posted
Man, go to work for 9 hours and the thread sprouts 6 pages. Incredible.
I actually read almost all of the posts. Even more incredible. There's just too much to try to respond to. But I just have to say, I don't think the only differences here are our definitions. I think the two sides are truly expressing wildly different world views, in regards to this issue.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Altįriėl of Dorthonion I was trying to be polite and give you a chance to research the word "vaccine" and gracefully explain yourself.
Sorry I didn't realize you were so clueless.
Depo Provera is a hormonal shot that is injected once every 3 months. A vaccine is something that you only do once or twice, and the protection against biological disease last for years, though it may weare out after 7 or so years like teatnus shots.
Indcidentally if you hadn't figured it out yet Suneun and I are both female.
quote:People need to realize that a man can be a feminist, that feminism doesn't mean the end of family values, that being a feminist woman doesn't mean you have to stop wearing dresses or shaving your armpits
Saxon thankyou thankyou thankyou. Also to Kasie, AJ and Katharina.
I consider myself strongly feminist. I also cross stitch. I like to cook nice meals for my fiance. (I also like to have them cooked for me ). The way I see feminism is about choice - that women have the right to choose their career path and destiny. For some women that is in the workforce, and for some women it is at home. But that choice should be free, and unencumbered of social pressures and expectations. Both paths should be supported.
I think the problem is a lot of people are stuck with the idea as 'feminism' as first and second wave feminism - the more radical stuff. I think the feminist movement has moved on, and I think that any reading of contemporary feminist thought will illustrate that. One of the articles I linked way back on page 2 is from a national feminist journal and argues that women should have the choice to stay home with their children, and that family values are in no way incompatible with feminism.
Unfortunately it is often the 'anti-feminism' (which personally I think is such a ridiculous idea - why would you be anti-choice and equality?) people who paint 'feminism' as a man-hating, housewife-denigrating movement. I don't think it is an accurate characterisation, and it's certainly not what I talk about when I mean feminism.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it just my obsessiveness and paranoia, or does Hollywood seem to find stories about women who kill men praiseworthy? "Chicago", "Kill Bill", "Monster". It just occurred to me watching the Oscars this last time.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Thank you. That's kind of where I was going, although I was going to make a larger point, here, based on some of Kasie's own rhetoric. I'll go ahead and make that point now.
quote: it does assume that the woman should have the right to make that choice in the first place. Which is what I'm advocating.
The thing is, Kasie, modern feminism has already accomplished this. The opposing viewpoint -- that women should not have the right to choose their careers and interests for themselves -- has been so eroded, so blasted, by the evolution of modern society that any of the few troglodytes who DON'T feel this way are forced to hide this opinion, occasionally emerging resentfully from the shadows to spew a little bile before darting back into their caves. But like MANY mostly successful social movements, feminism has discovered that the movement works to perpetuate itself by targeting "enemies" of increasingly lesser relevance and/or certain morality.
It's for this reason, IMO, that feminist activism has become largely synonymous with pro-choice activism; it's the only issue left that's popular enough to march about that's opposed by enough people to raise a fuss over. Issues like paid maternity leave and/or mandated quotas, at the end of the day, are patently ridiculous -- but because these are really the only frontiers remaining, feminism HAS to move into these territories or risk fading away completely (which, from the point of view of people who make their livings promoting the movement, would be a bad thing).
Sure, true equality hasn't been achieved, and may never be; we're still a ways from full social equality, even. But I think we're close enough that the last few steps simply aren't controversial enough to support the entire unwieldly, cannibalistic apparatus that has grown up around the ideal. The "organization," the rhetoric and the branding and the us vs. them outlooks -- which, let's face it, are pretty much what you get in any Women's Studies department anywhere in the United States -- has become counterproductive to the goals that once drove it.
Let's face it: you DON'T really believe that a woman should choose to be a homemaker, or choose to obey her husband. Your words on the subject tend to drip with contempt. And you're considerably more contemptous, mind you, of women who aren't pro-choice, or men who'd deign to have opinions about what you consider "women's issues." You are, frankly, hostile and reactionary and fiercely opposed to what you consider the backwoods, medieval provincialism of the "Red States," and have a tendency to dismiss any arguments from that quarter immediately, out of hand. What you want to do, Kasie, is give women the freedom to make the choices you want them to be able to make, and then persuade them to make those choices.
There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but I think it turns feminism into Ouroborous.
quote:Kasie H:"The idea that I am in control of my destiny and that being a woman in no way limits that destiny is absolutely fundamental to my sense of self. It's part of the foundation of the thing that is me, whatever that may be."
A noble sentiment, but fundamentally wrong.
Um, I'm sorry, but who the hell are you to be telling me what about my sense of self is fundamentally wrong??
posted
I think Tom as proven your point for you, Kasie.
For what it's worth, I don't think you are
quote:hostile and reactionary and fiercely opposed to what you consider the backwoods, medieval provincialism of the "Red States,"
You are just a person with strong beliefs like every last one of us around here that speaks her/his mind. Good for you!
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The "organization," the rhetoric and the branding and the us vs. them outlooks -- which, let's face it, are pretty much what you get in any Women's Studies department anywhere in the United States -- has become counterproductive to the goals that once drove it.
I did a feminist jurisprudence course last year and not once did I encounter an 'us v them' mentality, or a bias against people who chose to stay at home.
I agree with your point that is counterproductive Tom, but I don't think that is what modern feminism *is* about. I think it's how detractors like to portray feminism, but as I said before, if you read most modern feminist literature, that is not what is being propounded.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
What is supposed to separate it from the general public, which already believes women are free to live their lives for themselves, and already believes that they should be treated equally to men. Watering down the definition until everyone is willing to accept it does not make the feminist movement any more good in any real way. If feminism is just what everyone (except the rare exception) already accepts, then it really isn't necessary or useful to talk about "feminism" at all.
Maybe in THEORY feminism is just about the simple things that everyone already accepts, but at least in practice it is now something more radical. If it wasn't, it would simply not be able to find anything left to do.
posted
I'm wondering if Tom is turning in his "Head of Liberal Hatrack Cabal" card.
Tom, while I wouldn't consider myself a "rabid feminist" most of the ignorance (not displayed by you but others) on this thread about the treatment of women and women's issues in general has driven me farther towards the traditional "die-hard feminism" than I have ever been before.
Tom I also think you aren't being your standard logical self and you seem to be taking everything as a personal threat to Christy, who can hold her own, and posted in clearly support of one idea on this thread. I think you are having an expecant father reaction. Which is really quite normal and to be expected. It is actually amusing to see your dispassionate self get rocked so profoundly.
posted
Nope. You can ask Kasie; back when she did her feminism survey, I said pretty much the same thing: I believe feminism is dead, the evil zombified corpse of a movement, and feminists killed it. Moreover, I don't think it was killed by well-meaning feminists; I think it was killed by gloryhounds and professional activists who were looking for things to be active about.
I remember the first time I realized this, back when I was a passionate liberal and pro-choice activist, myself. My sophomore year of college, a group of feminists with whom I had worked on a "Take Back the Night" project -- a project, mind you, that in itself left me feeling rather uneasy, because there were definitely undertones of "fear men, who commit all rape" going on --were handing out fliers on the sidewalk. I picked up the flyer, curious, to see that it was advertising a massive feminist rally for the following month. It had a number of fairly interesting speakers and covered a handful of topics in which I was interested.
But men were specifically not invited. In fact, the rally organizers explained themselves in length on this issue, saying that the presence of men would produce a "threatening environment" to women in general, and that they would rather not hold the rally at all than allow guys to attend. But if any man "sympathetic to the cause" really wanted to help, "any assistance in providing and/or setting up audio/visual equipment prior to the event would be appreciated."
I was flabbergasted. Not only was this blatantly sexist, it even fell back on stereotype. So I asked some of the women involved about it, and a number of them explained that, due to years of oppression or ill treatment and the innate male tendency towards hostility and dominance, they simply didn't feel comfortable sharing themselves with men there. It became obvious to me that this wasn't so much social activism as it was a huge form of group therapy coupled with affirmation -- a kind of origin story for the free woman, complete with evil empire.
Because here's the trick: a real feminist has to learn how to hang out with men, or the terrorists win.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to say that, for once, I agree with Tom here. Tom, thanks for giving me a de facto reminder not to categorize people and judge by their groups (since you've expressed liberal viewpoints on other aspects, I was surprised by your opinions on this subject and on the abortion thread. That was my mistake, though.)
And Banna, I think it's rather condescending of you to ascribe all of Tom's motives to an emotional defense of his wife and an "expectant father reaction." He certainly wouldn't disagree with you if he were thinking logically, right?
My thoughts are mostly the same as Tom's and Tres's: the reason feminism is defined in many people's minds by its radical elements is because that's the only thing that separates it from the mainstream anymore. Most people don't think you have to call yourself a feminist to think men and women should have equal rights. They just think that's a given.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
btw pooka, I'm confused about something (even if it is mostly irrelevant) You tore Dr. Laura's qualifications more apart than I did, and yet you still like her?
posted
While Tom may disagree about the "rabid feminism" aspect, and I totally agree with his example, things exactly like that are why I'm *not* a member of the Society of Women Engineers, I still don't think he agrees entirely with Tresopax. But maybe I'm wrong.
I guess what bothers me as demonstrated on this thread, is that people think women's equality is a given and has already been accomplished, and yet the facts don't support that reality any more than it supports the "Rabid" feminists variety of reality either.
quote: If feminism is just what everyone (except the rare exception) already accepts, then it really isn't necessary or useful to talk about "feminism" at all
Or perhaps "everyone" is a feminist. I don't see a problem with that.
But I still think is useful to talk about feminism - because there still are issues that need to be worked out! Shan made a great list of them early on - but the fact is there are still fences and there is still inequality. I think anyone who can see that and wants to eradicate it is a feminist.
Maybe the problem is people have become so used to the portrayl of feminists as rabid, man-hating and extremist that that protrayl becomes the definition of feminism. You're not a feminist if you're not extreme - anything less is simply an 'equalitist' or someother name. It's shame that the name has become so associated with an extreme minority.
Tom - with regards to the demonstration - I don't agree with the exclusion or the stereotyping. However I venture to suggest that on campus nowadays (am I making you feel old? ) that women's societies wouldn't operate like that anymore. I know the one at my university doesn't - in fact, men are actively encouraged to become involved.
posted
Wow, Tom, are you ever wrong about what there is left for feminists to do.
1) Domestic violence is a horrific huge problem, against which we have only begun to make the tiniest advances. Still 40% of the women who are murdered are murdered by their boyfriend or spouse.
2) Sex slavery is a terrible problem even here in the United States where you can buy a Mexican or Russian "wife" practically anywhere, (you've all seen the ads), and it's even worse (if any sex slavery could be less bad than any other) in places like Southeast Asia, where a 12 year old Thai girl sold into slavery by her parents in is typically sold to up to 40 adult men each night. When these girls test positive for HIV they are dumped on the streets to die.
3) Rapes of female soldiers in the military is an awful problem. And who can doubt that for every one that's reported, several more, maybe dozens more, go unreported? Also for each actual rape, how many more acts of harrassment must occur?
4) Date rape on college campuses is widespread, sometimes involving drugs administered without the girl's knowledge or consent. At other times relying on the time honored method of plying her with alcohol until she passes out.
If those examples don't move you. If they are so quotidian and historically familiar to us that we don't feel they constitute actual social problems, then let's look worldwide.
5) Young brides in India die in statistically improbable numbers in suspicious kitchen fires after their husbands have collected huge dowries from their families, only to marry again. A few wives like this and a young man is set up for life.
6) Girls who were denied the right to be taught to read in Afhanistan under the Taliban desperately need remedial education, health care, and all the other things they were denied under that totalitarian and misogynistic regime.
7) Young girls who have all external genitalia removed, and their vaginas stitched shut, at great health risk, in Africa, to guarantee their virginity at the time they marry, and to discourage them from unfaithfulness to their eventual husbands by removing all possibility of sexual pleasure.
These things only are a drop in the bucket. What percentage of women worldwide are allowed to choose how many children they want to have? Whether to have sex with their husbands? (Rape of one's wife is not against the law in many countries.) Even whom they will marry or at what age? Women are virtually domestic animals in many cultures of the world.
There are very many reasons that feminism is needed in the world today. I have only mentioned a bare beginning.
[ April 28, 2004, 01:57 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anna Kate - don't forget the practice in India where widows (NOT widowers) are encouraged to throw themselves on the funeral pyre of their husband because their life is no longer worth living.
Plus of course there's sharia law under which a woman can be stoned to death for being raped. The penalty for men for extramarital sex is nothing.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're not a feminist if you're not extreme - anything less is simply an 'equalitist' or someother name. It's shame that the name has become so associated with an extreme minority.
And yet it has, because there's no other name to call them. They're feminists because that's what they call themselves. You can't blame people who avoid the term because that's what the perception is.
ak, No one is arguing that those problems need to be addressed. We're just arguing that you don't need to label it "feminism" to do it. Most people call it "human rights."
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: No one is arguing that those problems need to be addressed. We're just arguing that you don't need to label it "feminism" to do it. Most people call it "human rights."
Kamisaki - why can't they be called feminist issues if they disproportionately (or soley) affect women?
In fact, it's important that they are separated from 'human rights' as a whole, otherwise they have a tendancy to be forgotten. In fact, in international law women's rights are considered fourth generation human rights - because they weren't acknowledged at the time of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in some countries still aren't.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am a little surprised that no one has distinguished the difference between gender and equality feminists. Most people in the Westernized world would not contest equality feminists. Equality feminists are basically those who are interested in social and political equality between the sexes; equality-feminists aim to foster a fundamental equality and respect for women in human society. Equality feminists include women such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and the Grimke sisters. In other parts of the world, particularily in Asia and the Middle East, a good dose of equality feminism would do the women in those societies much good.
On the other hand, gender feminists radically take the fundamental concepts of feminism to places the social movement should not go (I believe); gender feminists wish to abolish all distinction between the sexes, meaning that they believe there are no existing differences between men and women and that gender is actually a product of socialization. Gender feminists also believe that women in the United States are still victims of a male-dominated patriarchal society, despite all the previous limitations that women have already surpassed. In addition, gender feminists embrace the notion that because women have been so oppressed, they are better knowers, meaning that overall, they feel more deeply and understand reality better than men.
Gender feminism is considered the radical branch of feminism. It has very arguably hijacked the original tenets of feminist doctrine to include such issues as the erasing of gender, abortion, and homosexual privileges. To me, it has become painfully obvious that the movement has forsaken and lost its virtuous foundation.
Unfortunately, the majority of outspoken feminists today fall into this category; they have continued to push themselves so far from the mainstream, that I do not think they can possibly have a real or lasting impact upon the culture.
I consider myself to be an equality feminist; women have the fundamental right to political and social equality, but this is due to their humanity and not their sex. I do not consider myself to be a gender feminist, because I cannot bring myself to concur with their ideas of gender, sex, and various other social platforms they actively embrace.
Christina Hoff-Sommers discusses this subject extensively in her two books, Who Stole Feminism? and The War Against Boys. I have read all of the first book and parts of the second. I would recommend her books to anyone interested in hearing an alternative perspective on the state of feminism. Her most compelling criticism of gender feminism is that because gender feminists have made the fatal mistake of being so unwilling to listen to genuine criticism of their ideas, that the movement cannot possibly be considered academic, or in anyway, a reflective portrait of women in America.
Posts: 57 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: gender feminists embrace the notion that because women have been so oppressed, they are better knowers, meaning that overall, they feel more deeply and understand reality better than men.
I'm curious as to whether you've done any reading on the ethics of care v ethics of justice debate. It's one I find quite fascinating.
On the one side are feminists theorists who argue that women have more 'ethics of care' (ie the nuturing side) while men have more 'ethics of justice' - the legalistic/ratoinal side.
The theory argues that both ethics are equally valid - just because someone is better at nurturing does not make them less valuable then someone who is more talented in the rational way of thinking. The classic example is a child care worker vs a lawyer.
When this theory was introduced it was quite contentious - not least because it rehashed old gender roles and stereotypes that most feminists had been fighting against. I think it has benefit in that it equates equal weight and value to both different ethics. However I do think it is wrong to say that women are intrinsically more emotional and caring then men, and men are intrinsically more rational and logical than women.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Christina Hoff-Sommers is a great intellectual and speaker on this subject; I would like to see her take on Susan Faludi, Susan Griffin, and Catharine MacKinnon, in an all-out debate.
posted
Actually I think MacKinnon sometimes has valid stuff to say.
Sometimes.
Actually, my all time favourite feminist legal theorist (and just plain theorist I guess) is Hillary Charlesworth. She focusses on feminism in International Law and boy does she rock.
quote:"I'm curious as to whether you've done any reading on the ethics of care v ethics of justice debate. It's one I find quite fascinating.
On the one side are feminists theorists who argue that women have more 'ethics of care' (ie the nuturing side) while men have more 'ethics of justice' - the legalistic/ratoinal side.
The theory argues that both ethics are equally valid - just because someone is better at nurturing does not make them less valuable then someone who is more talented in the rational way of thinking. The classic example is a child care worker vs a lawyer.
When this theory was introduced it was quite contentious - not least because it rehashed old gender roles and stereotypes that most feminists had been fighting against. I think it has benefit in that it equates equal weight and value to both different ethics. However I do think it is wrong to say that women are intrinsically more emotional and caring then men, and men are intrinsically more rational and logical than women."
Only as passing references in a few political journal articles. I definately do not know enough to have a fair discussion about it. I suppose that one could make a comparison of this theory to the necessity of justice and mercy within the legal system.
If you have any book suggestions, pass them by, if you don't mind. I am always willing to look into reading interesting books.
Posts: 57 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
FIJC - I've got some articles I'll dig out when I get home and give you the citations if you want.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"And so the first cross discipline academic feminist cabal of Hatrack is formed."
LOL, how true, but kind of funny for me, since I consider myself to be a conservative of Burkean, Straussian, Augustinian, Aquinas, stripes.
Edited to add: And I also have a penchant for 19th century Russian men--Tolstoy and Dostoevsky; their writing and thoughts are just really nice to read. Why can't Russians write like that anymore?
posted
Anne Kate, the problem with the list you just gave me is that the ones which actually apply to this country -- and I'll readily agree that there are plenty of countries out there that could stand a bit more feminist activism, mind you -- are not, as a general rule, truly "feminist" issues.
Date rape, for example, is not a feminist issue. It's a RAPE issue. It's a crime of assault. If someone were to drug me and rape me, I would want that person prosecuted to the limits of the law, too. If I were out with a few friends and one of them, driving me home, pulled to the side and pretended to be out of gas until I did some "favors," I'd react with disgust and fury.
The issue here is not that men rape women; it's that PEOPLE rape other people, and this should stop.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kasie H:"Um, I'm sorry, but who the hell are you to be telling me what about my sense of self is fundamentally wrong??"
Well, if you said that your "sense of self" depended upon the belief that you lived on a planet around which the sun orbited once every day, I would also say you were fundamentally wrong about that.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anne Kate, I'm with Tom in that a lot of the feminism I have been exposed to is about men all being evil rapists and not that rape is a crime that should be reported. I also pick up the message that the rape of one woman is the rape of every woman. Maybe that's just because I am crazy.
Banna;
quote: btw pooka, I'm confused about something (even if it is mostly irrelevant) You tore Dr. Laura's qualifications more apart than I did, and yet you still like her?
AJ
I guess you aren't getting the gist of recovering Dr. Lauaraholic. But I dont think she's evil. The California thing struck me as funny when I was writing it. Dr. Laura fans are not these mindless zombies who just spew her words endlessly. Most anyway. I think there are some newbies who make the mistake of thinking that because OSC is Mormon, most the people who choose to hang out on his site are going to be relatively conservative.
P.S. (I did delete my last sentence because I opened this anyway to add: I didn't know what an Ouroboros was. Thanks Tom!)
posted
Thanks for clarifying pooka, I was confused.
Re: Evil. I don't think she is evil any more than Jerry Springer is evil. I do think she's out to make a buck and hypocritical about being out to make that buck. But being hypocritical does not equal being evil.
Re: Mindless zombies. I said my own mother listened to her and disagreed frequently. While I may disagree with my mother on a lot of issues, my mother isn't a mindless zombie. But, the bulk of the Dr. Laura fans that seem to be posting at hatrack at the moment appear to be of the mindless zombie variety, given most of the posts about her in this thread.
For crying out loud, if I wanted to be a devil's advocate, I could defend her better than these people without much difficulty!
AJ
And using the nomenclature that has been introduced, and I feel is quite useful. I would consider myself an "equality feminist" not a "gender feminist".
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Altįriėl of Dorthonion I was trying to be polite and give you a chance to research the word "vaccine" and gracefully explain yourself. Sorry I didn't realize you were so clueless. Depo Provera is a hormonal shot that is injected once every 3 months. A vaccine is something that you only do once or twice, and the protection against biological disease last for years, though it may weare out after 7 or so years like teatnus shots. Indcidentally if you hadn't figured it out yet Suneun and I are both female.
Ok then DUDETTE, its not about being clueless or not, since it is administered through a needle. I only know my brother's girlfriend uses it. And if it makes you sterile for a month, it means you can't reproduce for a month. Besides, did I even mention the word sterile? I said that somehow it modifies your mechanisim so that you can't have babies that month. Just in case YOU didn't know, part of your mechanism is your hormones. Please read BETWEEN THE LINES to something that's pretty obvious. And instead of pointing the finger and make fun of me, please CORRECT me in a nice, supportive, and polite way. Don't call me naive or clueless or anything that would denote me of that nature. That is rather odd since I know that you know that I know what I'm talking about, so just don't even go there.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, if you said that your "sense of self" depended upon the belief that you lived on a planet around which the sun orbited once every day, I would also say you were fundamentally wrong about that.
Actually, for most people, their daily life is altered not one whit by holding this perception. In fact, it's possible to describe all motion in the universe relative to a fixed point on earth. The math would suck, and it would accomplish nothing useful, but it's possible.
Granted, if you hold that perception I'd prefer you not be the one designing the next plane I fly on.
quote: The idea that I am in control of my destiny and that being a woman in no way limits that destiny is absolutely fundamental to my sense of self. It's part of the foundation of the thing that is me, whatever that may be.
I think the sentimental idea of "destiny" is at odds with the reasoned approach that gave us "all [persons] are created equal". Or born equal. I don't know, do you believe in a feminism that excepts women from logical rigor?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka, I"m afraid I don't really understand the question..."destiny" is at odds with "all persons created equal"? Maybe I'm using the word destiny differently than you are...would you mind clarifying? *honestly confused*
UofUlawguy,
Okay, well, then *your* sense of self is fundamentally wrong because Jesus couldn't *possibly* have come to the United States, and everything your religion ever told you was wrong, and I"m sorry but that's just how it is.
If I were serious, would you be pissed off yet?
I hope so.
Feel free to challenge the idea itself and say you think *that* is wrong. But don't *ever* challenge my sense of self. That's NOT fair game, just like your religion shouldn't be.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alt, what's really troubling about what you've written is that you seem to be getting your information about this "vaccine" that works on someone's "mechanism" from your brother's girlfriend. You're a girl near the end of your junior year in high school, 16 or 17 years old, and you lack even a fundamental grasp of what birth control is or how it's used. This indicates, to me, a really scary lack of education from your schools, teachers, and parents on what it means to be sexually active... and by all means, please do choose abstinence over any other possible course of action.
However, women who HAVE been taught what sex is, what birth control is, what abortion is, and make an informed decision that premarital sex would be okay for them, shouldn't simply be dismissed as "whores". Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Altįriėl of Dorthonion, all shots are not vaccines by any stretch. The depo provera injections are NOT vaccines. from www.m-w.com
quote: Main Entry: vac·cine Pronunciation: vak-'sEn, 'vak-" Function: noun Etymology: French vaccin, from vaccine cowpox, from New Latin vaccina (in variolae vaccinae cowpox), from Latin, feminine of vaccinus, adjective, of or from cows, from vacca cow; akin to Sanskrit vasa cow 1 : matter or a preparation containing the virus of cowpox in a form used for vaccination 2 : a preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease
All kinds of injections are given that aren't vaccines for various purposes. By your logic you could call a Botox injection a "vaccine" against aging. This is horribly incorrect. Pregnancy is by no means a "disease" either.
I'm sorry, but I have several friends who are doctors and nurses and am accustomed to using correct medical terminology at all times as much as possible. To me, it wasn't obvious at all what you are talking about. A vaccine has a specific definition for a specific purpose. You can call me unimaginative, if you wish when I can't think outside the box of that definition. I'm sorry if I'm out of touch with your vernacular, but I have never heard vaccine used in that way in any sort of every day speech either. I was actually trying to be nice by not coming out and telling you how blatantly wrong you were. I apologize. Next time I will be more blunt, if it is what you prefer.
posted
Shush, alr, you're ruining my favorite part of alt's posts. That being how everyone just summarily ignores her when she's being stupid. I love that.
Edit: That goes for you too, Banna!
[ April 28, 2004, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
). The way I see feminism is about choice - that women have the right to choose their career path and destiny. For some women that is in the workforce, and for some women it is at home. But that choice should be free, and unencumbered of social pressures and expectations. Both paths should be supported.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
