You were involved with that discussion yourself.
Unless you’re being sarky here…
it was so brief and tentative that it went pretty much unnoticed, even by those who responded.
Yes. I know. That’s what you do.
As I said it was a tentative and brief discussion, started by a male poster who recognised that the idea “I don’t know how breaking the patriarchy would benefit men” might be considered unpopular. Another (I think) male poster countered, and the whole thing petered out. That was in part because yet another male poster waded in drunk on a semi related topic and talked across it. Then you made a joke about how men in stereotypical feminine attire can expect to be shot by the patriarchy police. Or something,
It was like looking at the patriarchy in microcosm.
Jesus.Reading posts can be hard.
Jesus.
Why do you have to be like this? Are you bored or lonely or what?
The reason I get annoyed with you is because it seems to me that you reduce all discussion down to the joke, and it drives the discussion into trivia. Either the joke or the pedantic insistence on picking apart a single point, which also drives the discussion into trivia and a dead end.
Same here.Yep, I've noticed this too, and I also find it annoying.
One way to find out.Would it be worthwhile starting a new thread on how feminism may or may not benefit men?
I saw a very brief and tentative discussion in the unpopular opinions thread about how breaking the patriarchy could /would benefit men.
how could/would breaking the patriarchy benefit men.Would it be worthwhile starting a new thread on how feminism may or may not benefit men? I feel it's a bit self-indulgent because that's not what feminism is about. But maybe there's stuff to be said/thought about. What's the general feeling?
how could/would breaking the patriarchy benefit men.
how could/would breaking the patriarchy benefit men.
To my mind, that's exactly what feminism should be about. I think it's a great idea.Would it be worthwhile starting a new thread on how feminism may or may not benefit men? I feel it's a bit self-indulgent because that's not what feminism is about. But maybe there's stuff to be said/thought about. What's the general feeling?
To my mind, that's exactly what feminism should be about. I think it's a great idea.
To my mind, that's exactly what feminism should be about. I think it's a great idea.
Another horrific case and a hospital refusing to perform a termination because of what looks like lack of clarity in the law and/or fear of the consequences.
'The state senator who authored Louisiana’s abortion ban, Katrina Jackson, insisted to Baton Rouge TV station WAFB that the hospital should have authorized the termination of Davis’s pregnancy, because the statute contains exceptions for fetuses which are not viable outside a mother’s womb.
Nonetheless, in his office’s statement about working with Davis, Crump said Louisiana’s abortion ban was clearly confusing to interpret, and he accused its authors of “inflicting profound emotional and physical trauma” on his client, along with other similarly situated women.'
Louisiana woman faces ‘horrifically cruel’ abortion choice over fetus missing skull
Nancy Davis, denied abortion in home state despite fetus being diagnosed with fatal skull condition, forced to travel for procedurewww.theguardian.com
In case anyone's wondering why she wouldn't just go full term, apart from the mental trauma of carrying a foetus that's guaranteed to die, the chances of death for the woman are way higher than for general pregnancies - the foetus dies, for want of a better word, and just is in there as dead tissue, and the woman dies of sepsis or other complications.
Foetuses aren't people. How the fuck is this even an argument? Sure, I can accept that a sufficiently developed foetus might be able to be delivered as a premature birth, but if that's not possible them the only position that makes sense is to prioritise the mother-to-be.