19
   

What qualifies a man to talk about an issue like feminism?

 
 
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Sep, 2009 09:43 am
@dagmaraka,
But dag-- these men who appear in your post are not typical of men. Not many men teach feminism and women in politics at any level.

Nor is Mr Newell. And he speaks his own language. The approved one. Look at the names he gives. Look at the values he mentions; wisdom, chivalry and nobility, and associates himself to. Nothing at all typical.

He has obviously never noticed with what care Shakespeare painted his tosspots, wankers and assholes nor is he aware with what affection those characters are held in by the root and branch whose members can only titter when they read such things as--

Quote:
From Aristotle on courage to Sir Thomas Malory on love, honor, and chastity; from Shakespeare on leadership to John Cheever on adolescence; from Jane Austen on pride to Theodore Roosevelt on family life " each new voice contributes perspective and authority to this multifaceted exploration of virtue and masculinity.


What does this farrago of nonsense mean dag? That the reader feels a little better for having read it is all I can suggest it might mean.

Not many men work in Media and the ones who do are sold out to feminism, some I imagine quite cynically, just like the tiny number of women who work there are.

When one takes one's cues from Media rather than from the street and industrial workplace it is easy to start discussing men in a somewhat particularised fashion relating to how a family income is dispensed and the priorities involved.

I am subjected to much abuse for going to the pub for the last hour of every day. But really it is pubs, in general, as an institution, that is being targeted. Pubs are where men gather and talk and spend money which could be spent on other things. Prettier things. Smoking-out. Pubs-out. Hunting-out. Football hooligans-out. Strikes-out. Goosing-out. Swearing-in (a sort of sop to ease injured pride). Soft furnishings-in. On the Ovarian Trolley Henry Miller called it when the wave was hardly moving.

There's a whole subtext going on stemming from Media and its feminists which is seeking to change the nature of men. The fact of this thread and TK's blog is sufficient proof that its signals are vaguely percieved if not yet well understood or articulated. It is a matter of concern. Why are we here otherwise? To anyone familiar with the subject the signal sounds like an air-raid warning siren and smells like a car interior after driving past fields recently manured.

It is perfecly natural I think. A lesson of history is that prosperity and luxury lead inevitably to ennervation and softening and hence to degeneration and that prosperity is irresistable. The cyclical view of history is based on such considerations.

But the degeneration has not so far led to extinction. The manly monastic disciplines carried the torch of knowledge through the darkest of times to emerge into prosperity again and a new Refeminisation.

It is beginning to look as if the threat of meltdown has receded and normal service is soon to be resumed. I wish you all well and hope everything turns out fine.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Sep, 2009 11:00 am
@spendius,
Spendi, I think you should consider joining the growing group of people who ignore Spendi's ideas.

T
K
O
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Sep, 2009 11:23 am
@aidan,
Quote:
I'm sure there's at least one male in most peoples' circle of acquaintances who has experienced disappointment in terms of the decision of choice a woman made when she was pregnant with his child.


That is probably true. But what is relevant to this discussion is that the number of such circles today will be far larger than it was 50 years ago and a man as well as a woman is perfectly qualified to consider that change and to wonder whether it is a useful one, to whom it is useful and what role feminism played in bringing it about.

And if male disappointment is a factor, which it might be in some cases, it provides a method of emotional blackmail. Men could avoid such a situation by being more careful who they get pregnant.

Quote:
I'm happy you haven't had that sadness in your life - just like I'd be happy for you or anyone else that had never had to experience cancer or any other hardship.


I hardly think the choice you mention can be compared to those sorts of hardship.

Quote:
What's with the anti-American propaganda? Abortion is much more commonplace and accepted and less divisively debated in most European countries (including your own, by the way) than it is in America, spendius. America happens to be one of the last holdouts of developed or westernized countries where a significant and vocal percentage of the population espouse your views on it.


It wasn't anti-American propaganda. I chose the USSC because this site is American. Opposition here to abortion is stifled. Cowed even. Lost its nerve.

Quote:
In what way is he an asshole?


For indulging himself with such a woman.

Quote:
Because, as the woman, it was happening in my body, and no one could tell me that I couldn't or wouldn't let it happen.


Would you not listen to Nature?

Quote:
I think it would be difficult to be the male in this situation, as compared to being the female.


Yes--in the situation which has assumed this difficulty. At least he is absolved of the responsibility. But are more males to be expected to experience such a difficulty as feminism gains sway.

Quote:
I was serious when I think that a male has an interesting viewpoint in terms of parenting and childbirth as it relates to HIS choices and role and feelings about those.


He has no choices either way. He says goodbye to his share. The woman says hello. And he can't hold her down.

Perhaps feminism is aiming to get women charging the state for babies.





spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Sep, 2009 11:29 am
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
Spendi, I think you should consider joining the growing group of people who ignore Spendi's ideas.


Round of applause from the claque.

It is evident from that that a debate is the last thing you want.
dagmaraka
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Sep, 2009 01:43 pm
@spendius,
i never said the men i mentioned were typical. so?

i suggest you read a book before you attempt enter into polemic with it.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Sep, 2009 02:05 pm
@Diest TKO,
That seems a bit of a lazy solution.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Sep, 2009 04:32 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
It is evident from that that a debate is the last thing you want.

That you have correct spendi.

I would lose the debate the second you pointed out all the "ovary stuff." I'd be totally lost. We're in totally different leagues brother. I need more practice at the pub before I square off with you.

It's not that I'm not interested in debate with you spendi, it's that others here have been much better at offering constructive input instead of looking to incoherently soapbox about.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Sep, 2009 04:33 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

That seems a bit of a lazy solution.

Maybe you have a point. spendi could learn something from reading more spendi posts.

T
K
O
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Sep, 2009 05:31 pm
@Diest TKO,
Alright TK. Explain to me how it comes about that the highlights of today's football matches are fronted up by a female of the type that used to demonstrate efficient methods of chopping onions up in the aisles of department stores (remember them?) with nearly cleavage, dangling ear-rings, coiffure, naked power legs, bangles, necklaces, high heels and shot from floor level every tenth cut when the knees start drifting due to the concentration on the auto-cue.

It's like Frank Bruno presenting a programme about pantie liners.

Do you think it is because these ladies, and there are more than one, bring an understanding of our game to bear which is necessary to enhance our appreciation or do you think they have been administering skilled fellatio to the guy who says who fronts up what and who dosn't give two fucks about football.

They have yet to invade the citadel of cricket but I think that is only because the intricacies of cricket elude their comprehension. They understand and can cope with a goal but not a glance to fine leg or a swipe over deep mid wicket. Being "not out" because it's ouside the line to a leg before appeal is likely to perplex them.
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Sep, 2009 01:14 am
@spendius,
Quote:
Would you not listen to Nature?

Yeah - speaking of which there was just an article in the Times last week in which they've found a link between abortion and low birth weight or preterm birth in future pregnancies:From Times Online
Quote:
September 16, 2009
Abortions 'raise risks in future births'
David Rose, Health Correspondent

(Bethany Clarke/The Times)

Having an abortion increases the risk of giving birth prematurely or to children with a low birthweight in later pregnancies, a study suggests.

Canadian researchers found that the risk of complications during labour increased according to the more terminations a woman had had.

The review of 37 case studies found that women who had undergone more than one abortion had a 72 per cent increased risk of having children with low birthweight and a 93 per cent increased risk of having a premature baby.

It also found that women who had an abortion in the first or second trimester had a 35 per cent increased risk of giving birth to a low-weight baby and a 36 per cent increased risk of having a premature baby.

The authors of the study, published in BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, stress that further studies are needed to assess the impact of new ways of carrying out an abortion, such as non-invasive treatments where women take a combination of pills to trigger a miscarriage.


And then in a very interesting book I'm reading - which may be of interest to you Diest - as it addresses a lot of womens' health issues- I found this:
Quote:
During the last few decades the key reason for the decline in neonatal mortality has been the improved rates of survival among low birth weight babies- NOT the reduction in the incidence of low birth weight babies.
Long term effects of low birth weight include neurologic disorders, learning disabilities and delayed development.
During the 1990's the increased use of assisted reproductive technology has led to increase in multiple gestations and a concomitant increase in preterm delivery and low birth weight rates...

from: The Nation's Health - by Philip Randolph Lee and Carroll Estes

So it's all interrelated. There are consequences to our species when we fool around with nature - whether it's by mechanically dilating a cervix and weakening it so that it can't function appropriately when called upon to later or implanting numerous embryos and turning a womb designed for one or two into a sort of group incubator.

The interesting thing about the Times article - the rest of which can be found here:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6836945.ece-
is that instead of discouraging abortion- they're now looking for ways to achieve it synthetically with drugs...
Okay - beyond or aside from any moral issues about abortion - WHY - if they can use drugs to terminate a pregnancy, can they not advocate the woman preventing the pregnancy with drugs in the first place, saving herself (and anyone else involved in the relationship and potential parenting) the resulting emotional and possible physical repercussions and trauma involved?

I just wonder if this is not part of what people believe is a feminist issue- that this choice has become so sacred - that they'll develop drugs to preserve the right to make it instead of advocate the use of the drugs we already have to avoid the whole horrible issue...

I don't get it.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Sep, 2009 02:47 am
@aidan,
Yeah - speaking of which there was just an article in the Times last week in which they've found a link between abortion and low birth weight or preterm birth in future pregnancies:From Times Online
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the emotions and the resources behind the ant-abortion groups I would need to know a great deal more about any such study to give it any weight at all and who the researchers was connected with and where did their funding come from just to start with.

The tobacco firms for years was paying for research that show without question that smoking was not harmful to your health also.
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Sep, 2009 07:59 am
@BillRM,
The research was published by the BJOG - British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecoloy: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
published on behalf of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

I don't know for sure, but I'd tend to believe that they check out their researchers and studies before they publish any results, as they're a medical journal aimed at obstetricians and gynocologists who depend on this information to inform their practices and care of patients. I can't imagine that they'd be anything but professionally objective and this was their editor's pick of the month:
Quote:
Systematic review
* Induced termination of pregnancy and low birthweight and preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analyses
* PS Shah, J Zao
* Published online on Sep 16, 2009
* DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02278.x (p 1425-1442)


And when you think about a woman's anatomy - it certainly makes sense. Anytime the cervix is stressed - even naturally - it's weakened. Pessaries were very commonly used back when women had seven, eight and nine pregnancies, and gave birth to seven, eight or nine children, because the stress upon the cervix as it was stretched and dilated during birth, caused it to weaken and lose muscle tone so that it didn't snap back into shape and couldn't hold its own against gravity as effectively and competently. When you get into your sixth or seventh month of pregnancy and the baby weighs four or five pounds (on average) and you add the weight of the placenta and the weight of the amniotic fluid - you know that's quite a bit of weight to be distributed and borne by that small piece of muscle.
And if it's been weakened or traumatized - it sometimes gives way before the baby is ready to be born.

spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Sep, 2009 09:18 am
@aidan,
This is on the Ovarian trolley with a vengeance.

I would contend that feminism has a negative impact on women's health. It is no coincidence that those who get professional benefits from dealing with women's health problems are generally feminists.

Does violent physical action in sport or outdoor activities have a negative effect on women's health? And work too.

Feminists are a self-fulfilling ponzi scheme. The more power they get the more they seem to be needed and the more problems they have to screech about. Everything is going to plan. The unhealthy woman is putty in the hands of "experts" and an avid reader of articles purporting to relieve her plethora of conditions and which require little effort or imagination to compose.
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Sep, 2009 11:05 am
@spendius,
Quote:
I would contend that feminism has a negative impact on women's health. It is no coincidence that those who get professional benefits from dealing with women's health problems are generally feminists.

Does violent physical action in sport or outdoor activities have a negative effect on women's health? And work too.

Feminists are a self-fulfilling ponzi scheme. The more power they get the more they seem to be needed and the more problems they have to screech about. Everything is going to plan. The unhealthy woman is putty in the hands of "experts" and an avid reader of articles purporting to relieve her plethora of conditions and which require little effort or imagination to compose.

I have no idea what you're talking about - but the point of these articles is not that the woman's health is being compromised - rather that the people whose health is most affected are the low birth weight and premature babies to whom these women give birth:

Quote:
Long term effects of low birth weight (in BABIES!!!) include neurologic disorders, learning disabilities and delayed development.

*bolded and capitalized emphasis - mine.
Try to keep up.
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Sep, 2009 11:10 am
@aidan,
Quote:
I would contend that feminism has a negative impact on women's health.

Yes, sometimes and in some ways it apparently can, and that's why I thought these were germane to the subject of feminism and provided a different and interesting perspective.
Quote:
It is no coincidence that those who get professional benefits from dealing with women's health problems are generally feminists.

But this is not why- not for this reason - at least not in this case.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Sep, 2009 12:10 pm
@aidan,
aidan wrote:

Quote:
I would contend that feminism has a negative impact on women's health.

Yes, sometimes and in some ways it apparently can, and that's why I thought these were germane to the subject of feminism and provided a different and interesting perspective.

Access to birth control and better sexual health education in schools might be better proactive approaches as opposed to conjecture about health in a retrospective sense.

I'm not sure how feminism specifically is being blamed for a potential correlation. Emphasis on "potential." In my experience as a wellness educator (and we were required to read up on many topics including abortion) I have read a number of studies making claims like this. Previously, it was breast cancer that was increased by having an abortion.

T
K
O
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Sep, 2009 12:29 pm
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
Previously, it was breast cancer that was increased by having an abortion.

I remember reading that when it was theorized, but I don't remember what the fiinal or hard and set theory about it eventually worked out to be.
The thing that I do remember reading is that both pregnancy and breastfeeding - even if for one child- seemed to offer natural protection against breast cancer, as they interrupted a woman's cycle- which was the 'natural' way for a woman's body to work. In other words, a woman's body was designed to give birth and feed a baby- and not to have a period every month for 35 or 40 years without interruption. A pregnancy and birth and subsequent breast feeding for twelve months interrupted that cycle in the way it was designed to be interrupted and I read that breast feeders seemed to suffer lower incidences of breast cancer than non breast feeders:
Quote:
MONDAY, Aug. 10 (HealthDay News) -- Women who breast-feed their babies even for short periods of time may lower their risk of developing premenopausal breast cancer if they have a family history of the disease.


"We saw a 59 percent lower risk of breast cancer among women with a family history who had ever breast-fed," stated Dr. Alison Stuebe, lead author of a study appearing in the Aug. 10/24 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine. .



I was talking with this about a friend who's in medicine today and he said that the problem with abortion in terms of future health risks for the women who undergo them is that pregnancy entails this huge rush of hormones and when that is interrupted nonspontaneously and unnaturally - the body reacts.

I asked him about the possibility of a drug-induced abortion, such as they mentioned trying to develop in the Times article I cited - and he said that any pill they could develop that would terminate a later-term abortion (sort of a stronger morning after pill) would have to deliver such a large load of synthetic hormones that he couldn't see it being safe. He can't imagine how they would even do trials to develop it.

I don't know - I find this stuff interesting to read and think about- maybe because I have ovaries- but also I think it's important for women to know what they may be doing to their own health and the health of any future children they may want to bear - before they just jump on this train.


aidan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Sep, 2009 12:36 pm
@aidan,
Quote:
and he said that any pill they could develop that would terminate a later-term abortion (sort of a stronger morning after pill) would have to deliver such a large load of synthetic hormones that he couldn't see it being safe.


I meant to say any pill that would work to terminate a later term pregnancy - not abortion
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Sep, 2009 01:48 pm
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
experience as a wellness educator


So you are in the swim are you TK. Healthy people don't need wellness educators.

Might I suggest you peruse Ivan Illich's Medical Nemesis. Anybody serious about education for health should read that.

Public health is best served by adequate diet, clean water and proper sanitation. The progress made in the last 100 years in respect of these factors is down to agriculturalists and engineers.

Feminists promoted abortion from the start. It was their flagship issue. And in my opinion they did not know what they were talking about. But they exerted so much pressure that they got what they wanted. And now we have these things happening which aidan is drawing our attention to.

They made the same mistake that all one issue propagandist do. They assumed that something irreducibly complex was simple and straightforward. And they profited from it. At the expense of femininity.

There are no abortions in Barbara Cartland's hundreds of best selling books.





spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Sep, 2009 03:01 pm
@spendius,
As far as I know Bob Dylan has only once spoken about birth control. He said it was up to the man. One does not interfere with creation's perfect being free of charge.

That's what they promised. Something for nothing.

If ever the Catholic church changes it position on abortion and birth control it will cease to be a religion.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/02/2024 at 09:51:21