The limits of choice

[Jute]

Thankfully, there are alternatives to ketchup. Especially bland tomato ketchup.

But society pressures you to eat it. Ergo, it must be banned.

Ketchup is oppression.

But I don't even eat it Mayonnaise all the way.

[Mir i Ljubav]

I agree that abstract "choice," isn't inherently a good thing - oppression makes people "choose," the dumbest shit - but what's the use of banning anything? If social conditions exist which cause someone to want a certain thing, banning said thing isn't going to remove the root cause of their desire, but it will make them feel worse. Totally pointless.

Also please don't ban ketchup. My choice to eat ketchup isn't informed by structural oppression. Promise.

[Chessmistress]

But society pressures you to eat it. Ergo, it must be banned.

Ketchup is oppression.

But I don't even eat it Mayonnaise all the way.

Mayonnaise can be even more unhealthy than breast implants, if used all days.
But we have the chance to use it just only few times in a month, making it harmless.
Breast implants: when you undergone the surgery, then you have it, all days.

[Wallenburg]

You're beautiful just the way you are, Monitor. Don't let those men walk all over you!

They need to walk all over me to keep things running. My guns don't load themselves, you know?

I'm just worried for you, M. I don't think those men are right for you. Something goes wrong and I bet they'll want to scrap you like you are garbage.

[Fartsniffage]

Of course, of course. It's not like you opened this thread with a work written by a radfem who wanted to ban the procedure outright, decried it as harmful yourself, said the motivating factor for obtaining the procedure was to conform with societal expectations about body image, and then proposed a tax on the procedure to make it harder to receive with no exceptions mentioned whatsoever.

No, she propose to ban cosmetic breast implants.
If a woman have her breast damaged by an injury or something, the reconstruction is not unhealthy but healthy: it's just repairing the damages she have, for her psychological wellbeing.

All breast reconstruction surgery is cosmetic. If the tissue has been removed in a mastectomy then the silicon bag doesn't return the function to the appendage, only the appearance.

And you comment on psychological wellbeing. Does it not make sense to allow people to do what makes them happy, as long as they aren't harming anyone else?

[Jute]

But I don't even eat it Mayonnaise all the way.

Mayonnaise can be even more unhealthy than breast implants, if used all days.
But we have the chance to use it just only few times in a month, making it harmless.
Breast implants: when you undergone the surgery, then you have it, all days.

"Mayonnaise is an excellent source of vitamin E and K"

[Chessmistress]

I agree that abstract "choice," isn't inherently a good thing - oppression makes people "choose," the dumbest shit - but what's the use of banning anything? If social conditions exist which cause someone to want a certain thing, banning said thing isn't going to remove the root cause of their desire, but it will make them feel worse. Totally pointless.

Also please don't ban ketchup. My choice to eat ketchup isn't informed by structural oppression. Promise.

indeed my idea is not about a ban, is about performing a good societal pressure in order to counteract a bad social pressure: massive awareness campaign + taxation.

[Eol Sha]

People with serious body image problems is the most hurted by social pressure: given they have a REAL mental problem, certified I mean, I think they should have FREE surgeries.
And these free surgeries should be paid, as like as the awareness campaign, by the revenues of the raised taxation on frivolous breast implants and the likes (like inflating lips).

You can't tax freedom, CM.

I agree. If a woman wants to "improve" certain body parts, then I don't think any level of government should be capable of discouraging them through the tax and spend powers granted to them by the various Constitutions and charters governing such entities. I just don't like the idea of giving the government the ability to dictate how women, or anyone for that matter, can live their lives. Awareness campaigns are one thing, but allowing the government to have the ability to directly affect how a woman chooses to modify her body just rubs me the wrong way.

It'd be like installing a sales tax of some sort on every drop of tattoo ink that is placed on a person's skin.

[Kar-Esseria]

Of course, of course. It's not like you opened this thread with a work written by a radfem who wanted to ban the procedure outright, decried it as harmful yourself, said the motivating factor for obtaining the procedure was to conform with societal expectations about body image, and then proposed a tax on the procedure to make it harder to receive with no exceptions mentioned whatsoever.

No, she propose to ban cosmetic breast implants.
If a woman have her breast damaged by an injury or something, the reconstruction is not unhealthy but healthy: it's just repairing the damages she have, for her psychological wellbeing.

So you're saying a woman shouldn't have the right to get bigger breasts just because she wasn't mutilated?

[USS Monitor]

They need to walk all over me to keep things running. My guns don't load themselves, you know?

I'm just worried for you, M. I don't think those men are right for you. Something goes wrong and I bet they'll want to scrap you like you are garbage.

Well, some of them did abandon me when I was sinking...

[Celseon]

No, she propose to ban cosmetic breast implants.
If a woman have her breast damaged by an injury or something, the reconstruction is not unhealthy but healthy: it's just repairing the damages she have, for her psychological wellbeing.

The distinction between cosmetic and plastic surgery is acknowledged, and the point is retracted. Now, about infantilizing women by refusing to recognise their choices as such when they don't choose as you would have them do, which is why you say "choices" instead of choices without the scare quotes...

[Mir i Ljubav]

I agree that abstract "choice," isn't inherently a good thing - oppression makes people "choose," the dumbest shit - but what's the use of banning anything? If social conditions exist which cause someone to want a certain thing, banning said thing isn't going to remove the root cause of their desire, but it will make them feel worse. Totally pointless.

Also please don't ban ketchup. My choice to eat ketchup isn't informed by structural oppression. Promise.

indeed my idea is not about a ban, is about performing a good societal pressure in order to counteract a bad social pressure: massive awareness campaign + taxation.

I don't think that would work either. Taxation will just mean that people go to get their boob jobs or whatever in Switzerland, or that it becomes a luxury product and thus even more enviable. And what exactly are we supposed to raise awareness of? The shittiness of patriarchal social norms? While patriarchal social norms are still enforced from the top and embedded in our society, that sadly won't make a difference.

[Chessmistress]

No, she propose to ban cosmetic breast implants.
If a woman have her breast damaged by an injury or something, the reconstruction is not unhealthy but healthy: it's just repairing the damages she have, for her psychological wellbeing.

So you're saying a woman shouldn't have the right to get bigger breasts just because she wasn't mutilated?

I'm saying we should put social pressure on discouraging women (who aren't mutilated or affected by serious psychological illness about their image) to get bigger breasts.
This good social pressure is needed to counteract a pre-existing bad social pressure on women, enforced by our patriarchal society and meant to please males.
Also, I think there's no need for women to perform such unhealthy things, because, as another poster have already, maybe unwillingly, explained

Granted out of all the men in the world there are more than one that would take any woman regardless of the size of their breasts.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

So you're saying a woman shouldn't have the right to get bigger breasts just because she wasn't mutilated?

I'm saying we should put social pressure on discouraging women (who aren't mutilated or affected by serious psychological illness about their image) to get bigger breasts.
This good social pressure is needed to counteract a pre-existing bad social pressure on women, enforced by our patriarchal society and meant to please males.
Also, I think there's no need for women to perform such unhealthy things, because, as another poster have already, maybe unwillingly, explained

Granted out of all the men in the world there are more than one that would take any woman regardless of the size of their breasts.

Is self-esteem issues not reason enough?

[Chessmistress]

Is self-esteem issues not reason enough?

"Self-esteem" is just another word to frame social pressure of the patriarchal society over women, meant to please males. If women will be taught the size of our breasts is absolutely unrelated with our worth, then "self-esteem" will not be an issue anymore.

Please, it's worth noting that I'm very moderate on that argument, compared to Clare Chambers: she even compared breast implants to FGM: from a moral viewpoint she's absolutely right, of course, because it's the same pattern of oppression, just like also foot binding. But I still think that the real outcome is really different, so a comparison isn't totally fair.

Her publication about it have a very telling title:

“Are breast implants better than female genital mutilation? Autonomy, gender equality and Nussbaum’s political liberalism” in Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy (CRISPP) Vol. 7 No. 3 (Autumn 2004).

[Celseon]

Is self-esteem issues not reason enough?

The assumption is that election for cosmetic breast augmentation on the grounds of self-esteem constitutes a problem by default, which no one can argue isn't the case at least part of the time. Where I take issue is when one extrapolates this to mean that pursuit of cosmetic breast augmentation is inherently the product of issues brought on by society's premium on large breasts, which is only one factor in the decision making process. I'm fine with acknowledging societal pressure as a factor, but this is taken a step further than it should be by the OP and reduces women's ability to make decisions which align with patriarchal values without being driven by them.

That's where the heart of the problem I have lies.

[Kar-Esseria]

So you're saying a woman shouldn't have the right to get bigger breasts just because she wasn't mutilated?

I'm saying we should put social pressure on discouraging women (who aren't mutilated or affected by serious psychological illness about their image) to get bigger breasts.
This good social pressure is needed to counteract a pre-existing bad social pressure on women, enforced by our patriarchal society and meant to please males.
Also, I think there's no need for women to perform such unhealthy things, because, as another poster have already, maybe unwillingly, explained

Granted out of all the men in the world there are more than one that would take any woman regardless of the size of their breasts.

1. Society is not patriarchal.
2. Breast implants aren't meant to please men.
3. Not all women get breast implants to please men.

[The Serbian Empire]

Then what do you do for the women who think they look too much like males due to their lack of breasts? Tell them to bug off?!? And this is why I consider radical feminists as fascists in jack boot high heels. Are we going to have to make me live with breast forms for the rest of my life just because some radical feminist says I shouldn't have breasts? And this is why trans-feminism and radical feminism are mutually exclusive ideologies in my book.

[The Serbian Empire]

So you're saying a woman shouldn't have the right to get bigger breasts just because she wasn't mutilated?

I'm saying we should put social pressure on discouraging women (who aren't mutilated or affected by serious psychological illness about their image) to get bigger breasts.
This good social pressure is needed to counteract a pre-existing bad social pressure on women, enforced by our patriarchal society and meant to please males.
Also, I think there's no need for women to perform such unhealthy things, because, as another poster have already, maybe unwillingly, explained

Then radical feminism is just as unhealthy and will encourage suicides by women who aren't pleased that their bodies don't look like women.

[Chartist Socialist Republics]

I doubt the usefulness of any state or government action in suppressing cultural norms.

[Celseon]

Then what do you do for the women who think they look too much like males due to their lack of breasts? Tell them to bug off?!? And this is why I consider radical feminists as fascists in jack boot high heels. Are we going to have to make me live with breast forms for the rest of my life just because some radical feminist says I shouldn't have breasts? And this is why trans-feminism and radical feminism are mutually exclusive ideologies in my book.

Unless I'm misunderstanding the following I think CM would actually be supportive of trans women obtaining breast augmentation with no cost at the point of access:

People with serious body image problems is the most hurted by social pressure: given they have a REAL mental problem, certified I mean, I think they should have FREE surgeries.
And these free surgeries should be paid, as like as the awareness campaign, by the revenues of the raised taxation on frivolous breast implants and the likes (like inflating lips).

Which is, if I'm on track, actually a fairly pro-trans* position.

[The Serbian Empire]

Then what do you do for the women who think they look too much like males due to their lack of breasts? Tell them to bug off?!? And this is why I consider radical feminists as fascists in jack boot high heels. Are we going to have to make me live with breast forms for the rest of my life just because some radical feminist says I shouldn't have breasts? And this is why trans-feminism and radical feminism are mutually exclusive ideologies in my book.

Unless I'm misunderstanding the following I think CM would actually be supportive of trans women obtaining breast augmentation with no cost at the point of access:

People with serious body image problems is the most hurted by social pressure: given they have a REAL mental problem, certified I mean, I think they should have FREE surgeries.
And these free surgeries should be paid, as like as the awareness campaign, by the revenues of the raised taxation on frivolous breast implants and the likes (like inflating lips).

Which is, if I'm on track, actually a fairly pro-trans* position.

Her sig on the other hand for the longest time mentioned holding Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist views. And then you'd run into the gatekeeper role for both cisgender and transgender women seeking breast implants. Gatekeepers? Some of them will demand years of therapy just to approve or deny treatment.

[Celseon]

Her sig on the other hand for the longest time mentioned holding Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist views. And then you'd run into the gatekeeper role for both cisgender and transgender women seeking breast implants. Gatekeepers? Some of them will demand years of therapy just to approve or deny treatment.

I saw her acknowledge that she knew relatively little about trans* issues, and the designation has been removed. So perhaps she's abandoned TERF after learning more about those issues, and now is only a SWERF? Mind you, I'm against SWERF as much as I am TERF, but we're concerned here with the TERF. Maybe she's changed her tune and would now object to gatekeeping? I can understand that there's plenty of cause for sincere doubt, but maybe? Possibly?

E: Nope. Completely wrong. It's still there.

[The Serbian Empire]

Her sig on the other hand for the longest time mentioned holding Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist views. And then you'd run into the gatekeeper role for both cisgender and transgender women seeking breast implants. Gatekeepers? Some of them will demand years of therapy just to approve or deny treatment.

I saw her acknowledge that she knew relatively little about trans* issues, and the designation has been removed. So perhaps she's abandoned TERF after learning more about those issues, and now is only a SWERF? Mind you, I'm against SWERF as much as I am TERF, but we're concerned here with the TERF. Maybe she's changed her tune and would now object to gatekeeping? I can understand that there's plenty of cause for sincere doubt, but maybe? Possibly?

I'll give her the benefit of the doubt for the time being. Maybe I have changed her with some of my arguments.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Oi, oi. You campaign and try to change society's attitudes through progressive education, not target vulnerable people and try to shame them scared of doing what they want to do.