Feminist preoccupation with power

Post Reply New Topic

It's sexual discrimination when we go to a doctor's office and the forms to fill out ask if we are male or female.
But it's the good kind of sexual discrimination. Not all kinds are bad!

From Google dictionary:
"discrimination: 2. Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another."

That used to be the first definition, by the way. Politics has made it the second. I mean, seriously, how political is this: "1. The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex." I mean, discrimination is what all of us have to practice every day to keep from dying. We have to discriminate between empty roads and roads full of speeding vehicles when we're going to turn onto a road, we have to discriminate between safe and unsafe food, and we have to discriminate between toothpaste and fecal matter, etc, etc. So not discriminating means death. Am I "prejudicially, unjustly" judging fecal matter if I immediately think it isn't toothpaste before a thorough, objective analysis?

Last edited by Ragtime on 15 Apr 2012, 11:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Because that's very fair on the child, isn't it?

If he absolutely objects to the idea completely, then he insist on using a condom. Or better yet insist on going in her back door!

Can't feed em? Don't breed em!

I think that in such cases if the mom can't support the child financially then she should be eligible to receive welfare to help support the child.

I agree, but you're effectively forcing all tax payers to pay for the child, then. I'd rather do that than have starving kids, but some people on here wouldn't.

You've read a lot of our debates, haven't you?

Feminism seems to be the hottest topic ever in this section. I wonder why?

Conservatives will never help a starving child.

Only where they want it to be. Much of feminism leans towards communism, however they still want to keep 1 thing sacret, the right of a woman to decide everything for herself without any form of social effect, communal effect or whatever. Many feminists view the rights they require for women like Rand sycophants view "objectivity" as something existing within a vacuum. I'm sure LKL is going to demand statistical evidence for that statement and Joker is going to point out that his sister/mother/cousin/Beth Phoenix do not feel that way, but its essentially what reductio ad absurdum does to feminism as an ideology.

We can separate norms into 2 kinds, formal norms and informal norms. A formal norm is a law, that you aren't allowed to kill people for instance is a formal norm. An informal norm are norms that aren't in the law but are accepted as "rules" by a majority of society, for instance there is no law that says that I can't walk around a shopping mall wearing a pink, lace thong, but society wouldn't react positively to it. In the case of the majority of active feminist posters in this thread, having formals norms supporting their cause is not enough, they want informal norms to do so as well, which is akin to requiring that people accept and be supportive of all your choices so long as they do not break the law and in some cases when they do break the law. Its shockingly libertarian. However, at the same time its very authoritarian because part of it would come in the form of a "shunning" within society of those who deviate from the norm, which is exactly what feminism was made up to fight, namely for the rights of women to deviate from the expectations of society.

Its the irony of affirmative action actually being a form of discrimination, because by mandating that X of Y be Z, you are also saying that X of T cannot be Z because in most cases its a zero-sum game. If you make a formal norm that says that a college must have 50% of X in their program on how to be Batman, or give X extra points to get into the program on how to be Batman, you are saying that a certain number of T cannot get into the program on how to be Batman, not because of merits but because they aren't X.

In the same sense, if X make up 30% of the members in a political party or business sector, but are required to be 50% of the management, then X is overrepresented in the management, and T is under represented, not due to qualifications but due to not being X.

That's correct. I realize that this is going to make most republicans and libertarians butthurt, but that's really their tough sh*t.
However, I think that in such cases the woman must prove that she has insufficient funds to provide for both her and her children.

I wouldn't, I'm fine with pooled risk for healthcare, IE single payer system, but I'm not fine with paying for other people f*****g up and having a kid. Now, you may say that "you can't punish the kid for the mistakes of the parents" but if that's the case, why is it cool to punish the rest of us by forcing us to pay for it? I'm also fed up with the "Children are more important than people" movement.,

I think I agree with you, for once.

However, how long do you envisage this process of 'proving' to take. I hope it won't take as long as applying for other benefits, because then we'd have starving children in the meantime.

Starving children are not conducive to having a developed nation. Seeing as deprived kids usually cost more to support if they survive. They have a much higher chance of becoming criminals and generally not contributing to society to their fullest potential.

Don't worry, I strongly dislike the mindset that children are more important than adults (though I guess people think that way for a good reason), I probably find it more repugnant than even you. I'm pragmatic about things, though.

Children are people! And like it or not, they are the most important people in any society because they are the future. I'm fed up with selfish parents(especially mothers since they have the legal upper hand) twisting the family legal system by falsely claiming that they are acting in their children's best interest when they are just playing the servant. I think a big part of the reasoning behind all these child support laws is so to ensure that someone other than the state is supporting these kids.

Bad parents are not conducive to having a developed nation either and has just as much of an effect on people becoming criminals as does starvation. I'm not a fan of having starving children either, but I'm also a firm believer in that most starving children are the children of unfit parents.



The future is not more important than the now in any way, I'm not willing to moderate my lifestyle or behavior because of other people's children. As a matter a fact, I think the Beatles "Black Album" is worth 10 dead kids.

Here's the problem - it's not his responsibility to ensure that his sexual partners aren't explicitly and intentionally lying. If he's lied to, it's not his responsibility, but his right to decide at a later time. It's impossible to make a good decision based on information that is completely false. It's like politics - recently, a former finance minister here was criticized for having made a stupid decision in buying a failing bank. However, he went by bad information provided to him by our central bank, and he had only two days to decide on the issue or the bank would collapse. He bought it for an amount of money that turned out to be far too much.

He went by false information, and should be able to claim his right to not have children later. What I find interesting in this case, though, is that a woman who is lied to can have an abortion; a man cannot. A man can't tell the woman to have an abortion, because that would be 'a violation of human rights', even though she tricked him and holds him financially responsible.

No one is asking you to do jack for the sake of other peoples kids other than not molest them. And yes, the future is as important as the now(if not more). If you don't like that fact and/or wish to whine about having to pay taxes to which a small portion(of your money)is being used to provide for children, well, go change your pad.

Last edited by AspieRogue on 15 Apr 2012, 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.