The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[The Blaatschapen]

That WOULD be helpful for women who are struggling with their pregnancies. But it depends. What would these artificial wombs do? Anything more than any other womb?

Maybe they'll be able to be plugged into a standard 110v outlet and grown at home, preferably with see-through walls so you can observe the fetus as it goes through the stages of development.

For the record. 110V is not standard over here.

230V is.

[Olerand]

Uhm... No, I don't. I don't believe people sell their organs for fun, or because they genuinely could do anything else, but realized that this is the right career choice for them. Again, I don't believe you can choose indentured servitude and related human-selling practices, "willingly" or otherwise.

If you do it without the expectation of monetary gain, then to me, that is a different concept. To French law, unfortunately, it is not, but to me, it is.

So what about prostitutes or porn stars (Both male and female) who actually chose the job because they enjoy sex? Are they indentured servants? Even though they willing joined because they wanted to.

There are many reasons people might become a surrogate: Altruistic reasons, monetary gains, etc... But labeling an entire practice as servitude because some people do it for reasons you don't like is just plain wrong and close minded.

With the possibility of gainful employment, are there many porn stars who would do porn? If they can make money, enough money, not minimum wage shit jobs, doing something else, would they be in porn?

I don't deny that extremely individual cases exist, I just don't think that justifies the legitimization of a system that, as it exists today, is exploitative and harmful. For paid surrogacy, I don't see it at all. For porn/prostitution, I actually don't support France's recent move to criminalize the purchase of sexual services (as the Nordics do) because I don't think it's in the best interest of sex workers. I believe in better regulations and unionizations, but I still fundamentally believe that in the vast majority of cases, prostitution is an exploitative practice that one is forced into, and does not willingly enter. Even if there are rare individuals who genuinely could make good money doing something else but just enjoy this job.

Individual choice, more often than not without true free will, does not justify an exploitative system.

As for altruism, I've already said I don't disagree with it, though the law does. It, as well, does not justify the exploitative money-for-organs scheme that modern surrogacy has become.

[Olerand]

Yes. I believe that it is not truly a free choice for a woman in dire economic conditions to rent out her womb to wealthy people for them to use.

Women's (and men) bodies are theirs to dispose of, but not to sell. Human beings, and their limbs/organs, are not for sale.

What the actual hell are you on about? What sort of intellectual junkfood has you thinking that bodily sovereignty is only valid when it comes to decisions that you personally disapprove of? If you want to talk about how wrong it is that some people have to sell a few of their organs to make ends meet, fine. You'd have a point there. But putting the tricky nature of free choice aside, do you honestly believe that no one donates their organs out of goodwill and the money is just a bonus? And likewise, some women become surrogates because they genuinely feel sorrow for couples that can't conceive?

The same that does not justify the sale of organs/human beings because they "want to". I understand that in some countries (English speaking countries) where individualism has gone crazy to the point where you very well can sell yourself, or subject yourself to whatever because "you want to" (superficially, not factoring in socioeconomic needs and criteria), this is difficult to grasp. But it is a position that many (millions, almost all of Europe, with exceptions in Eastern Europe, Belgium, Finland and Ireland; in addition to as China, Japan, Québec, etc.) do not find that difficult a concept to understand.

[New haven america]

So what about prostitutes or porn stars (Both male and female) who actually chose the job because they enjoy sex? Are they indentured servants? Even though they willing joined because they wanted to.

There are many reasons people might become a surrogate: Altruistic reasons, monetary gains, etc... But labeling an entire practice as servitude because some people do it for reasons you don't like is just plain wrong and close minded.

1. With the possibility of gainful employment, are there many porn stars who would do porn? If they can make money, enough money, not minimum wage shit jobs, doing something else, would they be in porn?

2. I don't deny that extremely individual cases exist, I just don't think that justifies the legitimization of a system that, as it exists today, is exploitative and harmful. For paid surrogacy, I don't see it at all. For porn/prostitution, I actually don't support France's recent move to criminalize the purchase of sexual services (as the Nordics do) because I don't think it's in the best interest of sex workers. 3.I believe in better regulations and unionizations, but I still fundamentally believe that in the vast majority of cases, prostitution is an exploitative practice that one is forced into, and does not willingly enter. Even if there are rare individuals who genuinely could make good money doing something else but just enjoy this job.

Individual choice, more often than not without true free will, does not justify an exploitative system.

As for altruism, I've already said I don't disagree with it, though the law does. It, as well, does not justify the exploitative money-for-organs scheme that modern surrogacy has become.

1. Yes. Jenna Jameson for example, started when she was 18 and kept going until she was in her 30's-40's because she loved sex and showing herself off, and she's not a unique case.
2. As stated before, you're being close minded. How is it exploitative if the people make the choice to do it? (Oh, and btw, there exists a lot of legal and medical laws and practices behind surrogacy, so chances are that if someone decided to do it because they had no other job option, they wouldn't be able to meet the surrogacy requirements to begin with).
3. I agree, the should be legalized, unionized, and regulated.

[Olerand]

1. With the possibility of gainful employment, are there many porn stars who would do porn? If they can make money, enough money, not minimum wage shit jobs, doing something else, would they be in porn?

2. I don't deny that extremely individual cases exist, I just don't think that justifies the legitimization of a system that, as it exists today, is exploitative and harmful. For paid surrogacy, I don't see it at all. For porn/prostitution, I actually don't support France's recent move to criminalize the purchase of sexual services (as the Nordics do) because I don't think it's in the best interest of sex workers. 3.I believe in better regulations and unionizations, but I still fundamentally believe that in the vast majority of cases, prostitution is an exploitative practice that one is forced into, and does not willingly enter. Even if there are rare individuals who genuinely could make good money doing something else but just enjoy this job.

Individual choice, more often than not without true free will, does not justify an exploitative system.

As for altruism, I've already said I don't disagree with it, though the law does. It, as well, does not justify the exploitative money-for-organs scheme that modern surrogacy has become.

1. Yes. Jenna Jameson for example, started when she was 18 and kept going until she was in her 30's-40's because she loved sex and showing herself off, and she's not a unique case.
2. As stated before, you're being close minded. How is it exploitative if the people make the choice to do it? (Oh, and btw, there exists a lot of legal and medical laws and practices behind surrogacy, so chances are that if someone decided to do it because they had no other job option, they wouldn't be able to meet the surrogacy requirements to begin with).
3. I agree, the should be legalized, unionized, and regulated.

1- I don't know her, but I've already written out my argument on individual choices.

2- Because the system is exploitative. Individuals can, in a minority of cases, make the choice to enter it voluntarily, but the system itself is exploitative. Most in it are not there by true free will, and those who are there do not legitimize the exploitative practice.
Why not? Are the poor physically incapable of meeting the requirements of being a mother? The popularity of surrogacy (for Europeans at least) using Indian women's wombs does not suggest that India's poor meet the criteria for a well-fed, well-cared for middle class lifestyle.

[Ors Might]

What the actual hell are you on about? What sort of intellectual junkfood has you thinking that bodily sovereignty is only valid when it comes to decisions that you personally disapprove of? If you want to talk about how wrong it is that some people have to sell a few of their organs to make ends meet, fine. You'd have a point there. But putting the tricky nature of free choice aside, do you honestly believe that no one donates their organs out of goodwill and the money is just a bonus? And likewise, some women become surrogates because they genuinely feel sorrow for couples that can't conceive?

The same that does not justify the sale of organs/human beings because they "want to". I understand that in some countries (English speaking countries) where individualism has gone crazy to the point where you very well can sell yourself, or subject yourself to whatever because "you want to" (superficially, not factoring in socioeconomic needs and criteria), this is difficult to grasp. But it is a position that many (millions, almost all of Europe, with exceptions in Eastern Europe, Belgium, Finland and Ireland; in addition to as China, Japan, Québec, etc.) do not find that difficult a concept to understand.

Yes, here in the states the notion that you should be allowed to live as you please (with the criteria that you refrain from violating one's rights) without excessive government interference is a strong one. I don't see that as a bad thing, trusting that grown adults are mentally capable of making their own decisions. Do you genuinely not believe that individuals have a right to their own bodies?

[Olerand]

The same that does not justify the sale of organs/human beings because they "want to". I understand that in some countries (English speaking countries) where individualism has gone crazy to the point where you very well can sell yourself, or subject yourself to whatever because "you want to" (superficially, not factoring in socioeconomic needs and criteria), this is difficult to grasp. But it is a position that many (millions, almost all of Europe, with exceptions in Eastern Europe, Belgium, Finland and Ireland; in addition to as China, Japan, Québec, etc.) do not find that difficult a concept to understand.

Yes, here in the states the notion that you should be allowed to live as you please (with the criteria that you refrain from violating one's rights) without excessive government interference is a strong one. I don't see that as a bad thing, trusting that grown adults are mentally capable of making their own decisions. Do you genuinely not believe that individuals have a right to their own bodies?

And that's a worldview we don't share. We don't think you can sell yourself/your organs. Mayhap you disagree. We disagree with your position, it is... inhumane.

[Ors Might]

Yes, here in the states the notion that you should be allowed to live as you please (with the criteria that you refrain from violating one's rights) without excessive government interference is a strong one. I don't see that as a bad thing, trusting that grown adults are mentally capable of making their own decisions. Do you genuinely not believe that individuals have a right to their own bodies?

And that's a worldview we don't share. We don't think you can sell yourself/your organs. Mayhap you disagree. We disagree with your position, it is... inhumane.

It's inhumane to let people live their lives? Are you joking? Respecting the rights of others is pretty humane.

[Olerand]

And that's a worldview we don't share. We don't think you can sell yourself/your organs. Mayhap you disagree. We disagree with your position, it is... inhumane.

It's inhumane to let people live their lives? Are you joking? Respecting the rights of others is pretty humane.

It's inhumane to allow an exploitative system to buy and sells poor people's organs.

[Ors Might]

It's inhumane to let people live their lives? Are you joking? Respecting the rights of others is pretty humane.

It's inhumane to allow an exploitative system to buy and sells poor people's organs.

The system isn't selling the organs, though. The previous owner of said organs is doing the selling. If I were to sell one of my kidneys, it would be a choice that I alone made. I wouldn't be exploited just because I got some cash out of it.

[Olerand]

It's inhumane to allow an exploitative system to buy and sells poor people's organs.

The system isn't selling the organs, though. The previous owner of said organs is doing the selling. If I were to sell one of my kidneys, it would be a choice that I alone made. I wouldn't be exploited just because I got some cash out of it.

The system is surrogacy. The system is the transaction. The system is the need to sell your organs. No one, and nothing, exists in a vacuum.

[The Imperium Empires]

Im an avid supporter of feminism, even though Im a guy. I believe in equality for all, no matter the gender. Though feminism does get a bad rap from a couple bad eggs that seems to have soured the idea to a lot of people.

[Ors Might]

The system isn't selling the organs, though. The previous owner of said organs is doing the selling. If I were to sell one of my kidneys, it would be a choice that I alone made. I wouldn't be exploited just because I got some cash out of it.

The system is surrogacy. The system is the transaction. The system is the need to sell your organs. No one, and nothing, exists in a vacuum.

Vacuum or no, when a person makes a choice that concerns them and them alone, no one has the right to keep them from doing so. No matter what moralistic nonsense someone uses to hinder them.

[Olerand]

The system is surrogacy. The system is the transaction. The system is the need to sell your organs. No one, and nothing, exists in a vacuum.

Vacuum or no, when a person makes a choice that concerns them and them alone, no one has the right to keep them from doing so. No matter what moralistic nonsense someone uses to hinder them.

No he/she doesn't. You have no right to sell yourself into slavery, no matter "how much you individually want to".

[Galloism]

Maybe they'll be able to be plugged into a standard 110v outlet and grown at home, preferably with see-through walls so you can observe the fetus as it goes through the stages of development.

For the record. 110V is not standard over here.

230V is.

If growing a fetus in Europe, you may need an adapter.

[Ors Might]

Vacuum or no, when a person makes a choice that concerns them and them alone, no one has the right to keep them from doing so. No matter what moralistic nonsense someone uses to hinder them.

No it doesn't. You have no right to sell yourself into slavery, no matter "how much you individually want to".

Yes you do. Otherwise, you don't have a right to your body. You don't have a right to your labor. And you don't have a right to your life. If some dumbass for whatever reason wants to work for someone without pay for the rest of their life, then that's their business. I don't accept the idea that ruling someone's life makes them free or empowered.

[Olerand]

No it doesn't. You have no right to sell yourself into slavery, no matter "how much you individually want to".

Yes you do. Otherwise, you don't have a right to your body. You dib't have a right to your labor. And you don't have a right to your life. If some dumbass for whatever reason wants to work for someone without pay for the rest of their life, then that's their business. I don't accept the idea that ruling someone's life makes them free or empowered.

No, according to international law and post-1800s morality, you don't. You can disagree, but I have nothing further to say on that.

[Galloism]

Im an avid supporter of feminism, even though Im a guy. I believe in equality for all, no matter the gender. Though feminism does get a bad rap from a couple bad eggs that seems to have soured the idea to a lot of people.

Where does this "couple of bad eggs" delusion come from anyway?

[Apiawai]

Im an avid supporter of feminism, even though Im a guy. I believe in equality for all, no matter the gender. Though feminism does get a bad rap from a couple bad eggs that seems to have soured the idea to a lot of people.

I absolutely LOVE it when people, girls included, at my school, when asked "Are you a feminist?" they respond with "Ew. No. That's disgusting." Yes. Equality is disgusting and I absolutely hate it. I would love to educate them, but I anything I say would be disregarded instantly.

[The Imperium Empires]

Im an avid supporter of feminism, even though Im a guy. I believe in equality for all, no matter the gender. Though feminism does get a bad rap from a couple bad eggs that seems to have soured the idea to a lot of people.

Where does this "couple of bad eggs" delusion come from anyway?

I've never been too sure about that, possibly people against the idea?

[Galloism]

Where does this "couple of bad eggs" delusion come from anyway?

I've never been too sure about that, possibly people against the idea?

I mean the delusion that it's only a 'couple of bad eggs'. Observe:

I selectively edit posts and respond to portions when I feel I have something to say.

I'm not activist, so I really don't have anything to say on the other front.
I disagree that "feminism" is holding back issues such as men's domestic violence, male victim rape and the like, because feminism wants to eliminate harmful gender roles such as "toxic masculinity" - with that specifically covering, amongst other things "what? Men can't get beat up by women. Grow a pair." and "what do you mean you were raped, you got laid, fuck off fag".

Does a small minority of radical feminists (who aren't well-liked at all in wider feminism), some of which may be motivated by a hatred of men pretty equivalent to that of legit misogynists, actively try and torpedo things like men's violence shelters?
Yes, those people are worthless trash. They are, as vocal hardcore subsets usually are, loud and disruptive and not representative.

Here's the thing, if they are a small minority, why are they so in control of the policy and the narrative?

They've spent almost 40 years torpedoing the truth about the prevalence of domestic violence, with great success, using tactics ranging from career threats to actual bomb threats.

In addition, when men attempt to contact help lines or DV shelters, which are mainly run by feminist groups, they are routinely accused of being the batterer in disguise, given contact info for a batterer's program, and/or openly mocked by the staff.

Feminists have fought against gender neutral rape laws, in both Israel and India.

Those are mainstream positions now.

However, they weren't always. In the United States, it used to be that only radical feminists opposed making statutory rape laws gender neutral, protecting the right of grown women to fuck little boys.

It was probably largely thanks to Mary Koss's efforts that the CDC used the a sexist definition of rape attempting to downplay male victims. She is, after all, on the CDC think tank, and her view is men can't be raped by women.

Look, if it's a "small minority group" leading this crusade, feminsim has let the lunatics run the asylum. This "small minority" has been blocking progress for FORTY YEARS. It's not me playing it up - it's the actual and real victims they've been oppressing and violent perpetrators they've been protecting.

Look, I know you want to think the best of the feminist movement, and I'm not saying it's irredeemable, but the only way it can BE redeemed is if you push back against these sexist radical feminists and get loud and in charge screaming "THESE PEOPLE DON'T REPRESENT US", and get the movement on track to seek equality again.

The evidence is overwhelming. Your belief that it isn't there doesn't line up. Until you recognize the problem, you will never fix it.

Because there is some bizarre pushback over women thinking "in these areas, I think we don't enjoy the same things men do here", I believe there is a significant bias from anti-feminist outlets to play up these groups and project some image that this is all the feminist movement is.

Does it not surprise you that after all these years people still seriously bring up that legitimately one really angry red-haired woman for "look how trash all of feminism is"?

I'm looking at what feminism has done as a movement, not what one loudmouth does.

[Apiawai]

Where does this "couple of bad eggs" delusion come from anyway?

I've never been too sure about that, possibly people against the idea?

It's the self-proclaimed "feminists" that advocate women are better than men, rather than equality that give feminism a bad connotation.

[Ors Might]

Yes you do. Otherwise, you don't have a right to your body. You dib't have a right to your labor. And you don't have a right to your life. If some dumbass for whatever reason wants to work for someone without pay for the rest of their life, then that's their business. I don't accept the idea that ruling someone's life makes them free or empowered.

No, according to international law and post-1800s morality, you don't. You can disagree, but I have nothing further to say on that.

Fine. We're getting off topic anyway. I still fail to see how being hired to carry a child for nine months is equivalent to slavery.

[Ors Might]

Im an avid supporter of feminism, even though Im a guy. I believe in equality for all, no matter the gender. Though feminism does get a bad rap from a couple bad eggs that seems to have soured the idea to a lot of people.

I absolutely LOVE it when people, girls included, at my school, when asked "Are you a feminist?" they respond with "Ew. No. That's disgusting." Yes. Equality is disgusting and I absolutely hate it. I would love to educate them, but I anything I say would be disregarded instantly.

You do understand that feminists aren't synonymous with equality, don't you? Neither is third-wave feminism, for that matter.

[Olerand]

No, according to international law and post-1800s morality, you don't. You can disagree, but I have nothing further to say on that.

Fine. We're getting off topic anyway. I still fail to see how being hired to carry a child for nine months is equivalent to slavery.

You are selling yourself and your organs. But clearly we have very different worldviews, so no point in pursuing this further.