the opposite, then? The woman wants to abort and the man does not. There is nothing that the man can do to stop the woman from going forward with the abortion procedure (as far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong) aside from trying to use his word to convince the woman not to. Aside from personal consequences (ending the relationship), the man really can't have much say in whether the child is aborted or not, right?

Edit: Augestein more or less brought up this point above.

[Rezzy]

Hmm, what about the opposite, then? The woman wants to abort and the man does not. There is nothing that the man can do to stop the woman from going forward with the abortion procedure (as far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong) aside from trying to use his word to convince the woman not to. Aside from personal consequences (ending the relationship), the man really can't have much say in whether the child is aborted or not, right?

Edit: Augestein more or less brought up this point above.

That's a situation that I dislike currently and am sorry I don't have a good solution to. Maybe offering some financial incentive to the women to carry the baby to term, then hand over the child to the father and surrendering parental rights. Until technology advance to the place we have viable incubators or artificial wombs, that's the best I can think of right now.

[Moblin Major General]

That's a situation that I dislike currently and am sorry I don't have a good solution to. Maybe offering some financial incentive to the women to carry the baby to term, then hand over the child to the father and surrendering parental rights. Until technology advance to the place we have viable incubators or artificial wombs, that's the best I can think of right now.

The ethical problem with artificial wombs is that it might take away from natural conception paired with artificial insemenation, therefore theoretically having an endless gene pool to select your child from and that child knowing neither of his or her birth parents even know that they exist, along with other, less ethical practices. There is much good in artificial mammal incubation, but is there not grave potential for evil in its misuse?

[Rezzy]

The ethical problem with artificial wombs is that it might take away from natural conception paired with artificial insemenation, therefore theoretically having an endless gene pool to select your child from and that child knowing neither of his or her birth parents even know that they exist, along with other, less ethical practices. There is much good in artificial mammal incubation, but is there not grave potential for evil in its misuse?

There is potential is with just about everything, but I don't find artificial wombs or incubators evil in and of themselves. It takes away a lot of the health risk involved with pregnancy, and seems to be the next logical step for in vitro fertilization.

I think genetic engineering is a different issue entirely, if that's what you're worried about.

[Res]

Can't that already happen? You can use a donor egg and donor sperm in combination, after all.

Also, in much lighterhearted feminist news, first man, James Charles, to be the face of CoverGirl.

[Rezzy]

Can't that already happen? You can use a donor egg and donor sperm in combination, after all.

Yeah, that's been available for decades. I thought Hylian's apprehension might have been about "designer kids" or selectively picking the genes for kids, rather than making them the old fashioned way.

Also, in much lighterhearted feminist news, first man, James Charles, to be the face of CoverGirl.

My pop culture awareness is null, but who's that?

[Res]

Yeah, that's been available for decades. I thought Hylian's apprehension might have been about "designer kids" or selectively picking the genes for kids, rather than making them the old fashioned way.

My pop culture awareness is null, but who's that?

He's a 17 year old makeup artist!

[Rezzy]

He's a 17 year old makeup artist!

Ah, when I saw "First Man" I was thinking it was the husband of the Prime Minister or something

[Res]

So Save the Children compiled a ranking of 'best countries to be a girl' based primarily on the following factors:

Adolescent pregnancy rate

Maternal death rate during birth

Number of female politicians

Secondary school completion

The U.S. is ranked #32:

While the USA, the world’s biggest economy, ranks at number 8 in the HDI, it is at position 32 in our index, below Algeria and Kazakhstan. As well as women’s representation in parliament, the USA is let down by relatively high adolescent fertility and maternal mortality rates compared to other countries in its income group. Fourteen women died per 100,000 live births in the USA in 2015; a similar number to Uruguay and Lebanon, and far higher than the three deaths per 100,000 in Poland, Greece and Finland.

Most countries are struggling to achieve gender parity among MPs, regardless of the size of their economy. Only three of the countries with the highest proportion of female MPs are high income countries – Sweden, Finland and Spain. Rwanda tops the table with 64% of female MPs, followed by Bolivia and Cuba. In contrast, only 19% of MPs in the USA are women, and only 29% in the UK.

The top 15 as ranked are all European countries (this personally does not surprise me at all):

1 Sweden

2 Finland

3 Norway

4 Netherlands

5 Belgium

6 Denmark

7 Slovenia

8 Portugal

9 Switzerland

10 Italy

11 Spain

12 Germany

13 Austria

14 Luxembourg

15 United Kingdom

I thought it was interesting, although the selection criteria is pretty, well, selective. Adolescent pregnancies, for example, aren't in themselves negative, and are definitely cultural. And access to good-quality healthcare, for example, is pretty abysmal in the U.S. in general, for both men and women.

[Rezzy]

So Save the Children compiled a ranking of 'best countries to be a girl' based primarily on the following factors:

Adolescent pregnancy rate

Maternal death rate during birth

Number of female politicians

Secondary school completion

The U.S. is ranked #32:

The top 15 as ranked are all European countries (this personally does not surprise me at all):

1 Sweden

2 Finland

3 Norway

4 Netherlands

5 Belgium

6 Denmark

7 Slovenia

8 Portugal

9 Switzerland

10 Italy

11 Spain

12 Germany

13 Austria

14 Luxembourg

15 United Kingdom

I thought it was interesting, although the selection criteria is pretty, well, selective. Adolescent pregnancies, for example, aren't in themselves negative, and are definitely cultural. And access to good-quality healthcare, for example, is pretty abysmal in the U.S. in general, for both men and women.

What are they defining as adolescent? There's a big difference between getting pregnant at 14 and 19.

[Res]

From the looks of it, it seems to be based on the 15-19 age group.

[Rezzy]

From the looks of it, it seems to be based on the 15-19 age group.

Yeah, I don't think their criteria are that great. Having children at 18-19 is, like you said, a cultural thing, and biologically, it's a lot healthier than having kids at 38-39.

In general, I think the best countries to be a woman are also the best countries to be a man. I think they put way too much emphasis on women in government. I'm tired of people saying my politician needs a vagina to represent me. I think the only real criterion that they use that means much is maternal mortality. Child marriage would depend what they mean by child, if 18 or older than it's just as meaningless as their adolescent maternity. Completed secondary education being lower would depend on how much lower it is. If it's like a 45/55 split that could simply be a cultural thing. In the US, there's actually more women than men entering college, now.

I think things like female life expectancy and things like laws prohibiting honor killing or allowing female drivers would be a better gauge for countries it's best to be a woman in.

[Res]

Did you read the political section? (I know it's a long paper). While I don't feel that a politician has to be a woman in order to represent me, I would like to see a more even split of politicians in general (this also goes for race - 80% of congress in the U.S. is male and also 80% of congress is white, for example). I suspect that having a higher proportion of women able to speak up in countries that do have honor killings and ban women from driving would help solve those issues. Relevant bit:

The lack of opportunities and capacities that girls have to influence policy-making directly is exacerbated by their lack of indirect representation by female politicians and leaders. Evidence shows that having a higher proportion of female leaders in public office is linked to policies that better address the needs of girls and women. A poll of members of parliament revealed that female parliamentarians were more likely to prioritise social issues, such as childcare, equal pay, parental leave, and pensions; physical concerns, such as reproductive rights, physical safety, and gender-based violence; and development issues, such as poverty reduction and service delivery. Across the OECD, countries with more female legislators spend more on education.

The rest of the page also remarks upon how the representation of women in higher positions trickles down to gender roles in the home, and thus affects how long women stay in school, etc.

[Rezzy]

Did you read the political section? (I know it's a long paper). While I don't feel that a politician has to be a woman in order to represent me, I would like to see a more even split of politicians in general (this also goes for race - 80% of congress in the U.S. is male and also 80% of congress is white, for example). I suspect that having a higher proportion of women able to speak up in countries that do have honor killings and ban women from driving would help solve those issues. Relevant bit:

The rest of the page also remarks upon how the representation of women in higher positions trickles down to gender roles in the home, and thus affects how long women stay in school, etc.

I take each candidate on a case by case basis, regardless of gender. I believe that as long as women have no legal barriers to running, I'm fine with whatever percentage of women we end up with. As ideally, that will mean the best candidates won. I've seen some of the more extreme feminists suggest there be a quota for a percentage of women in government, which seems to run contrary to democracy.

I much rather would have had Carly Fiorina than Trump as the Republican candidate, but I would have rather had Bernie Sanders than Hillary as the Democrat candidate. I think it's definitely a problem if we so no women in government, but since we're electing individuals, I think it's too broad a brush to instinctively favor one gender or the other. I think the trend will naturally move closer to even as time goes on, but I'm not sure if it will ever be 50/50.

Maybe I should run for president myself, in a few years. Then I can have a female candidate whose view I agree with. Rezzy 2024

[Phoenix Wright]

I take each candidate on a case by case basis, regardless of gender. I believe that as long as women have no legal barriers to running, I'm fine with whatever percentage of women we end up with. As ideally, that will mean the best candidates won. I've seen some of the more extreme feminists suggest there be a quota for a percentage of women in government, which seems to run contrary to democracy.

reasons for that are that they don't run or aren't given the opportunity to run or aren't taken seriously. there's more factors for women to overcome.

i'm a residential assistant at my university, and a common complaint is that there aren't enough minorities (it's mostly women, but there's only a small number of people of color compared to the rest of staff). the problem is, there aren't a lot because not many apply (if any), and not many apply because there's not a lot at the school to begin with. it's a systemic problem. this is true for most/all non-dominant groups in the united states.

Edited October 14, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Rezzy]

reasons for that are that they don't run or aren't given the opportunity to run or aren't taken seriously. there's more factors for women to overcome.

i'm a residential assistant at my university, and a common complaint is that there aren't enough minorities (it's mostly women, but there's only a small number of people of color compared to the rest of staff). the problem is, there aren't a lot because not many apply (if any), and not many apply because there's not a lot at the school to begin with. it's a systemic problem. this is true for most/all non-dominant groups in the united states.

I'm not sure which university you're at, but more women than men enter college in the US, now, and by quite a wide margin.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/03/28/look-how-women-outnumber-men-college-campuses-nationwide/YROqwfCPSlKPtSMAzpWloK/story.html

And it's anecdotal, but roughly half of my med school graduating class was female, and looking at the stats for 2015, that's pretty common, with 47.6% of graduating doctors being women.

http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/medical-school-graduates-by-gender/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

I think this is a sign that we'll naturally get more women in government in a few decades, in the USA, at least, since most politicians are 40+, so the numbers are a generation behind, and I believe the problem has already begun to correct itself.

[Phoenix Wright]

not likely, but possible. most politicians majored in law (we're talking 90%+), where women are still the minority population. there exist more women in college, but not in those majors that typically churn out politicians.

[Moblin Major General]

not likely, but possible. most politicians majored in law (we're talking 90%+)

Off topic, but don't you see the problem with this? On topic, maybe the more varied background of women in college could churn out unorthodox and more effective politicians.

[Phoenix Wright]

if my statement is inaccurate in some way, i don't see it. socially speaking, there's indeed a huge problem with our politicians coming from the same background (educationally or otherwise) and i definitely want change.

again, possible, but not likely given the trend of history. one of my dreams is to have congress consist of at least 30% trained scientists, but scientists don't like to go into politics, so that'll probably never happen. the scientific illiteracy of this nation is nothing short of a crisis, to be completely honest. a science-filled congress could help make the changes needed.

Edited October 14, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[UNLEASH IT]

The ethical problem with artificial wombs is that it might take away from natural conception paired with artificial insemenation, therefore theoretically having an endless gene pool to select your child from and that child knowing neither of his or her birth parents even know that they exist, along with other, less ethical practices. There is much good in artificial mammal incubation, but is there not grave potential for evil in its misuse?

I like the artificial wombs idea though. Like Rezzy said, there's a lot of risk involved with pregnancy and women can actually die during childbirth if there are complications. Also, I feel like the main excuse (though it's not right) that people make with regards to women being passed over for jobs and higher positions in the workplace is that women have to take time off for pregnancy while men don't. With artificial wombs, they won't be able to use that excuse anymore.

Also, I saw this on the news.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-37659009

How exactly does one determine if someone is guilty/not guilty of rape?

Edited October 14, 2016 by UNLEASH IT

[Rezzy]

I like the artificial wombs idea though. Like Rezzy said, there's a lot of risk involved with pregnancy and women can actually die during childbirth if there are complications. Also, I feel like the main excuse (though it's not right) that people make with regards to women being passed over for jobs and higher positions in the workplace is that women have to take time off for pregnancy while men don't. With artificial wombs, they won't be able to use that excuse anymore.

On a related note, if I stop posting in about a month, you can assume I died. It's so rude when people die and don't tell you.