Are You a Feminist? [Blogthings]

[Morfinyon]

Lol, yes. It's hard not to target Anita though.

It's really easy actually! Just don't give a fuck.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

"Externalized"? Is that just a fancy way of saying spread across society? If so, then I suppose for the same reason one might want the cost of anything distributed in this manner.

Why not everything then? Where do you draw the line?

So then independence means paying for the books you check out of the library, or for the police officer who comes to take the report when your car is stolen? See previous comment.

You've already paid for your share of books. Books can be consumed by anyone with the ability to read not one half of the population based on their biological sex. The books and library example would match your argument if you stated only people who could consume BC would absorb the externalized costs (i.e. women for birth control or men for male enhancement drugs).

You're comparing the police as public service to birth control... I don't even know where to begin. In the way our societies are currently structured police are a social service that are needed, without them many people can be at risk of real danger. This is implicit in the 'social contract' and we also surrender our authority to the police as a result. Again, if you want to stay consistent with the example then women consuming socialized BC would have to surrender some of their authority over their own sexual choices. But you would oppose that naturally. You'd argue to high heaven that women should be fully independent in their choices when it comes to sexual activity but would make a stand when arguing that the costs of those decisions should be offloaded onto society as a whole. It's not consistent to have it both ways. You argue for the independence of the one making the choice but argue for the people paying the bill to have no choice and just accept it.

Yes we pay for the police but as a result we surrender some of our personal liberty to police authority. In our present society police are necessary to live and function in relative safety and security. In my humble opinion birth control or male enhancement drugs do not meet this criteria. I still believe they should be made available and certainly not banned from production and sale but it's a personal choice to consume these products and thus should fall under personal costs.

I hope this makes sense.

Addendum: Again, this goes back to the zero sum game in the liberal mindset whether they realize it or not. In order for Person A , let's say this is a woman wanting birth control, to have independence and freedom in her choice to engage in unprotected sex then the choice of Person B, the citizen/neighbor paying for it, must be curtailed. If Person B complains about "Why am I being made to pay for this?" they are almost immediately labeled and deemed a sexist, misogynist, or some other unsavory label. Some choices have to be taken away so others can exist. Zero sum.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

When cost is a barrier, access is not easy. Otherwise we could just as well say that everyone has easy access to everything not prohibited by law, and some things that are.

Again, the test was overly vague. Cost is a barrier to a lot of things. Whether we're talking about free or cheap is a different matter. It's an issue of healthcare/insurance reform, in my opinion, and I would agree those ought to be covered under insurance at reasonable rates.

 

[Evo]

So no one's going to address my previous comment? That's cool if it doesn't matter to you guys. I was just simply wondering how you'd feel if you were the sex which had to bear most of the burden for bc and then not be able to afford it. But I suppose that question doesn't need to be answered, maybe you're right.

Why not everything then? Where do you draw the line?

It actually looks like a our basic human needs (that are on the first and mostly second bottom tiers of this chart) are mostly taken care of except sex. It's sort of concerning that we're denying this, no? And Security is listed after physiological needs btw haha.

 

[Coriolis]

Why not everything then? Where do you draw the line?

You've already paid for your share of books. Books can be consumed by anyone with the ability to read not one half of the population based on their biological sex. The books and library example would match your argument if you stated only people who could consume BC would absorb the externalized costs (i.e. women for birth control or men for male enhancement drugs).

You're comparing the police as public service to birth control... I don't even know where to begin. In the way our societies are currently structured police are a social service that are needed, without them many people can be at risk of real danger. This is implicit in the 'social contract' and we also surrender our authority to the police as a result. Again, if you want to stay consistent with the example then women consuming socialized BC would have to surrender some of their authority over their own sexual choices. But you would oppose that naturally. You'd argue to high heaven that women should be fully independent in their choices when it comes to sexual activity but would make a stand when arguing that the costs of those decisions should be offloaded onto society as a whole. It's not consistent to have it both ways. You argue for the independence of the one making the choice but argue for the people paying the bill to have no choice and just accept it.

Yes we pay for the police but as a result we surrender some of our personal liberty to police authority. In our present society police are necessary to live and function in relative safety and security. In my humble opinion birth control or male enhancement drugs do not meet this criteria. I still believe they should be made available and certainly not banned from production and sale but it's a personal choice to consume these products and thus should fall under personal costs.

I hope this makes sense.

Addendum: Again, this goes back to the zero sum game in the liberal mindset whether they realize it or not. In order for Person A , let's say this is a woman wanting birth control, to have independence and freedom in her choice to engage in unprotected sex then the choice of Person B, the citizen/neighbor paying for it, must be curtailed. If Person B complains about "Why am I being made to pay for this?" they are almost immediately labeled and deemed a sexist, misogynist, or some other unsavory label. Some choices have to be taken away so others can exist. Zero sum.

Few things in life are all-or-nothing, including decisions about what the government should fund vs. individuals. People will disagree on what falls in each category, and each society must have ongoing discussion to determine where that line should be drawn.

No, what you are writing doesn't make sense because it mixes up several criteria that really are, or at least should be, independent. A big one is this: we recognize certain things as contributing something important to the common good, and therefore expect everyone to contribute toward them. Most people will agree that police and fire services fall into this category, as does the military (national defense). We understand that, even if we personally never need to call the fire department, it makes sense for us to contribute to its support. (And BTW, we don't surrender any liberty to the police. What we do surrender is to society as a whole, to the law that stands above all of us. Police, like the courts, are just an enforcement mechanism.)

On the next level, many people include education in this list, and expect even childless people, or those paying for private schooling, to fund the public schools through taxes. They realize that educating young people benefits not only those young people, but the employers who will eventually hire them, and the communities they will contribute to as productive adults rather than prey upon as criminals.

So how do we get from here to birth control? In some sense, it is simply an extension of health care, as are drugs for male sexual issues. More specifically, the consequences of unprotected sex reach far beyond the woman (or man) having it. STDs are a public health concern, and babies are expensive, first to birth and then to raise. Regardless of one's position on the issue of welfare, one way or another society as a whole pays for unwanted babies. Paying for birth control is cheap compared with what we pay for those consequences, the proverbial stitch in time. The consequences of male sexual dysfunction, however unfortunate for the man and his partner, are not nearly as far-reaching. That being said, I would like to see both paid for through universal health insurance.

As for books, I think you seriously overestimate the ability of the majority of the population to benefit from a good amount of books in the average library. Might as well resurrect the old Blockbuster Video model and have each reader rent what he/she wants.

It actually looks like a our basic human needs (that are on the first and mostly second bottom tiers of this chart) are mostly taken care of except sex. It's sort of concerning that we're denying this, no? And Security is listed after physiological needs btw haha.

Some men seem justifiably concerned about the prospect of having to pay 18 years worth of support for a child they never wanted, which suggests BC should be on their radar as well.

As for sex, since when is it a basic need? It is necessary for propagation of the species, but not necessary to the survival of an individual.

 

[Galaxy Gazer]

I got 83%. I love that this test addresses issues that feminists don't usually talk about, like financial independence and "men's/women's jobs." The only one I disagreed with was the "women should be able to choose any path in life" one. I don't think gender should be used as a free ticket to sit at home while your significant other takes care of you. Plus it makes us look bad.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

No, what you are writing doesn't make sense because it mixes up several criteria that really are, or at least should be, independent.

Not sure I follow your argument now because you're the one that used several examples to illuminate your point as if to demonstrate common reasoning throughout all the examples (libraries, police, etc.) Now you're saying they are independent and can't be compared?

(And BTW, we don't surrender any liberty to the police. What we do surrender is to society as a whole, to the law that stands above all of us. Police, like the courts, are just an enforcement mechanism.)

The police enforces the law, we agree. Functionally we do surrender our authority to the police since the police are supposed to represent the will of the society. If a police officer orders you to do X, Y, and Z you are expected to comply unless it violates your basic constitutional rights and/or Miranda rights.

On the next level, many people include education in this list, and expect even childless people, or those paying for private schooling, to fund the public schools through taxes. They realize that educating young people benefits not only those young people, but the employers who will eventually hire them, and the communities they will contribute to as productive adults rather than prey upon as criminals.

I understand this but I still disagree that schooling ought to be a taxpayer funded service. This sort of reasoning assumes that the only way to educate the young properly is through state education services. Thus, when anyone raises concerns or opposition to government education they are labeled as being 'anti-education' or they are perceived as not caring about children. This is akin to anyone opposing affirmative action being labeled a racist of some sort. One can be very pro education and also against government schools. Government schools shouldn't be synonymous with education.

So how do we get from here to birth control? In some sense, it is simply an extension of health care, as are drugs for male sexual issues. More specifically, the consequences of unprotected sex reach far beyond the woman (or man) having it. STDs are a public health concern, and babies are expensive, first to birth and then to raise.

The pill, male enhancement, or IUDs do not prevent STDs so the health risk reason here doesn't really apply. Condoms and abstinence are primarily the best deterrents against STDs. I agree that babies are expensive to raise which is a fine disincentive for people to dabble in risky sex. When you have a state that supplies truckloads of welfare benefits for single moms the effect is that it makes the role of the father less significant which in turn mitigates some of the consequences of women engaging in risky sex. Consequently and tragically, the biggest casualties of these programs were the black families which are all but destroyed. The reasoning is simple, if they have a baby they will receive benefits. One of the cornerstones of economics is that whatever you subsidize you increase and whatever you levy you get less of. If one wants to argue 'babies are expensive' then the government programs that subsidize single motherhood should also be looked at instead of just socializing the costs of the pill.

Regardless of one's position on the issue of welfare, one way or another society as a whole pays for unwanted babies. Paying for birth control is cheap compared with what we pay for those consequences, the proverbial stitch in time.

This kind of argument sort of eliminates female responsibility don't you think. It assumes that females are deterministic and will birth unwanted babies without a government provided pill. Females can also refuse sex for men that refuse to use a condom. Except for in the rare case of rape all of this is within the power of women to decide what kind of men they want to be with. Why are you saying the only solution here is to subsidize bad decisions on the part of females?

Also, what makes you think they will even get/use the pill even if it is made free? What's the incentive? I mean sure, women that really don't want kids might benefit but there are plenty of women out there that want welfare children. It's typically these women and families (mostly single mother households) that have the largest concentration of children per capita.

I could get on board with a government provided pill so long as major welfare reform accompanied it.

I would like to see both paid for through universal health insurance.

Fair enough, I'd like to see the products available at competitive prices on the open market. It might be that neither of us get what we want though.

As for books, I think you seriously overestimate the ability of the majority of the population to benefit from a good amount of books in the average library. Might as well resurrect the old Blockbuster Video model and have each reader rent what he/she wants.

What exactly am I overestimating? I apologize if I'm not following.

Some men seem justifiably concerned about the prospect of having to pay 18 years worth of support for a child they never wanted, which suggests BC should be on their radar as well.

Yes, a lot of guys would love women to get free access to BC but that doesn't solve the problem necessarily. It can't be assumed that all the women that would be welfare risks would automatically take BC especially if there are financial benefits in single motherhood. Also, it doesn't solve the problem of women choosing under prepared men to risk their eggs with. (Rape cases excluded of course)

As for sex, since when is it a basic need? It is necessary for propagation of the species, but not necessary to the survival of an individual.

Yes so why should the government subsidize sex? I mean, I'm not for government education either but the education argument is a far more persuasive one than the BC one.

 

[Norrsken]

>my thread

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

It's fun to watch INTJs and ENTPs debate one another.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

It actually looks like a our basic human needs (that are on the first and mostly second bottom tiers of this chart) are mostly taken care of except sex. It's sort of concerning that we're denying this, no? And Security is listed after physiological needs btw haha.

This is an arbitrary list but even if we accept it then do you think everyone ought to have a right to sex? Because what we are talking about here is the government providing certain services to people on the taxpayer dime. Maybe you'd agree that the government should provide enough food as to not starve or water not to die of thirst, or a sanitized toilet to shit in, but sex? Why shouldn't sex be a personal matter?

 

[VeniVidiVertigo]

I got 83%. I love that this test addresses issues that feminists don't usually talk about, like financial independence and "men's/women's jobs." The only one I disagreed with was the "women should be able to choose any path in life" one. I don't think gender should be used as a free ticket to sit at home while your significant other takes care of you. Plus it makes us look bad.

unless staying at home means staying home with kids. I would respect a woman who desides to be there for the kids. actively engaging with them in activities and teaching them to communicate. That is if the household income can take it oc. to be looked down upon for this is not good.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I'm sick to death of discussions regarding gender and feminism on the internet, but I went ahead and answered this test anyway.

You Are 100% Feminist

I'm not really that surprised. I tend to cringe at some of the more recent rhetoric, though. I'm not really sure I agree with "safe spaces," and pretty much any negative terminology that starts with "man" makes me roll my eyes. Like "manspreading" or "mansplaining". The test didn't ask about that, though.

 

[jixmixfix]

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I'm definitely a feminist seeking equality amongst all human beings. There are still a great many imbalances in the world. Some of the biggest issues now involve reducing the amount of violence directed at women in domestic abuse and rape scenarios. I'm thinking of changing career paths to be a source of help for rape and molestation victims of both genders, although statistically this will result in more women.

 

[1487610420]

femanists shuld eve da rite to chose their cookwer

 

[Coriolis]

Not sure I follow your argument now because you're the one that used several examples to illuminate your point as if to demonstrate common reasoning throughout all the examples (libraries, police, etc.) Now you're saying they are independent and can't be compared?

The examples are discrete, moving from one end of the continuum toward the other as to how much consensus there is for public funding. The common element is the common good. When relying on what is essentially a fee-for-service/product model jeopardizes public health or safety, public funding is warranted. Similarly, when a modest amount of public funding now allows us to save on greater costs later, that makes economic sense. The other considerations at play are primarily ideological rather than practical.

The police enforces the law, we agree. Functionally we do surrender our authority to the police since the police are supposed to represent the will of the society. If a police officer orders you to do X, Y, and Z you are expected to comply unless it violates your basic constitutional rights and/or Miranda rights.

But the police are in turn accountable to the courts, and to the same law they enforce for you and me. This shows where the real authority is. In a democracy and not a police state, the police are supposed to work for us, and we as voters have ultimate authority over them, through our elected representatives.

I understand this but I still disagree that schooling ought to be a taxpayer funded service. This sort of reasoning assumes that the only way to educate the young properly is through state education services. Thus, when anyone raises concerns or opposition to government education they are labeled as being 'anti-education' or they are perceived as not caring about children. This is akin to anyone opposing affirmative action being labeled a racist of some sort. One can be very pro education and also against government schools. Government schools shouldn't be synonymous with education.

This is why I put education after national defense and public safety on that continuum. "State education services", as you put it, are not the only way to educate the young. It is, however, the only way to ensure that all young people are able to receive an education leading to gainful employment and productive, informed citizenship. Public education has long been a hallmark of our democracy, and the means by which generations of Americans have been able to improve their circumstances and contribute to innovation, a hallmark of the American economy. As for government schools, I am against much of what goes on in them. As with other government programs, however, the answer is to correct them, not scrap them. The "every child/family for themselves" model of education, rationed based on ability to pay, is an experiment that has been run many times already, with even worse results than our state-provided education.

The pill, male enhancement, or IUDs do not prevent STDs so the health risk reason here doesn't really apply. Condoms and abstinence are primarily the best deterrents against STDs. I agree that babies are expensive to raise which is a fine disincentive for people to dabble in risky sex. When you have a state that supplies truckloads of welfare benefits for single moms the effect is that it makes the role of the father less significant which in turn mitigates some of the consequences of women engaging in risky sex. Consequently and tragically, the biggest casualties of these programs were the black families which are all but destroyed. The reasoning is simple, if they have a baby they will receive benefits. One of the cornerstones of economics is that whatever you subsidize you increase and whatever you levy you get less of. If one wants to argue 'babies are expensive' then the government programs that subsidize single motherhood should also be looked at instead of just socializing the costs of the pill.

Black families were disrupted first and foremost by slavery, under which children were often sold away from parents, and parents from each other. These were the first black single mothers. You are overestimating the average person's ability to follow cause and effect relationships in matters like sex. The fact is, people will have sex. Even when there was no welfare, and before modern birth control, people had sex. They had sex within marriage, even when there were already too many mouths to feed. They had sex outside of marriage, just tried harder to cover it up. Orphanages were overflowing, and death rates were high.

Yes, we as a society can decide that's not our problem, and leave these children to their fate. Aside of being morally questionable, it doesn't work. Eventually many of the children end up costing us money, whether we help them with handouts, confine them in prison, or simply clean up the damage they cause. Birth control is one of the best investments we can make. It is also cheaper, safer, and less politically objectionable than abortion, which is usually the fallback when BC is not available.

This kind of argument sort of eliminates female responsibility don't you think. It assumes that females are deterministic and will birth unwanted babies without a government provided pill. Females can also refuse sex for men that refuse to use a condom. Except for in the rare case of rape all of this is within the power of women to decide what kind of men they want to be with. Why are you saying the only solution here is to subsidize bad decisions on the part of females?

Also, what makes you think they will even get/use the pill even if it is made free? What's the incentive? I mean sure, women that really don't want kids might benefit but there are plenty of women out there that want welfare children. It's typically these women and families (mostly single mother households) that have the largest concentration of children per capita.

There you go wanting to punish children for the sins of their parents again, and throwing out the baby (here, literally) with the bathwater. I for one am willing to let a few "welfare queens" slip through in the interests of helping far more women and men who want to do the right thing, but have extremely limited means.

Males can also refuse sex with a woman who isn't using BC, or won't accept a condom. Men can decide what kind of woman they want to be with. It takes two to tango. The solution is to understand human nature, and take obvious steps to mitigate serious negative consequences, much as we do in other areas of life.

What exactly am I overestimating? I apologize if I'm not following.

I was taking issue with this: "Books can be consumed by anyone with the ability to read not one half of the population based on their biological sex." But really I was being facetious.

Yes, a lot of guys would love women to get free access to BC but that doesn't solve the problem necessarily. It can't be assumed that all the women that would be welfare risks would automatically take BC especially if there are financial benefits in single motherhood. Also, it doesn't solve the problem of women choosing under prepared men to risk their eggs with. (Rape cases excluded of course)

Here you are overestimating the appeal of living off welfare. The fact that it seems the best option should tell you something, namely that these (mostly) women feel they don't really have other options. How many grew up on welfare, perhaps with a single mother themselves? How many got a limited, perhaps fragmented education? How many lived in neighborhoods ruled by gangs? How many were raised to depend on men, one way or another? How many had little cause to believe that they could actually support themselves with a reasonable standard of living through gainful employment? Until we break this cycle, there will be some women who think the best option is gaming the system.

Yes so why should the government subsidize sex? I mean, I'm not for government education either but the education argument is a far more persuasive one than the BC one.

It is the same argument: cost effectiveness, providing the greatest good for society as a whole, while minimizing harm.

This is an arbitrary list but even if we accept it then do you think everyone ought to have a right to sex? Because what we are talking about here is the government providing certain services to people on the taxpayer dime. Maybe you'd agree that the government should provide enough food as to not starve or water not to die of thirst, or a sanitized toilet to shit in, but sex? Why shouldn't sex be a personal matter?

If we don't have enough food or water, we die as individuals. If we don't have sex, we die as a species.

unless staying at home means staying home with kids. I would respect a woman who desides to be there for the kids. actively engaging with them in activities and teaching them to communicate. That is if the household income can take it oc. to be looked down upon for this is not good.

Men are looked down on even more for staying home with kids. This is what needs to go. Women and men should have the same options available to them, and not be judged for which they choose because of their sex.

 

[Galaxy Gazer]

unless staying at home means staying home with kids. I would respect a woman who desides to be there for the kids. actively engaging with them in activities and teaching them to communicate. That is if the household income can take it oc. to be looked down upon for this is not good.

I mean yeah, obviously the kids should be the top priority for both parents. But when women have no ambition other than to be a wife and a mother, that's when it gets annoying. It's why people like Roosh V and that Chateau Heartiste blogger can claim that women are wired for service and support, without getting tons of backlash. I think if more women tried to accomplish things in life, this belief wouldn't exist.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

This is an arbitrary list but even if we accept it then do you think everyone ought to have a right to sex? Because what we are talking about here is the government providing certain services to people on the taxpayer dime. Maybe you'd agree that the government should provide enough food as to not starve or water not to die of thirst, or a sanitized toilet to shit in, but sex? Why shouldn't sex be a personal matter?

Haven't studies linked our well-being to the amount of sex we have? I'll look for some links because I'm not sure that's a valid claim, but I seem to remember reading a number of articles in the past suggesting men who have sex regularly live longer lives. If true for men, I assume it might also be true for women.

I'm not saying the gov't owes us sex, of course. That would be pretty funny if the Prez had to appoint Secretary of Tender Lovin' to the cabinet.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Men are looked down on even more for staying home with kids.

Do you think it's for cultural reasons, biological, or a bit of both?

Women and men should have the same options available to them, and not be judged for which they choose because of their sex.

Agree.

 

[Evo]

This is an arbitrary list but even if we accept it then do you think everyone ought to have a right to sex? Because what we are talking about here is the government providing certain services to people on the taxpayer dime. Maybe you'd agree that the government should provide enough food as to not starve or water not to die of thirst, or a sanitized toilet to shit in, but sex? Why shouldn't sex be a personal matter?

I'm kind of baffled by your question: do you think everyone ought to have a right to sex?

My answer is: Do other mammals in the animal kingdom not have the right to have sex?

If I'm being completely honest, I'm not going to say I know what's best for everyone, let alone what's best for all taxpayers ever. The truth of the matter is that you or I could probably walk into Family Planning right now and get free condoms haha. So the practical application of this discussion is already void because of that.

The reason I brought it up though, (which btw, that is not just a random chart. It's Maslow's Hierarchy, which I was under the impression was widely accepted...) is because you asked where the line was. And I was merely pointing out that it could be argued that the line could possibly be drawn after the first 2 bottom tiers of that chart.

Anyways, I was also exploring the idea that other people are not admitting that sex is a basic human need. I find that notion slightly too reductionary. Because no, you will not die in 20 mins, and maybe not 20 years from not having sex lol. However, we all die eventually, so I think it only follows that sexual reproduction is a need.