Do You Consider Yourself a Feminist?

[kimblebee]

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.

[/QUOTE]

My ex was the same way. He’s work under the table or just not tell the governing body he was working, so they wouldn’t know to garnishee his wages. Once I found out that he was working I’d report it, they’d order the garnishee, and he’d quit after the first paycheque.

Our province doesn’t jail deadbeats (oh, how I wish they did), and to get them in front of a judge is a loooong process. If the person makes a payment in that time, the whole process has to start over. My ex had it down to a science.

Last time I checked, he owed 14K. I didn’t know this, but his support (according to our court papers) didn’t end when my daughter hit 18, so every month the amount increases. We’re a province that adds on late fees and interest so every 3 months or so another 1K gets added to the total. I have no hopes of ever seeing a penny because he’s now on assistance (welfare) and they can’t touch him. It’s so frustrating because if I refused to follow the custody agreement, guess who’d have cops at her door?

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Once again I must admit... this thread is too long to read.

That said, if I have a seat in the bus (or monorail, or whatever), I will always offer it to the ladies. I also hold doors for ladies.

Does that make me a bad person?

 

[mummabear]

The PP gave me a laundry list of problems men are dealing with and I suggested they might want to start focusing their energies on those issues instead of continuously trying to overturn the already-settled-by-the-Supreme-Court issue of abortion, and you twisted that into me blaming all men for something? That’s quite a leap, especially as ALL men don’t support that legislation in the first place. Plenty of men are pro-choice.

Even those who publically proclaim otherwise until their mistress is pregnant

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

You do realise that plenty of married couples seek abortions as well.

 

[pahoben]

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.

Thank you for taking time for this and it is helpful.

 

[pahoben]

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 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.



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]
Sorry but I don’t agree with many things in your post. Male children in the first years of life in the US have a 20% higher mortality rate then female children. In 2017 the mortality from birth to 1 year of age was 620/100,000 for males and 513/100,000 for females. Surely you can’t explain that as due to risky depraved behaviors that result from toxic masculinity.

Your daughter is seeking a PHD in the biological sciences and women receive more than 50% of the PHD’s in the biological sciences.

If you want to have a smack down of people that are achievers and overcame difficult circumstances then no problem. Do you think males have no problems to overcome and everyone they meet are supportive of degrees insTEM. For most people this isn’t a gentle world and nearly everyone has difficulties to overcome.

I understand your rightful pride but your portrayal of your daughter as a victim because people told her to pursue nursing doesn’t ring true to me. Teachers say much worse to overactive boys in school. . I guess now they just drug them.

 

[Bianca and Bernard]

Sorry but I don’t agree with many things in your post. Male children in the first years of life in the US have a 20% higher mortality rate then female children. In 2017 the mortality from birth to 1 year of age was 620/100,000 for males and 513/100,000 for females. Surely you can’t explain that as due to risky depraved behaviors that result from toxic masculinity.

Your daughter is seeking a PHD in the biological sciences and women receive more than 50% of the PHD’s in the biological sciences.

If you want to have a smack down of people that are achievers and overcame difficult circumstances then no problem. Do you think males have no problems to overcome and everyone they meet are supportive of degrees insTEM. For most people this isn’t a gentle world and nearly everyone has difficulties to overcome.

I understand your rightful pride but your portrayal of your daughter as a victim because people told her to pursue nursing doesn’t ring true to me. Teachers say much worse to overactive boys in school. . I guess now they just drug them.[/QUOTE]

Our DS had a teacher in the 1st grade who wanted him on medication, because he'd finish his work and sit and talk and fidget. The problem for us was that he was talking and fidgeting because he was done with his work, she wouldn't provide any other work or even let him read a book while he was sitting, waiting for others to complete their work. Yes, he was distracting others, and he was told to stop, but a 1st grader can only sit still doing nothing for so long. At home, he was doing multiplication, and at school, they were doing basic addition (2+2); they were reading Go Dog Go, and at home, he was reading The Magic School Bus. Socially, he was behind, so we didn't push for changing grades or anything; all we wanted was for him to be able to do something while he waited the 15-20 minutes for everyone else to complete what took him 5 minutes. There was no need for medication, just redirection. We even offered to send in worksheets for him to work on, and he could bring them home and we'd take care of checking his work and everything..all she would have had to do is let him get them out of his backpack; or he could bring his book from home and read. Nope, she wanted him to sit still and quiet. He ended up in the hall at least once a week for 4 weeks, until we could get in with her and the principal. I lost my...well, I went Karen on them. After that, he was allowed to read or do his own work, as long as he did it quietly...he still misbehaved on occasion, but it was no worse than any other 1st grader. That teacher pushed for almost every boy to get put on medication while they were in her class; and it worked probably 1/3 of the time. So ridiculous

Sorry, don't know what happened with the quote. Hmm, weird

 

[pahoben]

It is horrific putting these boys on very strong medication that certainly impacts brain development because they have hard time dealing with the boredom that dumbed down curriculums provide to them. Thank goodness you figured out something to make it more bearable for him and had the conviction to see it through.

I also would never allow it for any child of mine but many parents fall for the “experts know best” con.

My completely missing quote is worse.

 

[donaldbuzz&minnie]

if I have a seat in the bus (or monorail, or whatever), I will always offer it to the ladies. I also hold doors for ladies.
Does that make me a bad person?

Assuming you are asking a real question, no, it doesn't make you a bad person. It makes you kind. I'm a feminist. I love it that my husband still opens doors for me and helps me on with my coat. He's a feminist too. He loves it that I just finished putting the dinner I cooked for tonight in the refrigerator.

Just because I'm a woman doesn't mean that I don't hold doors for people coming just ahead or behind me - I always do. Just because he's a man, doesn't mean he can't cook - he can and does. Feminism is concerned with much larger issues than all of that. In fact, feminism boils down to just being kind and respectful enough to acknowledge that we all deserve to be treated with equal value in the eyes of the law.

Many people don't realize that what we call "feminism" today began in this country in the 1800's simply as a way to counter the fact that the status of women legally came directly from our derived tradition of English Common Law which stated that, "the man and the woman are one, and that one is the husband." Essentially women were owned first by their fathers, then by their husbands, with almost no independent rights. We've been chipping away at that tradition ever since, small pieces at a time.

We still don't have an equal rights amendment that supersedes patchworks of laws affecting women. For some reason, a simple amendment to the constitution that states, "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex" is still controversial. That's "why" feminism.

 

[pahoben]

Sorry but I don’t agree with many things in your post. Male children in the first years of life in the US have a 20% higher mortality rate then female children. In 2017 the mortality from birth to 1 year of age was 620/100,000 for males and 513/100,000 for females. Surely you can’t explain that as due to risky depraved behaviors that result from toxic masculinity.

Your daughter is seeking a PHD in the biological sciences and women receive more than 50% of the PHD’s in the biological sciences.

If you want to have a smack down of people that are achievers and overcame difficult circumstances then no problem. Do you think males have no problems to overcome and everyone they meet are supportive of degrees insTEM. For most people this isn’t a gentle world and nearly everyone has difficulties to overcome.

I understand your rightful pride but your portrayal of your daughter as a victim because people told her to pursue nursing doesn’t ring true to me. Teachers say much worse to overactive boys in school. . I guess now they just drug them.

Our DS had a teacher in the 1st grade who wanted him on medication, because he'd finish his work and sit and talk and fidget. The problem for us was that he was talking and fidgeting because he was done with his work, she wouldn't provide any other work or even let him read a book while he was sitting, waiting for others to complete their work. Yes, he was distracting others, and he was told to stop, but a 1st grader can only sit still doing nothing for so long. At home, he was doing multiplication, and at school, they were doing basic addition (2+2); they were reading Go Dog Go, and at home, he was reading The Magic School Bus. Socially, he was behind, so we didn't push for changing grades or anything; all we wanted was for him to be able to do something while he waited the 15-20 minutes for everyone else to complete what took him 5 minutes. There was no need for medication, just redirection. We even offered to send in worksheets for him to work on, and he could bring them home and we'd take care of checking his work and everything..all she would have had to do is let him get them out of his backpack; or he could bring his book from home and read. Nope, she wanted him to sit still and quiet. He ended up in the hall at least once a week for 4 weeks, until we could get in with her and the principal. I lost my...well, I went Karen on them. After that, he was allowed to read or do his own work, as long as he did it quietly...he still misbehaved on occasion, but it was no worse than any other 1st grader. That teacher pushed for almost every boy to get put on medication while they were in her class; and it worked probably 1/3 of the time. So ridiculous

Sorry, don't know what happened with the quote. Hmm, weird[/QUOTE]
I think you were right about advancing him also. I had a good friend that had an amazing memory. He received a BS in Math at 17 and was admitted to the PHD program in Mathematics at Harvard. He never did develop socially and so for many people he seemed offbeat. He ran into problems with his thesis and committed suicide. The guy would never hurt a flea but did take a social abuse in some settings because he was just different. When I got the news it was like a stake through my heart. I know that it does work sometimes but quite often it just doesn’t work out as planned.

 

[Prince_Hawkins]

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.

You're definitely right that birth control is a valid option for women in committed relationships, as well. And I should have acknowledged that when I'd made the post. I apologize.

 

[Prince_Hawkins]

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 didn't consider how birth control is also commonly used by heterosexual married couples who don't desire to have kids, so you're certainly right about that.

 

[Prince_Hawkins]

Isn't the answer to that obvious?

Not really. People are motivated for different reasons. Not even everybody who engages in casual sex should be painted with the same broad brush. And, as others have pointed out here, unwanted pregnancies often do happen even within the context of committed relationships.

What I'm simply asking people to do is, if they are somebody who feels compelled to engage in frequent sexual intercourse, they ought to ask themselves WHY it's such a specific priority to them?

 

[Prince_Hawkins]

Once again I must admit... this thread is too long to read.

That said, if I have a seat in the bus (or monorail, or whatever), I will always offer it to the ladies. I also hold doors for ladies.

Does that make me a bad person?

It doesn't make you a bad person, if you are doing it out of kindness or your own volition. It shows that you have goodhearted intentions.

But I have to ask: if you saw an elderly man looking for a seat, would you offer it to him? Or a young boy? Or, what would stop you from offering to give up your seat, per se, to another dude who appeared to be around your own age?

Why "the ladies," specifically?

 

[pahoben]

Sorry but I don’t agree with many things in your post. Male children in the first years of life in the US have a 20% higher mortality rate then female children. In 2017 the mortality from birth to 1 year of age was 620/100,000 for males and 513/100,000 for females. Surely you can’t explain that as due to risky depraved behaviors that result from toxic masculinity.

Your daughter is seeking a PHD in the biological sciences and women receive more than 50% of the PHD’s in the biological sciences.

If you want to have a smack down of people that are achievers and overcame difficult circumstances then no problem. Do you think males have no problems to overcome and everyone they meet are supportive of degrees insTEM. For most people this isn’t a gentle world and nearly everyone has difficulties to overcome.

I understand your rightful pride but your portrayal of your daughter as a victim because people told her to pursue nursing doesn’t ring true to me. Teachers say much worse to overactive boys in school. . I guess now they just drug them.

Our DS had a teacher in the 1st grade who wanted him on medication, because he'd finish his work and sit and talk and fidget. The problem for us was that he was talking and fidgeting because he was done with his work, she wouldn't provide any other work or even let him read a book while he was sitting, waiting for others to complete their work. Yes, he was distracting others, and he was told to stop, but a 1st grader can only sit still doing nothing for so long. At home, he was doing multiplication, and at school, they were doing basic addition (2+2); they were reading Go Dog Go, and at home, he was reading The Magic School Bus. Socially, he was behind, so we didn't push for changing grades or anything; all we wanted was for him to be able to do something while he waited the 15-20 minutes for everyone else to complete what took him 5 minutes. There was no need for medication, just redirection. We even offered to send in worksheets for him to work on, and he could bring them home and we'd take care of checking his work and everything..all she would have had to do is let him get them out of his backpack; or he could bring his book from home and read. Nope, she wanted him to sit still and quiet. He ended up in the hall at least once a week for 4 weeks, until we could get in with her and the principal. I lost my...well, I went Karen on them. After that, he was allowed to read or do his own work, as long as he did it quietly...he still misbehaved on occasion, but it was no worse than any other 1st grader. That teacher pushed for almost every boy to get put on medication while they were in her class; and it worked probably 1/3 of the time. So ridiculous

Sorry, don't know what happened with the quote. Hmm, weird[/QUOTE]
When I hear these stories I always think of the life of Ramanujan. You may know the story but if not I will summarize here. He was an Indian mathematician whose name will be remembered in mathematical history for his work in Number Theory. So as a boy he wanted to study mathematics. His father worked as a customs agent and forbade him to study mathematics since he was to follow in his fathers footsteps. He was able to obtain some mathematical textbooks and secretly studied under his bed at night. As a young man he wrote to Hardy who was the most respected mathematician in England at that time and included some of his work. Hardy just thought it was another crank letter. He did take a look and immediately realized Ramanujan’s work was incredible. He thought it was like beautiful mathematics that an alien civilization had dropped on earth. He brought Ramanujan to London and he had many incredibly original results that will remain in use as long as Number Theory is studied.

So no support but very high achievement.

 

[cabanafrau]

Not really. People are motivated for different reasons. Not even everybody who engages in casual sex should be painted with the same broad brush. And, as others have pointed out here, unwanted pregnancies often do happen even within the context of committed relationships.

What I'm simply asking people to do is, if they are somebody who feels compelled to engage in frequent sexual intercourse, they ought to ask themselves WHY it's such a specific priority to them?

Shouldn't the flip side of the coin be given equal attention? Should those who don't feel compelled to engage in frequent sexual intercourse need to ask themselves why it's specifically NOT a priority to them?

Or maybe should consenting adults be allowed to live their lives freely as they choose behind closed doors, with no compelling need for introspection because someone else feels entitled to quibble with their choices?

 

[Prince_Hawkins]

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.

Sex drive being instinctive is a given, of course. I doubt anybody disagrees with that. But we are supposed to be more intelligent and cognitive than other mammals.

If scenarios arise where emotions overtake logic, it's up to each of us to take a step back and evaluate the situation in a more well-rounded manner. Every single one of us, including me, has been guilty of not doing this.

So when it comes to the presence of sex in a relationship -- whether the relationship is casual, steady/long-term, or marital -- it's incumbent upon the parties involved to take such desires into consideration.

In the meantime, scientists should continue working on better (and less physically-taxing) forms of birth control for females and males.

 

[MrsPete]

But yeah, the pill usually comes to mind. But whatever one chooses to use, they need access to it.

Agree, but my real point is that pills require more "upkeep" than some other methods. If access is a problem, implants or diaphragms require fewer doctor visits /fewer trips to the pharmacy /only one payment.

Not all birth control works for all people. Both my girls were 'pill babies'; I blame the ER doc and the pharmacist for DD#1...I had a severe ear infection, strep and....jeez, something else that I just can't remember...and the doc put me on antibiotics. Both had my records and saw I was on BCP; neither mentioned that sometimes those things don't work right with antibiotics! DD#2 was just a total fail, IDK what happened. I was on time every single day, within 30 minutes. /sigh The Norplant thing worked great for me, though!

Okay, I'm trying to say this nicely, but how in the world could you NOT know that antibiotics negate the effects of birth control pills temporarily? I knew this when I was a young teen and read teen magazines -- long before I actually used birth control myself ... it was in the high school health class lectures ... and it's in the information included with each and every pack of birth control pills. Yes, it'd be nice if the pharmacist says it with every prescription, but this really is common knowledge.

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.

Okay, I totally think no one should be forced to do something against his or her religion at work ... but this guy chose his occupation poorly. Very poorly.

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

I'm the mother of daughters, the aunt of nieces, and the teacher of many girls. I've talked about this with many of them, and they either say that this isn't an issue in their lives or has only been quite minor. Every job has pros/cons, and discussing pitfalls and benefits is a good idea.

As for doctors /nurses, my RN daughter says "the best deal" is to be an RN with a masters and a specialty. Why? Because it requires fewer years of school /it's possible to graduate with out loads of debt, and the money is very, very good -- without the requirements of being "on call" like a doctor. This isn't -- isn't at all -- a matter of telling girls what they can/can't do; rather, it's a matter of pointing out what's happening in the field today.

When students talk going into research, I do talk to them about how many years of education that requires and how difficult it is to get into those jobs. Again, this is about instilling realistic expectations -- not holding anyone back.

I’m sorry but what! The birth control pill has nothing to do with people having casual sex with complete strangers.

The "complete strangers" thing is overblown, but -- yeah -- birth control does make it possible for women to have consequence-free sex. Or near-consequence-free. There's a correlation between the advent of birth control and casual sexual activity.

 

[pezgirlroy]

Okay, we have one personal story.

And I have a personal story as well, I also know a few woman some very personally who have had to make this extremely difficult decision regarding abortion about a pregnancy that they desperately wanted but for health reasons of either the fetus or the mother had to make a very difficult decision.

 

[Prince_Hawkins]

Shouldn't the flip side of the coin be given equal attention? Should those who don't feel compelled to engage in frequent sexual intercourse need to ask themselves why it's specifically NOT a priority to them?

Or maybe should consenting adults be allowed to live their lives freely as they choose behind closed doors, with no compelling need for introspection because someone else feels entitled to quibble with their choices?

If two partners have differing levels of hunger/aversion to certain sexual practices, that should ideally be discussed during the early stages of the relationship.

Your point about consenting adults and their private sexual practices is well-taken, and, in general, logically-sound...except for when we have to consider the legal ramifications that stem from those decisions, as have been discussed by virtually everybody within this thread so far.

 

[cabanafrau]

If two partners have differing levels of hunger/aversion to certain sexual practices, that should ideally be discussed during the early stages of the relationship.

Your point about consenting adults and their private sexual practices is well-taken, and, in general, logically-sound...except for when we have to consider the legal ramifications that stem from those decisions, as have been discussed by virtually everybody within this thread so far.

Consenting adults are not required to be in a relationship in order to engage in intimacy -- nor are they legally required to be. Consenting adults who mutually choose to be in a relationship are free to change their mind at any point and either sever or change the terms of the relationship as they choose -- this is legally allowed.

Even in committed relationships things are not always in a state of constancy. What works at any point in a relationship may not continue to work beyond a certain point in a relationship. Only the adults in that relationship should have a say as to how they do or do not choose to resolve matters where they are not in agreement/no longer in agreement.

All of these freedoms are legally allowed to consenting adults -- as they should be. Suggesting otherwise leaves everyone open to the same possibility -- that those with different opinions may wind up in power and decide to exercise their disagreement with the way others conduct their private, intimate lives and enact laws making those practices illegal.