Your not seeing how they can be argued
over simply means that you don't see as
many complexities as I do.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do You Identify as a Feminist?
- Thread starter Debater Slayer
- Start date
over simply means that you don't see as
many complexities as I do.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Because everyone has bodily autonomy. It is a basic human right..
That won't address concerns of people
who believe the fetus has a right to life,
which is bodily autonomy of a sort.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Actually it does.. Or at least it will show whether they are being consistent or not.
What's "consistent" for one, isn't for another.
I see too little understanding on opposing
sides regarding abortion.
I try to understand people who are wrong.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Or maybe I have and have come to a conclusion based on those arguments.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
No, why does it trump the right to life of the human life in the woman?
Were that true, I'd expect to see arguments
that acknowledge the other side's views.
Also more recognition of differing premises,
none of which are "The Truth".
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
So you would have no problem with the government forcing you to act as a human dialysis machine for another. How long could the government force you to let them to attach another person to you through your circulatory system since their kidneys no longer work. No pay of course. And some scarring and life long changes will result.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Would I be able to kill the person that the government is forcing me to keep alive to solve the problem?
How does this help your argument? We're not talking about what happens post birth, which is what this would be analogous to.
No human right supercedes the right to body autonomy. In a question of 'does the fetus deserve to use the mother's body' the answer will always be 'no,' no matter what the mother has previously agreed to. She can stop the pregnancy at any time and revoke use of her body. Just like how a person can stop a medical procedure of any kind at any point *during* the medical procedure, even if stopping kills someone, even if they previously agreed, even if they are that person's parent. It doesn't matter.
Why don't you start with dictionary and encyclopedic definitions and we'll go from there with my exceptions and additions when relevent to actual debate points that come up.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It depends, this is a government solution after all, the person will die if disconnected from you. If you disconnect the person will die. You woke up one morning and a person had been attached to you..
The bodily autonomy over one's own corpse remains after the life has passed away, which shows it to be a persistent right, even in the absence of life. What sort of autonomy does an embryo exhibit? None yet.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
I actually don't know what I was trying to say here.
I disagree.
The term toxic masculinity means nothing. Why don't you speak out against the traits you find objectionable in a person. The term is all over the place as to what it means. And frankly it is not useful to affect change in men. As a man when I see the term I am out because it is used as a pejorative and not meant as a means to better men.
Did you start with the dictionary definition? Definition of toxic masculinity | Dictionary.com
The traits are talked about in conjunction with male socialization because it's inseparable from that context. You won't address why the traits are forming if you don't address, for example, that men are taught to be emotionally repressed to an incredibly self destructive extreme in order to 'be a man.'
Or taught that it is unbecoming to do anything 'feminine' which precludes them from behaviors including being nurturing To children or friends.
Or taught thay hecause male feminization is 'bad,' turns strict ideas of masculine gender roles into homophobia.
Or taught that masculine leadership is about domination, adopt a domineering personality which takes what it wants regardless of how it hurts others.
These behaviors should be criticized regardless of where they come from, but the 'where they come from' is important. And the idea that these things are healthy notions of what it means to be a man also need to be criticized.
And even if it's not something you want to listen to either because you feel automatically defensive or you chafe at the varied opinions of how cultures influence behaviors, others do. And there are men and women who have turned a critical eye on what being socialized male in our culture has meant for them, the good and the bad.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
I agree these are traits should be addressed in people. Some women pressure men to be this way as well.
I never said that I don't want to listen to them. I said the way the term is used is as a personal pejorative many times used by feminists. I agree with you that the things you listed are not good personal traits or thinking. But I think the term is unnecessary and not helpful.
Women do play a huge role in perpetuating and enforcing the cultural nomos and programming. One example of this is that women are mainly the ones who perpetuate female circumcision which began thousands of years ago in the Nile River valley and still continues down to this day, despite all of the practical evidence that it should be discontinued. An important part of the development of women's psychology is identifying the cultural programming and separating it from what a woman actually thinks, instead of falling back on the programming. (Carl Jung calls this Animus individuation.) Feminism calls this cultural nomos/programming The Patriarchy and seeks to bring it into consciousness and critique it. Therefore, feminism, in the form of critiquing the cultural nomos/Patriarchy, can serve an important role in a woman's psychological development and maturity.
Professor Jordan Peterson describes toxic masculinity as the antisocial behavior associated with masculinity that is often excused and reinforced by the cultural nomos. Likewise, he calls toxic femininity the antisocial behavior associated with femininity (character assassination, backbiting, etc) that is often excused and reinforced by the cultural nomos. Instead of burying these phenomena back into the unconscious cultural program (which is standard operating procedure for the nomos,) these things should be brought to light, examined, and written out of the cultural programming. Burying these things back into the cultural programming is how harmful cultural practices such as female circumcision can persist and be perpetuated for thousands of years.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
This is all good. However that is not how some feminists use the term. They use it to place blame and not for improvement. These traits in men are from adapting to the socialization in their life. Instead of showing men these issues can be changed and why they are bad they condemn it and condemn the men as well. It is used as a reason for global warming, election of Trump, gun violence, gang violence and economic crisis among a long list of excuses. So again I am not objecting to the traits you are taking about but how it is used in our society to defame men.[/QUOTE]
We are all in various states of Animus development and integration. Not only does the Animus unconsciously perpetuate the cultural nomos, the Animus is also associated with how a woman sees men. (See the Stages of Logos Development section of the Wiki article on Anima and Animus.)
In reality, it is the programming of the cultural nomos at work here. That is what needs to be focused on. Toxic femininity in the form of character assassination is not productive, just as toxic masculinity is not productive. The problem with critiquing the nomos is that as its programming normally lies just below consciousness, it is resistant to critique and makes people think that it is a personal attack, which oftentimes devolves into actual personal attacks. :/ (You can see how these things can persist for thousands of years,)