If men could get pregnant...

would the free and unfettered right to an abortion even be a topic for discussion. The question may be trite, but I was so viscerally pissed off by the pictures of * signing the law banning the D and X procedure (there is NO SUCH THING as a partial-birth abortion) that I had to pose it anyway. Surrounded by a bunch of old men, each of them as grey as his suit, * began his assault on a woman's reproductive freedom. And does anybody really believe that he will stop there?

If I were able to get pregnant, I wouldn't.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:cry:

;-)

and I have marched in downtown D. C. in support of a woman's right to choose on several occasions. Referring to all men as "pigs" is not helpful to the discussion.

You cannot reason with some people.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

with every lay, right? OINK!

Well done. *applauding quietly*

birth control would be dispensed free at every corner store, along with tampons.

There would be cramp stories - and biggest clot contests.

who said that, I heard it somewhere from someone famous but can't remember...

And I'm sure maternity leave, benefits, etc., would be much more generous than they are now for most people.

I'm expecting a baby 11/23 & my boss is praying I quit so he doesn't have to pay for my maternity leave.

that "if men could get pregnant pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament".
Gloria Steinem wrote a hilarious article titled "If Men Could Menstruate", which appeared in a very early issue of Ms. Magazine (Oct. 1978): http://www.mum.org/ifmencou.htm

Excerpts:
>Men would brag about how long and how much.

>Sanitary supplies would be federally funded and free. (Of course, some men would still pay for the prestige of commercial brands such as John Wayne Tampons, Muhammad Ali's Rope-a-dope Pads, Joe Namath Jock Shields - "For Those Light Bachelor Days," and Robert "Baretta" Blake Maxi-Pads.)

>Military men, right-wing politicians, and religious fundamentalists would cite menstruation ("men-struation") as proof that only men could serve in the Army ("you have to give blood to take blood"), occupy political office ("can women be aggressive without that steadfast cycle governed by the planet Mars?"), be priest and ministers ("how could a woman give her blood for our sins?") or rabbis ("without the monthly loss of impurities, women remain unclean").

>Street guys would brag ("I'm a three pad man") or answer praise from a buddy ("Man, you lookin' good!") by giving fives and saying, "Yeah, man, I'm on the rag!"

"biggest clot contests." LOL! That was gross, but I couldn't stop laughing!

"if men could menstruate." its hilarious, because its true. if you google it you should be able to find it.

Women who have a compulsion to look after men often blame the men for that compulsion. Here's an answer: Stop doing it.

Then the delivery would be pure hell.

a walk in the park for women...:eyes:

if I had to have an abortion I dont think I would procrastinate 6 months or so.

Don't buy the propaganda but look at the facts. Post links that women are just too busy and procrastinate. You really don't understand the abortion issue.

does that fit into the dialogue, Mr. Strawman?

you should know that currently there are a very small number per year in this country (600?) and virtually all of them are because of either very serious health risks to the mother, or a very damaged or non-viable fetus.

NOW, back to the topic at hand.

There is no hard evidence that ANY elective abortions are performed in the third trimester in the United States. The anti-choice people say so, but their "evidence" is purely anecdotal and uncorroborated.

Here are the facts:

* 88 percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester.

Of the remainder, 7 percent of abortions are performed in the second trimester before the 15th week. This means,

* 95 percent of abortions are performed by 15 weeks' gestation.

Only 1 percent of abortions are performed after 21 weeks' gestation, which still hasn't gotten us to the third trimester. According to AGI:

Almost half of the women having abortions beyond 15 weeks of gestation say they were delayed because of problems in affording, finding or getting to abortion services.

Teens and rape victims are often in denial about being pregnant and postpone getting abortions until the second trimester. But there's no evidence they are getting elective abortions in the third trimester.

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Click here to read the story of a woman who had an abortion at 16 weeks' gestation. You might find it enlightening.

Oh no, you really cannot be serious. Going through an abortion is a heart-wrenching experience for a woman; not an "ooppss...I put this off for too long, better go do it now." Women who undergo this procedure do so for health reasons related to them or the fetus. And btw, late-term aborotion is already banned under Roe v. Wade; it was only permittable if the woman's life was at risk. Shrub and his henchmen put an end to that. You need to give women much more credit than this.

But you must agree that the hole is somewhat smaller for the man!

It would be a religious rite practiced by the men.

Men would be seen as weak and irresponsible for getting one. At least that's my 2 cents

but its not. There are plenty of women against it and plenty of men for it. Just not majorities maybe, in each case.

It wasn't originally intended that way, but it will devolve into that soon enough.

Oh, well.

give me a friggen break :eyes:

OK, here you go. Here is your break.

Now, can you honestly say that if a similar thread was started, except with women as teh butt of the ire, that we wouldn't have a dozen or more people in here calling the originator a sexist and mysoginistic ass?

The idea that somehow poor men are sooooo abused and mistreated is a fucking joke. And its insulting to me as a man, to make light of the serious inequalities and injustices that this male dominated society frequently hands down to woman by equating male "injustices" as in remotely the same ball park. To paraphrase Quinten Tarrantino, "anit no mother fuckin ball park, hell it aint even the same fuckin sport."

Women don't understand men. They think they do, but they don't. I often hear women going off about men's motivations and I realize how clueless they are.

I don't think there's a book "Men for Dummies" but women should demand one.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

There's no reason for you to make ad hominem remarks. It adds nothing to the discussion and it's unwelcome. It's also against DU rules.

"There's no reason for you to make ad hominem remarks. It adds nothing to the discussion and it's unwelcome. It's also against DU rules."

This -- from the person who had just said THIS:

"Women don't understand men. They think they do, but they don't. I often hear women going off about men's motivations and I realize how clueless they are.

I don't think there's a book "Men for Dummies" but women should demand one."

"Women don't understand men." Charming and unsubstantiated negative generalization.

"They think they do, but they don't." Oh look, they think they're clever but they're not.

"I realize how clueless they are." (I don't actually think this could bear comment.)

Women should demand a book called "Men for Dummies" ... and this makes women ... what?

And then the utter and impossible gall to chide someone else for "ad hominem remarks"??

Some of us who aren't men aren't impressed by the non-inclusive Latin; try the coined ad personam.

Some of us even know what the original expression means, and what it doesn't mean is "personal attack" -- the thing that is against DU rules.

Calling someone "clueless" is really not an ad personam remark, it's just a personal attack. Calling an entire group of people "clueless" is generally regarded as bigotry.

But again I have to ask: what on earth does whether or not women "understand men" have to do with women's reproductive rights and the present restrictions on the exercise thereof ... the subject of this thread?

.

Amazing. Truly amazing. Can you do that again. I think I missed part of it I was laughing so hard.

Women have a lot of confusions about men, and men don't bother correcting them. Somebody should sit down and 'splain some of the not-so-mysterious ways of men.

The closest I've ever come to being able to explain the whole thing is a very long discussion on the evolution of the species and how it relates to behavior in modern man. I usually end up with a lot of people, of both sexes, nodding and agreeing. Even had a lesbian turn to her GF and say "OMG! He's talking about you!" That turned into a long running joke between her and I about "isn't it great to be a guy?"

When you get past the gender ideology, there really is a difference. Women see in maleness the absence of a number of social pressures regulating how women should act, but they conclude wrongly that that's all there is to it. Because they've never been male, they have no frame of reference by which to judge men's motivations.

This doesn't argue that all women are equally clueless. Some are lots more clueless than others. The most clueless are those who substitute one ideology for another, instead of trying to find common ground.

...dosen't necessarily mean that they can't understand. My opinion is that all of it can be understood, but you have to be willing to listen first. That is usually the biggest sticking point.

If everybody would just shut up for a little bit and listen and at least try to understand each other there would be a lot fewer problems in the world.

Ok ok. That's naive. They have to be willing to do something about what they hear too. :-)

that your boss was giving you shit for surfing the web on company time.

Oh yea... feel the sympathy.

Right there with ya, big guy.

Mojo

:toast:


Do you know how RARE that sentiment is, even among liberal, educated, supposedly non-sexist men?

You make the 2nd one with that attitude that I've ever heard say it that I've ever met. (I married the first.) Most of the men in my circle are more of the opinion that women should stop bitching - we've got equality, what more can we want? :eyes:

Politicat

the other day when he signed the bill banning partial birth abortion. All old white men. Not a womb in the house, so to be speak. I didn't mean to imply that anyone here was a pig, sorry if I gave that impression. I'm just angry & upset with the whole situation, and I'm afraid its going to get worse. This is a woman's issue, a health issue, something that should be between her and her doctor. Instead it's been turned into a political issue. And it shouldn't be. Watching all those men smiling & grinning away with bush, men who will never have to worry about getting pregnant, was just adding insult to injury. It's maddening.

No...it's a human issue.

I agree that the situation is maddening though. I completely agree there.

Ultimately it's a woman that will have to pay the price for this. It directly affects her body, no one else's. And as supportive as some men maybe, they havent an iota of what it's like. Maddening, infuriating and downright unfair, that's what it is.

...any emotional commitment that the man might have in things? You completely refute any rights he might have? Careful what arguments you might choose to use here. They may sound a lot like the arguments that the anti-abortion crowd is using against us. Telling us that we "can't understand becasue you are a man" is a sexist comment.

Let me ask you this. Do you think that womens rights would have gotten as far as it has as fast as it has w/o the support and help of a great many men?

we are understandably concerned about their level of committment. It's all theoretical for men. A little history. Frederick Douglas was at one time a great supporter of women's rights and an ally of the suffragist movement. However, when push came to shove he was willing to sacrifice votes for women (including black women) to get votes for black men. We appreciate whatever help men want to offer to the cause but we don't feel we can always rely on them when it comes down to it.

And absolutely you can't understand what it's like to be pregnant or face the choice to have an abortion. But guess what, as a woman who has never been pregnant neither can I.


P.S. AIM?

...Velma. Or at least you should.

I'm assuming it's the last part but I want to be clear before we start arguing about it.

I genuinely do believe that I cannot understand the choice women go through to have an abortion or not because I have not personally been in that situation. I've helped friends with it. I've thought deeply about what I would do. But that's not the same as being in the situation for real.

can you really walk a mile in my shoes? No. Next you will be telling me that you know what menstrual cramps feel like, well you dont. and I dont regard that as a "sexist" comment either. While support was appreciated from men, I think women did quite alot on their own to further the women's movement.

...but that wasn't what I asked. Now, do you also realize that there is a movement underway within the feminist ranks that believes that w/o mens issues, minority issues, GLBT issues, et. al. being included that none of those groups will make any progress? Equal rights for all or no one is going to get true equality.

Susan Falutie (SP?) is one of the proponents.

"You completely refute any rights he might have?"

I have a pretty unique perspective myself, though you might not like to hear it since it's coming from a female.

I am now 5 months pregnant, after having decided years ago that I never really wanted children. My husband was extremely supportive, gave me his input, and then stepped the heck out of the picture and let me make the decision. I chose to continue the pregnancy, but it was and should have been my choice to make.

It is my body that is going through hell. I am the one who is STILL dealing with pregnancy sickness. (a friend JOKINGLY says that the term morning sickness was invented by a man who didn't realize it could last 24/7) I am the one who has to go through the pain of childbirth and the dangers inherent in same. I am the one who gains the weight, goes for 9 months without being able to take medication to relieve a headache or cold, and has to live with 4 hours of sleep a night- pre-birth! I am the one who now has a bladder the size of of a 2 month old's. I am the one who is exhausted all the time- even on days when I feel good.

Until I had gone through this myself, I would never have understood what a pregnancy actually did to a body. No matter how sympathetic I have been with pregnant friends in the past, I *still* did not understand what they were going through. And neither do you.

NO ONE, but no one, has the right to make this decision for any woman. And that includes the husband/partner or mere sperm donor of a brief encounter, or another woman. I'm sorry if this offends you. I certainly don't mean it as a male bash, or as a bash against women who made the choice to not have children. But you truly have no idea what this does to you, just as I didn't until recently. And until you can, it's not your choice to make. Any more than it is my choice to make for any woman other than myself.


I know that there are plenty of men and women who have aided in the fight for women's rights and abortion rights who have never been through a pregnancy, just as there were white people marching with Dr. King. It's called empathy, and it's a very admirable human trait. But it still doesn't mean that you truly understand. Any more than I understand what it means to be a Black man in Georgia. And it doesn't mean that I don't want you to help in the fight, any more than I think Blacks feel whites should be excluded from helping with civil rights issues. We really do have strength in numbers- on all of our issues.

Though admirable and desirable, empathy is very different from understanding. Not less, just different. I am sorry if that offends you, so take this for what you will.

Hope you aren't expecting him to help in the rearing and funding of said child too.

It's so good to know he has no risk involved in any of this. that he has no responsibilities with it. Damn. This is all good info to have.

It isn't his child. It's nobody's child. It's a fetus.

"Hope you aren't expecting him to help in the rearing and funding of said child too."

Now, what exactly does this have to do with a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy?

I might suggest that you read my recent post first, "actually, though".

Things that are accidents of nature are not rights violations. If I had been born with only one arm, my rights would not be violated. If the government cut my arm off, my rights would be violated. If the government permitted people to stone me to death, or deny me service in restaurants, for having only one arm, my rights would be violated.

Men don't get pregnant. Accident of nature. Men can't make decisions about pregnancies. Accident of nature. Of course, men could make decisions about pregnancies by using force against women. Rights violation.

Men have children they don't want to have. Accident of nature. Can't be remedied without violating women's rights. Not acceptable. No more acceptable than me getting to amputate your arm and attach it to my shoulder, to remedy my lack of an arm.

"It's so good to know he has no risk involved in any of this.
that he has no responsibilities with it. Damn.
This is all good info to have."

You got it. He has no risk in the pregnancy. No responsibilities in the pregnancy. The responsibilities are actually irrelevant, since women don't have any either, other than those they impose on themselves. Women have risk, and it is that risk that they cannot be compelled to assume without their rights being violated.

Men have to support children they don't want to have? Well, not an accident of nature. A rule. A rights violation? Possibly. Interesting question.

But one that has absolutely nothing to do with women's right to continue a pregnancy if she so chooses, or to terminate it if she so chooses.

So why exactly do you raise the question in a discussion of abortion? I mean, I assume that's what you're doing, since it's quite obvious that any risks or responsibilities for men arise only after birth.

.

and all that. Though you said it much better than I. :-)

...before during and after the man has no responsibility for it, and are willing to live with that, then by all means who am I to say that you can't live your life that way.

Just seems a bit extremeist. Bordering into a territory where I tend to use perfectly applicable words that make some people on here blow a gasket.

As I said, if you want to be able to make the decision yourself, then only have sex with women willing to let you do that. Otherwise, post-pregnancy, each parent owes many responsibilities to that child.

If you want to make a decision about someone's body, make the decision to have a vasectomy yourself. That way you'll never have to be in this situation, never have to resent a woman not allowing you to make her abide by your decision concerning a pregnancy, and never have to worry about supporting a child post-pregnancy. You have that option if you so choose.

But then, I'd never try to FORCE a man one way or the other on that issue either. Respect does run both ways, you know.

...of the process. You are removing him from the partnership. Similar to his telling you that he is going to change jobs completely and you will have to move to Utah now. Sorry, it's my job, you don't have any say. It isn't entirely a discussion about "your body". You won't see that though.

"Just so long as you agree that...
...before during and after the man has no responsibility for it,
and are willing to live with that, then by all means who am I
to say that you can't live your life that way."

Well, bub, maybe if you were tossing in a tax-funded contribution to the child's welfare and the woman's own support, to make up for the earning capacity lost by the woman as she gestates and rears that next generation of little social-security payers, and instituting absolute parity of wages and employment and educational opportunities, and eliminating the sexual abuse and exploitation of women from the face of the planet ... well, maybe I'd consider taking you up on your offer.

And maybe I'd consider the possibility that you were on my side ... and actually concerned about equality.

For now, we could just agree that women have an exclusive right to determine the outcome of their own pregnancies, which exists independently of any rights violation that anyone else might claim to experience.

I mean ... I'm not hearing people with disabilities saying "okay, I'll support your right to choose, as long as we get access to public transportation". I'm not hearing people of colour saying "okay, I'll support your right to choose, as long as we get equitable funding for the schools in our communities". I'm not hearing atheists saying "okay, I'll support your right to choose, as long as you stop making our kids say 'god' in the classroom".

Nope. NOBODY else who claims that their rights are being violated is trying to control women's reproductive choices, or threatening to do so if they don't get what they want.

Just those "men's rights" guys, them's the only ones I hear doing this stuff.

.

not because you are right, but because there isn't anything that makes even a bit of sense.

because I think you completely missed his point and he's being hard-headed about it.

When you discount the father as irrelevant until after a baby is born it comes as a slap in the face to the good guys out there. To the decent, caring men who are emotionally involved in the process and who care about their offspring.

Try telling the men on this board who's partners have lost pregnancies that they shouldn't grieve because the fetus wasn't in their body so they didn't really have a connection to it.

"When you discount the father as irrelevant until after a baby is born ..."

Where EXACTLY did I do that??

I said that the future father has no entitlement to participate in or control the woman's decision as to the outcome of her pregnancy.

I have no entitlement to control your decision as to where you go to school, for instance. If we're good friends or family, I might not be "irrelevant" in your decision, and I might want to have some input in your considerations, but I would have no entitlement to participate in or control that decision.

"Try telling the men on this board who's partners have lost pregnancies that they shouldn't grieve because the fetus wasn't in their body so they didn't really have a connection to it."

Why on earth would you say such a thing to me? Why would I even consider saying such a thing? Why would you want to make me look like someone who would say such a thing?

I didn't say that a man "didn't really have a connection to it", just for starters.

I said that the fetus isn't in their body so they are not entitled to decide what the outcome of the pregnancy is.

People have emotional investments in all sorts of things that they are not entitled to any control over. This is a good thing; our emotional investment in other people's lives makes us want to help them. It does NOT entitle us to control them.

If we're wise, we invest emotionally in people who will consider our feelings when they make decisions. If acting in such a way as to please us is contrary to what they consider to be in their best interests, then perhaps we are the ones who don't really care about them, hmm?

.

cause I think you just seriously over-reacted to my point. Which was this - you said that fathers have no rights or responsibilities until after the pregnancy and while you're entitled to that opinion I think you're flat out wrong. I was taking your statements out to their ultimate conclusion. And yes, while you didn't specifically say that fathers have no connection the tone of your posts certainly seemed headed in that direction.

The sad part is that we agree. I don't think men are "entitled" to tell a woman she has to abort or that she cannot. I'm simply standing up against the idea that men don't have any responsibilities to their unborn children.

I hardly know what to say.

"I'm simply standing up against the idea that men don't have any responsibilities to their unborn children."

If you could suggest what they are, it might be a start. What you're calling my "opinion" -- that men have no rights or responsibilities in a pregnancy -- seems to me to be fact.

Recalling, of course, that we are talking formal responsibilities, just as "rights" are formal. I'm not talking moral responsibilities, or any of that bumf, because this is a discussion of enforceable responsibilities and rights.

(And really, no, that wasn't all you said. The twisting wasn't on my part. I had not "discount"ed the man as "irrelevant", so really, you were jousting with straw. It was unpleasant straw, and it was presented as if it were mine.)

So no, when you say:

"I was taking your statements out to their ultimate conclusion."

... that's not what you were doing. Because the statements and opinions that you were complaining of cannot be derived from what I have said.

It cannot be concluded that someone who says that women are entitled to decide the outcomes of their pregnancies would also say that men whose partners suffer miscarriages should not grieve, for instance. And I really do find the implied attribution of that assertion to me offensive.

"And yes, while you didn't specifically say that fathers have no connection the tone of your posts certainly seemed headed in that direction."

Damn, I must have been being unladylike. I get that way when somebody suggests that I shouldn't have the right to decide how to live my own life and what I will do with my own body. I don't think it can be inferred from this that I am unsympathetic to men who are unhappy about the outcome of a pregnancy they are a party to, whether the outcome is intentional or accidental. No more than it could be inferred, if I said that people may not amputate someone else's arm to replace the one they lost when it was burned while they were playing with matches, that I was unsympathetic about the loss of their arm ... which I would be, no matter how stupid I thought s/he had been to play with matches.

.

and it was my perception that you were discounting men. I'm sorry that I paraphrased my perception of what you said instead of quoting you verbatim. It's almost getting to the point where it isn't worth talking to you any more.

Fine...maybe you were talking about "formal" responsibilities but you did not make that specifically clear until this post. I was talking about responsibility in a larger sense and I think you knew that.

And I was taking your arguments to a conclusion they can be taken to. You remove men from the process and talk about formal rights and responsibilities with no discussion at all of the emotional dimensions of a pregnancy. As if all there is is the formal rights and responsibilities (or lack thereof). All I was saying is that it's a little disingenuous to expect men not to care about this decision and want to be a part of it. Do you really expect that kind of detachment?

"All I was saying is that it's a little disingenuous to expect men not to care about this decision and want to be a part of it. Do you really expect that kind of detachment?"

There is absolutely nothing in anything I have said that would suggest that I expect any such thing.

I have pretty clearly said that I expect men to refrain from attempting to control women's reproductive choices -- and I'll clarify that by saying they should refrain from trying to exercise such control either publicly and impersonally, by legislation, which is what the thread is about, or privately and personally, by coercion or shaming or any other tactic that disregards the woman's own wishes and perception of her best interests.

Men who respect women will not engage in the former.

A man who has his partner's best interests at heart will not engage in the latter.

I have no reason to believe that in a relationship in which both parties have each other's best interests at heart, their differing wishes would not be sincerely discussed and considered on both sides. The fact is that someone has to make the decision in what is an either-or situation, and the woman ultimately has the right to make that decision.

It is entirely possible that after sincere and caring discussion and consideration of each other's views and wishes, the two parties will still irreconcilably disagree as to what the decision should be. That's life. It happens all the time in respect of all sorts of things. And then the person whose life/body is the subject of the decision makes the decision. Somebody has to. Who else would it be?

And why would the person whose life/body is the subject of the decision, when the decision will affect both body and life so irrevocably and enormously, make the decision that will make her unhappy and that she perceives not to be in her best interests?

And why would her making the decision that will make her less unhappy and that she perceives to be in her best interests make her "selfish", as has been suggested, or indicate that she had refused to consider her partner's wishes and feelings, or regarded him as irrelevant?

And of course, why would my recognizing that the woman is the one with the right and ability to make that decision suggest that I thought any of that? I dunno.

I engaged in "no discussion at all of the emotional dimensions of a pregnancy" because that was not the topic of this thread, and those "dimensions" were being raised solely in order to portray women's claims to reproductive rights as lacking merit, or as giving rise to some sort of corresponding rights for men.

The right is independent of the reason for which it is exercised, unless someone has come up with a good reason why it should not be exercised. Your right to free speech is absolute, subject to restrictions only when some significant harm to others is likely to come of it; you don't have to take into consideration whether you are going to hurt someone else's feelings by what you say, even if it would be nice if you do. (And by the way, I'd be the first to say that having a right is not a defence to an argument that it was exercised in an unnecessarily unpleasant way, abortion protesters and free speech springing to mind immediately.)

Discussions of men's feelings simply do not belong in discussions of reproductive rights. They are relevant to the decision made by any individual woman. They are *not* relevant to that woman's right to make the decision.

.

isn't it - "your perception is wrong". I'm a little tired of arguing with you at this point because no matter what I say you're just going to come back with "that's not what I said".

Speaking of misperceptions - I did not bring the emotional aspects into this thread to "portray women's claims to reproductive rights as lacking merit, or as giving rise to some sort of corresponding rights for men". But rather because I though they needed to be added to the conversation when you started talking about men having no responsibilities toward their unborn children and the implication that they weren't really connected to them in a meaningful way.

You and I do not disagree on a woman's right to choose one bit - which is kind of making this a silly argument.

And I should attribute it to Miss Manners, who advises that question as the appropriate response to any impertinent question one is asked.

"I did not bring the emotional aspects into this thread to 'portray women's claims to reproductive rights as lacking merit, or as giving rise to some sort of corresponding rights for men'.

And I don't think I said you did. DarkPhenyx and his cohort did. I just found your rush to cozy up to him very strange. Perhaps that's because I'd recently been listening to his fellows in a thread in civil rights, as I mentioned, and I couldn't understand how his motives and intents could not be as transparent to anyone as they were to me.

"... because I though they needed to be added to the conversation when you started talking about men having no responsibilities toward their unborn children and the implication that they weren't really connected to them in a meaningful way."

Again -- and I don't know how much more clearly I can say or explain this -- that is NOT the implication of what I said. The idea that I hold that sentiment is an inference that you made from what I said, and an incorrect one. Not least because the two matters are completely unrelated.

I could be said to have "responsibilities" to my fellow citizens that involve, say, getting out and voting, or keeping an eye out for my neighbours' kids. But no one can enforce that responsibility, no one can allege that I have failed to fulfil my repsonsibility and either try to make me fulfil it or try to have me punished for not fulfilling it. It is a "responsibility" in a poetic sense only. We aren't talking poetry here.

I also said that "responsibilities" were irrelevant, since the pregnant woman herself has no responsibilities to the fetus. (Two asides: if there is successful birth, it's arguable that the child could try to enforce a responsibility on the mother's part not to harm it before birth, by suing for damages; if there is no successful birth, and unless and until there is a successful birth, nothing that the woman did/does during pregnancy is a breach of a duty to the fetus, since there is no responsibility on her part to a fetus. Sounds paradoxical, but that's life.)

So I wasn't even addressing any "responsibilities" of the male party to a pregnancy. Nonetheless, he has none.

And there is absolutely no way that an inference can be drawn from what I said that I think that prospective fathers have no "connection" to a pregnancy.

I actually have enormous sympathy for men who are parties to pregnancies whose outcomes make them unhappy -- be that by miscarriage, induced abortion, childbirth where the woman keeps the child or childbirth where the woman relinquishes the child for adoption. In the first two cases, someone who wanted to be a parent does not have that opportunity, and that will certainly be devastating to many of them. In the latter two cases, someone who did not want to be a parent is a parent against his will, or is a parent who is then unable to "parent", and of course those too can be devastating.

When I was in law school many years ago, a close friend of mine who was articling made the ludicrously bad choice of having a relationship with his 18-yr-old secretary. Being RC and immature, she wasn't using contraception. (I don't know what his excuse or reason was.) Being RC and for whatever other reason she may have had, she would not have an abortion. He was not in a position to raise a child, and did not want a child. She had the child and gave it up for adoption. He -- not someone given to acknowleding his emotions, I assure you -- was in fact devastated, and had no idea how to deal with his feelings. And who was the only person in the world he talked to about it? Me. A pretty dumb choice, some might think, given that I'd been having a thing with him, apparently concurrently to the one that resulted in the child. I figured his confiding in me was evidence of just how shook up he was, and also of how useless he thought our mutual male friends would be in the situation. I expressed nothing but sympathy. But he knew, without me saying anything, that the choice was hers, and he made no effort to blame her for his feelings.

How some of us do seem to be forgetting that what the woman is doing, in an unwanted pregnancy, isn't really making a "choice" in the sense that she gets to do what she wants. What a woman who terminates a pregnancy *wants* is never to have been pregnant. What happened is that two people made a choice -- to engage in sexual intercourse -- and one of them now has a "choice" forced on her.

That's the little bit that the DarkPhenyxes of the world seem to want to forget. Men don't get to choose whether to be a parent or not, once the woman is pregnant; and women don't get to choose whether to get pregnant or not, once they both choose to have sex.

So it kinda all evens out in the end, it seems to me -- life is unfair all round, to be sure. Two people have sex, one has to be pregnant and the other doesn't. One person has to make a decision about the pregnancy, whether she wants to or not, the other doesn't. The other person has to live with that decision, whether he wants to or not. Simple facts.

It's just that it's men I hear whining about women denying them choice because men can't decide what the outcome of a pregnancy is. I'm not hearing women whining about men denying them choice because women can't decide what the outcome of sexual intercourse is. Seriously -- do many women blame men for their pregnancies?? Women are just supposed to accept pregnancy as one of the risks of the choice to have sex, and it seems to me that men have to do the same when it comes to the outcome of the pregnancy. That is life. Sometimes sad, in both cases, but the possibility of being sad doesn't confer a right to control, or, in the moral realm, entitlement to coerce or manipulate or extort what one wants.

.

:eyes:

One comment I find quite interesting in your most recent screed. "What happened is that two people made a choice -- to engage in sexual intercourse -- and one of them now has a "choice" forced on her." Unless the woman was forced into sex then I'm not sure how one can refer to the choice on what to do about the pregnancy as "forced" on her. I'm not disagreeing that it's a shit situation to be in and it's an unpleasant choice and not a choice in the classical sense. But force is a loaded word and you know it.

I don't think we're ever going to agree on whether both the mother and father have responsibilities to an unborn child. That's fine. You want to define that word one way and I define it another. But as long as you go around making the statement that fathers (and mothers for that matter) have no rights or responsibilities when it comes to their unborn children then you should expect people to misinterpret that or infer things you don't say you mean.

One last thing and then I'm bailing on this and going to bed. To compare the man's inability to "decide" the outcome of a pregnancy to the woman's inability to "decide" the outcome of sexual intercourse is ludicrous. Men have no more ability to "decide" the outcome of intercourse than the woman involved while the woman who is pregnant does have that ability to "decide" the outcome of that pregnancy while the man does not. They are not even remotely comparable.

Oh, and I "cozy up" to DarkPhenyx sometimes because sometimes he and I agree on things. Sometimes we don't. This thread held a little of both. As to his motives...I don't presume to know them through amazing psychic powers. I actually talk to him and ask what they are and *gasp* listen to what he has to say instead of having a knee-jerk reaction.

Night all.

The word was Miss Manners's.

"I don't think we're ever going to agree on whether both the mother and father have responsibilities to an unborn child. That's fine. You want to define that word one way and I define it another."

I don't have a clue how you want to define it, because you haven't answered when I asked. I see only one possibility, per my Concise Oxford:

1. liable to be called to account

You presumably mean "liable to be called to account to meet a moral obligation". I mean "liable to be called to account to meet an enforceable obligation". I really don't meddle in people's personal affairs by instructing them on what moral obligations they might have and how they ought to meet them. I don't discuss the "morality" of abortion, or the "morality" of not doing what one's partner wants one to do, in respect of a pregnancy or where to go for dinner. And that's really what this is all about here: morality. "Moral" choices are people's own business; they may be accountable for them to the people in their lives who matter to them, if they choose to make themselves accountable in that way. They aren't accountable to me, or to anyone else.

"But as long as you go around making the statement that fathers (and mothers for that matter) have no rights or responsibilities when it comes to their unborn children then you should expect people to misinterpret that or infer things you don't say you mean."

I don't say that at all, because I don't use language like "unborn children", and I find your use of it odd. Children are, by definition, born.

And the reason I "go around" making the statement that men (who may or not be fathers; again, what odd language) and women (ditto) have no rights or responsibilities when it comes to z/e/fs is that they don't. And damned if I can see how that can be misinterpreted, or how any position can be imputed to me regarding people's interpersonal "moral" obligations from that statement.

"One comment I find quite interesting in your most recent screed. 'What happened is that two people made a choice -- to engage in sexual intercourse -- and one of them now has a 'choice' forced on her.' Unless the woman was forced into sex then I'm not sure how one can refer to the choice on what to do about the pregnancy as 'forced' on her."

Well, lemme see. She didn't choose to be pregnant, and she is pregnant against her wishes. Kinda like if I was hit by a falling rock and I found myself paralyzed from the waist down. I'd say I was "forced" to spend the rest of my life using a wheelchair, not having chosen to do so. You certainly wouldn't think I was saying that the person standing beside me who didn't get hit by the rock "forced" me to lose the use of my legs, would you?

Since I expressly said I'm not hearing women whining about men denying them choice because women can't decide what the outcome of sexual intercourse is, I would trust that you're not "inferring" that I was saying that men force women to be pregnant.

Things really are forced on people by circumstances beyond their control, you know? The expression "by force of circumstance" ring a bell? Pregnancy, in the case of women, and parenthood/non-parenthood, in the case of men.

"Unless the woman was forced into sex then I'm not sure how one can refer to the choice on what to do about the pregnancy as 'forced' on her."

Yeah? Then how on earth could one describe the man's lack of choice as to the outcome of pregnancy as being "forced" onto him? It does seem to me that this is precisely what our dark friend is doing -- only he IS describing it as being "forced" onto men by women. It seems to me that it is being forced onto men by circumstances beyond their control.

If the woman made the choice that the man wanted, would DarkPhenyx consider that to be a decision "forced" onto him? And yet obviously, it is no less forced onto him than would be the choice that he *didn't* want. In both cases, he would have no control over the choice; it's just that one makes him happy, and one doesn't. It is still forced onto him.

Ditto with pregnancy and women. Whether a woman wanted to be pregnant or not, she is pregnant and forced to make a choice. If she wanted to be pregnant, she undoubtedly would not see it that way. Nonetheless, she is making a *choice* to remain pregnant, which is one of the only two choices available to her ... and if her circumstances change, she may indeed find herself experiencing the "forced choice" aspect of it: wishing she simply weren't pregnant, and not having *that* choice.

"To compare the man's inability to 'decide' the outcome of a pregnancy to the woman's inability to 'decide' the outcome of sexual intercourse is ludicrous. Men have no more ability to 'decide' the outcome of intercourse than the woman involved while the woman who is pregnant does have that ability to 'decide' the outcome of that pregnancy while the man does not."

Why would the man's inability to decide what the outcome for the woman of sexual intercourse will be, be relevant? There *is* no outcome of sexual intercourse for a man. The outcome of sexual intercourse that concerns us here is pregnancy/not-pregnancy. Women get pregnant. Pregnancy in and of itself is not an outcome experienced by a man.

Once a woman has sexual intercourse, she has no control over whether she becomes pregnant.

Once a man has sexual intercourse, he has no control over whether he becomes a parent.

Why the huge emphasis on the latter, to the virtual exclusion of the former, in this discussion?

I say: because women's experience is devalued and disregarded in discourse about rights. And of course I'm not the only one who says that; I've cited one or two others.

Some men really just do not give a shit whether their partners continue or terminate their unwanted pregnancies. Really. It just is not a big deal to them. Either way, they can and often do leave. They also often stay, just accepting whatever decision is made and getting on with life.

Some women are pretty much equally unconcerned whether they get pregnant. Some who do, continue the pregnancies and have children just because that's the way things work, to their minds. Some terminate the pregnancies and just get on with life too.

Some men are devastated by their partners' choice, whatever it is: unwanted parenthood or unwanted non-parenthood. And some women agonize over the decision and are miserable with the one they make, whichever it is.

But regardless of individual variations, the difference between the two is that the phenomenon of pregnancy affects women's person; parenthood/non-parenthood does not affect men's person. And again, it is this aspect, this experience, this fact of biology and life, that is so central to women's lives, and that is not accounted for in a theory/system of rights and freedoms that does not count reproductive choice as fundamental.

In that sense, your characterization of the situations of men and women, once pregnancy occurs, as "not remotely comparable" is valid. Men never, ever experience what women experience; they never become pregnant -- never find themselves in the situation of being unable to choose not to be pregnant. So they simply have no choice to make, ever.

Women, of course, are unable to choose to be pregnant; that's something that happens through force of circumstance, not force of will. I'd note that women aren't clamouring for the right to choose to become pregnant. That would be silly.

Men do find themselves in the situation of being unable to choose to be/not be a parent. And it's equally silly for them to clamour for the right to make that choice. It simply is not possible for them to make it.

It is the elevation of *that* lack of choice to the level of -- let alone above -- the woman's lack of choice about being pregnant that is so inimical to genuine equality. It relegates women's concerns and needs and aspirations (the things that "rights" are a response to), which are in these respects different from men's, to a rank lower than men's, and in fact equates women's needs and aspirations to men's preferences, at best, and makes them secondary to and subject men's preferences, in its worst manifestation. And that is what is so offensive.

"As to his motives...I don't presume to know them through amazing psychic powers. I actually talk to him and ask what they are and *gasp* listen to what he has to say instead of having a knee-jerk reaction."

Funny. I found it quite easy, from listening to what he said, to determine what his motives and intents were. Critical thinking works quite well without any need for bodily spasms.

.

Just as it is my potential child.

Do you think it's a child while still in the womb? That sounds an awful lot like the fundies' version of what they think a pregnancy is, you know.


And no, he doesn't have any risk in the pregnancy. And that's what this thread was about- preganancy. Not rearing the child once born, not educating the child, not paying for the child's college education, etc.. Just the pregancy. During which time the man faces only the risk of losing his wife/partner and potential child. He faces absolutely no physical risk to his own body. When he does, he can make the decision to terminate a pregnancy or not. Until then, he can be a wonderful human being and support (in any way he can) women he knows who are faced with having to make that decision.

And of course parents have responsibilities to their children if the decision is made to continue the pregnancy. Don't like that fact? Then don't have sex with a woman unwilling to let you make the decision for her. Pretty simple there.

Of course you hold to an extreme view and my talking to you about it isn't going to change that.

The decision to have, or not have, a child is a life altering decision for both people involved. Both people should be full partners in the decisions being made. Not just the pregnancy, but all of it. You want to seperate one part of it simply to hold to your argument, but that is a very flawed way of looking at it. You are, of course, entitled to view it that way.

You are also playing semantics. Not a good way of defending your position.

"The decision to have, or not have, a child is a life altering decision for both people involved."

And that's the way the cookie crumbles.

A bunch of people's decision to vote for George W. Bush had some pretty life-altering effects on you. You don't get to force them not to do it.

Hell, my mother's decision to have another child when I was 14 was damned life-altering for me. Should I have had some control over it?

"Both people should be full partners in the decisions being made."

Excuse me ... but didn't I hear someone say you were "pro-choice"? Can you explain what the above might mean, in such a way that both statements are still true?

"You want to seperate one part of it simply to hold to your argument, but that is a very flawed way of looking at it."

Talk about yer unintelligible. "Want to separate one part of it"? And here what I see is you wanting to control the "part of it" that can only be controlled by violating someone else's rights ... I mean, that's what I think I'm seeing. Reserving judgment until I see how "I'm pro-choice" and "both people should be full partners in the decisions" can be reconciled.

"You are also playing semantics. Not a good way of defending your position."

If you're referring to the statement of fact that a fetus is not a child, then you sound more and more like a fundy, don't you?

.

I'm playing semantics by pointing out that it isn't a child *yet*? BBy pointing out the truth, I am playing semantics? Hogwash.

I never said the man has absolutely no input- just that the ultimate decision can really only be made by the woman. Because it is her body that must go through either the pregnancy or the abortion. It's wonderful in situations where both partners can agree on the decision (either way). And it's unfortunate that there are situations where they disagree, but it's reality.

You are correct though, in that you won't change my mind on this. I was only mildly pro-choice before this, and never really gave this issue that much consideration. Because it didn't affect me. I had no plans of having children, and I had never been forced to make the decision to terminate a pregnancy or not. Now I understand how hard the decision is to make, one way or the other, and I would NEVER try to force my will on another woman. Just as I would never try to force you to do something or not. You are an adult, probably usually rational, and capable of making your own decisions without my meddling. Sorry that you don't seem to accord women the same respect.

With no knowledge of me personally you decide I have no respcet for women. Wow.

Yes, you are playing semantics. Child/fetus/baby. Semantics. Knowing full well what I meant you decided to shift the wording inorder to throw the discussion off. Sidestepping when you couldn't face front.

you don't accord women some respect. I said that you don't seem to respect their decision to control their own bodies as I respect your right to do so. Sorry that you can't see the difference there.

And talk about sidestepping. This thread was originally about pregnancy and abortion. You have managed to turn it into a veiled anti-woman discussion about men's rights and child support issues.

I challenged your characterization of the fetus as a child because that was what you called it, not me. And without the proper terminology being used, I wasn't sure of what you actually meant. Because while a pregnant woman may owe certain duties to a fetus in a pregnancy she will carry to term (such as to not ingest cocaine), a man owes no duties to a fetus. They EACH owe duties to a child.

...anti-woman.

that the woman must bow to the wishes of the man concerning the pregnancy or fear losing his financial and other help post-pregnancy. The idea that a man has a right to force a woman to have an abortion or lose child support payments. You've said or implied this in various posts in this thread.

But maybe the better charcterization of those ideas is a little selfish, rather than anti-something/someone else. I won't edit my previous post, since that would make your reply look silly. (I hate it when people do that after they've changed their mind or decided on a better description, so I won't do that to you either)

...to take away the decisions involved in having or not having a baby from the man. Completely removing him from any part of the process. The way you talk about it we don't have any emotional connection to this process at all. That there is no personal involvement in the process on the part of the man. Sorry...that is selfish on your part.

If you decide to make decisions in contrast to your partners wishes then it is entirely possible that there might be consequences yes. If he is a decent human being he'll stick in there and be a good father. If the mother was a decent human being she'd keep him involved and make him feel a part of the process, not simply auxillary and only important afterwards.

I NEVER said the man has absolutely no right to be considered in the process, or that he has no emotional connection to this. It is his potential child, after all.

And as I said, my husband told me his wishes and we discussed this at great length. Eventually, I made the ultimate decision to continue the pregnancy. My husband could not make that decision for me- and I'm very grateful that he supported me and stood by my decision, even though my first decision (to terminate) wasn't the one he wanted. But he never threatened me with any "consequences" for failing to decide as he wanted me to.

"If the mother was a decent human being she'd keep him involved and make him feel a part of the process, not simply auxillary and only important afterwards."

Yes she will. But if they disagree, who gets the final choice? I've simply said it's the woman, and you've at least implied that it's the man- or that the woman can make that decision as long as she forgoes child support. That's what I called selfish- the idea that the man can simply argue "But you made a deicsion I disagree with and therefore I'm not going to give you any child support." Maybe I give men too much credit, but I think they're better than what you've implied in this thread.

..."sorry honey, I know you didn't want this baby but you are going to be stuck with it too"?

I agree that his deciding to leave you w/o child support would be pretty selfish. I also said that a decent man would stick around for his part of things. You did choose to ignore that comment though.

Simply in the way you word your comment "I made the ultimate decision", it becomes clear to me that you may have talked to your husband, but he wasn't "listened" to. You were going to make your own decision and his input really was irrelevant. Your decision was decided based on "I" not "we". You may not have said that he had no involvement in things, but you've made it pretty clear that his involvement is pretty immaterial.

But the man would at least be stuck with paying child support. He doesn't have to be a good father if he doesn't want to, and he certainly doesn't have to stick around for a relationship with the woman. But he does have to financially support the child, even if he refuses to do so emotionally and spiritually.

So again, if they disagree, who gets to make the ultimate decision? The man or the woman?


You have no clue what happened in our relationship or the extent to which I listened to and appreciated what my husband said. Not that it's any of your business, but one of the reasons I decided to continue the pregnancy WAS because of his wishes. He loves and respects me for taking his wishes into account, but he at least understands that he couldn't FORCE me to carry the pregnancy to term against my wishes.

...ultimately be made by the woman. In the end if she dosen't want the child then she can always sneak off and have an abortion. Short of something criminal there is nothing that the father can do to terminate the pregnancy if she decides to carry it out anyway. She can, if she wants terminate the pregnancy and never even have to tell the father about it. Men are, in this case, always in the weaker bargining position. UNlike any otehr "conflict" betwene men and women it is also an inferior position based solely on the fact of their gender and absolutely nothing else.

However once the decision is made then there is a cascade effect of other decisions by both parties and consequences for both.

You are right that it isn't any of my business. You chose to share though. Prior to that I had nothing but your words to base my judgement on.

"Simply in the way you word your comment I made the ultimate decision', it becomes clear to me that you may have talked to your husband, but he wasn't 'listened' to. You were going to make your own decision and his input really was irrelevant. Your decision was decided based on 'I' not 'we'.

Lemme ask you something.

I'm your parents. You want to go to university and become a doctor. I want you to go to community college and become a dental technician.

You listen to all my arguments about why you should go to college and become a dental technician. It will cost me less money for tuition, that's a big one. It will make me happy to have a dental technician in the family. I'll have access to tooth-cleaning when I need it.

You decide to go to university and become a doctor.

Characterize that decision for me, will you? Selfish?

What would it take for you to "choose" to go to community college instead? Could I offer you some inducement to endure the boredom, lower earning capacity and reduced prestige, to make me happy? (It will make me very happy, you know.)

Is pregnancy, childbirth and parenthood (or abortion, in the opposite case) comparable to choosing a school and a career? Or is it maybe even a little more momentous?

Why would you feel entitled to make your own decision about where to go to school and what career to pursue, knowing how unhappy that decision will make me, without being called "selfish" for not doing what I want?

When the decision has to be made, and has to be made by one person, because that person is the only one who can implement the decision, who should make it? Isn't that a ridiculous question? Isn't the question: who CAN make it?

Two choices. Terminate the pregnancy, continue the pregnancy. One person wants one, the other person wants the other. Who MAKES the decision? The one who CAN?

And you're suggesting that she should make the decision to do what makes her unhappy and makes someone else happy? And that would be ... why?

"You may not have said that he had no involvement in things, but you've made it pretty clear that his involvement is pretty immaterial."

Tell us (I won't bother asking why you would misrepresent the facts as you have done, since I know the answer and it doesn't matter): what should she have done, and why?

.

"and it isn't the least bit selfish...
...to take away the decisions involved
in having or not having a baby from the man."

People get to make selfish decisions. They really, really do. What they don't get to do is make selfish decisions that they carry out by violating other people's rights.

Hell, they don't even get to make unselfish decisions that they carry out by violating other people's rights.

If you were offered that job in the midwest or wherever it was, and your options were (a) take it, move, and have interesting and well-paid employment, or (b) decline it, stay where you are, and go on welfare, what would you do if you weren't married?

If you were married, and your wife didn't want to move, but couldn't support the two of you without a severe drop in household income, you knowing that the longer you were out of the workforce the less chance you'd have of finding employment as interesting and well-paid, what would you do?

If you were married and your wife were offered that job, and knew that you didn't want to leave your present employment and didn't want to move, and decided to force you to move there with her, how would you like that?

Guess what? That's the analogy to compelling a woman to continue a pregnancy and have a child. Not the analogy to a woman having an abortion against a man's wishes, as you suggested.

"If the mother was a decent human being she'd keep him involved and make him feel a part of the process, not simply auxillary and only important afterwards."

And what has that got to do with the price of tea in China -- or women's reproductive rights, as the case may be, and as it does happen to be in this thread?

What makes you think that you can take the statement that women may not be compelled either to continue or to terminate a pregnancy against their wishes and represent it as someone's opinion about how two individuals should arrange their relationship? What makes you think that anyone who agrees with that statement would not also agree that it is wise for both parties to consider the other's wishes?

I just wonder who all these poor traumatized men really are. The ones I'm familiar with who want the pregnant women in their lives to have abortions are mainly the ones who were involved in exploitive relationships in the first place: the relationship existed, from their perspective, to provide them with sexual and other services. They're not in the habit of consulting their partners about any aspect of the relationship, and yet there they are, wanting their feelings to be considered when a pregnancy comes along. Yeah, sure.

Ditto for the ones trying to stop the pregnant women from having abortions. My favourite is the famous (up here) Mr. Tremblay; he's had his counterparts in the US. After hounding his former fiancée (whom he had battered) all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada to force her to continue her pregnancy, with the financial backing of all the 'right-to-life' groups you could eat, he went on to be convicted of battering a few other girlfriends, and to be the subject of a dangerous offender (indefinite imprisonment) application.

How many cases are there when the two people are genuinely committed to each other, not exploiting or being exploited by each other, and the man is not consulted by the woman when an unplanned pregnancy occurs? And how many men who are involved in such relationships would actually seek to control the women's decisions?

Poor victimized traumatized fellas. I'm surprised that in all my years I just haven't met a one of them.

.

...you support selfish decisions. *making a note to self* It'll be good to see you out there supporting selfish decisions for all sorts of things.

"Do you think it's a child while still in the womb?"

Perhaps it is, perhaps not. It's sure as hell not a rock you're carrying in there.

Edit: I changed "my" to the correct "the". Apologies.

it isn't a rock. It's a fetus- a potential child. That's not presuming anything.

I certainly don't discount whatever emotional involvement men may have. They OBVIOUSLY have an emotional involvement...I mean it's mostly MEN murdering abortion doctors and it was ALL men smiling around that picture..and yes when a man is involved with the woman who is pregnant there WILL be an emotional involvement (just to be fair that there are reasonable and UNREASONABLE emotional attachments.)

The question is...should THAT emotional involvement TRUMP the physical involvement of the pregnant woman? I don't think so.

All males are alike in the fact of being male. However, it's an overgeneralization to say that it means that men are equally unsympathetic as the guys standing around as Bush signed the law prohibiting partial birth abortion.

The larger point here is that feminists have turned women's concerns into zero-sum pitched battles. In so doing, they lost support for worthy causes. Ultimately that's the reason feminism has mostly disappeared. Women themselves run from it.

since women's equality is such a big scary thing, the only way to deal with it is to marginalize and trivialize feminism. Then dilute the whole concept by making it be about "human rights." That way, women be asked to help further the causes of those who oppress us. Brilliant.

Women won't get equality until they bring men along with them. Equality for all or there will be equality for none. the feminist movement wouldn't be where it is today w/o the involvement of men. It won't get where it should be w/o that same involvement. W/o including them in the endstate.

no...guess what. the feminist movement is here because sisters were tired of men telling them that they should focus on the abolition of african american slaves rather than their own oppression. the feminist movement is a direct off-shoot of the abolishist movement of the 19th century and was done with little to no help from men. everything the women's movement has done is because women have worked their asses off, not because it was conceeding to by men.

there are men who do not want equality because they think there is a finite amount of it and by bring women up, that will drag men down.

when you read your history we can talk.

Too bad. You miss so much when you haven't looked into your past.

You should also try reading the new stuff. I recommend Faludi (sp?). In fact she has pretty much said exactly what I did. It's almost a verbatim quote.

and in backlash she goes into the male-dominated anti-choice organizations. she actually interviewed randell terry. how she did without vomitting, i dont know.

and your speaking with a women's studies minor (only because there was no major at my college), so try me.

Or you didn't read enough. Have you read "Stiffed" and heard her discussions about it? Or heard her talking about the backlash she has received from the feminist community over it?

finished it about 3 months ago. ive also read a bit into men's studies (granted not alot).

but in terms of men benefitting from feminist thought that is because they have started looking at the world differently because of previous feminists (the "men's movement" started about 10 years after second wave feminism). chris kilmartin is a prominent men's studies scholar who i like alot. his spoken word "crimes against nature" is hilarious.

but im still not sure about what this has to do with ideological men attacking freedom of choice.

edit: and while your at it you can try reply to my post below.

it has nothing to do with ideological men attacking freedom of choice.

If you read it, and you paid attention, you will know then that Susan has said that the womens movement will remined stalled out unless women take men into teh equality moveement, make it a movement for equality for everyone, and then move forward together. If they don't do this then the movement will remain stalled adn may even begin to backslide.

This should dovetail nicely into this portion of the thread as posted above.

its a lot more holistic and acknowledges the great differences of all people.

however. what do you do when you have photo ops that show nothing but men while women's rights are getting signed away?

what do you do when men wont call themselves feminist or, no matter how "liberal" they are, they sick to archaic notions of gender? or, like i said before, think that there is a finite amount of rights and by "giving" rights to women, they will "lose."

what do you do with militant ideological men (which doesnt not include all men, obviously) who have no problems killing other men and bombing abortion clinics or hurling insults at women because they choice to terminate a pregnancy?


the playing field is not level therefore you can not say that there is equal play for men and women.

...who are already on your side and that you need to move forward.

So they don't call themselves feminist. So what? Are they still on your team and moving in the same direction? Who cares what they call themselves. Let's not forget there are women who don't call themselves feminist who are still working towards a feminist goal. Some of them even hold to archaic notions of gender.

I have an ex-GF that wants nothing more than to get married, have a couple kids and keep house. This would be a big reason she's my ex-GF. It isn't what I am looking for. But is it any more feminist to deride her for making that decision freely? It is what she wants. She is also a very strong feminist who beleives in the right to choose and all the rest of those goals. Is a man any less feminist becasue that is waht he wants for him and his wife, but knows that it isn't right for all women and is willing to stand up and fight for the right for the rest of them to choose what life they want?

Yes there are some men who don't want to give up anything because they will "lose". Can't help you with those. They ustrate me too. Ther are also some who are concerned that they might end up as the "repressed sex". If you listen to some feminists you can begin to believe that that is what they want.

The militant set? Shoot them. That is my solution. I've been told that is wrong and that I need therapy. Oh well. Just kidding about the therapy.

But we start off by not pissing off the ones that are already on our side. That is the first step.

there is a great quote


if you are feeling attacked by a feminist, it is probably a counter-attack


my politics and convictions are rather strong, some might say radical. thats fine, they work for me.

i have no problems with male allies. i have problems with male allies that want to dilute the issues and do not want to understand my perspective as a more radical feminist (not accusing you of doing this).

cheers?

I can see where it is equally applicable when used as such. "if you are being attacked by a feminist male it is probably a counter attack." Jsut something to keep in mind.

There is a big difference between strong convictions and radical convictions. Not all radical convictions are bad even. If they begin to border into the "extremist" catagory they might bear a re-look. Extremism in any cause is usually a bad thing. Radicalism usually depends on your perspective. most of us can identify the extremists even in our own organization.

*shrug* I have no idea which you are of course. :)

Me? I'm just an asshole. Been one for a long time. My dad tells me it's genetic. As you can tell I'm not too woried about pissing people off either.

<on edit>

I think i was supposed to nod and say "cheers" here.

<second edit>

The opening of this may have come out rougher than I intended. It was not intended to be abrasive.

and trying to learn from what many people who are RIGHT keep trying to nicely help you understand. Arguing does no good when you are merely restating a misguided position.

I would bet that you would find many of your own statements offensive, or at least problematic, if blacks, Hispanics, Asians or other groups were substituted for women in your statements.

It's not blacks' responsibility, for example, to make sure whites feel good about everything they are saying, particularly on issues of blacks' rights. It's not women's responsibility to make men feel comfortable at all times, especially if men are behaving badly. Men who are interested in justice do not expect this.

...the same statement has been made by some black leaders the same thing about the civil rights movement.

Now...please point out where I said that women have to make men feel comfortable at all times please.

of the mary daly variety although i dont take it as far as radical lesbian separatism (though i need my space from men at times).


also, i find diluting issues specific to women--such as childbirth, abortion, menstruation--into the generic "human rights" as insulting to women. there are things that are specific to men and women, i acknowledge them. i just dont think one should have greater value over the other--in terms of mens issues being greater than women's issues. there are things that are human rights because they affect human beings on a whole on an atleast somewhat equal level--housing, food, water, freedom from torture etc. are human rights.

however, a man will never die from a botched illegal abortion. men currently are not pumping their bodies with hormones (which can had adverse health problems) in order to keep from getting pregnant. a man will never have to worry about the possiblity of getting fired because of their pregnant status.


so when someone says they are a humanist over a feminist, that tells me that they want "equality" but dont want to question their assumptions about the current world; that the playing field is not level, that there are issues that are going to affect women more than men and likewise men than women. that gender roles, being set characteristics that are appropriate for the set sex, for men and women are stupid, archaic and ultimately limit the freedom and desires and abilities of people as whole beings with a spectrums of desires, needs, etc.

the white male and white male privilege is not going exitinct any time soon and anyone who doesnt realise this needs to get their head out of their ass.

men need to save their indignation and outrage for the men that have actually done things to desire bashing (and there are plenty of women out there that i am not proud i am in the same sex with). this post originate from a specific instance pertaining to specific men that almost all could agree are a bunch of assholes.

is hardly the be all and end all of feminist history. If that's all you've read, than you're the one who needs a better education.

I'm sure we're all weary of men spouting off about the need to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. Everywhere I go those darned men, nattering on about equality for women.

WOMEN DO. It's a woman's issue.

...couples get pregnant. They both have an emotional and even physical attachment to the process. Yes, men experience physical changes too. Also hormonal and psychological. So it is a human issue.

Definition of pregnant
1. Carrying developing offspring within the body.

Whatever you say. You obviously didn't read what I posted so it isn't worth repeating it to you yet again. Thanks for playing though.

You said the couple is pregnant which is impossible. The couple is going to have a baby but only she can be pregnant even in a stable relationship. Having an emotional attachment to your potential child is not the same as actually carrying the child.

to what I said. There is more to it than an emotional attachment, but as I said, re-explaining it to you would be a waste of time.

Men can have all of the physical changes they want to. The fact is they are not pregnant and they won't be giving birth.

n/t

Do you have a rampant fear of new scientific information, or is it something else.

I read a lot and I have never heard of a man carrying his offspring. You do know that the movie with Arnold Schwarzenegger in it is fictional.

...and a movie. I'll get the reference tomorrow at work, if I can remember to look for it. It's not something I keep handy. I'm a cancer researcher. Reproductive biology isn't my specialty.

"In a stable relationship women don't get pregnant...
...couples get pregnant."

Who said there is no magic in the world today?

And who was it who was talking about word games or some such thing?

In a stable relationship, couples are expecting a baby.

In the real world, women get pregnant.

I think someone was finding you funny recently. She was sure right about that.

"So it is a human issue."

Reproductive rights -- that being the topic -- actually are a human issue, although not for the risible reasons you offer.

They're a human issue because they are a matter of fundamental human rights, and when any individual or group is unjustifiably denied the ability to exercise those rights, we are all diminished in many ways.

The existence of slavery in the world diminishes me, although I am unlikely ever to be a slave. Its mere existence signals a significant absence of respect for rights themselves, and I can expect spillover to myself from that fact in some way, at some time. Certainly I will agree that denial of women's reproductive and other rights affects men in the same way; they are living in a climate of disrespect for rights, and its fallouts may land on them directly in some way. After all, if women can be compelled to continue (or terminate) pregnancies against their will, what is there to stop men from being compelled to "donate" kidneys against their will??

But I'm not going to claim to be a victim of slavery. Liberation is not *my* issue, and I'm not going to claim ownership of it. I'll support the struggle, as being in both my and the slaves' best interests, but I won't tell them how to engage in it, and I certainly won't make them bargain for my support. My attempt to bargain would be plain evidence that I do not respect their right at all, and all the reason they needed to leave me out of their considerations.

I am not going to claim entitlement to exercise control over how former slaves exercise their liberty once they gain it, either, based on some spurious argument that what they're doing pains me deeply. Their right, and their entitlement to exercise it according to how they perceive their own best interests, is not conditional on my approval or applause. Even if they exercise it by going on strike and winning a triple wage increase, thereby raising the price of the goods I have to buy.

Rights are indeed human issues, and offering conditional support for someone else's battle against rights violations is the precise opposite of embracing their issue as a "human" issue.

.

...and only like to hear themselves post.

will be the day that you have a right to claim anyone is anti-male sexist.

Sorry Ripley, but simply because you might be an oppressed group does not give you the freedom to be oppressive yourself. Because you are discriminated against does not give you the right to be discriminatory. Being sexually harassed/abused does not make you free to do the same to another.

To believe otherwise is hypocrasy.

And I said that not only would abortion be a free and legal option, but theologians and religious leaders would find a way to justify it, and religious leaders would invoke the bible and god against anyone trying to take the right of men to make decions about their own bodies a way.

We would also see paid maternity leave become mandatory law, six weeks minimun, and we'd see affordable daycare options for all working fathers, a lot of other interesting changes to.

I am man, and its not fucking "man-bashing" to deal with the fact that this is an incredibly patriarchical and inequitable society in which men remain the controling sex, period. The things we do to woman in this society are indeed different than the things we would do to men in the same situation and that's just a fact. I am comfortable enough in my own maleness that I don't need to act like an utter idiot anytime someone rightfully critiques some of the problems of patriarchy.

It infuriates me to no end for some of the males around here to try to turn the issue around and making it into a "boo hoo men are so abused" bullshit ridiculous pathetic argument. It's the most insulting and insane thing I think I have ever seen.

.

Your being male dosen't change what it is.

Until then, you have no idea, none.

with an attitude like that how do you expect to achieve equality then?

*shaking head sadly* It is exactly attitudes like taht which are causing not only the womens rights movement to stall out, but equal rights in general. until all groups "join hands" include everyone and then step forward very little progress can be expected in the next 50 - 100 years.

Next you will be telling me you know what it's like to be black too. I can imagine it, but can I actually experience it? No. I can sympathize, I can support, but I can't be something Im not. And that being said, says it all. I don't see the Women's Movement stalling out either. What I do see is bush pushing his agenda & succeeding. And does this particular bill directly effect the bodies of women? Why yes, yes it does. Thankfully I dont have to "depend" on someone like you, to either express what I feel about anything. You dont agree? fine, but dont tell me you "know" cause you dont! I await your call...

Or some other minority that might very well be able to sympathize. THat might actually ahve a full understanding.

flying around here today.

And we're supposed to be the ones who don't engage in stereotyping.

P.S. Being a minority male doens't make one more sympathetic to women. Minority men are perfectly capable of being just as sexist as white men are. Just like being a woman doens't necessarily mean one isn't just as racist as a man.

Unfortunately you can't tell them they are being sexist. You get called names and told that you aren't being a proper liberal, and that insisting on equal treatment in the discussion of these issues means you are as bad, or worse, as the sexist people on the other side of the argument.

Funny how that works.

And you're right...women are quite capable of being sexist. I think maybe women get so angry at "liberal" men because we expect more from y'all. We know the opposition is stuck in the 13th centruty when it comes to gender roles but y'all are supposed to be with us. It's not fair but it's true. And when you put it in terms that sound too similar to the ones used by the oposition to belittle us it grates.

I'm loathe to keep typing because you know I hate fighting with you. But I do think it's worth noting that some men seem to be hyper-sensitive to women being sexist while letting some pretty extreme misogyny pass right on by. A post that called men "pigs" got deleted from this thread while the word "bitch" to refer to women seems to slip by all the freakin' time without anything being done.

You know what - it's funny without being funny too.

...simply pointing out that women are acting as bad as the men they are ranting against gets you sent to your room w/o supper. I think that is just a complete hoot. I laugh hysterically when they insist on the hypocrasy despite the damage it is going to do to their cause in the long run. The most amusing thing is when they turn on their own and "devour" them simply because they didn't toe the "sisterhood" line firmly enough.

yeah. it's funny that way.

"just pointed out" anything in your whole life. Don't underestimate the power of your sarcastic wit. ;-)

I don't laugh. I just shake my head in wonder at the proof that women and men are pretty much the same. Devouring their own...gee that sounds familiar...oh yeah, it's primary season again. :-)

... have to do with entitlement to exercise constitutional rights?

"with an attitude like that how do you expect to achieve equality then?"

God almighty. Excuse me while I go take some tap-dancing lessons, the better to entertain big daddy massah with while I make nice in the hope that he'll let me do what I choose with my own body ...

.

anything to do with "entitlement to exercise constitutional rights" but unfortunately it has a whole lot to do with being able to build coalitions and garner allies in the struggle.

DarkPhenyx agrees with you on abortion. You may have missed where he mentioned that. But you alienate him and he alienates you right back because of attitude.

can't understand either by your logic. What about women like me who choose not to get pregnant...can we understand?

then when it comes to someone having to make a decision as to whether it's your life or the child's life, they will be saving, perhaps you will.

...only women who have choosen to have an abortion are teh only ones that are allowed to maek a decision on reproductive rights?

that I ever intend to get pregnant.

There are a lot of women who get pregnant who never intended to get pregnant. Including nuns. Sexual assault happens to anyone. As does contraceptive failure, to anyone engaging in sexual intercourse either voluntarily or involuntarily.

That's the whole thing that needs more talking about in "sex education". When we consider that about 4 out of 10 USAmerican women will have at least one abortion in their lifetimes -- and that many more women have unwanted pregnancies that they do not terminate -- we realize that unwanted pregnancy is indeed, if not a universal phenomenon for women, an ever-present possibility for all women, throughout times and places.

I'm not disagreeing with your premise here, just going off on a tangent about the "it can't happen to me" feeling that leaves so many women (including anti-choice women) in shock when it does.

Your premise, as I understand it, is that not "knowing what it feels like", or not ever having the chance of experiencing "it" at all, doesn't disqualify someone from having an opinion about something, and I don't disagree. I'm not disqualified from denouncing an injustice against someone else simply because I'll never experience the injustice.

But there is a point about the nature of women's lives that is connected to the issue itself. Pregnancy is an enormous element of female life that is not present in male lives. It affects women in ways that men are not affected by anything.

And it is those effects that make the choice about it so intimately connected to fundamental rights and freedoms. It is absolutely fundamental to women's ability to exercise the rights to life and liberty and security of the person that they be able to choose whether to continue a pregnancy and have a child.

Men undoubtedly can't "feel" or "understand" how fundamental this is. It may really look like not that big a deal to a man. Just as the situation of an African American slave 150 years ago, one who had adequate food and housing and clothing and was not mistreated, may not have looked like that big a deal to a white person. There were undoubtedly even white people who looked at such slaves and said "hey, they've got it a whole lot better than me".

But they didn't have the fundamental autonomy, the fundamental ability to determine the course of their own lives, that freedom from slavery allows. Just as women don't have that fundamental autonomy if they are compelled to remain pregnant and have children against their will.

We're all subject to limitations on our autonomy of various kinds, some of them unavoidable: disability from birth or by accident, for instance. We can't call unavoidable limitations violations of our rights (although we can call differential treatment, based on them, rights violations).

If there were no means of terminating pregnancies, unwanted pregnancy would be just "one of those things" too. But since there are such means, denying women access to them is no different from denying a paraplegic the right to use a wheelchair. And nobody else's opinion that it would be really nice to just lie around in bed all day would obviate that rights violation.

Rather than saying "men just don't understand", I might phrase it something like "women's experience is a valid basis for argument". It's not that men's opinions are illegitimate, it's that women's need to be recognized as having a particular legitimacy that men's don't have, because they are based on an understanding of what the denial of rights and freedoms does.

Oh hell, let me quote someone who said it better than tired me:

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1988/vol1/html/1988scr1_0030.html

It is probably impossible for a man to respond, even imaginatively, to such a dilemma not just because it is outside the realm of his personal experience (although this is, of course, the case) but because he can relate to it only by objectifying it, thereby eliminating the subjective elements of the female psyche which are at the heart of the dilemma.

As Noreen Burrows, lecturer in European Law at the University of Glasgow, has pointed out in her essay on "International Law and Human Rights: the Case of Women's Rights", in Human Rights: From Rhetoric to Reality (1986), the history of the struggle for human rights from the eighteenth century on has been the history of men struggling to assert their dignity and common humanity against an overbearing state apparatus.

The more recent struggle for women's rights has been a struggle to eliminate discrimination, to achieve a place for women in a man's world, to develop a set of legislative reforms in order to place women in the same position as men (pp. 81-82). It has not been a struggle to define the rights of women in relation to their special place in the societal structure and in relation to the biological distinction between the two sexes.

Thus, women's needs and aspirations are only now being translated into protected rights. The right to reproduce or not to reproduce which is in issue in this case is one such right and is properly perceived as an integral part of modern woman's struggle to assert her dignity and worth as a human being.

I'm concerned about those broader issues, not just the right to abortion. And (having skipped around and read a bit more while I was composing this, and responding to your comment), I do not see someone like DarkPhenyx as an ally in that struggle. And so I really don't give a shit what he thinks about my attitude, I have to say. My attitude is the direct result of the attitude of people like him, so if they want better attitude from me, I suggest that they give better attitude themselves.

The recent spate of poor-oppressed-men posting at DU (see the civil rights forum) impresses me no more than 19th century white folk whining about how slavery oppressed them too, by denying their humanity, and how some white folks were a lot worse off than some black folks, blah blah blah. We'd find it ridiculous and offensive in them, and I find it the same in these men.

Some men are oppressed, yes, by more powerful men. Men are in many ways affected negatively by patriarchy, yes. Let's smash patriarchy together; fine. Let's blame women? I don't think so.

.

.

about attitude. I can understand your comment about your attitude being derived from DarkPhenyx's attitude. But guess what. I bet he'd say the same about you. As long as both of you don't care what the other thinks and let your attitudes get in the way then you'll never really communicate with each other and realize that you're on the same side. And you are allies in the broader struggle whether you see it or not.

"And you are allies in the broader struggle whether you see it or not."

There really isn't some sort of a priori thing that because he posts here and I post here, we're allies. I've never regarded him as an ally.

"I can understand your comment about your attitude being derived from DarkPhenyx's attitude. But guess what. I bet he'd say the same about you."

And he'd be welcome to substantiate it, to provide some foundation for that assertion, some fact and argument for alleging that my attitude was the cause of his attitude. I'm 100% certain that it would be hogwash.

I don't notice Selwynn claiming to be entitled to have a bad attitude because women object to male privilege and don't bother saying "please" when they do it.

"As long as both of you don't care what the other thinks and let your attitudes get in the way then you'll never really communicate with each other and realize that you're on the same side."

We aren't on the same side. I only need to read what he says -- and how he says it -- to know this. Someone who wants to be on the same side as me just does not say those things, or speak in that manner.

Being "pro-choice" really is not sufficient for being on my side. There can be many reasons for being pro-choice that have nothing to do with the struggle that *I* believe in. Reproductive rights are a means to an end, not an end in themselves -- a means by which women are able to exercise autonomy. Just like equal pay and all that jazz, if more fundamental.

Someone who is on my side does not pretend to be the victim when women claim their rights. Someone who is on my side does not twist the characteristics of a patriarchal society, which in intent and effect oppress women as women, into oppression of men by women.

If he wants to complain about the harmful ways that patriarchy affects him, fine and dandy. But I'm afraid that that's not how I see demands for "men's rights" at all. I don't see thorough-going challenges to the underlying ideology and all the structures that implement it. I see whining and bitching about how a very few men, in a very few ways, have it worse than their female counterparts this decade, and an effort to wrest back whatever benefits women have won. Nope, not on my side.

.

The demise of feminism can be seen in this simple exchange. Women present themselves as so unique and complicated that men couldn't possibly begin to understand. When challenged on this unsupportable assertion, they get angry and isolate themselves.

If you want to know where feminism went, look at the hostility implicit in this response. It's mostly gratuitous, too. Men aren't necessarily sympathetic to Bush and the conservatives surrounding him as he signs anti-female legislation.

Feminists decided that the only people who can carry the flag for women are women. Eventually they got their way.

Women are unique, as are men. There are differences. Did I get my way? No, I didnt vote for this asshole, but Im still going to have to deal with what he and his party do. And so it goes.

I remember feminist theory in the 70's and 80's that said that women were naturally adept at coalition-building. But you can see from this very discussion that it's not true. There's no attempt to reach out to men and include them in a common cause; in fact it's just the opposite! Men are told to butt out.

Instead of including and incorporating men in a movement based on our common humanity, women sought to exclude men based on sexual differences. They assumed, incorrectly, men and women are natural enemies and that men cannot be trusted. Men who sought to participate were turned away and insulted.

All of the men in the famous picture have wives and daughters in their lives. In celebrating anti-female legislation, these men enjoy the support of the women in their lives. The counterpart to these women, a group that might be called feminist males, is universally derided. That's what killed feminism.

It's true, bashing or no. Men could probably use a good bashing.

...that you are so embarassed to be a male.

Or is it an irrational decision on your part?

.

Thank you for making your wishes known.

Has *anything* that you have ... contributed to ... this thread had anything to do with the subject of discussion?

Women don't understand men? Who the fuck cares?

What exactly has that got to do with a piece of legislation that denies women their constitutional rights?

I don't hear any women whining about men not understanding them.

I hear women (and intelligent progressive men) telling men to keep their legislation off women's bodies.

NOTHING that has been said by men about their supposed problems has ANYTHING to do with that issue.

The opening question was of course a paradox; you might have got that one right.

If men could get pregnant, they would not be men. And everything would be different.

If wishes were horses ...

.

In the meantime, we have the picture of a bunch of rich white middle-aged men, led by one of the richest and whitest and middle-agedest of them all, endorsing legislation that DENIES WOMEN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Perhaps there is something else about those men that I need to "understand". Forgive me if I can't imagine what it would be.

Here is what Selwynn had to say:

I am man, and its not fucking "man-bashing" to deal with the fact that this is an incredibly patriarchical and inequitable society in which men remain the controling sex, period. The things we do to woman in this society are indeed different than the things we would do to men in the same situation and that's just a fact.

If you've noticed anything here that successfully refutes any part of that, please do draw my attention to it. It is not my "wish" that the discussion end, it is a simple fact that when one party has said something to which the other party has no rebuttal, the discussion has ended.

.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Thank you.

...he is ashamed to be a male? I'm sorry but the point of view expressed is skewed if not outright wrong. It is outdated and worse than useless. It will continue to do more harm than good adn will donothing to promote true equality.

you might want to take a deep breath. I didn't perceive that post as being "ashamed" to be male. Only pointing out that one can make legitimate criticism of patriarchy without it being "male-bashing".

is not be a fucking dumbass stereo-typical male that DESERVES to be bashed. :)

However it dosen't always work. Sometimes you end up paying the price anyway. No matter how good you are.

If men could get pregnant, they would be womb-men, i.e., women.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Skinner wants the mods to enforce civility, so they're deleting posts like the one that called men "pigs". Such rhetoric hardly furthers the goals of Democratic Underground.

here on DU. Such civility.

get pregnant, the human race would be extinct.
You want the size of WHAT through my WHAT??

That being said, what a person does to their body isn't none of ANYBODY'S BUSINESS, especially the governments.
BTW I read something along time ago.
The question was if the right to lifers would take every baby and raise them.
The interesting answer was NO!
So just where is the moral authority to tell someone not to abort?

I don't see how changing the word for a child bearing member of the human species from women to men would change anything. Changing the word would not change the factors that evolved a patriarchal society, e.g. the need to nuture and protect the child bearer during downtime for pregnancy and birth. I believe this is the primary cause for the male-vs-female nature of society rather than such things as upper body strength, inie vs outie, or rearward follicle tendancy.

New point of view even. Welcome to the frey.

"What if Women Were In Charge"

But I thought I'd take it literally instead. Just to be an arse.

And, of course, if women were in charge I agree that abortion would be just another medical procedure that noone would even think to question. On the other hand, wasn't it just another medical procedure that noone thought to question for centuries?

...are anti-Abortion aren't you?

As I said, it would have never made it beyond a fringe issue in the first place.

...marginalized? That seems to be a pretty far streach to me.

But please try to understand that Mr. Phenyx is but a grain of sand in a desert land. Mr. Phenyx is allowed to dissent in his opinion but surely he even realizes his dissent is in the extreme minority.

If he doesn't then he's simply playing the bad guy on this thread for sheer devious fun. But then again he could simply be that ignorant? :shrug:

It seemed so cut and dry, if women were in charge, abortion would be a non-issue, that I figured this was nothing more than a mutual mastubatory thread amongst the ladies (hence, my popping in for a peek).

:evilgrin:

Never occurred to me someone might actually want to beat his head against the wall arguing this.

Me.

Attacking w/o pointing out what i have said which is a "minority" opinion, or that is "ignorant"? Yeah, that's usually the tactic they resort to.

this very much is a "women's issue" because if you look at the biggest, loudest, most violently and ideologically opposed to abortion, it's men.

its not women who have killed (male) abortion providers.
its not (from what i know) women who are bombing clinics.
its not women who started operation rescue and other such organisations.
it wasnt a woman that first confronted me, saying they would pray for me, when i went to get my abortion (but it was the arm of a man that escorted me to the doors).
and it certainly wasnt women who were on the stage when bush signed that bill.
edit: and it wasnt women who turned proles' post asking women only about their abortion experiences into a huge flame war. anyone got a link?

if you look back biblically the only crimes against harming a fetus were when the CHOICE was taken away from the father. he could bash the kids head against a rock the second it was born but if a women did it, or another man (through the harming of the mother), thats when it became an action punishable by death.

it comes down to control, people.

and to those men who cant handle it, they must do everything in their power to get it back.

There are a lot of very loud women out there.

as I said before it isn't a "womans issue". It's a "human issue".

not counting if they are accompanying their female partners, then it will be a "human" problem.

but back to your post so are you saying that men arent killing doctors, bombing clinics etc.?

edit: and i have crossed a picket line before, and its not something i want to do again.

And it is a human problem. A lot of very militant people want to make it someting else, but the reality is far more basic.

because i see alot of militant ideological males (bushco, randel terry, jerry falwell) doing everything they can to make this look like its guys deciding what happens to a womans body.

I can tell that already. Besides, it would get deleted by the mods.

its obvious that your views are just as sexist than the post are are railing against.

Just not entirely popular. You would defiantely overreact to it. I can tell that much from the few posts I've read. Funny thing is, my reply wouldn't be the least bit sexist.

ill give you the benefit of the doubt.

edit: you said you would get banned. only if you say something insulting, vulgar will it get banned.

if you can back up your argument we can talk but simply saying "its a human issue" isnt enough.

tell me why it isn't a human issue? you want to imply that the father has no emotional/spiritual/physical connection to the pregnancy? Do you intend to completely divorce him from the process?

(and today would have been my due date actually) i am not saying that male partners do not have some stake or should not have a say in the choice of abortion (or continuing the pregnancy is that case may be).

however, if you look at the larger picture of the political and religious aspect of abortion, that is where the discussion is male-dominated. and because most of the discussion of abortion is in these abstract terms (as opposed to women and men sharing their personal stories because of the stigma of abortion) it comes down to men (and some women) talking about and demonising/criminalising the procedure itself that happens exclusively to women.

jeremy went with me that day and when he went out to have a cigarette they (men) told him that i (not me personally but just as a women at a planned parenthood on the day they performed abortions) was a murderer and that he should stop me.

Also been there when a partner of mine had a miscarriage. Was there when she finally gave birth. Have held the hands of two of my friends getting abortions.

Simply becasue the people on the other side are asses is no reason to penelize the men on our side. We really hate having to pay for the sins of other people. This goes for the crap ex-BF's put you through as well as the butt-munches on the opposition side. Free look into the psyche of men for you.

Yes, the proceedure happens "to" the woman alone, but the effects can happen to both the man and the woman. Notice I said can, not do. There are some women they don't even happen to.

There would probably be RU-486 vending machines on every street corner.

of men versus women who found this post sexist/offensive.

i think it would speak volumes to the question at hand.

that really started the brouhaha. It's some of the subsequent posts that have unfortunately been deleted.

And, at three months pregnant, I've never been more staunchly pro-choice than I am today. The thought of some MAN (sorry, my DU brothers) deciding for ME what to do with MY body pisses me off 1,000 times worse now that I'm pregnant.

By the way, I don't care if it's a boy or girl-- so long as it's liberal. ;-)

P.S. This is for you all my pro-choice brothers: :grouphug:

and I agree with you. teh government should be staying the hell out of your pregnancy. Rememebr though...there are a lot of women in that government who want to take that right away from you just as quickly thatn the men. Maybe even faster.

and I have them tagged. One of them is my senator who has her nose so far up Bush's ass she can see sunshine. I love how conservatives say they want government out of our private lives but then insist that they dictate what we do with our bodies.

Phenyx, you remind me a lot of the men in my life I've known that want so desperately to be a "part" of the pregnancy even though they can't get pregnant. I know it must suck to have women tell you that you can't be part of it because you "just don't understand". I don't tell my husband that. I don't have to because he is in awe of my lifestage right now. He thanks me every day for doing this "for us". He doesn't pretend that he can understand no matter how hard he would love to try to.

I don't know what it's like to have a male sex drive, a male penis, testosterone floating around inside me....I don't pretend to. So, in saying that, we are different. It's not a "human" issue. I'm sorry. It really is a woman's issue. And, we aren't trying to be mean and shut men out of this. It's just that as I can't understand you, you can't understand what I feel like. We can on many things, but when it comes to biology....I'm just so sorry. We are different. It's not personal. Don't take it there.

However there is some research out ther discussing the biological changes that occur in a man when his parner is pregnant. Men do, in fact, "get pregnant". At least that's the theory. Like a lot of science these days it pretty new and still needs some work.

There is also some research on the changes that occur in a mans semen if he thinks his partner is being unfaithful.

*too late maybe*

but i listened to the press conference after the senate had passed the ban and only one woman spoke (in support of it).

women make up less ten percent of the senate and slightly more in the house. so in terms of shear numbers there are still more men voting against the ban.

and congrats to liberaltexan. im hoping to get pregnant soon myself (maybe evening moving to texas).

And congrats to hubby, too! I agree, when I watched my wife going through pregnancy twice and then through delivery twice, I was awed. I felt passionately that no one should have a say in that. Not even me. My body can't even imagine that process, there's certainly no way I could legislate it or decide on it.

The fact that both my kids are daughters doesn't hurt. Bush can keep his stinking laws away from them, too.

then I certainly would have fun in the process! }(

I am not the least bit upset about what has been characterized here as "man bashing." The anger is not directed at every man on the planet--just the ones who want to do away with womens' right to choose. So, I don't take it personally, as some others do.

to get pregnant, there would be an abortion clinic in every town in this country large and small. RU-486 would be in vending machines at the school and office.

must be inspired by the King-Riggs anniversary in Sept.

Yeah the State has no right interferring a womyns' consultation with her doctor...too bad that can't be an admendment...

If men are ever held truly financially responsible for the sperm they donate, buy stock in trojan.

I buried this in one of my awfully verbose posts higher up, and I just think it deserves a possibly wider audience.

From the reasons for judgment of Madam Justice Bertha Wilson, formerly of the Supreme Court of Canada, in R. v. Morgentaler, the 1988 decision striking down Canada's restrictive abortion legislation. (boldface mine)

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1988/vol1/html/1988scr1_0030.html

It is probably impossible for a man to respond, even imaginatively, to such a dilemma not just because it is outside the realm of his personal experience (although this is, of course, the case) but because he can relate to it only by objectifying it, thereby eliminating the subjective elements of the female psyche which are at the heart of the dilemma.

As Noreen Burrows, lecturer in European Law at the University of Glasgow, has pointed out in her essay on "International Law and Human Rights: the Case of Women's Rights", in Human Rights: From Rhetoric to Reality (1986), the history of the struggle for human rights from the eighteenth century on has been the history of men struggling to assert their dignity and common humanity against an overbearing state apparatus.

The more recent struggle for women's rights has been a struggle to eliminate discrimination, to achieve a place for women in a man's world, to develop a set of legislative reforms in order to place women in the same position as men (pp. 81-82). It has not been a struggle to define the rights of women in relation to their special place in the societal structure and in relation to the biological distinction between the two sexes.

Thus, women's needs and aspirations are only now being translated into protected rights. The right to reproduce or not to reproduce which is in issue in this case is one such right and is properly perceived as an integral part of modern woman's struggle to assert her dignity and worth as a human being.

That's the bit that men don't "get" -- how absolutely integral reproductive freedom is to women's lives, how fundamental the right of reproductive freedom is for women. It doesn't "look" like the right to free speech or the right to security against unreasonable search, it's different, it's the one that "doesn't fit" in the historical lineage of rights and freedoms.

And that's because the rights in that lineage addressed men's concerns, men's "needs and aspirations", at the time they were being developed. Women had, and still have, other concerns, and other priorities.

The right to security of the person -- a right that is in the Canadian constitution and all modern human rights instruments at the international level, but *not* in the US constitution -- is one such concern. One that is greater for women, in general, than for men, because women's security has been, and is, more commonly precarious than men's is.

Men were concerned about violations of their rights and freedoms by government. Women, to be frank, have been and are more commonly concerned about actual harm done to them by men. The basic fact of patriarchy.

Reproductive freedom is fundamental to women's autonomy and self-determination. Nobody expects men to "get" it, but the minimum that is expected is for them to recognize the legitimacy of the demands.

A man who purports to see women's demands in this respect as "anti-male" is simply denying the legitimacy of women's claims to human rights. Yes, women get to define what "human rights" are too, based on what WE need in order to control our destinies. We all need the right to life and liberty, and freedom of speech, and women ALSO need reproductive freedom -- the right to choose. Men have no choice to make, since there is no circumstance in which they could or have to make the choice, and so simply have no need for, or claim to, such a right.

Actually, Dennis Kucinich's statement on the issue is one I also like to quote, so I'll close with that (while endorsing no candidate):

I have come to believe that it’s not simply about the right to choose, but about a woman’s role in society as being free and having agency and having the ability to make her own decisions. That a woman can’t be free unless she has this right.

It's just that simple.

.