babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » Feminists for Life

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Feminists for Life
wedge_oli
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6378

posted 02 June 2005 02:35 PM      Profile for wedge_oli     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If you believe in the strength of women and the potential of every human life. If you refuse to choose between women and children. If you believe no woman should be forced to choose between pursuing her education and career plans and sacrificing her child. If you reject violence and exploitation.
Join us in challenging the status quo.
Because women deserve Better choices. Welcome to Feminists for Life. There is a better way

I came across this site through Hugo Schwyzer's blog, one that I read almost daily and that I have a great amount of respect for. I normally find his musings have a great amount of insight, from a feminist point of view, so it startled me to find that he was Anti-Choice...

Anyways, If I understand it correctly this group seems to use traditional feminist vernacular to frame Abortion as another form of violence against women. Basically, society is structured in a way that women are often "pushed" into an abortion in order to conform to societal norms.

Are these people truly feminists? Is it at all possible to be pro-Life and Feminist at the same time?

[ 02 June 2005: Message edited by: wedge_oli ]


From: Montreal, QC and St. Catharines Ontario | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 02 June 2005 02:46 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
I'm far from an expert on feminist theory, but it has always seemed to me that if you consider the foetus to be a human being, then opposition to abortion is a given. I think that is a belief that isn't precluded by being a feminist.

Perhaps if the anti-abortion forces weren't dominated by people who are so clearly anti-feminist, they would be more representative of society and the idea of "pro-life" feminists wouldn't be so bizarre. But even if I did believe the foetus was human and abortion was murder, I could not possible bring myself to support the horrible people who are the "pro-life" movement.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 02 June 2005 02:47 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How about "anti-racists for slavery"?

No, of course they aren't feminists. Nobody is forcing them to have an abortion. If anyone is, or forcing sterilisation on them as has been the case against Aboriginal women, women of colour and various groups of poor women, then there is a legitimate beef. Any person, male of female, who forces a woman to give birth against her will is a slaver, and that is directly counter to the emancipatory message of feminism.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
sock puppet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7739

posted 02 June 2005 02:55 PM      Profile for sock puppet   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let's face it, no one is pro abortion or unwanted children.
So I think it is possible to be pro-Life and Feminist at the same time, but at the same time, I don't think these particular people are the real McCoy.

A truly feminist organization would be interested in tackling the larger social justice issues surrounding the abortion issue - birth control, adoption, child care, etc.

I see little if any focus on such interrelated problems.

[ 03 June 2005: Message edited by: sock puppet ]


From: toronto | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 02 June 2005 04:05 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why don't they just call themseves "Foetusists for Life".
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
donvonbra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9233

posted 02 June 2005 05:09 PM      Profile for donvonbra     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by wedge_oli:
Anyways, If I understand it correctly this group seems to use traditional feminist vernacular to frame Abortion as another form of violence against women. Basically, society is structured in a way that women are often "pushed" into an abortion in order to conform to societal norms.

Sounds like the "all sex is rape" brigade. I suppose if you assume that all women who have an abortion are pushed into it I guess you come to that type of conclusion. My experience though belies that.

quote:
Are these people truly feminists? Is it at all possible to be pro-Life and Feminist at the same time?

Yes, while recognizing that there are other feminists who are pro-choice.


From: Balmaha | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sharon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4090

posted 02 June 2005 05:31 PM      Profile for Sharon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's an interesting name, isn't it? When I saw it -- feminists for life -- I thought, "well, that's me," as in, "I expect to be a feminist for the rest of my life."

Sorry for slight diversion.

I have met women who call themselves "feminist" and also "pro-life." I have reached the point where I accept women's self-definition and if you call yourself "feminist," I appreciate it.

But having control over your own body seems so fundamental to me, it's hard to put both together.


From: Halifax, Nova Scotia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 02 June 2005 05:58 PM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Years and years ago I had a mid-pregnancy miscarriage. My husband was roman catholic. His priest said there could be no funeral, the first breath of life had not been drawn...and ever since then I am puzzled at how a few dividing cells get deemed to be "life" and a recognizeable baby wasn't.

I've never had an abortion. I don't know if I could have chosen that option. I didn't have to. I have never known anyone who skipped happily into the clinic, sang cheerfully while in there and came out dancing and yelling Let's party.

I will go to the wall for Choice for all women. I don't even want to know "why" they have decided on abortion. I do know if any mealymouthed arstle tries in any way to browbeat or hinder any woman in my family from making her own Choice I am going to lose what little veneer of civilization I have and go for the throat.

The women I have known who work at and for the clinics are non-violent. I would ask the Compulsory Pregnancy people to realize I have not made that commitment. Stand between any of mine and the Choice she has made and this wrinkled bag will be in your face.

We know the compulsory pregnancy people have such overwhelming respect for life that they support George Bush and his war machine; they blow up clinics; they shoot doctors and think nothing of kicking and gouging. They "love" the holy fetus so much they spit at and screech insults at it's incubator.

We are not all nonviolent. Beware white haired women who walk with limps and carry canes! One of them is me.


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 02 June 2005 06:05 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"The compulsory-pregnancy people."

I like that. May I use it, Anne? I shall credit you.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 02 June 2005 06:08 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
anne, do you notice that people often wear scarves in your vicinity?
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 02 June 2005 06:11 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Years and years ago I had a mid-pregnancy miscarriage. My husband was roman catholic. His priest said there could be no funeral, the first breath of life had not been drawn...and ever since then I am puzzled at how a few dividing cells get deemed to be "life" and a recognizeable baby wasn't.

Weird. You'd think that would put a bullet though the whole catholic anti-abortion policy, unless babies have somehow aquired scuba gear.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 02 June 2005 07:21 PM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Skdadl: With pleasure, and no need to credit me with it, make it your own, please.

Scarves are not enough... studded leather collars might work...

Heywood..it puzzles me, and has done for years. But I suspect I am easily puzzled. I don't see why so many men, who do not have wombs, have so much to say about what those who do have them should do with them.

And then turn around and bitch about having to pay taxes for social programmes which benefit the children they insisted the rest of us just HAD to have!

Read Heather Mallicks column.

The woman deserves a medal. Or at least a good bottle of wine. Where can we donate?


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 02 June 2005 08:27 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Anne, I didn't like Heather Mallick's most recent column at all. I think it is our social duty to defend the most vulnerable - including the very young and the very old, and people with disabilities - whether we happen to like them or not. I don't think we are under any obligation to like children - provided we don't mistreat them or bitch (sorry) about their presence in public places. When I was little myself I hated children - preferred adult company. I have mellowed out a bit since then, but I still prefer adult pursuits ... to each her or his own.

Yeah, I loved the compulsory pregnancy thing too. Less fond of calling yourself a "wrinkled bag" - why do we always want to put ourselves down - sort of as a preventive strike? Oh, I do that too, so many women do, but I do wonder why...


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 02 June 2005 08:42 PM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
lagatta: we are all a bag of meat and bones. And in my case, the bag is incredibly wrinkled. I don't feel the least bit diminished by my wrinkles, I earned every one of them.

My four year old grand-daughter asked what they were called, and traced one with her finger. I said it was a wrinkle, and it was from being old. She gave me this LOOK (god, they can rip out your innards with those looks) and said Oh, I thought it was from smilin' so much.

I adore my grandchildren. I'm not personally all that fond of "all children". But I think Mallick is spot on, this society is downright horrible to kids, and to the parents of those kids.

That said, please don't get me wound up and started on "permissive" or "democratic" parenting. I cannot believe the sass, cheek, rudeness and downright disrespect pouring from the mouths of even little kids!

I suppose I'm a dinosaur; I spank. What I find "funny" (although not exactly funny ha ha) is that I was often told I was too "soft" on my kids, "spoiling" them by allowing (!) them to participate in conversations about politics, sex, or anything else going around the living room of an evening. They were expected to contribute, not "show off", and no matter how interesting or involving the conversation, their bedtime was inflexible. They were NOT allowed to interrupt and I don't know what would have come down if any of them had spoken to me or to their father the way I've seen and heard kids talking to parents and teachers in the past few years.

The same four year old, after we had made cookies and were sitting eating them while still warm from the oven, told me "You're very nice to us. But you're awful tough, aren't you.". I said yes, I was VERY strict. The three year old said, and I quote "Ha, Grandma. Ha ha.".

Yes, we ate ALL those warm cookies. And yes, it "ruined" our supper.

I don't feel the same way about every kid I encounter on the street but I do think every kid in this nation should have full protection and the parents should have access to whatever medical treatment is needed for the kids. If we can afford to send Adrienne Clarkson and however many friends on a tour of Scandinavia for however long we can surely afford proper social safety nets for the next generation.

I always enjoy your contributions. You cause me to examine my own thoughts and responses, and I appreciate that very much.


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 02 June 2005 08:53 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Me too. All the more because our outlooks are rather different.

I'm happy today though - see Mohamed Cherfi (Algerian refugee) thread for the reason - not just the positive - if very strange - decision from the Murricans but the flowers from his companion Louise who is a friend of mine. Often work like translating, editing, writing press releases etc (typical intellectual women' work, eh?) is taken far too much for granted.

Also happy because I've just returned from the spring bazaar at Ste-Madeleine-d'Outremont church - rather a "society church" ... where Justin Trudeau and Sophie Grégoire just had a "modest" society wedding (for rich people, a "lavish" wedding in Montreal is at Notre-Dame Basilica in Old Montreal...). Came back on my poor old bicycle laden down with books, a few lovely picture frames for my watercolours, a nice comfy and easy-to-pack skirt, and some really tacky celebrity magazines in German (because I'm studying German of course, and maudlin articles about the princesses of Monaco mourning their late father have useful vocabulary about families, births and deaths, if you strip away the laughable society nonsense). Ah, the pitfalls of language study!


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 02 June 2005 10:16 PM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Basically, society is structured in a way that women are often "pushed" into an abortion in order to conform to societal norms.

If you read some of their literature even if you remain prochoice some of their ideas have merit.

They have shared that they believe that many women have abortions because of spousal or partner pressure which rings true and is confirmed by research.

It is also true that many women choose abortion in the face of a set of circumstances where they feel they have no other choice. These activists frame it as a society offering women abortions rather than develop the necessary social programs and supports to embrace women.

They also point to some of the history around how the abortion movement began as a eugenics movement.

Even if you disagree with the entire prolife movement and are prochoice I think it is clear that our society has not nurtured women who have given life in the way that they deserve. We have not created alternatives to abortion that offer the supports desired. It's a tough haul.


quote:
But even if I did believe the foetus was human and abortion was murder, I could not possible bring myself to support the horrible people who are the "pro-life" movement.

I think it's a more diverse community than you recognize.

quote:
No, of course they aren't feminists.

This is not a rhetorical question as I am sincerely looking for an answer that is understandable to me.

Let me first begin by saying that I don't consider myself a feminist although I do believe that they have a very valid point of view on many matters and I would support their advocacy efforts in some areas.

I struggle, however, with how a community that is about women being empowered can tell a group of women who does self-identify as feminists that they are foolish, mistaken, and really aren't feminists?

I am told all the time that when I suggest people that aren't following the statement of faith of the Christian church aren't Christian that this is judgement and people can re-define that faith as they choose. I am to accept their self-report.

Why is that same courtesy not demonstrated to women who identify as feminists but don't reflect all of your philosophies?

It's a sincere question.

Anne despite the passage of time I am sorry for that loss. Given the stage of pregnancy that had to be particularly difficult although it's a loss at any stage I am sure.

I am not RC so I am grappling a bit with that information regarding how the clergy dealt with it. I am going to ask someone so I better understand teaching around that.


From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
sock puppet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7739

posted 03 June 2005 08:05 AM      Profile for sock puppet   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you read some of their literature even if you remain prochoice some of their ideas have merit.
When I read most of their literature, all I see is unsubstantiated propaganda:
quote:
Abortion rights activists promised us a world of equality and reduced poverty. A world where every child would be wanted. Instead, child abuse has escalated, and rather than shared responsibility for children, even more of the burden has shifted to women.
Inequality, poverty and child-abuse are now the fault of the pro-choice movement?

They have shared that they believe that many women have abortions because of spousal or partner pressure which rings true and is confirmed by research.
As I stated earlier, no one enjoys the thought of abortion. How many (your choice of words) women have the abortion 'choice' forced upon them by a spouse or partner? How are you going to justify denying the clear majority of others their right to choose?

It is also true that many women choose abortion in the face of a set of circumstances where they feel they have no other choice. These activists frame it as a society offering women abortions rather than develop the necessary social programs and supports to embrace women.
If there was any significant focus on developing such supports over the long-term, I might consider this group legitimate. But I see no evidence of this on their website.

They also point to some of the history around how the abortion movement began as a eugenics movement.
Not entirely true. This is just guilt by association again, as ridiculous as the claims that abortion is associated with child abuse.

Even if you disagree with the entire prolife movement and are prochoice I think it is clear that our society has not nurtured women who have given life in the way that they deserve. We have not created alternatives to abortion that offer the supports desired. It's a tough haul.
Agreed. So why isn't this group more interested in the long-term solutions to the causes of abortion, rather than short-term prevention?

[ 03 June 2005: Message edited by: sock puppet ]


From: toronto | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Publius
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8829

posted 03 June 2005 11:20 AM      Profile for Publius     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Of course you can be a feminist and be pro-life. To suggest otehrwise is to say that in order to be a feminist, one must accept abject conformity, when feminism really should be about allowing women to form and express their own opinions and beliefs with confidence and conviction.

I would argue that abortion is bad for women. It allows them to be used as sex objects, it promotes promiscuity and irresponsible behaviour, it denies them the joy of motherhood, it reinforces negative stereotypes. Furtehrmore, while females make up slightly more than half of the population, female fetuses account for significantly more of terminated pregnancies, particularly amongst certain cultures where having boys is prized and having girls can be seen as a disppointment.

It always puzzles me while people who are so "progressive" on msot issues can be so much in favour of abortion. Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, a Nazi-sympathizer, eugenics advocate and viscious racist and anti-Semite. She argued that abortion should be allowed because too many black people were having babies. Her wish sadly has become reality. Today, black fetuses represent almsot half of all abortions, despite being a much smaller percentage of the overall population. These are American figures by the way. I don't ahve Canadian ones at hand.


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 03 June 2005 11:26 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How patronising:

"I would argue that abortion is bad for women. It allows them to be used as sex objects, it promotes promiscuity and irresponsible behaviour, it denies them the joy of motherhood, it reinforces negative stereotypes".

What if we are uninterested in the "joy of motherhood"? Not all humans, male or female, have a burning desire to be a parent.

What an offensive, sexist post. Telling other people what to do with their bodies is not "diversity". It is at best meddling and at worst enslavement.

Fuck off and die.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Suzette
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7708

posted 03 June 2005 11:30 AM      Profile for Suzette     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, two scoops of what lagatta said.
From: Pig City | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582

posted 03 June 2005 11:35 AM      Profile for fern hill        Edit/Delete Post
And another scoop from me.
From: away | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 June 2005 11:37 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In every society we know of, from the beginning of history, women have sought abortions, usually at great risk to their lives, often losing their lives in the attempt. So let's stop with the potted history, shall we?

quote:
Of course you can be a feminist and be pro-life. To suggest otehrwise is to say that in order to be a feminist, one must accept abject conformity, when feminism really should be about allowing women to form and express their own opinions and beliefs with confidence and conviction.

One can certainly be a feminist who would never consider abortion herself. And any good feminist would immediately come to the defence and support of any woman she believed was being pressured or forced to have an abortion.

But to expect to be able to impose one's views on others by law, to force other women to go through with a pregnancy they do not want (or to risk their lives seeking an illegal abortion) -- there is the demand for "abject conformity," and there is the disrespect for the intelligence of others, the autonomy of others -- for the sanctity of the human mind, actually.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Publius
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8829

posted 03 June 2005 11:49 AM      Profile for Publius     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This same sort of logic is used by all sorts of groups, who want to promote the party line at the expense of individual thought. Put it this way: Can I consider myself Jewish if I'm critical of Israel/Zionism? Can I be a good Catholic if disagree with the church's official stance on same-sex marriage? I certainly think that one can, because at the end of the day Judaism and Catholicism are about a great deal more than a single issue. One can believe in God, Jesus Christ, etc. while taking issue with how those who run the church feel about gay marriage. Since when did feminism all boil down to abortion? By your logic, Susan B. Anthony is jsut another "anti-choice fanatic". Go read her writings on the subject. I always beleived feminism was about promoting equality, access to education, voting, cracking down on violence against women, etc. But if you support all these things, but you also object to unborn children being torn apart in the womb, you're not a true feminsit? How dare you define what I am and what I believe!
From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 03 June 2005 12:13 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Publius, perhaps you need a course in critical reading. Because your response was framed as an automatic response, IMO, to something that was not contained in any of the postings prior to your nonsensical rant.

Your being detailed as a non-feminist did not come from your stance on abortion in my mind it came from your putrid words of; "allows them to be used as sex objects, it promotes promiscuity and irresponsible behaviour, it denies them the joy of motherhood, it reinforces negative stereotypes."

IT is an individuals choice what they do or do not do with their bodies and lives, it is not anothers choice. No one person, other than the individual involved in making a choice, any choice in what they do with their body, has a right to condemn any other. If you believe in interfering with individual choices, then I do not believe you are a feminist or even a humanist.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Publius
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8829

posted 03 June 2005 12:24 PM      Profile for Publius     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, I see. So it was my objection to women being used as sex objects that makes an enemy of women everywhere. Thank you for clarifying that.
From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 03 June 2005 12:30 PM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
When I read most of their literature, all I see is unsubstantiated propaganda:

I wasn't specifically thinking of that website but more globally of literature produced by women who are self-reporting to be feminists and prolife.

quote:
Inequality, poverty and child-abuse are now the fault of the pro-choice movement?

I can't speak on behalf of the author of the post but I would say that it is not. They are global issues.

quote:
How many (your choice of words) women have the abortion 'choice' forced upon them by a spouse or partner? How are you going to justify denying the clear majority of others their right to choose?

I have read - and no I don't have a link - that for seventy percent of women overall are heavily influenced by parent or partner influence. They are not making the decision in a vacuum. Even if you are prochoice I would think that it would lead to some strategizing to ensure that women were engaging in informed consent. Clinic's abilities in that area probably fluctuate between settings. And by informed consent I am not thinking what is often stereotyped as prolife thinking - I am thinking more broadly than some of the proposed ideas.

quote:
If there was any significant focus on developing such supports over the long-term, I might consider this group legitimate. But I see no evidence of this on their website

I do know that Patricia Heaton has spoken out on domestic violence as recently as the last year. I am not as familiar with this specific site as I should be.

quote:
Agreed. So why isn't this group more interested in the long-term solutions to the causes of abortion, rather than short-term prevention?

Looking beyond this site the prolife movement and the nation as a whole should be more interested in that.

quote:
Of course you can be a feminist and be pro-life. To suggest otehrwise is to say that in order to be a feminist, one must accept abject conformity, when feminism really should be about allowing women to form and express their own opinions and beliefs with confidence and conviction.

For most of my life I've believed that being a feminist and being prochoice are synonymous.

quote:
It allows them to be used as sex objects, it promotes promiscuity and irresponsible behaviour, it denies them the joy of motherhood, it reinforces negative stereotypes.

I would think that some women who support the prochoice viewpoint would see sexual expression that you are talking about as healthy and allowing an equal playing field between men and women. Men have functioned in the same light without near the same amount of criticism. I would imagine that they would see framing those choices as "irresponsible", "promiscuous", etc is just reinforcing the mindset that criticizes only 50% of the people involved in sex outside of marriage.

I would also suggest that there are people who don't see motherhood as something to cherish as you do. Even those who do value it may not value it for themselves. Some have no desire to parent a child and either prefer not to have children or prefer to have relationships with children other than parent-child.

quote:
Furtehrmore, while females make up slightly more than half of the population, female fetuses account for significantly more of terminated pregnancies, particularly amongst certain cultures where having boys is prized and having girls can be seen as a disppointment.

It's incredibly sad to me that any abortion would occur but this particular reason is particularly disheartening. That being said I think a person who held true to authentic prochoice philosophies would see that as within the scope of a woman's right to choose.

You can't really argue that a fetus is a person if it's a girl and unwanted for that reason but a blob of tissue with no rights for any other circumstances. It would more than lack a bit of credibility.


quote:
Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, a Nazi-sympathizer, eugenics advocate and viscious racist and anti-Semite. She argued that abortion should be allowed because too many black people were having babies. Her wish sadly has become reality. Today, black fetuses represent almsot half of all abortions, despite being a much smaller percentage of the overall population.

I am reading a book right now on Planned Parenthood and it's history. I don't know how balanced it is and inclusive of all sides but we'll see. I've just cracked the beginning pages.

I didn't know that information about black families and abortion. I did a bit of a google. I am pretty sure it would be an item of criticism if I posted the relevant links but I'd like to pm them to you so please check.

quote:
marriage. Since when did feminism all boil down to abortion? By your logic, Susan B. Anthony is jsut another "anti-choice fanatic". Go read her writings on the subject. I always beleived feminism was about promoting equality, access to education, voting, cracking down on violence against women, etc. But if you support all these things, but you also object to unborn children being torn apart in the womb, you're not a true feminsit? How dare you define what I am and what I believe!

I hadn't thought of that whole piece of Susan B. Anthony that does give me a bit of pause because ti would be hard not to see her as a feminist.


From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2279

posted 03 June 2005 12:30 PM      Profile for Alix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, it was your personification of women who have sex frequently as promiscuous or "behaving badly," your intimation that motherhood is the be-all and end-all of a woman's life, and most of all, the overall attitude that you know what is best for women and feminists that makes what you said so very objectionable.
From: Kingston | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 June 2005 12:33 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Tritto from me.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 03 June 2005 12:36 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let's not feed the ignorant, ill-informed male troll.
From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 June 2005 12:38 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ditto to that too.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
wedge_oli
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6378

posted 03 June 2005 12:40 PM      Profile for wedge_oli     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Quittro from me too! or is it quattro? ... quatto?
From: Montreal, QC and St. Catharines Ontario | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 03 June 2005 12:40 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not to say that I wasn't immensely tempted pummel him with the cluebat, but I am attempting to turn over a new leaf and curb my mean streak.
From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 June 2005 12:49 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, I still give in to the temptation occasionally myself, but today is the first day of the rest of my life and all that psychobabble.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 03 June 2005 12:49 PM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
May I ask what makes you think he's a male - he said he was a feminist?
From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 June 2005 12:49 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In his profile he lists "m" under gender.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 June 2005 12:52 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I have read - and no I don't have a link - that for seventy percent of women overall are heavily influenced by parent or partner influence. They are not making the decision in a vacuum. Even if you are prochoice I would think that it would lead to some strategizing to ensure that women were engaging in informed consent. Clinic's abilities in that area probably fluctuate between settings. And by informed consent I am not thinking what is often stereotyped as prolife thinking - I am thinking more broadly than some of the proposed ideas.

Sorry, but this is sheer, unsupported propaganda, and it is furthermore deeply patronizing to women.

Adult women are perfectly capable of seeking the information they need, and even more important, determining for themselves what kind of information is relevant to them, without the smotheringly patronizing interrogations that you are proposing here.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Publius
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8829

posted 03 June 2005 01:07 PM      Profile for Publius     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wait a second? Are people here actually defending promiscuity? I fully agree that there shouldn't be a double standard. Men who behave that way are equally at fault and should be held to the same standard. And I don't recall saying that motherhood was the "be-all and end-all of a woman's life". I described it as a joy. Obviously, I would expand that to include fatherhood as well. I certainly hope to be a father one day and I don't think wanting that for myself and my wife is a bad thing.
From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 June 2005 01:08 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hailey, everyone is influenced by the people and information around them when it comes to any decisions they make. That's part of being human.

The point is that ultimately, the choice belongs to the woman. And you'll find that no pro-choice agency, such as Planned Parenthood, or pregnancy counselling centres, will present only the abortion side, or even try to encourage women to have abortions. They will present it as an equal option to the others, and they will offer counselling to women to help them come to terms with whatever decision they feel they must make.

As a woman who has not always been comfortable with my ultimate pro-choice stand since I don't think I could personally have an abortion, I would much, MUCH rather go to a counselling centre that truly provides ALL the options and will help me through any option I take. I don't want to jump through paternalistic hoops set by pro-coathanger lawmakers and activists to try to waste my time (while the fetus develops further making the choice to abort more difficult) with counselling that is little more than dogmatic pressure to conform to their religious and political morality.

If I want an abortion, I get one. Period, end of sentence. It's up to me to make sure I get the information I need for my own health care and my own body, not some religious fascists who want to dictate morality to me.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 June 2005 01:10 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Publius:
Wait a second? Are people here actually defending promiscuity?

Yeah. I'm defending it. If you want to stay virgin pure for your wife then go for it. But you can keep your moralizing to yourself when it comes to what I choose to do with MY sex life. If I want to fuck a dozen guys a week, it's none of your damned business.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 June 2005 01:12 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Are we defending promiscuity?

Hmmmn. A toughie. Are we, grils? Could someone remind me what promiscuity is?

BWAGA, y'know ...


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 03 June 2005 01:12 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Are people here actually defending promiscuity?

Yes.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 June 2005 01:15 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Furthermore, motherhood is not a "joy" to everyone. That's fine if motherhood and fatherhood are a joy to you - it's a joy to me too. But you weren't originally speaking just for yourself. You were speaking for women in general. And you know what? Men speaking for women in general about how they're supposed to feel about motherhood is Victorian, paternalistic, offensive, and downright obnoxious.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 June 2005 01:16 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Um, I guess above I should have said my business and skdadl's business.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 June 2005 01:19 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Lost, me.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 June 2005 01:21 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I said that if I want to be promiscuous, it's my own business. Then your most recent post reminded me that, well, it's your business too.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 June 2005 01:29 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
aaaaahhhhhhh.

I'm slow, but I get there.

You are in arrears, you know.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Publius
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8829

posted 03 June 2005 01:33 PM      Profile for Publius     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

And you'll find that no pro-choice agency, such as Planned Parenthood, or pregnancy counselling centres, will present only the abortion side, or even try to encourage women to have abortions. They will present it as an equal option to the others, and they will offer counselling to women to help them come to terms with whatever decision they feel they must make.
.


Really? Because if you actually look at Planned Parenthood's own statistics, they give a very different story. They perform 27 abortions for every women even REFERRED to an adoption agency. They are a pro-ABORTION organization. They even sell on their website shirts that read "I had an abortion" (as if that's something to be proud of), but interestingly, I couldn't find any shirts for sale that said "I had a baby". So maybe they're not that interested in presenting "both sides". Understandable, really, given that they've made hundreds of millions of dollars off abortion. I don't expect Coca-Cola to tout the benefits of Pepsi either. This organization also filed a lawsuit against the NY Board of Education for even including abstinence as PART of the sex-ed curriculum. I guess cause if kids are abstinent, they don't get pregnant, they don't have abortions, they don't pay Planned Parenthood.

And yes, I agree with those who say that they should be able to sleep around as much as they like. Of course it's your choice. I wouldn't dream of passing laws against it. What is surprising is that people actually defend this as a moral choice and that there's nothing wrong or shameful about it. As far as the law is concerned, I think you should be able to smoke crack and shoot heroin all day if you like, but I hardly think that constitutes a moral choice anymore than sleeping around does. And I certainly don't see how being a sex object is a feminist action.

I would ask again because no one has replied yet: Is Susan B. Anthony another religious wacko anti-choice fanatic?


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
andrean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 361

posted 03 June 2005 01:53 PM      Profile for andrean     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And I certainly don't see how being a sex object is a feminist action.

I think being a "sex subject" is a feminist action. Thinking that the only way that a woman can have sex with multiple partners is by degrading herself denies that woman her subjectivity and her right to make decisions for herself. Sex with several partners is not de facto objectification - it becomes objectification if the woman does not have free and equal choice in the participation.


From: etobicoke-lakeshore | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 03 June 2005 01:58 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And yes, I agree with those who say that they should be able to sleep around as much as they like. Of course it's your choice. I wouldn't dream of passing laws against it. What is surprising is that people actually defend this as a moral choice and that there's nothing wrong or shameful about it. As far as the law is concerned, I think you should be able to smoke crack and shoot heroin all day if you like, but I hardly think that constitutes a moral choice anymore than sleeping around does. And I certainly don't see how being a sex object is a feminist action.

I would ask again because no one has replied yet: Is Susan B. Anthony another religious wacko anti-choice fanatic?



Is it some kind of contagious disease striking males as they go through puberty or what? What on earth makes guys think they have the right to frame the limits of life for 1/2 the population or make moral equivalency tests to apply to woman's sex life, it is a plague on our society ,not to mention the most annoying male habit EVER!!
By the way P, have you read anything but Susan B Anthony?

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Granola Girl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8078

posted 03 June 2005 02:01 PM      Profile for Granola Girl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And yes, I agree with those who say that they should be able to sleep around as much as they like. Of course it's your choice. I wouldn't dream of passing laws against it. What is surprising is that people actually defend this as a moral choice and that there's nothing wrong or shameful about it. As far as the law is concerned, I think you should be able to smoke crack and shoot heroin all day if you like, but I hardly think that constitutes a moral choice anymore than sleeping around does

So I was sitting here, trying to choose between a joint and a shag, and thinking...jeez, is this guy uptight or what? And then I realized the root of Publius' problems. The key lies in this comment here:

quote:
I certainly hope to be a father one day

One day, Publius, if you're lucky, you will meet a nice gril who'll initiate you into the joys of intimacy. Until then, your chances with the ladies can only improve by keeping your mouth firmly shut. Good luck - I'm pulling for ya!


From: East Van | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Publius
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8829

posted 03 June 2005 02:59 PM      Profile for Publius     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your encouragement is touching, but I'm pleased to announce that I'll be getting married at the end of August to a lovely, pure young woman who wants to have kids and stay home and raise them.
From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 June 2005 03:03 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ah. We have at least one of those annually on babble. The summer marriage of the pure. How nice.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 03 June 2005 03:07 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Publius:
a lovely, pure young woman who wants to have kids and stay home and raise them.

Yes, I can certainly understand why someone married to you would wish to stay home, rather than be seen in public.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vigilante
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8104

posted 03 June 2005 04:25 PM      Profile for Vigilante        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
RB:
I'm far from an expert on feminist theory, but it has always seemed to me that if you consider the foetus to be a human being, then opposition to abortion is a given.

This really needn't be at all. The first thing people should realize is that all life operates under power relations good and bad. This is apriori to any morals or ethics we construct. Within these vast power relations shit happens, it's part of what makes the life cycle run. KILLING IN ITSELF IS NOT BAD. Once you realize that, you strip away all the morals and attempt to mediate the way these relations of power work. When doing so you decide when killing happens and when it doesn't. In the case of a foetus it may be subjected to female autonomy, and that might mean it's end. It's not nice but that's how things are sometimes. I am big on nonhuman liberation, but I understand that in certain cases(hunting societies) they have to be involved in a pretty opressive set of power relations. Once you realize these things it is a good idea to strip away the moralism and accept it on some level.

Arguing about the Foetus's status and when life begins is all abstract at the end of the day.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
raccunk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9151

posted 03 June 2005 04:39 PM      Profile for raccunk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Speaking of the earlier question regarding whether or not feminists can be pro-life: Of course they can. I am pro-choice personally but I know several women who would classify themselves as feminists and pro-life. They believe the bigger issues involve providing resources for mothers and their children after they are born. Feminism is about men and women having an equal stand in society. It is about women having equal access to a good education, good jobs, and the freedom to express their full potential just as men do. I don't see why people believe feminists are automatically pro-choice. *ahem*Hailey*ahem*
From: Zobooland | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 03 June 2005 04:56 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am trying to be good, but it's so very hard, the snark is rearing it's ugly head!
From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 June 2005 04:59 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Scout, I am biting my tongue too.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582

posted 03 June 2005 05:03 PM      Profile for fern hill        Edit/Delete Post
third ms-keteer biting tongue also
From: away | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 03 June 2005 05:25 PM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In his profile he lists "m" under gender.

I guess that should have been a clue!

quote:
Sorry, but this is sheer, unsupported propaganda, and it is furthermore deeply patronizing to women.

Adult women are perfectly capable of seeking the information they need, and even more important, determining for themselves what kind of information is relevant to them, without the smotheringly patronizing interrogations that you are proposing here.


Let me be clear that I am not talking about any kind of education that is talking about links to breast cancer and abortion as I feel that is about a political bias rather than patient care.

I am talking about making sure that women have information about the medical procedure and are given an opportunity to speak with someone independently. There are inconsistencies between clinics on that in my opinion.

I am not suggesting prolife counselling.

I am not trying to convince you, just wanting to clarify.

quote:
Obviously, I would expand that to include fatherhood as well. I certainly hope to be a father one day and I don't think wanting that for myself and my wife is a bad thing.

I wish you every happiness with that.

quote:
but interestingly, I couldn't find any shirts for sale that said "I had a baby".

Not a bad idea!

quote:
Understandable, really, given that they've made hundreds of millions of dollars off abortion. I don't expect Coca-Cola to tout the benefits of Pepsi either.

The issue of a conflict of interest isn't invalid but trying to be objective you get information from physicians all the time about procedures when they themselves are performing it.

We don't see that same argument used for knee surgeries or eye surgeries performed at private for profit clinics.

Globally the health care community needs to do a better job with informed consent. I don't think that's an abortion specific concern.

quote:
This organization also filed a lawsuit against the NY Board of Education for even including abstinence as PART of the sex-ed curriculum. I guess cause if kids are abstinent, they don't get pregnant, they don't have abortions, they don't pay Planned Parenthood.

I don't know the specifics of this but I do believe that prochoice people generically feel that abstinence programming is flawed. Their criticisms I don't think are linked to profit even if I don't agree.

quote:
So I was sitting here, trying to choose between a joint and a shag, and thinking...jeez, is this guy uptight or what? And then I realized the root of Publius' problems. The key lies in this comment here:


What are you suggesting?

I think that you are making a subtle criticism of different sexual choices. It's just very odd to me that someone would be jumped on (and fairly so) for criticizing other people's sexual decision making only to be mocked moments later for their own.

If I am interpreting you correctly and that's a genuine reflection of your thinking I am not sure you can rightfully criticize him for expressing his views on promiscuity when you are mocking his decisions.

quote:
One day, Publius, if you're lucky, you will meet a nice gril who'll initiate you into the joys of intimacy. Until then, your chances with the ladies can only improve by keeping your mouth firmly shut. Good luck - I'm pulling for ya!


I appreciate Granola Girl that Publius doesn't present the kind of thinking that you are attracted to and you would be fundamentally at odds over key issues.

To suggest, however, that that thinking isn't a fit for millions of other women is flawed I believe. Women are a very diverse group. There are women that live their life according to the same value system.

I'm assuming he is Christian given the value system that he's outlined and Christian men have an average marrying age that is below the national average which would suggest that they have the capacity to find a partner.

According to his profile he's professionally employed and is celebrating his 24th birthday this year. He's shared he's getting married and plans he has for a family. I'm not too worried.

quote:
I'll be getting married at the end of August to a lovely, pure young woman who wants to have kids and stay home and raise them.

Congratulations. I am sure it's a special time.

quote:
They believe the bigger issues involve providing resources for mothers and their children after they are born. Feminism is about men and women having an equal stand in society. It is about women having equal access to a good education, good jobs, and the freedom to express their full potential just as men do. I don't see why people believe feminists are automatically pro-choice. *ahem*Hailey*ahem*

Well, I am not an expert on feminism. I would say that your view is controversial and wouldn't be uniformly the view of feminists or even, perhaps, the majority. I might be surprised though!

I respect certain goals of the movement but I still see it as heavily linked to being pro-choice. I might be wrong but that's my current view.

[ 03 June 2005: Message edited by: Hailey ]


From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 03 June 2005 05:41 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Amazing, really amazing, how 2 young males, both born in 1981, both of whom live in Toronto and that both know about walking the talk and what feminists for life think, or should think, and feel.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 03 June 2005 05:47 PM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Remind, are you referring to raccunk? She's female.
From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
ShyViolet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6611

posted 03 June 2005 05:56 PM      Profile for ShyViolet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
maybe she means vigilante?
From: ~Love is like pi: natural, irrational, and very important~ | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 03 June 2005 05:58 PM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My bad! Well at least one of us can read Shy! Sorry for messing up the thread with that distraction.
From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
ShyViolet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6611

posted 03 June 2005 06:01 PM      Profile for ShyViolet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
well, i don't know that that's who remind meant...
he is a male from toronto though...so, maybe?

From: ~Love is like pi: natural, irrational, and very important~ | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 03 June 2005 06:07 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Publius and vigilante are both from Toronto, both are born in 1981, and both are putz's.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Granola Girl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8078

posted 03 June 2005 06:50 PM      Profile for Granola Girl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What are you suggesting?

I think that you are making a subtle criticism of different sexual choices. It's just very odd to me that someone would be jumped on (and fairly so) for criticizing other people's sexual decision making only to be mocked moments later for their own.


Hailey, I was merely trying to locate the inner source of Publius' evident rage against women who are "promiscuous" (whatever that means). I was betting on a lack of physical initmacy, but perhaps you are right and years of religious repression is more likely the root cause.


From: East Van | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Vigilante
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8104

posted 03 June 2005 07:14 PM      Profile for Vigilante        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Publius and vigilante are both from Toronto, both are born in 1981, and both are putz's.

I don't see how this corelates. Besides he seems to be big on marriage unlike myself. And sleeping around is nice for me.

And I was just critiquing an essentialist overly humancentric view on life. Considering a foetus a human does not have to mean being against abortion as I was arguing.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 03 June 2005 07:28 PM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Hailey, I was merely trying to locate the inner source of Publius' evident rage against women who are "promiscuous" (whatever that means). I was betting on a lack of physical initmacy, but perhaps you are right and years of religious repression is more likely the root cause

Well, we will have to agree to disagree.


From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
raccunk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9151

posted 03 June 2005 07:49 PM      Profile for raccunk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A friend suggested that one way to avoid having an abortion was to become a lesbian. That way I'll never get pregnant. But I just don't find breasts sexy. Perhaps I should start a new thread!
From: Zobooland | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
A longsuffering conservative
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9425

posted 03 June 2005 11:41 PM      Profile for A longsuffering conservative     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've weakened and will make a very short rant: abortion decisions are for a woman to make, in consultation with her doctor, and based on her conscience and her direction in life (no pun intended).

I caved, the impulse to jump in was just too strong. Now I'll shut the hell up.


From: The Sovereignist Dark Side | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 June 2005 11:54 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
ALC, what on earth are you doing in the Conservative Party, anyhow? I've been reading your posts for the last couple of days, and it's clear you really don't belong in that hornet's nest.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
A longsuffering conservative
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9425

posted 04 June 2005 12:17 AM      Profile for A longsuffering conservative     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks for the compliment! I'm an eternal optomist politically, as was just said in a much more lively thread, I belive in educating people (even with my modest abilities).

This does not mean that I am right even half the time. However, I am convinced to the core of my being that my party can evolve, grow and eventually return to mid-center.

It takes the right leader. It requires new blood in spades and a will on behalf of the majority of members not to stand on old established positions.

Human beings evolve, even Conservatives!


From: The Sovereignist Dark Side | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
A longsuffering conservative
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9425

posted 04 June 2005 12:25 AM      Profile for A longsuffering conservative     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And to get a little too personal: on abortion -- brought up in a Catholic household. At school, they pushed the "Catholic" view growing up.

Wasn't keen on the right to choose -- then one day, Mom told me her aunt's story:

she was going with a guy in the 30s and nature took its course.

She became pregnant. Remember, we are in Duplessis' Quebec! She panicked, felt incredible shame (thanks to her church upbringing) and KILLED HERSELF rather than tell her parents...

That did it for me. WHAT an evolution. The result = my first post on this topic.


From: The Sovereignist Dark Side | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 June 2005 12:29 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What a tragedy, LSC.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 04 June 2005 10:54 AM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"it requires new blood in spades"..are you suggesting we chop'em up and bury them?
From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bobolink
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5909

posted 04 June 2005 01:34 PM      Profile for Bobolink   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I consider my late wife to have been a feminist. However abortion was never an option for her. But she did not object to other women's right to choose.
From: Stirling, ON | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 04 June 2005 02:25 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
ALC, what on earth are you doing in the Conservative Party, anyhow? I've been reading your posts for the last couple of days, and it's clear you really don't belong in that hornet's nest.

No shit Michelle! Me too. What a fine person, and what a waste he is in the CPC. Perhaps last red tory hold out. Nice to meet you LSC.


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 04 June 2005 02:27 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Question for Publius:

Please, define 'pure woman'. I await your comments with breathless anticipation.


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Publius
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8829

posted 04 June 2005 02:51 PM      Profile for Publius     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stargazer,
I define it as a woman who has not had sexual intercourse before marriage.

From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Granola Girl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8078

posted 04 June 2005 02:54 PM      Profile for Granola Girl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do blow jobs before marriage count?
From: East Van | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 04 June 2005 03:00 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Publius:
Stargazer,
I define it as a woman who has not had sexual intercourse before marriage.

OK, my deepest apologies in advance if anyone is squicked by this (hi MOM).

Publius, I agonized over how to ask this question in a way that wouldn't disparage your bride-to-be, because I truly don't want to do that, but...

Before I lost my virginity, I had:

1. given fellatio
2. received cunnilingus
3. participated in mutual masturbation
4. had ejaculate on my face
5. been finger-fucked and fisted
6. had a guy's tongue up my ass

Would I have had a chance with you?


From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 June 2005 03:03 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gee, Anchoress: what were you waiting for?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 04 June 2005 03:05 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A shipment of extra-extra-large cherry Starburst flavoured condoms, of course!
From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Granola Girl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8078

posted 04 June 2005 03:06 PM      Profile for Granola Girl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh anchoress! I'm so glad you brought up fisting! That was goint to be my next question.

Also, Publius, does lesbian sex before marriage count, or only hetero sex? Like if I had a fling with bi friend of mine before hetero sex would I no longer be 'pure'?

Just for our clarification, y'know. A girl's gotta know these things. I mean, if nice fellas like you didn't set our sexual boundaries for us we might turn into rampaging sexual harpies, our hungry vaginas chewing up every man we come into contact with. I'm surprised they let us get away without wearing burkhas here in the West.


From: East Van | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 June 2005 03:11 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 04 June 2005 03:13 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

quote:
Do blow jobs before marriage count?

This was going to my next question. I think he's been scared off.


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 04 June 2005 03:14 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, he's busy looking up a few words.
From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 04 June 2005 03:19 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nah. He's doing something naughty with his hands.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 04 June 2005 03:23 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hope he has some keyboard sprayer on hand.


Nasty pun!


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 04 June 2005 03:29 PM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can't wrap my head around why it's important to anyone whether or not this gentleman and his girlfriend abstain from sexual relations.
From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Granola Girl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8078

posted 04 June 2005 03:30 PM      Profile for Granola Girl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Nah. He's doing something naughty with his hands.

He better be careful. He's likely putting his own sexual purity in jeopardy that way...


From: East Van | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 04 June 2005 03:31 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hailey, I think I made myself clear. I want to know what constitutes 'purity' to him. He brought it up, I don't see any problem with us asking for clarification.
From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 04 June 2005 03:35 PM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Anchoress, I suppose I see it slightly differently than that. Although I agree there were some requests for clarification it extended beyond that comment/question there was much mockery.

I don't believe it would be tolerated if male(s) posters approached a female who they felt had spoken out of turn and chastized her by telling her she'd be "less tense" if she had sex. A succession of posts evoking images of her masturbating would probably be considered equally unflattering.

[ 04 June 2005: Message edited by: Hailey ]


From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 June 2005 03:38 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hailey, what do you think the implications of Publius's attributions of "purity" to some women and not others are?

How respectful of women, all women, do you think Publius's use of that term is?

[ 04 June 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 04 June 2005 03:38 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Hailey:I can't wrap my head around why it's important to anyone whether or not this gentleman and his girlfriend abstain from sexual relations.

He was asked what a "pure" woman was. Where do you draw the line? Of course, many babblers probably find such a concept rather, well, useless and harmful to begin with. And that is the point, I think.

Think of it as the "pre-abortion" debate - rather than "where does life begin?" we now have "where does sex begin?"


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 04 June 2005 03:40 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hailey: I actually agree, I think the jokes about masturbation are in poor taste. FWIW, that's why I made an effort to frame my question in a manner that was personal to me, and made a point of not commenting on or insinuating anything about his or his fiancee's experiences or practices.

[ 04 June 2005: Message edited by: Anchoress ]


From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 June 2005 03:40 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Y'know, if this conversation continues, I will protest to the moderator.

This is the feminism forum.

I am shocked that anyone would post here who did not grasp that attributing "purity" to some women and not others is deeply misogynist, and the women who come here believing that it is a feminist-friendly place should not have to put up with those kinds of obscene insults to their humanity.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 04 June 2005 03:42 PM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Hailey, what do you think the implications of Publius's attributions of "purity" to some women and not others are?
How respectful of women, all women, do you think Publius's use of that term are?


I don't know Publius and how he was raised. I grew up with the term used left, right, and center. It was not until University that I learned that it was a word that rubbed some people the wrong way.

If he used the term with the intention to degrade then that is wrong. If he used the term because that's the milieu of his life then I think the charitable thing to do, particularly because he's new, is to familiarize him with the specific rules of this forum and to explain why it's offensive.

I am NOT saying you shouldn't be offended. I am saying that I don't understand how an okay reaction to that is feigning an understanding of why he's frustrated or evoking sexual images of that person.

It wouldn't be tolerated as a reaction to any female poster.

Persons would just get Audra.

[ 04 June 2005: Message edited by: Hailey ]


From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 04 June 2005 03:44 PM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I posted after I saw your comment Skdadl. I won't further it.
From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 June 2005 03:48 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hailey, if some persons are "pure," then all the others are "impure."

I'm sorry, but that is the way the English language works. There are no alternatives. There just plain aren't.

What non-damaging implications do you think there possibly ever could be for that usage? What? Explain it to me???

Do you understand that it is worse than any swear word you have ever heard?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 04 June 2005 03:51 PM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I grew up with it Skdadl and most people I know use it. It's normal to me just based on exposure. Personally I stopped using it over the last year (approx) just based on real life experiences where I felt that the outcome is hurtfulness.

I am not defending the word.


From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 June 2005 03:52 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The outcome for many women over the centuries has been death.

Death, Hailey. Death.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 04 June 2005 03:55 PM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes that is true. Even now in some parts of the world it's a huge issue if a girl has had previous sexual contact.

I wasn't thinking as broadly as you were in terms of history and/or the global village.

That gives me a better context.

[ 04 June 2005: Message edited by: Hailey ]


From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 June 2005 03:59 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The murder of women by men who believe that they own "their" woman's sexuality is a huge issue in Canada too.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
raccunk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9151

posted 04 June 2005 10:01 PM      Profile for raccunk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wonder if Publius is 'pure' or if he believes only women have to be so before marriage.

Assuming that someone is 'impure' or 'promiscuous' because they choose to have sexual relations with someone they love before signing a piece of paper(ie.marriage contract) is prejudice in my book. Especially since some couples choose never to marry.


From: Zobooland | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Publius
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8829

posted 05 June 2005 02:47 AM      Profile for Publius     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For the record: no, I have not engaged in premarital sex. Yes, I have gotten blowjobs.
From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 05 June 2005 02:56 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
(must bite tongue, must bite tongue)
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 05 June 2005 02:58 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
You haven't engaged in pre-marital sex but you've gotten blow-jobs?

Oh, my God. These poor dears. They don't even know what sex is.

Here's a clue: Blow-jobs are sex.

[ 05 June 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 05 June 2005 03:01 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Got news for Publius, you have engaged in sexual intercourse, and you are not what you apparently expect others to be.

Have you learned anything at all from this thread?

And thanks skdadl, for framing the definition and implication of utlizing such a word, and the negative and harmful ideology it underscores.

I had stopped reading this thread and did not realize someone had taken it in hand. *pun intended*


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 05 June 2005 03:12 AM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Publius:
For the record: no, I have not engaged in premarital sex. Yes, I have gotten blowjobs.

The question is, is your fiancee still pure if she's *given* blow jobs? Is the answer different depending on whom she blew?


From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 05 June 2005 08:33 AM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
I love this thread. I've never had so much fun with one while not even posting to it. Can we safely presume that Mr. Publius' head exploded in his sleep?
From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 05 June 2005 08:37 AM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
James, I said already I disagree with making speculative comments about his sex life.

[ 05 June 2005: Message edited by: Anchoress ]


From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 05 June 2005 08:45 AM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
Anchoress, you are a nasty gril.!
From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 05 June 2005 09:34 AM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So I suppose gays and lesbians who have never had relations with the opposite sex are the most pure of all. Wow, who knew?
From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 June 2005 09:39 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Publius, how does your fiance feel about marrying someone so impure, especially when you lay purity tests for her?

Just trying to understand the rules!

Also, I notice you said you've "gotten" blowjobs. I hope you were enough of a gentleman to return the favour!

[ 05 June 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
A longsuffering conservative
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9425

posted 05 June 2005 09:49 AM      Profile for A longsuffering conservative     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Publius,

You SHOULD have used the word sexual intercourse.

Congratulations on your upcoming marriage! You and your partner have chosen to abstain from intercourse prior to marriage. That is your business, even if not specifically related to religious convictions.

Now as to the word "pure". Whether intentional, or not, when this word is attributed to a woman or a girl, it automatically has a loaded and highly unfavourable connotation.

If a couple wants to remain pure (in the as Bill Clinton saw his relationship with Monica Lewinsky sense) that's THEIR business.

But no one, absolutely no one, has a right to extend that definition beyond their own personal relationship. Judge not, and you will not be judged...

(P.S. ************ in front a computer screen is best done at an angle!)


From: The Sovereignist Dark Side | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 05 June 2005 10:44 AM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You haven't engaged in pre-marital sex but you've gotten blow-jobs?
Oh, my God. These poor dears. They don't even know what sex is.Here's a clue: Blow-jobs are sex.

Agreed.

And I believe most churches teach that it's just as much a sin. The RC church believes it's a sin after marriage as well.

quote:
The question is, is your fiancee still pure if she's *given* blow jobs?

I am not criticizing Anchores for the question.

Publius, why would you create a situation where the purity of someone you love ends up being an item of debate on a message board? I am not her and I don't know her but most Christian women ( I am assuming she is?) would be irritated by that.


From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 05 June 2005 11:44 AM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hailey, it's the Pride of Ownership thing. You know, my horse can race faster than your horse can, my cow gives more milk than yours does, my dog can... my intended is more pure than yours... there is a certain mindset, found most often I believe in patrist mentality, which still believes a wife BELONGS to the husband. The kids will probably BELONG to him, too. That this attitude is totally non-Christian doesn't seem to bother them one little bit. This ownership shit lingers like a putrid stench in our language: "she gave herself to him", is one flaccid example. I have forced myself to wade through three of those bizarre but highly popular romance novels and each of them was jammed with such propogandizing muck.

As for double standard, well, I think it goes without any need to enlarge upon it. Men are allowed, even expected, to "stray"...how else will they find a chaste woman if they don't disqualify the unchaste?

I think my age is showing when I say I would find a blow job more intimate than mere fucking. A hand job, now, wouldn't seem to be so.


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 05 June 2005 11:50 AM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
think my age is showing when I say I would find a blow job more intimate than mere fucking

Anne I agree. I also think kissing can be far more intimate than sexual penetration. And yes, this Publius person is a walking double standard. Funny that eh?


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 05 June 2005 11:59 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay Hailey, I have to step in and say; you know many women who are belonging to a religious sect, which calls themselves Christians that would be irritated. What truly irritates me is that there are some, which belong to what is no more than a religious sect, who are trying to redefine and rebrand the word "Christian" as if only they are, and everyone else are *impure* heathens.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 05 June 2005 12:09 PM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Hailey, it's the Pride of Ownership thing. You know, my horse can race faster than your horse can, my cow gives more milk than yours does, my dog can... my intended is more pure than yours... there is a certain mindset, found most often I believe in patrist mentality, which still believes a wife BELONGS to the husband.

I really don't see that mentality as having a significant hold in the Christian community. I believe you will find that the thinking is that married people belong to each other. The whole concept of becoming one.

It's not a fit for everyone's thinking but I don't think it's one sided.

quote:
This ownership shit lingers like a putrid stench in our language: "she gave herself to him", is one flaccid example. I have forced myself to wade through three of those bizarre but highly popular romance novels and each of them was jammed with such propogandizing muck.

I'm actually not offended by that language. It frames it as a choice a woman is making so it's not offensive to me. A little gushy but not deeply offensive at least to me.

That would suggest to me that it's not about Christianity then it's about what our culture sees as romantic.

quote:
As for double standard, well, I think it goes without any need to enlarge upon it. Men are allowed, even expected, to "stray"...how else will they find a chaste woman if they don't disqualify the unchaste?


Honestly that has not been my experience within the community. There is criticism offered to anyone engaging in premarital sex. I would say that women are more likely to experience harsher criticism but that is not unique to Christians. The place that I most observed that was at a secular University where women who had multiple partners were spoken of with marked disdain. That represents the first time I heard it and it was certainly not within Christian circles.

One-sided criticism like that is absolutely wrong.

As an aside, Anne, do you know Josh Harris? He's like the poster-boy of the chastity movement in the USA. He was a very politically active christian activist even from his youth. He grew up in a very principled clean cut christian environment and was home-schooled. He started the first (I think the first) christian magazine for home schoolers. He was very sheltered. He wrote a book called "I kissed dating goodbye" which spoke to new principles emerging in his life through his own walk of faith. In the book he talked about not even kissing until he was married. In public speaking he would often talk about who he wanted to marry. He had it right down to wanting someone who had been home schooled! Quite honestly within christian circles he was presented as absolutely the ideal kind of guy that everyone should strive to marry. Eventually he became a Pastor.

A few years after writing that book he got to a point where he was ready to marry. For him part of "kissing dating goodbye" was reserving that whole idea for a time when he was ready to marry rather than putting himself in tempting circumstances. A young woman working at the church caught his attention in a big way. He ended up writing a second book about that called "Boy meets girl". The girl he fell in love with had not become a Christian until later on in life and by her own self-report she had a pretty vast sexual history beginning at 13 or 14 if I recall. He never discusses it any kind of inappropriate depth and he doesn't focus on that issue primarily but he talked about how this whole vision of a born and raised christian girl who was home-schooled got very shaken up. They ended up marrying and they could not be happier. I've heard him speak and they are deeply in love.

I was there with a bunch of youth and I remember him sharing something that will stick out in my mind forever. He talked about how after he announced he was going to be marrying Shannon and particularly after he began to talk about the fact that she wasn't raised Christian and was a convert. He got thousands of letters sent by women (mothers) to the church where he was doing his intership lambbasting him for marrying a girl who had had a past. He gave an overview of the level of hostility in the letters and you could see he was just very pained by what things had been said about her.

Of all the people I've heard speak over the years he is probably the person that meant the most to me.


From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
flower
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7965

posted 05 June 2005 12:12 PM      Profile for flower     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
Okay Hailey, I have to step in and say; you know many women who are belonging to a religious sect, which calls themselves Christians that would be irritated. What truly irritates me is that there are some, which belong to what is no more than a religious sect, who are trying to redefine and rebrand the word "Christian" as if only they are, and everyone else are *impure* heathens.

Thank you Remind for the above. You have put in words the thoughts I have had but was unable to communicate.


From: victoria,b.c. | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 05 June 2005 01:37 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sadly, this is too long for it to continue.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca