[QUOTE=archangel125;40163004]It does, however, fall into the category of something that is still within a woman's field of choice, for two reasons - One, it's her body, and two, it's not conscious or fully developed.[/QUOTE]
Even if a person believes that a fetus is 100% a person there's really no reason to be against abortion. At no point is anyone required to save the life of another person - if you have the blood type that'll save someone you don't have to give it up if you don't want to. Hell, your [i]corpse[/i] isn't forced to give anything up. Your heart that could save a life is going to go into an incinerator if you didn't sign a piece of paper ahead of time saying they could use it.
So basically if you force women to carry their fetuses to term you end up with a situation where dead people are afforded more personal autonomy than living women
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;40163131]It leeches off of her body, makes her sick, causes her pain, she has to birth it, by and large she will be the one caring for it regularly. I'd say her voice is what matters most.[/QUOTE]
Yeah maybe, but unless the pregnancy was forced upon her somehow I don't think it's entirely up to her.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];40163168']see:[/QUOTE]
Sure, that makes sense.
Now give me a single realistic method to change societal strictness without getting significant backlash.
The original civil rights movement? Significant backlash and widespread violence and hatred.
The current Feminist movement? Very significant online backlash with widespread contempt and genuine hated.
MRA is a reactionary movement against Feminism. If you push too many buttons against the status quo, you cause more violence. Yes, I agree, it's a change that is necessary, but I think that the "brute force" method of societal change is one of the worst possible ways to do it. It causes violence and contempt against your movement and solves very little. The most it does it bring light to the injustice and cause the already-borderline to side with the movement. This is how it worked with the Civil Right's movement.
The best method I can think of is through the education system. Don't have Black History month, don't have Women's Day, just teach about the injustices against women in every-day schooling. This will happen. Racism was not reduced through yelling at the racists. It was reduced over time through education and integration. Feminism is a much smaller cause than the civil rights movement, and people are already integrated with each other, the only issues to truly tackle are legal ones.
Honestly, I'm a stalwart supporter of equality for women, but it's completely understandable why the Men's Right's movement exists when you see misguided and divisive assaults against men. These attacks are not the majority, but they're the loud minority, and the loud minority dictates publicity. Hate is met with hate, and there arises the Men's Right's movement.
Societal change can be forced, but not without lots of hatred and even bloodshed and it's really not worth it as we can see from history. Peaceful change is slow, generational. The old ideas will die out and the next generation will have the new ones of equality. Pushing it just makes the opposition more angry. It might sway a few, but it makes the opposition harder to work with and lengthens the issue.
[QUOTE=PowerBall v1;40163408]Yeah maybe, but unless the pregnancy was forced upon her somehow I don't think it's entirely up to her.[/QUOTE]
then who is it up to?
Also, Feminism being about "freedom from social coercion" is ridiculous. In ANY society, you will have social coercion. Social coercion doesn't restrict your freedoms whatsoever. You are not going to go into prison for going outside social norms. Social norms and expectations are societal and you cannot get rid of them without getting rid of society. As long as you're guaranteed legal equality, social coercion is totally unimportant.
If a man told a woman to stop stepping out of line and acting unwomanly, so fucking what? Keep acting unwomanly, who cares? Societal coercion is totally avoidable unless you're too weak-willed to stand up for what you believe in. If you continue acting unwomanly and the man punches you in the jugular, but you have guaranteed legal equality, guess what, he's jailed for assault. Who cares what he thinks? Societal coercion will exist no matter how hard you try to get rid of it.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;40163527]Also, Feminism being about "freedom from social coercion" is ridiculous. In ANY society, you will have social coercion. Social coercion doesn't restrict your freedoms whatsoever. You are not going to go into prison for going outside social norms. Social norms and expectations are societal and you cannot get rid of them without getting rid of society. As long as you're guaranteed legal equality, social coercion is totally unimportant.
If a man told a woman to stop stepping out of line and acting unwomanly, so fucking what? Keep acting unwomanly, who cares? Societal coercion is totally avoidable unless you're too weak-willed to stand up for what you believe in. If you continue acting unwomanly and the man punches you in the jugular, but you have guaranteed legal equality, guess what, he's jailed for assault. Who cares what he thinks? Societal coercion will exist no matter how hard you try to get rid of it.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps so, but any movement with its aim to eliminate social coercion is necessary to maintain it at relatively low levels - If feminist groups just disappeared and people refused to speak for women, two generations later it'd be back to the same old shit.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;40163527]Also, Feminism being about "freedom from social coercion" is ridiculous. In ANY society, you will have social coercion. Social coercion doesn't restrict your freedoms whatsoever. You are not going to go into prison for going outside social norms. Social norms and expectations are societal and you cannot get rid of them without getting rid of society. As long as you're guaranteed legal equality, social coercion is totally unimportant.
If a man told a woman to stop stepping out of line and acting unwomanly, so fucking what? Keep acting unwomanly, who cares? Societal coercion is totally avoidable unless you're too weak-willed to stand up for what you believe in. If you continue acting unwomanly and the man punches you in the jugular, but you have guaranteed legal equality, guess what, he's jailed for assault. Who cares what he thinks? Societal coercion will exist no matter how hard you try to get rid of it.[/QUOTE]
'forcing my standards of what a woman should be upon people is ok because they're not dead, injured or in prison'
As much as I want to believe that the general approval this thread has received is born out of a genuine respect for the perspectives of Muslim women, I can't help but get the feeling that the 35~ winner ratings are due more to a sheer dislike of FEMEN rather than a more nuanced, anti-orientalist sentiment cultivated amongst Facepunch.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;40163442]Sure, that makes sense.
Now give me a single realistic method to change societal strictness without getting significant backlash.
The original civil rights movement? Significant backlash and widespread violence and hatred.
The current Feminist movement? Very significant online backlash with widespread contempt and genuine hated.
MRA is a reactionary movement against Feminism. If you push too many buttons against the status quo, you cause more violence. Yes, I agree, it's a change that is necessary, but I think that the "brute force" method of societal change is one of the worst possible ways to do it. It causes violence and contempt against your movement and solves very little. The most it does it bring light to the injustice and cause the already-borderline to side with the movement. This is how it worked with the Civil Right's movement.
blah blah[/QUOTE]
Yes, changing society sees backlash from the status quo. In Marxism we call those people reactionaries. There's an active struggle. It's fine and dandy to teach about the issue, but then you get into one of Shumpeter's problems with education and what we now call the Liberal Virtue theory: that the educated are not emancipated when that education comes through imposed authority. You can't teach a child to question what they are taught, else they don't accept the teaching. We can [I]teach[/I] about how we all should be equal and live in a society where we accept that men and women will care more about personality and character and personhood more than/equally to sex and submission/dominance, but how can that be applied in a society that benefits, practices, and actively maintains it? We can teach kids all we want, but they won't learn unless society accepts, at large, the same values. There are classes in the US teaching safe sex and to not use drugs: where is society? That's the problem. I'm not saying radical violence or street action is the right way for feminism. It definitely is for some liberation theories. I'm saying that education won't do anything when it's society that does the real teaching, and society counters education so well on this and many other issues.
[QUOTE=God's Pimp Hand;40163571]As much as I want to believe that the general approval this thread has received is borne out of a genuine respect for the perspectives of Muslim women[/QUOTE]
sorry but i burst out in laughter when i read this
[QUOTE=PowerBall v1;40163408]Yeah maybe, but unless the pregnancy was forced upon her somehow I don't think it's entirely up to her.[/QUOTE]
What if the father ran off? There have been a number of occasions where girls have become pregnant and their boyfriend decided to abandon ship. I went to school with quite a few girls who were in that exact situation.
[QUOTE=Aesir;40163640]What if the father ran off? There have been a number of occasions where girls have become pregnant and their boyfriend decided to abandon ship. I went to school with a number of girls who were in that exact situation.[/QUOTE]
Or if he's an abusive wankstick and she divorces him?
[QUOTE=.Isak.;40163527]Also, Feminism being about "freedom from social coercion" is ridiculous. In ANY society, you will have social coercion. Social coercion doesn't restrict your freedoms whatsoever. You are not going to go into prison for going outside social norms. Social norms and expectations are societal and you cannot get rid of them without getting rid of society. As long as you're guaranteed legal equality, social coercion is totally unimportant.
If a man told a woman to stop stepping out of line and acting unwomanly, so fucking what? Keep acting unwomanly, who cares? Societal coercion is totally avoidable unless you're too weak-willed to stand up for what you believe in. If you continue acting unwomanly and the man punches you in the jugular, but you have guaranteed legal equality, guess what, he's jailed for assault. Who cares what he thinks? Societal coercion will exist no matter how hard you try to get rid of it.[/QUOTE]
The bad part about your argument? It holds about as much water as the argument of the sometime acquaintance of mine who justified his opposition to interracial marriage because the 'kids would be ostracized by other kids at school and wouldn't fit in.'
Same reek.
[QUOTE=Bobie;40163557]'forcing my standards of what a woman should be upon people is ok because they're not dead, injured or in prison'[/QUOTE]
No, that's not at all what I'm saying. Not remotely.
My point is that social coercion is something that can be handled personally. You have a choice in that matter. Legal equality is different, because it can absolutely restrict your freedom. Social coercion? If someone says that women are terrible drivers, who cares? That's his opinion and it doesn't affect you remotely. If someone rapes you, or keeps you from taking a job, or assaults you, or attempts to force you to adopt a set of beliefs, there's a legal issue.
Maybe I'm just too optimistic or individualistic, but I don't understand how values can be forced upon someone. The entire concept doesn't make sense to me.
One can agree with both perspectives to a point. I agree that women should be allowed the same decency and censorship laws as men. It's just boobs. Grow up.
On the other hand, demonizing the veil as something that can only be forced on a woman is not only Islamophobic, but also is an insult to the ability for a Muslim woman to have free will. She can choose to wear the veil. It is just clothes. Grow up.
Nobody should tell women how to act, whether it is putting on more clothes, or taking off more clothes.
[QUOTE=abcpea2;40162818]only ugly chicks should have to cover up thats my 2 cents[/QUOTE]
are you being sarcastic
[QUOTE=.Isak.;40163655]No, that's not at all what I'm saying. Not remotely.
My point is that social coercion is something that can be handled personally. You have a choice in that matter. Legal equality is different, because it can absolutely restrict your freedom. Social coercion? If someone says that women are terrible drivers, who cares? That's his opinion and it doesn't affect you remotely. If someone rapes you, or keeps you from taking a job, or assaults you, or attempts to force you to adopt a set of beliefs, there's a legal issue.
Maybe I'm just too optimistic or individualistic, but I don't understand how values can be forced upon someone. The entire concept doesn't make sense to me.[/QUOTE]
maybe it's because you believe free will exists / and you don't really understand how societal conditioning works.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;40163655]No, that's not at all what I'm saying. Not remotely.
My point is that social coercion is something that can be handled personally. You have a choice in that matter. Legal equality is different, because it can absolutely restrict your freedom. Social coercion? If someone says that women are terrible drivers, who cares? That's his opinion and it doesn't affect you remotely. If someone rapes you, or keeps you from taking a job, or assaults you, or attempts to force you to adopt a set of beliefs, there's a legal issue.
Maybe I'm just too optimistic or individualistic, but I don't understand how values can be forced upon someone. The entire concept doesn't make sense to me.[/QUOTE]
Yes, they take the form of individual interactions, but they're greatly rooted in a social and systemic problem.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;40163262]At no point is anyone required to save the life of another person[/QUOTE]
This does not apply to childbirth, you bring a child to life and are therefore responsible for it, because if not for you it wouldn't be alive to be in a position to be killed. By bringing it to life you put it in a position where it could be killed and you are therefore culpable.
You are only morally in the clear for inaction when prior action did not put the individual you are not acting towards in the situation they are currently in.
Let's imagine that you poured or even accidentally spilled oil over some stairs, then refused to clean it up or even put a warning sign there for others, someone comes along and slips on it falls and almost dies or does.
The act of spilling is like the act of conceiving a child in the first place, only if someone forced you to spill or have that child are you free of blame because you in conscious mind made the situation possible even if it was an accident or unintended.
You might say that you are not required to save the life of another person, but would you not agree that if you create the situation you have a responsibility to ensure the safety of another person when you caused the situation that said person is now set to encounter?
In your example you say:
[quote]if you have the blood type that'll save someone you don't have to give it up if you don't want to.[/quote]
I agree with that, just because you have the potential to help someone, that doesn't mean you have the duty to. But imagine if you were the person who put them in the situation where they needed a transfusion and assume hypothetically that there is no alternative donor, wouldn't you agree that you have a duty to them?
Regardless of this I don't think human life has inherent value so I am pro-choice with a dose of responsibility.
[QUOTE=archangel125;40163653]The bad part about your argument? It holds about as much water as the argument of the sometime acquaintance of mine who justified his opposition to interracial marriage because the 'kids would be ostracized by other kids at school and wouldn't fit in.'
Same reek.[/QUOTE]
How, remotely, is my argument similar to that? Interracial marriage is a [I]legal[/I] issue, not a social one. That thinking is backwards, and I totally disagree.
[QUOTE=Riutet;40163680]This does not apply to childbirth, you bring a child to life and are therefore responsible for it, because if not for you it wouldn't be alive to be in a position to be killed. By bringing it to life you put it in a position where it could be killed and you are therefore culpable.
You are only morally in the clear for inaction when prior action did not put the individual you are not acting towards in the situation they are currently in.
Let's imagine that you poured or even accidentally spilled oil over some stairs, then refused to clean it up or even put a warning sign there for others, someone comes along and slips on it falls and almost dies or does.
The act of spilling is like the act of conceiving a child in the first place, only if someone forced you to spill or have that child are you free of blame because you in conscious mind made the situation possible even if it was an accident or unintended.
You might say that you are not required to save the life of another person, but would you not agree that if you create the situation you have a responsibility to ensure the safety of another person when you caused the situation that said person is now set to encounter?[/QUOTE]
That is sound reasoning, but only within a particular moral framework, which operates off a number of rules of honour and definitions of life that are by no means universal.
[QUOTE=thisispain;40163628]sorry but i burst out in laughter when i read this[/QUOTE]
dont give up the struggle thisispain!
we can still win hearts and minds!!!
[QUOTE=.Isak.;40163527]Also, Feminism being about "freedom from social coercion" is ridiculous. In ANY society, you will have social coercion. Social coercion doesn't restrict your freedoms whatsoever. You are not going to go into prison for going outside social norms. Social norms and expectations are societal and you cannot get rid of them without getting rid of society. As long as you're guaranteed legal equality, social coercion is totally unimportant.
If a man told a woman to stop stepping out of line and acting unwomanly, so fucking what? Keep acting unwomanly, who cares? Societal coercion is totally avoidable unless you're too weak-willed to stand up for what you believe in. If you continue acting unwomanly and the man punches you in the jugular, but you have guaranteed legal equality, guess what, he's jailed for assault. Who cares what he thinks? Societal coercion will exist no matter how hard you try to get rid of it.[/QUOTE]
Actually, freedom from social coercion is the single prominent theme that binds all liberation theories. It's apparent that you have a less than fully developed conception on feminist and liberation theory if you don't see that clear trend.
And social coercion definitely restricts your freedoms. This is an issue of positive and negative liberty, I think: you would be quite right to say that you have the freedom to step out of line, but I would say that you do not: I would say that the difference between the state's, say, penalty to your physical well-being is equaled by an employer's refusal to employ you, a shop's refusal to cater to you, a neighborhood council's shunning of you, and a loan not received. Like Tocqueville said: it's a tyranny of thought. You can step out of line, then you suffer social ramifications. You are also free to deny the request of the man holding a gun to your head. But are you really free in that situation? Freedom, liberty, rather, is the natural state of not being affected in an adverse way. The less adversely affected you are, the more free you are. You don't have to be in a prison to say that you are not free. Your liberty is limited by social coercion as much as law, which is an extension of social coercion given the nature and purpose of the state.
The purpose of feminism and other liberation theories is to void the negative social ramifications that would limit one's ability to act their most free. to do this, one would need to alleviate the social pressures as well as the legal.
Maybe you don't care for your own societal well-being, but the natural human generally does. Most people see the necessity of being in the social unit. What you propose is that the social unit not be responsible for accepting all, but rather that all bend to fit into the social unit. One of these is obviously better than the other.
I can't seem to articulate my opinion on social coercion very well, so I'm not going to bother trying to find a better way to word it because all people seemed concerned about here is quick zingers without actually trying to discuss the difference in viewpoint.
If someone would take a moment to explain why I'm incorrect on social conditioning I might be able to get a better understanding of the issue and may even change my opinion, but nah, it's easier to just say I'm wrong without trying to tell me how or why.
Again, I'm exhausted and I haven't eaten and I can't get my argument out in a way that doesn't make me sound like a blithering idiot so I'll just let you discuss whatever and hopefully when I come back somebody will have explained to me what's incorrect about my (weak) viewpoint rather than just saying "wrong zing x 1"
(which Seed Eater is doing an excellent job at, thank you)
doesnt matter if you choose to wear the hijab and the burka and all that, it's still a misogynistic garb and people WANTING to wear it just shows how ingrained the misogyny is in their culture
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;40163839]doesnt matter if you choose to wear the hijab and the burka and all that, it's still a misogynistic garb and people WANTING to wear it just shows how ingrained the misogyny is in their culture[/QUOTE]
What if they want to wear it, even if they leave the country and go to someplace that allows them to do what they want?
[QUOTE=PowerBall v1;40163408]Yeah maybe, but unless the pregnancy was forced upon her somehow I don't think it's entirely up to her.[/QUOTE]
That's like saying the decision of getting divorced shouldn't be taken by one single party of a marriage because it is an act that takes place between two people, instead, the only way to get divorced would be that the two parties agree on getting divorced (which, while it's common, it is not always the case). Of course, the main difference here is that since it's the woman who has to bear with the act of giving birth to the child (and since in most societies women are usually the ones who actively look after and care for the child) then she should have the right to decide whether have the child or not.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;40163839]doesnt matter if you choose to wear the hijab and the burka and all that, it's still a misogynistic garb and people WANTING to wear it just shows how ingrained the misogyny is in their culture[/QUOTE]
You're clearly the world's foremost authority on all cultures and can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your culture is better than everyone else's and have made a thorough study of the symbolic significance of certain garments within other cultures and know enough to dismiss things that those cultures value as unimportant or irrelevant. Also you're a genius and you're never wrong.
Read that, Seed Eater, thanks, I'm understanding it at a better level now.
I'm personally very apathetic towards societal expectations. I find it difficult to rationalize school and work, so that might've been an influence on my opinion. I didn't really think outside of my own perspective and it makes much more sense in the way you've described it, and it applies towards humanity rather than myself as an individual.
Also, how in the fuck is clothing inherently misogynistic? That's like blaming a stone sitting on the ground for being supportive of stoning women to the death.
[QUOTE=ajrhug;40163664]are you being sarcastic[/QUOTE]
are you being dense?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
