men v. women

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Mary's Knight, La' date='Feb 25 2005, 01:37 PM'] Hmmm let's see... are gender roles natural? The way nature is set up only a woman can give birth to a child... Only a woman caries the child within her... There is no process known natural or otherwise for a man to carry or give birth to a child... I'm afraid the conclusion is certain gender roles are mandated either by nature or by nature's Author...

Okay that leaves us with the question of necessity... A child is necessarily incapable of existing without the fusion of elements from a man(well a male at least) and a female... A child once conceived cannot live without an environment only naturally found in females... ummm i'd say that's pretty darn necessary... [/quote]
You are obviously misunderstanding the terms here. Gender roles does not refer to those functions which are sex-essential (ie those that must be performed by a certain sex) such as giving birth. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_role"]Wikipedia notes:[/url] "gender, like any other role, involves socially proscribed and prescribed behaviors, which may take the form of rules or values." This can be seen in statements such as 'real men don't wear skirts'.

[quote]you see nobody is going to argue with your definition of feminism because it's right, what we'll argue against is your implementation because your implementation is not natural or moral.[/quote]

According to [i]you[/i] it's not natural or moral (thought I'd like an explanation of how it's not natural).

[quote]feminism doesn't need the possibility of discarding gender roles it needs the recognition that both genders have an equal obligation and an equally unique gift to offer.[/quote]

1) This assumes there are only 2 genders.
2) What obligation is that?

[quote]your 2nd class citizen arguement is hypocritical because to follow your suggestion would reduce children in the womb to second class citizens, by the logic you use to justify abortion we should also kill the infirm and anyone receiving federal assistance with health care because using our tax dollars to support them turns us into second class citizens.[/quote]

Please explain how "if women don't have control over their own bodies then they are essentially second class citizens" leads to killing those who are on medicare.

[quote]Abortion and the kill-the-baby pill(s) allow men to have sex without worrying about having to supporrt a child... the allow women to have sex without worrying about raising a child provided they are willing to risk an increased vulnerability to various medical problems not the least of which is the problem of the medical procedure used to kill the unwanted child also killing the mother. Men however don't suffer a risk to life or health from it. you do the math and see who benefits.[/quote]

Actually, the only form of birth control that allows men that attitude is the condom. And then only if they provided it themselves and inspected it for holes first. How else would women be able to sabotage their birth control to trap men? Besides, if an 'oops' does happen, women have total power over whether to abort and if they decide not to, men have no choice but to provide child support. I have to say that women certainly come out ahead on that one.

[quote]No if you want true equality then make it to where the father and mother both raise the child or allow couples desiring to be parents to adopt the child. There's a reason the women I know don't want to be single mom's raising a child is a two person job. feminism in it's moral implementation requires both people fulfill their obligation.[/quote]

No, if you want true equality, you allow people to decide absolutely when and whether and in what situation they want to have children.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='bookwyrm' date='Feb 25 2005, 01:41 PM'] I'd be interested in hearing some examples, please. [/quote]
I'll have to dig out some old textbooks for the role reversal example (and they're in storage in another state so it may take a while). However, many Native American cultures had an accepted practice of "berdache" in which a man took on the charachteristics of a woman. This extended even to marriage.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 25 2005, 01:37 PM'] Obviously, killing a murderous attacker in defense of oneself, or one's loved ones, etc., is not the same as killing an innocent person. This is obvious, and you're just playing games to avoid facing the issue.
War and the death penalty should not be used lightly, and there are in fact pro-lifers who oppose these things. That is a whole other debate.
Killing may only be done when it is the only possible means of protecting the innocent. It should not be done for any other reason. [/quote]
No. Killing is killing whether done for duty, profit, or fun. If you kill in self-defense you are deeming your own life more important than someone else's. If you sentence someone to death you are deeming them less important than the multitude of other people who are not being killed by the state -- even if that person is innocent.

Oh, but "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't really mean that -- it means you can kill as long as you are protecting the innocent.

[quote]Do you believe all innocent human persons have a right to life which should be protected?
What makes your life more worthy of protection than an unborn child's?[/quote]

We won't agree on this point either, because we won't agree on a definition of "person".

If you are in a burning building and you only have time to save either a 2 year old or frozen embryos, but not both, which would you save?

[quote]As to your other "points," you have given nothing specific to argue.[/quote]

Okay, if you don't have any info to back up your statement about gender roles, that's fine.

[Socrates]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Feb 25 2005, 03:44 PM'] No. Killing is killing whether done for duty, profit, or fun. If you kill in self-defense you are deeming your own life more important than someone else's. If you sentence someone to death you are deeming them less important than the multitude of other people who are not being killed by the state -- even if that person is innocent.

Oh, but "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't really mean that -- it means you can kill as long as you are protecting the innocent.



We won't agree on this point either, because we won't agree on a definition of "person".

If you are in a burning building and you only have time to save either a 2 year old or frozen embryos, but not both, which would you save?



Okay, if you don't have any info to back up your statement about gender roles, that's fine. [/quote]
Once again, you play games to avoid dealing with the main question at hand.

Let's say you have a gun and see a psychopath about about to kill an innocent girl. There is little time to act. A clean shot to the man's head will save the girl's life. What would you do?
If you say "shoot the man," according to you, wouldn't that be "judging" the murderer and deeming his life less worthy of protection than the girl's?
It seems your own logic fails here.

Are you yourself a strict pacifist? Are you against any killing in self-defense? Or are you just playing games?

As to your "burning building" scenario, I would try to save as many human lives as possible -and if I absolutely had to make a choice, I would probably choose the 2 year old, not because I beleive her "more human," but for sentimental reasons and other extrinsic reasons (happiness of the parents, etc.) I would never deliberately myself kill the embryos or let them die if it was possible to save them.
This is a silly, unrealistic question. It's like asking "If there was a burning building and your mother and a woman who was a total stranger were inside, and you could only rescue one, who would you rescue? Choosing your mother does not mean it should be legal to kill the other woman!

Now that we're through with the games, let's get to the point. You claim it is acceptable to kill an unborn child on the justification that it is not a person.
You have yet to explain how this is true.

And all societies have had traditional roles for men and women. Your examples of exceptions only prove that there is a general rule of roles for seperate roles for men and women.

[bookwyrm]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Feb 25 2005, 04:36 PM'] I'll have to dig out some old textbooks for the role reversal example (and they're in storage in another state so it may take a while). However, many Native American cultures had an accepted practice of "berdache" in which a man took on the charachteristics of a woman. This extended even to marriage. [/quote]
I'll admit I'm not familiar with the subject, but it sounds like the exception rather than the rule, right? So there were still generally accepted gender roles.

[jiyoung]

i believe the iroquois was one example of a matriarchal society. it worked fine, yeah...but it is an exception. and generally i believe the women had the bigger hand in making official decisions.

i think men and women should complement each other as our bodies complement each other. it shouldn't be about having power over the other but about working together. women right now are trying to prove their independence from men--"anything you can do, i can do better." breaking through discrimination is a valid feminist action: creating equal pay, etc. however it needs to be acknowledged that we ARE intrinsically different. but--to eliminate discrimination and such would not go against the bible and against natural design. i think it was scott hahn that said this--woman was created out of the rib to be at the side of man and ever close to his heart. to ensure that women aren't discriminated against in terms of pay or how women are treated elevates women back to the place we were intended.

abortion and contraception, however--you will notice that the women who have abortions are rarely given a choice NOT to. those planned parenthood counselors can get pretty nasty. abortion is not a clean, sterile removal of a clump of cells. maybe it is because men don't have that maternal side, but there is a definite emotional tie between a woman and her child. to kill that child--a woman will someday wake up in horror that her baby had depended solely on her for survival and that she, her baby's mommy, is solely responsible for her child's death. it's interesting to me the way human nature will rebel against that "choice"--simply because it is unnatural. post abortion syndrome may hit a woman when she wakes up from her "procedure," a week later, a month later, a year later--but it will always hit her like a ton of bricks. it will have physical side effects and emotional ones as well. promoters of abortion fail to recognize these.

burnsspivey, you pointed out that a woman could meddle with the birth control to "trap" a man. but it seems to me that it would be more of a boon for men because it makes it so a man would not have to deal with the consequences of his actions. a woman becomes simply an object for his own pleasure--hardly how God created us. when a woman becomes a machine to give a man sexual satisfaction, something is terribly wrong. likewise, with abortion, a woman becomes like a car. if a man "spills" something, he can just vacuum her out to use her again and again. i think this debases women more than it does anything else. how does abortion and contraception help women at all? we just become more and more objectified as we become used only for sex. but every action has its consequences, and you can't avoid those consequences forever. whether they're physical or emotional, you have to deal with them sooner or later.

[Mary's Knight, La]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Feb 25 2005, 03:14 PM'] You are obviously misunderstanding the terms here. Gender roles does not refer to those functions which are sex-essential (ie those that must be performed by a certain sex) such as giving birth. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_role"]Wikipedia notes:[/url] "gender, like any other role, involves socially proscribed and prescribed behaviors, which may take the form of rules or values." This can be seen in statements such as 'real men don't wear skirts'.



According to [i]you[/i] it's not natural or moral (thought I'd like an explanation of how it's not natural).



1) This assumes there are only 2 genders.
2) What obligation is that?



Please explain how "if women don't have control over their own bodies then they are essentially second class citizens" leads to killing those who are on medicare.



Actually, the only form of birth control that allows men that attitude is the condom. And then only if they provided it themselves and inspected it for holes first. How else would women be able to sabotage their birth control to trap men? Besides, if an 'oops' does happen, women have total power over whether to abort and if they decide not to, men have no choice but to provide child support. I have to say that women certainly come out ahead on that one.



No, if you want true equality, you allow people to decide absolutely when and whether and in what situation they want to have children. [/quote]
Gender Roles came about from the sex-essential functions. I could probably and might if you insist make the case for gender roles being the logical extension of the sex-essential functions. E.G. the mothering part of the female gender role is an extension of the function of carrying and giving birth to the child.

Based on your prior posts your feminism centers mostly around abortion and contraception... neither of these smacks of nature... either chemicals or devices not naturally found in a woman's body must be introduced to prevent conception or kill what is conceived (except in the case of NFP which I'm all for) the moral arguement I've made in other posts but to summarize God designed our bodies to function in a certain way, adding devices or chemicals, or later pursuing an abortion acts against the way the body was designed and acts against God's will hence immoral.

Your arguments against this will amount to one of the following God has nothing to do with morality (atheism/secularism), God doesnt have a problem with His creation being abused and killed (foolishness). To debate what is moral though we must start with agreeing a clearly defined right and wrong and then argue whether X fits into the definition of right or wrong. I don't think you'll agree with me on the definitions of right and wrong, and based on your posts I know I won't agree with you.

As per my arguements on morality I only recognize two genders. the obligation is to collectively solve the problems that arise in life, and family life (including providing for the family, raising children, contributing to society, worshipping God, etc... )

Your arguement is that women should be able to kill their children, in the womb, so that women are not second class citizens. make it only a little more general and you have: to not be a second class citizen, one must be able to kill those one is forced to support but did not intentionally chooose to support. Have you chosen to support those receiving medicare? but that was only an analogy of the attitude behind your claim, my main arguement was this:

You claim:
A) being a second class citizen is bad (we agree on this)
B) by not being able to kill the child they are carrying women become second class citizens, by having something (pregnancy) forced on them
C) killing their child allows women to not have pregnancy forced on them and thus makes them not second class citizens (A,B)
I argue:
D) the child in the womb has not chosen to die
E) therefore, according to you, to make women not second class citizens requires forcing death on the child (C,D)
F) forcing something (death) on the child turns the child into a second class citizen (B,C)
G) Turning the child into a second class citizen is bad (A)
Conclusion:
Your arguement about abortion solves the problem of second-class citizenship is wrong because it doesn't solve "the problem" it just changes who has something forced on them.

However, the premise of your arguement also has a fallacy. You say the women did not choose to get pregnant however, she did have sex, which is naturally directed towards children (it's not coincidence man and woman were designed that way).

I'm ignoring your birth-control sabotage arguement, it's irrelevant to the discussion. I agree with you that a woman being able to kill the child without regard for the father is wrong (at least that's what I think you were saying). My point was that condoms, the pill, the morning after pill, and child killing operations on demand all reduce the chance of a child surviving to the point of obligating the father for support (from a legal sense, the father's obligation actually starts [i] before conception [/i]) this makes women more likely to be open to sex which allows more men to take advantage of women. your supposed tools of feminism actually are counter productive.

I'm all for people deciding when and whether they want children. I just don't think a child should be killed once it is conceived, or that people should have sex if they're not willing to have a child since having a child is integrally tied with sex. I believe women have every right to say no. Further I believe a child should be raised equally by a mother and a father. I believe a family should consist of both a husband and a wife because each has gifts that only they can bring to the family which are necessary and I think both should participate equally in the family. I believe in true equality which celebrates each person equally both for what they share with others and for what makes them truely unique and does not tell women to be more like men or men to be more like women.