Facebook Activity



Teen Ink on Twitter

Home > Forums > Teen Ink Forums > News & Issues > LET'S TALK FEMINISM

Teen Ink Forums

Lively discussions with other teens
   
Next thread » « Previous thread

LET'S TALK FEMINISM

SabrinaFaire posted this thread...
Jun. 27, 2014 at 2:58 am

You heard it. Give me your ideas of it. Be open-minded. No rudeness.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Caesar123 replied...
Jul. 2, 2014 at 5:57 pm

I’ll tell you what. I support equality amongst the sexes. Equal pay and equal employment opportunities (though the hire should be based on skill). My problem with the feminists is when they get so out of control and come up with these kooky ideas, such as having everyone pay for their birth control and wanting to hack apart their unwanted babies. Also many of their methods are questionable, but I guess that’s the problem with the far left in general.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Caesar123 replied...
Jul. 2, 2014 at 5:58 pm

I’ll tell you what. I support equality amongst the s.exes. Equal pay and equal employment opportunities (though the hire should be based on skill). My problem with the feminists is when they get so out of control and come up with these kooky ideas, such as having everyone pay for their b.irth c.ontrol and wanting to hack apart their unwanted babies. Also many of their methods are questionable, but I guess that’s the problem with the far left in general.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Jul. 9, 2014 at 2:39 pm

I suppose I'm something of a feminist myself, along with being a pacifist socialist agnostic cascadian. There are probably some more labels you could pin on me if you wanted to. Anyway, back to feminism. Whatever gripes you may have with it, its a necesary part of our society. There are still so many pro-male tendencies in our society, they must be balanced by feminism. We women must be active in defending our rights-- including the right to control our own bodies and decide whether or not to bring new life into the world. But it seems to me that feminism isn't just about defending our rights. It's about embracing our identities, and making the world realize that there is nothing wrong with being who we are.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Caesar123 replied...
Jul. 10, 2014 at 11:40 am

See, that’s the thing that women don’t realize. You say taking control of your own bodies, and I support that, sure. But when someone is p.regnant there is not just one body there, but two, and one of them is so small and so vulnerable that they don’t have the ability to stand up and fight for themselves. If you truly don’t want to bring new life into this world, use preventative measures that won’t harm a f.etus. If you can’t make that judgment before hand, then you shouldn’t be allowed to m.urder to rectify it.
 
P.S. Sorry if you weren’t talking about a.bortion, but that’s another thing that gets to me about feminists.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddude replied...
Aug. 17, 2014 at 7:24 pm

Okay, so if you don't want ab ortions to happen, you ought to be in favor of making various forms of cont raception as readily available as possible, as well as better and more comprehensive (NOT "abs tinence-only") s ex ed, since those are the two things that have been shown to have a significant effect on lowering the rate of ab ortions.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Caesar123 replied...
Aug. 18, 2014 at 12:23 am

Hey, stuntdude.
 
I’m totally for c.ontraceptives as long as they’re not a.bortifacients (i.e. c.ontraceptives that will prevent a fertilized e.gg from implanting. I’m also for multiple approach s.ex ed classes, though a.bstinence should be talked about in depth and promoted chiefly as the best way to prevent p.regnancy. If people can be better educated so they can make better choices, I’m all for it.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
princexsam replied...
Sept. 20, 2014 at 10:55 am

Caesar:
 
What I don't understand about many of you pro.lifers is that you are, as you say, pro.life, yeah? And I can guess you are relatively conservative, am I correct to assume?
 
If you are indeed conservative, and pro. life, then tell me:
-Are you opposed to a livable minimum wage?

“. . . a study by Restaurant Opportunities Centers United revealed that by simply raising the f.ederal minimum wage from the current $7.25 to $10.00 an hour, it would lift 58% of the working poor out of p.overty.”
-Do you advocate or tolerate policies that generally oppress the poor or m.inorities?
-Do you oppose gender equality?
-Do you support anti-immigrant sentiments or other o.ppressive i.mmigration policies?
-Do you oppose h.ealthcare for all?
-Do you use dehumanizing language?

any abl.eist, h.omo.phobic, s.e.xist, or ra.cial slurs?
-Do you support the de.ath penalty?
-Do you “support, advocate for, or participate in wa.r?


If you answered yes to any of these questions, then how could you possibly consider yourself as pro.life? You are pro birth, but certainly not pro.life. In what world could a f.etus, that has yet to even have developed a brain ("The majority of the scientific literature on the subject finds that the brain connections required to feel pain are not formed until at least 24 weeks.” Which is a month later than the USA allows one to a.bort medically) matter more than humans who are already living, already struggling, and already d.ying?


“The fact is that, if you’re pro.life, you can’t be pro.life just when they’re in the w.omb — you have to be pro.life when they get out of the womb, too, and sometimes, those lives get messy and complicated and difficult. It doesn’t make the life any less precious, or any less worthy of protection . . .

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddude replied...
Sept. 20, 2014 at 12:01 pm

I'll add to that: if you find yourself complaining frequently about living in a welfare state, you should not also find yourself complaining about abortions under the guise of being "pro life". If a woman becomes pregnant who is in no situation to be able to raise a child, and you'd personally deny that woman an abortion, you'd better be willing to personally support her when she has to raise the kid later. You can't just make a decision for somebody else and then forget about them for the rest of your life.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
poetic_ink replied...
Oct. 5, 2014 at 4:13 pm

Please do not assume that all prolifers are hypocritical. This is hardly a valid argument against prolife.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Mr.packerbear12This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Oct. 6, 2014 at 3:04 pm

"working poor out of p.overty.”

-Do you advocate or tolerate policies that generally oppress the poor or m.inorities?

-Do you oppose gender equality?

-Do you support anti-immigrant sentiments or other o.ppressive i.mmigration policies?

-Do you oppose h.ealthcare for all?

-Do you use dehumanizing language?"
 
Wth does this have to do with feminism

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Caesar123 replied...
Oct. 6, 2014 at 10:54 pm

Princexsam:
 
While it is very keen of you to attempt and place an umbrella over many of these issues, it does not change the question at hand, which is that of feminism.
 
So I will tell you upfront. No, I am not opposed to a livable minimum wage, but I do not believe that raising the wage is the best way to make it “livable” (in fact I have written a fairly decent article on this issue if you’d care to read it). I do not advocate for policies that oppress anyone, much less the poor or minorities. I do not oppose gender equality, as I believe I made clear in some of my previous posts. I do not harbor anti-immigrant sentiments. I do not oppose the access of anyone to decent healthcare. And I most certainly do not use dehumanizing language (unless you are throwing “redskin” in there, in which case…). As for your last two points, I’m sincerely sorry, but I’m going to have to crush your Utopian way of thinking. Supporting the death penalty, or war as an entity does not make me “anti-pro-life” or some equally preposterous notion. War is a natural extension of the human experience, derived from human opinions and thus human biases. The death penalty, meanwhile, is a tool that has been used quite effectively throughout time to ensure that the rule of law (whether in good practice or bad) is upheld.
 
I would argue princexsam, that every human life is precious, and that a human in the womb and a human at the end of life are equally valuable. Your argument about brain activity I must say is moot, as life begins when s.perm meets e.gg. From that point forward, a human being is developing and growing, just as one outside of the womb is. Does a human in the womb not have a right to live, grow, learn, develop, and pursue happiness just like anyone else? Simply because a developing baby cannot speak for itself or support itself, does that give us the right to k.ill it simply for our convenience? Your closing quote is incredibly ironic, and I have to agree with it 100%. Lives do get messy and complicated and off track sometimes. Sometimes, people try to silence that life before it even begins. But “it doesn’t make the life any less precious, or any less worthy of protection…”
 
And as for you stuntdude, it is incredibly lazy of you to say that the immediate consequence of a baby born into extenuating circumstances is a welfare state. It is incredibly un-thoughtful of you to simply shrug it off and say that if we don’t want to m.urder unborn children (the more viable option in your opinion, I would assume) then we have to go into debt. Sure, you can drag the economy and the financial impact of having a child into this, but by and large the welfare state in America has been created by a series of living beyond our means and giving deference to every person that comes asking for a handout. If we are smart (and I pray that we are) we could take care of these children that would otherwise be aborted, and not have to resort to the barbaric option of k.illing them (or as China has done, banning their existence altogether) in order to make ends meet. I do not think that it would be easy, but with sound financial footwork, it is entirely possible.

 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddude replied...
Oct. 7, 2014 at 9:02 am

"Supporting the death penalty, or war as an entity does not make me “anti-pro-life” or some equally preposterous notion."
 
"Anti-pro-life"? No, it just means that it's silly for you to call yourself "pro-life." Because then it's not really a descriptive word for your beliefs, it's just a euphemism for "anti-ab.ortion." Similarly, if someone calling themselves "pro-choice" were in opposition to the principles of democracy and personal freedom, it'd be equally ridiculous.
 
Of course, what we really need is to cast off all these euphemisms altogether and call each other and ourselves what we really are: anti-freedom and pro-baby-murder!
 
"War is a natural extension of the human experience, derived from human opinions and thus human biases. The death penalty, meanwhile, is a tool that has been used quite effectively throughout time to ensure that the rule of law (whether in good practice or bad) is upheld."
 
Oh, please. War is not "a natural part of human experience." If you're going to try to morally justify war, you're going to have to do a lot better than a short quip with nothing to back it up.
 
Not to mention how revealing it is that the extent of your thoughts on the death penalty are "it's a useful tool." Yes, killing people is a means to an end, a "tool" if you like. Tell me something I don't already know. That doesn't make it justified.
 
"or as China has done, banning their existence altogether"
 
lmao... that's a product of a completely different and mostly unrelated set of causes. You're literally only dragging this in out of nowhere because you think it'll earn you some pathos points. Also, as usual, you're oversimplifying massively and resorting to one-liner rhetoric instead of actually deconstructing the issue to make a point about it.
 
"It is incredibly un-thoughtful of you to simply shrug it off and say that if we don’t want to m.urder unborn children (the more viable option in your opinion, I would assume) then we have to go into debt."
 
So you really did miss the whole point, after all. I honestly don't know why I expected anything different.
 
"the welfare state in America has been created by a series of living beyond our means and giving deference to every person that comes asking for a handout."
 
[citation needed]

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddude replied...
Oct. 7, 2014 at 9:07 am

In any case, leave it to Caesar to turn a thread about feminism into a thread about ab ortion in record time.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Caesar123 replied...
Oct. 10, 2014 at 10:43 pm

Stuntdude, when will you come to see that life is too short for political correctness? You wasted your time in constructing an argument for the term pro-life, and have now wasted my time in order that I may respond to it.
 
My thought with war doesn’t actually start with war. Bear with me. Humans all have opinions, on every situation big and small. Opinion is a natural extension of who we are as people. If we didn’t have opinions, then this world would be awfully monochromatic. As an extension of this, human opinion is bound to come into conflict with other opinion. We aren’t all going to think alike, which is a great thing, do you agree? As a result of that, there will be conflict. Now, it is best to settle conflict diplomatically, for sure, but when diplomacy fails the natural tendency is then to result to physical force, i.e. war. Now if you follow that line it goes from opinion, to disagreement, to war. As opinions are natural human tendencies, so then is the human tendency to disagree and thus war. Now, that’s not justification for all war, but it is an explanation for why war happens, and a realization that it is written into our DNA just like our height or eye color.
 
As for the death penalty, my personal opinion is much more complicated, mostly due to religious reasons, but you can not argue that it has been used to maintain order and organization throughout history. Examples include Stalin, Mao Zedong, the French Revolution. While all failed, they used the death penalty to extreme effect and saw amazing stability from it, stability that would otherwise not be. And before you jump all over me for this, no I do not support Stalin, Mao, or the French Revolution (though the Enlightenment ideals of the last are integral to this country even today).
 
You miss the point with the China comment, stuntdude. I know why China has the one-child policy, but that doesn’t make it any more ethical. It should be the right of every individual to decide when, where, and how many children they have. To say otherwise is simply totalitarian.
 
On the flip side, I did not misunderstand you stuntdude. You said that birthing otherwise aborted babies would only heighten the welfare state, which is the major reason for the debt the US currently holds. People cost money, yes initially, but in the end they should contribute to the nation and society more than they take away from it. If I may invoke JFK, “ask not what you country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”.

If the welfare state hasn’t been created by spending more than we can afford, what has it been created by stuntdude?
 
And as for your last piece of advice, maybe you should talk to princexsam, who tried to turn this forum into everything five ways from Sunday, which is one of the reasons I would up commenting on war, welfare states, and China. Besides, if you don’t think that a.bortion is an integral part of the feminism argument, you might want to recheck your definition of the word. 

 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddude replied...
Oct. 11, 2014 at 4:49 pm

"when will you come to see that life is too short for political correctness?"
When will you come to see that shouting "political correctness!" doesn't automatically win you ever argument? You need a better default response.
 
"Now, that’s not justification for all war, but it is an explanation for why war happens, and a realization that it is written into our DNA just like our height or eye color."
 
The issue is that your assertion of war being "written into our DNA" and comparing it, stupidly enough, to thinks like eye color and hair color (God, I don't even know where to start with you...), is a concession to the assumption that war is inevitable and therefore we should just accept it and let it happen, more or less. Your rhetoric makes it pretty clear what your stance is on this.
 
"Examples include Stalin, Mao Zedong, the French Revolution. While all failed, they used the death penalty to extreme effect and saw amazing stability from it, stability that would otherwise not be."
 
lmao... stability in the French revolution? Are you even serious?
 
"You miss the point with the China comment, stuntdude. [...] On the flip side, I did not misunderstand you stuntdude."
 
You really couldn't possibly be more conceited, could you?
 
"I know why China has the one-child policy, but that doesn’t make it any more ethical. It should be the right of every individual to decide when, where, and how many children they have. To say otherwise is simply totalitarian."
 
Not at all what I was even talking about. Apparently you do misunderstand me quite easily after all.
 
"You said that birthing otherwise aborted babies would only heighten the welfare state, which is the major reason for the debt the US currently holds."
 
Also not at all what I was saying. Please work on your reading comprehension.
 
"If the welfare state hasn’t been created by spending more than we can afford, what has it been created by stuntdude?"
 
Well, first off, you've just gone from "living beyond our means and giving deference to every person that comes asking for a handout" to "spending more than we can afford." I appreciate that you're at least moving from more presumptuous to less presumptious, but I'd appreciate even more if it weren't basically an attempt to move the goalposts and pretend to have said something different than you actually did.
 
And secondly, no, debt is neither the cause nor the reason for creating a welfare state. Do you even know what "welfare state" means? A people that values itself as a collective and approves of using a nation's wealth to directly care for the health of its people, that's both the reason and the cause for a welfare state.
 
"Besides, if you don’t think that a.bortion is an integral part of the feminism argument, you might want to recheck your definition of the word."
 
Sure, I'll go recheck it right now. Just a moment...
 
"feminism - n. the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."
 
Wow, funny. Doesn't mention or imply anything about abo rtion. Looks like my definition isn't the problem after all.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
DistantNucleus replied...
Oct. 11, 2014 at 9:55 pm

I know a person at my school who is a very strong feminist. I also find it interesting that men can be feminists, since that is not usually what you hear. My question is: should women's requirements in the army be different than men's?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
BonzelleThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Oct. 11, 2014 at 10:11 pm

Good question. I personally think yes. You can't really ask a woman to do the same thing as a huge, heavily muscled guy. I definitely don't think women are lesser then men, but it's just nature that guys can usually have more strength than women. Usually. There are always exceptions. But that's just my opinion. I'm not trying to portray gender discrimination.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddude replied...
Oct. 12, 2014 at 3:20 am

I don't think it should be based on gender or s.ex, I think it should be based on individual abilities. As you mentioned, Bonzelle, the infleunce of s.ex/gender on physical traits isn't always clear-cut. If the issue in a particular situation is strength, then of course the criteria should be strength, not s.ex/gender. Of course, that requires more organization to keep track of, but I think it's worth it.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
BonzelleThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Oct. 12, 2014 at 5:55 pm

Exactly, I agree.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread

Launch Teen Ink Chat
Site Feedback