*Feminism IS Population Control*

Post Reply New Topic

That is what is so interesting about "morals", that when circumstances require a certain response from humans morals/rules arise which seem like absolutes.

In fact there is nothing fundamentally wrong with children working. The children working in countries where it is still legal are many/most of them happy to do so, glad to be active contributors to the economy and wellbeing of their family and community. Children like to do what the adults around them do, are in fact programmed to copy what the adults in their community do.

If you have seen a boy running errands for his father's business, a child serving in their parents shop, a boy out on the hillside guarding the goats, a girl feeding her family's hens, or caring for her younger brothers and sisters, then you know that there is nothing intrinsically wrong about "child-labour". The number of children who are exploited/abused/overworked is no more than the number of adults.

But it becomes "wrong" in a society which needs/apparently needs to reduce its fertility rate, because so long as children have the right to work, if they are capable of it, like most other humans, they are too valuable a resource, and people will continue to have lots of them.

When the population was steady child-labour was completely normal, but in a society creating food and wealth and sanitation at such a rate that the population soars, "child-labour" becomes something taboo/scandalous, in the same way as a lone/"loose" woman was a taboo when the population was small(er) and the tribe/society was aiming at increasing its numbers, ( being fruitful and multiplying ).

.

Pre-pubescents working as slave labourers in Nike plants, that is a far cry from kids doing paper-routes or the occasional odd job for spending-money. You know the difference, yes?

You seem to be fanatically devoted to your cause.

Which cause is that?

Which cause is that?
.

Feminism! ... Your sense of social justice does not exist outside the bounds of feminism.

Never mind the poor oppressed women, what about the abuse and exploitation of children?

Exactly, think of all the children who no longer have the right to work productively/for money

It is not an assumption. It is such an established fact, ( as I already explained very clearly above ), that huge pharmaceutical companies are planning on making a lot of money out of it.

The sexist attitude, ( which is that men are the norm, against which women are measured ), is that women should/must want sex as often and as much as men, and if they don't they are dysfunctional, so let's give them a pill for it, rather than accepting that 33%-46% of women are very often ... etc, etc, etc, not that interested in sex.

How is it sexist???

So the "problem" in countries whose population growth rate is still high is that they allow children to work, whether in factories, or seasonally on the land, or in their shops/small businesses etc. So long as children have the right to work people will keep having them.

It assumes that the 'normal' state for men is better than the 'normal' state for women. Like it would be sexist to give men a pill specifically to make them have female-level sex drives.

It assumes that the 'normal' state for men is better than the 'normal' state for women. Like it would be sexist to give men a pill specifically to make them have female-level sex drives.

Society would be better off if we were asexual