Are women people?

Post Reply New Topic

Those who dont think women are people, are in fact, rabid dogs and need to be put down to prevent further infection.


Jojo

Being a real person isnt what its cracked up to be!

but then wouldn't you be dehumanizing them in return? who will then fit the definition of human?

All human embryos start out as female . . .
But maybe I'm being to scientific about this

Exactly, it takes a Y chromosome's fortuitous embryonic intervention for personhood to be achieved

True....good point!
"Humans", as Inventor says, "are mad hairless ground apes"...I say , people have to personally evolve from that state.
We are all both part beast/part person....some are more so to one side than the other.

I was venting my frustration on this "war on women"....I guess if I am to be depersonalized, then they should be too.
But as Gandhi says, eye for an eye, makes the whole world blind.


Jojo

Think my IQ just took a hit. Damn curiosity...

Technically it is the androgens that turn a fetus male. So, are hermaphrodites human? They have a Y chromosome even though they may in all other regards female.

Yes. They just Aren't Like Us.

We don't fart, defecate or have body odour ever. Of course we aren't people.

I don't care for misogyny jokes.

Women are men's equals but they think quite different. Because of that I'll say "equal but separate."

And I'm annoyed when people decide to call something like what you just said misogynistic for even acknowledging that there is a difference.

Here's a bit of a tip. If you wonder if what you are saying sounds very misogynious and are not a freaking racist then swap words like man with white and woman with black. Ask yourself if what you are saying suddenly sounds ridiculous.

See? Suddenly sounds stupid. But now , and here's quite the shocker: To a lot of people outside of your mindset, including me, the original word using man and woman sounds equally stupid.

- Women and men are equals in rights.
- Everybody is different. More so, everybody thinks different. Making assumptions about women thinking different than men tends to be pop psych without much merit. If you take a woman and a men and find that they have very different tastes and forms of thinking, there is quite a big probability that the reason is because they are different people, rather than because they have different genders.
-

I'll take this vague sign of opposition as saying that the article does not make good points. Since the article covers a lot of topics, I am trying not to go mad over the huge amount of implications your disagreement to the article mean. But I will try to remain calm and take my socratic persona.

- Do you really think it is not a ridiculous case of discrimination to fire someone because she lactates?
- Would you accept the government to order mandatory rectal before you grab a hamburger?
- Don't you think it would have made sense to ask at least one female person before deciding whether to cover anti-conceptive pills in insurance?
Do you agree with Rush' statement that women want anti-birth pills because they are sluts and that to be allowed that they should send us videos of their sexual acts?

It mixes a few clearly problematic cases with a few that have been twisted around; its the kind of thing that MP likes to call 'polemics', to even suggest that the debate is on the table for whether women are people though is farse.


Tentatively agree with the author, albeit I don't know the whole story in the particular case presented, it sounds like many employers are feeling the high hand on the pendulum in the current sour jobs market and are letting back on what they're willing to compromise with - which is incredibly unfortunate. Is there a direct connection or any connection whatsoever to the other points or 'cases' further down?


Probably better that we get back on topic - abortions. I can't claim to have an opinion as I get that its a bit of a desperate move by paleos to dissuade women from having abortions. The likening of a transvaginal wand though to rape; if I were her gyno I might be a little nervous reading something like that. Seems like both sides of the debate though are blowing more than ample amounts of smoke and this is just hers.


No, I just think that if we're going to sort out Catholic church NGOs and strong-arm their doctrine that we need to give them assertive 'f^&* you' rather than trying to be mealy-mouthed about it and then change the debate to something so broad as 'Do women have a right to contraception?'. The question is 'Does the catholic church have the right to practice its doctrine within its own NGOs'. If the answer is no then, we need to tell them - 'Sorry, this is the 21st century, you don't have the high hand on the pendulum anymore and we don't have the patience to pander to you or your imaginary friend'. I see this as more just a big policy blunder, and - if the government really wants to offer its own outside supplementals to workers at Catholic institutions who want it, that should be their right, but they're clearly in zero-sum territory on this one and you can't make that go away with obfuscation.

I recall recently there was a conversation about a woman at Harvard who wanted $1,000 a month for birth control - from the federal government. Even if Rush preaches to his own choir enough that he let off a few semi-expletives I don't think he's dumb enough to say that toward birth control and women et large (whether or not one would really 'believe' that's how he feels I can't comment on). If that's the particular woman in question, which common sense is telling me it likely is, I get the feeling that the author of this article had it conveyed to her almost as one-sidedly and conveniently lacking in salient details as she presented it.


I lose braincells reading something when I can tell that pejoratives are being slung around in order to hammer down any objective conversation on issues. What's even worse about this kind of stuff is that they start thowing in issues that actually *are* issues (such as discrimination against pregnant women) and do violence to those with everything else that follows. Again I keep hearing the euphemism of 'polemic' for this kind of thing, I suppose I just don't have much in the way of patients for 'polemic'.

If men are people, then women aren't people.
We're something much better.

Gee I hope so. I wouldn't want to be accused of beastiality.