Well done, feminism. Now men are afraid to help women at work

Jamie Stick wrote:

Star Forge wrote:
No, I'm fine with your position on either issue and if I cared about either argument I would take your points into consideration. All I am saying is that your repetitious deployment of the "non sequitur" mantra to begin a post (in response to the founder of this order, no less)

When and where? I'm genuinely curious because I looked for it and couldn't find such a response. Secondly, why should the founder get a pass on using logic? If I make exemptions for the founder, who else must I make exemptions for or are you specifically taking issue with the way I point out errors in reasoning? If others can't be bothered to put any effort into putting together a well-reasoned argument, why should I bother writing a lengthy reply when the phrase, "non sequitur" sums up the problem with their argument? It's not a lack of respect, but rather a quid pro quo approach. I'm not going to waste my effort on someone who spent absolutely zero effort trying to demonstrate why their position is critically superior. If you look through the thread you'll notice that I rather enjoyed when people challenged me and gave more detailed responses where an argument of quality was present.

Star Forge wrote: Rather, I have decided, based on the way that you write and the inferences that I have made thereof, that I strongly dislike you as a person, that's all.

I would say the feeling is mutual, but I don't trust your reasoning since you seem to be swayed more by those who uphold your own beliefs than by anything of substance. I don't dislike you, I just don't take you seriously which is why I'm heavily skeptical of the statement below:

Star Forge wrote: I will do my best to amend my ways.

For what it's worth, I can't take you seriously either, which is why I chose to have fun at your expense rather than engage in two very tired debates.

Swayed by those who uphold my beliefs? My views on guns and feminism were formulated through experience and weighing the issues. It's not so much of a matter of belief, but rather things that I have concluded are realities. Don't you listen to people that agree with you? Don't you ever enjoy hearing somebody say something that you agree with?

I praised Ren for going against feminists in threads like this because he's a smart guy who can really tear it up sometimes, but mainly because he's good at pissing people off, and I find it entertaining. I went after you in both threads because I, at first, found the "non sequitur" mantra to be annoying, arrogant, and elitist, but now I think it's cute and actually becoming of you, and I mean that honestly and without any negative intent.

SeventhSL wrote:

Br. John wrote:

SeventhSL wrote:

Br. John wrote: The decision to terminate a pregnancy should be solely between the pregnant woman, her conscience and her doctor.

So zero choice = zero child support?

I do not understand. Would you please elaborate or give a hypothetical example?

I am by no means judging your belief but I am simply trying to understand it. Specifically if you intend to have gender equality when one gender has all the choice and the other gender must pay for that choice. Is the concession for giving the woman the complete power of choice, giving the man complete power over his choice to be financially responsible?

For example: Let us say that a man and a woman come together and start a creative process that will result in the life of a new human. During this process they both provide genetic material which is necessary to the creative process. Let us also say, that in this example, the continuation of the creative process does not carry any high risk medical consequences to any party. With this foundation let me now branch the example into two different directions.

1. The man is pro life and wishes to let the creative process run its course. He is willing to take sole responsibility for the new life including complete financial burden. For her own reasons the woman simply does not wish to let the creative process continue and can terminate it without any consent of the man.

2. The woman is prolife and wishes to let the creative process run its course. For his own reasons the man simply does not wish to let the creative process continue but the woman can continue it without any consent of the man.

I do not see gender equality in the above especially if in branch 2 the man must then bear a heavy long term financial commitment without choice. I can see many ways to provide gender equality but none where sole right to continue/terminate the creative process resides with one gender alone.

Perhaps I am looking for equal rights and gender equality where you do not intend any to exist. Perhaps this is why I am struggling to understand your belief. I am by no means judging your belief but I am simply trying to understand it.

There'll be gender equality the day they put as much effort into men who can't get pregnant as they do into women who can't either.

If pregnancy is solely the pregnant's choice then let it also be their responsibility. Also the law should separate pregnancy and parenting. After they lose the right to abort, they should be given the opportunity to abandon the child. If anyone else could be held liable/responsible for the child, they too should have the right to abandon it.

I'm not ignoring you SeventhSL but you present compound issues and I'm still writing out the post and checking some statistics and references.

Ren, did you know Texas (of all places) pioneered the 'Baby Moses Law' which all 50 states have now adopted in some form.

https://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Child_Protection/Keep_Children_Safe/baby_moses.asp

Safe Haven or Baby Moses Law

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

If you have a newborn that you're unable to care for, you can bring your baby to a designated safe place with no questions asked. The Safe Haven law, also known as the Baby Moses law, gives parents who are unable to care for their child a safe and legal choice to leave their infant with an employee at a designated safe place—a hospital, fire station, free-standing emergency centers or emergency medical services (EMS) station. Then, your baby will receive medical care and be placed with an emergency provider.

Information for Parents

If you're thinking about bringing your baby to a designated Safe Haven, please read the information below:

Your baby must be 60 days old or younger and unharmed and safe.
You may take your baby to any hospital, fire station, or emergency medical services (EMS) station in Texas.
You need to give your baby to an employee who works at one of these safe places and tell this person that you want to leave your baby at a Safe Haven.

You may be asked by an employee for family or medical history to make sure that your baby receives the care they need.
If you leave your baby at a fire or EMS station, your baby may be taken to a hospital to receive any medical attention they need. Remember, If you leave your unharmed infant at a Safe Haven, you will not be prosecuted for abandonment or neglect.

For more information, please go to Baby Safe Haven http://safehaven.tv/ or The Baby Moses http://www.babymosesproject.org/ or call the Texas Baby Moses Hotline 1-877-904-SAVE (1-877-904-7283).

The way it works in france, which is biased against men although not nearly as much as other countries, is that a man is only father if he declares himself such. It can be done before or after the birth. Women have an option to abandon the child from birth (as well as abortion piror to the birth). I don't know if there are time limits to do this (either abandon or declare, although I don't know why there should be such limitations). While women have the opportunity to keep the child if it has no father, men cannot do so if the child has no mother.

Ultimately I feel that "Feminism" is an outdated term if the goal is gender egalitarianism -- especially when you take into account the wide spectrum of genders including trans and non-binary which people consider themselves, an aspect of identity which I personally respect. Gender egalitarianism is the term that should be used for gender egalitarianism. It has no name-based gender bias.

To those who would say that "Feminism" doesn't inherently have a name-based gender bias, even if that were the case, it is still the case that there is a difference between "is" and "ought". People will not always agree with you. Why allow there to be issues over the name in the first place? Solve the issue by calling it what it is supposed to be: gender egalitarianism.

Unless anyone can give me a good reason for anyone to cling to the word "Feminism", which I believe we as Jedi aren't really into (the whole attachment thing), I can't see myself using the term to describe myself or anyone else who supports gender equality across all areas.

Or just human rights. The problem could be that in those parts of the world most in need of gender egalitarianism, they are also probably more likely to have very little empathy for those other groups not covered by the term feminism.

If those places cannot bring themselves to see that their mothers, wives and daughters should be equal... then it might be a stretch to expect them to open their minds to the concept for unfamiliar groups. Sometimes small steps make way for greater strides, such that without feminism we would not have transgender recognition I imagine.

I'd say feminism has the goal of gender egalitarianism, but its focus of effort is for (people identifying as) females specifically... meaning its just a lobby group like any other lobby group, and should not be expected to lobby for issues outside its scope - but I guess that doesn't mean it cannot leverage its efforts to similar or supporting issues, and of course defending itself from those who seek to marginalize it (whether internal or external to the movement!!). They just need to be more focused
:ohmy: :silly:

Br. John wrote: I'm not ignoring you SeventhSL but you present compound issues

No stress mate and no obligation to answer. I just saw an opportunity to get a different perspective on a belief that I have heard before but have struggled to understand the reasoning for.

I'd like to point out that feminism is a word. There are many words: nigger, bitch, cracker, dog, pig, etc. I see a lot of people saying some hurtful things here. I won't name any names but comes to mind. I guess we can all go on hurting each other or whatever. I have no stake in the outcome. I mean if that's what you want then go for it. You suffer because you enjoy it. So enjoy...

I'm enjoying working on a concise response with my reasoning. And also making it short enough so it actually gets read. In the meantime (this is only one example of incredible absurdity and injustice in the child support laws) try and wrap your mind around this.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statutory-rape-victim-child-support/14953965/

A statutory rape victim (14 years old at the time) now being forced to pay child support. I'll have more cases where men are forced to pay support for children proved to not be theirs by DNA while the real father gets off paying nothing. And this is even in spite of known and admitted duplicity by the mother.

Don't let me forget to explain why a pregnant woman should try and avoid Catholic hospitals at all costs. Frightening stuff.

The most well-known case was of a Kansas boy who, at age 13, impregnated his 17-year-old baby-sitter.

Kid can't be trusted on his own at home.
Kid gets baby-sitter pregnant.

:pinch: