Do You Consider Yourself a Feminist?

Do You Consider Yourself a Feminist?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Other


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
First of all that was a response to a specific statement in a pp's post.
Second I do have equal rights.
I believe women do not have legally protected equal rights.

Telling "every woman" what they "should be" doesn't seem anymore progressive than telling them what they shouldn't be.
I don't see it as her telling what they should be ("you should be a feminist, and you should be a feminist, and you should...") but rather this being her opinion.
 
What do you personally do to speak for the born? Are you in favor of providing these born babies and children medical care if their parents cannot afford it (government paid for with your taxes, of course)? Are you in favor of granting the pregnant woman sufficient paid leave from her job to care for the new infant? Are you in favor of providing/subsidizing day care so that the mother may return to work? What about SNAP benefits for the family to make sure the child gets nutritious and healthy meals? Because if you are not, you are not standing up for the unborn. Just insisting that they be born. I have a hard time keeping posters straight some times....

I am in favor of any and all of that for children. There is government healthcare paid for with my taxes. There is provided/subsidized child care and SNAP benefits. Don’t have an issue with any of that or WIC or any other program that provides for babies and children.

I think women should get more maternity leave in the US and I believe there should be paternity leave also.

I worked in child care for 16 years. We had several children that the government paid for their care. I helped many young mothers with the paperwork to get on the program. And in years since then I have helped many of those same children get the financial aid they need to attend college.

While working in child care, I became part of a group of directors that helped write grants that gave mothers in different situations scholarships to pay for child care in centers and on weekends or at night if they needed it. We helped military moms that were getting deployed and needed dependable child care while their child lived with relatives during deployment.

Do I have an issue with anyone taking advatage of any such programs? Yes I do. But I don’t believe you throw the baby out with the bath water. The programs are needed.
 
How about creating adaptable seat belts, so that one version does fit all. Why should I - who on average earn $.80 for every dollar a man earns - have to pay extra to be safe and comfortable?

I don’t make seatbelts. But if they can make an adaptable seatbelt that is safe, sure.

You earn .20 less than a man inYour exact same position?
 
I have no issues with the unborn having human status... but there are no other circumstances where one human being can demand the use of another's body, even in a life-threatening situation. If my kid needs a kidney, I can't be forced to donate even if s/he will die without it. Even a *corpse* can't be forced to donate - someone, either the recently deceased or the next of kin, has to give consent. So the question of whether an unborn child is human is, in my opinion, moot - one human cannot demand another human compromise his/her bodily integrity for any reason.



This has been disproven time and again. There are a few high profile cases where it seems like that was the case, usually because the man involved admitted to some wrongdoing. But we've had two men now who have been elected president despite such allegations, two Supreme Court Justices confirmed over testimony from women who accused them of sexual misconduct, and countless entertainers and sports figures going on with their lives like the accusations against them never happened. It is even more true for "ordinary" people because the accusations never make headlines and are quickly forgotten.



You say this as though it is so simple, but the reality is much less rosy. In some urban/suburban areas, the health department is useful for family planning services. In others, they do referrals to Planned Parenthood or other women's health clinics - the very places the pro-life lobby is trying to shut down - because they don't have the funding to meet demand. In rural areas, there may not even be a health department (or a clinic) within a reasonable distance of many residents. Medical care for the poor is nearly non-existent in many places, especially the states currently rushing to pass abortion bans because they're also mostly places that didn't accept the Medicaid expansion element of the ACA. Even in states that did accept it, and mine is among them, it leaves a lot of people uncovered - with a cutoff around the poverty level and a work requirement, there are a LOT of people who make too much for that medical coverage but not nearly enough to afford their own. And child care? That's a disaster. There's a specific process, separate from licensing, to accept child care assistance payments. Few providers bother, since there's a shortage of providers in my area anyway so they can easily fill slots without accepting the lower rates paid by assistance programs, and the process for accepting payments as a home caregiver is getting more difficult with every passing year as a hedge against fraud. Even when a single mother can find a provider, the paid hours are limited to her work hours - she has to pay out of pocket for the extra time the commute takes, and she can't get any help with childcare to pursue post-secondary education to improve her long run prospects.

I wouldn't have such a problem with the pro-life movement if its leaders engaged more honestly with the patchy nature of our social safety net and the very real and unmet needs that drive most of the demand for abortion in this country. But when they mostly oppose the very same programs that are shown to reduce abortion rates and instead think a ban is the answer, well, it really makes me question whether life is really what they care about. Because that kid is still a life at a year old, when Mom is watering down the formula to make it stretch, and at 4, when his so-called caregiver's idea of childcare is endless hours of SpongeBob, and at 6, when he goes to a school with metal detectors but not enough textbooks. But to some, it seems that he ceases to matter the moment he's born.



But communication is a two-way process - if one side isn't listening, there's little chance of improvement. And with doctor shopping harder than ever, thanks to in/out of network considerations and other insurance requirements, it really isn't as simple as just speaking up.

I was talking about ordinary men. Men who have been accused and have had a hard time coming back from the accusations because they are not high profile. It happens. It’s not forgotten because everyone knows of the arrest and the charges but never really know when the whole thing is dropped. I personally know a man who has dealt with it for years after his ex wife decided to make untrue accusations.

I had a center for 16 years. There was no special process for assistance with child care. The mother or father does the paperwork. The center just has to be licensed and send in paperwork that they already are required to have by state law. Nothing to it. They paid it monthly and sent a check covering how ever many kids we had on the program. They paid slightly less than our monthly rate and the parent pays the rest—like $10 or so. We always welcomed the parents on assistance. It was a guaranteed payment every month.

I live in a state that just passed a heartbeat law. I can throw a rock and hit 4 clinics that are either free or charge by what someone makes. 2 are medical and dental, one medical and one mental health. Add to that Medicare and CHIP and health care is available. Is it easy? No but it is there.

And a baby isn’t demanding to be anything. That baby didn’t demand to be conceived.
 
Last edited:


The answer for me is very nuanced.

I consider myself to be a #NastyGentleman -- I tell it like it is. :flower1::butterfly

If we're talking about the definition of "classical feminism" -- yes, I support systemic reforms so that women attain equality with men in areas such as the workplace, our nation's courtrooms, medical access, etc.

However, I don't subscribe to the third-wave-esque mindsets of "neofeminism" -- which is essentially a trendy doctrine of "female exceptionalism." It is a supposition that women "in general" have superior judgment and skill level compared to men in most areas of life, and, for that reason, males should be deferential to females in a majority of cases. This warped worldview is harbored, for example, by many of the women on The Talk (and, to a lesser extent, some of the women on The View). It's the type of mentality that frames #MeToo from a gynocentric perspective, such as Minnie Driver's comments from two years ago.

One example of how the concept of "feminism" gets warped: last season, on Shahs of Sunset, M.J. Javid bragged about how -- in her prenuptial agreement -- she'd convinced her then-fiance to agree to a contract where she would be entitled to half of his property if they divorced, but he would be entitled to 0% of her property if they divorced. She then proceeded to refer to this arrangement, on-camera, as a "feminist" principle. :rolleyes2

However, it isn't just high-profile female celebrities who vapidly absorb such dogma. I see/hear it oozing from girls/women outside of the public sphere in everyday life. And if you call them out on it, you get accused of "mansplaining" (or, if you're a female calling out another female on it, you get accused of being a "self-loathing" gender-traitor).

So, in other words: some people would call me a "feminist" while others would call me a "misogynist."

I self-identify as NEITHER.
 
I don’t make seatbelts. But if they can make an adaptable seatbelt that is safe, sure.
Women are, on average, shorter than men.
Seatbelts are designed and positioned for tge average height man.
When women have a choice between safety/comfort at extra cost, or suffering with a poorly-designed seatbelt across the face, how is that equal?
Suggestion: perhaps don't cite a specific problem-causing product when one does not have a solution.
You earn .20 less than a man inYour exact same position?
Women in the United States typically earn $.80 for every dollar earned by men. Easy to research.

Now, admittedly, that number was $.60 for every dollar sixty years ago, which means the gap has narrowed a whopping 1/3 of a cent per year.
 
It is a supposition that women "in general" have superior judgment and skill level compared to men in most areas of life, and, for that reason, males should be deferential to females in a maj
But...but...but we are! ;)
for that reason, males should be deferential to females in a majority of cases.
In all seriousness, that's ridiculous.
She then proceeded to refer to this arrangement, on-camera, as a "feminist" principle.
No. It's a greed principle.
 


The answer for me is very nuanced.

I consider myself to be a #NastyGentleman -- I tell it like it is. :flower1::butterfly

If we're talking about the definition of "classical feminism" -- yes, I support systemic reforms so that women attain equality with men in areas such as the workplace, our nation's courtrooms, medical access, etc.

However, I don't subscribe to the third-wave-esque mindsets of "neofeminism" -- which is essentially a trendy doctrine of "female exceptionalism." It is a supposition that women "in general" have superior judgment and skill level compared to men in most areas of life, and, for that reason, males should be deferential to females in a majority of cases. This warped worldview is harbored, for example, by many of the women on The Talk (and, to a lesser extent, some of the women on The View). It's the type of mentality that frames #MeToo from a gynocentric perspective, such as Minnie Driver's comments from two years ago.

One example of how the concept of "feminism" gets warped: last season, on Shahs of Sunset, M.J. Javid bragged about how -- in her prenuptial agreement -- she'd convinced her then-fiance to agree to a contract where she would be entitled to half of his property if they divorced, but he would be entitled to 0% of her property if they divorced. She then proceeded to refer to this arrangement, on-camera, as a "feminist" principle. :rolleyes2

However, it isn't just high-profile female celebrities who vapidly absorb such dogma. I see/hear it oozing from girls/women outside of the public sphere in everyday life. And if you call them out on it, you get accused of "mansplaining" (or, if you're a female calling out another female on it, you get accused of being a "self-loathing" gender-traitor).

So, in other words: some people would call me a "feminist" while others would call me a "misogynist."

I self-identify as NEITHER.
Labels and dogma and ideology are only crutches to simplify living in an objectively complex reality and mechanisms to allow knee jerk control. If you consider the complexity of a single individual you will see that labels can only be applied absurdly to fully characterize that individual. Labels are very useful for politicians to use to elicit an emotional response in us versus them politics.

So just emotional control and elimination of the need to think critically-that’s it. Always easier to control the primitive portion of the brain then the higher brain functions and higher brain functions are also more difficult for a person to use because nasty things like logic and self consistency are required.
 
Women are, on average, shorter than men.
Seatbelts are designed and positioned for tge average height man.
When women have a choice between safety/comfort at extra cost, or suffering with a poorly-designed seatbelt across the face, how is that equal?
Suggestion: perhaps don't cite a specific problem-causing product when one does not have a solution.

Sort of getting off topic, but I can say definitively that seatbelts do NOT pose a safety danger for shorter women. Additionally, almost all newer cars now have adjustable height seat belts anyway so that people from under 5' tall to well over 6' tall can have them be more comfortable.
 
Women are, on average, shorter than men.
Seatbelts are designed and positioned for tge average height man.
When women have a choice between safety/comfort at extra cost, or suffering with a poorly-designed seatbelt across the face, how is that equal?
Suggestion: perhaps don't cite a specific problem-causing product when one does not have a solution.

Women in the United States typically earn $.80 for every dollar earned by men. Easy to research.

Now, admittedly, that number was $.60 for every dollar sixty years ago, which means the gap has narrowed a whopping 1/3 of a cent per year.

Well first I didn’t cite a problem causing product, someone else brought it up. And I did have a solution. Buy the adjuster to make it fit correctly. They aren’t expensive.

I see the research that women make less. I don’t always see it in real life examples.

One of the sites mentions teachers. You can look at any school and their pay scales are based on education and experience. Then I look at the local elementary school(the site specifically said elementary). There are few male teachers but the ones that are there either coach, in which case they get extra pay for that or they drive a bus for field trips, activities, etc and they get an extra stipend for that.

Dh is a truck driver which is a very male dominated career. There is one female driver in his company and she is paid the same as the male drivers. (Small company and they all know what each other makes).




But obviously the statistics don’t lie and yes not making the same as a man in the same job with the same education and skill set is a problem to be addressed. That is a problem and women need to speak up about it. Equal pay for equal work should be across the board for every person regardless of gender, race, religion or any other human factor.
 
I said no- I'm a woman and I have all the same rights as a man.

I think that if. You do have all the rights as men, you are truly lucky. That does not mean that the reality for many women mirrors yours, and for me that is what I look at. In theory women and men have equal rights and opportunities, but in practice women oftentimes do not. WHile I am happy that your position is secure, I cannot overlook that it is not for many others. I am 62 years old and have watched women who are at least as qualified as their male counterpart get passed over for promotions and raises time and again. And I can honestly say I have never seen one male get "assigned" to the clean up committee after a gathering for work.

I am definitely a feminist and always have been.

I'll just add that it's not only about "rights." Minorities supposedly have the same rights but would anyone claim that they are treated fairly? The same is true for women. Studies and statistics continually show women earn less than men and are promoted less often. Girls have been shown to be treated differently in school way too often. These are just some of the issues.

There is nothing wrong with being different. What stinks is not having the same opportunities. All people deserve respect and the same chances and until I see otherwise I don't believe that this is happening yet.

I also hate to see some of these comments. Great women (and men) fought for what we currently have. The work is far from done.

You and I are on the same page. I am a feminist. I advocate for women daily and of late I am pretty saddened by some of the comments I see and hear from men and women in regards to violence against women. I cannot imagine a parent who is more more about a son getting accused of rape than a daughter being raped and afraid to come forward. I have two sons and taught them that they needed to be careful just as I taught my daughter to protect herself.



It was made GLARINGLY obvious to me when I sat on a recent meeting of the joint elected leaders of my city and neighboring township. 10 people. 1 woman. Me. That's it. Pretty damn sad. More than 1/2 the residents of both of those areas are female. Yet, ONE woman's voice is heard in matters affecting us all. This should not be in the year 2019 in America. Pathetic.

Oh my! I attend our local Police Comission meetings becuase I am not at all happy with how they handle theri decision making process. A new commissioner was elected, a female lawyer. Yay! Right? No. Her position is to read the correspondence that is sent in. It is so darn sad. An attorney who is relegated to the secretary on a board. She also parrots what the "elders" say even though as an attorney she should know better, and I found that the fact she refused to speak her own opinion, but chose to explain the old guy's reasoning disheartening. The last meeting she tried to justify a decision by explaining the legal definition iof "consent" and all I could see waht "It depends on what teh meaning of "is" is".

Sure you do.
Your state now has the power to investigate you for a natural miscarriage. And we all know how fair governments are. How many women will be prosecuted because some man will decide that the woman did something to cause the miscarriage? This should terrify every woman.

There is not a single natural medical condition a man could serve a life sentence for through no fault of their own.

Might as well make prostate cancer a felony too. Makes about as much sense.

Wonder what the Vegas odds are of how many women will be sitting in jail in Georgia for having a miscarriage in 10 years.

I know. I do not think the law will hold up however I am truly afraid that this is the direction the Courts will move in. One by one, removing the protections women have in regards to their own bodies. I had to get my husband's written permission to have a tubal ligation even though carrying my child to term was dangerous and y Dr felt another pregnancy wodul be a disaster.

I don't like abortion. I like to think I'd never have one myself. However, banning abortion doesn't actually do much to stop abortions, it just makes them less safe. The best way to reduce abortions is to have free and open access to birth control, comprehensive sex education, and social supports in place that make it easier for a woman to raise a child (free/inexpensive medical care/education/child care/etc.).
Instead we have Ohio trying to ban birth control along with abortion, which would also harm women who aren't even using birth control for contraception (like myself).

I am a practicing Catholic and not pro abortion. I do not thnk may people are. Abortion is a last resort and I cannot imagine the personal trauma women and men who need this procedure must go through. The fact that so much disinformation is being tossed around that minimizes this very personal decision makes my blood boil. There may be a minimal percentage of women who treat abortion as birth control, but in my lifetime I have not met one. I have met women who made this decision based on their circumstances, and I would never second guess them. Their stories were heartwrenching.

If lawmakers were really pro life they would stop trying to reduce the services to women and children.

I would guess you would be in for a shock if you ever tried to access all of these "free" resources that are provided to women below a certain income level and discovered that in fact Ole Mother Hubbard's cupboard is so bare that you wind up with a fistful of cobwebs in response to your request.

Yep.
 
Well first I didn’t cite a problem causing product, someone else brought it up. And I did have a solution. Buy the adjuster to make it fit correctly. They aren’t expensive.

Goodness, seatbelts were just one example of things that are designed for the average man with no consideration of women. The entire car was designed and safety tested for men. They've only been using "female" (really just a scaled down male) crash test dummies in drivers seat tests since 2011 in the US!

From the previously linked article, studies have shown that:
"But when a woman is involved in a car crash, she is 47% more likely to be seriously injured, and 71% more likely to be moderately injured, even when researchers control for factors such as height, weight, seatbelt usage, and crash intensity. She is also 17% more likely to die."
 
Goodness, seatbelts were just one example of things that are designed for the average man with no consideration of women. The entire car was designed and safety tested for men. They've only been using "female" (really just a scaled down male) crash test dummies in drivers seat tests since 2011 in the US!

From the previously linked article, studies have shown that:
"But when a woman is involved in a car crash, she is 47% more likely to be seriously injured, and 71% more likely to be moderately injured, even when researchers control for factors such as height, weight, seatbelt usage, and crash intensity. She is also 17% more likely to die."

Yeah, I was just responding to the other poster who suggested I not bring it up. I didn't bring it up.

They are crash dummies, how would you like them to make them more "female"? The fact that the change was made is progress. Maybe only since 2011 but its progress. And as Klayfish stated above, other changes have started on the new cars. The auto industry is constantly changing things to make the cars safer.

I am not sure what other things you are talking about that were designed for the average man only.
 
The answer for me is very nuanced.

I consider myself to be a #NastyGentleman -- I tell it like it is. :flower1::butterfly

If we're talking about the definition of "classical feminism" -- yes, I support systemic reforms so that women attain equality with men in areas such as the workplace, our nation's courtrooms, medical access, etc.

However, I don't subscribe to the third-wave-esque mindsets of "neofeminism" -- which is essentially a trendy doctrine of "female exceptionalism." It is a supposition that women "in general" have superior judgment and skill level compared to men in most areas of life, and, for that reason, males should be deferential to females in a majority of cases. This warped worldview is harbored, for example, by many of the women on The Talk (and, to a lesser extent, some of the women on The View). It's the type of mentality that frames #MeToo from a gynocentric perspective, such as Minnie Driver's comments from two years ago.

One example of how the concept of "feminism" gets warped: last season, on Shahs of Sunset, M.J. Javid bragged about how -- in her prenuptial agreement -- she'd convinced her then-fiance to agree to a contract where she would be entitled to half of his property if they divorced, but he would be entitled to 0% of her property if they divorced. She then proceeded to refer to this arrangement, on-camera, as a "feminist" principle. :rolleyes2

However, it isn't just high-profile female celebrities who vapidly absorb such dogma. I see/hear it oozing from girls/women outside of the public sphere in everyday life. And if you call them out on it, you get accused of "mansplaining" (or, if you're a female calling out another female on it, you get accused of being a "self-loathing" gender-traitor).

So, in other words: some people would call me a "feminist" while others would call me a "misogynist."

I self-identify as NEITHER.

So you think portrayals on reality television are real? Is that really a valid benchmark upon which to judge, well anything? Mundane day to day life isn't going to create compelling programming, it's gotta sizzle to bring viewers and advertisers.

Ever heard of the term shock jock? Worked incredibly well to crown someone the "King of All Media". Follow the $$$$ -- because that's what every media company has done. Of course television talk shows, radio talk shows, etc. are extreme -- it creates a stir, it attracts eyeballs, ears and publicity, and therefore it makes $$$$. Media companies worked to develop their own "brand" of shock jock, because the King had sewn up that corner of the market. It's the same idea of superheroes being developed with different superpowers, kinda boring if they're all Batman.

As far as calling out girls/women for "vapidly absorbing such dogma" A) the response of mansplaining doesn't even fit the context, but it does allow pulling in a Twitter worthy buzzword. B) who exactly is "vapidly absorbing such dogma" -- does one take in dogma from TV shows, social media, etc?

Something that's not often talked about in mainstream media until tragedy occurs is the fact that young females today are increasingly confronted with extremists of a very disturbing and potentially dangerous stripe, the incel. I had no idea this was a thing beyond tragic news stories until I heard from my daughters, their friends and eventually my own friends about such an ugly cesspool that is bubbling in corners of an awful lot of our universities and colleges. It's disturbing to say the least when someone blithely comments that they are referred to by some people as a misogynist as if it doesn't carry ugly and repugnant meaning.
 
Sort of getting off topic, but I can say definitively that seatbelts do NOT pose a safety danger for shorter women. Additionally, almost all newer cars now have adjustable height seat belts anyway so that people from under 5' tall to well over 6' tall can have them be more comfortable.

That's not quite the information I've gotten from an old friend who works as an engineer for an auto company, specifically setting up the testing, calibrating the dummies, etc. to run the crash testing for about 30 years now. I'll take him at his word that the systems in place, both belts and airbags, are much better suited to taller people.
 
I think that if. You do have all the rights as men, you are truly lucky. That does not mean that the reality for many women mirrors yours, and for me that is what I look at. In theory women and men have equal rights and opportunities, but in practice women oftentimes do not. WHile I am happy that your position is secure, I cannot overlook that it is not for many others. I am 62 years old and have watched women who are at least as qualified as their male counterpart get passed over for promotions and raises time and again. And I can honestly say I have never seen one male get "assigned" to the clean up committee after a gathering for work.



You and I are on the same page. I am a feminist. I advocate for women daily and of late I am pretty saddened by some of the comments I see and hear from men and women in regards to violence against women. I cannot imagine a parent who is more more about a son getting accused of rape than a daughter being raped and afraid to come forward. I have two sons and taught them that they needed to be careful just as I taught my daughter to protect herself.





Oh my! I attend our local Police Comission meetings becuase I am not at all happy with how they handle theri decision making process. A new commissioner was elected, a female lawyer. Yay! Right? No. Her position is to read the correspondence that is sent in. It is so darn sad. An attorney who is relegated to the secretary on a board. She also parrots what the "elders" say even though as an attorney she should know better, and I found that the fact she refused to speak her own opinion, but chose to explain the old guy's reasoning disheartening. The last meeting she tried to justify a decision by explaining the legal definition iof "consent" and all I could see waht "It depends on what teh meaning of "is" is".



I know. I do not think the law will hold up however I am truly afraid that this is the direction the Courts will move in. One by one, removing the protections women have in regards to their own bodies. I had to get my husband's written permission to have a tubal ligation even though carrying my child to term was dangerous and y Dr felt another pregnancy wodul be a disaster.



I am a practicing Catholic and not pro abortion. I do not thnk may people are. Abortion is a last resort and I cannot imagine the personal trauma women and men who need this procedure must go through. The fact that so much disinformation is being tossed around that minimizes this very personal decision makes my blood boil. There may be a minimal percentage of women who treat abortion as birth control, but in my lifetime I have not met one. I have met women who made this decision based on their circumstances, and I would never second guess them. Their stories were heartwrenching.

If lawmakers were really pro life they would stop trying to reduce the services to women and children.



Yep.

The women I know that have had abortions have had lifelong emotional problems stemming from it. They thought it was the answer at the time but years later, they are still mourning that child or the choice they made. I don't know anyone with a child that regrets having the baby. All three had different reasons for doing it. All three had children shortly after the abortion. Now of course that is only three in a sea of women who have had them but when the only people you know that have had abortions all have the same emotional problems from it, its tends to make one think that its pretty common.

The thing with tubals has been around for years and isn't tied to these new laws. It is something that needs to change. I can understand for some dr. its the old way of thinking (that a woman may want another baby or they need to know the husband doesn't want one or some such trash) but it definitely should be the woman's choice and not her husbands, her dr. or anyone else's. There is a thing going around on facebook though that is a young woman (28 I think?) who had 3 kids and her dr. wouldn't do a tubal. Which is odd because I was 21 when I had my second and they offered to do one, but whichever. Anyway, she didn't have the procedure done and now has a fourth child. So while I get her anger at the medical world at large for not allowing her to have this done; I couldn't help but ask, why didn't her husband have a vasectomy? its things like that being posted and getting lots of women all up in arms about it and saying that is the problem with the abortion laws when there was another solution that I just don't understand.
 
The women I know that have had abortions have had lifelong emotional problems stemming from it. They thought it was the answer at the time but years later, they are still mourning that child or the choice they made. I don't know anyone with a child that regrets having the baby. All three had different reasons for doing it. All three had children shortly after the abortion. Now of course that is only three in a sea of women who have had them but when the only people you know that have had abortions all have the same emotional problems from it, its tends to make one think that its pretty common.

The thing with tubals has been around for years and isn't tied to these new laws. It is something that needs to change. I can understand for some dr. its the old way of thinking (that a woman may want another baby or they need to know the husband doesn't want one or some such trash) but it definitely should be the woman's choice and not her husbands, her dr. or anyone else's. There is a thing going around on facebook though that is a young woman (28 I think?) who had 3 kids and her dr. wouldn't do a tubal. Which is odd because I was 21 when I had my second and they offered to do one, but whichever. Anyway, she didn't have the procedure done and now has a fourth child. So while I get her anger at the medical world at large for not allowing her to have this done; I couldn't help but ask, why didn't her husband have a vasectomy? its things like that being posted and getting lots of women all up in arms about it and saying that is the problem with the abortion laws when there was another solution that I just don't understand.

Do you know if every woman you know has or has not had an abortion?
 
But obviously the statistics don’t lie ...
Statistics absolutely can be presented in such a way as to mislead the reader.

Here's a totally unrelated example: Not long ago our rather slimey Superintendent of Education made it very public that teachers received an average of a 7% raise. The reality is that we are starting to experience a teacher shortage in our state, and he wanted to attract new, just-out-of-college teachers, so they recieved something like a 16% raise ... while we old teachers lost longevity pay and received a raise of less than 1% ... so we actually had a pay decrease. But he let the world believe that all teachers received 7%. (Those numbers aren't quite correct, but you get the idea.) Yeah, statistics can lie; that's just one example.
The thing with tubals has been around for years and isn't tied to these new laws. It is something that needs to change. I can understand for some dr. its the old way of thinking (that a woman may want another baby or they need to know the husband doesn't want one or some such trash) but it definitely should be the woman's choice and not her husbands, her dr. or anyone else's.
Disagree. If you were talking about a single woman, yes, her continued fertility is her own business; however, if a couple has made a lifetime commitment to one another, they BOTH should have a say in all details of their lives ... and whether more children are a possibility (a very big lifetime decision) affects both spouses /should be a decision made together.

Personally, I was young when I had my second child, and the doctor asked about whether I wanted a tubal. His rule -- which was totally about covering his own butt, and I have no problem with that -- was that both spouses had to sign /notarize something MONTHS in advance, if the surgery was to be done immediately after the birth. He wanted both spouses to have a say in it, and he wanted both spouses to consider it well in advance -- not in the emotional moments after birth.
 
Yeah, I was just responding to the other poster who suggested I not bring it up. I didn't bring it up.

They are crash dummies, how would you like them to make them more "female"? The fact that the change was made is progress. Maybe only since 2011 but its progress. And as Klayfish stated above, other changes have started on the new cars. The auto industry is constantly changing things to make the cars safer.

I am not sure what other things you are talking about that were designed for the average man only.

Well, a woman is not simply a scaled down male. There's different weight and muscle distribution, bone density, etc.

Other things designed for men:
PPE - safety glasses too large, safety vests/armor not made to accomodate breasts so they don't fit right, and on and on
standard tools are made for larger hands
Voice recognition doesn't recognize women's voices as well as men's
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!





Latest posts

Top