Feminism and Figure Skating

[callalily]

Certainly the feminists I knew back in the early 70's wanted women who wanted traditional roles to be able to pursue them without being devalued in public. They spent a lot of time figuring out the dollar worth of all the things traditional housewives and homemakers did to prove women were worth something in the broader scheme of things, since at that time, traditional homemakers were considered 'unemployed'.

One thing they were most vehement about was the right of women to full information from their doctors about their health, and respect from those doctors, and a recognition that they were the customers of the doctors, and should get the respect of adult customers. .

Yes, that was very much true in Canada as well. Ensuring that the work of homemakers was valued was a major goal of feminists. That included crediting their contributions to the economy, and ensuring that they were fairly treated (financially) if a marriage broke down. The right to be fully informed by doctors, and to be treated as "adult customers" (as you put it) was also key. You mentioned the book, "Our Bodies, Ourselves". Yes it was great; I owned it.

Toni....I too am glad you're here, and that you're enough of what I would call an old-style feminist to pick what you think is the best way through life for you, and ignore what guilt trips one or another group tries to put on you to force you into a path you don't want.

ITA.

What worries me more is the fact that Republicans in Iowa were 8 votes short of nominating a man for the presidency who doesn't belive in contraception, even for married women. Without contraception, you can't get and keep a job as a married woman. That is & was the key to job equality, and equal pay for equal work.

This.

ETA: If we want to get into labels, the reversion from "homemaker" (a term that arose out of feminism) back to "housewife" in recent years bugs me. Work done in the home is important, and the word "housewife" trivializes it to some degree, IMO. Not the biggest deal in the world, but there you have it. Another word that has made a comeback, "[color=red]*[/color][color=red]*[/color][color=red]*[/color][color=red]*[/color][color=red]*[/color][color=red]*[/color][color=red]*[/color][color=red]*[/color]/retarX", troubles me too. I thought we had successfully ditched that one. Now it's back, and once again a schoolyard taunt, as it was 30 years ago. IMO there's a good reason why we ditched some older terms that were prejudicial.

[skatinginbc]

Thanks to Toni, Bluebonnet, and any others I am forgetting for "daring to be different" in this thread.

That's a strange logic. If you thanked them for the specific arguments they made, I got it. You thanked them for "daring to be different", hm? Why daring to be different automatically deserves merits? Will you thank me for "daring to be different" if I say "All Americans are stupid and should go to hell"? A poor argument that is different from others is truly bad, indeed, although a good argument that deviates from the norm is extra admirable. Daring to be different should not always be encouraged. I certainly don't want to see somebody jump naked onto the rink and start shooting at the audience during a competition for the mere sake of "daring to be different".

[Mathman]

"All Americans are stupid and should go to hell"?

That's not daring to be different. Everybody knows that.

[skatinginbc]

That's not daring to be different. Everybody knows that.

Then I would like to go to hell with my husband, a "stupid American" from the Bible Belt.

[Spun Silver]

FWIW, Spun Silver, when you make a comment like: "(I don't happen to have essays on pro-life feminism lying around in my desk drawer)" - I feel like you're making the same level of judgement and condescension you decry.

Huh? All I meant is that I would need an essay to respond to the many criticisms of my posts and I would have to research and compose it, as I haven't already written one on the topic. What's wrong with saying that?

But thanks for the Wiki-link, Mathman. : )

And to skatinginbc, "dare to be different" is a very common phrase that IIRC (which I may not) originated in the gay rights movement but is now widely used to valorize the willingness to stand against the tide. I appropriated it for conservatives because in a lot of contexts nowadays, skating forums or academia for example, it's harder to be openly conservative than it is to be liberal/progressive, simply because conservatives are greatly outnumbered and looked down on. I hear there are other contexts where conservatives are favored and liberals not, but living on the East Coast, I haven't personally experienced them.

[ImaginaryPogue]

Huh? All I meant is that I would need an essay to respond to the many criticisms of my posts and I would have to research and compose it, as I haven't already written one on the topic. What's wrong with saying that?

But thanks, Mathman. : )

In the past, you've said stuff along the lines of: "I don't have time to do this, but you're free to do so if it amuses you" (to me in the SC FD thread, to SkateFiguring when he was responding to someone else), and it comes off as dismissive here, as if the only reponse to what jcoates et al said was to imply that you didn't have time for it. I would genuinely be interested in the facts that support the assertions you've made.

[Bluebonnet]

That's a strange logic. If you thanked them for the specific arguments they made, I got it. You thanked them for "daring to be different", hm? Why daring to be different automatically deserves merits? Will you thank me for "daring to be different" if I say "All Americans are stupid and should go to hell"? A poor argument that is different from others is truly bad, indeed, although a good argument that deviates from the norm is extra admirable. Daring to be different should not always be encouraged. I certainly don't want to see somebody jump naked onto the rink and start shooting at the audience during a competition for the mere sake of "daring to be different".

I don't think you don't understand what Spun Silver meant, skatinginbc. You are arguing for argument sake. It was obvious that conservatives are minority especially on skating forums, and are surrounded and sometimes belittled by liberal posters. It is more daring to be conservatives these days. I am glad that there are still some conservatives dare to make their views known.

[Spun Silver]

Here is one fact for you, IP -- in New York City 40 percent of all pregnancies end in abortion -- 60 percent among "non-Hispanic blacks." Forty percent is shocking enough itself, but for the life of me I can't understand why African-Americans are not up in arms about both the total number of lives lost and the disproportionate rate.
http://nyc41percent.com/ (see release on 2010 data)

As for my "dismissive" posts - I'm a bit taken aback by your detailing of my past sins and can't speak to those dialogues. But about my efforts to detach in this thread - the simple truth is that some people are more committed to long political debates online than others. It's more grueling to argue online than in person for many reasons, at least IMO. Remember that as a conservative I'm outnumbered, so to the extent I voice my opinions, I get a lot of criticism and argument. I don't need to win (thank God, since I couldn't) -- I just want to signal that there is a different point of view. Leaving criticisms unanswered doesn't come easily to me (especially since they can get pretty personal) but supposedly it's a sign of maturity....

I hope you can understand, and I'm sorry if I have made these points less than politely here or in the past. I will try to do better.

[skatinginbc]

I don't think you don't understand what Spun Silver meant, skatinginbc. You are arguing for argument sake.

I think you understood what I meant, Bluebonnet. And I hope you are not arguing for argument sake. Daring to speak up an unpopular opinion in itself is not something worthy of acclaim, especially opinions that are colored with preconceived adverse judgment on a group of people (e.g., "All Americans are stupid", "Chinese immigrants are bad"). Take your post for example: "I think that one of the consequences or the "shadow side" of this continuing fighting for feminism is one of the reasons contributed in the rising of homosexuality." You could have conveyed your thoughts in a neutral fashion without "the shadow side", which reflects an adverse judgment on a group of people. I don't mind people giving rationales and then arguing that "Americans are stupid" or "Homosexuality is negative to the society" because in this case I can judge whether such conclusion is logical or not. But you didn't. You threw in that phrase without giving any reason. It served no purpose other than painting a whole group of people in the dark side. It is called "prejudice" rather than constructive debate.

Sorry, being a conservative doesn't give you a special privilege to speak in a prejudiced fashion. Daring to be different doesn't entail legislative and social immunity. All arguments, popular and unpopular alike, are subject to logical scrutiny.

[jcoates]

... in New York City 40 percent of all pregnancies end in abortion -- 60 percent among "non-Hispanic blacks." Forty percent is shocking enough itself, but for the life of me I can't understand why African-Americans are not up in arms about both the total number of lives lost and the disproportionate rate.
http://nyc41percent.com/ (see release on 2010 data)

Which is why adequate and effective sex education and access to contraceptives need to be made available to teens and encouraged for adults. Simply pushing abstinence will not get the job done. You might be surprised, but I actually don't favor abortion. Most thoughtful liberals don't. I just will not deny it as a right to women. I prefer to encourage responsible sexual behavior from the beginning as a preventative measure. As a non-Hispanic black, I am well aware of the both the birth and abortion rate issues.

As for being dismissive, my only point is that if someone is going to inject an opinion into a discussion (as you did by broadening the discussion of feminism and its impact in post #7 initially), they should be prepared to defend that position against a contrary point of view. I hold myself to that outlook as well as those I with whom I agree.

Lastly, this running theme in the thread that conservatives are somehow some sort of oppressed minority in this country is curious. Didn't conservatives just enjoy the largest congressional landslide in US history in 2010? Have conservatives not controlled Congress for the better part of the last two decades? Aren't they in a strong position to win back the White House. Have they not controlled the presidency for the majority of the last 40 years? Isn't FOX News the #1 cable news outlet by light years? Don't Republicans control a strong majority of governorships and state legislatures? Didn't Dan Quayle blame Murphy Brown for the LA Riots and the break down of the family. More recently, haven't gays been to blame for high divorce rates among heterosexuals, Hispanics to blame for low wages and loss of certain job opportunities and blacks for draining the government of resources by taking handouts.? It might be comforting to imagine oneself as the victim of some broader conspiracy just because a personal opinion is unpopular. However, I think holding on so fiercely to that perception only undermines any legitimacy your position holds. If you have a contrary point of view, then argue it and do so passionately and make your case, but why retreat into victimhood as a defense mechanism?

[Buttercup]

Here is one fact for you, IP -- in New York City 40 percent of all pregnancies end in abortion -- 60 percent among "non-Hispanic blacks." Forty percent is shocking enough itself, but for the life of me I can't understand why African-Americans are not up in arms about both the total number of lives lost and the disproportionate rate.
http://nyc41percent.com/ (see release on 2010 data).

I think it's better to cite the original data rather than refer people to a site with an agenda.

When I look at data like that, I wonder why the abortion rate is so high; I'm sure the vast majority of pro-choice people do not want to see such a trend. But I don't want to look at it and condemn the women who made the decision to have an abortion, because I do not know the circumstances behind the data. Instead, I want to consider what can be done at the social, educational, or public health level to change this.

Is it an issue of poverty, of women (and men) who cannot afford to care for another child, or even one child? Would access to cheap (even free) contraceptives help? And what about teenagers - is it a matter of better sex education for teenagers? Many of them are clearly not abstaining. I can tell you that teen pregnancy is essentially a non-issue where I live. Teen mothers are so unusual that such stories often end up in the newspaper (no names, no pictures). And it's not because no teens are having sex. I would guess that it is primarily a matter of access to contraception, and a culture in which teen motherhood is not something to aspire to - because anecdotal evidence, at least, suggests that in some places girls want to be young mothers. And when you have kids when you're still a kid, you've just made life a lot harder for yourself, and a difficult future far more likely. Even so, I would suggest that there need to be programs for teen mothers to ensure that they stay in school, get job training for the future, and be able to support their children.

The point is that instead of getting hung up on numbers, we should understand what causes high abortion rates, and then we can address the real problems and hopefully make it easier for women and teenage girls to avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

[Bluebonnet]

The point is that instead of getting hung up on numbers, we should understand what causes high abortion rates, and then we can address the real problems and hopefully make it easier for women and teenage girls to avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

The funny thing is that this has gone back to the basic argument of this thread - the continuing of feminism has lead to many negative aspects of a society which the feminists might not be prepared or wish for in the first place.

Had feminism not gone this far, abstinence would not have been so difficult to achieve. As I've said in one of my previous posts, the aggressiveness of teenage girls these days are astonishing! Thanks to the all equal talks and pushes! Then the girls got themselves in trouble - one of these consequences of the whole following animal instinct is to get themselves pregnant.

[Buttercup]

The funny thing is that this has gone back to the basic argument of this thread - the continuing of feminism has lead to many negative aspects of a society which the feminists might not be prepared or wish for in the first place.

Had feminism not gone this far, abstinence would not have been so difficult to achieve. As I've said in one of my previous posts, the aggressiveness of teenage girls these days are astonishing! Thanks to the all equal talks and pushes! Then the girls got themselves in trouble - one of these consequences of the whole following animal instinct is to get themselves pregnant.

No, that's your basic argument. I am very happy that in many countries, women are no longer "ruined" if they have sex before marrying, or shamed for embracing their sexuality. I hope this will expand to more cultures; there are still places where women (and sometimes men, too) who don't conform to perceived standards of purity are punished. And I certainly don't think that people should be compelled to marry at 18 so that they can have sex; a person can be ready to have sex but not for the sort of commitment marriage and a family entails. If someone chooses to wait for marriage, I certainly respect that, and understand the reasoning - but such reasoning is not and should not be applicable to everyone. Yay for feminism (among other things) for making it possible for women and men to have more choices regarding their sexuality and its expression.

Oh, and if you think people were uniformly abstaining from premarital and extramarital sex before feminism, some historical reading may be in order.

That is all. I seem to recall having a similar discussion once before, and it wasn't very productive then, either. I would rather not go another round.

[skatinginbc]

one of these consequences of the whole following animal instinct is to get themselves pregnant.

I actually like this argument.

[Bluebonnet]

Oh, and if you think people were uniformly abstaining from premarital and extramarital sex before feminism, some historical reading may be in order.

I don't need historical reading for this particular reason. It surely wasn't absolutely abstained like any of such large scaled social behavior in any given historical period of time or any given society. At least it wasn't as such broad, openly normalized, and accepted behavior. I wouldn't and have never felt we should punish in certain crude ways. But one cannot deny that the revolution of feminism have some bad consequences as we've seen now in the society. And this is one of them.

That is all. I seem to recall having a similar discussion once before, and it wasn't very productive then, either. I would rather not go another round.

True. Just like I am avoiding in responding to some of the posts in this thread as I'm thinking the product of continuely going into certain route. I post as I feel the amusement of posting, same like the reason you have. I wouldn't be expecting to change anyone's view/views, simply just want to state mine. Thanks to the privilege we get under the freedom of speech! We have such enjoyable way of ranting.

I actually like this argument.

Thanks! Finally we have something in agreement.