The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Public Example of Misogyny that Affects All Women Options
Lotje1000
Posted: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 3:10:27 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,145
Neurons: 645,914
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
This thread is a great micro version of feminist discourse in general: The original message about the architecture of misogyny society illustrated by the gender expectations imposed by the media is lost. The discussion was very quickly interrupted by one of the most common diversions ("not all men") in this type of conversation. The debate then switched to a justification for the term "feminism" before turning into talk of personal accusations.

It's a shame because the article in the original post is worth reading.
jacobusmaximus
Posted: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 5:56:14 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 12,942
Neurons: 588,646
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
Hope wrote - "Humanism- an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems."

This is just the blame game at work. 'It's not our fault that the world is screwed - it's the Church's fault - it mislead us'.

Look, you have to know that the world was screwed long before there ever was a Church. Long before there was organised religion. And it was humans and humanism that caused it. Humans have been taking liberties with less powerful life forms ever since they could light fires and build fences. That was how they survived and it was how a pecking order was formed. It didn't matter too much when there was just a few million of us, but now that there is a few billion people in the world we are all running scared and blaming others for the mess we are in. And it is all caused by humans who fiddle with words while Australia burns.
Lotje1000
Posted: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 6:17:36 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,145
Neurons: 645,914
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
jacobusmaximus wrote:
Hope wrote - "Humanism- an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems."

This is just the blame game at work. 'It's not our fault that the world is screwed - it's the Church's fault - it mislead us'.

Look, you have to know that the world was screwed long before there ever was a Church. Long before there was organised religion. And it was humans and humanism that caused it. Humans have been taking liberties with less powerful life forms ever since they could light fires and build fences. That was how they survived and it was how a pecking order was formed. It didn't matter too much when there was just a few million of us, but now that there is a few billion people in the world we are all running scared and blaming others for the mess we are in. And it is all caused by humans who fiddle with words while Australia burns.


I'd like to point out that the sentence Hope wrote does not say that the church is to blame. It just says that humanism wants to focus foremost on human matters. Maybe I'm missing something, but to me there is no blame game visible in that sentence. It doesn't even mention the church.
Romany
Posted: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 7:38:37 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 17,050
Neurons: 54,579
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

Jacob -

We have learned over the years here that you have a different belief system to ours. I don't think anyone of our regular community has any interest in trying to affect, change, abuse you personally.

So I hesitate to sound rude here or to seem as though I want to put you down.

But I'm afraid you are as out of your depth in a discussion on Humanism as I would be with some of your creeds. I'm not going to personally explain what the Humanist movement was/is still about so I shan't be accused of providing partisan information. But I earnestly beg you to go and find some reputable sites (Historical, philosophical, - NOT written from the viewpoint of your church.) You might even be surprised to learn that Humanism and Deism are perfectly compatible within the minds of some of our greatest and most notable figures past and present.

Thomas More; the founder of St. Pauls College in London; Elizabeth 1; Sir Philip Sidney, Shakespeare; Swift; Jefferson; and hundreds of our most respected and venerated thinkers....were all Humanists.

Humanism doesn't play a "blame-game" and I am, to be honest, offended that you would level such base motives to me. (Having said the only label I accept is as a Humanist, such comments ARE directed at me.) When I have discussed any doctrinal subjects with you I've done it from a grounding of religious education and further studies at tertiary level. I don't disrespect you by Arguments From Ignorance.

I'll add just a short piece - warts and all - that might illustrate briefly what I'm talking about, or will at least show that your understanding of the subject is neither robust nor based in fact. https://www.britannica.com/topic/humanism/Humanism-and-the-visual-arts

No-one is discussing religion here. No one is particularly interested in your religion here. No-one has mentioned the Church. It's a very difficult subject we are tackling here and bringing religion into it is an unnecessary diversion. If you would like to discuss Humanism and Religion, I'm sure if you started a thread in the "Religion" forum there'd be people happy to join in?

I value our "connection" here on these pages, and we've never "fallen out" so please don't let's start now. As I said in opening - I'm not trying to denigrate you or your beliefs - but this is a discussion of a very different sort. Please don't re-direct it because of religion - which has played no part in the discussion. AND belongs in another thread?

Still friends?
Y111
Posted: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 9:12:07 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 367
Neurons: 1,824
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
Lotje1000 wrote:
In that post I made, I am not talking solely to you or about your messages. I am talking about a general trend that happens in reactions to feminist discourse.

It was enough that you cited my words and misinterpreted them. If not for that, I wouldn't have perceived your post as directed at me. Saying that I am feminine is odd because I am NOT feminine, as well as most men. That's why I am unwilling to say something that sounds to me almost like that. Feminism is perceived by many as purely women's movement, so it seems strange for a man to be in it. I think that its name works for that perception.

Whether you talked about me specifically or included me in some "general trend", why do you think it makes a difference? What if I misinterpreted some of your statements and used them to illustrate something I disliked in feminists, would you not feel hurt just because I didn't mention your name?
Lotje1000
Posted: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 9:54:05 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,145
Neurons: 645,914
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
Y111 wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
In that post I made, I am not talking solely to you or about your messages. I am talking about a general trend that happens in reactions to feminist discourse.

It was enough that you cited my words and misinterpreted them. If not for that, I wouldn't have perceived your post as directed at me. Saying that I am feminine is odd because I am NOT feminine, as well as most men. That's why I am unwilling to say something that sounds to me almost like that. Feminism is perceived by many as purely women's movement, so it seems strange for a man to be in it. I think that its name works for that perception.

Whether you talked about me specifically or included me in some "general trend", why do you think it makes a difference? What if I misinterpreted some of your statements and used them to illustrate something I disliked in feminists, would you not feel hurt just because I didn't mention your name?


Is my second attempt still misinterpreting you? You haven't mentioned it, so I'm assuming it was correct - even if it came to the same conclusion. If it isn't, I'm not quite sure where I'm going wrong. After all, you apparently don't want to be associated with anything feminine because you are a man. Which begs the question, why would that be so bad? Do you believe men can't have feminine traits and vice versa? Do you mean men shouldn't have feminine traits? Do you believe men can't be interested in a movement that supports women's rights? Do you believe men shouldn't be interested? Additionally, what are the feminine traits you think those male feminists would be associated with?

You are not feminine. I hear you. Why would that matter when it comes to feminism? Just because the words sound similar doesn't mean that feminists are all women. And just because someone is a man, doesn't mean he can't support women's rights.

You say that feminism is perceived by many as a purely woman's movement. We've now debunked that idea. Some people might still believe it, but you now know the truth. Would you still find it odd to associate yourself with the movement just because of other people's perceptions? I'm not trying to convert you to feminism with this question, I'm just curious.

Either way, if your feelings were hurt in the process of this discussion, I am sorry if I caused it.
Y111
Posted: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 11:41:19 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 367
Neurons: 1,824
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
Lotje1000 wrote:
Is my second attempt still misinterpreting you?

If by your second attempt you mean "bad for a man" instead of just "bad", it's progress, of course, but I haven't used the word "bad" and am not sure what exactly you mean by it here. To me it's not morally or otherwise bad, just unnatural.

I am not going to say what other men should or shouldn't do. It's their business. I don't know how many male feminists there are, but whenever I see or read news about feminists, they are always women. Is it a coincidence? Most likely there are very few men in the movement. In Russian, I don't even remember the word "feminist" ever used, only "feministka", which means a female feminist. Apparently the male word is simply not needed. So yes, I would still find it difficult to associate myself with this movement. If you need a hero, ask someone else. ;)
Romany
Posted: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 11:54:57 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 17,050
Neurons: 54,579
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom


Addressing examples of public misogyny once more, I've had this one posted up on one of my pages as it left me speechless for a long time.

Let's preempt the "but that was only one man" & "Fake News" & (inexplicably but inevitably) "Lefty/Snowflake/man-hater" etc.

A Law was signed and passed in an American State which made it mandatory when removing the results of an ectopic pregnancy, for the doctor to re-attach it... into her uterus.

OK, so the first reaction from millions I'm sure, is to laugh like a drain. The second to giggle "But at least it was prevented from being put into place."

But to me - and I'm pretty sure to most people in developed countries - it's the question of "How" did a proposition like this get as far as being signed?

Was there not one person who worked on the bill from inception, through discussion, into researchers and lawyers who was female or alternatively who at least possessed an IQ in double figures, to say "WTF?" And if not, why not? How does it come about that a couple of good ole boys without a brain cell between them, have the power to dictate that women's bodies be abused and threatened BY LAW?

The blokes defence? "How am I supposed to know? I'm not a doctor."

(What if a bill came across his desk making it law for any cyst/wart/dead or decomposing cells which are removed from a man's penis to be shoved up the nearest hidey-hole in his body? Reckon he wouldn't find himself a doctor to speak to pretty quickly?)

Public misogyny? This particular example is like stepping back to the days of the Greeks and Romans!
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 12:05:38 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,161
Neurons: 52,392
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Y111,

I would like to continue wth the discussion between you and me with no motive of changing you or anyone but just to further my viewpoints. (I hope you find it worth reading as it became an opus as usual. Angel )

I will give you that the name could have been better chosen to say equality and/or include men somehow. But it wasn't. When I just ran it past my husband for another male view on feminism, he said that nobody would have understood what egalitarian meant. :) He too would not call himself a feminist, but then went on to describe himself as exactly that.

So one does not need to call themselves feminist in order to believe in and act upon the guiding principles.

So if we now tell you, and all men who are listening, that in reality “feminism” is and always has been definitely FOR the women to try to achieve EQUALITY within a hegemony where men do not need to promote their interests and rights because they already HAVE them, and has nothing to do with giving you and them more feminine traits than there already, does that not help to see the merits of adopting those principles whether the term fits or not?

We all have both masculine and feminine traits because we all have testosterone - just with varying amounts. I am definitely a woman and would NEVER want to be a man but I am quite happy to have some of those traits more often associated with masculinity. At times they come in handy. Whistle It is hard for me to see why men would not embrace some of the traits of femininity as well. It does not make them any less masculine. In fact it makes them more attractive to women.

Once men have been told that women are NOT trying to take anything away from them, only asking to share in opportunity, to be considered equal in the attitudes of men, why cannot men cooperate (many do) but continue to fight a seemingly reasonable request? Are we not all humans with rights to share resources equally?

Opportunity is the operative word - as is attitudes.

In our discussion, I was surprised that my husband brought up within the topic of feminism that it should also include the woman's right to govern her own body. He said it makes him angry to read such BS where men think they should control women's bodies. And I know he believes in Christianity.

Men HAVE benefited from some role changes because of the feminist movement, taking a lot of pressure off men to be the strong silent “masculine” type. Men have been encouraged by women and are now permitted by society to show their feelings, to cry, even in public. They have been encouraged to show their vulnerabilities and now go to the doctor willingly. They have been encouraged to share the housework and the tending of children, to have the wonderful feeling of caring for another helpless human, thus feeling even more love for their children and not just to be the disciplinarian “when Daddy gets home”. They have been told by women it is ok not to be the only partner to “bring home the bacon” or to bring home less bacon than their partner. Even in business and corporations there have been studies that show that those with more women in control have superior results in all areas of the company because of more cooperation.

Below is a video of a man who cries in public when his beloved father or best friend dies. He shows he is a vulnerable human being. A man who is compassionate, who has fought to improve the status of women with allocation of funds around the world and by making his government cabinet of men and women equally while still using merit for his decisions. When asked why, he said, “Because it is 2015”.

A man who has a beautiful wife and family, is intelligent, savvy, wins boxing matches, can shake the hand of an aggressor in a way to let him know he will not be bullied, has a sense of humour, shows he's a bit of a rebel with his choices of socks Whistle, and has many women swooning over him because he really is gorgeous. He supports LGBTQ and goes to their parades. He supports all minorities.

That man openly calls himself a feminist. He is not afraid to show his feminine side because he is confident of and in his masculinity. He does not fear that will make him less masculine. He does not worry that his opponents deride him for calling himself feminist. His mother was a “flower child” back in the day, and his father was an intellectual who said there was no room for government in the bedroom, and against opposition, as then Prime Minister said “Just watch me” and invoked the only peacetime use of the War Measures Act in Canada. That was then PM Pierre Trudeau.

The man in the video is Justin Trudeau, present Prime Minister of Canada, a man whose parents taught him well. I saw him cry in public when Gord Downey died. A leader. A leader delivering a memorial speech for the Canadians lost in the recent crash of the Ukrainian airplane shot down by Iran, who struggled to control his emotions while speaking of the tragedy. A modern man.

https://youtu.be/0LzSypoYi-s


Except for a couple of items in the description, I could have been describing another modern “man's man” (I hesitate to use that term but it fits these two leaders) US President Barack Obama. He never called himself a feminist, but he is for all people and his actions make him one.
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 12:42:47 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,161
Neurons: 52,392
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Jacobus, as has been pointed out, there was nothing in my statement that accused the church of anything.

It is exactly the viewpoints of humanists that the world has actually become a less violent, more caring, gentler place than it was just a couple of centuries ago, believe it or not. Canada, the UK, and many other countries do believe in collective caring and try to help all their citizens.

As for Australia burning, humanists from several countries are the ones who have been out there saving not only property and people but the animals. Just because we are debating semantics here does not mean we are not aware of the dreadful occurrences in Australia right now - wildfires, hail, and dust storms. Excessive heat and drought from climate change is mother nature's way of telling all humans to smarten up and quit fouling their own nest. Other than curbing our own personal carbon footprints and agitating for government action, if there is more we can do, please tell us. We would love to have more options. It is very frustrating sitting here watching old men and women who will not be around to be affected by the worst of climate change making sure with their greedy selfish decisions that our children and grandchildren will be greatly affected, if the planet is even inhabitable for them and their future generations.
Y111
Posted: Thursday, January 23, 2020 12:56:53 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 367
Neurons: 1,824
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
Hope123,

I wasn't arguing against equal rights for women. This idea is OK with me. Upon some thinking I seem to see another reason why I am so unenthusiastic about joining the feminist movement. In Russia a boy is actually ruled by women all his childhood and adolescense. Probably in the majority of families, the more influential parent in family matters is the woman, and it has been so for quite a while. In the kindergarten all staff is female. In school almost all staff is female, including the headmaster. So a Russian man is well used to female authorities. Do you think this early training goes without consequences for his gender expectations? I think that due to this experience I see women as strong and powerful and so well able to achieve their goals on their own, especially if they have a whole movement for that purpose. I absolutely don't feel that my participation is necessary.

There are few women in the government, but I think it's a matter of time. A female president would be a really new thing here, but as soon as it happens the first time, I guess it won't be a big deal anymore.

Actually I am not sure women want to be in the government all that much. As much as men want it. So, the principle of equal representation as equal opportunity is OK, but making it into a rule that the government must have as many women as men will just create another religious ritual.

We can all have feminine and masculine traits, but we still identify as either a man or a woman. It's a meaningful difference to me. As well as to feminists, otherwise they wouldn't have chosen this name. Feminism was established and has long existed as a women's movement, and I am not a woman. The idea of equal rights is not specifically women's, but the movement is. I am not saying that it's an obstacle that can't be overcome, just that it's an obstacle.
jacobusmaximus
Posted: Thursday, January 23, 2020 2:51:35 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 12,942
Neurons: 588,646
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
Lotje1000 wrote:
jacobusmaximus wrote:
Hope wrote - "Humanism- an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems."

This is just the blame game at work. 'It's not our fault that the world is screwed - it's the Church's fault - it mislead us'.

Look, you have to know that the world was screwed long before there ever was a Church. Long before there was organised religion. And it was humans and humanism that caused it. Humans have been taking liberties with less powerful life forms ever since they could light fires and build fences. That was how they survived and it was how a pecking order was formed. It didn't matter too much when there was just a few million of us, but now that there is a few billion people in the world we are all running scared and blaming others for the mess we are in. And it is all caused by humans who fiddle with words while Australia burns.


I'd like to point out that the sentence Hope wrote does not say that the church is to blame. It just says that humanism wants to focus foremost on human matters. Maybe I'm missing something, but to me there is no blame game visible in that sentence. It doesn't even mention the church.


Ahem - Divine and supernatural refer to religious belief - i.e., the Church.
jacobusmaximus
Posted: Thursday, January 23, 2020 2:59:44 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 12,942
Neurons: 588,646
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
Romany wrote:

Jacob -

We have learned over the years here that you have a different belief system to ours. I don't think anyone of our regular community has any interest in trying to affect, change, abuse you personally.

So I hesitate to sound rude here or to seem as though I want to put you down.

But I'm afraid you are as out of your depth in a discussion on Humanism as I would be with some of your creeds. I'm not going to personally explain what the Humanist movement was/is still about so I shan't be accused of providing partisan information. But I earnestly beg you to go and find some reputable sites (Historical, philosophical, - NOT written from the viewpoint of your church.) You might even be surprised to learn that Humanism and Deism are perfectly compatible within the minds of some of our greatest and most notable figures past and present.

Thomas More; the founder of St. Pauls College in London; Elizabeth 1; Sir Philip Sidney, Shakespeare; Swift; Jefferson; and hundreds of our most respected and venerated thinkers....were all Humanists.

Humanism doesn't play a "blame-game" and I am, to be honest, offended that you would level such base motives to me. (Having said the only label I accept is as a Humanist, such comments ARE directed at me.) When I have discussed any doctrinal subjects with you I've done it from a grounding of religious education and further studies at tertiary level. I don't disrespect you by Arguments From Ignorance.

I'll add just a short piece - warts and all - that might illustrate briefly what I'm talking about, or will at least show that your understanding of the subject is neither robust nor based in fact. https://www.britannica.com/topic/humanism/Humanism-and-the-visual-arts

No-one is discussing religion here. No one is particularly interested in your religion here. No-one has mentioned the Church. It's a very difficult subject we are tackling here and bringing religion into it is an unnecessary diversion. If you would like to discuss Humanism and Religion, I'm sure if you started a thread in the "Religion" forum there'd be people happy to join in?

I value our "connection" here on these pages, and we've never "fallen out" so please don't let's start now. As I said in opening - I'm not trying to denigrate you or your beliefs - but this is a discussion of a very different sort. Please don't re-direct it because of religion - which has played no part in the discussion. AND belongs in another thread?

Still friends?


Of course Romany - always friends. And you must know that I admire and respect your vast knowledge and caring values. But I didn't bring up religion on this topic. Hope did by posting the definition of Humanism which singles out Divinity and the supernatural - both refer to religious belief and the Church.
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Thursday, January 23, 2020 3:00:20 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 1,025
Neurons: 5,057
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Y111 wrote:

In Russia a boy is actually ruled by women all his childhood and adolescense. Probably in the majority of families, the more influential parent in family matters is the woman, and it has been so for quite a while.


This has been so only since communists destroyed the country and took it over in 1917. Not so long a period by historical standards, but long enough to create a rather ugly mess now requiring a lot of cleaning and reparing.

And even under these unfortunate circumstances I doubt about "the majority" of families being influenced by the idea of forced feminine domination, although this has been the policy of the influential international lobby, of which Russian bolsheviks and their successors were part.
jacobusmaximus
Posted: Thursday, January 23, 2020 3:04:09 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 12,942
Neurons: 588,646
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
Hope123 wrote:
Jacobus, as has been pointed out, there was nothing in my statement that accused the church of anything.

It is exactly the viewpoints of humanists that the world has actually become a less violent, more caring, gentler place than it was just a couple of centuries ago, believe it or not. Canada, the UK, and many other countries do believe in collective caring and try to help all their citizens.

As for Australia burning, humanists from several countries are the ones who have been out there saving not only property and people but the animals. Just because we are debating semantics here does not mean we are not aware of the dreadful occurrences in Australia right now - wildfires, hail, and dust storms. Excessive heat and drought from climate change is mother nature's way of telling all humans to smarten up and quit fouling their own nest. Other than curbing our own personal carbon footprints and agitating for government action, if there is more we can do, please tell us. We would love to have more options. It is very frustrating sitting here watching old men and women who will not be around to be affected by the worst of climate change making sure with their greedy selfish decisions that our children and grandchildren will be greatly affected, if the planet is even inhabitable for them and their future generations.


Hang on there, Hope. I didn't take the statement you posted as an attack on the Church, but the statement did seem to sideline religious belief as inferior to Humanist beliefs (prime importance to human rather than divine?). If I have misunderstood I apologise.
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, January 23, 2020 1:30:47 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,161
Neurons: 52,392
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
jacobusmaximus wrote:
Hope123 wrote:
Jacobus, as has been pointed out, there was nothing in my statement that accused the church of anything.

It is exactly the viewpoints of humanists that the world has actually become a less violent, more caring, gentler place than it was just a couple of centuries ago, believe it or not. Canada, the UK, and many other countries do believe in collective caring and try to help all their citizens.

As for Australia burning, humanists from several countries are the ones who have been out there saving not only property and people but the animals. Just because we are debating semantics here does not mean we are not aware of the dreadful occurrences in Australia right now - wildfires, hail, and dust storms. Excessive heat and drought from climate change is mother nature's way of telling all humans to smarten up and quit fouling their own nest. Other than curbing our own personal carbon footprints and agitating for government action, if there is more we can do, please tell us. We would love to have more options. It is very frustrating sitting here watching old men and women who will not be around to be affected by the worst of climate change making sure with their greedy selfish decisions that our children and grandchildren will be greatly affected, if the planet is even inhabitable for them and their future generations.


Hang on there, Hope. I didn't take the statement you posted as an attack on the Church, but the statement did seem to sideline religious belief as inferior to Humanist beliefs (prime importance to human rather than divine?). If I have misunderstood I apologise.


Hi Friend JCB,

The only apology needed is for the crack about debating word meanings while Australia burns because that is exactly what we have been doing on this thread, while there is not much we can do about Australia. Therefore I didn't read it as a general statement.

Just because one ideology is given prime importance does not absolve either group from the mess the world is in, nor does it blame either group for anything. It is just a statement of a definition as to how some people think and work.

This is an example of how Romany's tendency to not use labels is smart. I know there are many theists who believe in the same goals of helping humans but use the supernatural gods in their repertoire of methods to achieve their goals rather than making human responsibility for action the main force to achieve goals.

Reminds me of the saying, “Praise the Lord but pass the ammunition”. Angel A theist does both, while a humanist does one.

BTW - the definition was just posted to firm up what humanism meant in contrast.

So back to topic of feminism.

Hope123
Posted: Thursday, January 23, 2020 1:58:46 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,161
Neurons: 52,392
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Y111 wrote:
Hope123,

I wasn't arguing against equal rights for women. This idea is OK with me. Upon some thinking I seem to see another reason why I am so unenthusiastic about joining the feminist movement. In Russia a boy is actually ruled by women all his childhood and adolescense. Probably in the majority of families, the more influential parent in family matters is the woman, and it has been so for quite a while. In the kindergarten all staff is female. In school almost all staff is female, including the headmaster. So a Russian man is well used to female authorities. Do you think this early training goes without consequences for his gender expectations? I think that due to this experience I see women as strong and powerful and so well able to achieve their goals on their own, especially if they have a whole movement for that purpose. I absolutely don't feel that my participation is necessary.

There are few women in the government, but I think it's a matter of time. A female president would be a really new thing here, but as soon as it happens the first time, I guess it won't be a big deal anymore.

Actually I am not sure women want to be in the government all that much. As much as men want it. So, the principle of equal representation as equal opportunity is OK, but making it into a rule that the government must have as many women as men will just create another religious ritual.

We can all have feminine and masculine traits, but we still identify as either a man or a woman. It's a meaningful difference to me. As well as to feminists, otherwise they wouldn't have chosen this name. Feminism was established and has long existed as a women's movement, and I am not a woman. The idea of equal rights is not specifically women's, but the movement is. I am not saying that it's an obstacle that can't be overcome, just that it's an obstacle.


Hi Y111,

Glad you cleared up that you are not arguing against equal rights for women - just against the necessity for you and others to support a movement to change it so that they do get those rights.

Russia is no different from Canada in that women are more often the caregivers in families and teachers in the schools. Rarely do male teachers not become principals. Women teachers often have the responsibility of home making and child care on top of their jobs and so do not take on the added responsibility of becoming principals - although that is changing with families now demanding help with child care costs.

As for women in government, when PM Trudeau encouraged it with his equal gender cabinet and as well had a fun day in parliament run just by women, mostly young, many more women ran and were elected in the recent federal election. There is no rule - people choose to run, get elected or not, and are appointed to cabinet to be in charge of certain areas according to their qualifications to run such a portfolio.

What often stops women from running is the abuse they get from some members of the public just because they are women. Female journalists also get far more abuse than males.

A female member of parliament read out some of the anti female correspondence and name calling she gets and it is sickening. One female incumbent had the C word plastered all over the window of her office the day after she was recently re-elected. Men do not get that same anti male bias but are criticized for their policies.

I would hope it is only a minority who do this, but one is too many.

BTW - the term feminism that you object to was crafted by a male. Whistle


Romany
Posted: Thursday, January 23, 2020 3:56:35 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 17,050
Neurons: 54,579
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Hey Jacob - glad we got that sorted!

While I still believe that the average person is innately good, I had never before realised just how many people are not!

The past couple of years have taken a toll on me and caused me to question so much that I'm a wee bit fragile.

One hears reports of people committing suicide because their sense of disillusionment has become so overwhelming in the light of current events. While I have no idea if this true or not, I can quite understand if anyone has taken this step.

However, I've recently come out of a very dark place and yep! my surety that most people everywhere are all bonded together with a common thread remains. Albeit somewhat battered and frayed around the edges!
Lotje1000
Posted: Friday, January 24, 2020 2:18:33 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,145
Neurons: 645,914
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
jacobusmaximus wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
I'd like to point out that the sentence Hope wrote does not say that the church is to blame. It just says that humanism wants to focus foremost on human matters. Maybe I'm missing something, but to me there is no blame game visible in that sentence. It doesn't even mention the church.


Ahem - Divine and supernatural refer to religious belief - i.e., the Church.


That's your reading of the words, not what it actually says. Not sure why you're explaining this after both Hope herself and Romany have pointed out you interpreted it wrong.

Ahem - It's also presumptuous to assume that it specifically refers to the Church.
jacobusmaximus
Posted: Friday, January 24, 2020 2:59:48 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 12,942
Neurons: 588,646
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
Lotje1000 wrote:
jacobusmaximus wrote:
Lotje1000 wrote:
I'd like to point out that the sentence Hope wrote does not say that the church is to blame. It just says that humanism wants to focus foremost on human matters. Maybe I'm missing something, but to me there is no blame game visible in that sentence. It doesn't even mention the church.


Ahem - Divine and supernatural refer to religious belief - i.e., the Church.


That's your reading of the words, not what it actually says. Not sure why you're explaining this after both Hope herself and Romany have pointed out you interpreted it wrong.

So only your interpretation can be right, yeah? That is so extreme it is frightening - and quite sad.

Ahem - It's also presumptuous to assume that it specifically refers to the Church.

Lotje1000
Posted: Friday, January 24, 2020 3:52:32 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,145
Neurons: 645,914
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
jacobusmaximus wrote:
So only your interpretation can be right, yeah? That is so extreme it is frightening - and quite sad.



Again, you're misreading the words. I didn't mention my own interpretation; I said that both Hope and Romany have pointed out you got it wrong.

It's also quite hypocritical to claim I'm extreme, when you dig in your heels about interpreting the quote your way despite Hope and Romany's explanations.
jacobusmaximus
Posted: Friday, January 24, 2020 10:21:40 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 12,942
Neurons: 588,646
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
Lotje1000 wrote:
jacobusmaximus wrote:
So only your interpretation can be right, yeah? That is so extreme it is frightening - and quite sad.



Again, you're misreading the words. I didn't mention my own interpretation; I said that both Hope and Romany have pointed out you got it wrong.

It's also quite hypocritical to claim I'm extreme, when you dig in your heels about interpreting the quote your way despite Hope and Romany's explanations.


But it is evidently also your interpretation, so my 'you' is plural here. And Hope and Romany's 'explanation' is their take on it which I do not necessarily accept as the last word on the matter.
Hope123
Posted: Friday, January 24, 2020 5:29:37 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 9,161
Neurons: 52,392
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
JCB,

If you are still interested in more discussion of this, I have moved my response to the Religion sub forum.

Thread is “Supernatural and Divine”.

https://forum.thefreedictionary.com/postsm1133576_Supernatural-and-Divine.aspx#1133576
Romany
Posted: Friday, January 24, 2020 7:57:35 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 17,050
Neurons: 54,579
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Hope - thanks for your politesse in moving the religious/philosophical discussion over to Religion & Philosophy.

Politics commonly enters into Vocabulary & Grammar now, the Literature thread has been flooded with Readers Digest-type excerpts which are the antithesis of Literature, and then to have Religion come into this one! Agh! It just gets too anarchic to continue with sometimes. Which is a pity, because Lotje made some good points, and it would have been nice to have continued talking.

Not because any one of us has any interest in converting, convincing, explaining, blaming, or villifying anyone. But because the topic was about public examples of misogyny that affect all women. And we are women.

Each of the interpolations was from a man who, by virtue of his being a man, and not a woman, is unable to respond to how women are affected by public examples of misogyny - no matter what their politics or religion are.

The particular example which I gave got trampled into the dust of misdirection - but I would still like to have heard how you & Lotje felt about hearing of that Bill?
Y111
Posted: Saturday, January 25, 2020 2:53:44 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/25/2017
Posts: 367
Neurons: 1,824
Location: Kurgan, Kurgan, Russia
Hope123 wrote:
just against the necessity for you and others to support a movement to change it so that they do get those rights.

Not quite so. I was rather not arguing but making observations and then guessing why I see what I see. I believe the first thing we should do in any situation is figure out where we are and what's going on. Then, hopefully, we'll be able to decide what is worth doing, if anything.

One more reason for my lack of enthusiasm for feminism is likely the fact that I've never heard a Russian woman complain that she is unhappy because she doesn't have some rights. So all this feminist matter is rather abstract to me. I know there are feminists somewhere far away, but that's all.

If I saw our women walking around in black clothes from head to foot and not allowed to go anywhere alone or drive a car, then maybe I'd think there's something I should do about it. I say 'maybe' because in that case my own thinking would be different. We are embodiments of our cultures. Breaking with your culture is like breaking with yourself. It's also like breaking with your tribe and having to survive alone, which has always been dangerous. So it's no wonder if people avoid it like the plague.

Our culture is what puts the world in order, and us in a certain place in that order. It's something we use to orient ourselves in the sea of life. Hinting that someone's culture is wrong, we threaten to leave them in that sea without a map and compass. So if there is a defense reaction, it's natural and expectable, not at all 'weird'. It's weird only if we see people as incorporeal minds that can switch from one belief system to another in the blink of an eye. Since the defense reaction is expectable, we need to be prepared to handle it in a constructive way. Attacking it won't get us anywhere.

Of course, if our objective is simply to play the role of a progressive person and to enjoy watching ourselves in that role, then we won't be interested in being constructive. Then the defense reaction is not only expectable but desireable, and we will express our ideas in a way that is likely to provoke it.

I guess most people just play roles in forum discussions. It's a kind of online game. They may not recognize it fully, though, and believe in their sincerity. Recognizing it would make the game less real and therefore less exciting. Also it may contradict their moral values, which will force them to choose between two pleasures: being good and being thrilled, but they naturally want both. Those pleasures are of different nature and a poor substitute for each other.
Epiphileon
Posted: Saturday, January 25, 2020 3:17:42 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,267
Neurons: 165,966
Both of the topics in this thread are interesting, and thanks to Hope for moving the humanism/religion topic to the P&R subforum.

The thing I've always found interesting about the subjugation of women in most modern cultures, and by that I mean just about from the beginning of what we would call cultures above the hunter/gatherer level, is how it doesn't make evolutionary sense in one key aspect.

Stripped of all other attributes, (please pardon the crassness but it serves to make the point) men and women are basically egg layers and sperm squirters. From an evolutionary perspective, it is women who have the real power they are the ones who determine whose genes get passed on. I am fully aware that it has not always been that way and in some cultures still largely is not today, but this is what I wonder. Has the subjugation of women been because of this very fact?

I'm purposely leaving out a lot of the nuance and subtleties of the phenomenon to get to what may be the first principles of the problem.
sufall
Posted: Saturday, January 25, 2020 6:06:00 AM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/14/2015
Posts: 13
Neurons: 1,110,056
Epiphileon wrote:

...From an evolutionary perspective, it is women who have the real power they are the ones who determine whose genes get passed on. I am fully aware that it has not always been that way and in some cultures still largely is not today, but this is what I wonder. Has the subjugation of women been because of this very fact?
...


Correct me if this is not what you want to discuss:
Subjugation of women has been somehow caused by women determining (at least for most of the time) whose genes get passed on? And this does not make evolutionary sense because women's choices ended up being unfavourable for them - that is, ended up in their subjugation?

Well, if I understood your point correctly, here is one thing to keep in mind:
Assuming women do get to choose whose genes get passed on, the survival of the resulting offspring in the wild (i.e. in those times when we were cave-dwellers as well as today when the competition for well-paid secure jobs is no less fierce) requires not just the women's but also the men's coordinated efforts - i.e. the men should help raising their offspring if they want to make sure of their survival. For that to happen, one can safely assume that the men would need to be sure that the offspring they help raise are actually theirs. And this is how you end up with subjugation of women by men who need to be sure that the offspring they look after is really theirs. But luckily today we have paternity tests and therefore there is no more need for women being subjugated by men merely for paternity concerns. Men may still have have other concerns though...

Epiphileon
Posted: Sunday, January 26, 2020 3:47:01 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,267
Neurons: 165,966
Sufall wrote:
Correct me if this is not what you want to discuss:
Subjugation of women has been somehow caused by women determining (at least for most of the time) whose genes get passed on? And this does not make evolutionary sense because women's choices ended up being unfavourable for them - that is, ended up in their subjugation?


Hello Sufall, what I meant was that because women have this influence, men came to subjugate them in order to be able to force a choice on them. In the beginning it was not far removed from the alpha male individual being practically the sole male replicator in a population.

Sufall wrote:
Assuming women do get to choose whose genes get passed on, the survival of the resulting offspring in the wild (i.e. in those times when we were cave-dwellers as well as today when the competition for well-paid secure jobs is no less fierce) requires not just the women's but also the men's coordinated efforts - i.e. the men should help raising their offspring if they want to make sure of their survival.


This principle is behind the origin of primary mates and the nuclear family to a degree, and even far earlier in the rise of primate social order, also "to a degree". My tentative supposition is that the subjugation of women was partially caused by the fact that women choose the next generation and if men want to be able to be sure their genes are passed on they are in an advantageous position if women are reliant on them for their survival. I want to emphasize again, this is stripping away all other contributing factors to the rise of this behavior, nothing in individual human behavior let alone cultural behavior is this simple. My conjecture is that behind all those other factors this lies at the foundation of the behavior.
Lotje1000
Posted: Monday, January 27, 2020 2:37:24 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,145
Neurons: 645,914
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
Romany wrote:
Each of the interpolations was from a man who, by virtue of his being a man, and not a woman, is unable to respond to how women are affected by public examples of misogyny - no matter what their politics or religion are.

The particular example which I gave got trampled into the dust of misdirection - but I would still like to have heard how you & Lotje felt about hearing of that Bill?


Hi Romany

I have to say I disagree with the first sentence I quoted here - or at the very least I think it merits further discussion. I don't want to exclude anyone (especially not because they're a man and not a woman) from the topic and, while that might not have been your intention, that's how the sentence reads to me. Women remain experts on how they are affected by public examples of misogyny and I think we should all listen to them when they share their experiences. I think men absolutely have a place in responding to this. However, I draw the line at men/people hijacking the conversation or pretending that they are subject matter experts on other people's experiences.

Possibly that is what you meant and I just missed it.

As for your example of the bill, I hadn't heard of that one yet. It's ridiculous. I googled it and the reasoning seems to be that if they just discard the ectopic pregnancy, doctors face being charged with abortion murder and can be jailed for life. Which just makes the whole thing even more ridiculous! If they don't remove the ectopic pregnancy, the woman will likely die. And if they remove it, they risk getting sent to jail because reimplanting is impossible.

People deciding this sort of thing - in the face of being told it's impossible to do - are so wrapped up in their own morality that they ignore reality.
sufall
Posted: Monday, January 27, 2020 2:38:43 AM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/14/2015
Posts: 13
Neurons: 1,110,056
Hi Epiphileon,
Thank you for the clarification.

And what I understand is that the idea that the invention of paternity testing could (maybe in time) help in getting rid of the need of men to subjugate women is void. If the main idea is to make women reliant on men so that men can force a choice of gene selection on women is still relevant and will not go away... This is sad...

There still is some hope, of course, because as you noted "nothing in individual human behavior let alone cultural behavior is this simple" - cooperation is always better and more efficient than suppression, and cooperation is a key feature in human evolution, right?
sufall
Posted: Monday, January 27, 2020 3:01:52 AM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/14/2015
Posts: 13
Neurons: 1,110,056
Lotje1000 wrote:

Romany wrote:
...The particular example which I gave got trampled into the dust of misdirection - but I would still like to have heard how you & Lotje felt about hearing of that Bill?


Hi Romany
....As for your example of the bill, I hadn't heard of that one yet. It's ridiculous. I googled it and the reasoning seems to be that if they just discard the ectopic pregnancy, doctors face being charged with abortion murder and can be jailed for life. Which just makes the whole thing even more ridiculous! If they don't remove the ectopic pregnancy, the woman will likely die. And if they remove it, they risk getting sent to jail because reimplanting is impossible.

People deciding this sort of thing - in the face of being told it's impossible to do - are so wrapped up in their own morality that they ignore reality.



It seems to be one case of ignorance leading to another one...
1 Charging doctors with jail for life for removing ectopic pregnancy. Jail someone for life for this? True ignorance.
2 Requiring doctors to reimplant ectopic pregnancy in uterus. Unbelievable ignorance.
Lotje1000
Posted: Monday, January 27, 2020 3:03:26 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,145
Neurons: 645,914
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
Epiphileon wrote:
Stripped of all other attributes, (please pardon the crassness but it serves to make the point) men and women are basically egg layers and sperm squirters. From an evolutionary perspective, it is women who have the real power they are the ones who determine whose genes get passed on.


I think it's an interesting point you and sufall are making, especially in light of how pregnancy and sex are treated today. There seems to be a sense of entitlement attached to it all, where some men feel entitled to have sex with woman, and where the result of that act should be theirs. (Not counting, obviously, the very valid concern that in a committed relationship, ideally you'd want your spouse not to cheat.)

Sex, a woman's body, a woman's choice are all treated as inferior to a man's needs. Evolutionarily, this can be the continuation of the man's genes, but I don't think that matters that much anymore. I think this genetic need grew into a cultural expectation.

In this day and age, it all boils down to power. The idea of a woman saying no or saying yes are both historically so stigmatised, you have to wonder why. A woman saying no is dismissed, almost like a child. Her opinion doesn't matter, she doesn't know what she's saying, she wants it really and is just playing hard to get. All of that presumably to preserve a man's pride/power. A woman saying yes is even more threatening. It puts her at the level of a man, making decisions enthusiastically. She must be villified for having desires. And if she has the power to say yes, it automatically means she has the power to say no and that's dangerous.

(Mandatory disclaimer that, obviously, this kind of abuse is not solely perpetrated by men. Women are guilty of it too.)

This is not new. This power play is everywhere. People's desires and autonomy are ignored in dogmatised religion, in racism, in politics because a person without a voice is a person without power. And when this gets institutionalised, people start to internalise and perpetuate it themselves. Besides, it's easier to ignore a person than to listen to them and try to change something.

And this all applies very neatly to Romany's mention of the Ohio bill. Those in power impose a ridiculous bill that means everyone loses, no matter what they do. Why? Because it's easier to stick to your guns and morality than it is to empathize with victims (and that means everyone, women, their doctors and their families) and tackle the difficult issues.
Epiphileon
Posted: Monday, January 27, 2020 4:11:13 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,267
Neurons: 165,966
sufall wrote:

And what I understand is that the idea that the invention of paternity testing could (maybe in time) help in getting rid of the need of men to subjugate women is void. If the main idea is to make women reliant on men so that men can force a choice of gene selection on women is still relevant and will not go away... This is sad...

That would indeed be a sad state of affairs Sufall and I don't know at this point in our cultural coevolution whether it is likely to change. For this or any of the other chains that bind humanity to mindless coevolutionary forces to be broken, a significant portion of the population must first acknowledge that those chains exist. In order to do that not only would that portion of the population have to fully acknowledge that evolution occurred, but that modern human behavior at both the individual and cultural level are the result of evolutionary forces. Unfortunately, that information is not widespread, nor part of any regular primary education system's curriculum that I am aware of.

There is a very readable primer available on the subject of behavioral genetics and I highly recommend it, "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. First published in the late 70s it is a masterful work detailing the implications of evolutionary theory on the development of modern human behavior. It is a fascinating read, and although sobering, and humbling, it is also empowering. The second edition is far more expensive than the first, however, for an introduction and actually thorough treatment of the issue the first addition serves well enough, in my opinion.

sufall wrote:
There still is some hope, of course, because as you noted "nothing in individual human behavior let alone cultural behavior is this simple" - cooperation is always better and more efficient than suppression, and cooperation is a key feature in human evolution, right?


The advent of cooperation is a major development in the evolutionary history of not only humans but many species and it is an incredibly powerful adaptation but I think to say it is always better is an overreach but that is very strictly speaking from a rigorous perspective. In the context of this discussion yes, definitely cooperation is not only better but in my opinion critical to the adaptive development of the species.

There is still hope? Well, honestly I can only hope so. As a species we seem to be foundering in adolescence and reaching maturity does not seem to be as sure of a thing as I once thought. The only hope I see is in a significant portion of the population coming to an understanding of the true nature of homo sapiens and use that understanding to overcome behavioral strategies that are no longer adaptive; whereas, it appears that there are forces at work which are informed by this understanding and are using it for the manipulation of the population for the benefit of a minority.

ETA It turns out a later edition is available even cheaper, it had been a while since I'd checked. Here is is.
sufall
Posted: Monday, January 27, 2020 4:45:40 AM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/14/2015
Posts: 13
Neurons: 1,110,056
[quote]
Epiphileon wrote:

...not only would that portion of the population have to fully acknowledge that evolution occurred, but that modern human behavior at both the individual and cultural level are the result of evolutionary forces. Unfortunately, that information is not widespread, nor part of any regular primary education system's curriculum that I am aware of.


Yes, sadly so... No proper education on evolution (and many other subjects unfortunately). In today's world of antibiotic resistant bacteria and ever-mutating viruses I really cannot understand how people fail to see evolution happening right before their eyes...
I know about the book "Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, but I haven't read it. (I did read "The God Delusion" and much enjoyed it.) Thank you for the recommendation about the second edition; it certainly went on my must-read list.

[quote]
Epiphileon wrote:

...a significant portion of the population coming to an understanding of the true nature of homo sapiens and use that understanding to overcome behavioral strategies that are no longer adaptive; whereas, it appears that there are forces at work which are informed by this understanding and are using it for the manipulation of the population for the benefit of a minority.


Such manipulation is sad and dangerous - our species may never reach maturity? I was so surprised to learn that "sapiens" actually meant intelligent, wise. We like to think we are smart, but are we really?
sufall
Posted: Monday, January 27, 2020 4:50:41 AM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/14/2015
Posts: 13
Neurons: 1,110,056
Lotje1000 wrote:
Epiphileon wrote:
Stripped of all other attributes, (please pardon the crassness but it serves to make the point) men and women are basically egg layers and sperm squirters. From an evolutionary perspective, it is women who have the real power they are the ones who determine whose genes get passed on.


I think it's an interesting point you and sufall are making, especially in light of how pregnancy and sex are treated today. There seems to be a sense of entitlement attached to it all, where some men feel entitled to have sex with woman, and where the result of that act should be theirs. (Not counting, obviously, the very valid concern that in a committed relationship, ideally you'd want your spouse not to cheat.)

Sex, a woman's body, a woman's choice are all treated as inferior to a man's needs. Evolutionarily, this can be the continuation of the man's genes, but I don't think that matters that much anymore. I think this genetic need grew into a cultural expectation.

In this day and age, it all boils down to power. The idea of a woman saying no or saying yes are both historically so stigmatised, you have to wonder why. A woman saying no is dismissed, almost like a child. Her opinion doesn't matter, she doesn't know what she's saying, she wants it really and is just playing hard to get. All of that presumably to preserve a man's pride/power. A woman saying yes is even more threatening. It puts her at the level of a man, making decisions enthusiastically. She must be villified for having desires. And if she has the power to say yes, it automatically means she has the power to say no and that's dangerous.

(Mandatory disclaimer that, obviously, this kind of abuse is not solely perpetrated by men. Women are guilty of it too.)

This is not new. This power play is everywhere. People's desires and autonomy are ignored in dogmatised religion, in racism, in politics because a person without a voice is a person without power. And when this gets institutionalised, people start to internalise and perpetuate it themselves. Besides, it's easier to ignore a person than to listen to them and try to change something.

And this all applies very neatly to Romany's mention of the Ohio bill. Those in power impose a ridiculous bill that means everyone loses, no matter what they do. Why? Because it's easier to stick to your guns and morality than it is to empathize with victims (and that means everyone, women, their doctors and their families) and tackle the difficult issues.



"the very valid concern that in a committed relationship, ideally you'd want your spouse not to cheat"

Yes, and it is always the woman who loses in case of cheating:

The woman cheats, the man finds out (maybe in the past there were instances where the man couldn't be sure, but today the man can know for sure thanks to paternity testing), and the woman loses whatever the man used to provide for their offspring, she loses access to the man's resources.

The man cheats, has offspring with other women, and all of these women lose somewhat, because the man will now have to provide for a larger number of offspring who will all have diminished shares of the man's resources.

You are right, it really is power play...

As for women having their own voice and power, that is never forgiven.

"...a person without a voice is a person without power. And when this gets institutionalised, people start to internalise and perpetuate it themselves."

But regardless of the power play and the internalised cultural expectations and all the brainwashing, the bill about ectopic pregnancies is still increadably ignorant. How come some lawmakers ignore such a clear medical fact?

Cultural expectations can and do change, albeit slowly (and not always in a positive/constructive direction).

And with Epiphileon's post above, proper education seems to be the only way forward...


Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.