My gf seems to be bothered that I am 'white and privileged'.

Post Reply New Topic

Then that seems to be the best course of action. Leave it casual. She sounds like a nice girl so what's the point of losing her over one misunderstanding.

But I thought casual meant not serious, so if we are exclusive, doesn't that make it serious?

Yes you at that crossroads but in case you haven't noticed the person choosing to not take the next step to a "serious" relationship is you. Why? because this is now the 28th page of posts about your g/f

She doesn't seem like a real girlfriend to you. Perhaps, you could ask her what she means by white and privileged. Maybe that could help to nip it in the bud.

She's either half or 3/4's "white" herself; therein lies the irony.

Well she also grew up in a more expensive home compared to me, when I went to her parents house recently, so she did grow up somewhat privileged herself, at least in terms of living conditions.

Also I don't mean to sound bad of her when I say this, but I started to notice that the white privilege thing of hers seems to come out when she is on her cycle. So could it just be a phase every few weeks and nothing to be concerned about if she doesn't seem to like that all the time?

Does she focus on social justice issues without seeing nuance in them? My ex-fiancee was like that. She would go off about patriarchy, but she lived over her dad's business (rent free) and had luxuries (school, travel) because of this business. There's nothing wrong with that, but she seemed a little blind to herself.

Well I just feel there are some contradictions she has. Like for example she felt that people being anti-abortion was sexist, which is the environment I was raised in but I pointed out how I didn't see it that way, because if men are pro-life that screws them out money for paying child support so why would men being anti-abortion be sexist, if they would be screwing themselves in the process. So that's an example as to how I felt her perspective was contradictory, as far as I thought, example wise.

That seems like disagreeing with but also not actually understanding her perspective or how limiting access to abortion has more substantial impacts on women than men even if there are also impacts on men.

It's not sexist because there's some identifiable impact on men doesn't actually effectively rebut the idea that bans on abortion are inherently sexist because the impacts aren't equally distributed. One's greatest potential harm is muh finances! while for the other it's one's literal flesh that is permanently altered as a result.

Okay. It was just my logic but I just felt that in order for something to be prejudiced the person being prejudice cannot be screwing themselves in the process otherwise it's not logical for that person to be prejudiced.

Except for people sometimes cut off their nose to spite their face so to speak.

Beyond that, you've got to consider how the costs are distributed, woman undeniably bear a higher cost when a society denies access to abortion services. There's no framing of the issue where that fails to remain true.

Right. The way the issue is framed doesn’t allow both sides to win, and there’s no room for compromise.

I’m a pro-lifer. My argument is that the destruction of human life is the destruction of human life. Any time you willfully, knowingly, unjustifiably kill a human being, you are guilty of murder. What side of the womb that life occupies is irrelevant. Premeditated acts warrant execution of murderers (murder is always unjustified by definition), the difference being that anyone who destroys life via murder forfeits his own life. MOST abortions meet the definition of murder. That does not mean all abortions are unjustified. The focus of a good pro-life argument should always be on the preservation of life with the understanding that rare situations do occur when one may cause the death of another human being for the sake of self-preservation.

The pro-abortion stance is masked as pro-women. The idea is not entirely unfounded. Women have historically been marginalized and thrived best when men have acted to protect them from other men. So when a society is created to provide freedom and justice for all, women have a special, protected status to ensure that women are free and have no need to fear anyone, men in particular. I have absolutely no problem with protecting the rights of women. Pregnancy represents another human being taking control over a woman’s body, and not necessarily with her full consent. To compel all women to bring babies to term, whether they want babies or not, means women are NOT free. “You can do whatever you want with your body, just don’t get pregnant” is the message. To put it a different way: You cannot force anyone to defend himself, but that doesn’t mean you get to take away guns. If a woman doesn’t want an abortion, you can’t force her to get one. But at the very least you cannot use the justice system to prevent her from getting an abortion if she wants one.

There’s a catch to all this that most people appear to miss. First, you cannot guarantee the right to life for all if you can pick and choose (or even target) certain classes or groups for destruction, especially if it is a group of people who are physically unable to speak for themselves. Second, you cannot logically assume that babies are incapable of killing another human being and threatening others. If a baby is a threat to the mother’s life, killing that baby is a matter of justifiable homicide in the exact same sense as accidental death or self-defense. If you take away abortion entirely, that means you are taking away a woman’s means to protect herself should it become absolutely necessary for her to do so. If you wouldn’t take away guns or the death penalty, then you can’t get rid of abortion. What you would want to do is carefully delineate exactly what would justify killing babies and humane methods of doing so in the context of a medical procedure, not unlike lethal injection. Ectopic pregnancies. Possibly rape/incest, especially if the victim is very young to begin with. Or if the baby is already dead in the womb or cannot possibly survive outside the womb. But in ordinary situations when mother and baby are healthy, is with most human interactions, abortion is unnecessary. My take on this is we must allow exceptions when they are medically necessary, but casually allowing infanticide is participating in mass murder, possibly even genocide (read up on which races are more affected).

Those are good points. I'm no expert and could only give her my opinion based on my perception. I just didn't think a lot of men were willing to pay child support for years just as a sexist 'screw you' to women, when it comes to pro-life being done out if sexism.

But also, she told me in a conversation, that she also felt the birth control pill was sexist too, because it was made by men.

This I also find to be very contradictory, because first guys want to keep women from getting abortions out of sexism but they also want to prevent them from getting pregnant out if sexism? Those two are the complete opposite MOs and you can't say they are both sexist if they are the opposite. It just felt contradictory and having your cake and eating it too or so I thought.

But this is why I have trouble agreeing with her or seeing her perspective because her beliefs seem to have contradictions and holes, but that's just my perception on it.

Ah, so what she’s saying is really just more CT nonsense. For women to be truly liberated in the fullest sense, there cannot be a man anywhere around. If women have to depend on men preserving their freedom, they are basically in the position that they always have to ask permission, or it is implied that everything they do is subject to conditions set by men.

The b.c. pill, for example, is just another link in the metaphorical chain that women are shackled to. First, it grants men access to vaginas free of consequence. If you take the pill, you are subject to demands for sex at any time. Second, it took a MAN to create the pill in the first place, meaning it was designed by a man for MEN’S purposes, not for the security of women’s collective interest. It is inherently, systemically sexist. This is also related to CRT because oppression is intersectional. There are layers of oppression, with white women representing a special victim class oppressed by white men (black men are oppressors, too, but are also under the dominance of white men—i.e. they can’t help it because they don’t know any better). The Pill, therefore, is just as much racist as it is sexist since its use also means preventing minorities from reproducing.

The “T” in CT and T doesn’t refer to a scientific theory or anything that is evidence-based. It is a way of thinking that is built on the presupposition of dominance and oppression of people groups. It is axiomatic that males can only oppress women and that nothing men come up with can ever be a good thing. CT/CRT are more closely related to religions and cults.

Oh ok. In this theory, how are minorities oppressed , birth control wise?

Could it be her age and lack of maturity? we seem to come back to logical conclusions