Txgangsta : This would reduce the amount of people who throw their babies in the trash because they don't want them. It may also reduce the amount of people in adoption agencies as well so those don't become cluttered

Well, being for abortion doesn't necessarily mean someone believes that pregnancy, or femininity, are negative or lesser traits. Even taking the concept of choice completely out of the equation, just because they're pro-choice doesn't mean they automatically think of femininity as an inferior trait to have. Also, being pro-choice doesn't mean someone is "against pregnancy," it means they support each individual's right to do what they want with their own body.

1.) May be true in foreign countries, but I highly doubt in the US that the numbers are that disproportionate. In most Western cultures having a male be the first-born doesn't carry nearly the same significance. Most people over here either want the kid or they don't, regardless of gender.

2.) That's true, but if the woman is willing to abort her own child due to "pressure" from the baby-daddy, then it's plausible to think she wasn't ready to have kids to begin with. If she can't stand up for herself enough to keep it, then who's to say she'd do what's best after giving birth to it?

3.) True, but is it exclusively, or even a majority of, women protesting the laws that have made it legal? If it was mostly women up in arms about that decision, then that point may hold some merit, but just because men made it legal doesn't make it bad, especially considering men make up nearly the entire legislative system. Men HAVE to pass the laws regarding women, because they're still fighting for that equality in society.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would be "against pregnancy." That's like saying you're against what brought yourself, and the entire human race (and countless other species) into existence. People who are pro-choice aren't against the concept of pregnancy or femininity, they just believe each individual has the right to treat their own body as they see fit.

And how does giving women the same rights as men make them into men? If we give them equal pay, equal place in government, equal respect, etc, do they transform into a man? Nowhere in this ideal are we devaluing femininity or what makes a woman a woman, nor trying to strip them of it. We are only trying to empower them to have the same place in society. It would seem by your logic, women and men should have separate rights in society. How does it bring more value to women if we're creating separate rights for each gender?

And you're right that men don't have the right to abort, but men also don't have to endure the burden of carrying the child (and more often than not have the option of just walking away without raising it if they want to). We can't make everything perfectly equal, because there are significant biological differences, but we're making steps toward getting as close as we can.

I'm in a hurry so this post may not be proofread as well as I would've liked lol.

Pokemonfan1000 : But in an abortion, they still throw them in the trash. I don't get the difference. An abortion is taking a fetus and throwing it in the trash.

Mynamescox44 : The phrase "right their own body" is thrown around a lot. But here's my point: lets say some man takes a scalpel and cuts off his penis and testicles with it because it's "his body". Do you believe the man is sane? No. "It's my body, I can do what I want" is the phrase of insane people. It makes no sense, and I have no idea how it got so popular. What I think the man is doing is removing the most unique parts to biological masculinity. The man doesn't respect his own masculinity. Equally, if a woman aborts, she is scoffing at her own feminine fertility.

In the US, first-born male isn't as important, but if we want to change other countries, we must lead by example, no?

I don't think you want to defend baby-daddy's pressuring women into abortions, do you? Please don't.

Women are more than occasionally more pro-life than men. Here's a recent Gallup poll. If you look at all the graphs, men are sometimes more pro-choice than women. So no, it's not mostly women arguing here.

Yes, I do think men and women should have separate rights in society, but only insofar as it pertains to the gender. Equal pay for equal work makes complete sense to me. I don't object to that. Currently, in divorce, the mother gets the children if things are equal. That's not law, but that's the stats on how the judges rulings go. But I support that entirely. The gender there matters; mom's have unique psychology when it comes to children. If the father could better raise the children though, that would be an obvious exception.

There's a big difference between mutilating one's own genitals, and a woman not having a child at the present moment in time. By that logic how you handle your own body shouldn't be up to you, but rather for society's standards or our preconceptions of what is right or wrong to determine what you "must" do.

I thought we were leading by example, by not doing that to unborn females? Though to be completely honest, I can't imagine any other countries look to the US for moral lessons, let alone actually changing their own ethics because it's what we think is "the right thing to do" lol.

I'm not defending a man's pressuring of a woman having an abortion, I'm questioning an individual's readiness to have a child if they give it up so easily. Imagine it were the other way around. The woman wanted an abortion, but wouldn't do so unless the father agreed. If she kept pressuring him and he broke down, agreeing to go through with it, would you say that man was ready to have children? (I'm looking past gender here, but rather at the individual.)

That just proves my point even further. If from 2012 - 2015 a higher % of women have identified as pro-choice than even men have, what makes you think this isn't something they want? From the graph it seems to bounce back and forth, neither side really showing any dominance. How is it being legalized by men a downside if it's opposition is more or less evenly divided among both genders?

The problem with that way of thinking though is that it confines us to the gender roles and perceptions of them society already has in place. Just being a woman doesn't automatically make her the better parent, or more suited to raise the children. It's hard for a judge to accurately determine who's the better option, since he can only see from the outside in, and both parents are doing their best to make a good impression.

Txgangsta : Where are you getting your definitions from? There are many different perspectives on what feminism is, but I've never seen yours before. Did you just make it up for this thread? Ultimately, your idea of what "honoring women" constitutes is your own opinion on how women should behave. Instead of supporting your opinion with strong arguments, you try to frame it as some sort of overarching goal of feminism. That's begging the question. Can you give an argument that doesn't resort to your personal definition of a word?

Mynamescox44 : I don't think there is much of a difference in genital multinational and an abortion, in practice or conceptually. How are they not the same? Also, choosing only three years of the data I showed you isn't really fair.

Well, that's something we're obviously not going to see eye to eye on then lol.

As for the graph, I made 2 points on that. First, I only picked the last 3 years to show that lately more women are even pro-choice than men, so this is something they believe in as an option even more than we do.

Second, I said that for the graph as a whole neither gender had shown any dominance in being either pro-choice or pro-life, as it could go either way each year.

You said "Women are more than occasionally more pro-life than men." But the graph actually indicates there's no clear dominance between genders. But my main point was that you implied abortion being legalized by men was something that went against women, when there's no clear gender who opposes the decision to allow abortion. If it's evenly opposed, then how is it something that's designed to be "anti-woman"?

If you actually count the years individually, 10 years have higher rates of women being pro-choice, while only 4 years have men being more pro-choice. If anything, this graph indicates women are slightly more likely to be pro-choice than men are...


Image upload: 534x341 totaling 37 KB's.

Txgangsta : Are you trying to say your personal definition of feminism is just as valid as the dictionary definition? It isn't. Words only have value insofar as they can be used to convey ideas. A word that nobody recongnises, no matter the meaning, has no value because it doesn't convey anything. If you use this meaningless word, you will at best confuse your audience, and at worst mislead them. Webster's dictionary is not merely the personal definitions of Noah Webster; he didn't just decide what each word meant. He built on existing definitions, trimmed some down, and drew on decades of experience with the language, observing its use in professional and private settings, studying the effects and etymologies of words. He then wrote his dictionary, drawing on his knowledge and on existing definitions, many of which were subsequently edited. He didn't make definitions up on a whim, and he certainly didn't make them up to win arguments.

This is why nobody agrees with you. You've taken the word 'feminism', and defined in your own such that it aligns with your agenda and your worldview. There are many ways to define feminism that are based in historical context and relevance to feminists; how does yours do that? What makes your definition worth anything? What research have you done in the field, what experience do you have with the subject? If you can draw on that and justify your definition, perhaps people will take notice and begin discussing its merits. Perhaps it will even become a proper definition that people rely on. Until then, it's about as relevant as me defining 'grapefruit' as type of car, then chastising people who think it's a citrus fruit. Your arguments are logically valid, but not sound. The premises have no support, and are nothing more than your own assertions you've thrust upon us unsupported and unjustified.

And 'valuing women' is no different. Valuing women is something most people probably claim to do, but each has a different idea of what constitutes the act. It's purely subjective. There's no reason it has to involve anything feminine: in fact, some feminists reject the idea of femininity, or at least tread very carefully around the matter. See influential authors like Simone de Beauvoir who say ideas like the eternal feminine are a myth, and that gender values are a social construct.

Mold and Crumbs : Many gender values are social constructs. But biology is biology. Can't really argue with a matter of fact. Women are not men. This difference needs to be respected as a difference. This is real feminism. Anything else is shoddy existentialism/nihilism. Historical feminism fails to recognize the obvious.

"Nobody agrees with you." Please. Five people is hardly "everyone".

How to value women is of course disagreed upon. I think my opinion is better than other opinions because of what I've written previously. I don't need to rely upon someone previous because truth and argument is not dependent on authority.

Finally, my credentials can be in my studies in philosophy of ethics. The masters degree is mine in May.

Mynamescox44 : why is intentionally tearing up one's reproctive organs different than intentionally tearing one's reproductive organs?

Because how you described it, it would mean the man would never again be able to use his privates for pretty much anything.

Whereas a women having an abortion, so long as the procedure is done correctly, would have virtually no change to her body. She could still have kids later on, and use her private parts for what they were intended for after the fact.

That's where I see a difference.

"Although serious complications occur in fewer than 1 out of 100 first trimester abortions and approximately 1 out of every 50 late term abortions, it is important to be aware of the risks:"
Taken from-
http://americanpregnancy.org/unplanned-pregnancy/abortion-side-effects/

That hardly seems like an even deal in my eyes.

Txgangsta : You either didn't read or didn't understand what I wrote, so I'll make it simpler. Feminism is a branch of academia that grew to explain and contextualise the role women play in society on an academical front, as well as campaign for women's rights on a political front. It is not your particular brand of feminism that you just happened to make up and, by coincidence, fully supports your worldview. The historical feminists are the ones who defined the discipline; you coming in and telling them they're all wrong and you are the only one who understands feminism puts you on par with the Time Cube guy.

Even if women and men are different, that is not an argument that women must be respected, and even if women must be respected, 'respect' is again a subjective term. Saying that women must be respected, thus abortion is wrong is not a good argument. (Since you're so keen to reject authority and rely on the weight of your arguments, you should at least make good arguments then.)

Incidentally, dismissing opposing views as existentialism/nihilism does nothing to discredit them.

Finally, your 'credentials' here are meaningless. Even if I believe them, I don't care. What have you contributed academically to the field of feminist thought that you can define it so unilaterally? I would hope someone in graduate school understands meaningless a degree is without the research and understanding that it (theoretically) represents.

Oh, and if you want more people to disagree with you, try posting this to a larger forum. Preferably a neutral political forum, not one pre-selected for its favourable crowd.

Mold and Crumbs : the word "feminism" in all its meaning does consist in what I am doing here, whether I agree with the authors of the movement or not. This view of feminism is certainly a product of my world view, just like the originals. I don't understand why you don't see a fallacy of origin here.

It depends on how late the woman waits to go through with it. If all she does is take the Morning After pill, then there's no mutilation at all. I guess it could be argued that's not technically an abortion, but then again, either way it's preventing the pregnancy from happening (which is just the degree in which it happens). 

Though I still think there's a big difference in getting a procedure done by a medical professional, and simply taking a blade to carve into yourself. So yes, the degree in which it happens is a big factor in my opinion. If I poke someone, it's considered annoying at best, but if I punch them all out, it's assault. That's how degree plays into it from my perspective. Either way I "put my hands on them," but only a certain degree is considered an actual offense.

By this logic though, it could be argued that someone getting a Cleft Palate procedure is wrong for "mutilating" their own body. They're both elective procedures, so why is it ok for one, but not the other? Or any elective surgery at all, since it's not life threatening, but they all come with risks?

And since we're arguing values, I could say it's disrespectful to assume to know what's best for feminism, or even go so far as to say it's intolerable. If the graph that even you provided indicates women are slightly more likely to be pro-choice than men, it's going against women and what they believe in to say this is something they should be against.

Txgangsta : Existentialism and nihilism are not mutually exclusive to feminism. They aren't directly related. I'm beginning to wonder if you know what any of these terms imply, or if you're just making it up as you go. And, judging from the opening sentence in your original post, this thread is mostly a lesson in ego-stroking.

When I ask for your credentials, I'm asking what work you've contributed to the field that you feel you can redefine entire branches of thought. As you so blithely pointed out, your definitions are personal. But the point I made was that standard definitions are not personal; they are widely used and understood. I can very easily define feminism to mean people who only wear socks on Wednesdays, but if nobody else follows my definition, it's pointless. So I'll ask again: what makes your definition so special that anyone should use it? Reducing feminism to nothing more than a hollow statement like "valuing women" tells me you're more interested in using the weight of the word rather than understanding its significance. Even the social conservatives who oppressed women and against whom the original feminists rebelled valued women. Boko Haram values women. If you are indeed well-educated, it's time you showed it.

Mynamescox44 : All contraception, even abstinence, "prevent pregnancy". I'm actually very much in favor of contraceptive methods. I'm only concerned after the point of conception. It is at that point the woman is truly pregnant. The morning after pill, if taken the morning after, will expel everything prior to fertilization. However, the morning after pill will work for 48 hours or more sometimes, and then things get really iffy.

Cleft palate surgery helps the person to eat. Otherwise, there is a big hole in their mouth. While certainly not dire to anyone's health, it's certainly more than cosmetic. But, you're right, I am also against cosmetic surgery in a few scenarios.

Valuing women shouldn't be curtailed by majority opinion. If most women said they wanted to be battered and bruised by men, I'd fight their value choice there too. The point of that Gallop poll was to show you that occasionally men are more pro-choice than women, and women are occasionally less pro-choice than pro-life. There should be a respectful rational argument, and I believe that valuing abortion has poor arguments.

Mold and Crumbs : Ugh...... Existentialism and Nihilism are not mutually exclusive to feminism. But, if the feminist movement is simply what you have described, feminism is exclusively existentialist or nihilist. If it's all about "choice", then those are your two philosophies, regardless of feminine edges.

You keep arguing about definitions. Get over it. Yes, you can define feminism to mean people that wear socks on Wednesdays. And if you started a thread like that I could follow your argument based on the definitions provided. You wonderfully fail to look at the meaning of what I say simply because, to you, it's not standard.

People value women differently. That's obvious. Boko Haram does value women, but as less than men, and more akin to objects. I would tell them exactly what I'm telling you, "I disagree with how you value women. Here is my rational for how we should value women." I don't understand how that is such a barrier for you.

Attack my argument. Quit attacking word choice, quit attacking me.

Txgangsta : No, the feminist movement isn't simply what I've described. I only gave a few pointers, and now I don't know what you're talking about. Feminism does indeed emphasise choice, but that doesn't make it existentialist or nihilist. That's a very odd thing to say. The push for individual rights predates those two schools of thought, and even today there are many people who support the idea of personal choice without advocating either of them.

Incidentally, I don't brush aside what you say because it's not "standard"; I brush it aside because it's absurd and not explained properly. 

I think Boko Haram would disagree with your assessment that they value women as objects. They would probably say that they value women just as much as men, which is why they go to such great lengths to protect them. Value them or don't; that's not what's important. Value is subjective, which is why it's not the basis of a good argument. That's why attacking your argument is so difficult. It's not so much an argument as it is a mess of assertions, pronouncements, and bizarre digressions, none of which are well explained. Half your claims could be met with a simple 'Why?'.

Just look at the second sentence in your opening post: "This thread itself will offer little of the arguments themselves to the positions within.". Ye gods, could you be any less straightforward?

Zlinqx :     Z, how can we call ourselves "human" if we don't even give a helpless life[potential human being] a chance to live. Those littlest tykes are some of our own.

 We take care of our own. Selfish people are literally damned if they do not do that much. The rest of their lives will be hollow and soulless.

 I understand a pregnant woman may not want to give birth because the rate of accidental death during labour or miscarriage is higher than aborted pregnancies and it always will be no matter what decade or year you sample the stats from. Yet with modern pre-natal care and being aware of risk factors, the increased risk ought to be negligible for sure. Modern drug induced abortions[which "cut" down on operation laceration damage risk] are about as painful as labour so it wouldn't be a big pain to make the healthier choice and give away a free child[who now has a chance to live with someone else].

Did you know that... ?

Abortions of all methods more often lead to future complications in conceiving.

Now you know...


If the woman in question were to actually aspire to be a mother in the future, signing adoption papers and letting go of it post-natal would be the best option - barring any pre-existing health conditions which interfere with pregnancies.
I will make this clear[from the testimony of a veteran of parenthood], having a child is never something a selfish person can handle. He and his wife had no idea how selfish they were until their son was born. They had to adapt. They only had their foot halfway out the door of selfish life. They had to venture far from that place to seek a spot for their hearts to rest where they could raise two healthy children.

  Not even giving a person-in-the-making a chance is pure selfishness. My mother, regardless of how she acts on a daily basis, I know at my core she is not a selfish person. She sacrificed so much of her formerly selfish personage to bring me to life healthy and keep me alive after she learned about my existence. You do not see a selfish person even approaching that behavior. What I am witnessing with her, is a shrunken fragment that remained from her former younger self and stayed alive in her after her pregnancies to proliferate any behavior that mostly "looks out for number one." Interestingly, my younger brother used to say "got to look out for number one" all the time. It would seem he now cares for some person other than himself; [quite shockingly!] more than himself and lives with her as a caring, generous partner.

 Do not underestimate the power of influence, even though it will not dictate a person's entire life. I honour my mother for what influences and survival promotion she gave to me. She is to be honoured by all who came from her and all who benefit by our hand. She is our ancestor. Our provider. Our matriarch. Our treasure.

A rape victim's survival plan needs to be, do not direct your anger inwardly. Not at you, not at any baby in you. Neither of you are at fault. It is the foul jackal that did it. He is to blame. You did not ask for the baby to be in there. The baby did not ask to be in you specifically. For now, it lives even if it does not feel or appreciate life yet.

 The circumstance will not be ideal for them entering the world. Life happens. You were dealt a hand with a joker and looked up to see you were playing cards with the Joker freshly escaped from Arkham Asylum. Horribly tragedy. If you are alive afterwards, it does not have to be a further tragedy. No one else has to die.

 Realize that it is not the Joker. It is also a part of your genetic make-up and therefore a key part of you. How many women who have aborted such a fine child of themselves and no husband, visit the tiny grave and cry every now and then? Do not let that be you. [That's my advice. Make your own choice. You have a soul. You matter.]

Proliferating more death, regardless of when a life begins - now or thirty years in the making before being shot in the head - is what a villain does. By embracing human life whenever it springs up, the true power of women becomes evident. Compassion, sympathy, kindness, generosity, consideration, care, grace all come together in the right person who was also birthed and raised by the right person.  These people are capable of doing extraordinary things. That is the greatest impact on human society. Our Texan friend is right. Celebratory behavior towards women who have made the correct healthy choice is something we cannot let slip away. Baby showers are not enough. The conduct towards these "powerful women who have made a choice" requires improvement.

So Z. How do you feel about "guaranteeing equal opportunity in life" for all conceived young? That is something I want to see. In many cultures, parents get an ultrasound to determine a baby's gender and then abort if it is a girl. Is that equal to you?  Should anybody be given such an opportunity in lieu of legitimized health concerns?

Ahem. "I also don't see how it is unwomanly to allow women to wait until they feel ready to have a child and experience pregnancy."  Z. Come on. That sounds so rapey. Be ashamed you heartless troll. They have a choice. No means no.

 Hey Z. If you want to get yourself an abortion, knock yourself out. You have that "equal opportunity" so go ahead. Experience great fun not having "an excuse for wanting to go back to living by the old traditional gender roles."


plasticinsanity :
 

  Amber, the hand the rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world. This adage applies to women's natural power which is also activated, earned and magnified through tremendous effort and care. Struggling to earn a living independently, vying for power and wealth without proper support; it's usually a losing hand without the support of a family you create around you. Some people out there can do it alone but it is infinitesimally rare. You have your ideals on that and that is so good. Life happens and ideals may not seem as important.

The truly awesome women are identifiable by their choice to live in the traditional fashion. Now that there is less pressure to do so, we know better who is really awesome and which hot-tempered harlots would have felt pressured to give up on their promiscuity.

To a correct thinking person, there would be no pressure at all because the simplified, correct life is what they want. Amorality complicates many things.

The greatest power in the world is our overall impact in the form of long-term influence. Do we have any of that on the next generation if we do not raise at least one child? Seldom does any person have more influence on another than their own child. You decide who the next people tend to be by what you know of moral instruction. Overall, women do embrace this power. They are strong mothers. They are not concerned with fleeting little skeeters buzzing around telling them to get an abortion. Not going to happen. An intelligent, wise woman knows what is healthy and will not choose to have an abortion.

Think of what children you could have. It's probably possible. Ignore the silly buzzing of the skeeters who may never have your great power. Embrace love, life, forgiving trespasses and focus on the power you possess. Rejoice in the truth. Be true to your desires. Oh, the wonders you can do.

 Handsome sons or maybe daughters even prettier than you - if you marry above your belt. Look at Eminem's daughters. Aren't they pretty and very intelligent too? They will very likely pass themselves on to the next generation. Their mother is not so pretty or known for behaving in a moral or intelligent fashion but she made them. That is her largest contribution to society. The rest of her life may be quite negative. The man got so fed up despite his powerful feelings and devotion. Could not carry on.

Juno was inspiring. Not impressive for the flippant attitude at the beginning after an ill-advised sexual experience but in making the wise, healthy choice even in the face of foul influences and circumstances. The pro-life support campaigner must have looked pretty pathetic but that appeals to plenty of people. The influence of that girl standing out there hollering at no one was significant in a very subtle way. The baby boy was born and I would not discount the influence of such wonderful people. Moral influences often come in the form of people we tend to look down our nose at. Really stops us in our tracks.


Mynamescox44 :
 

Promoting women for "equal" rights is noble and completely called for. I would stop you there though.

Advantages are nice but genuinely earning what you get is better. Most employment salary is negotiable and each person is responsible for being their own advocate in job interviews. If you get jealous of a person who managed to negotiate better for the exact same position, you are just angry at yourself for not having the confidence to do so on an equal level. That is your failing if you are jealous of more confident people. You will claim sexism, playing favourites, racism, nepotism, more favouritism of attractive people; the list goes on. Just convenient targets to lance your anger at yourself outward to blame others. Set them up. Knock them down. Makes you feel better when you do that.

Besides, women always had natural advantages in the current environment that we could never have. Game on. The playing field is level as I see it, maybe even steeped slightly against men which produces more individual competency when the disadvantages are acknowledged and not blamed on others. This may benefit men more often because most female advantages are quite natural for them to have and not blamable on the women. Confidence in employable women could be improved on an individual basis. I would like to see them have that. No telling what resulting effect might occur across the job market. Forcing the pay boost has always shown to have little effect in any job.

  Ostensibly, women having more disposable income will give rise to more poor decision-making in personal lives. More tattoos, more drink, a rash of facial and body piercings, more cigarettes, more cosmetic surgery. It's going to get nastily ugly before it gets better and commonsense life decisions flow back to normal. Might take a generation before kids rebel against parents by not getting the tattoos, piercings, cigarettes and modifications their ancestors got.

 The only way to change perceptions across the board is to get inside people's heads and rearrange things. Controlling other people in this way is also what a villain does. My advice is do not get hung up on altering what you cannot change. Focus on changing yourself to the person you want to see in the mirror. That is within the locus of your control, extending anything beyond that would be "evil" as my dad would say. You may have influence on other people in how they respond to you. That's it. You do not make them do things or make them perceive things, think things, believe things as you see them. It will not happen that way.
Let it go.

Oh. Yes. The opportunities are certainly open to anyone who wants them that bad. Running for public office is something any person of age can do in a free country.

  Back to the title topic, "a woman not having a child at the present moment in time". You do realize that is her child we are referring to. Maybe when you have such emotions running through your body, you will understand what it is like to lose a child. It pangs even worse when it was your choice to lose it and you had second feelings about the experience afterwards. It hurts. It's horrid. It's too late for "what could have been" after the worst has been done.

 When you know you would feel lifelong wretchedness for "making a killing", selfish logic flies right out the window and all the reasons you encouraged abortions seem to be made of flimsy cardboard.

  That graph is about as significant as batting average in baseball to evaluate overall performance. Those poll results tend to adapt to whatever people taking them have as their life circumstances. They adapt as they go through life, possibly experiencing some of the subject matter in their personal lives. Possibly not. Saying that means anything is like me saying it means increased growth of amoral behavior across the globe. What do we really know about those people? Nothing. I read nothing into a pointless opinion poll line graph. You seem to have read something into it. Please share your psychic divining into their personal lives. What does it really tell you?



Pokemonfan1000 :

Don't want a baby, don't have sex. That was always our right. The advent of abortion has made a complicated addendum to that right and allowed for people to trick themselves into believing their sexual behavior was without any consequence.

 Allowed = Good.   Available to be done professionally by physicians = Good.    Encouraged = Increased depravity of societies.



Mold and Crumbs :


I have a special word for you Moldy. "Blackberry"  What is that? How may we define it? What response do you get from searching just that word? Is that the original definition? Research more. Increase your knowledge.

"Be the change you want to see in the world" is the motto our brave Texan is rocking because he is not Jon Mayer waiting for the world to change.

Did he "thrust" them upon us or posit his opinions for the perusal of fellow intellectuals? If you do not want things thrust upon you, avoid going to a thread expressing such an opinion. Oh, you are so hard done by because you were forced to come here by gunpoint. I guess those open-carry laws are not the best policy after all.
 
  A person finding "valuing women" to be subjective has seen very little in their lives so far. Respect is either present or it is not. There is no subjective nature to respect. We only assign value to that which we respect and find quite relevant.

  Quit while you are in second place. You clearly did crumby research on everything you said to the brave Texan with a master's degree. I guess that will be a trend for you. Catch you later. Some other thread perchance.


 P3

Postman3 : If you don't like the way I critique, you don't have to read my posts. Try again when you've got something of substance to add and have wiped the brown off your nose.

Postman3 :  
I have lost a child. 

Don't assume things about me that you have no business claiming.

Mynamescox44 :   I was referring exclusively to the feminine experience. You are not empathizing by assuming your experience is equal. How could you have pregnancy hormones running through your body? All I assumed was that you are the guy in your profile picture and not playing a deception on everyone you know here. Are you a woman? Have you had a child ripped out of your physical body? If so, my mistake. I apologize. I was empathizing with the fairer sex and I did not mean to get so personal, madam.


Mold and Crumbs :    Can we not bring race into this?  My nose may be brown but playing the racial card will only further complicate things when that has nothing to do with our discussion. Do not say anything to that effect again please.

 P3