Feminism

[Rashiminos]

Yeah. As I said, it's not about the rape, it's about the lack of choice in the part of the woman. Anyway, it's been explained multiple times now and if you still don't get it, that's your choice. And I'm pretty sure it is a choice.

I'm not sure if the sentiment was voiced earlier in the thread or not, but I suspect most conservatives** aren't cozy to the idea of sanctioning rape as a legitimate means of reproduction* and would be flexible to the idea of abortion in that context. Trying to remove that kind of nuance and suggest that control over sexual behavior in non-rape scenarios is the ulterior goal reeks of burnt straw.

*(For male rapists in any case )

**The Catholic Church being one notable exception.

 

[Senethro]

I'm not sure if the sentiment was voiced earlier in the thread or not, but I suspect most conservatives aren't cozy to the idea of sanctioning rape as a legitimate means of reproduction* and would be flexible to the idea of abortion in that context. Trying to remove that kind of nuance and suggest that control over sexual behavior in non-rape scenarios is the ulterior goal reeks of burnt straw.

*(For male rapists in any case )

I dunno man, since you did those great quotes of me there sure have been some posts going on about consequences for women that seemed to kind of support what I was saying!

 

[Rashiminos]

I dunno man, since you did those great quotes of me there sure have been some posts going on about consequences for women that seemed to kind of support what I was saying!

There's a lot of room for interpretation when you're reading your straw into those posts.

As long as its consensual and openly communicated, sure. People want to screw around sometimes. Serial monogamy, y'know.

What do you think when it's not "openly communicated" or perhaps, duplicitous?

I'm blaming you for saying we shouldn't give compensatory consideration to people who got the burdened side of the see saw. Biology isn't an excuse.

'Biology is only an excuse when it gives the woman unilateral choice over the fate of the fetus.'
'The biological fact that the fetus usually resides inside the mother for a period of time are grounds for considering the fetus to be part of her body.'

Meh. I just can't work up the energy to argue with an actual creationist. Especially one who thinks wombs have autonomy.

You had the energy to argue with some other posters. Perhaps you should not have irresponsibly squandered it?

 

[Gori the Grey]

"Responsibility, consequences, blame and complicity that falls mostly on women are not sexist." A Dude 2014

I'm blaming you for saying we shouldn't give compensatory consideration to people who got the burdened side of the see saw. Biology isn't an excuse.

It's quite clear to me that one can take reasonable precautions against pregnancy and still end up pregnant. The presumption that it must be female irresponsibilty is pretty ridiculous.

Even though Senethro and Crezth have mostly just been point-scoring, these concerns are legitimate and deserve an actual response out of the position that I, and I think Farm Boy, have been trying to argue from.

And in this case it's good that this debate came up within a thread that was about feminism, and that earlier concerned the question of what place men have in feminist issues.

It is true that biology puts a greater burden for these matters on women than on men. But society needn't. Here's a place where men can genuinely contribute to female thriving. The "compensatory consideration" that men can provide is only to have sex with women in circumstances where, should a pregnancy occur (even as a result of failed contraception), they would be willing to accept equal responsibility for nurturing that developing life.

 

[Rashiminos]

The "compensatory consideration" that men can provide is only to have sex with women in circumstances where, should a pregnancy occur (even as a result of failed contraception), they would be willing to accept equal responsibility for nurturing that developing life.

I can halfway support this idea for different reasons, but that isn't something that can be legislated, nor would various parties be keen to follow this idea as, for instance, some males seeking gratification aren't interested in being responsible {not even to themselves}, while some women want to have sex with the males in question, and then have the state force those males into compliance when an accident happens.

 

[Gori the Grey]

The fullest solution to this issue will not limit itself to the legal. If you look back at my posts, you'll see I've been arguing on behalf of a change in attitude, in ethos, not in laws. (And that change in attitude would impact even how one argues for safe and legal abortion.)

As for men who are simply seeking gratification, Farm Boy and I were twitted for three or four pages running for being willing to make the hard ethical call between taking an innocent life and forcing a woman to bear and raise a child engendered by rape. On a scale of values that has two such serious matters pitted against each other, pleasure seeking isn't going to rate very high, comparatively.

 

[Rashiminos]

On a scale of values that has two such serious matters pitted against each other, pleasure seeking isn't going to rate very high, comparatively.

Certainly not from you or Farm boy, but arguments in favor of broad sexual freedom eventually have to consider cads and others for whom sexual gratification (even if only privately) trumps another matter.

 

[Crezth]

Even though Senethro and Crezth have mostly just been point-scoring,

You might think this is just a game, but I don't. I consider rights and ethics to be a very serious matter.

Frankly, I'm a little insulted that you've reduced my posting to point-scoring. You can fondle your beards and muse coyly about "hard decisions" that you are so graciously taking it upon yourself to make (just so long as those women don't make the decision, let's be clear), but that won't make your position any more sophisticated than mine.

 

[Gori the Grey]

No, I don't think it's a game. I think it remains the most serious ethical issue of our time.

Farm Boy and I (or just I, he seems to have dropped out) aren't proposing to make any decision for women. How many times do I have to say I want abortion to be a safe and legal option? (Just as rarely as possible opted for.) In discussing the ethics of the situation, we've been willing to face the hard questions that you and Senethro have put to us, to address them as challenging ethical points.

You'll prove you're not point-scoring if you do the same. I have proposed that an extra-legal means by which concerned men can help women on this point, to compensate for the biological inequity, is never to take an action that could put a woman in the position of having to make the excruciating choice about whether to end a biochemical-process-steadily-driving-toward-personhood. Absent such a commitment, the pro-choice position effectively promotes pleasure-seeking to a value on a par with life-nurturing. Comments?

("fondle your beard," by the way: point-scoring)

 

[Crezth]

I have proposed that an extra-legal means by which concerned men can help women on this point, to compensate for the biological inequity, is never to take an action that could put a woman in the position of having to make the excruciating choice about whether to end a biochemical-process-steadily-driving-toward-personhood. Absent such a commitment, the pro-choice position effectively promotes pleasure-seeking to a value on a par with life-nurturing. Comments?

I have already commented on this, so thank you for confirming you're not reading my posts. Keep stroking that chin fuzz.

 

[Rashiminos]

You might think this is just a game, but I don't. I consider rights and ethics to be a very serious matter.

Frankly, I'm a little insulted that you've reduced my posting to point-scoring. You can fondle your beards

I'm having trouble mustering a concern about how you're feeling insulted for several reasons.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I've been reading this thread very carefully, Crezth, but since you say you've already commented on this, and I couldn't remember you having done so, I've going back through all of your posts. You have not commented on this claim. It's not surprising that you haven't. I only just advanced it a few posts back.

The debate over abortion generally devolves into a fruitless one, with both sides smugly certain they have the moral high ground. The only reason I'm bothering with it this time is that Senethro's post #530 suggests he's at least marginally open to considering alternate views.

You can go on imagining me stroking my beard.

 

[Crezth]

I've been reading this thread very carefully, Crezth, but since you say you've already commented on this, and I couldn't remember you having done so, I've going back through all of your posts. You have not commented on this claim. It's not surprising that you haven't. I only just advanced it a few posts back.

One page ago:

You misunderstand me. I'm not trying to insist the argument is completely illogical, just sexist and vindictive.<snip>

...I do not appreciate an argument for abortion based thus in punishing women, sorry.*

*Aside: Even if you advocate men paying child support, well, not only is that an incomplete solution - but say it was possible to implement perfectly, still this entire argument hinges on punishing people, only now it's about punishing both men and women. That's 100% of the human race you're screwing over, rather than a meager half.

Unsurprising that you missed this, since your response was:

Imagine someone invoking anything as ridiculous as [paying for consequences] in considering a moral issue!

Not point-scoring, no sir.

 

[Quackers]

Found this interesting tidbit. University of Madison in Wisconsin is rolling out a new course in "Feminist Biology".

An advocate for this course has some things to say:

Many scientists believe that science is very objective and factual. It's a wonderful aspiration, but it's actually not true.

An example of some of the horrifying gender biases in science:

Scholars have long talked about how gender bias affects biology research. Thirty years ago, biologists always described sperm as "penetrating" or "burrowing" into passive eggs, even after research showed that eggs play an active role in fertilization&#8230; and that sperm's swimming is too weak to penetrate an egg. Today, scientists know that eggs and sperm recognize each other, grab onto each other, and fuse to form embryos. (So romantic!) But gender bias continues in other branches of biology. Just this month, Popular Science reported on the problems behind neuroscience studies purporting to find "hardwired" differences between men's and women's brains.

Is this the spiritual successor of Nazi Germany's "Deutsch Physik"? Political movements should have no place in research...

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

That last quote there about fertilization was why I dropped my Social Anthropology course in disgust. There are still several stages of penetration that aren't mediated by egg cell factors.

Now I'm curious. Has anyone ever called a description of how a shaped charge works sexist?

 

[Crezth]

Crazies gonna crazy. There are some people who are even trying to teach that the earth is 6000 years old.

 

[Masada]

And that there's such a thing as race!

 

[Hygro]

Found this interesting tidbit. University of Madison in Wisconsin is rolling out a new course in "Feminist Biology".

An advocate for this course has some things to say:





An example of some of the horrifying gender biases in science:



Is this the spiritual successor of Nazi Germany's "Deutsch Physik"? Political movements should have no place in research...

Literally all they're saying is that they believe sexism has distorted some older science and so they a want to employ a biologist who is educated in recognizing sexism so that the science can be more scientific. It's not some kind of content censor.

 

[Traitorfish]

Is this the spiritual successor of Nazi Germany's "Deutsch Physik"? Political movements should have no place in research...

This is a reasonable analogy. It is not offensive to survivors of Nazi Germany. The pejorative analogy to Nazi policies has convinced me that you are not yourself a borderline fascist. All these things are true, and more.

 

[Rashiminos]

Scholars have long talked about how gender bias affects biology research. Thirty years ago, biologists always described sperm as "penetrating" or "burrowing" into passive eggs, even after research showed that eggs play an active role in fertilization&#8230; and that sperm's swimming is too weak to penetrate an egg. Today, scientists know that eggs and sperm recognize each other, grab onto each other, and fuse to form embryos. (So romantic!) But gender bias continues in other branches of biology.

That type of revisionism causes brain damage when done in earnest.