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.
Interestingly enough, due to how party lines fall with regard to these issues, most people who are pro-life (anti-abortion) are also pro death penalty and pro war. Meanwhile, most people who are pro-choice are also more likely to be against the death penalty and not pro war.

Show me somebody who doesn't think abortion should be legal, is against the death penalty, and thinks the US's military budget should be cut in half. That person is pro-life.

Edit: Oh, and don't forget nationalized healthcare. Somebody who is pro-life should be for nationalized healthcare, too. Because if you want everybody to live, they have to be healthy.

Gotta be for homeless rehabilitation as well. If you are worried about people living their best life, you best be in favor of getting the homeless off the streets and into a shelter and working (or into a institution, or what have you). We just lost another member of our homeless community ten days ago.
 
Feminism is not just an abortion debate. Tampons are taxed in 38 states because they are deemed not medically necessary. Dandruff shampoo, maybe, but not tampons. In a survey of science organizations, 30% said a woman could not obtain a leadership position. Starting salaries with a science degree are much lower for women than men. The list goes on. Of course, asking organizations to justify paying women less somehow makes feminists wrong.
 
My DD's gynecologist moved to a planned parenthood facility so my DD followed her there. Thankfully she has not been subjected to harassment as has been documented elsewhere, however she has been treated in a less than respectful way when her DR was listed at that pediatricians. She finally fired her and went to another Dr for our DGD.

We cannot have this both ways. We cannot limit access to birth control and education, refuse the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, and then dump the responsibility of this child onto a parent or parents who either do not want it, or cannot handle it for whatever reason. We also must accept the fact that once some women carry a baby to term they may not be able to place the child up for adoption. If anyone believes that all women are created and live in the same culture, circumstances or life they are in they need to open their eyes. My goodness, if we all were living in an equitable situation this discussion would never need to take place.



You need to consider that not all people what to adopt outside of their ethnic background and not all will adopt a drug addicted or special needs baby. My cousin is a lawyer with DCF in my State and he has a very sad job at times.



My DS and DDIL are in the foster to adopt program and are all ready. They are as prepared as two people can be in regards to taking in a child whose parents have not relinquished parental rights but I am concerned. It is a long road, and as my cousin has pointed out to me that if the parents make an effort to "turn around" towards the end of the time frame in place before their rights are removed, all bets are off, and the time is extended. The goal is to reunite families, not to act as an adoption program for couples. Add in that these kids are often born addicted and may have challenges throughout their lives their chances dim as they linger in the program.

AS to easily adopted? My goodness, nothing is further from the truth.

I have researched it on several different sites and they all say the same thing. 20 couples apply to adopt each baby that is available. Infants are easily adopted. I am talking about infants whose mother choose to put the baby up for adoption at birth. Children who are put in foster care because of one reason or another do have a long wait because they do everything they can to reunite families or keep the children with some part of the family. Two very different things being talked about.
 
I think one of the big things that get overlooked in the abortion debate is the fact that a vast majority of people (not everybody, but a majority) don't think abortion is a good thing. While pro-choice proponents think it should be legal, only a minority of them actually think abortion, in general, is a "good thing". Like all health care, it's expensive and has its risks. There's a stigma around it. And there is certainly a psychological toll that is placed on the mother.

Abortion is a symptom of a bigger issue -- unwanted pregnancy. You want to prevent abortion? Prevent unwanted pregnancy.

Alabama, meanwhile, emphasizes abstinence education, and has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country (source). Perhaps they are going about their problems the wrong way.

Exactly. I would love to end abortion, but making it illegal doesn't help at all. The only way to end abortion is to no longer have any unwanted pregnancies.
 


Interestingly enough, due to how party lines fall with regard to these issues, most people who are pro-life (anti-abortion) are also pro death penalty and pro war. Meanwhile, most people who are pro-choice are also more likely to be against the death penalty and not pro war.

Show me somebody who doesn't think abortion should be legal, is against the death penalty, and thinks the US's military budget should be cut in half. That person is pro-life.

Edit: Oh, and don't forget nationalized healthcare. Somebody who is pro-life should be for nationalized healthcare, too. Because if you want everybody to live, they have to be healthy.

Interesting. I am pro death penalty (the man who raped and killed 3 women? He had a CHOICE in what he did. A baby does not) but I am not "pro war" although I must say I have never met anyone who was "pro war", even the multitude of military members that are in my family.

You are honestly saying a person who doesn't think the military budget should be cut in half is "pro war"?? Are you kidding me? That has to be the dumbest correlation I have ever read in my life. Do I think the budget should be cut? No. Am I pro war? No. Sorry, but I like knowing someone is standing on that wall protecting me tonight (to take a line from A Few Good Men) and I like knowing he/she is well trained to do so.

I do think we need healthcare in this country. Not that mess we have/had, but actual nationalized health care.
 
I have researched it on several different sites and they all say the same thing. 20 couples apply to adopt each baby that is available. Infants are easily adopted. I am talking about infants whose mother choose to put the baby up for adoption at birth. Children who are put in foster care because of one reason or another do have a long wait because they do everything they can to reunite families or keep the children with some part of the family. Two very different things being talked about.

Absolutely, two very different situations, but we must recognize that while there are babies available when the parents have signed over the child, and these infants are in great demand, the baby taken at birth and placed in the foster care program has a very different set of circumstances and is not adoptable. I am certainly no expert, but I imagine that these poor babies add to the vast number of children who are in the foster care program and who are unwanted. These parents are not giving up rights once the child is born but are for any number of reasons unable to care properly for these children. I am not saying abortion would have been the solution, and in fact find that frightening, but I do feel strongly that by creating legislation that makes it difficult to access assistance before pregnancy, and makes abortion illegal, we are compounding a terrifying problem. I also am so angry that these kids are left hung out to dry after birth, like they only count before they draw their first breath.
 
Interesting. I am pro death penalty (the man who raped and killed 3 women? He had a CHOICE in what he did. A baby does not) but I am not "pro war" although I must say I have never met anyone who was "pro war", even the multitude of military members that are in my family.

You are honestly saying a person who doesn't think the military budget should be cut in half is "pro war"?? Are you kidding me? That has to be the dumbest correlation I have ever read in my life. Do I think the budget should be cut? No. Am I pro war? No. Sorry, but I like knowing someone is standing on that wall protecting me tonight (to take a line from A Few Good Men) and I like knowing he/she is well trained to do so.

I do think we need healthcare in this country. Not that mess we have/had, but actual nationalized health care.
Sooooooo have you met anyone who is pro-choice who is pro-abortion? Or just people who believe in a woman’s right to choose?
 


I guess my perspective on this is unconventional.

I'm a gay male, and I don't have any desire to raise kids with my future husband. So I don't believe I should have a say in what another woman does or doesn't do with her body.

For this reason, I'm 100% in favor of abortion being a legal option for any woman for any reason -- anytime up until the baby is about to be delivered.

Generally, I wouldn't support partial-birth abortion...except if a doctor determines it's medically-necessary to save the woman's life. And even then, those instances are extremely rare.

This whole "infanticide" controversy is just a manufactured wedge issue created by people who want abortion to be illegal across-the-board.

Legislators and pundits need to quit trying to practice medicine without a license.

I support women who choose to either get an abortion or give their baby up for adoption. If the biological father can take care of the child, he should be allowed to have sole custody if the woman wants to sign away her parental rights. Vice versa -- if the woman wants to raise the child as a single mother, and the biological father wants to sign away his parental rights.

There needs to be a maximization of choice.
:scared1: I cannot get behind that, nor late term abortion, perhaps except in the rarest of circumstances.

I generally avoid the abortion debate, because like many such issues no one is going to change anyone else's mind, especially on a Disney-centric message board. I very much respect people who have truly given it serious thought AND are willing to respect others' perspectives.

To me, it really comes down to one's personal opinion on when the fetus becomes a human. If someone sincerely believes it is not a human until birth (or maybe at some other development milestone during the pregnancy), then they would also logically believe that abortion is just another medical procedure and their rights should be protected and not limited in any way.

And, if someone sincerely believes the fetus is a human at conception (or again at some other development milestone during the pregnancy), then they would also logically believe that the human, though still unborn, has the same rights as other humans which should be protected and not limited in any way.

To me it really is just that one opinion that should shape a thoughtful person's perspective. They should also understand and respect that other thoughtful people may have a different perspective. And again, I doubt anyone here will change anyone else's mind. That can probably only happen through personal experience.
I do believe that life begins at conception. However, in the early weeks, I think the mother's rights supersede those of the embryo. Past a certain point, certainly the point of viability (ETA as a fetus), I think the baby's own rights should be taken into account.
 
Anyone who is saying "why not just carry the baby and put it up for adoption" - think of the burden that places on the woman. Medical fees, lost work, expenses in transportation, clothing, time off for recovery. Really? It's not just like you pop the kid out and go back to farming the field.

My body, my choice. Pro-choice doesn't mean we want to kill all the balls of cells. Which is what they are. They are not babies at this stage
 
I obviously have no direct say in this. However, I will say that I fully support DW and DD11 to be and do anything they want to. DW is a very powerful and smart woman, literally and figuratively. DD11 is the apple of my eye, so....

Related to these lines, as I've mentioned in other posts all my kids play lacrosse. The girls game is SO different than the boys, it drives me bananas. I don't get it. I feel the girls should have the same rules as the boys. Put pads on them and let them have at it, hitting and all. Yes, for the record I'd be fine with making the rules for the boys like the girls, but the reason I would rather it be the other way is I don't like the rules for the girls.

Some of the best feminists I know are dudes. Just say'n. :)

I am a feminist.
 
Interesting. I am pro death penalty (the man who raped and killed 3 women? He had a CHOICE in what he did. A baby does not) but I am not "pro war" although I must say I have never met anyone who was "pro war", even the multitude of military members that are in my family.

The US's involvement in Iraq, Vietnam, and Korea should never have happened. I guess I should said pacifist vs not a pacifist. I mean, like extremely anti-war. In my opinion, the last good war was World War Ii.

As for the military budget, if we aren't fighting unnecessary wars, we don't need to spend as much money. As of 2015, the military budget was 16% of all spending (and 54% of discretionary spending). Education was 3%. Transportation was 4%. Although you are right when you say cutting the spending in half is ridiculous. It's certainly unrealistic. How about by 25%? 12.5%? Take Military spending down to 12% and increase Education, Housing, Science, and Energy each by 1%?


As for the death penalty, isn't it a matter of attitude regarding the justice system? Are prisons for punishment or rehabilitation?
 
Last edited:
I think feminism today is more about equal opportunities and respect - I am sad that the term has been hijacked to mean anti-men - I am a proud feminist and have been one all my life - but it certainly doesn’t mean I don’t love my husband...
 
I think the Sherman Bros summed it up beautifully in Mary Poppins. I paraphrase and I firmly believe it applies to either gender.....Though I adore men individually; as a group they’re rather stupid.
 
My DS and DDIL are in the foster to adopt program and are all ready. They are as prepared as two people can be in regards to taking in a child whose parents have not relinquished parental rights but I am concerned. It is a long road, and as my cousin has pointed out to me that if the parents make an effort to "turn around" towards the end of the time frame in place before their rights are removed, all bets are off, and the time is extended. The goal is to reunite families, not to act as an adoption program for couples. Add in that these kids are often born addicted and may have challenges throughout their lives their chances dim as they linger in the program.

AS to easily adopted? My goodness, nothing is further from the truth.

Here foster placement can be very tricky because of things like the designation foster parents are registered under. Many children that very well may wind up needing adoptive parents down the road cannot be placed in foster homes where the parents are designated as foster to adopt where the label is used to indicate a definitive preference to adopt the child(ren) they are fostering. Many people are completely unaware of the intricacies that exist and may come into play because of designations

Some people choose to foster strictly as an emergency placement, meaning they take children with virtually no notice, sometimes simply for a single day/night when a child(ren) is removed from their home and needs a bed immediately. Sometimes the kids are there a week or two until a long-term placement can be found. It may be an interim placement for a situation where an existing placement is ending for whatever reason and a new placement needs to be found. People choose to be emergency placement only for a variety of reasons, some even do so because they really want to help kids but they've burnt out on thinking that the child(ren) that they've fostered for two, three, four years with the expectation that the placement will become permanent with termination of parental rights does not play out that way yet again for whatever reason.

Some people register as willing to foster long-term, with potential for adoptive placement. Other people register as willing to foster long-term(some even short-term), but do not want to be prospective adoptive placement. Both designations occur for a wide variety of reasons. Due to a string of complications in several cases for the past several years social workers have been widely encouraging foster parents seeking to become adoptive parents to approach the process with an open mind and the more open designation of potential for adoptive placement as opposed to foster with a definitive intention to adopt. There has been a problem with the cases moving through the legal process wherein the parent(s) are working on a reunification plan monitored by the court and legal objections are filed because the child(ren) is placed in a foster setting where the stated objective of foster to adopt is in conflict with the goal of family reunification. Courts have ordered children removed to a different foster placement to avoid the implication of conflict of interest. The broader designation of fostering with a potential for adoptive placement presents no conflict of interest challenge.

Some things for potential foster to adopt parents to consider is siblings. In cases where parental rights are terminated, preference is given to keeping sibling bonds intact. Where possible that may mean placement of siblings together. It's more common than not for the foster parents who take the newborn home from the hospital to also wind up with one, or more, older siblings or half siblings placed with them as well. Sometimes older siblings have already been placed in another foster home or have been fostered by relatives and the newborn sibling is born during the pendency of a case and the existing placement is unable/unwilling to care for the newborn and another foster placement is found for the baby. That does not mean baby will be available for adoption separate from his or her siblings if parental rights are eventually terminated. Efforts will be undertaken during the case to formulate and maintain not only a parent/child bond with the birth parents in an effort toward reunification, but additional efforts will be undertaken to forge and protect a sibling bond as well. If there is not willing and qualified family prepared to adopt all siblings in the event of termination, the first choice for adoption placement will most likely be for all siblings to be placed together as a familial unit. If the number of siblings is particularly large and/or one or more of the children has high maintenance special needs separate placements may be required, but generally it will be done in such a way where maintaining some semblance of sibling bond/family unit will be part of the planning.

What many people don't understand about the process that's happening when children are removed from their parents' care, become wards of the court and placed in either family or agency foster care setting is that the goal that everyone is working for is to rectify any dangerous conditions and barriers that prevent a child from going home with mom and/or dad. So yes, parents get a LOT of chances to get it together. It's easy to look at the situation and say, it's too many, it's just too many. I've seen I don't know how many hundreds of cases over the past dozen-plus years and I still look at plenty and say that too. Believe it or not, some completely worthless parents do ultimately get it together and manage to be a worthwhile option for creating a good homelife for their children. Most cases revolve around neglect and substance abuse -- usually brought on by untreated or inadequately addressed mental illness. Most of the kids are not physically abused (thank goodness!). Most of the kids are not born with substances in their systems or addicted -- thank goodness! Many of them do have a variety of special needs to some extent, some chronic, some situational. Adopting through the foster system is a very long, very emotional and very challenging road.

This is only a very shallow look at the complex ways babies in foster care are absolutely not easily adopted.
 
As for the military budget, if we aren't fighting unnecessary wars, we don't need to spend as much money. As of 2015, the military budget was 16% of all spending (and 54% of discretionary spending). Education was 3%. Transportation was 4%. Although you are right when you say cutting the spending in half is ridiculous. It's certainly unrealistic. How about by 25%? 12.5%? Take Military spending down to 12% and increase Education, Housing, Science, and Energy each by 1%?

One more thing regarding the military budget: The Joint Strike Fighter program. $1.5 TRILLION.

$1.5 trillion would have fixed Flint, MI water pipes and still leave $1,499,945,000.000 (source). And then we could fix our failing infrastructure, or modernized our railroad system. Maybe replaced all of our old coal and oil electric plans with solar panels (i'll admit to not researching the numbers) Can you imagine going 250mph on a bullet train? Or having a modern electrical grid that doesn't burn fossil fuels and used modern technology?

While we did eventually get a really cool jet out of the deal, and Lockheed Martin made a lot of money, it certainly wasn't a good example of financially efficiency. And meanwhile, my 1 million people metro area still doesn't have a light rail system. And 2 of the three ways from one side of my town to the other have bridges closed due to lack of repair.


Although I'm completely off topic now.
 
And, just to add to what @cabanafrau posted in regards to complexities in all of this...in my last job I was a family therapist/case manager in a residential treatment facility for adolescent girls, all of whom were either in state custody or had an open case.

I worked with many children that were adopted through the foster care system. In these cases (this is not true of all cases of course, but the ones I would see), things would go well, sometimes for several years, and then once adolescence began, behavior or emotional issues would arise/resurface that would become unmanageable for the adoptive family. The child would be placed at my agency in order to address the issues and work toward reunification, but often it was unsuccessful. The adoption would be revoked and the child's goal would be changed to Independent Living, and she would stay with us until she aged out of the system at 18YO. These were heartbreaking cases, and the adoptive families would do everything they could to make it work, but sometimes reunification and a "home" setting for the child was not possible. Sometimes it is not an easy road for anyone involved...
 
Feminism is not just an abortion debate. Tampons are taxed in 38 states because they are deemed not medically necessary. Dandruff shampoo, maybe, but not tampons. In a survey of science organizations, 30% said a woman could not obtain a leadership position. Starting salaries with a science degree are much lower for women than men. The list goes on. Of course, asking organizations to justify paying women less somehow makes feminists wrong.

There is a branch of science that has had a very quiet battle going on for several years due to lack of female representation in leadership roles of virtually any kind. Peruse the professional journals and it will take quite some time to find a single article authored by a female. There have been a string of incidents where the exact, same articles are subsequently published by either elevating a male team member to co writer or cited as being part of project leadership in a senior way.
 
The US's involvement in Iraq, Vietnam, and Korea should never have happened. I guess I should said pacifist vs not a pacifist. I mean, like extremely anti-war. In my opinion, the last good war was World War Ii.

As for the military budget, if we aren't fighting unnecessary wars, we don't need to spend as much money. As of 2015, the military budget was 16% of all spending (and 54% of discretionary spending). Education was 3%. Transportation was 4%. Although you are right when you say cutting the spending in half is ridiculous. It's certainly unrealistic. How about by 25%? 12.5%? Take Military spending down to 12% and increase Education, Housing, Science, and Energy each by 1%?


As for the death penalty, isn't it a matter of attitude regarding the justice system? Are prisons for punishment or rehabilitation?

The military has been cut in the past by a couple of presidents. Funnily enough though they didn't increase the budget in education. I don't believe those wars were unnecessary. But that's me. Korea and Vietnam were a mess because they weren't declared wars and our military could not fight. So, we lost both of those. Had we won, those countries may be very different today. Sorry but Hussein needed taking out. Plain and simple. I am not a pacifist. I understand there are reasons that wars must be fought.

But as to your question, I could get on board with cutting some military funding IF the money was guaranteed to go to Education or Housing, etc.

Our prisons should be for rehabilitation. They are not. Rehabilitation would mean doing things to change the lives of these people. Some do, but not all. It would be better if they were required to take classes, required to work the prison farm, required to do certain things that will give them skills and knowledge for after their release. But when you are talking about a serial killer, a child killer/rapist, etc. I don't believe there is any rehabilitation.
 
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!











facebook twitter
Top