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

[tuscangarder]

People that realize that until you're selling those pretty cabinets to clients with $1m homes or business locations, roofing pays vastly better, especially if you're quick with the gun, or really good on the torch.

You can do a lot more with carpentry than just make cabinets.

 

[2nd_time_user]

I knew a woman whose boss refused to call her by her name, because he didn't like that the company had assigned her to his crew, and made a nickname out of her initials. On the other hand, I've known greenhats that were called "Stanley" until they earned a nickname of their own, because greenhats are usually useless tools, until they develop some skills.

Edit - fuck off, phone with your autocracked.

People that realize that until you're selling those pretty cabinets to clients with $1m homes or business locations, roofing pays vastly better, especially if you're quick with the gun, or really good on the torch.

What pays vastly better than roofing usually is being the GC in charge of all subs. And honestly, here I think women do have a better case. No GC is a jack of all trades equally and lifting large breakable objects, hauling roof tar up a ladder etc. is less of their job if at all. If you're a GC supervising a build, your job is to basically liaise with the architect and property owners while supervising a bunch of minions.

 

[Otterly]

the majority of men are entirely unnecessary for the propagation of the species, and that Julie Bindel and her colleagues are 10% justified in claiming that we can safely cull the male population by 90%.

One doesn’t follow from the other. If you culled 90% of the males you’d cut down genetic diversity drastically. So at the end of say a thousand years, you may have offspring from only 10% of the males but that doesn’t mean that you could have picked those 10% out at day one, or the other 90% weren’t valuable - they could have contributed nuclear DNA or been ‘tried but random drift happened.’ Also that only looks at Y chromosomes - direct male descent. Nuclear descent (men having daughters) isn’t accounted for.

I mean also culling actual humans is insane.

And I'm a parent that has lost children to miscarriage, and may have to consider surrogacy in the future, if being able to carry safely to term isn't an option.

And for that I am genuinely sorry, it’s not something anyone should have to go through. My sympathies to you and your partner. I can understand why you take the line of argument you do after reading this.
I still, respectfully, disagree. Surrogacy shouldn’t be paid - if it occurs it should be altruistic and highly regulated. The free market is for stuff, not people.

This is a debate that needs to be had though, and I think here is probably one of the more sane and civil ones I’ve seen about it.
Edited to avoid double post- that’s also a problem with movements or needing a label. Groups have ideologies and tend to not like you criticising them. You’re in for all of it. So second wavers did some good stuff but I don’t want to label myself as one and subscribe to the crazy stuff. I don’t feel the need to belong to a club, I’d rather make my own choices .
Also I read stuff like dworkin’s scum manifesto as shitposting. It's supposed to provoke, not be a call to actually start killing people. It’s interesting to read and think about, even if you end up saying ‘no’ to it. Ditto Greer. She always makes you think even if you don’t agree, and for that she’s an interesting figure.

 

[2nd_time_user]

One doesn’t follow from the other. If you culled 90% of the males you’d cut down genetic diversity drastically. So at the end of say a thousand years, you may have offspring from only 10% of the males but that doesn’t mean that you could have picked those 10% out at day one, or the other 90% weren’t valuable - they could have contributed nuclear DNA or been ‘tried but random drift happened.’ Also that only looks at Y chromosomes - direct male descent. Nuclear descent (men having daughters) isn’t accounted for.

I mean also culling actual humans is insane.



And for that I am genuinely sorry, it’s not something anyone should have to go through. My sympathies to you and your partner. I can understand why you take the line of argument you do after reading this.
I still, respectfully, disagree. Surrogacy shouldn’t be paid - if it occurs it should be altruistic and highly regulated. The free market is for stuff, not people.

This is a debate that needs to be had though, and I think here is probably one of the more sane and civil ones I’ve seen about it.

The debate was had the year before Jon boy was born. 1986. Some rich Jersey couple contracted with a surrogate to have their kid and the surrogate changed her mind at birth. Court drama ensued with the child eventually being placed with the bio-dad. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_M

In the 33 years since, many states have outlawed surrogacy https://www.thesurrogacyexperience.com/u-s-surrogacy-law-by-state.html.

Again, if you can't make a child biologically, well sympathies but that needs to remain your problem. When you involve third parties, now at least two parties are involved including the child, who in almost every case wants at least the right to know who their bio-parent is regardless of whether they contact them. This isn't a case of "two people made a baby by themselves" and that's just it, that's as much a fiction as men saying they're women. Look here: http://www.donorchildren.com/.

 

[TerribleIdeas™]

The debate was had the year before Jon boy was born. 1986. Some rich Jersey couple contracted with a surrogate to have their kid and the surrogate changed her mind at birth. Court drama ensued with the child eventually being placed with the bio-dad. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_M

In the 33 years since, many states have outlawed surrogacy https://www.thesurrogacyexperience.com/u-s-surrogacy-law-by-state.html.

Again, if you can't make a child biologically, well sympathies but that needs to remain your problem. When you involve third parties, now at least two parties are involved including the child, who in almost every case wants at least the right to know who their bio-parent is regardless of whether they contact them. This isn't a case of "two people made a baby by themselves" and that's just it, that's as much a fiction as men saying they're women. Look here: http://www.donorchildren.com/.

It's her body, her choice, and if you're a feminist, opening the door to specific cases where that doesn't apply is opening the door to anti-abortion advocates. It's really that simple - they'll take the precedent of control a woman's reproductive capacity in surrogacy as an excuse to try and control it elsewhere.

 

[Ogg66]

The debate was had the year before Jon boy was born. 1986. Some rich Jersey couple contracted with a surrogate to have their kid and the surrogate changed her mind at birth. Court drama ensued with the child eventually being placed with the bio-dad. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_M

In the 33 years since, many states have outlawed surrogacy https://www.thesurrogacyexperience.com/u-s-surrogacy-law-by-state.html.

Again, if you can't make a child biologically, well sympathies but that needs to remain your problem. When you involve third parties, now at least two parties are involved including the child, who in almost every case wants at least the right to know who their bio-parent is regardless of whether they contact them. This isn't a case of "two people made a baby by themselves" and that's just it, that's as much a fiction as men saying they're women. Look here: http://www.donorchildren.com/.

Where does that leave women who want to carry a child for others as they feel it is a good thing to do? An ex of mine did it twice for other couples though she did not request payment, she certainly is not dumb having a PHd in some form of psychology. If some women want to do it for pay and people are willing to pay them for it then better it is out in the open and covered by regulation than underground and people put at risk. I would have though it would be exceptionally well paid and for many women it could set them up for life. Still personally I feel your right to do what you feel ends where it has an effect on others.

 

[SourDiesel]

Where does that leave women who want to carry a child for others as they feel it is a good thing to do? An ex of mine did it twice for other couples though she did not request payment, she certainly is not dumb having a PHd in some form of psychology. If some women want to do it for pay and people are willing to pay them for it then better it is out in the open and covered by regulation than underground and people put at risk. I would have though it would be exceptionally well paid and for many women it could set them up for life. Still personally I feel your right to do what you feel ends where it has an effect on others.

Surrogacy is legal in a lot of places if no money is exchanged. Altruistic surrogacy is fine. It's just that it isn't good enough for most of the prospective surrogacy "buyers" because there is way more demand than there is women willing to do it for free. That's why they want to be able offer money. The argument that feminists are trying to stop women from choosing to be a surrogate are dumb for that reason. No one's stopping women, they just don't want to do it without some form of financial coercion. Rich people want to be able to buy whatever they want. Unfortunately some things are less available for sale than other things.

As for women in male dominated fields, I work in a very male dominated field and it's not as cut and dried as everyone wants it to be. On either side of the debate. Yes fewer females are willing or able to do the work but it's also just as true that they are massively discriminated against if they try. First, many MANY men in these industries refuse to hire women on principal. Often because of the classic "culture fit". Meaning "listen, the guys act like misogynist dicks all day long and I'm not gonna try to stop them just so I can hire 'the most qualified applicant' that happens to be a woman". The idea that it's a meritocracy where everyone that can do the job will be successful (that is to say, women usually physically cannot compete) is false AF. Being able to do the job will only get you in the door. You will absolutely have to work harder than everyone else to be seen as equivalent. I cannot tell you the number of times I've seen or heard some absolute shit fuckery. Many men on the job will say you're great, ask for you to help them with this or that over a less qualified male but when it comes time for raises or promotion, fuck you. I once worked at a place that had a literal "boys club". They called themselves that and would go off on trips together and return with all these ideas about the job and stuff they were gonna do. So... Defacto work meetings that women are not invited to. I once saw a women with 15 years experience get passed over for a fucking pedophile who just started. I shit you not. Everyone fucking knew he was a pedo. The entire place was vocally creeped out by him but hey, let's just "give him a shot at management, he deserves it". Like, motherfucker how?

TL;DR fewer women want to do or can the work but even they did and could, they wouldn't be allowed in a lot of workplaces.

 

[2nd_time_user]

It's her body, her choice, and if you're a feminist, opening the door to specific cases where that doesn't apply is opening the door to anti-abortion advocates. It's really that simple - they'll take the precedent of control a woman's reproductive capacity in surrogacy as an excuse to try and control it elsewhere.

Asked and answered several times. But again in short, pro-choice is about abortion or continuation being up to the woman. She won't get sued over her choice.

OTOH, you yourself have suggested you'd sue for "breach of contract" if the baby came out FAS if it was in the contract that you, as the one with the money, will pay a good lawyer to draw up to represent what you want. So why not put "must take folic acid, vigorous walks daily" in the contract? And to enforce it, why not hire an Aunt Lydia to supervise? Put it in the contract! She agreed! She can't change her mind! The CONTRACT said so!

You've actually compared living women to artificial wombs in this thread. Because that's what the surrogate is to you. A womb for rent. When it's a whole person for rent.

Where does that leave women who want to carry a child for others as they feel it is a good thing to do? An ex of mine did it twice for other couples though she did not request payment, she certainly is not dumb having a PHd in some form of psychology. If some women want to do it for pay and people are willing to pay them for it then better it is out in the open and covered by regulation than underground and people put at risk. I would have though it would be exceptionally well paid and for many women it could set them up for life. Still personally I feel your right to do what you feel ends where it has an effect on others.

As seen by the links provided, surrogacy legality depends on state. As with a kidney donation in the states, it was purely altruistic with no money changing hands, and being so, chances are high that she was friends/family with these people enough to remain in their lives. I get that people do that.

When money becomes involved, it becomes a marketplace transaction. It's illegal in the US to sell babies. That's exactly what surrogacy-for-pay is.

 

[Literally Sperging]

i'm back with an anecdote instead of data but one friend of mine submitted over a dozen resumes for construction work and didn't get a phonecall back. She made one change to her resume - she shortened her female name to a nickname that appeared masculine. She got three calls back the next day.

edited to add: i mention this by way of asserting that there might not necessarily be less women in trades due to less women actually wanting to be in trades

Bit more anecdote from me - I used to work in industrial recruitment and women applying for jobs were encouraged to be ignored by both clients and higher ups.

 

[Zig Zag]

If you culled 90% of the males you’d cut down genetic diversity drastically.

Good thing they spent years filling up sperm banks for practically nothing. If you culled 100% of males, women could design the next generation to spec. Not to mention all of the other benefits.

Since I posted this joke about killing all men in a thread about feminism, every feminist in this thread agrees with me and supports my Male Purge by association. Sorry you're all misandrists now.

 

[SourDiesel]

Good thing they spent years filling up sperm banks for practically nothing. If you culled 100% of males, women could design the next generation to spec. Not to mention all of the other benefits.

Since I posted this joke about killing all men in a thread about feminism, every feminist in this thread agrees with me and supports my Male Purge by association. Sorry you're all misandrists now.

I'm going to need statistical citations for that "every feminist in this thread" thing. I won't provide any of my own though as everything I say is self evident. Obviously.

 

[Cryin RN]

Good thing they spent years filling up sperm banks for practically nothing. If you culled 100% of males, women could design the next generation to spec. Not to mention all of the other benefits.

Since I posted this joke about killing all men in a thread about feminism, every feminist in this thread agrees with me and supports my Male Purge by association. Sorry you're all misandrists now.

Shit @Zig Zag don't tell them our plans, GOSH.

 

[2nd_time_user]

OMG. From this link posted upthread:

Contract Pregnancies Exposed: Surrogacy Contracts Don’t Protect Surrogate Mothers and Their Children

The United States currently has a hodge-podge of state-level legislation regulating surrogacy. High-profile disputes over surrogate pregnancies demonstrate this is not a workable solution. Regulating surrogacy does not protect women and children. It only commodifies them more.

www.thepublicdiscourse.com

The most troubling aspect of such contracts is usually not the nuts and bolts, but the addition of all the whims and wishes of the intended parents. The intended parents get to direct nearly every detail of the surrogate’s life up to the moment of birth and surrendering the child. This makes the commercial use of the woman’s entire body for the duration of the pregnancy very clear.

Most contracts explicitly control the surrogate’s diet, exercise, living arrangements, travel, and activities. I’ve seen language requiring the surrogate to consume a vegan diet or only eat organic foods. Some intended parents do not permit the surrogate to dye her hair. One contract stipulated that “The Surrogate and her Husband agree that they will neither form, nor attempt to form, a parent-child relationship with any Child the surrogate may bear.” Contracting against maternal-child bonding, as if such a thing is even possible!

Fuck anyone promoting this shit. You want your IVF creation so bad? Freeze it and have the missus shop around for a uterine transplant from a dead person. Or is it that the next wave of "choice" here--have your uterus cut from your body, collect $100,000?

 

[Cryin RN]

OMG. From this link posted upthread:

Contract Pregnancies Exposed: Surrogacy Contracts Don’t Protect Surrogate Mothers and Their Children

The United States currently has a hodge-podge of state-level legislation regulating surrogacy. High-profile disputes over surrogate pregnancies demonstrate this is not a workable solution. Regulating surrogacy does not protect women and children. It only commodifies them more.

www.thepublicdiscourse.com

Damn. Want to read some real stripping of sexual autonomy?

Surrogate agrees that she will not partake in any sexual/intimate relations with any person, except her Partner (but only if he submits to medical testing as required in section X), while this Agreement is in effect and in particular from her initial medical screening as provided for in Section X up to and through the embryos transfer procedure and during her pregnancy with Intended Parent’s Child unless a future partner is medically screened and approved pursuant to subsection X.

Under a surrogacy contract, a pregnant woman can't fuck her partner without the "genetic parents" approving it and testing them from the moment that contract is signed, before she's even pregnant. That's absolutely fucked. There is no other kind of legal contract that restricts sexual activity like this. Can you imagine if prospective sperm donors were contractually obligated not to fuck their girlfriends until those girlfriends had been tested?

 

[JaneThough]

Is JY going to use his totally real intersex vagina and definitely existing uterus to surrogate?

 

[2nd_time_user]

Damn. Want to read some real stripping of sexual autonomy?

Under a surrogacy contract, a pregnant woman can't fuck her partner without the "genetic parents" approving it and testing them from the moment that contract is signed, before she's even pregnant. That's absolutely fucked. There is no other kind of legal contract that restricts sexual activity like this. Can you imagine if prospective sperm donors were contractually obligated not to fuck their girlfriends until those girlfriends had been tested?

With contracts like these, it's only a matter of time before some Handmaid decides "fuck it" and flushes the $50K IVF product. Which is frankly what the gamete-owners deserve.

 

[AbraCadaver]

I've heard it suggested that because women have finer manual dexterity, they excel with the fine detail work of fine carpentry, lacework, jewelry, fine welding and brazing, and similar. The suggested reason for it on the evolutionary level is that having increased tactile sensitivity and finer manual dexterity meant a greater capacity for identifying the source of a child's discomfort, and detecting if foods had faults. There's really no way to be certain that's the case, obviously, but it at least sounds somewhat plausible, and I haven't seen any other explanations floated for it that make any more sense than that.



I don't see it as internally inconsistent, because I still don't see KF as hving an ideological goal beyond laughing at lolcows, while feminism, MRAs, BLM, and numerous other groups I intentionally disassociate myself from do have ideological goals, and I find those goals to be at odds with their statements and actions.

There's also the fact that the majority of my posts have been specific to the 2 phenomena that were being discussed, and my criticism of feminism was interspersed, where appropriate; you can claim I was writing walls of text about feminism, but the posts are there, and I was pretty clearly arguing about the opinions on autonomy being put forth here being at odds with widespread opinions on autonomy, ones held by more than just feminists.

I think it’s more that women have historically been socialized to sit still and be quiet and focus on smaller, more manually dexterous projects. Men vastly enjoy fly-tying for fishing, painting, model-building and other things of that nature, and they’re not outliers among men because they can do them.

I find one anecdote interesting that during the WWII war effort, women put into riveting jobs on planes and such were found to be better at it then the men they replaced, simply because they were raised knowing how to turn flat sheets of fabric into clothing, and putting together sheets of metal into a 3D form involves the same mental process. Sewing is a small, dexterous process, but also one that involves taking flat planes and assembling them to make curves, flares, peaks, open joints for sleeves and necks and other abstracted shapes, while being able to incorporate the thickness and stretch in different fabrics (or lack thereof) and factor that into what shape the finished product will assume.

 

[TerribleIdeas™]

I think it’s more that women have historically been socialized to sit still and be quiet and focus on smaller, more manually dexterous projects. Men vastly enjoy fly-tying for fishing, painting, model-building and other things of that nature, and they’re not outliers among men because they can do them.

I find one anecdote interesting that during the WWII war effort, women put into riveting jobs on planes and such were found to be better at it then the men they replaced, simply because they were raised knowing how to turn flat sheets of fabric into clothing, and putting together sheets of metal into a 3D form involves the same mental process. Sewing is a small, dexterous process, but also one that involves taking flat planes and assembling them to make curves, flares, peaks, open joints for sleeves and necks and other abstracted shapes, while being able to incorporate the thickness and stretch in different fabrics (or lack thereof) and factor that into what shape the finished product will assume.

I'm not sure that the (relatively) recent habits formed by sewing would have as much of an evolutionary impact as handling food, touching children, and the like, but I'm also not able to say it wouldn't reinforce it, either.

 

[AbraCadaver]

I'm not sure that the (relatively) recent habits formed by sewing would have as much of an evolutionary impact as handling food, touching children, and the like, but I'm also not able to say it wouldn't reinforce it, either.

What I’m saying is I think it’s less to do with evolution and more to do with socialization. I don’t see touching food and babies as being especially tasking in the manual dexterity department. OTOH crafting solid weapons and properly dismantling a carcass after a hunt do require a lot of small-work skill. Have you ever made a flintknapped blade? It’s a lot of small, patient work, and it’s how stone-age people made cutting tools.

Men seem to have no trouble with small dexterous tasks when they want to do them. They just haven’t been almost exclusively socialized to do only them. Women have, so they’re more associated with them. Many cultures have encouraged women to sit quietly, remain at home and not run around being noisy, so they took up small, manual tasks like embroidery, etc.

E: sorry two different thoughts, the sewing one was more addressing the myth of “women don’t think in the abstract good” that I think someone mentioned earlier.

 

[2nd_time_user]

What I’m saying is I think it’s less to do with evolution and more to do with socialization. I don’t see touching food and babies as being especially tasking in the manual dexterity department.

Men seem to have no trouble with small dexterous tasks when they want to do them. They just haven’t been almost exclusively socialized to do only them. Women have, so they’re more associated with them. Many cultures have encouraged women to sit quietly, remain at home and not run around being noisy, so they took up small, manual tasks like embroidery, etc.

I think socialization is a HUGE part of it but disagree with the feminist perspective that it's ALL of it. Boys do tend to be more physical with each other and their environment. When I was a teen babysitting, a baby took my hand, put it on his dick and smiled after I was done changing him. He was maybe 6-8 months old at the time!