Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ladies, ladies. Are we just a bunch of selfish petulant brats?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Clete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 12:15 AM
Original message
Ladies, ladies. Are we just a bunch of selfish petulant brats?
My last thread had way too many answers and I went in to try to put it to rest and guess what I run into post #366 at sort of the bottom.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=573092&mesg_id=582447&page=

So you don't have to wade through the Ann Coulteresque diatribe, I decided to give it a post of it's own.

<snip>
"Men should ABSOLUTELY have a say in decisions concerning their child.

I think the whole "delicate women risking certain death" argument is complete and total bullshit. Sure, there are situations where this could be a reality, but come ON - we women are tough. In most cases pregnancy is NOT life-threatening. Sure, maybe a little uncomfortable, and morning-sickness is no great thing - but jesus. The chances of risking certain death are very slim, and trying to use that as an argument makes you look ridiculous. What it shows is that you are advocating selfish petulance and bitchiness for the sake of having YOUR WAY.

The "men have a choice to not have SEX" argument is also bs. Women are equally responsible. EQUALLY. Don't want kids, don't want to risk pregnancy, don't open your legs for any Tom's Harry Dick that tells you you have nice eyes. In fact, since the main argument seems to be men are horny bastards with no self-control and who cannot be relied upon to take precautions I'd say that leaves even MORE responsiblity on the woman to keep her legs shut.

Rape. Another non-argument. TOTALLY different situation and totally different circumstances. No one is advocating a woman having a heart to heart with her rapist to determine whether he wants to co-parent a child.

Child support / visitation. Again - crappy argument. True, they are two seperate issues and a man that pays no support can still see his children if he wants to. Should children be forced to pay for their father's financial irresponsibility even MORE by being denied a relationship with him? The fact is that there are many situations in the reverse - men that pay support and CAN'T see their kids, no matter how much they want to. Men with exes that take the children without their consent and move them across country. Women that play games and instead of focusing on what is best for their CHILDREN focus on their own selfish desires and vindictiveness and deny visitation. It happens more often than you think! And please - if you think it is a fraction as easy for a man to receive support from a woman when he has full custody you obviously know nothing about the way the real world in the Family Courts works.

My husband/boyfriend/one night stand can't tell ME what to do with MY BODY. What this says to me is that hey - if your husband or boyfriend wants to start boinking every open hole from here to Timbucktoo, hey, it's HIS BODY. Who are YOU to tell HIM what to do with HIS body? Does noone love and respect their partners any more? If you can't honestly take your loved one's feelings and opinions into consideration stay single and, as has been mentioned numerous times to the men on the board (here I am forcing equality down your collective throats again) DONT HAVE SEX.

I don't have the answers to solving these issues - and I don't believe forced childbirth by legislation IS an answer. I do believe that if (some)women weren't selfish little petulant BRATS they could put aside their iwantiwantIWANT tantrums and act like adults who took their partners opinions and feelings into consideration. Just as they expect MEN to do for them. I'd have a great deal more respect for a woman who considered continuing a pregnancy she didn't want and relinquished all rights and responsibilites to the father who DID want it than I do for women who cut the man out of the equation completely and did what SHE wanted in a tantrum.

I guess my point is that while I don't want women to be legislated to give their partners a "choice" in what they do with their bodies, I have hope that most women would be enlightened enough, kind enough, and repsonsible enough to do it ANYWAY. Judging from the posts on this thread I'd say I wonder if that will happen.

Equality. Personal responsibilty. It's our choice, ladies. We want it, or we don't. If we DON'T (and I certainly don't fall into that category) then we may as well roll back to the 18th century. If we DO we need to grow up and start acting like it. You can't have it both ways. <snip>

Ladies, I don't know about you, but I am speechless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
HEyHEY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 12:16 AM
Response to Original message
1. IS that you in the pic
yeah you look like a trouble-maker ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Ohh, I used to be sort of like Xena without the sword
and the leather.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 12:21 AM
Response to Original message
2. I don't really want
to talk about this anymore. I have a headache and my jerky husband actually expected me to cook tonight. Shit, I'd leave the SOB if he didn't make such good money. Sheeeeesh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleApple81 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. Well, I am glad that he makes good money! Lucky you! Just order out!
Surprise him by spending his money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Hi LittleApple!
I am very sleepy, you did know I was kidding didn't you? I am usually not up this late (at the farm early) and I was just being sarcastic. Sorry, you probably got it but my mind is now officially in the Twilight Zone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
3. If you look at the second line of what you quoted
the author you quoted is a woman herself it should be noted. I think a good deal of what she says is claptrap but it is a she.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Yes, she is a woman.
Duh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indigo32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 12:27 AM
Response to Original message
6. Jesus Clete
It took me a minute to realize those weren't your own thoughts. I thought I'd gone into the twilight zone.... I'm speechless too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 12:40 AM
Response to Original message
9. Well, well, well.
What a shame that such an fairly articulate post from an opposing viewpoint was posted so late at night before anyone could answer. However, tomorrow is tomorrow. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CShine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 12:41 AM
Response to Original message
10. Damn, sounds like my mom. What's she doing on the DU?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 12:46 AM
Response to Original message
11. This shit is getting annoying..I'll just cut and paste my response
from the other thread:

Once it is a born child, I would agree...the issue is what SHOULD be

LEGALLY required prior to that time.

Now as to the rest of your arguments point by point:

I think the whole "delicate women risking certain death" argument is complete and total bullshit. Sure, there are situations where this could be a reality, but come ON - we women are tough. In most cases pregnancy is NOT life-threatening.

I don't think ANYONE used the word CERTAIN death but complications from diabetes, hypertension and other factors ARE QUITE common and as such present a RISK to the general health of the mother. That is why although one would hope people DID and SHOULD communicate, the law should err on the side of the woman who faces the risk.

Secondly, according to an ABC report in the last year or two, the leading cause of death in pregnant women was their husbands/ mates...HOMOCIDE...so let's not overlook the fact that a man who would FORCE a woman to keep a baby she didn't want isn't EXACTLY prince charming.

The "men have a choice to not have SEX" argument is also bs. Women are equally responsible. EQUALLY. Don't want kids, don't want to risk pregnancy, don't open your legs for any Tom's Harry Dick that tells you you have nice eyes. In fact, since the main argument seems to be men are horny bastards with no self-control and who cannot be relied upon to take precautions I'd say that leaves even MORE responsiblity on the woman to keep her legs shut.


Again, allow me to pull the rug out from under your assessment since all you do with this paragraph is repeat the "boys will be boys" argument that has gotten men off the hook up until recently and now that THEY too are being held accountable for their reproductive powers, they don't seem to like it much. Even your crass linguistics in the matter is a bit of a put down. More often than not ALL responsibility lies with the woman to practice birth control. If a MAN is WORRIED about reproducing, maybe he should get a reversible vasectomy and save some sperm in a sperm bank for MS RIGHT. Eh?


Rape. Another non-argument. TOTALLY different situation and totally different circumstances. No one is advocating a woman having a heart to heart with her rapist to determine whether he wants to co-parent a child.

Guess you forgot about the FLorida law last year that was struck down by the courts requiring a woman to post in the newspaper her sexual history prior to giving a child up for adoption.

Here is a synopsis from another site..it was in LBN at the time:
The Fourth District Court of Appeals struck down a Florida law that required birth mothers, including rape victims and teenage girls, who wanted to give their child up for adoption to take out newspaper ads publicizing their sexual histories, purportedly to identify the father. The court said the law “violates a fundamental right to privacy,” according to the Miami Herald. The state, which refused to defend the law, also failed to show how the rights of the father or the state could outweigh “the privacy rights of mother and child in not being identified in such a personal, intimate and intrusive manner,” the Herald reports. Remember all my feminist posts way back when? This post is for all you jerks who asked me "aren't women equals already? what more freedoms do you want?" This is something that JUST HAPPENED. That means that up until now, if a woman was RAPED or a teenager gets pregnant, if they want to give the baby up for adoption, they had to put their entire sexual history in the NEWSPAPER for all to read. I am estatic that this law is no longer in action, but it ENFURIATES me to NO END when I think of all the mothers who CHOSE to carry their baby to term instead of getting it aborted and then got a slap in the face for putting their child up for adoption when they realize that they cannot care for it. I especially feel for rape victims. What options were they given? They certainly had no option when it came to getting pregnant. And then if they cannot go through with abortion, they are faced with telling everybody who reads the paper all about their sexual history. I'm sorry for ranting. I just hope that some of you are as angry as I am that a law like this existed, and as happy as I am that it is no longer implemented.

So roll your eyes all you want...you are not correct


Child support / visitation. Again - crappy argument. True, they are two seperate issues and a man that pays no support can still see his children if he wants to. Should children be forced to pay for their father's financial irresponsibility even MORE by being denied a relationship with him? The fact is that there are many situations in the reverse - men that pay support and CAN'T see their kids, no matter how much they want to. Men with exes that take the children without their consent and move them across country. Women that play games and instead of focusing on what is best for their CHILDREN focus on their own selfish desires and vindictiveness and deny visitation. It happens more often than you think! And please - if you think it is a fraction as easy for a man to receive support from a woman when he has full custody you obviously know nothing about the way the real world in the Family Courts works.

I agree it is a crappy argument to use against a woman. Child support and reproductive rights are separate and distinct issues.

As far as your comments about men collecting child support from women, at least in California for MEN OR WOMEN it is based on ability to pay, so it is often just as difficult for the woman and poorly enforced anyway. I definitely know how the real word works in family courts...I interned in a family law firm. Where the ABILITY to pay is there, it isn't that tough.

So that addresses the part of your post that you set forth as facts. The vast remainder of your post, I have no issue with.


All you straight folks won't let me get married and don't support my rights and look at the mess you make of your own.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Madrone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Ann Coulteresque? lmao (to: nothingshocksme)

Well - she's a complete bitch and my post was kinda bitchy - but the comparison definitely ends there!


Nothingshocksmeanymore: -

Thanks for your reply - I posted back to you on the other thread. You pointed out a few things I wasn't aware of, and I appreciate it.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neebob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 01:05 AM
Response to Original message
12. I agree that men should butt out
but it'll never happen, and I don't think it's worth arguing from that angle. It's more productive, I think, to focus on the simple core argument that women should never be forced to have children.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 01:22 AM
Response to Original message
14. no tantrums
Let's put one issue to rest. Women do take risks when they get pregnant.

1 & 2. In 1975, two of my best friends nearly died in childbirth. One went to a high-priced ob-gyn clinic, the other to an old-fashioned country GP. Both were healthy young women in their mid-20s. Both had good pre-natal care. Both were allowed to go two weeks past their due-date despite elevated blood pressure, severe swelling, etc. One went into labor on the Friday before Labor Day, when all the doctors in her clinic were out of town. By the time one was finally called on Monday afternoon, the mother was exhausted from unproductive labor. They finally xrayed her and determined she would never have been able to deliver vaginally. Emergency caesarean that almost killed her. She had her second child 14 months later, and was told not to have any more, or at least wait a while until her badly battered body healed. After having a third very difficult pregnancy and a third caesarean only 15 months later, she begged her husband to consent to a tubal ligation. The doctor told him another pregnancy would kill her. He reluctantly signed the release papers.

The other friend delivered a week later, induced labor. No one expected her to deliver so quickly after being so late; she tore horribly, including internally, but no one discovered the full extent of the damage until she had her second child two years later. This one came early and she hemorrhaged badly. Two surgeries failed to repair the damage; she had a complete hysterectomy at 27.

3. 1978. A friend's daughter, married to an abusive husband (which we found out later, much later), already had three children. After the difficult birth of her fourth, she wanted no more, and her doctor had told her that in her late 30s, she was taking unnecessary risks if she did. But hubby talked her into just one more -- and it proved to be twins. At six months, she suffered a series of minor strokes, the last of which occured in the grocery store. She fell and struck her head on the floor. Seven weeks in the hospital later, she delivered the twins -- caesarean -- and had her tubes tied.

4. 1980. My sister-in-law, who had had one miscarriage two years earlier, thought she had the flu just before Christmas. She had no indications she was pregnant, but unbeknownst to anyone else, she had been taking fertility drugs. Do not ask me why she was on drugs to stimulate ovulation when her previous miscarriage was evidence that she did ovulate. i don't pretend to understand, nor do I understand why this was done when there was extensive family history of fraternal twins on her mother's side. At any rate, two weeks before Christmas she was paralyzed with cramps and I finally convinced her to get to the doctor, that this wasn't the flu. From the doctor's office she was rushed to the hospital, given massive transfusions, and operated on that night for a ruptured ectopic pregnancy. the internal bleeding was so extensive that had she waited even another hour, she would probably have bled to death. Subsequent surgery to repair scar tissue on her remaining ovary and fallopian tube was unsuccessful; unable to become pregnant again, she and her husband eventually adopted.

5. 1983. My dentist was pregnant with her first child. Ecstatic, she was doing everything right, following all the instructions, etc. Two weeks before her due date, she noticed that the baby had stopped moving. Sonogram revealed the baby had died, cause unknown. Decision was made to induce labor and deliver normally. Something went wrong and she pinched a nerve in her pelvis or spine or something, leaving her paralyzed from the hips down. The stillborn baby was delivered; I don't know if it had the cord around its neck or what. The mother was paralyzed for almost six months; she eventually had two other children with no complications.

6. 1999 A friend's sister, pregnant at age 29 for the second time, showed no signs of health problems until the sixth month. Though overweight, she had easily delivered her first child 20 months earlier. Now she began having heart palpitations and other problems. She was eventually hospitalized for six weeks and delivered five weeks premature. In the middle of labor, she suffered cardiac arrest. Resuscitated, she delivered a daughter, but was a virtual invalid for nearly four months afterward.

6. 2001. My sister, after undergoing various fertility treatments, was pregnant for the first time at 38. She and her husband attended all the birthing classes and were looking forward to a normal delivery. At seven months she experienced a rise in blood pressure and was urged -- because of excessive weight gain -- to walk several miles a day. She didn't, and whether or not that had anything to do with the baby not "turning" i have no idea. At any rate, she was faced with a breech birth or caesarean. They opted, reluctantly, for the caesarean, not expecting her to go into labor beforehand. She did, however, necessitating an emergency caesarian.

No, there are no risks to pregnancy.

When I was pregnant with my two, I worked almost up until the moment they were born, and I was back to a pretty normal routine within hours. people thought I was crazy. But the truth is that we have a society that's neither peasant in the field who drops the kid and goes back to picking grain five minutes later, nor delicate lady in bed with servants to wait on her hand and foot during a three month confinement. The risks are still there, greater for some of us than others, but still there.

Women die from abortions, they die from miscarriages, they die in childbirth. It's not unheard of. Rare, yes, but not unheard of.

I think all we were asking in the original thread was some recognition of the risks women take -- not that we should be treated like porcelain flowers -- and the responsibilities. For some women pregnancy is a breeze; for others it is anything but. Recognition of those differences and respect and sympathy for those who aren't as lucky as the others is, IMHO, not out of order.

But then, I'm the militant feminist. :-)

Tansy Gold
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 01:34 AM
Response to Original message
15. Come on...
"Ladies ladies"? Is that a rally call? Is this a crucifixion?
You're so angry.
She's got an opinion, let her have it. It's fine to discuss things but there's no need to be lighting torches. I'm sure there are plenty of other women who feel the same way as her here...and, yes, they are Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kaitykaity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 01:36 AM
Response to Original message
16. Locking.

Please see rule #5 here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=463744

5. You may not start a new discussion thread in order to continue a current or recent flame war from another thread. The moderators have the authority to lock threads in order to contain flaming on a particular topic to only one thread at a time.

Thanks,


kaitykaity
DU Moderator
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Madrone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 01:40 AM
Response to Original message
17. You misunderstand.
I do not wish for women's reproductive choice to be removed and dictated by men.

I DO believe that in cases of consentual relationships that result in pregnancy the decision should be an equal endeavor. Of course, if a mutual decision could NOT be reached it should still be the woman's ultimate decision.

What left me speechless were the sheer number of posts from women basically saying who CARES what the man thinks, the woman WILL do what she wants and "F" him for having an opinion.

And yes, SOME women ARE selfish, petulant brats. Being born with a vagina doesn't automatically make a person wise or good.

I am intimately familiar with issues good fathers face in family courts - and it ain't pretty. As a result I've unlearned a few things I thought I knew, and learned a few things I didn't. It's funny, because I post on a board that caters to NCP's (primarily fathers) because of my boyfriend's situation, and I get a whole lot of crap for defending women and feminists when I see something that makes me take offense - and I get the same thing here in the reverse.

I'll say it again, one last time - I don't know HOW to fix the problem. It's never black and white, and there are a LOT of variables. I do know women should never lose their reproductive choice.

I just think, as a woman, that if I make a choice to have sex and end up pregnant I owe it to my partner to discuss it with him and honestly try to reach an agreement before I make the final choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 14th 2024, 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC