It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is a feminist, what is feminism, and what is a 'feminazi'? Do you know what they are?

page: 5
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
How could you equate a woman having to have a child, which is a natural process, to slavery? Without the male, the life wouldn't be possible in the first place. We help to create the life, therefor we should have an equal say in wether it lives, or not.

Which is exactly my argument. Feminists -say- they want equal rights, but when you get right down to it; that's untrue. If they did, men would have an equal say on abortions.

The fact that the woman carries the child is an arbitrary fact. That's part of nature. It's how the world works.




posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Furthermore, who decides what will happen to the egg in the woman's body? The woman. (Except for in extream cases, of course) So that is another arbitraty fact that has absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand. BOTH parties (again, except for in extream cases such as rape) -AGREE- to lay together, and have sex. They BOTH know the consequences, and simply because one carries the eggs/baby, and the other the sperm; doesn't, and shouldn't, give either party more say over wether the life within the womb lives, or doesn't.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

You posted a list that is one person's opinion, ironically written by a woman. The problem with using this kind of thing as evidence is that it has no statistical evidence at all. It's just some blogger's attempt to garner traffic to their website with a hot-button item, and written in a way that will catch someone's attention to click a link.

Even traditional sources of data aren't all that valid at this time, because when looking at some of the sources, things like the EEOC's statistics on sexual harassment, could be a very ambiguous area when that considering "male rape, and male sexual harassment" are still treated as jokes in the greater view of society. I would offer the opinion that a lot of it goes unreported.

I've just started getting into reading some of the information coming out of big data and data sets of 3 million - 7 billion people are trumping the traditional sociology models, as well as providing unique windows into the underworkings of society. This is also information that's typically gathered from environments that are organic, natural, and provide better windows into behavior.

To the OP:

I don't identify as a feminist anymore due to the antics of third-wave feminism. That said, I think that showing there's starch differences between the different generations of feminism might help me don the moniker again, but while the current voice of feminism remains one that generalizes men, and women, then count me out. Treating someone as an equal is about finding common ground and accepting differences, not boxing people into a black/white perspective.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: jjsr420




Which is exactly my argument. Feminists -say- they want equal rights, but when you get right down to it; that's untrue. If they did, men would have an equal say on abortions.


Until the child is born, it is essentially a part of the woman's body, by virtue of the fact that it is within the boundaries of, connected to, and a part of that ecosystem. As that ecosystem, she has the choice.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


It might be better that you just tell me your view, and save us both some time.


Nuh uh

:-)

If it disgusts you so - should be a piece of cake for you to spit it out



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   
That is such an absurd argument. You still have yet to respond to anything i've actually said. That is how nature works. The male impregnates, and the female conceives. Do you see animals bemoaning the fact that the male can't be the one to conceive? No. You don't. That fact doesn't, and shouldn't, give the woman more rights to say the unborn should live, or die. There is no logic to that argument at all. They BOTH created the life. They BOTH knew the consequences. Live with what you've done, or, quite simply, don't do it.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

What disgusts me, as I mentioned, is the way you speak so haphazardly about vast amounts of people, shoehorning all of them and the almost infinite nuance into your rigid conceptual compartments. The way you express your views is what disgusts me. I mean this lovingly, of course.
edit on 16-11-2014 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   
So women can choose to forego the responsibly of bringing a child into the world, and also have the choice of bringing about possibly unwanted responsibly upon the father. This does not seem fair.
Both parties, or neither should have this choice.



edit on 16-11-2014 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: rom12345
Exactly! Well said!



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   
It's quite simple. As i've said, except for in extream cases, such as rape, BOTH parties did the deed fully knowing the consequences for their actions. If they weren't prepared for the possibility of said consequence actually happening, they shouldn't have done the act in the first place. Not a very hard concept to grasp.

They BOTH create the life. They should BOTH have a say in wether it lives, or dies.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: jjsr420


That is such an absurd argument. You still have yet to respond to anything i've actually said. That is how nature works. The male impregnates, and the female conceives. Do you see animals bemoaning the fact that the male can't be the one to conceive? No. You don't. That fact doesn't, and shouldn't, give the woman more rights to say the unborn should live, or die. There is no logic to that argument at all. They BOTH created the life. They BOTH knew the consequences. Live with what you've done, or, quite simply, don't do it.


Do you see other animals following rights and shoulds and should nots? Your argument is superfluous.

The fact that the fetus is a part of the mother's body gives her every right.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Evil_Santa
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

You posted a list that is one person's opinion, ironically written by a woman. The problem with using this kind of thing as evidence is that it has no statistical evidence at all. It's just some blogger's attempt to garner traffic to their website with a hot-button item, and written in a way that will catch someone's attention to click a link.

The nice thing about lists like that is it's pretty easy to flip it around. The first link has the full list BH quoted and a counter one for the flip side point of view.
www.antimisandry.com...
thisisfemaleprivilege.tumblr.com...

There is a backlash that is already in full swing. It just hasn't hit the mainstream conversation *quite* yet.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Completely agree.
I am male.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
No, it doesn't. The FACT is that both parties (yet AGAIN, except for in extream cases) did 'the deed', fully knowing that a child could possibly be the outcome, even WITH 'protection'. They BOTH create the life. Without one, or the other, it's not possible. Your argument that the mother have every right because the CHILD is a part of her body, is no less superfluous than my argument about animals. Without the male, she couldn't have the child.

So since both parties did this knowing full well what COULD come of it, they should have to live with the consequences. Period. Neither should honestly have a voice on wether a unborn child lives, or dies. Nature should have that say.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: jjsr420



No, it doesn't. The FACT is that both parties (yet AGAIN, except for in extream cases) did 'the deed', fully knowing that a child could possibly be the outcome, even WITH 'protection'. They BOTH create the life. Without one, or the other, it's not possible. Your argument that the mother have every right because the CHILD is a part of her body, is no less superfluous than my argument about animals. Without the male, she couldn't have the child.

So since both parties did this knowing full well what COULD come of it, they should have to live with the consequences. Period. Neither should honestly have a voice on wether a unborn child lives, or dies. Nature should have that say.



The sperm is no longer a part of, within, and sustained by a father's body. His rights on such decisions are gone. He can, and often does, walk away.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:53 PM
link   
But without him, the life wouldn't be possible. That is FACT.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:53 PM
link   
if a women has the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy at her convince.
A man should have the right to terminate his responsibly toward an unwanted child at his convenience.
Obviously neither of these are morally acceptable, or both are.
These seem to be equivalent factors in terms of gender equality.
edit on 16-11-2014 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: jjsr420
They BOTH create the life. They should BOTH have a say in wether it lives, or dies.

Just because her cooking got you fat doesn't mean she should have the right to force you to have liposuction.

I understand what you are getting at... however taking it to the point where "we" did something that changed your body gives me the right to tell you what to do with your body is a devastatingly bad idea. Virtually all of the things you are concerned about are corrected for if a woman can't assume ahead of time she will be able to force a man to support a child he didn't agree to have.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: jjsr420
Yeah, but when it comes to cutting something in an individuals body or administering toxic drugs, the decision lies with whoever's body it is.
...if you are just promoting a general anti-abortion message then may I ask what is your point related to the OP?



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: jjsr420




But without him, the life wouldn't be possible. That is FACT.


Yeah. So?



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join