The NationStates Feminism Thread IV: Fight Like A Girl!

[Sundiata]

...jeez.

Reminds me of why I dislike the Daily Mail.

That is villainously over the top, and the definition of destroying one person's rights to artificially extend someone else's. Reminds me a bit of the religious/cultural rights vs. bodily autonomy rights debates I've seen regarding abortion and infant genital cutting.


Naturally.

You can also find similar takes in The Guardian.

It's not just a loss for women, it's a loss for men. A male contraceptive completely contradicts the idea that human birth is a universally good thing.

[Esalia]

You can also find similar takes in The Guardian.

It's not just a loss for women, it's a loss for men. A male contraceptive completely contradicts the idea that human birth is a universally good thing.

If it takes contradicting the idea that birth is universally good to ensure a male birth control pill, that's a contradiction I'll take in a heartbeat.

[Sundiata]

It's not just a loss for women, it's a loss for men. A male contraceptive completely contradicts the idea that human birth is a universally good thing.

If it takes contradicting the idea that birth is universally good to ensure a male birth control pill, that's a contradiction I'll take in a heartbeat.

Birth is necessary for life, it's good to be alive. It's good that everyone is alive. It's good to start life.

[Esalia]

If it takes contradicting the idea that birth is universally good to ensure a male birth control pill, that's a contradiction I'll take in a heartbeat.

Birth is necessary for life, it's fantastic to be alive.

Indeed it is.

I don't see how this makes a male birth control pill in any way a bad thing. Birth is necessary for life and living is pretty good, so giving someone more control over when they have a child so they can ensure they have a child at a point where they can give that child the best possible life sounds absolutely fantastic, and another tool to facilitate that is a positive for humanity.

[Sundiata]

Birth is necessary for life, it's fantastic to be alive.

Indeed it is.

I don't see how this makes a male birth control pill in any way a bad thing. Birth is necessary for life and living is pretty good, so giving someone more control over when they have a child so they can ensure they have a child at a point where they can give that child the best possible life sounds absolutely fantastic, and another tool to facilitate that is a positive for humanity.

We all want everyone to have the best lives possible. But the cost of that control is not right. Male birth control, by definition, prevents birth, which is always a good thing. To actively stop the process of conception is to stop a good thing.

[Esalia]

Indeed it is.

I don't see how this makes a male birth control pill in any way a bad thing. Birth is necessary for life and living is pretty good, so giving someone more control over when they have a child so they can ensure they have a child at a point where they can give that child the best possible life sounds absolutely fantastic, and another tool to facilitate that is a positive for humanity.

We all want everyone to have the best lives possible. But the cost of that control is not right. Male birth control, by definition, prevents birth, which is always a good thing. To actively stop the process of conception is to stop a good thing.

Is it always a good thing?

Because that I do not believe that it is, unless you completely divorce birth from the consequences of it, in which case a lot of things that otherwise shouldn't be justified can be justified (such as, say, birth control, given the right perspective).

And frankly, like I said, if it takes negating the idea that birth is an absolute good to give people full control over their reproduction, it is an idea I would negate without hesitation. The cost of allowing contraception is barely a cost to me, because I vastly value people having control over their reproduction over treating birth as an absolute good.

[Andsed]

Indeed it is.

I don't see how this makes a male birth control pill in any way a bad thing. Birth is necessary for life and living is pretty good, so giving someone more control over when they have a child so they can ensure they have a child at a point where they can give that child the best possible life sounds absolutely fantastic, and another tool to facilitate that is a positive for humanity.

We all want everyone to have the best lives possible. But the cost of that control is not right. Male birth control, by definition, prevents birth, which is always a good thing. To actively stop the process of conception is to stop a good thing.

Not really. A child being born into a place where they should not be born is not a good thing. Having a child is not something that is a good idea for everyone and should not be treated as such. A couple using birth control so as to avoid having a child when their not ready is hardly preventing a good thing.

[Sundiata]

We all want everyone to have the best lives possible. But the cost of that control is not right. Male birth control, by definition, prevents birth, which is always a good thing. To actively stop the process of conception is to stop a good thing.

Is it always a good thing?

Because that I do not believe that it is, unless you completely divorce birth from the consequences of it, in which case a lot of things that otherwise shouldn't be justified can be justified (such as, say, birth control, given the right perspective).

And frankly, like I said, if it takes negating the idea that birth is an absolute good to give people full control over their reproduction, it is an idea I would negate without hesitation. The cost of allowing contraception is barely a cost to me, because I vastly value people having control over their reproduction over treating birth as an absolute good.

Even in the worst possible circumstances, birth is good because life is absolutely good. While I want people to have control over their reproduction, I don't want that control to come at the cost of reproducing human life in any instance.

[Kowani]

Tunisian judge jails feminist activist for six months on charges of "insulting police and abuse of morals"

[Galloism]

Tunisian judge jails feminist activist for six months on charges of "insulting police and abuse of morals"

I have yet to see an “abuse of morals” or equivalent charge that wasn’t 100% utter bullshit.

[Suriyanakhon]

You can also find similar takes in The Guardian.

It's not just a loss for women, it's a loss for men. A male contraceptive completely contradicts the idea that human birth is a universally good thing.

If it were a loss for men, then men wouldn't be wanting to use these contraceptives.

All making contraceptives available for men does is ensure that they have the same control over their reproductive rights as woman do.

[Auzkhia]

I'm a proud genetic dead end, being the last of a line so to speak does feel empowering. Like, nobody can top this, all of humanity will peak with me. I'm a goddess of infertility lol

[Stellar Colonies]

...jeez.

Reminds me of why I dislike the Daily Mail.

That is villainously over the top, and the definition of destroying one person's rights to artificially extend someone else's. Reminds me a bit of the religious/cultural rights vs. bodily autonomy rights debates I've seen regarding abortion and infant genital cutting.


Naturally.

You can also find similar takes in The Guardian.

Ah, how surprising.

Is it always a good thing?

Because that I do not believe that it is, unless you completely divorce birth from the consequences of it, in which case a lot of things that otherwise shouldn't be justified can be justified (such as, say, birth control, given the right perspective).

And frankly, like I said, if it takes negating the idea that birth is an absolute good to give people full control over their reproduction, it is an idea I would negate without hesitation. The cost of allowing contraception is barely a cost to me, because I vastly value people having control over their reproduction over treating birth as an absolute good.

Even in the worst possible circumstances, birth is good because life is absolutely good. While I want people to have control over their reproduction, I don't want that control to come at the cost of reproducing human life in any instance.

Birth is not a universal good.

Contraception is merely an extension of controlling one's own body, which is nearly always a universal good.

I'm a proud genetic dead end, being the last of a line so to speak does feel empowering. Like, nobody can top this, all of humanity will peak with me. I'm a goddess of infertility lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG8p8HUaAJk

[Sundiata]

If it were a loss for men, then men wouldn't be wanting to use these contraceptives.

I credit that more to confusion or being misguided than I do contraception-use being good or even equivalent in goodness to the propagation of life

All making contraceptives available for men does is ensure that they have the same control over their reproductive rights as woman do.

Men and women have the same natural rights, but it's a leap to suggest that contraceptive-use is the right. On what grounds? If on constitutional grounds, sure. The case can be made but that doesn't make the constitution correct.

[New haven america]

If it were a loss for men, then men wouldn't be wanting to use these contraceptives.

1. I credit that more to confusion or being misguided than I do contraception-use being good or even equivalent in goodness to the propagation of life

All making contraceptives available for men does is ensure that they have the same control over their reproductive rights as woman do.

2. Men and women have the same natural rights, but it's a leap to suggest that contraceptive-use is the right. On what grounds? If on constitutional grounds, sure. The case can be made but that doesn't make the constitution correct.

1. Or maybe they just want some fucc without having to worry about child support or the socioeconomic needs of a young child.
2. This is why theocracy is bad, children.

[Suriyanakhon]

I credit that more to confusion or being misguided than I do contraception-use being good or even equivalent in goodness to the propagation of life

There are clear sighted reasons that men and women have for using contraceptives, ranging from economic to emotional to comfort. Some people can't afford a child, aren't mentally prepared to have children yet, simply don't want to have children because it would require a great deal of time and energy that they don't wish to expend, etc. It's not confusion or being misguided, it's common sense.

I didn't introduce whether or not contraceptives were good, simply that it is not a loss for men to exercise their sexual autonomy. I consider them morally neutral.

Men and women have the same natural rights, but it's a leap to suggest that contraceptive-use is the right. On what grounds? If on constitutional grounds, sure. The case can be made but that doesn't make the constitution correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights

[Sundiata]

1. I credit that more to confusion or being misguided than I do contraception-use being good or even equivalent in goodness to the propagation of life


2. Men and women have the same natural rights, but it's a leap to suggest that contraceptive-use is the right. On what grounds? If on constitutional grounds, sure. The case can be made but that doesn't make the constitution correct.

1. Or maybe they just want some fucc without having to worry about child support or the socioeconomic needs of a young child.
2. This is why theocracy is bad, children.

Well, don't you think that it's a problem with our society that poverty is even possible for any young person, for anyone? We need a more reasonable floor. I understand the socioeconomic concerns about becoming a parent.

I also get that people want to express love romantically without feeling stressed, it's totally normal.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

...and we see yet another demonstration of the religious-conservative mindset on politics.

God demands that everyone that has sex raise children. No, God doesn’t care if you’re ready for that responsibility or not. Whatever life plans you might have had - shove it, God isn’t interested, just have children. If you have a few unresolved mental problems - hey, living is always good, right? I’m sure God won’t mind that children are being raised under unsuitable parents as long as, y’know, they’re born and exist.

God wants civilisation to detonate in environmental catastrophe under uncontrolled population growth.

[Sundiata]

...and we see yet another demonstration of the religious-conservative mindset on politics.

God demands that everyone that has sex raise children. No, God doesn’t care if you’re ready for that responsibility or not. Whatever life plans you might have had - shove it, God isn’t interested, just have children. If you have a few unresolved mental problems - hey, living is always good, right? I’m sure God won’t mind that children are being raised under unsuitable parents as long as, y’know, they’re born and exist.

God wants civilisation to detonate in environmental catastrophe under uncontrolled population growth.

I think that the bigger problem is the economic order of the world than the amount of people being born. I've said it before and I'll say it again, we're failing people. We could feed, clothe, and house every person on this planet but we're really choosing not to do it.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

I think that the bigger problem is the economic order of the world than the amount of people being born. I've said it before and I'll say it again, we're failing people. We could feed, clothe, and house every person on this planet but we're really choosing not to do it.

...and what does that have anything to do with anything I’ve said?

[Thepeopl]

No, when a bunch of feminists crashed the presentation chanting "No Male Pill" and arguing that women should be the sole deciders of when children should be conceived, and men having birth control was harmful to women's rights.

Mostly what I found regarding that fell into these general categories:

1. Neutral discussion of it.

2. Mocking men for being concerned about versions with potentially serious side effects (which may or may not be equivalent or more than current female ones on the market) and claiming that society is more comfortable with women having harmful side effects than men.

3. Resorting to saying how it is "good for women" in order to elicit support for it.

So this was a while back, but I actually researched this.

Basically, we were really close back in the 70s. We had some issues to try and work out (maybe with dosage or some kind of separate additive, I don't know, or maybe it wasn't surmountable). The scientist leading that research got his funding pulled largely because of Betty Friedan and a number of other feminists getting his funding cut. The video is down now, so you'll have to take my word for it, but we discussed it in the thread at the time and you can see no one accused me of making it up.

Quite notably, according to his account, at a presentation, they stood up as he was talking about their progress and objected with:

"Doctor do you think we fought our whole lives to have in our hands the decision of having children or not? Do you think we are abdication that? Men say they are on the pill, women believe them? Do you know what you are and what you all deserve? to have credibility swear you are using the pill just to get laid and leave? Leave us with the responsibility and then the pill failed."

Then her and a bunch of others started chanting "no male pill".

This has been mirrored with articles still today:

But there’s another problem with male contraception that is rather less talked about. And that’s whether most women really are happy giving away our power over a part of our lives that tends to mean more to us than to men.

Most women I know would be utterly horrified if their men chose new curtains without consulting them, and would be shocked to their very core if their husband came home with a new sofa, or even a radical new haircut.

So how would we feel if our man wandered off to the GP and booked himself in for a jab without consulting us?

To be honest, I’m not sure that most women would like that at all.

In my experience, the stuff of domestic life is jealously guarded by most women.

A friend of mine grumbles about her husband’s unwillingness to deal with the tiny details of their children’s lives, yet if pushed she will admit she rather relishes her role as family lynchpin.

And there can be nothing more intimate regarding that than a woman’s fertility, and I am sceptical whether lots of us will want to let go of our responsibility for it.

Or, to put it bluntly, if highly effective, side-effect and rubber-free male contraception becomes universal, it could mark the end of the very common phenomenon of the not-entirely-accidental-surprise-baby and the one-bottle- of-wine-too-many-baby which happens to the most sensible of couples.

Because, let’s face it, if all women had to wait for men to feel broody (and for this to coincide with his jab wearing off), the birth rate would drop like a stone.

I am told that there are men out there who want nothing more than to persuade or even trick their unwilling wives into having more babies, and thus will be sent packing to the doctor to get jabbed (will they get a certificate to prove it, I wonder?), but, frankly, these blokes are surely in the minority.

A rather more common scenario — and one that is a constant on the parenting site Mumsnet — is a woman desperate for a first, second or third child with an unwilling and very determined man.

This situation, especially if the woman senses time is running out, tends to cause not just sorrow and anguish, but also a sort of furious frustration. A sense that her human rights have been unfairly and unreasonably denied her.

Yeah, really. If you don't let her have a baby with you, you are denying her her human rights.

Turns out the first try had a nasty side effect of sometimes causing permanent sterilization (which is why it's still used in China for "temporary" birth control for men - they see the side effect as a feature, not a bug) which is one of a couple reasons why it was never adopted in the west. Social opposition from the feminist movement, and a really nasty side effect.

Ah, the Uighurs?

Yes, and other undesirables.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... 5099696968
https://utswmed.org/medblog/pill-guys-m ... ety-tests/

These studies were conducted in 2016 and 2019.

And frankly, I applaud men taking responsibility. I would like to see more men invested in better personal health and higher medical care for men.

I don't use the pill because it lowers my libido. That doesn't mean I oppose the pill for others.

[New haven america]

1. Or maybe they just want some fucc without having to worry about child support or the socioeconomic needs of a young child.
2. This is why theocracy is bad, children.

1. Well, don't you think that it's a problem with our society that poverty is even possible for any young person, for anyone? 2. We need a more reasonable floor. I understand the socioeconomic concerns about becoming a parent.

3. I also get that people want to express love romantically without feeling stressed, it's totally normal.

1. Yes.
2. Apparently not seeing as how you're apparently against contraception and definitely abortions.
3. Then why are you saying contraception is bad?

[New haven america]

...and we see yet another demonstration of the religious-conservative mindset on politics.

God demands that everyone that has sex raise children. No, God doesn’t care if you’re ready for that responsibility or not. Whatever life plans you might have had - shove it, God isn’t interested, just have children. If you have a few unresolved mental problems - hey, living is always good, right? I’m sure God won’t mind that children are being raised under unsuitable parents as long as, y’know, they’re born and exist.

God wants civilisation to detonate in environmental catastrophe under uncontrolled population growth.

I think that the bigger problem is the economic order of the world than the amount of people being born. I've said it before and I'll say it again, we're failing people. We could feed, clothe, and house every person on this planet but we're really choosing not to do it.

So how does that help the little carbon dioxide and methane killing the planet issue going?

[Kowani]

South Carolina Senate to consider bill that would allow pharmacists to prescribe a woman a contraceptive without a patient-specific prescription

[Sundiata]

I think that the bigger problem is the economic order of the world than the amount of people being born. I've said it before and I'll say it again, we're failing people. We could feed, clothe, and house every person on this planet but we're really choosing not to do it.

...and what does that have anything to do with anything I’ve said?

Because you're acting like I want people to suffer under ideal conditions and that's not true.