Radical Feminism

[Canadian Blue]

In our free access to medical care system, there can be NO discrimination. If there is discrimination for one funded "elective" surgery, there will soon be attacks on all "elective" sugeries. That is the way of it.

Not really since it can be argued that abortion is only in place to terminate life, and does not help improve life unless their are health concern's with regards to the mother.

I concur with this BC_Chick, when I was in university, I was approached by feminists on campus to join their ranks. At that time, what some have labelled as radical feminism, held NO interest for me, nor does it now. And I did not self-idenify as a feminist, I considered myself more of a humanist seeking equality rights for women. Many women also felt that same way and set out to change it. Hence the new wave of feminist thought. Many do not understand this, nor do they seek to so so.

What do you mean by "equal rights", I know that my boss who is a women earn's more than me. Every job I have worked the women were treated the same, and got the exact same pay. As well how many more women are going to university, aren't women excelling in academics.

[BC_chick]

jefferiah,

I try and be reasonable, but I am human and we all have have our moments.

I do agree that it's not "fair" that a woman gets to choose to have an abortion when/if the man may want the child - and she also gets to choose to keep it when/if he doesn't - yet he still has to be pay for that child for the next 18 years. But hey, many things in life aren't fair and since women end up carrying the child, and becoming the primary caretakers, it is an unforunate fact (for men) that it's our bodies, and it's therefore our decision what to do with them.

The best course of action in this current situation for a man, is to use protection when you don't want a child (you meaning men, not you personally), and to communicate openly with the woman about where to go should she become pregnant. That way everyone knows where they stand on the issue.

But according to the supreme court, nobody is taking "a life" because "life" doesn't start at conception.

As for catchme calling you a misogynist for not agreeing with her on this issue - I can't comment because I wan't there. Maybe she over-reacted, or maybe you said some things as supporting evidence for your argument (of why women should not be subsidized for abortion) which she took as misogynist.

Either way, I wasn't there, so I don't know what happened.

[Catchme]

Not really since it can be argued that abortion is only in place to terminate life, and does not help improve life unless their are health concern's with regards to the mother.

What do you mean by "equal rights", I know that my boss who is a women earn's more than me. Every job I have worked the women were treated the same, and got the exact same pay. As well how many more women are going to university, aren't women excelling in academics.

Not it cannot be argued that abortion is there to terminate life, nor can it be argued that having an abortion does not improve life for some. Why? Because it simply isn't true.

Having been a woman in the Canadian military, I do not believe your comment that women were treated the same. Unless of course you really haven't been in the military. Same pay yes, for same designation.

And just what was the point of your last point, it does not seem pertinent to the rest of your post, nor pertinent in life as a matter of fact, as there are also many men in university NOT excelling in academics.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And also, for you out there that say women need to keep their legs closed, why do you not say that men need to keep their zippers closed, it takes 2!

[Catchme]

Along this line, here is some food for thought:

That's funny, when 1 woman probably makes up 2/3rds of the stat that says 50% of woman are holding American wealth, with other celebrities holding the other 1/3.

Do you think they are representative of "average women"?

Nobody would take those stats in any serious manner as being representative of anything.

_______________________________________________

Here is a link to a forum that is discussing women disagreeing with women in the feminist spheres, and low and behold they are disagreeing with each other!

http://www.breadnroses.ca/forums/viewtopic...t=19479&start=0

[Canadian Blue]

Having been a woman in the Canadian military, I do not believe your comment that women were treated the same. Unless of course you really haven't been in the military. Same pay yes, for same designation.

Well the difference is I'm in the real army, while you simply made up this fantasy that you were in the Canadian military. Big difference, as well it's the same pay for each rank, regardless of gender.

I can't believe you have stooped so low as to lie about your military service.

And just what was the point of your last point, it does not seem pertinent to the rest of your post, nor pertinent in life as a matter of fact, as there are also many men in university NOT excelling in academics.

What I pointed out was not as many men are excelling in academics as compared to women, so it must be discrimination right?

Not it cannot be argued that abortion is there to terminate life, nor can it be argued that having an abortion does not improve life for some. Why? Because it simply isn't true.

Yes it can since some people consider a fetus a human being, and plus a fetus just look's too much like a human.

I don't know why some people think that in order to be an actual woman you have to love abortion.

And also, for you out there that say women need to keep their legs closed, why do you not say that men need to keep their zippers closed, it takes 2!

Yes, however a fetus is also the child of the male partner, and he gets no say.

[Catchme]

Having been a woman in the Canadian military, I do not believe your comment that women were treated the same. Unless of course you really haven't been in the military. Same pay yes, for same designation.

Well the difference is I'm in the real army, while you simply made up this fantasy that you were in the Canadian military. Big difference, as well it's the same pay for each rank, regardless of gender.

I can't believe you have stooped so low as to lie about your military service.

Again, I can 't believe you are stooping so low as to call me a liar, and try saying I wasn't, when indeed I was. Not going to bother with your comments re this, as I know you are trying to discredit what I say because of the "optics".

I said equal pay for equal designation. And if you say women are treated equally in all things in our military, you are fabricating. The glass ceiling sure as hell exists there as it does in the civlian world.

What I pointed out was not as many men are excelling in academics as compared to women, so it must be discrimination right?

Oh, I never got that from your post, thank you.

Yes it can since some people consider a fetus a human being, and plus a fetus just look's too much like a human.

Um, no it can't, just because "some people" think so, does not make it so. Try looking at the Canadian laws when life begins for facts.

I don't know why some people think that in order to be an actual woman you have to love abortion.

I do not know what you are saying with this, clarity please.

Yes, however a fetus is also the child of the male partner, and he gets no say.

Uh first premise is wrong a feotus is not a child, it may have the potential to be, if everything goes well, and if a woman chooses to abort that feotus you're correct a male has NO say, even more reason to keep that fly zipped, eh?

Oh yes, BTW what was the name of the thread were you slandered me regarding my grandfather being part of the 1st 500 Canadians into WWI? I want to address that.

[Live From China]

That's funny, when 1 woman probably makes up 2/3rds of the stat that says 50% of woman are holding American wealth, with other celebrities holding the other 1/3.

What's funnier is that when you read statistics you don't like, you say they are probably made up.

Not too sure where the bit about "celebrities" comes in. Let me try a different approach here; I'll use basic logic. I guess if women hold slightly more than half the wealth, then men hold slightly less than half.

[Catchme]

That's funny, when 1 woman probably makes up 2/3rds of the stat that says 50% of woman are holding American wealth, with other celebrities holding the other 1/3.

What's funnier is that when you read statistics you don't like, you say they are probably made up.

Not too sure where the bit about "celebrities" comes in. Let me try a different approach here; I'll use basic logic. I guess if women hold slightly more than half the wealth, then men hold slightly less than half.

I actually have been searching for evidence of these stats that you say and have NOT found them, how about you provide a link?

But I did find this:

for example, in 2004 the median income of FTYR male workers was $40,798, compared to $31,223 for FTYR female workers (DeNavas-Walt et al, 2005). 31,223 divided by 40,798 is .765, so the gender earnings gap in 2004 was .765. This is often expressed as a percentage: e.g., "in 2004, women's wages were 76.5% of men's wages," or "in 2004, women earned 23.5% less than men earned."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male-female_i...rity_in_the_USA

And FYI, the USA 2001 census does not support your contention look under the wealth section. Men outstrip women by a significant factor.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/inc...ditures_wealth/

[Live From China]

There is a difference between wages and "holding wealth." Dr. Sommers is known for doing fairly meticulous research. This is why her book has stood the test of time.

Regardless, you are missing the gist of this quote!

[Catchme]

There is a difference between wages and "holding wealth." Dr. Sommers is known for doing fairly meticulous research. This is why her book has stood the test of time.

Regardless, you are missing the gist of this quote!

The link to the US stats was holding wealth.

Never heard of the lady so did a google apparently google hasn't heard either, and I see you cannot substantiate anything, so it would then be discardable unproven info.

What am I missing?

[Live From China]

Interesting. I "googled" "Christina Hoff Sommers" and got 135,000 hits. There we go, substantiated and definitely not "discardable." You might also want to try Patricia Pearson ("When She Was Bad") and Donna Laframboise (a Canadian; "Princess at the Window"). One of the reason Dr. Sommers received such noteriety was due to the fact that her research - detective work actually - blew the lid off the more-violence-by- men-on-Super-Bowl-Sunday scam.

All these authors are strong feminists by the way; they just believe in balance.

What are you missing? That people (I extrapolate this to all people, not just women) cannot cry oppression when they have access to more economic, social and political power than anyone has had in the entire history of the world. Oppression is a non sequitur in such a case.

[Catchme]

Interesting. I "googled" "Christina Hoff Sommers" and got 135,000 hits. There we go, substantiated and definitely not "discardable." You might also want to try Patricia Pearson ("When She Was Bad") and Donna Laframboise (a Canadian; "Princess at the Window"). One of the reason Dr. Sommers received such noteriety was due to the fact that her research - detective work actually - blew the lid off the more-violence-by- men-on-Super-Bowl-Sunday scam.

All these authors are strong feminists by the way; they just believe in balance.

What are you missing? That people (I extrapolate this to all people, not just women) cannot cry oppression when they have access to more economic, social and political power than anyone has had in the entire history of the world. Oppression is a non sequitur in such a case.

Okay, thank you, I did not know her first name, will try again, and perhaps get the book to read.

Of course they can cry oppression, just because there is more ability to access, the above listed powers, than ever before, does not translate into it being accessable to all, or even to what effort or degree they are accessable to. Nor does accessablity translate into equality, as in everyone has acheived it.

Okay, edited to say I tried again and got 30k more hits than you did.

[jefferiah]

"What's funnier is that when you read statistics you don't like, you say they are probably made up."

I think Catch Me has a bad habit of being totalitarian in her views. Any dissent and she conveniently blackens you as a mysogynist or a bigot. She supports freedom of conscience and freedom of thought as long as they are her thoughts.

[jefferiah]

"Uh first premise is wrong a feotus is not a child, it may have the potential to be, if everything goes well, and if a woman chooses to abort that feotus you're correct a male has NO say, even more reason to keep that fly zipped, eh?"----Catch Me

Now this is a debatable point. This has never been proven or established. Alot of scientists disagree. One of them, Bernard Nathanson, was an abortion doctor who was active in the movement to have abortion legalized. Years later, he had a change of heart due to insider experience in the procedure. He now believes the feotus is a living thing.

[Catchme]

No wonder I have disgarded any memory of Dr Sommers fellow in the Enterprise Institute.

http://www.aei.org/

LOLOLOLOL

No wonder Jane Fonda dedicated 12.5 million to Harvard to research basically, Sommers stated research, and even named it after Sommers nemisis.

She seems like Ann Coulter from what I have read. LOLOLOL

But am going to read her book anyway, though I am not really interested in the US viewpoint and applying it to other nations and peoples.

[Catchme]

"Uh first premise is wrong a feotus is not a child, it may have the potential to be, if everything goes well, and if a woman chooses to abort that feotus you're correct a male has NO say, even more reason to keep that fly zipped, eh?"----Catch Me

Now this is a debatable point. This has never been proven or established. Alot of scientists disagree. One of them, Bernard Nathanson, was an abortion doctor who was active in the movement to have abortion legalized. Years later, he had a change of heart due to insider experience in the procedure. He now believes the feotus is a living thing.

Technically everything is alive. But the key is enlivened, as in human brain wave activity, and then when unassisted breathing is present, or it is not. That is how people are judged to be you know "alive".

Moreover, IMV his conversion to Catholicism makes anything he says suspect, or even if was any fundamentalist religion that erodes the rights of women!

What's even more unusual, when one googles this man, one sees no other medical reports or commentary on his contentions supporting this thought form of his, all one finds is religious anti-choice rhetoric and web pages.

As I said, I prefer to support the rights of those who really truly are alive and breathing, and who are capable of making their own choices with their own life and body.

[jefferiah]

"Uh first premise is wrong a feotus is not a child, it may have the potential to be, if everything goes well, and if a woman chooses to abort that feotus you're correct a male has NO say, even more reason to keep that fly zipped, eh?"----Catch Me

Now this is a debatable point. This has never been proven or established. Alot of scientists disagree. One of them, Bernard Nathanson, was an abortion doctor who was active in the movement to have abortion legalized. Years later, he had a change of heart due to insider experience in the procedure. He now believes the feotus is a living thing.

Technically everything is alive. But the key is enlivened, as in human brain wave activity, and then when unassisted breathing is present, or it is not. That is how people are judged to be you know "alive".

Moreover, IMV his conversion to Catholicism makes anything he says suspect, or even if was any fundamentalist religion that erodes the rights of women!

What's even more unusual, when one googles this man, one sees no other medical reports or commentary on his contentions supporting this thought form of his, all one finds is religious anti-choice rhetoric and web pages.

As I said, I prefer to support the rights of those who really truly are alive and breathing, and who are capable of making their own choices with their own life and body.

He abandoned abortion before his conversion I believe, and also.....hmmmm are you saying that the opinions of a religious person are of no value (or less value in society)....That could be discrimination.

[jefferiah]

Technically everything is alive. But the key is enlivened, as in human brain wave activity, and then when unassisted breathing is present, or it is not. That is how people are judged to be you know "alive".

You will understand that the definition of life is a philosophical one, and neither one of us can prove either one of us wrong. Given that, do you think it is too much to ask that you respectfully allow people who have a strong moral conviction about Pro-Life off the hool when it comes to funding all abortions. Once again I point out abortion is fully legal. It is subsidized automatically in cases of medical concern. A small percentage of women die from pregnancy related issues, and I think it is safe to say that a small percentage of those women were women who wanted abortions but could not afford them. Given all of this data, do you think it is unreasonable to ask that you spare people who are sickened by the idea of abortion the further gut-wrench of having the government appropriate their money to fund it. I am asking you for the right to keep my money out of it---asking you.....whilst you stand here (not asking) demanding, saying it is your right to take it.

[Catchme]

Technically everything is alive. But the key is enlivened, as in human brain wave activity, and then when unassisted breathing is present, or it is not. That is how people are judged to be you know "alive".

You will understand that the definition of life is a philosophical one, and neither one of us can prove either one of us wrong. Given that, do you think it is too much to ask that you respectfully allow people who have a strong moral conviction about Pro-Life off the hool when it comes to funding all abortions. Once again I point out abortion is fully legal. It is subsidized automatically in cases of medical concern. A small percentage of women die from pregnancy related issues, and I think it is safe to say that a small percentage of those women were women who wanted abortions but could not afford them. Given all of this data, do you think it is unreasonable to ask that you spare people who are sickened by the idea of abortion the further gut-wrench of having the government appropriate their money to fund it. I am asking you for the right to keep my money out of it---asking you.....whilst you stand here (not asking) demanding, saying it is your right to take it.

Anyone's beliefs in a mythological entity, or place, or philosophy, as denoted in a book written by men, have no bearings on my right to self determine my life. So, no, I do not take anything and religious person says as being pertinent to my choices in life. And no, it came after his conversion from what I have read so far at least.

Again you are NOT funding anything to do with my life and my health care, you are too busy funding your own. I am taking NOTHING from you, nor is anyone else, What don't you get about that?

Why do you think, you have a right to demand, that you have a right to have a say, in my right to access universal health care, that I pay into both through taxation, and additionally right off my pay check and my husband's for medicare costs levied by the province? Say nothing of why you you think you have a right to demand access over ruling my rights of privacy and demand a right to have a say in my self detrmination?

That is what truly sickens me, that others, than God a minority, are so irrational that they believe their personal beliefs have a right to trump several of my human rights as a Canadian. So how about you spare me, your self righteous desire to involve yourself in the rights of others?

Um, yes I can prove there is NO brain functioning before the 5 month. You however can prove nothing.

[DarkAngel_]

16 Unto the woman he said,

I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception;

in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;

and thy desire shall be to thy husband,

and he shall rule over thee.

http://www.bartleby.com/108/01/3.html#S3

and from my idiocy, i will make all men look bad! and quote from a 'bad-moral' book writen by people thousands of years ago, who'm also thought stoning children was ok! as well as drinking yak piss! and my boy came from a stork! and as well... i last my brain!

sounds like an original bible quote, kinda creepy, also i like an equal in relationship, i would not make the mistake of marrying the wrong woman.

on another note: women with the 'bobble head' thing going, saying "don't go there girl freind!" is just annoying and not appealing, but the beautiful dirtty look works allot better, ouch...

as well, men can be just as finatical, like the beer drinking, football watching, mean jack-ass that beats up people for pride and lives next door and says women are lowly, hard to find them as much as "women with an unatractive additude" but just as bad.

why do girls do the, 'speak to the hand' 'move head back in forth oddly' and 'talk like you came from a wanna-bee club" act, it's very odd, and i do not like it, but i mostly just don't get their style, i don't thing there is one...

beutiful dirtty look type girls... please don't go away!

[jefferiah]

Technically everything is alive. But the key is enlivened, as in human brain wave activity, and then when unassisted breathing is present, or it is not. That is how people are judged to be you know "alive".

You will understand that the definition of life is a philosophical one, and neither one of us can prove either one of us wrong. Given that, do you think it is too much to ask that you respectfully allow people who have a strong moral conviction about Pro-Life off the hool when it comes to funding all abortions. Once again I point out abortion is fully legal. It is subsidized automatically in cases of medical concern. A small percentage of women die from pregnancy related issues, and I think it is safe to say that a small percentage of those women were women who wanted abortions but could not afford them. Given all of this data, do you think it is unreasonable to ask that you spare people who are sickened by the idea of abortion the further gut-wrench of having the government appropriate their money to fund it. I am asking you for the right to keep my money out of it---asking you.....whilst you stand here (not asking) demanding, saying it is your right to take it.

Anyone's beliefs in a mythological entity, or place, or philosophy, as denoted in a book written by men, have no bearings on my right to self determine my life. So, no, I do not take anything and religious person says as being pertinent to my choices in life. And no, it came after his conversion from what I have read so far at least.

Again you are NOT funding anything to do with my life and my health care, you are too busy funding your own. I am taking NOTHING from you, nor is anyone else, What don't you get about that?

Why do you think, you have a right to demand, that you have a right to have a say, in my right to access universal health care, that I pay into both through taxation, and additionally right off my pay check and my husband's for medicare costs levied by the province? Say nothing of why you you think you have a right to demand access over ruling my rights of privacy and demand a right to have a say in my self detrmination?

That is what truly sickens me, that others, than God a minority, are so irrational that they believe their personal beliefs have a right to trump several of my human rights as a Canadian. So how about you spare me, your self righteous desire to involve yourself in the rights of others?

Um, yes I can prove there is NO brain functioning before the 5 month. You however can prove nothing.

You keep failing to acknowledge that most abortion is not a necessary procedure for health-care. YOu assert you have a right to do so and I cant stop you. But there is a big difference between paying for an actual health problem and paying for something that you think should be paid for even when it is unneccessary. You are the one who is being unreasonable. YOu are the one who is lacking any logic. And you Dark Angel should go start a cult already. For one thing it wont stand on its own legs since you claim to love Neitzches ideals of freedom and then you think people should accept the Coldest of All Monsters "The State".

[DarkAngel_]

hmmmm are you saying that the opinions of a religious person are of no value (or less value in society)....That could be discrimination.

i know you are not asking me, but i just got back from recovering from surgery! heray! ya my apendix go cloged by a lofthouse cookie... a mystery to say the least.

but could you grant me this moment to interupt? i feel so guilty for this, but the opinions based on religion being absolute truth, is very very worthless, not the people.

its worthless because it has no relevence to any gained knoledge assertivly abtained through the act of scientific method, religion is to say you happen to have the knoledge, just by being granted it, whilst science is to absolutly gain it from the most basic found form. religion has not gained any useful knoledge, but instead, has granted doctrination of past morals into peoples that then practice it by the will of a super-being.

it is old and filled with bad morals.

like the evenglical beleif that all us non-beleivers will be left to die and suffer for our sins: thats no god worth worshiping, if he would leave even good men to die.

the problem with this beleif is: any who do not beleive in god are bad.

is that discrimination? i feel really bad, but in the finding of knolegde, origin is not one that is found, so way declaire such as a raving loony?

(and this is only 1 example)

i rest my case.

[jefferiah]

hmmmm are you saying that the opinions of a religious person are of no value (or less value in society)....That could be discrimination.

i know you are not asking me, but i just got back from recovering from surgery! heray! ya my apendix go cloged by a lofthouse cookie... a mystery to say the least.

but could you grant me this moment to interupt? i feel so guilty for this, but the opinions based on religion being absolute truth, is very very worthless, not the people.

its worthless because it has no relevence to any gained knoledge assertivly abtained through the act of scientific method, religion is to say you happen to have the knoledge, just by being granted it, whilst science is to absolutly gain it from the most basic found form. religion has not gained any useful knoledge, but instead, has granted doctrination of past morals into peoples that then practice it by the will of a super-being.

it is old and filled with bad morals.

like the evenglical beleif that all us non-beleivers will be left to die and suffer for our sins: thats no god worth worshiping, if he would leave even good men to die.

the problem with this beleif is: any who do not beleive in god are bad.

is that discrimination? i feel really bad, but in the finding of knolegde, origin is not one that is found, so way declaire such as a raving loony?

(and this is only 1 example)

i rest my case.

What you dont understand is that the person Bernard Nathanson was an abortion doctor who came to believe through his own observation that the feotus was a living thing. Now the man also happened to convert to Christianity later and Catch Me says that any opinion he may have on any issue is suspect since he is a Christian. I would also like to add that there is no such thing as the Superman (are you are certainly far from having the capacity to be one, although so am i likely). I find your posts wierd and self-indulgent. I dont think you are as wise as you think you are but nonetheless I was a teenager once too, and I may have been wierder.

[jefferiah]

And I dont buy for one second that you "feel so guilty about this".

[jefferiah]

hmmmm are you saying that the opinions of a religious person are of no value (or less value in society)....That could be discrimination.

i know you are not asking me, but i just got back from recovering from surgery! heray! ya my apendix go cloged by a lofthouse cookie... a mystery to say the least.

but could you grant me this moment to interupt? i feel so guilty for this, but the opinions based on religion being absolute truth, is very very worthless, not the people.

its worthless because it has no relevence to any gained knoledge assertivly abtained through the act of scientific method, religion is to say you happen to have the knoledge, just by being granted it, whilst science is to absolutly gain it from the most basic found form. religion has not gained any useful knoledge, but instead, has granted doctrination of past morals into peoples that then practice it by the will of a super-being.

it is old and filled with bad morals.

like the evenglical beleif that all us non-beleivers will be left to die and suffer for our sins: thats no god worth worshiping, if he would leave even good men to die.

the problem with this beleif is: any who do not beleive in god are bad.

is that discrimination? i feel really bad, but in the finding of knolegde, origin is not one that is found, so way declaire such as a raving loony?

(and this is only 1 example)

i rest my case.

There is no one who is Good.