Do You Consider Yourself a Feminist?

[okeydokey]

I was around 32 when I started asking my ob/gyn for a hysterectomy because I was having debilitating periods and knew I was done having kids. My dr told me no because ‘you might change your mind’. Knowing what I know now, I wish I would have been more insistent instead of letting the dr tell me no for that reason.

It’s infuriating. I had an appointment with a new OB/GYN who had taken over from the previous. He refused to discuss birth control with me because it was against his religion. I immediately switched to a new practice.

 

[SantaDuffy]

Did I say ALL single parents are dysfunctional? No, I didn't. You are trying to incite a dogpile against me.

If two single parents of a child don't want to get married and/or share their lives, that doesn't prevent them from being great parents to their child(ren).

However, if one of the biological parents is forcing the other one into that situation, it will only lead to a damaged life for the child-in-question.

This is why EVERYONE should stop and think before they potentially make a baby. But, once the baby is conceived and (at the woman's discretion) born/delivered, family planning doesn't end there. There still needs to be a window of time where a recourse is available to both biological parents equally.

So any single parent who sought child support from the other parent should have had their child removed from their care and adopted out if the non-custodial parent was unwilling to pay? And if that doesn’t happen, the child will be “damaged” in some way?

Gotcha. I’m sure this attitude will win you many friends and anyone here who collected child support from a deadbeat parent will agree with you.

 

[YCCS]

Did I say ALL single parents are dysfunctional? No, I didn't. You are trying to incite a dogpile against me.

If two single parents of a child don't want to get married and/or share their lives, that doesn't prevent them from being great parents to their child(ren).

However, if one of the biological parents is forcing the other one into that situation, it will only lead to a damaged life for the child-in-question.

This is why EVERYONE should stop and think before they potentially make a baby. But, once the baby is conceived and (at the woman's discretion) born/delivered, family planning doesn't end there. There still needs to be a window of time where a recourse is available to both biological parents equally.

There are really no absolutes. Yes, some parents go back and forth and play emotional tug of war with the child, but not all. Even in the situation where one parent didn't want to be a parent. Lots of parents who never thought they wanted a child step up to the plate and become good parents. Some parents just step out of that child's life, and the child has good male/female role models and the child does fine in life.

You can force a biological parent, to an extent, although that is difficult to enforce, to be financially responsible, but you cannot force them to be a parent. Sending a check isn't parenting.

As an aside, if a child is removed from the custody of a biological parent(s) and placed into state custody, both of those parents are required to pay child support until parental rights are terminated.

I agree with you. Once a child is here, both parents, whether willing or unwilling need to do what is best for that child. What is best is up for grabs, though. Ideally, it is 2 loving parents, whether they are together or not, but it may be one loving parent and financial support from another, or it may be the child needs to be placed with someone entirely different from either biological parent.

The problem is that our foster system is broken. If a parent does not wish to sign over their parental rights then the system errs on the side of the biological parent and gives them chance after chance, oftentimes doing terrible damage to the children. Personally, I don't know what or how to solve this issue. I think, in some cases, family reunification is the best thing, in others I think it's the absolute worst thing. The problem is finding out which it is.

I am also going to say that I believe fathers deserve just as many rights when t comes to custody of children as mothers do. The child should live with the parent that is best equipped to care for that child, regardless of gender. If it can be 50/50, that is great. It's the best of all worlds. If not, it should be the parent who is most capable of providing a loving, stable home for that child. I am glad to see, in recent years, that the courts are more cognizant of father's rights.

Oh, I wanted to add, that the idea that all women who label themselves as "feminists" are horrible, toxic man haters is a myth perpetuated by certain groups to cause fear and hatred. Certainly, there are extremists, as there are in all groups, but, at the root, feminism is advocating for women and their rights. Lifting yourself up, isn't equal to putting others down.

 

[YCCS]

Did I say ALL single parents are dysfunctional? No, I didn't. You are trying to incite a dogpile against me.

If two single parents of a child don't want to get married and/or share their lives, that doesn't prevent them from being great parents to their child(ren).

However, if one of the biological parents is forcing the other one into that situation, it will only lead to a damaged life for the child-in-question.

This is why EVERYONE should stop and think before they potentially make a baby. But, once the baby is conceived and (at the woman's discretion) born/delivered, family planning doesn't end there. There still needs to be a window of time where a recourse is available to both biological parents equally.

I apologize, I keep thinking of things to add, and I know if I keep hitting the "edit" button, people will try to read something into that.

As far as women who are unfit having an "emotional need" to become single parents. Unfortunately, here, you are going against nature. As mammals (and this will get people started) we are, by evolution and nature, hardwired to bond with our babies. It's pure instinct that exists to protect and nurture young. I think you are a man, pardon me if I am wrong, but women's bonding instinct starts long before that child is born. By the time that child makes it into the world, a maternal-child bond already exists. It is a very rare woman that does not develop that bond. You see it all throughout the animal world. Most species of animals suffer when their offspring is removed.

Women who do, voluntarily, place their children for adoption are doing a very, very difficult, and very admirable thing. It is a truly selfless act. It is a truly special and strong woman that can do it.

 

[Prince_Hawkins]

I apologize, I keep thinking of things to add, and I know if I keep hitting the "edit" button, people will try to read something into that.

As far as women who are unfit having an "emotional need" to become single parents. Unfortunately, here, you are going against nature. As mammals (and this will get people started) we are, by evolution and nature, hardwired to bond with our babies. It's pure instinct that exists to protect and nurture young. I think you are a man, pardon me if I am wrong, but women's bonding instinct starts long before that child is born. By the time that child makes it into the world, a maternal-child bond already exists. It is a very rare woman that does not develop that bond. You see it all throughout the animal world. Most species of animals suffer when their offspring is removed.

Women who do, voluntarily, place their children for adoption are doing a very, very difficult, and very admirable thing. It is a truly selfless act. It is a truly special and strong woman that can do it.

I'm not minimizing what an emotionally-difficult decision it must be for women who find themselves in that position and make such a devastating choice.

I've also been lectured by male friends (usually fathers themselves) with the whole, "Unless you've had kids yourself, you can't possibly understand" mantra. So I've heard it all.

Yes, I'm a male who never desires kids for myself. That's why I'm sensitive to the societal coercion of men (or women!) who help to create a life, but who aren't ready to be parents and who are willing to sign away that authority to others who do. Parenthood shouldn't be coercive, and to legally maintain the status quo as it is, quite frankly, does a disservice to both the biological parents and the child, in the long run.

I don't fault any parent for choosing to raise their child as a single parent, even if I can't relate to them emotionally myself. But I do take issue with them deciding to hijack the life of whomever their lover happened to be if both parties aren't ready/willing to share the responsibility equally.

 

[Prince_Hawkins]

So any single parent who sought child support from the other parent should have had their child removed from their care and adopted out if the non-custodial parent was unwilling to pay? And if that doesn’t happen, the child will be “damaged” in some way?

Gotcha. I’m sure this attitude will win you many friends and anyone here who collected child support from a deadbeat parent will agree with you.

You are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying a child should be automatically removed from the guardianship of a single parent. I'm saying that if one of the biological parents wants to raise the child by themselves, they need to either go into it with the other parent as a legal co-parent (not necessarily a legal spouse), or prepare for the possibility that they will be parenting on their own and they may need to find a larger support system beyond just the other biological parent.

Morally, parenthood means quality time and emotional investment with the child in addition to providing necessities.

However, legally...
Money (Child Support) = Legal Parenthood

I'm speaking to how *I* believe the legal aspect of it should be: when a child is born, either a parent is "all-in" as far as being financially-responsible for the child, or the parent should have the option to sign away their legal parenthood. Once they make that decision, they cannot take it back (unless the other parent with sole custody decides otherwise). This is true family planning, and doing what's in the best interest of the child.

My goal in life isn't to befriend everyone so they will "like" me. It's to demand justice with the most egalitarian and equitable solutions possible.

 

[Colleen27]

Well, the father can't "just walk away" ... unless the mother of the child allows it to happen. The state will pursue him. She doesn't have to have contact with him. If he's allowed to walk away, it's the fault of the mother.

This is absolutely not true. There are still plenty of ways men can still avoid paying support. Fewer than in the past, when it was as simple as moving across state lines and understanding that it would take years for an order from one state to be enforced in another, but they do still exist. My ex worked under the table for years to avoid support. Sure, the debt kept accruing, but he wasn't paying. Then he had another child with a woman who was on public assistance, and from that point forward, his obligation to her son took priority over his obligation to our son because the state gets its money first. I eventually got the child support DS was owed, but from about 2yo to 16yo, his father avoided paying anything.

This women-make-less argument is skewed. If you go to any college graduation you're going to see mostly males in the engineering group and mostly women among the education and social work grads. No one forces anyone to enter these fields, but -- by and large -- this is the way it shakes out.

Girls are actively being pushed /encouraged towards STEM fields in school, but a part of this is Biology /personality traits.

This may be true in some places, but it hasn't been my experience. My daughter plans on pursuing a PhD in a STEM field. She has been subtly and not-so-subtly discouraged more times than we can count over the years, often by people who should be encouraging her (like the teacher who suggested she should consider teaching science, rather than going into research, because it is more "family friendly"). One of her best friends, valedictorian of their absurdly high-achieving class, a nationally-recognized scholar going to a highly selective school on a full scholarship, had the same experience; she's interested in medicine, and she has had everyone from teachers to friends and relatives suggest nursing or teaching as preferable to her stated goal of neurobiological research. I have *never* heard of a teacher or mentor or coach pulling a boy aside and saying, "That goal is nice, son, but you really should choose something that balances better with fatherhood." But girls get it all the time, and often education and social work are among the fields suggested as more "family friendly" than more demanding or lucrative fields, and whether they consciously recognize it or not, they absorb those messages in the form of self-doubt.

When it comes to Life , being a man sucks. Statistics from the Kaiser Family Foundation, using data pulled from the CDC shown than for 2017 the number of deaths per 100K by gender was 864.5 for Male and 619.7 for female. If it is broken down by state you still see that in ALL 50 STATES it is higher for men than women. Men are more likely to be in employment that is more physically dangerous ( which also contributes to the "pay gap" ), and 3.53X more likely to die by suicide (Wikipedia). He may never die in childbirth, but he is still more likely to be dead. Last time I checked, death lasts more than nine months. And then at the end we'll die 6 to 8 years younger than you.

And the "poor, heartbroken man" comment - Really ?!? And the blame it on biology? Ok, let's follow that logic. Outside of Rape and forced sex, Women are the Gatekeepers of Sex. The female decides if it's going to occur or not. Females also have a far greater choice available for birth control (WomensHealth.gov) : female condom, diaphragms, sponge, cervical cap, pill, mini pills, patch, shot, vaginal ring, intrauterine devices, hormonal implants, female tubal ligation or occlusion, and Natural rhythm methods. 13 choices, only one of which is permanent. For males : male vasectomy, condoms. Two choices, one of which is permanent. They are working towards a male "pill" but it's far easier to prevent one embryo from attaching to the uterine wall than to prevent the production of millions of sperm ( that "biology" thing you were referring to earlier ). And - believe me - many of us males WANT another option.

But why do men die younger? Not because doctors don't listen to them, not because their complaints aren't taken seriously, not because our culture just doesn't care as well for men as for women. They die younger because they have higher rates of bad lifestyle choices like smoking and excessive drinking, are less likely to seek routine medical care or prompt treatment for symptoms, take more risks and engage in more violence (esp. when young, but that still skews the overall life expectancy), and choose more lethal means if they become suicidal. It isn't luck of the draw and it isn't biology; it is choice.

I agree that women have more choices. But men have choices with fewer side effects. Women deal with mood swings and weight gain and acne, at the minor end, and things as serious as increased risk of blood clots and suicidal ideation in exchange for most of those options... and still, most men prefer their partners take those risks rather than accept the minimal reduction of pleasure that a condom offers. The research towards a male "pill" is an excellent example of how this works - the trials of one promising product were discontinued because so many participants were unwilling to accept the exact. same. side effects that just about every form of hormonal birth control for women cause.[/QUOTE]

 

[Prince_Hawkins]

The research towards a male "pill" is an excellent example of how this works - the trials of one promising product were discontinued because so many participants were unwilling to accept the exact. same. side effects that just about every form of hormonal birth control for women cause.

Neither women nor men should be shamed for not wanting to suffer those side effects. You seem to minimize the severity of them, but chronic acne and weight gain can have devastating life consequences for people everywhere.

Condoms, of course, are an option. But we all know they aren't 100% reliable.

The bigger question should be: why this incessant need by people to have so much casual sex with complete strangers in the first place?

 

[kaytieeldr]

she's interested in medicine, and she has had everyone from teachers to friends and relatives suggest nursing or teaching as preferable to her stated goal of neurobiological research.

I have to say this again: Still? In the 21st century??? Never mind that it seems to me logistically neurobiology is a better field, because of the demand for nurses to work all kinds of crazy hours, double shifts, etc,; or for teachers to not miss a single day of work, only vacation when the "business" is closed, provide supplies out of their own pockets...

 

[daisy2013]

Neither women nor men should be shamed for not wanting to suffer those side effects. You seem to minimize the severity of them, but chronic acne and weight gain can have devastating life consequences for people everywhere.

Condoms, of course, are an option. But we all know they aren't 100% reliable.

The bigger question should be: why this incessant need by people to have so much casual sex with complete strangers in the first place?

I’m sorry but what! The birth control pill has nothing to do with people having casual sex with complete strangers. I can only assume you wrote such a stupid thing to stir the pot. The birth control pill and access to it allows women to choose (with somewhat certainty although not absolute as there is a failure rate) when and if to have children. It does not rely on a man utilizing a condom (which is less reliable) and is one of the societal reasons that women have been able to make the advances they have in the workforce and otherwise. It’s not about orgys after a night out drinking.

 

[Colleen27]

Neither women nor men should be shamed for not wanting to suffer those side effects. You seem to minimize the severity of them, but chronic acne and weight gain can have devastating life consequences for people everywhere.

Condoms, of course, are an option. But we all know they aren't 100% reliable.

The bigger question should be: why this incessant need by people to have so much casual sex with complete strangers in the first place?

Oh, I agree the side effects are serious. I've struggled with them for much of my adult life and never really did find a method I could tolerate. But the choices you seem to regard as a positive for women mean that the burden of contraception is disproportionately borne by women. Until we reached a point in our lives when we were comfortable with a permanent method, it was on me to find one of those choices that "only" caused side effects I could live with. Not having choices is, for men, also the freedom of not having to deal with those side effects.

Birth control isn't just about "casual sex with complete strangers". Even a couple that marries as virgins and stays faithful until death will typically spend more time avoiding pregnancy than open to it or actively trying, since most people do want some control over their family size and aren't interested in having a baby every year or two for the whole of their fertile years. And being in a stable relationship doesn't mean that an unplanned pregnancy would automatically be a happy surprise.

I have to say this again: Still? In the 21st century??? Never mind that it seems to me logistically neurobiology is a better field, because of the demand for nurses to work all kinds of crazy hours, double shifts, etc,; or for teachers to not miss a single day of work, only vacation when the "business" is closed, provide supplies out of their own pockets...

I know, right?! But at least here in our conservative, "old fashioned" corner of the world, those stereotypes of "women's work" are alive and well. And I can't help feeling like it does have an effect on girls who don't come from homes that provide a counter-message to those perspectives.

 

[luvsJack]

Most legislators are men. Women make up only 26% or less of a combination of US and state legislations. Women represent 0% of United States Presidents historically. Four oc 113 Supreme Court Justices have been female.

Ok? But ALL men still aren’t to blame for legislation the op doesn’t like.

 

[LSUmiss]

This is the only one of your points that I take issue with. MAJOR issue...

I definitely agree that the final decision about whether a fetus is carried to term should be made by the woman who would have to carry it.

However, once the baby is born, if the woman decides she wants to raise the child...the man (biological father) should have the right to sign away his parental rights, if he doesn't want to be in the child's life.

The man should have no legal power in the decision regarding whether an abortion is performed, but he should have an equal say in what happens once the baby actually is born (if there is no abortion performed).

I actually agree with this for the reasons you stated.

 

[YCCS]

Neither women nor men should be shamed for not wanting to suffer those side effects. You seem to minimize the severity of them, but chronic acne and weight gain can have devastating life consequences for people everywhere.

Condoms, of course, are an option. But we all know they aren't 100% reliable.

The bigger question should be: why this incessant need by people to have so much casual sex with complete strangers in the first place?

It's back to biology. Sex drive is instinctive. If humans weren't meant to have sex it wouldn't feel good.

Surely, you don't think that every unintended pregnancy is a result of random, casual sex with strangers?

I don't have actual statistics on it, but I would be willing to bet that the majority of unintended pregnancies happen within committed relationships.

Abortions make up an extremely small percentage of pregnancies. The vast majority are carried to term.

 

[luvsJack]

Thanks for this. What age did she start? I didn’t think Karate would be good because they need to spar and with all the studies about traumatic brain injuries I didn’t want them taking blows to the head routinely but maybe I overestimated the risk.

She is 8 now. She took for a few months when she was 6 and then the school closed. She started back this year.

Dd was older when she took Judo. Started about 12.

My yds (father of the one taking ju jitsu). took karate for several years. It was actually Okinawan karate. His teacher focused on the kata and not as much sparring for the first year. After that they did spar and compete but he wouldn’t allow them to spar without headgear. Now, I couldn’t say for sure how protective the headgear really is. They weren’t supposed to get hit in the face or head in competition but it happened. He pulled ds out of competition once because he got hit in the face and they didn’t call it. This was years ago though so things could have changed a lot.

 

[luvsJack]

Didn't you say more than once earlier in the thread you didn't want to discuss extremes?

I wasn’t giving examples that are extremes.

 

[LSUmiss]

When it comes to reproduction, being a woman sucks. Having to deal with periods, cramps, PMS, the cost and inconvenience of feminine hygiene products, birth control, Pap smears.... The woman is the sole one who must carry a pregnancy and take on 100% of those ugly symptoms and side effects. She has to labor and deliver the baby, then deal with recovery and hormones and possibly postpartum depression/anxiety, while doing 100% of the breastfeeding, of course. And she’ll do it over and over again — periods to pregnancy back to periods and again pregnancy— however many times until she finally hits menopause and then has to deal with that crap, too. The majority of her life will be beholden to her reproductive organs.

A man will never have to do any of this. He will never deal with the recurring annoyance and pain of a menstrual cycle. He will never have his body put through the immense physical strain of pregnancy. He will never have his health risked by gestational diabetes or preeclampsia. He will never endure the excruciating pain of labor and delivery. He will never die in childbirth.

Really not fair, is it? But, thanks to biology, it’s just the way it is.

So when I hear people argue on behalf of the poor, heartbroken man who wants to keep a baby but can’t stop a woman from aborting, well, I feel sorry for him, actually. I do think it’s sad that it can’t always be an equal decision, but almost everything is unfair when it comes to reproduction and this is just one of the few ways it’s unfair to the man instead of the woman for a change. Blame it on biology.

I also think this goes with custody too & why mothers typically get custody. There are exceptions, of course, but for the most part the bond between mother & child is often stronger b/c of all the things you mentioned.

 

[LSUmiss]

There should be no draft for anyone, not even on paper as a formality.

In our current culture, the only way the military will work is if it's exclusively composed of men and women who proactively enlist.

I’m hoping it’s gone by the time DS is that age. He’s young so we have time!

 

[LSUmiss]

Did I say ALL single parents are dysfunctional? No, I didn't. You are trying to incite a dogpile against me.

If two single parents of a child don't want to get married and/or share their lives, that doesn't prevent them from being great parents to their child(ren).

However, if one of the biological parents is forcing the other one into that situation, it will only lead to a damaged life for the child-in-question.

This is why EVERYONE should stop and think before they potentially make a baby. But, once the baby is conceived and (at the woman's discretion) born/delivered, family planning doesn't end there. There still needs to be a window of time where a recourse is available to both biological parents equally.

I would be ok if the father was allowed to sign away parental rights before the child was born. To me, that would be somewhat equivalent to the mother’s choice to abort.

 

[MillauFr]

The bigger question should be: why this incessant need by people to have so much casual sex with complete strangers in the first place?

Isn't the answer to that obvious?