Your race or sex means you can't speak on this.

Post Reply New Topic

I left infinity of possibilities we can now explore but I hope my point is sort of clear.

It is to me!

I pick option 2, to be honest.

My litmus test includes:

1)
"who has more personal experience with my specific issue which is sickness during pregnancy?"
(answer: neither of them)

therefore,

2)
"who has more professional expertise learning about sickness during pregnancy?"
(answer: technically neither of them)

Neither party understands sickness during pregnancy on personal or professional grounds.

The man has at least witnessed sickness during pregnancy first hand. Assuming he is an empathetic person, he would be more able to say "I understand how you feel", "I know it can be bad", "There's hope, because my wife got better", etc.

I would take solace from the man and continue seeking someone who had my specific experience of being sick while pregnant themselves (not second hand), or else an expert who could treat the symptoms even if that expert was a man.

Back to magz' question:
What if #2 was the sister or wife of the pregnant woman, instead of the husband?

Does gender matter in that case, if the woman never had a baby?

She would not have gender-based inability to expirience the issue.
Yes, you are right, neither of them expirienced nor had professional nor hobbyist knowledge on the issue.

It seems that there are more than just one or two factors when considering the value of someone's opinions.

For example, a sailor may have dealt with seasickness. This gives him some insight into motion-induced nausea, but maybe not so much for nausea induced by the motion of the unborn child. All the man could reasonably do is speak encouragement while holding his wife's hair back out of the way...

Another man might have spent the last 30 years as an OB/GYN and delivered thousands of babies. All he could do is everything known to medical science (and maybe a few things his mom taught him) to help relieve the mom-to-be's symptoms.

I said "Sometimes" because while everyone has a right to an opinion, those directly affected need to have the loudest voice.

I dont know I’d know quite a few women who aren’t conservatives would go with 2.
1. Seems to invalidate the guys wife’s experience. So I don’t understand your point. 2. Is just sharing his wives insight.
What if it was men saying both? What if it was women saying both?
Is the point to take the 1. Cause it’s a woman? 0.o

That’s hard to quantify.

Those who care or ar more effected tend to have louder voices, but hey don’t get said loud voice be default and are ignored if those in charge don’t like their opinion.

The opposite.
Both couldn't be men, for natural reasons.
Both could be women.
IsabellaLinton's analysis is in agreement with what I meant.

I'm not conservative, btw. But I'm also not liberal.

1. My wife has given birth to six children and worked full time for all her pregnancy time. Women who take leave for their pregnancies are just lazy.
2. I was like that during her second pregnancy, I could hardly could leave my bed during second trimester.

With a few word choices and bam genders reversed. Either statement could be made by male or woman.

Saying people who don’t work are lazy is a common conservative thing, it’s why they oppose paid leave for pregnant women as they’re just lazy and could work.

So now would 2. Be right as it’s a woman? But the opinions haven’t changed. Both are based off of r indirectly off of women’s experiences.
Is woman 2. Lazy or just having different experience, why does her husband sharing her experience invalidate it?

But she’s never experienced it and might never experience it. Making her no different then a man. What if a woman has kids then later becomes a man? Is he not allowed to talk about it even though he experienced it?

This idea is faulty as I don’t think people should have experience in order to talk about, vote, or share opinions on stuff. To say otherwise would limit lots of people. How many of us have been politicians? So what right do we have to want to place limits on politicians since we haven’t experienced what it’s like and most likely never will.

Didn’t you support circumicism ?

Gun control people have no knowledge or experience with or about guns. I’d love it if they didn’t have a say about guns, but we are free society and anyone can and should be able to talk about and share opinions about whatever they want. Censorship is a dark path to go down. Don’t like someone’s opinions then ignore them

Sly, that is exactly my point!

No, I was against circumcision when we were discussing it in another thread. Or, to be more correct, I was surprised by prevalence of it in USA and I found it weird - in my country, only religious Jews do it for non-medical reasons and there is not many of them, so I have never even seen a "cut" man IRL.

Exactly.

So you would agree that income tax policy should primarily be decided by the rich since it affects them the most?

[sarcasm=so thick you could use it for sunscreen]

Congratulations, Miss Thrace. You've finally achieved your special destiny.

[/sarcasm]

Actually, it doesn't affect them much more than others... not here, at least. I'm not completely sure how the collected tax money is used in the USA, but here it's used for health care, education, taking care of public places etc. stuff that's used by everyone. If the income tax would be cut a lot from the rich people, it would also affect the ones with smaller income since the services they get that are paid with tax money would have to be cut as well. This is why the poor has an equal right to vote about those who decide these things as the rich do.

But sure, if the rich people's taxes could be cut without it affecting the lives of the people who earn a lot less, then it'd be their business alone.