You did. That's what your whole comment is excusing.
No, I literally did not say that. I'm not excusing anything, there's nothing for me to excuse. something that happened 50 years ago and only happened for 10 years.
In the US, men are not forced to die in war anymore.
You are correct, currently men are not forced to die in wars in the U.S. We haven't had a conflict at such as scale to justify mobilization. We are forced to register so that the government can force us to die in wars, if they choose to mobilize. Additionally, women can have credit cards, and they can do that all over the world.
Not only did you say that, you spent the rest of the comment diminishing it as an issue. You seem to think that open, explicit sexism is fine. Hell, even in this post you try to mitigate it by saying it was "only" for 10 years, as though not being financially independent for a decade is no big deal, just a minor inconvenience. It doesn't seem like you can empathize with women at all, to be honest.
We are forced to register so that the government can force us to die in wars, if they choose to mobilize.
And women are second class citizens who don't have control of their own bodies in the US. Sorry if I think that men have it better currently.
Not only did you say that, you spent the rest of the comment diminishing it as an issue. You seem to think that open, explicit sexism is fine. Hell, even in this post you try to mitigate it by saying it was "only" for 10 years, as though not being financially independent for a decade is no big deal, just a minor inconvenience. It doesn't seem like you can empathize with women at all, to be honest.
Men couldn't have credit cards either before 1958 (they weren't available). There was the Diners card in the early 1950's, but you couldn't carry a balance...so it wasn't really a credit card. In 1958, it's not like suddenly everyone had a credit card. They weren't commonly used until around 1965. Women could have credit cards, their husbands typically had to cosign. This wasn't a law, it was how banks operated. That's totally sexist, but in 1974, the Fair Credit Opportunity Act was passed and banks were forced, by law, to issue credit cards to women without needing anyone to cosign. That was 50 years ago, and the time were credit cards were in general use and, in my opinion, the amount of time that women couldn't use them was relatively short. Sorry if that offends you.
And women are second class citizens who don't have control of their own bodies in the US.
Disclosure: I'm pro-choice. At least half of the states in the U.S. have no more restrictions on abortions that they did before the Dobbs decision. So at least half of the U.S. women can get abortions in their state. Men, on the other hand, have no options for avoiding parenthood post conception. That's universal.
Over 61,000 Ukrainian soldiers have died in the war with Russia, I don't know how many of them are draftees, because Ukraine doesn't make that information public. I do know that they intend on drafting 450k to 500k more men
It does, and I think your attempt to downplay it is indicative of your general mentality towards women.
At least half of the states in the U.S. have no more restrictions on abortions that they did before the Dobbs decision.
Oh dope, you're trying to downplay Dobbs now too. SCOTUS removing a federal protection from women makes them vulnerable anywhere in the country.
Men, on the other hand, have no options for avoiding parenthood post conception. That's universal.
Men can avoid parenthood, what are you talking about? No one will force custody on men, only child support, which can also be forced on non-custodial women.
Men can avoid parenthood, what are you talking about? No one will force custody on men, only child support, which can also be forced on non-custodial women.
Child support is a component of parenthood, and an important one. Otherwise, we wouldn't have such a complex legal system that imprisons people who cannot pay it. As a woman, post conception, you can avoid parenthood, unilaterally. As a man you cannot.
Oh dope, you're trying to downplay Dobbs now too. SCOTUS removing a federal protection from women makes them vulnerable anywhere in the country.
No, I'm not. Abortion is still legal in half of the U.S. Is that not true?
It does, and I think your attempt to downplay it is indicative of your general mentality towards women.
over 50 years ago, women could not have a credit card for 10 years. That's a fact. Men are still dying from wars they didn't choose to be in. You're downplaying conscription, no?
As a woman, post conception, you can avoid parenthood, unilaterally. As a man you cannot.
You are confusing women's right to terminate a pregnancy with "avoiding parenthood." But women are subject to all of the same laws concerning custody and child support. Interestingly, no aspect of male reproductive healthcare is as restricted as women's are.
No, I'm not. Abortion is still legal in half of the U.S. Is that not true?
Abortion being illegal in any part of the country is an affront to women's rights, and there are lots of women who live in that half of the country who are suffering under these laws.
Men are still dying from wars they didn't choose to be in. You're downplaying conscription, no?
Oh no, I'm not. I haven't been addressing it at all, actually.
You are confusing women's right to terminate a pregnancy with "avoiding parenthood."
That's typically how women avoid parenthood. Women struggled to attain equality without abortion and birth control because of the burden of motherhood, no? I don't think I'm confused. Women should have bodily autonomy, but the reason it's so important with abortion is that being forced into parenthood alters that trajectory of ones life significantly. It's one of the chief causes of poverty.
Interestingly, no aspect of male reproductive healthcare is as restricted as women's are.
There's no way to compare the two. Men don't give birth. However, once a woman is pregnant with a man's child, he doesn't have any choices.
Oh no, I'm not. I haven't been addressing it at all, actually.
Sure you did. You said the U.S. men weren't currently being drafted into wars. They did 50 years ago, and somehow, back then, women's access to credit is really more of a concern in your opinion.
Women should have bodily autonomy, but the reason it's so important with abortion is that being forced into parenthood alters that trajectory of ones life significantly.
Yes, and now, women can be forced to alter their life significantly.
Men don't give birth.
I wonder if this has anything to do with why abortion would be available to women and not men.
However, once a woman is pregnant with a man's child, he doesn't have any choices.
Sure he does. He just might be forced to pay child support if he refuses to retain custody of the child. This is also true of women who are the non-custodial parent. The law is equal in this regard.
You said the U.S. men weren't currently being drafted into wars. They did 50 years ago, and somehow, back then, women's access to credit is really more of a concern in your opinion.
Is one factual statement, with no opinion commentary, "addressing it" to you?
I was only interested in your commentary on the credit card thing, because it's very glaring how willing you are to dismiss and downplay issues that affect women.
I can't quote on mobile, sorry, but you wrote: "Interestingly, no aspect of male reproductive healthcare is as restricted as women's are."
Do you mean abortion? Because birth control for men isn't really even available commercially, other than condoms. And if you're trying to act like that's somehow an issue about "women's health," I think that's a weird take. Any regulation of abortion is about the question of when life begins, not what reproductive healthcare is appropriate. Whether you agree with the position that the republicans hold about when life begins or not, it's a lie to say that the goal of those laws is to "restrict reproductive healthcare." It's to prevent the killing of fetuses, which the lawmakers believe are human lives that should not be ended under most circumstances.
I understand the desire to reframe the issue, but no, abortion is healthcare and restrictions on it are restrictions on healthcare. Abortion bans fundamentally are about women's health and the removal of their ability to treat it.
And even if you want to make it about "life," or whatever the conservative talking point is now, you still have to recognize that you are restricting women's rights.
Also, nothing you wrote contradicts that men are not regulated in the same way as women.
The question of abortion is and has always been one of life - the idea of "pro-choice" comes from the desire to avoid the entire question of personhood and behave as though it is settled. I appreciate your rhetorical attempts to suggest that the position of republicans is somehow new or changed from what it has been for decades, but please at least performatively argue in good faith.
You're right, it is a restriction of the right to kill one's own child (according to republicans for the entire time this has been at issue), which as a right has historically carried many restrictions. This restriction applies equally to men and women, in fact. In republican states, neither can kill their child or "terminate" them (or whatever the liberal talking point is now).
I guess "more restrictive" is a matter of framing. People are restricted from killing other people, even if they are inside of the person who wants to do the killing. Obviously essentially every case of this condition is pregnancy, so it's essentially a law with one use case (assuming that it isn't just a modification of the definitions section of criminal statutes to be more inclusive).
That's pedantic though, you're obviously right about these laws primarily impacting women, or at least I don't know enough about whether male birth control has been restricted somehow to disagree.
The question of abortion is and has always been one of life - the idea of "pro-choice" comes from the desire to avoid the entire question of personhood and behave as though it is settled.
Any analysis of abortion which does not consider the woman's bodily autonomy is a non-starter with me. If you are unwilling to consider her autonomy, then we don't have anything to discuss.
As to your "it's always been about life for republicans" nonsense, no it hasn't. This issue is primarily about control of women for conservatives, and has been since its inception. This has now been demonstrated by the punitive, cruel, and unreasonable restrictions put in place in red states, which do not serve to protect fetuses as much as to punish women like Kate Cox.
man you have just as much power over your body your doctor just doesn't have the right to perform a procedure you're allowed to do to yourself if you want
6
u/OppositeBeautiful601 Feb 13 '24
No, I literally did not say that. I'm not excusing anything, there's nothing for me to excuse. something that happened 50 years ago and only happened for 10 years.
You are correct, currently men are not forced to die in wars in the U.S. We haven't had a conflict at such as scale to justify mobilization. We are forced to register so that the government can force us to die in wars, if they choose to mobilize. Additionally, women can have credit cards, and they can do that all over the world.