Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Eradicating women.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Eradicating women. Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Eradicating women. - 8/22/2007 4:01:46 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LotusSong

In that case, neuter the males.. don't kill the females.


Doesn't solve the problem.
The fact remains that only a woman can bear a child to term.
Any young man can impregnate a countless number of women, theoretically.
Women are the only viable population bottleneck.
It's biology, plain and simple.

quote:


Actually, if the law of supply and demand holds true, the men who wish to marry will come up with a MALE dowry to give the parents of the female.


That will eventually become the case, in all likelyhood.
Right now, there are already men paying for them.
Effectively speaking, that is a dowry of sorts.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to LotusSong)
Profile   Post #: 301
RE: Eradicating women. - 8/22/2007 4:03:38 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

well thats one way to rule the world, have catholics out populate everyone else LOL


Which is where the whole idea originated, in all likelyhood.

It's the main flaw in Catholic theology: failing to distinguish political vs. spiritual agendas in the source texts.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 302
RE: Eradicating women. - 8/22/2007 4:05:14 PM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

I don't agree with this "each to their own" philosophy (very american, this individualism).


OK.

In that case, from now on, I will decide how you will live, and what values you will espouse. What's that? You're not okay with that? Okay, must be me you have an issue with. Let's pick someone else to decide, then. Can we agree on an authority? Obviously we cannot, so we are back to each to their own again. The only other alternative would be "might makes right". I much prefer each to their own. But since you probably have an idea what should replace "each to their own", how about you explain it to me, this common philosophy that you would hold all humans of all cultures to, past, present and future across the globe without exceptions?

P.S.: My dictionary lists that under "totalitarian" and "zealotry".



Forgive me for what I'm about to say, but that's a complete overreaction. You took one phrase and isolated it out of its context. You know better than this, Aswad.

Sadly disappointing.

_____________________________



(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 303
RE: Eradicating women. - 8/22/2007 4:07:05 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: InnocentYoungSub

You know, going back to our cavemen days when women were just wacked on the head and drug back to the cave.


Realistically, if that ever happened, it would have a high fatality rate, and mess up what the man came for.
You would also see it in the apes, but it seems instinct does the job for them.
Maybe early humans had less mutual antagonism between sexes.

quote:


I am pro-choice but what bothers me here is people choosing to abort because of the baby's gender rather than a lack of desire for having children, period.


Then you're not pro-choice.

Just pro-family-planning-with-the-ability-to-"fix"-failed-contraception.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to InnocentYoungSub)
Profile   Post #: 304
RE: Eradicating women. - 8/22/2007 4:11:02 PM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

"Humankind" please, Orion, "humankind" ROFL!!!


No need to nitpick over the choice of words.

While there is an ongoing shift in language patterns, it is an established convention (though one that is being phased out) that "mankind" or "man" (as opposed to "a man" or "the man") refers to humans as a species. Yes, the new term "humankind" is also apt, and it is becoming widely adopted, but there's no need to police against terms headed for obsolescence, regardless of the underlying agenda. The term will die a quiet death on its own.

Besides which, is it really in the best interests of feminism to divert attention from an issue of much greater significance over to something so trivial as the choice between two synonyms? It's like Norwegian feminists agonizing over changing the zebra walk signs to gender neutral ones, rather than concentrating on things like trafficking, etc.

I'm as much for equal rights and such as anyone else, but I use the terms interchangeably.

Don't read hostility against women into everything a man says; it breeds hostility.



... this was a poke at Orion because I know what he believes in, so I took the liberty to TEASE him. And he fell for it later...

_____________________________



(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 305
RE: Eradicating women. - 8/22/2007 4:12:49 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I am thinking Japan gots a couple coming from China, truth be told.


No point propagating the spiral of violence, or approving of that. Truth be told, the warrior caste in Japan was the lowest caste until the Chinese tried to invade under Mongol rule way back when. After that "wake-up call", they mobilized rapidly, and became one of the most warrior-centric cultures of their time. If we're going by the "reaping what you sow" adage, the Japanese are the crop, not the farmer. Myself, I prefer the "screw why this all started, it\s gone on long enough and stops now" approach.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 306
RE: Eradicating women. - 8/22/2007 4:24:36 PM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Not just in these cultures, meacleaver: look at Mother Theresa, that insane catholic fanatic fraud! She oeuvred against women's rights all of her life. And she was beatified! People still look up to the old crone.


Ad hominem (e.g. insane, fanatic, fraud, old crone) attacks against a dead women is rather low, don't you think?

Her beatification was for her work for the church, and entirely merited.

Are you saying I should refrain from helping anyone because I have views on what help I am willing to give, or what people I am willing to help? Perhaps I should just stop buying goods from countries that are poor? Sure sounds like a viable way to improve things, doesn't it? Or not. What matters is that they help someone, not why they did it. On the other hand, if the church cut down on their work, there would be fewer fanatical humanists in the long run, so it might be a good thing.



You just argued with Susan that charity was self-defeating (an opinion I share with you, actually): Theresa did nothing but fundraising for her church. As for belittling her after her death I have no qualms with it. Somebody posted a "memorial thread" in rememberance of the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. People did nothing but spit on their graves for pages on end.

Could it be that Theresa's more important than them?

_____________________________



(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 307
RE: Eradicating women. - 8/22/2007 4:33:02 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

To me, everything's wrong with patriarchy. You think it's cool because you're a man.


Then overthrow it, or leave. Worked well enough in the west. Will happen in the rest of the world, eventually.

Putting up with it is being part of the problem, regardless of whether it's passive or active. Either it's the most desireable alternative you can envisage (which does not imply that it is perfect), or you do what it takes to get another one. If women aren't willing to stand united and fight for each other, then they are choosing to suffer alone.

Lots of groups are marginalized in society, most of them on equally poor grounds as women. These groups either do something about it, or they put up with being marginalized, accepting it as a part of their culture. Change comes from within, and always needs to defeat inertia. Helping it along is different from rewriting a culture.

quote:


Come on Orion: I have a pretty good idea what your beliefs are when it comes to gender. But that you support the eradication of an entire generation of females simply because of their sex surprises me nonetheless.


What Orion pointed out, was that decrying "patriarchy" as the cause of all social ills is saying men are bad, which is no better than what the men in these countries are doing with women. People need to realize that both genders are interdependent and cannot function antagonistically without there being something seriously wrong. Feminists are all too often classic patriarchs who happen to have different external genitalia and thus prefer a different subsegment of the population as the privileged class, which is a whole different ball-game from equal-rights.

Ursula K. LeGuin was a refreshing counterpoint to early feminist works in this regard.

I have no particular bias in favour of patriarchy or matriarchy. I grew up with a female head of state, a business-owning mother, a father that did his share of the housework and rearing, a tomboy sister, a perfectly gender-balanced set of friends and teachers, etc... Biology imposes some probabilities, but those are probabilities, not certainties.

Patriarchy is where modern feminism is headed, one way or the other.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 308
RE: Eradicating women. - 8/22/2007 4:39:14 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

RealOne: I agree there was a time in this world, when life was harder - most probably for everyone. I see your point, but I still think it is a rather simplistic POV.

If something is the law, and those laws were (and are)-  then of course people seem to accept_______ whatever - because to not accept it is to become a criminal in the eyes of the law - and face consequent punishment.  

In any case, what I don't understand, is why preventing females from doing things like:

1) Working outside the home to bring in money toward a family's support, or

2) Supporting the idea that intentionally females kill thmeselves, just because their husband died, is "understandable" for this reason, Or, likewise that it is "understandable" for that reason, that they be

3) Traded like some goat or cow, to a man's family (using a dowry as payment) just to marry her and support her economically

- would have been considered "necessary" in order to make like easier? How did these practices make life "less hard" in India? Can you really asnwer that question?

Maybe more to the point, who did these practices make life "less hard" for? Because it just doesn't sound to me like it was the females.

If you can elaborate, perhaps I can understand better.

- Susan


Well you are asking me to make sense out of the traditions of another culture and frankly it can get rather trying making sense out of the traditions of this culture.

Trying ot break a tradition is like trying ot convince someone they have the wrong religion, thats the real problem here.    We could give them bush or clinton i am sure they would figure out a way to instill marshal law and force the issue!

I really cannot speculate beyond that which is directly observable in terms of their hardship.   Its the way they decided to solve it rightfully or wrongfully and and that is what they have to live with now.

Like us with rvw.   Hey we make lots of great fertilizer or cat food every year, would you be willing to change that?  If they made a law said you cannot have an abortion would you sit back and say oh i do not want to be outside of the law?

Tradition and religion are cast in concrete and at best societies can only chip away at it till it disolves.

TYhere is no reason that females would have to kill themselves if their husband dies that i am aware of as they still inherit enough to survive through right of succession.

I suppose america can move some industry over there and provide swet shops for the women to sew outside the home.

well supposedly it was not really designed to make life less hard per se'.  it was designed to maximize productivity of the family unit from what i could tell.

Thats not really the problem tho i think.

I think its that the dowry system like all things in life have come to the point where it is being grossly abused.

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to SusanofO)
Profile   Post #: 309
RE: Eradicating women. - 8/22/2007 4:49:18 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

But, I think I maybe see where you are headed with this idea (if it's not self-solving) - if it is the idea of Patriarchy (or Matriarchy) that you are really debating. Or maybe you were just commenting that idea seems to be "in the cards" in the future of China (and maybe it is).


The latter. Major changes are in the cards for them, one way or the other.

I couldn't care less about patriarchy vs matriarchy, which has nothing to do with my dangly bits.

Take too many of my rights away, and I'll either leave for greener pastures or fight for them; then I'll still have them, or I'll be dead, for whatever reason. Either way, solves my problem. Let me keep enough of them that I'm content, and I will live with whatever government is imposed on me, patriarchal, matriarchal, theocratic, democratic, socialist, liberal, or whatever.

It's really as simple as that for me. Kind of like a cat. It puts up with it's "owners" (meal tickets) quirks, unless they become more of a problem than it's willing to live with, at which point it will strike out on its own or attack its "owners".

quote:


Sex-selectiv abortion seems like a thing they would maybe think they need to institute


I think you may have rather inaccurate views about China. They're socialists, not libertines...

quote:


creating new geographic enemies, which could be dangerous for them


New enemies is not a significant risk for China.

They have a solid army, are nuclear warfare-capable, and have the ability to mobilize a pretty huge effort. Like what is the case for the US, the only risk China might face, would have to come from an enemy willing to lose everything, or an enemy that controls the resources they need to operate their country (oil for the US, nothing much for China).

quote:


And the idea either one is justified, simply due to "econonmics", earthquakes, hurricanes, poverty, etc. - is ludicrous (to me).


Well, some people value species survival, some value traditions, other value higher ideals. You and me are in the latter category (in my case simply because I couldn't care less about species survival). Indians are in the middle category. Some people tend to the first category, and I sometimes represent their views in a debate, without subscribing to them.

Cynically speaking, in a survival scenario, such as poverty or natural disasters, the population suffers and dies. Parts of it may survive through various means; one of those is viewing women as a source of babies, i.e. a necessary component for the next generation. They are the bottleneck that determines the number of offspring one can have.

These things level out over time, though.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to SusanofO)
Profile   Post #: 310
RE: Eradicating women. - 8/22/2007 4:53:26 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

You contradict yourself.. in one breath you point out, quite correctly, that Mother Theresa dedicated herself to a larger ideal...which was the ideal envisioned by the Catholic Church. Then you say that she put humanity first.


There is no contradiction. Humans are imperfect beings. She chose the path she thought best. And she gave her life for what she thought would be for humanity's best. Perhaps she chose the wrong path, I dunno. But she certainly tried to help as well as she could. One would assume there were compromises and fuckups along the way, but shit happens.

She tried harder than anyone here, and I believe that was Sinergy's point.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to Alumbrado)
Profile   Post #: 311
RE: Eradicating women. - 8/22/2007 4:55:00 PM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

Then overthrow it, or leave. Worked well enough in the west. Will happen in the rest of the world, eventually.



Aswad, you're starting to piss me off. I'm remaining calm: but there, I have informed you.

_____________________________



(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 312
RE: Eradicating women. - 8/22/2007 4:57:31 PM   
kiyari


Posts: 631
Status: offline
Mother Theresa had petitioned the (then-)Pope for permission to retire, and was denied.

I would very much like to have seen her memoirs.

_____________________________

Black Water Dragon

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 313
RE: Eradicating women. - 8/22/2007 4:58:55 PM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:



I don't see how you can be a feminist and not think about men. One of the gross misconceptions about feminism is that it's only about women. But in order for women to live freely, men have to live freely, too. Feminism has shown us that what we think of as feminine is actually defined by cultural messages and political agendas. The same holds true for men and for what constitutes masculinity. Being a feminist opens your eyes to the ways men, like women, are imprisoned in cultural stereotypes.

(Susan Faludi)



Aswad, this is the quote I made way before you intervened in the thread. I agree with Faludi, and that's why I quoted her. Putting things in perspective.


_____________________________



(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 314
RE: Eradicating women. - 8/22/2007 5:22:02 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

Aswad: I see your point, but - I think what kittensol was maybe saying, and the entire point of this thread - is that when sufferring of one portion of a population reaches such non-egalitarian and severe proportions (such as in Darfur, for example)that entire parts of it are being wiped out due to those beliefs, it isn't just "to each their own" anymore - it might be time for others to help take action to  help alleviate their suffering. Bosnia is another great example.


Sure. Go down there. Provide an alternative. Or find someone who does. Give them a choice. kittenSol claims to be pro-choice. But she's only pro-choice as long as the choice is to her liking. That's not pro-choice at all. What you're both saying is "you can have as much freedom as you like inside the kennel I put you in". That's not freedom of choice.

These people are screwed. And they do desperate things to fix it, regardless of what the law says.
If someone puts a gun to my head, I will defend myself, regardless of what the law says.
These people have a figurative gun to their head, and are dealing with it the same way.

Preventing them from trying to "fix" their situation will do nothing but breed contempt and insure they stay in the situation they were trying to get out of. It's like when a company up here suggested that they could fund a factory in wherever, set up so that they turned a profit, but the entire profit would go to educating and providing for the poor kids that would be working there. They suggested this because that's something they could afford to do, and which would help in the long term.

Obviously, the chorus of naysayers cried "Child labour! Oh, the horror!", and then the factory was never built. Instead of a few hundred children growing up with a stable income, a roof over their head, and a proper education, a few hundred kids were fed for a little while, then they just starved to death, and nothing had changed.

Limiting the number of female offspring makes things better when the population cannot sustain itself. Limiting the number of male offspring makes things better, too, but only if it's a whole lot worse, as men are not at risk of becoming pregnant, but still have the capacity to work. They will contribute a certain number of work-years, then die, leaving no offspring to further increase the burden on society. Those who do well for themself will end up with the women that are available, and those women will be better off, as will their children.

It's cynical, perhaps, but reality is harsh.

quote:


So is the Holocaust.


The only thing that brought an end to the Holocaust was that Hitler just had to take it too far. Humanitarian concerns were nice propaganda material, but they were not a factor in deciding to end it. In fact, the extent of the Holocaust was only known at a later point in time, and had the beneficial effect of ending the prevalent anti-semitic attitudes of the day.

quote:


I've had a problem with the dowry system in India since the first time I heard about its consequences. It really amounts to financial extortion. The fact it is a "tradition" doesn't really disguise that (to me).


I couldn't care less about tradition. But I care about people getting to choose for themself. Various soldiers have said "I may not agree with what you say, but I will die for your right to say it." Somehow, it doesn't have quite such a nice ring to it to say "I may not agree with aborting your female offspring, but I will die for your right to choose to do so." Doesn't make it any less valid, though. Either we accept freedom, or we reject it. Freedom within the confines of what the majority considers acceptable is not, and has never been, freedom.

That said, I dislike the concept of a dowry. The specifics are unimportant.

quote:


I don't have to live there, granted, so maybe it's none of my business.


That would be my take on it.

quote:


However, I can maybe make a financial donation to help alleviate it, or something like that.


Go there for a vacation. Find a doctor that provides these services. Tell him that you are looking for someone who has made the decision to have an abortion due to the gender of the child, and that you want to pay him what he would be paid for his services, along with paying the family for giving you the child. Then bring it back home with you.

That's helping, albeit limited in scope.

Alternatively, solve the poverty problem in India. It does more good, but is more difficult.

quote:


The people, who actually live in these countries don't like these ideas either (in many cases).


So those people don't do those things, or they are just hypocrites. News at 11, or not.

quote:


The only reason I can see that their objections are diregarded are:


Doesn't matter much. The reason their objection should be disregarded is that it's the woman's choice.

(Yes, I know about pressure, etc., but that applies in the west, too.)

quote:


1) They are female - so their opinion doesn't really "count" anyway, - although I am sure many men object as well (especially the fathers of daughters, most likely)


Quite possibly. If the woman isn't given a choice in it, you can help educate women to bring about change from within, the way these things always start (if successful). Travel down there, or pool money with others to hire someone to do so, and start a school for women who want an education, give them that education for free, and tell them to teach others.

If the pregnant woman has a choice, respect her choice.

quote:


2) These traditions are ingrained in the culture, via centuries of use.


There are many traditions in the western culture that are abhorrent: lack of LGBT marriages, lack of recognition for kinks and power-dynamic relationships, use of the death penalty in some countries, reliance on oil over renewable energy sources, public obsession with media personalities, interfering with other cultures and countries, using abortion as a retroactive contraceptive, crappy public education in some places, trends toward Orwellian societies, property tax, animal rights atrocities, and so forth.

Doesn't mean I'm in favour of invading any of these countries to change their culture.

Perhaps I should start a thread on how Palestinian girls are DRE-searched at Israeli airports.
Except that thread would be pulled, obviously, as we don't talk about such things here.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to SusanofO)
Profile   Post #: 315
RE: Eradicating women. - 8/22/2007 5:27:33 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline
What is "DRE-searched"?

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 316
RE: Eradicating women. - 8/22/2007 5:28:37 PM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
Aswad, on a personal note I have to ask you to stop saying what I think or do not think. If you have a question, or a lingering doubt, there's no shame in seeking clarification.

Also, don't say Indians are "seriously fucked": it's fucking offensive. They're not fucked. No more than you or me: if you read the thread carefully you will see that there is information and links to the issue at stake. But I'll remind you of something crucial here: the majority of Indian families who terminate female fetuses are well off. They're middle-class people. They're definitely not fighting for their lives.

A case of your prejudice? You think "India" and imagine starving babies? India's a rather modern nation now. Look it up.

_____________________________



(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 317
RE: Eradicating women. - 8/22/2007 5:32:50 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

I am always intrigued by your posts. I appreciate what you have to say here.


Thank you. My apologies if some of them may seem a bit blunt. It would be a full-time job otherwise.

quote:


As for me, I don't have any kids, so my conscience is clean.


Same thing here.

I'm for a particular kind of choice: family planning. When that fails, I'm in favour of allowing the foetus to be killed in self-defense, if bearing it to term would be a significant risk to the parent(s) involved. Choices have consequences. A consequence of the choice to have sex is the risk of pregnancy. It's her body. She should choose if she wants to take that risk with it.

Which is as much as I will say on my stance on abortion in this thread, lest it be derailed.

quote:


While personally, I can't go as far as to deny people the right to procreate (by law anyway), I agree it would  be ideal if more people would take their circumstances and potential parenting skills into consideration before procreating in the first place.


~nods~

It is a well-documented fact that the number of offspring is generally inversely proportional to the ability to provide for them. If the general population of Africa were educated with regard to that fact and its consequences on a large scale, we would have a new financial superpower in a century or so. Instead, they have regular famines.

quote:


I've toyed with the idea for years of making people licensed to become parents (making them take a parenting class first, etc).


I'm torn between saying children have no rights, and leaving it up to the parents entirely, or going with a licencing approach, a parents' licence, akin to the drivers' licence. I tend strongly toward the latter approach. Mess up once, and you've committed a crime, the penalty for which is bearing it to term and having it taken away. Repeat offenders have a vasectomy or tube tying, depending on gender. It isn't that hard to learn to become a good parent, after all, and those who can't, or won't, shouldn't be.

quote:


It is truly a totalitarian idea, I'll admit that.


No more so than regulating sports, having prisons, and demanding drivers' licences.

quote:


And also would be very difficult to implement (if not impossible)


Again, there would be a cultural barrier to what I consider optimal.

quote:


But I used to do volunteer work in a children's shelter for abused kids, so I may have a rather skewed view on this topic.


I come at it from a pragmatic angle, and I tend to agree.

P.S.: Pragmatic does not mean I disregard children's welfare, though I'm still ambivalent about their rights.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to SusanofO)
Profile   Post #: 318
RE: Eradicating women. - 8/22/2007 5:39:36 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

cloudboy stated in another thread and post that (men's lack of a vagina, and their craving for it) is the entire reason for some people's hatred of the idea of ProDommes. There was yet another thread be-moaning the existence of ProDommes, a few days ago.


Seems an apt analysis.

Search for the word prostitution in posts by me and you'll find some threads where other posters have offered quite interesting views on how prostitution came to be seen as a bad thing, and how it can be the best option, or even a good thing. You may find some of the sides of the issue rather intriguing, especially with a Catholic background.

For that matter, read The Slut Manifesto by Lizzard Amazon.

Women's views on this are the most interesting, if you go deeper into the subject.

quote:


But it also makes me wonder why their aren't more male ProDoms - because females can crave cock just as much, IMO.


If I had the required level of skill, I'd certainly go for it, and not for want of pussy. From what I know of male prostitution, women seek such services through different channels, though, and it's a hard (no pun intended) business to get into, requiring referrals and lots of social networking before you get clients. And the skill requirements are a lot higher.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to SusanofO)
Profile   Post #: 319
RE: Eradicating women. - 8/22/2007 5:41:54 PM   
SusanofO


Posts: 5672
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline
Aswad: I agree with you about the male ProDoms but -

What you have said in a nutshell, re: Eradicating the suffering of females in blatantly Patriarchal cutures, is tantamount to saying that you are against all forms of charity, and alleviating suffering, simply bevcause these practices are their "culture", and up to them and them only to alleviate.

Well - the people living there don't particularly appreciate them a lot of the time, either. So I don't consider that interfering - I consider intervention (mostly financial and practical, within reason) to be helping.

Also - not allowing charity goes against the traditions of almost any religion on the planet, regardless of the prevailing culture, or its Patriarchal (or Matriarchal) traditions. Thanks for letting me know that charity is tantamount to cultural interference - I will stop sending money to Amnesty International, the Red Cross and World Vision.

Also, the idea that many are in a position to simply "leave for greener pastures" in the immediate time-frame, is slightly absurd. Although over decades, maybe they will do just that.

I see many of these people as being in the same poisition as an abused child would be in. Moreover, the law as it stands simply has the deck stacked against females. I realize that dowries have been out-lawed; I am referring to cultural traditions but also some of the laws - what are they to do to fight that, if it is considered an extreme social crime to begin with? It is a viscious, and culturally self-perpetuatuing, cycle of abuse.

Re: Child Labor. Maybe a hundred years ago, I would have agreed with you. Today, however, there are plenty of other countries willing to aid India in stopping having to resort to things like child labor. Ditto for China, Thailand, Vietnam, et al. We are living in the 21st century, not the 18th century. These people have been given grants by other governments to upgrade things like factory equipment. Other options exist, for many (not all), but certainly for many.

Whether or not it is due to poverty - allowing 3 year old male children to be responsble for the family's economic welfare is both pathetic and yes, I am sorry - but it can be seen to a large degree as a cultural tradition - in much the same way that not allowing females to work at al for money can be seen as a cultural tradition.

**What you are is basically a political isolationist - which is fine.

I admit some of these problems might be due to povety - but - this argument just doesn' t hold water with me, overall. It is existing due to not seeing value in children's existence. There are cultures on the planet that simply do not allow it, under any circumstances. As long as there are an exception(s), I just cannot consider it to be some "necessity" - if even due to so-called "cultural traditions". Traditions are not always necessities - although perhaps at one time, it was seen as necessary.

As far as licensing parents, I think the idea is a good one. However, that leaves the problem of governing everyone who is attempting to pro-create at the moment of conception - which is pretty much impossible to do. But I do not consider parenthood some kind of "inalienable right". I've just seen too much child abuse, I guess. The real problem would be, IMO, that any bureaucracy given the right to decide what is a fit parent, would probably be subject to bribery and also -bottom line - what makes a fit parent it is still a subjective judgment - beyond providing things like food, water, medical care, education and safety. So it's a conundrum, IMO.   

P.S.: If change always comes from within- then why is there such a thing as (non-civil) war - at all?

RealOne:
Thanks for the reply. I don't have an good answer for why it exists, either.

- Susan  

< Message edited by SusanofO -- 8/22/2007 6:36:58 PM >


_____________________________

"Hope is the thing with feathers,
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all". - Emily Dickinson

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 320
Page:   <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Eradicating women. Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094