*Feminism IS Population Control*

Post Reply New Topic

^^as long as it is done properly (i.e. trying to make the well-off, intelligent people to procreate more and the dysfunctional, pathological ones to abstain from procreating)

You are completely wrong about what I want, and wasting your time in any attempt to convince me you know my wants better than I do.
I do not want to be masculinized, conforming to some benchmark set by some other gender/sex is not my notion of equality. It's not up to me to dictate the 'feminine/masculine' qualities or ratios in men/males, that is up to individual men/males to decide for themselves.
I have never claimed that I hate men. I've no idea what this gable about becoming 'more like men' is on about.

I not agree with the above statement.

Not to hand, I also do not have figures for an increased ratio of urban to country dwellers as industrialisation progressed, nor figures to hand proving there is an AIDs epidemic in African continent. Victorian England experienced a rise in population growth at a time when literacy was higher than ever. Do you doubt the high population growth during Victoria's reign or that the rate of literacy was higher than at any previous time in British history? I'm not going to go find figures for these things, they are common knowledge. If you doubt them, I welcome you to check them for yourself.


The fact that there is no reason whatsoever that I can see that this would be plausible or possible might have some bearing on my doubt.

I understand cause and effect. You cited feminism as the cause of increased homosexuality. That homosexuality was more widely practiced in some society or other where feminism was not widely practiced at all, provides a real-world counter-evidence of such a causal correlation. It's not the only one. Some of the most gender stratified and oppressive of women societies in the world practice universal male homosexuality. Such real-world examples and facts are inconsistent with your assertion that feminism is the cause of homosexuality.

No feminism, plenty of homosexuality. This does not support your premise that homosexuality is caused by feminism.

Not sexually (as I described).
Er, no they manage the males.

Not interested in social structure hierarchy?


As I have already described, bonobo sexual behavior is more similar to ours than ours is to the common chimp.

pandd, how much have you read on chimpanzees? Humans are not more like the bononbo, although I wish we were. Humans are aggressive and live in a hierarchy. Bonobos have a very loose social structure. They are peaceful because the females submit to all males, not just the alphas.

You don't understand the difference between men preferring men over free bisexuality practices in more equal societies. Go get a book and read about bonobos and the sexual practices of men and women in ancient Greece. I'd hardly say that homosexuality in countries that are culturally patriarchal view it the same way more matriarchal societies do. I never said homosexuality was caused by feminism. Re read my post.
I simply questioned whether feminazis make women less attractive to males and so men now prefer exclusive relationships with other men so they don't have to deal with whiny, power hungry b*****s.

Last edited by Magnus on 17 Dec 2008, 4:16 am, edited 2 times in total.

I also think that humane, non-violent, non-eugenics-based population control is a good thing. But some responses on this thread are making me wonder if it is actually more threatening to ( some ) people than feminism, ( which seems pretty weird/incomprehensible to me, seeing how overpopulation is a real problem ).

I think that reduction in population growth rate is brilliant, just what we need, and yet apparently it is a heresy, ( a slur on feminism or something ), to associate feminist politics with such a phenomenon.

It seems totally obvious to me that women being increasingly in control over their own bodies has had a huge effect on population growth rates ( reducing them wherever feminist principles have got a toe hold ).
.

Last edited by ouinon on 17 Dec 2008, 1:58 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Exactly.

It was women's reproductive and sexual rights, ( as opposed to "welfare", which did not give them equality ), radical feminism, ( women being in charge of their own bodies and therefore of reproduction ), which turned the tide. And those didn't come along until the end of the century.

.

Last edited by ouinon on 17 Dec 2008, 6:14 am, edited 3 times in total.

I'm not at all surprised about the numbers of women with less of a libido. After a hard day's work (in or out of the home) and being all touched-out from contact with the kiddos, at times it is difficult to view sex as enjoyable. Sure, it feels good but a lot of times it seems like one more thing on the daily to-do list.

I disagree.
My teacher is a feminist. She has twelve children although kicked her husband out for cheating on her again. Before she just accepted it, that he would always be 'friends' with his secretary.
I am a feminist. But a feminist in a way that I refuse to be treated any different in human rights than men. We should all have the same choices and the same freedoms. However male and female biology differ and this affects the choices we do make. But this doesn't affect feminism. Feminism has been developing even since the suffragists, before the rise in population growth reached its peak. It was simply woman competing to stop being treated like a different being, like all supressed souls eventually want to do. It goes back to the biblical ages when woman were seen as second class citizens. There was a revolution amoungst the woman and the men were powerless to stop it.
I am feminist, and I would love to get married and have kids (although it probibly will never happen due to my AS and I havent found the right man), but not til i'm older of course. I'm only 16.

Not so much as I'd like although often more than others would like, although this is true of anything that interests me.


With regards to sex and sexuality humans are closer to bonobos than to common chimpanzees.

Humans are not exceptionally aggressive, in fact we are highly cooperative. Bonobos are not free from conflict. They just happen to also be socially cooperative to a greater extent than common chimpanzees. Like humans, bonobos have more complex and advanced peace-making and social problem solving skills and practices. None the less bonobos (like humans and chimpanzees) are highly competitive. Bonobo society is most certainly not free from all hierarchy, and human societies very often are less attentive to hierarchy than common chimp societies. Females in chimp societies are less socially networked and cooperative, bonobo females more closely resemble the kind of women's knitting circle female politics and networking very commonly found in humans. Especially older bonobo females have established alliances, mess with one, you mess with the group. Male bonobos do not stick together so much as their female counter-parts and hence the females are able to manage them.

You stated homosexuality was caused by feminism, if you feel you left out some important details then it's up to you to provide those details if you want anyone to accept your argument/premise.


Did you have a particular book in mind?

I would hardly say they view it differently. This is probably because I know that there are no known confirmed matriarchal societies among humans so there is no evidence that any matriarchal human society ever had any views to be different or similar to the extant view of some extant human society.

I'll do better than merely read them, I'll re-quote them for your benefit.

All the evidence I am aware supports the view that in ancient Greece more men preferred men to women and there was no feminism. Further in some of the most sexually stratified and male dominated societies known to humans, there is strong evidence of wide-spread preferences amongst males for male-to-male sexual activity. In fact in some of these societies, men are rather nervous about sexual contact with females.


Er, no, you referred to feminism. Now you are babbling about feminazis. One thing I have noticed is that when sexist males simply want to regress to sexism and inequality for their own self-centered reasons, it soon becomes clear on examination, that their arguments and criticisms are baseless, non-factual and/or inane, and very often from this point (if it did not start there) they devolve to silly name calling, stereotyping, and other crap that only serves to further discredit their arguments.

Which responses are those? I must not have paid much attention.
I noticed at least one poster seems to feel population growth reduction is negative, but they were not reluctant in any way to associate feminism with it.
Is someone arguing that feminism is unrelated to population growth, or a cause of it?


If you were aware I was correct in stating that without highly reliable and readily accessible birth control, population growth decreases do not correlate so the same way to increases in literacy and education (as the example of Victorian England demonstrates), then why did you ask me if I had any figures on it?

Really? So in that case, we will not find societies where females are more oppressed than in Victorian England, yet have experienced decreases in population growth corresponding to increases in literacy and education, coupled with the availability and easy access to modern (commercially produced and distributed) contraception? Thinking about some of the modern, extant societies where (unlike in Victorian England) it is unheard of for females to appear in public with their hair visible, or to leave their home without the permission of a male, yet where there have been increases in education and literacy, and modern contraception is accessible, are you certain if I go and check I will not bring back figures demonstrating a decrease in population growth in at least one such society, despite the society being more oppressive to females and female rights than Victorian England?

Can you please explain how if a society stopped oppressing females, experienced increased literacy and education, yet had absolutely no access to contraceptions with the same high reliability as modern commercially produced and distributed contraception, they would reduce their population growth rates? Does everyone just stop having sex (because unlike men, no respectable women and nice girls do not like to do "it") if women are not oppressed and can read and write good?

Are you suggesting that the accessibility of modern commercially produced and distributed contraception is irrelevant to decreases in population growth, because feminism, increased literacy and education, independent of accessible and highly reliable contraception, can alone explain the decreases in population growth to which you refer?

pandd, here is my original post that you hacked up

Bonobos are not more like humans in terms of sexuality. If we were we would have sex with children, females would be screwing all men not just one special one they find, bisexuality would be the norm, and marriage would not exist.

As for your ideas about ancient Greece, Lesbos was a matriarchal island. The word lesbian comes from that. Women were not in power like the men in Greece when bisexuality was acceptable, but they were respected for their natural female role as a mother and nurturer to the family. It was not like modern feminism at all. The sexes did not compete like we do now.

Speak for yourself ouinon. Women are conditioned to pretend like the dont really like sex so that when a woman agrees to have sex with her husband/bf, she makes him think that she's doing him a favor and that he owes her something in return.
Marriage as institution is treated as a business transaction in most societies, AND by conservatives in western countries. Women are taught, possibly by their mothers, to use sex as a form of currency to exchange for material goods from the man. But it does seem like Most aspie women have subnormal sex drives. Biology has shewn that a womans sex drive is more variable than a mans, and that when women are ovulating is when their sexual urges peak. I HAVE noticed however, that there are certain mental abnormalities-mainly personality/mood disorders-such that women afflicted by them have EXTREMELY strong sex drives; sometimes stronger than most men. A good example of this is bipolar disorder; when bipolar women get manic they are notorious for their promiscuity.

Last edited by Haliphron on 20 Dec 2008, 1:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

It is very interesting that you feel such a need to posit inaccurate characterizations on the communication of others, perhaps your case would be more convincing if you put all that wasted effort into arguing it rather than railing against the person arguing it.
I did not hack up your post. You stated that I needed to read your post as though I were inaccurate my description of what you posted, so I posted the relevant statement. Plain and simple. I think that your real objection to being associated with what you actually and quite clearly claimed, is that even you now realize how very contrary to the evidence your suggestion was.


There it is in bold, plain and simple, you are positing feminism as causal of so many men preferring men now, and this is clearly not consistent with the facts, such as the much more wide-spread preference of men for men in ancient Greece and of the wide-spread preference of males for males (over females) even today in some very sexually stratified societies with a complete absence of feminism.


It is more common for humans to have sex with pre-sexually reproductive young than it is for chimps. So again another instance of humans being more similar to bonobos than common chimps. The reason for this is because of a similarity I have already cited and pointed to the importance of. Unless you are having sex for some purpose other than reproduction, there is little point to having sex with someone who is not sexually mature ie capable of reproduction. If a species only routinely uses sex for reproduction, why ever would it have sex with children? If a species members routinely engage in non-reproductive sex then it follows that they will not necessarily restrict their sexual engagements to reproductively mature individuals.

Do you know what more similar means? Are you aware it does not mean identical? I have stated that humans are more similar in sexual behavior to bonobos than they are to common chimps. Plenty of human females (and males) have sex with more than just one special person they find. In fact there is no culturally universal stereotype for this particular trait in humans, so it is not a trait one can compare to stereotype traits in non-humans. The fact is, at the base there is a major similarity of great importance, (not all details are equally relevant). The reason bonobos are so promiscuous is because unlike chimps, yet just like humans, they pervasively and routinely use sex for non-reproductive purposes.

What rubbish. Bisexuality occurs quite readily among bonobos and humans, far more readily and often than among chimps. As for marriage, do chimps get married? No, so humans are no more different to bonobos than they are to common chimps in this area.

We have many similarities between human and bonobo sexuality and so far you've not come up with a single example of any behavior in this area where we are in fact obviously more similar to common chimps than bonobos, (the best you can do is come up with details where we differ from both these animals), yet you still insist we are not more similar to bonobos in this area than we are to common chimps.

I find your argument unconvincing to put it kindly.

I am aware of the Lesbos mythos. If you think for a moment that it is relevant, then you need to think a bit harder. The many Greek cities where homosexuality was routinely practiced were not all located on this iconic island were they? And in fact whatever was the case on Lesbos we know that there was no tradition of modern feminism universal to all these city states where male homosexuality was a socially idealized norm. Of course these societies form just one example. I have already stated that yet other examples of societies without anything resembling feminism yet with more pervasive male preferences for males over females exist. How on earth do you think pointing out the (very common knowledge) origins of the word lesbian patches up the obvious factual holes in your theory that these examples demonstrate?


How does that prove that modern feminism is the cause of increased male preference for males? It does not.

Last edited by pandd on 17 Dec 2008, 7:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.

*yawn*

...

Last edited by claire-333 on 24 Dec 2008, 4:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.