main
side
curve

Senate Let's Talk: Feminism

Discussion in 'Community' started by blubeast1237, Aug 1, 2014.

  1. SateleNovelist11

    SateleNovelist11 Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Jan 10, 2015
    My girlfriend and I are making signs for the Dallas Women's March on Saturday. We're excited, and I encourage anyone to attend marches in the big cities. Our cities will read: "Reject Hate. Embrace Humanity!" and "Power to the Peaceful!"
     
    Juliet316 likes this.
  2. solojones

    solojones Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    Sep 27, 2000
    That's neat. Unfortunately I'm not welcome at the Women's March. But I'm glad you are able to go at least.
     
  3. dp4m

    dp4m Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Is there a story there?

    We have to miss this year's (I'm in the air, and Mav is working), but the NYC march last year seemed pretty inclusive...
     
  4. anakinfansince1983

    anakinfansince1983 Nightsister of Four Realms star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Mar 4, 2011
    I’m guessing it’s because she’s pro-life?

    In Charlotte last year the closest to an abortion rights sign we had was “Keep your laws off my body.” I’m pro-choice during the first trimester only but I felt welcome. Maybe cities have different parameters.

    Mranakinfan and I are marching again this year. Someone at work actually told me last year, “I don’t know too many men who would do that.” I told her she needed to meet some better men.

    The local NOW chapter was supposed to have a sign-making party last night but it got cancelled due to the snow. I think they’re rescheduling for tomorrow night.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2018
  5. anakinfansince1983

    anakinfansince1983 Nightsister of Four Realms star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Great turnout today. Our mayor spoke and then stood alongside the march path and thanked us for marching. I have not heard a count yet but I think the number might be higher than last year.
     
  6. solojones

    solojones Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    Sep 27, 2000
    I feel unwelcome because I am. The Women's March on Washington originally featured a pro-life organization as one of the member organizations. Until other people got pissed off about it and the pro-life group was officially uninvited.

    Obviously our difference is just that we don't believe a fetus is really just your body. To me, this seems like something reasonable women should be allowed to disagree on, because even just scientifically it's a complex issue, leaving religion and all off.

    The Women's March didn't see it that way. Or they did, but they caved to criticism from rabidly dogmatic folks who threatened not to come.

    Personally, I find this to be a shame. Makes it clear the Women's March isn't about all women. Especially because women of color are more likely than rich white women to be pro-life.
     
  7. anakinfansince1983

    anakinfansince1983 Nightsister of Four Realms star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Mar 4, 2011
    That sucks, especially given that those of us who are pro-choice have debates regarding the point in the pregnancy that elective abortion is still acceptable.

    In my ideal world, probably 90 percent of abortions that currently happen, would not happen because all pregnancies would be planned. I feel like to some extent, both sides of the debate lose sight of the importance of planning pregnancies before they happen, many on the pro-choice side being too focused on what happened after the accidental pregnancy has already occurred, and many on the pro-life side being opposed to birth control as well as being opposed to abortion.

    This is probably a better conversation for the abortion thread itself.

    I can see some stances being unwelcome at the Women’s March (“It is part of my female empowerment to believe that women should submit to men and be their helpmeets” would be a bit trollish, for example) but anyone who supports gender equality and the right to plan one’s family, even if that planning does not include elective abortion, should be welcomed, especially since what we are marching for, is far, far more than just abortion rights.

    ETA: And of course the ***hole in Chief found a passive-aggressive way to attempt to troll us:



    It would have been more honest if he had tweeted: “Women’s March, I have no clue what your priorities are and I really don’t care.”

    Also, a good summation on a sign of why Trump does not care why we march and prefers to make passive-aggressive jabs:

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2018
    Iron_lord, Rew, Vaderize03 and 6 others like this.
  8. anakinfansince1983

    anakinfansince1983 Nightsister of Four Realms star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Mar 4, 2011
  9. heels1785

    heels1785 JCC/PT/New Films Manager star 8 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Dec 10, 2003
    [​IMG]

    damn straight
     
  10. Alpha-Red

    Alpha-Red Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Sure, there's some room for reasonable debate as to when an abortion should or shouldn't be allowed. The position of pro-lifers falls outside of that reasonable debate.
     
  11. SateleNovelist11

    SateleNovelist11 Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Jan 10, 2015
    We had a great turnout in Dallas today. I would estimate four or five thousand people. It appeared that CNN and the local news stations were covering us from a bunch of helicopters above. There were even a few photo drones. Weird, but they didn't deter us. My gf and I enjoyed seeing all the people and signs. We saw Leia and Wonder Woman on various signs. My signs read, "Stop this Rape Culture," and, "Power to the Peaceful." My girlfriend's read, "Sorry not sorry! I'm here to share awareness!! Here to change the world!" Fabulous times!
     
  12. Slowpokeking

    Slowpokeking Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Sep 21, 2012
    I doubt Trump will bother to care about it. He's not Obama, he's rotten to the core.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2018
    Alpha-Red likes this.
  13. solojones

    solojones Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    Sep 27, 2000
    Except that isn't true. Just like Anakinsfan is a pro-choice person who believes there should be limits on abortions, I'm a pro-life person who thinks there are cases where abortion should be allowed. We both also agree that contraception AND neonatal cate should be free to help avoid unwanted pregnancies and support women who otherwise would have to abort.

    My problem with the US pro-choice movement is that even the mainstream view supported by milquetoast democrats like Hillary Clinton is "any restrictions on abortions are evil and an imposition on the rights of women". They object to things like viability cut-offs, which exist throughout the rest of the modern world. Their refusal to let pro-life groups into the women's march is an example of this extremism. It's actually in many ways more dogmatic than the pro-life movement, where at least the majority of people believe there should be exceptions for rape. Pro-choice folks in the US don't think there's any good time to tell a woman she can't abort, even in the third trimester when she's in no danger and the baby could be born and survive right then.

    I'm not here to debate the actual issue of abortion. I'm just talking about its place in feminism. Because I think it actually has a much too prominent place in the feminist movement, and I think that hurts the cause a lot. Especially among the African American community, frankly, where I believe most women are pro-life. Alienating over half the country isn't helpful, especially when it includes many POC (Hispanics I believe are also majority pro-life). It makes it look like you're only focused on the perspective of women who went to Bryn Mawr.
     
    Rew likes this.
  14. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
    I have to respectfully disagree with the broadness of your statement. Pro-choice is not a monolithic term any more than pro-life is. Your assertions are akin to my claiming that anyone who opposes abortion can't be pro-life unless they simultaneously oppose the death penalty. You acknowledge the complexity and nuance of the issue, then proceed to label and pidgeonhole all who are pro-choice by your (ahem) choice of words. I don't think this intentional on your part, but you did it nonetheless.

    I am pro-choice. I support elective abortion in the first trimester with increasing restrictions after that, with the belief that abortions after 16 weeks should never occur without a threat to the health or life of the mother. As a physician, I must balance my oath to preserve life with the autonomy of my patients. Neither side is entitled to an absolutist viewpoint on this issue. The difference right here, right now, is that pro-choice voices are out of power, and the extremist elements of the pro-life movement are writing regulations and law which affect us all. Ultimately, this harms the ability for rational voices to seek effective compromise, as the next pro-choice administration will likely not only reverse everything that is currently being done, but enact regulations and laws that go in the opposite direction, continuing the cycle of revenge politics and magnification of the extremes.

    In terms of what "politicians want", it's largely irrelevant on the pro-choice side when it comes to abortions performed after the first trimester. They inherently become more complex medical procedures requiring a team of physicians and nurses to perform, and the individuals--not to mention the hospitals themselves--willing to provide them drop off sharply as pregnancy advances. The hospital where I practice, for example, does not allow abortion to be performed per its by-laws. No amount of posturing by either side is going to change that.

    So yes, it is and remains a complicated issue, one in which both sides would benefit by better learning how to listen to one another (no accusations towards you here; it's just a general statement of how I feel). Until that changes, the extremes will continue to dominate the debate.
     
    Rew and Valairy Scot like this.
  15. Adam of Nuchtern

    Adam of Nuchtern Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 2, 2012
  16. anakinfansince1983

    anakinfansince1983 Nightsister of Four Realms star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Mar 4, 2011
    LOL at this dumb***

    Ah, Courtland Sykes, your view of feminists is so wrong. I’m not sure how many of us bite our nails.
     
  17. Juliet316

    Juliet316 SFTC Bonanza Winner star 10

    Registered:
    Apr 27, 2005
  18. SateleNovelist11

    SateleNovelist11 Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Jan 10, 2015
  19. gezvader28

    gezvader28 Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Mar 22, 2003
  20. Alpha-Red

    Alpha-Red Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Snake-filled heads? The guy is describing himself.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2018
  21. solojones

    solojones Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    Sep 27, 2000

    Well when John Kasich signed a bill to make it so that in Ohio you can only have an abortion past 20 weeks if the mother's life or health are seriously endangered, every mainstream Democratic voice was opposed to it. That's a later cut-off date than your 16 weeks, or Sweden's 18 weeks.

    In fact, the national Democratic platform and Hillary Clinton, the party's most recent nominee for President, were vehemently opposed to any restrictions on abortions, period. Planned Parenthood is as well. Those are not extremists.

    That's the mainstream pro-choice position. I fully believe that there are regular pro-choice folks like you who don't hold those views... But the Democratic party is the mainstream pro-choice party, and they are hardline against any restrictions. They criticize anyone who holds a different position, and they kicked all pro-life people out of the Women's March. This is what I mean by this being a very unhelpful viewpoint from mainstream pro-choice groups.

    I think it's ultimately a detriment to feminist causes, because mainstream Democrats have made it pretty clear that being fully pro-choice is a prerequisite to being a feminist. That means about half of Americans are being told, in their minds, that what they consider murder of a child is a cornerstone of the movement. It shouldn't be, but it absolutely is. It's pushed many people to not like feminism, which is a huge detriment.
     
  22. Alpha-Red

    Alpha-Red Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Pro-choice means allowing abortions in the third trimester? Where are you hearing this from? As for which side is being more dogmatic, well I've never heard anyone on the pro-life side saying "we want to end third trimester abortions", no, it's always about overturning Roe v. Wade and outlawing all abortions. Honestly I have to say that "outlawing all abortions except in the case of rape" still isn't a good position...and many conservatives don't want even that exception. I am not prepared to hear these people out. And if this is what "pro-life" means then I wouldn't blame the overall feminist movement for wanting to exclude them.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2018
  23. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
    Let's take a look at a few things here:
    1) I would disagree that the HRC and the DNC were blanket opposed to any restrictions on abortion. The 'opposition' is to interference in medical decision making between a physician and their patient (in according with accepted standards of practice and evidence-based guidelines) solely for political reasons. That is a reasonable position and not outside the center of political gravity in regards to most pro-choice American's beliefs. Given that the most recent polling keeps support for Roe at 57% nationally, it's inaccurate to claim that the mainstream pro-choice position 'isn't'.

    In terms of not allowing pro-lifers into the Women's March, yes that was a problem, and it shouldn't have happened. They also kept other groups out of the march, such as those that support Israel. So the March had some issues. That being said, I would caution you against extrapolating the position of those who organized the March with all those who identify as pro-choice. That is an absolutist position, and absolutism seldom is as correct as it thinks itself to be.

    2) In terms of being pro-choice and a feminist, I'm not sure how to answer that. Since modern-day feminism involves empowering women to make their own choices free of male dominance, it would stand to reason that having the right to control one's reproductive functions is fundamental to that right. I don't think there's anything wrong with linking pro-choice and feminism. The opposing viewpoint, that women should 'embrace' their role of carriers and raisers of children without questions, is a more conservative one. I think it's find for those who choose to live their lives that way, but it's not their right to force it upon American women 'writ large'. That's where the split comes--is a feminist one who embraces women's liberation, or the tradition role of a woman in the white American family? The answer to that is personal, IMHO, and beyond the scope of what we're trying to accomplish here.

    Now, in looking at your statement regarding the 20-week Ohio ban, I think the reason these bans run into trouble are twofold:

    1) They punish doctors, which puts physicians who deal with high-risk pregnancies in the unenviable position of having to potentially face prosecution should be forced to terminate an advanced pregnancy.

    2) The 20-week ultrasound. Oftentimes, certain complications which are incompatible with life might not be visible or apparent until that time, and a strict cutoff makes it harder to deal with potential problems should they arise. This is problematic on several levels, but the most severe, as a natural consequence of #1, is that hospitals in the states which sharply restrict abortion either a) make it against their by-laws to perform them, necessitating transfer of obstetric emergencies or b) in order to minimize the chance of prosecution or civil litigation, put in place peer-review processes for physicians who perform abortion that are so onerous said physicians choose to stop doing them or c) they drop malpractice coverage for abortion procedures, which has the de facto effect of forcing doctors to stop doing them.

    This goes back to my original point: late-term abortions are RARELY, if ever, performed, and when they are, they are overwhelmingly done for medical reasons. I would fully support criminal penalty for anyone who performs late-2nd or 3rd trimester abortions electively, but again, that requires a dedicated team and I am hard-pressed to believe that this goes on to any great extent (especially in light of evidence that it does not). And Dr. Gosnell was an outlier, and not representative of the specialty of obstetrics-gynecology in any way.

    If we really want to lower the number of abortions, we need to:
    1) Increase access to, and lower the cost of, birth control. The Trump administration has done exactly the opposite, on both counts, and continues to make it easier for employers to target coverage of birth control. This will raise the abortion rate, not lower it.

    2) Mandate universal comprehensive sex education, beginning in 5th grade and gradually increasing through high school.

    3) Have an open, honest debate about abortion, contraception and sex. Right now, only one of the two political parties is honest with themselves and the public when it comes to abortion. The other passes laws that, rather than being about protecting unborn life, are geared more towards control when, with whom and for what reason women have sex. Until we get past the idea that pregnancy is punishment for having intercourse, we won't be able to find common ground. I don't consider most of the anti-abortion laws I see to be 'pro-life'; rather, they are 'anti-choice'--the choice to bear and beget a child, the choice for a woman to engage in sexual relations for pleasure and not procreation, the choice to have control over one's body and reproductive destiny. If so-called 'pro-life' politicians truly respected life, they would honor not only the unborn, but those who were already here. They would enact legislation which empowered women and allowed those with different sets of beliefs to flourish, as opposed to promoting a single dogmatic view that is divisive and fails to garner majority support.


    To say it another way: both political parties claim to want free and fair elections, but only one of them consistently passes voter suppression laws, embraces gerrymandering, and has been found by multiple courts to have engaged in a systemic effort to disenfranchise minorities, all the while toting a problem--massing voter fraud--which has been proven not to exist. The same problem has infected this debate. Until we are honest about our motivations, we will not make progress towards common ground. Yes, there are radical voices on the pro-choice side, but there are far more of them--not to mention pervasive absolutism--on the pro-life side. Claiming otherwise is an example of false equivalence, and until we move beyond that mentality, the answer to the question of abortion will remain elusive.
     
  24. dp4m

    dp4m Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Nope, totally justified. If you are anti-abortion, you are not a feminist. This does not mean "I would never have an abortion because I don't believe in it, but I wouldn't stop someone else from getting one." That's literally pro-choice. If you believe that no one should get an abortion, then you are not pro-life; you are anti-abortion and are incompatible with both feminism and income inequality.
     
    Vaderize03 likes this.