Off-Topic Let's talk about second-wave radical feminism - Dynastia's Daycare for the emotionally troubled.

[Cryin RN]

Her body, her choice. You don't have to like it, and you can demand the greatest reduction of harm possible without impeding the agency of anyone else, but I'll be damned if you'll have me agree that I'm restricted from surrogacy, if it's a viable and safe option for my family, because a pregnancy is not. The fastest solution to the issue of surrogacy is the creation of artificial wombs, which will still fall prey to your suggestion of inadequate bonding during the course of pregnancy.

I didn't see this before. It's truly shitty that you lost a wanted baby, and knowing that, it makes sense that you're arguing this position. But I hope it's helped you understand that pregnancy is not an easy, risk-free thing that just any woman can endure and that money can fix. Surrogacy might be viable and safe for your family, but it's not for the surrogate mom, no matter what the agency tells you.

Sometimes people are never going to agree and they need to realize that arguing is pointless. If someone fundamentally believes that coercion is either non-existent or not an important element to consider when deciding if something is a choice, they are never going to agree about things like sex work or surrogacy with people who do believe those things. If a person fundamentally believes that an imbalance of financial/social capital doesn't effect a person's choices they are never going to agree with a philosophy that does. Some people think individually and others don't. Some people's minds can't be changed.

Totally agree. But sometimes it's fun to hang out in feminist daycare and sperg around for the entertainment of other feminist babbies browsing.

 

[TerribleIdeas™]

Okay, here's the question, though: is surrogacy a thing that is ever "needed"? What is the need for surrogacy? Is it like access to food and shelter?

Can you point to where I've suggested that it be treated as a right? And based on the fact that some number of families desire children and are unable to do so safely, and have the capacity to negotiate a safe and ethical surrogacy, why are you concerned? Are you interested in what goes on in their bedroom, too?

So the point I was making is that they don't beat those doors down just because it's legal. That's why labour has to be imported and forced by gangs. The wage surpression is a feature of the demand and not the supply side. In terms of "safer", yeah, it's really hard to pull stats on that. Even legal hookers really don't like interacting with police at all, so murder rates are the most transparent they ever get. Brothel owners aren't going to advertise that their girls are stealing trick's wallets or getting raped by their valued customers. So who knows. It could be better, it could be worse. Cite stuff if you have it! I'd like to know!

Occam's Razor - legal brothels in Germany aren't paying enough that locals are willing to consider the work, and there's no such concerns with Sweden's legal prostitution. Find me any other form of prohibition that has resulted in greater safety.

We regulate labour in a lot of ways. You can't deal drugs even if you're really good at it and like doing it. We, as a society, don't want to deal with the results of that job (screaming meth hobos under the Interstate) and don't want to encourage people to take it up. You can't work as a doctor without having really specific training and registration. That violates the autonomy of a LOT of quacks, but Western societies agree it's a rule for a reason. You can't sell most bodily fluids even though they're yours. There are lots of regulations on forms of labour that don't involve vaginas. Sex work isn't really special that way except that involves sex so people lose their minds.

Prostitution is an old profession. It's not going to go anywhere. It's going to cause damage. The question is how much damage can be mitigated and that's where these discussions get fun.

Again, Portugal legalized the vast majority of drugs, with substance abuse and associated criminality dropping massively since then. There's also a massive difference between declaring oneself a member of a regulated profession (doctors, nurses lawyers, engineers, most trades) and being an average person in the workforce.

Prohibition has not reduced harms for any of the phenomena prohibited - change my mind.

Yeah, it's . Part of the issue with legal prostitution models is that there will ALWAYS be black-market street hookers no matter what set-up the law actually tries to create. Paying taxes, running a clean brothel, and buying health insurance costs money that keeps brothel girls a bit more expensive vs. the girls standing on a street corner for free yelling at cars. There will always be girls, boys, and pimps who carpe that diem and try to undercut the clean houses, risking their lives and getting murdered. When you're hooking for a heroin habit you don't want to deal with anyone harshing your buzz and telling you to get tested. Pickton would have done juuuust fine. He'd probably have picked them up for cheaper, actually.

There's still black market moonshine, but the repeal of prohibition allowed a lot more attention to be put on the harms of drinking 'shine cooked up in a backwoods still, and the vast majority of people don't drink 'shine like that, because it's cheaper and easier to buy alcohol that won't blind or kill you.

I'm 100% convinced that Pickton would have been on a watch list much sooner, based on his demonstrable behaviour, had he been forced to go to brothels.

There's also the point of "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good." - every single form of prohibition enacted has created more harms than the subsequent legalization.

So...what would be fair if say at 3-4 months, this hypothetical fetus is diagnosed with Down's syndrome or Kleinfelter's and they no longer want it? Is it fair for you in your view to just offer to pay for the abortion and if she doesn't accept, to then be free of child support obligations even though the guy's sperm created half of it? How about if the baby is born with FAS or something, do you get to nope out on paying because you asked her if she drank and she said no? What if she wants to keep it after delivering? She did put in the labor and assuming you're the bio father, you're still responsible for child support under US law as the kid had nothing to do with this. If you're going elsewhere to avoid these possibilities, how is that ethical to the kid?

You don't need to have a kid at all to survive. You don't need the kid to be biologically related to you to parent. It's a want that you're turning into a consumer product. That's the problem that 2nd-wave feminists have with it.

You realize that surrogacy technology now allows for pre-screening for genetic conditions, and surrogacy contracts specifically include clauses that demand that the surrogate not drink, which is the sole cause of FAS? Seriously, I think we all understand that drinking during pregnancy is a terrible idea. If the surrogate lied about their alcoholism, I have legal recourse for breach of contract.

And if you want to argue about child support, consider that the State of Kansas is responsible for a precedent in the 1980's that made a male victim of statutory rape responsible for child support, and multiple cases of both sperm theft and statutory rape victims being forced to pa child support exist. You may not want to lean on that argument too much.

And we're taking about surrogacy in the context of western world, last I checked, and at no pointed have I suggested that "having children is a right", which appears to be a strawman people here are weaving, when the reality is that I'm arguing that women should be recognized as competent adults, with complete reproductive and sexual autonomy and agency.

I didn't see this before. It's truly shitty that you lost a wanted baby, and knowing that, it makes sense that you're arguing this position. But I hope it's helped you understand that pregnancy is not an easy, risk-free thing that just any woman can endure and that money can fix. Surrogacy might be viable and safe for your family, but it's not for the surrogate mom, no matter what the agency tells you.

This has nothing to do with whether we lost children. I'm arguing it because it's not my place to tell other people what they may or may not do with their body, if their actions do not impinge upon my rights.

Totally agree. But sometimes it's fun to hang out in feminist daycare and sperg around for the entertainment of other feminist babbies browsing.

I'm very specifically not not a feminist, because I refuse to be associated with a movement that is internally contradictory, and I'm especially uninterested in association with a movement that insists that my nephew is worse than a Lovecratian horror, because he appears to be white, and he's male, and has a 95% chance to be heterosexual. Fact of the matter is, I refuse to believe that women are hapless, and I'm definitely not buying that they can only be trusted with the sexual and reproductive agency that you (or the religious right) would afford them.

 

[2nd_time_user]

Okay, here's the question, though: is surrogacy a thing that is ever "needed"? What is the need for surrogacy? Is it like access to food and shelter?

Can you point to where I've suggested that it be treated as a right? And based on the fact that some number of families desire children and are unable to do so safely, and have the capacity to negotiate a safe and ethical surrogacy, why are you concerned? Are you interested in what goes on in their bedroom, too?

You've all but said yourself that you believe it's your right to negotiate one with any woman open to it, as you would buying a car or an iPad. But you haven't answered what would happen if for example this hypothetical fetus turned out to have some abnormality you don't want. Or the mom decided to keep it. Many men would rather someone they were with not progress with a pregnancy they created, but they themselves can't stop it and they're also on the hook for 18 years at birth. Because the law is there for the child. Do you think it's fair for you to be the exception to child support, and if so why? l

See, saying "people can just do what they want" only goes so far. Others are usually involved, and when you put in exceptions for your own personal situation, others will take that and extrapolate it to the logical end-point. The transgender issue illustrates this. In less than a decade, we've gone to taxpayer-funded SRS for male murderers so they can be put in women's prison, or putting them there without SRS. You have people like always-autumn on Reddit posting selfies of him full peen in view in a woman's locker room. You have Jonathan Yaniv. And it's not like they CAN'T use the men's. Jenn Smith does, because the biological reality informs the social decision to have made separate spaces in the first place.

 

[HG 400]

I'm very specifically not not a feminist, because I refuse to be associated with a movement that is internally contradictory, and I'm especially uninterested in association with a movement that insists that my nephew is worse than a Lovecratian horror, because he appears to be white, and he's male, and has a 95% chance to be heterosexual.

A lot of what you've been saying so far isn't wrong, but it's pretty clear this is the part that makes you so invested you're willing to continue vomiting textwall essays into my daycare for spergs. You don't have to be a feminist to respect women, and you don't have to hate men to be a feminist, so I have to ask ; if guilt by association carries so much water with you, what are you doing posting on a neo-nazi website that literally murders people?

 

[TerribleIdeas™]

You've all but said yourself that you believe it's your right to negotiate one with any woman open to it, as you would buying a car or an iPad. But you haven't answered what would happen if for example this hypothetical fetus turned out to have some abnormality you don't want. Or the mom decided to keep it. Many men would rather someone they were with not progress with a pregnancy they created, but they themselves can't stop it and they're also on the hook for 18 years at birth. Because the law is there for the child. Do you think it's fair for you to be the exception to child support, and if so why? l

You realize that surrogacy technology now allows for pre-screening for genetic conditions, and surrogacy contracts specifically include clauses that demand that the surrogate not drink, which is the sole cause of FAS? Seriously, I think we all understand that drinking during pregnancy is a terrible idea. If the surrogate lied about their alcoholism, I have legal recourse for breach of contract.

I very clearly answered that point. There's also a legal contract involved, one that stipulates that the parents providing the egg(s) and sperm for surrogacy are legally obliged to take on legal responsibility for the infant, upon birth. We're not talking about a situation in which I'm donating sperm to a woman who's using her own eggs, we're discussing an IVF procedure, where my gametes are screened and matched to the gametes of my spouse, and implanted into the surrogate.

See, saying "people can just do what they want" only goes so far. Others are usually involved, and when you put in exceptions for your own personal situation, others will take that and extrapolate it to the logical end-point. The transgender issue illustrates this. In less than a decade, we've gone to taxpayer-funded SRS for male murderers so they can be put in women's prison, or putting them there without SRS. You have people like always-autumn on Reddit posting selfies of him full peen in view in a woman's locker room. You have Jonathan Yaniv. And it's not like they CAN'T use the men's. Jenn Smith does, because the biological reality informs the social decision to have made separate spaces in the first place.

Ah, but troons are pretty obviously demanding the gov't impose upon the rights of others, while the discussion here is asking that the gov't sanction and regulate 2 particular phenomena where adults makes verbal or written contractual arrangements. I'm not asking the gov't to set aside a "brood mare" (as it was so eloquently described up-thread), I'm pointing out that the position taken against those 2 phenomena directly contradict the feminist position of sexual and reproductive autonomy.

"Her body, her choice!", but only so long as it's choices you agree with, right?

A lot of what you've been saying so far isn't wrong, but it's pretty clear this is the part that makes you so invested you're willing to continue vomiting textwall essays into my daycare for spergs. You don't have to be a feminist to respect women, and you don't have to hate men to be a feminist, so I have to ask ; if guilt by association carries so much water with you, what are you doing posting on a neo-nazi website that literally murders people?

I can tell the difference between the hyperbole used to describe KF, and the commentary directly attributable to specific feminists; you might be very much in line with Butler's position on women, and I'd find no particular fault with that, even though she's a direct contributor to the social constructionism that informs pro-troon advocacy. I can pull up lots of particular acts of advocacy that are very clearly at odds with the colloquial insistence that "feminism is just about equality", "feminism isn't about hating men", or what-have-you, and that alone makes me refuse to associate with people that support such advocacy, or taking on the title associated with that advocacy.

When someone like Julie Bindel suggests that men be remanded to camps, or some other feminist suggests that culling the male population by 90% is a reasonable course of action, I'm entirely within my rights to say "Nah, not going to be associated with that", every bit as much as I'm entitled to disassociate myself from intersectionalists and pro-troons that insist that their legislatively compelled speech is entirely reasonable.

 

[HG 400]

I can tell the difference between the hyperbole used to describe KF, and the commentary directly attributable to specific feminists; you might be very much in line with Butler's position on women, and I'd find no particular fault with that, even though she's a direct contributor to the social constructionism that informs pro-troon advocacy. I can pull up lots of particular acts of advocacy that are very clearly at odds with the colloquial insistence that "feminism is just about equality", "feminism isn't about hating men", or what-have-you, and that alone makes me refuse to associate with people that support such advocacy, or taking on the title associated with that advocacy.

When someone like Julie Bindel suggests that men be remanded to camps, or some other feminist suggests that culling the male population by 90% is a reasonable course of action, I'm entirely within my rights to say "Nah, not going to be associated with that", every bit as much as I'm entitled to disassociate myself from intersectionalists and pro-troons that insist that their legislatively compelled speech is entirely reasonable.

But it's not all hyperbole. Kiwi Farms members have gone on spree killings. They've murdered people. There are leaders of internationally-recognised neo-nazi movements who post here openly. There are GRU cyberwarfare operatives who post here openly. There is commentary directly attributable to our Dear Leader saying he's a nekoshota pedophile who wants to cut the fingers off Jews and make a necklace out of them. There is commentary directly attributable to me saying I'm the leader of ISIS and had forced anal sex with Hillary Clinton. Every single day this website exists, some edgy boy here niggerposts about wanting to commit the Armenian genocide again because we think Maddox isn't funny anymore.

If you think Julie Bindel edgeposting on twitter about putting men in camps is enough to tarnish an entire movement that's been around longer than she's been alive, why aren't you disassociating yourself from this wretched hive of ISIS propagandising and genocidal pedophile furries?

Edge is just edge, my dude.

 

[TerribleIdeas™]

But it's not all hyperbole. Kiwi Farms members have gone on spree killings. They've murdered people. There are leaders of internationally-recognised neo-nazi movements who post here openly. There are GRU cyberwarfare operatives who post here openly. There is commentary directly attributable to our Dear Leader saying he's a nekoshota pedophile who wants to cut the fingers off Jews and make a necklace out of them. There is commentary directly attributable to me saying I'm the leader of ISIS and had forced anal sex with Hillary Clinton. Every single day this website exists, some edgy boy here niggerposts about wanting to commit the Armenian genocide again because we think Maddox isn't funny anymore.

If you think Julie Bindel edgeposting on twitter about putting men in camps is enough to tarnish an entire movement that's been around longer than she's been alive, why aren't you disassociating yourself from this wretched hive of ISIS propagandising and genocidal pedophile furries?

Edge is just edge, my dude.

Cool story, bruh.

 

[HG 400]

Cool story, bruh.

You gave up almost as fast as your baby did.

 

[FI 665]

You gave up almost as fast as your baby did.

M-M-M-MONSTER KILL

 

[TerribleIdeas™]

You gave up almost as fast as your baby did.

I mean, except for the fact that you're derailing. My association with feminism isn't germane to the discussion about sex work or surrogacy, so I figured I'd leave you to your attempts at trolling. If you wanted to contribute to the discussion on it, I'm game.

 

[HG 400]

I mean, except for the fact that you're derailing. My association with feminism isn't germane to the discussion about sex work or surrogacy, so I figured I'd leave you to your attempts at trolling. If you wanted to contribute to the discussion on it, I'm game.

I'm not trying to harangue you into identifying as anything ; there are plenty of good reasons to be an antifeminist or to choose not to identify with either side. I'm just asking why you can shrug off our manic niggerposting but take Julie Bindel's edgy tweets with open-jawed credulity. I'm asking why you think the occasional bad actor can poison an entire social movement, at the same time you support the tenets of free trade and natural rights, drenched as they are in blood from the forty thousand severed heads of Robespierre's Razor.

Don't you think you might be holding a bit of a double standard here?

 

[2nd_time_user]

"Her body, her choice!", but only so long as it's choices you agree with, right?

These choices impact women far more than men, and it's usually men proferring those choices.

You really want to sue someone for breach-of-contract for having an FAS baby? Good luck with that "wrongful birth" lawsuit. See, this argument says that you basically can sue over someone not taking prenatal vitamins or not exercising or engaging in say downhill skiing if the contract disallows it. And as you're the one with $50K to drop to even get this started, you're the one who can get a lawyer to draw up a contract that favors you.

And that's what I see in your other arguments regarding porn and prostitution: To you, it's an "equal" transaction; you shouldn't have to care about what's happening with them because after all, you both agreed. It's usually men who bring it up, usually to less-advantaged women, but hey, "they agreed, you can even see them saying so in the BTS reel." You call this an extension of pro-choice, but in the case of abortion, that means that the woman carrying the fetus can choose to terminate regardless of your agreement. Your hypothetical IVF creation could be 100 percent perfect, but if the woman wants to get rid of it for any reason--say that you and your wife are acting like Commander and Mrs. Waterford--she can do so without getting permission from you, and no you won't be getting money if you sue her. You'll be like the next Jonathan Yaniv. For good reason.

 

[TerribleIdeas™]

I'm not trying to harangue you into identifying as anything ; there are plenty of good reasons to be an antifeminist or to choose not to identify with either side. I'm just asking why you can shrug off our manic niggerposting but take Julie Bindel's edgy tweets with open-jawed credulity. I'm asking why you think the occasional bad actor can poison an entire social movement, at the same time you support the tenets of free trade, drenched as they are in blood from the forty thousand severed heads of Robespierre's Razor.

Don't you think you might be holding a bit of a double standard here?

Not particularly, since the farms are (regardless of being a place that documents the shit out of lolcows) not people that have any significant power, as opposed to any number of prominent feminists that have substantial social and academic power. The difference between us and Julie Bindel is fairly obvious - she regularly writes articles, gives talks, gets no-platformed for daring to suggest that troons are astroturfing and generating a backlash against women's rights (and civil rights in general), and the pair of us are on a board that shitposts, catalogs lolcows, and shitposts about lolcows.

We're not on here with the expectation of engaging in activism that has a real world impact, although I have no doubt any number of people here are engaged in such activism. I'm guessing we'll agree that posting potential dox for Yaniv (who's pretty clearly an individual of public interest, and won't get relief under any expectation of privacy, because of it, and because Null doesn't care) really isn't the same as Dworkin going to the first "Take Back The Night" march, for example.

These choices impact women far more than men, and it's usually men proferring those choices.

I'll need a citation for that, because I haven't seen any indication that women are less likely to desire a family, than men. The number of women that have had articles in UK tabloids complaining about "no good men", or opining that they waited too long, or left a good man, or the eggs they saved wouldn't implant don't happen in a vacuum. Those are all references to articles I've seen in print, if you care.

You really want to sue someone for breach-of-contract for having an FAS baby? Good luck with that "wrongful birth" lawsuit. See, this argument says that you basically can sue over someone not taking prenatal vitamins or not exercising or engaging in say downhill skiing if the contract disallows it. And as you're the one with $50K to drop to even get this started, you're the one who can get a lawyer to draw up a contract that favors you.

If they knowingly drink and intentionally harm the child, yeah, I'd expect them to be open to litigation. We're not talking about something that has an unknown impact, like vaping. I'm also expecting that most surrogacies are arranged through a firm that specializes in surrogacy, so I'm anticipating that they'd have lawyers, and it wouldn't be so lopsided are you're suggesting. This isn't an especially new procedure, and there's undoubtedly protocols and gov't oversight.

And that's what I see in your other arguments regarding porn and prostitution: To you, it's an "equal" transaction; you shouldn't have to care about what's happening with them because after all, you both agreed. It's usually men who bring it up, usually to less-advantaged women, but hey, "they agreed, you can even see them saying so in the BTS reel." You call this an extension of pro-choice, but in the case of abortion, that means that the woman carrying the fetus can choose to terminate regardless of your agreement. Your hypothetical IVF creation could be 100 percent perfect, but if the woman wants to get rid of it for any reason--say that you and your wife are acting like Commander and Mrs. Waterford--she can do so without getting permission from you, and no you won't be getting money if you sue her. You'll be like the next Jonathan Yaniv. For good reason.

If she's contractual obligated to be a surrogate, barring something that compromises her health that was outside anyone's control, and based on the fact that I'm pretty sure the majority of surrogacy in western countries occurs with the assistance of a company that specializes in it, I'm guessing that the majority of women willing to act as surrogates aren't people that randomly change their minds, midway through. I'm honestly not sure how it works if a surrogate suddenly encounters health concerns beyond their control, but I'm guessing the companies that provide the services have protocols in place for such things.

You're marching down the list of all the worst "what-ifs", as though surrogacy is common, and the outcomes you're mentioning are common consequences of surrogacy. Are they? Give me something that shows that they are, then.

 

[KE 521]

Get a real job. Learn to repair airconditioners or lay tile or something. Waxing vaginas part-time from your house is about as respectable as selling avon, and if a man did it he'd be considered a laughingstock and a failure.

Waxing Vulvas.

 

[HG 400]

Not particularly, since the farms are (regardless of being a place that documents the shit out of lolcows) not people that have any significant power, as opposed to any number of prominent feminists that have substantial social and academic power. The difference between us and Julie Bindel is fairly obvious - she regularly writes articles, gives talks, gets no-platformed for daring to suggest that troons are astroturfing and generating a backlash against women's rights (and civil rights in general), and the pair of us are on a board that shitposts, catalogs lolcows, and shitposts about lolcows.

We're not on here with the expectation of engaging in activism that has a real world impact, although I have no doubt any number of people here are engaged in such activism. I'm guessing we'll agree that posting potential dox for Yaniv (who's pretty clearly an individual of public interest, and won't get relief under any expectation of privacy, because of it, and because Null doesn't care) really isn't the same as Dworkin going to the first "Take Back The Night" march, for example.

Sure, there's plenty of arguments to be made that powerful or influential people should self-censor and refrain from making those kind of comments. I don't particularly cotton to that line of thinking myself, but I understand why some people might. But at the end of the day, we're still just talking about a woman making an edgy joke on twitter. It's pearl-clutching. There is no ideology or belief system in the world that won't eventually have somebody set off a nailbomb for it, and when that happens we can usually refrain from throwing the miscarriage out with the bathwater. We didn't give up on democracy because of Marat, we didn't give up on egalitarianism because of Stalin, we didn't give up on spirituality because of Torquemada.

So why is it just feminism you're so eager and willing to drape in guilt by association?

 

[DNJACK]

women are not even real

 

[TerribleIdeas™]

Sure, there's plenty of arguments to be made that powerful or influential people should self-censor and refrain from making those kind of comments. I don't particularly cotton to that line of thinking myself, but I understand why some people might. But at the end of the day, we're still just talking about a woman making an edgy joke on twitter. It's pearl-clutching. There is no ideology or belief system in the world that won't eventually have somebody set off a nailbomb for it, and when that happens we can usually refrain from throwing the miscarriage out with the bathwater. We didn't give up on democracy because of Marat, we didn't give up on egalitarianism because of Stalin, we didn't give up on spirituality because of Torquemada.

So why is it just feminism you're so eager and willing to drape in guilt by association?

It's not just feminism, if you've noticed the fact that I think MRAs are exceptional, too. I've mentioned it a few times, in fact.

It's entirely reasonable to say "You know what, there's a shit-ton of opinions in that ideological movement over there that I don't agree with, so I'm not going to associate myself with them", and it's also really reasonable to note that the sum total of KF's "ideological manifesto is "archive stuff about lolcows, so we can collectively laugh at them."

 

[WW 635]

women are not even real

I'm telling your wife

 

[DNJACK]

I'm telling your wife

don't you dare.

 

[2nd_time_user]

Waxing Vulvas.

This isn't particularly radfem to say, but it's just a fact that the construction trades don't attract many women. Not because the guys are being assholes, but 1) because most women are less physically strong, 2) are less interested and 3) have less aptitude overall in spatial visualization and applied mechanics. I know point 3 will be controversial and I'm not saying all women. But I think this because, basically, these are relatively high paying jobs. Probably the highest paid that you can get with a HS diploma. Second-wavers have been pushing for going on 40 years that women can do these jobs, the public sector/unions have had recruiting campaigns that long, and yet very few women succeed.