Abortion ultrasound-viewing advances in S.C.

surferdude

Jeanie wrote:

surferdude, seriously, do take a wee look outside your own world.

I specifically mentioned the US and Canada. They are no longer patriachial societies. Socially they are nearly matriachial societies as evidenced by abortion laws and the number of single parent families led by mothers and the percentage that women are awarded child custody and longer life spans. While I'm taking a look outside my own world maybe you should be opening your eyes to the realities of the 21st century.

soulsinging

surferdude wrote:

I specifically mentioned the US and Canada. They are no longer patriachial societies. Socially they are nearly matriachial societies as evidenced by abortion laws and the number of single parent families led by mothers and the percentage that women are awarded child custody and longer life spans. While I'm taking a look outside my own world maybe you should be opening your eyes to the realities of the 21st century.

i dont think any of those indicate a matriarchal society. abortion support is, far as i know, pretty evenly spread amongst men and women. single mothers are by far the absolute poorest people in america. women lose their jobs for getting pregnant. they make less than men for the same work. and notions of sex roles have easily survived notions of racial roles. longer life spans have nothing to do with patriarchy vs. matriarchy.... women have lived longer for as long as we can trace it. the only point you make that has any relevance is the child custody thing, but that has far more to do with the persistence of sex stereotypes i mentioned (women raise kids, men work) than any sort of female power play. i know you've got a chip on your shoulder becos of your custody battles, but just cos you got the short end of the gender stick doesn't mean women are engaged in some insidious plot to hold men down.

that said, it's not exactly patriarchal anymore, or if so it's only becos the holdovers havent really died off yet or such notions persist in the majority religious views (christianity). but women are far from dominating society and still are at a disadvantage in many ways. part of the problem is, as women are wont to do, they cant even figure out amongst themselves what the hell they want

catefrances

soulsinging wrote:

then why dont you vote for more women? men dont have the votes to own every office unless some women are voting for them. get your sisters in line

funny you should say that conor. we actually had a state election here yesterday. alas my party did not have a woman representing them in my electorate.

anyhoo, you surely know that our elected officials are never beyond the vested interests and influence of others. so it wouldn't matter who 'my sisters' voted for. the state needs capital to run. and where does that capital come from?

dangerboy

gue_barium wrote:

I saw through your words how you minimized health, and how you minimized the woman's role in her own health: Taxes aside. You've got to remember, the topic is not only about abortion, but about a law passed that subjects the choice of a woman and her health to moralistic degradating legislation.


Pun intended.

as i saw through your words which minimize a human life into a "woman's health issue".

tit. tat.

catefrances

Jeanie wrote:

Don't you start!! Sound like Mum!!! hehe!!

I'm not sure that the political arena is the place for me ss!

Would require me to participate in team sports if you like. Not my thing.

Think I'll stick to agitating as the will takes me or the situation requires it.

And supporting wherever I can or would want.

i'd vote for ya jeanie.

but just to make sure we're on the same page, can i ask what your stance is on the foreign private ownership of what i feel should essentially be state run infrastucture.

soulsinging wrote:

fair enough. i hope to one day myself. im born for it... able to argue both sides of all issues without ever really committing to any of them

yeah you're born for something alright. just trying work out what that something is.

soulsinging

catefrances wrote:

yeah you're born for something alright. just trying work out what that something is.

that's cos you're going at it backwards... with my innate genius the options are virtually unlimited. it'd be much easier to try and figure out what it isnt

Jeanie

surferdude wrote:

I specifically mentioned the US and Canada. They are no longer patriachial societies. Socially they are nearly matriachial societies as evidenced by abortion laws and the number of single parent families led by mothers and the percentage that women are awarded child custody and longer life spans. While I'm taking a look outside my own world maybe you should be opening your eyes to the realities of the 21st century.

Lot of assuming going on. Good luck with that. I see you didn't bother to do any research. As I suspected. So seeing as we are speaking off the cuff, I reckon your summation of the current situation in Canada and the US is wrong. There ya go. I said it. I think you're wrong.

My eyes are wide open to the realities of the 21st Century. Clearly we just don't agree about what we are seeing.

Jeanie

soulsinging wrote:

i dont think any of those indicate a matriarchal society. abortion support is, far as i know, pretty evenly spread amongst men and women. single mothers are by far the absolute poorest people in america. women lose their jobs for getting pregnant. they make less than men for the same work. and notions of sex roles have easily survived notions of racial roles. longer life spans have nothing to do with patriarchy vs. matriarchy.... women have lived longer for as long as we can trace it. the only point you make that has any relevance is the child custody thing, but that has far more to do with the persistence of sex stereotypes i mentioned (women raise kids, men work) than any sort of female power play. i know you've got a chip on your shoulder becos of your custody battles, but just cos you got the short end of the gender stick doesn't mean women are engaged in some insidious plot to hold men down.

that said, it's not exactly patriarchal anymore, or if so it's only becos the holdovers havent really died off yet or such notions persist in the majority religious views (christianity). but women are far from dominating society and still are at a disadvantage in many ways. part of the problem is, as women are wont to do, they cant even figure out amongst themselves what the hell they want

WOW!!! I am agreeing with you twice in one day???????

Thanks ss, you know I reckon I pretty much agree with EVERYTHING you just said. Even the last bit to a degree!!

Jeanie

catefrances wrote:

i'd vote for ya jeanie.

but just to make sure we're on the same page, can i ask what your stance is on the foreign private ownership of what i feel should essentially be state run infrastucture.

I think far too much of our infrastructure is currently in private foreign hands and I don't think we can really afford to continue allowing the sell off.
We are practically renting here these days!! Big business owns far too much.
I would love to see a return to more state run infrastructure. I would love to see more of Australia being owned by Australians. But I suspect that current trends to globalization has made this the case the world over. It's not about owning and running services from the country of origin anymore. It's all about the corporation owning all our asses. Most of them offshore corporations.

And interestingly, tying back to the subject of the thread, I couldn't help but wonder when I first read this what percentage of owners of and providers of ultrasounds are actually backing this law change? Lobbying for it even? Possibly even under the guises of religion? I wonder how many of them are part of the push? Because lets face it it's a finanacial boom for them. Is this whole thing just a clever rousse by corporations yet again?

catefrances

soulsinging wrote:

that's cos you're going at it backwards... with my innate genius the options are virtually unlimited. it'd be much easier to try and figure out what it isnt

well i can see it isn't modesty conor, so i can strike that from my list.

catefrances

Jeanie wrote:

I think far too much of our infrastructure is currently in private foreign hands and I don't think we can really afford to continue allowing the sell off.
We are practically renting here these days!! Big business owns far too much.
I would love to see a return to more state run infrastructure. I would love to see more of Australia being owned by Australians. But I suspect that current trends to globalization has made this the case the world over. It's not about owning and running services from the country of origin anymore. It's all about the corporation owning all our asses. Most of them offshore corporations.

seems we are on the same page. despite my abhorrance of the capitalist system i don't particular care about the foreign ownership of PRIVATE companies. but when it comes to the infrastructure of a country, i believe that this is a government responsibility.

surferdude

soulsinging wrote:

i dont think any of those indicate a matriarchal society. abortion support is, far as i know, pretty evenly spread amongst men and women. single mothers are by far the absolute poorest people in america. women lose their jobs for getting pregnant. they make less than men for the same work. and notions of sex roles have easily survived notions of racial roles. longer life spans have nothing to do with patriarchy vs. matriarchy.... women have lived longer for as long as we can trace it. the only point you make that has any relevance is the child custody thing, but that has far more to do with the persistence of sex stereotypes i mentioned (women raise kids, men work) than any sort of female power play. i know you've got a chip on your shoulder becos of your custody battles, but just cos you got the short end of the gender stick doesn't mean women are engaged in some insidious plot to hold men down.

that said, it's not exactly patriarchal anymore, or if so it's only becos the holdovers havent really died off yet or such notions persist in the majority religious views (christianity). but women are far from dominating society and still are at a disadvantage in many ways. part of the problem is, as women are wont to do, they cant even figure out amongst themselves what the hell they want

Mens shorter life expectancy is directly tied to their roles in society. Obviously a role with a much younger mortality age is not a good role for society to have provided.

Citing the low wages of single mothers is one sided as single fathers earn less than married men. It's not the sex that drives the lower wage but the person's role in life (single parent). I make less than I could because I have to (and willingly) place my son first.

As for abortion, it's not the support that abortion has between sexes but that the whole reproductive rights issue is completely one-sided favoring women. Abortion is just one part of reproductive rights.

Canadian and American societies are no longer patriachial societies. There are too many inequities on both sides of the equation. In Canada and the US it is all about the role you take on in life for how fairly society is going to treat you, and how much you respect yourself and demand society to treat you. Just like George Bush doesn't hate you because you're black, but rather because you are poor.

soulsinging

surferdude wrote:

Mens shorter life expectancy is directly tied to their roles in society. Obviously a role with a much younger mortality age is not a good role for society to have provided.

Citing the low wages of single mothers is one sided as single fathers earn less than married men. It's not the sex that drives the lower wage but the person's role in life (single parent). I make less than I could because I have to (and willingly) place my son first.

As for abortion, it's not the support that abortion has between sexes but that the whole reproductive rights issue is completely one-sided favoring women. Abortion is just one part of reproductive rights.

Canadian and American societies are no longer patriachial societies. There are too many inequities on both sides of the equation. In Canada and the US it is all about the role you take on in life for how fairly society is going to treat you, and how much you respect yourself and demand society to treat you. Just like George Bush doesn't hate you because you're black, but rather because you are poor.

yes, but if single parent women make less than single parent men, that is a pretty tough thing to ignore. it's evening up, without a doubt, but there is no way this society is matriarchal. it might not be the iron clad patriarchy it used to be, but it hasnt really swung the other direction. women still have some ground to make up, but the gap is closing. reproductive rights aren't solely owned by women however. case in point: roe v. wade, decided by an all male supreme court. south carolina's ultrasound law voted in by an overwhelmingly male legislature. perhaps some of the people arguing reproductive rights use that as a justification, but that doesn't mean it has any basis in reality.

soulsinging

Jeanie wrote:

WOW!!! I am agreeing with you twice in one day???????

Thanks ss, you know I reckon I pretty much agree with EVERYTHING you just said. Even the last bit to a degree!!

i think you'd agree with me far more than you'd expect. im by and large a pretty reasonable guy. i just like to be provocative at times and play with stereotypes. i get a kick out of it. others get offended by it.

Jeanie

catefrances wrote:

seems we are on the same page. despite my abhorrance of the capitalist system i don't particular care about the foreign ownership of PRIVATE companies. but when it comes to the infrastructure of a country, i believe that this is a government responsibility.

Agreed!

And my only issue with foreign ownership of PRIVATE companies is if there is too much foreign ownership of PRIVATE companies in a country. I'd prefer that things were more evenly balanced between locally owned and run private companies and foreign owned private companies.

BUT most definitely government should own and run a country's infrastructure. Well in this country and other evenly (???) governed societies at any rate.

austin

I think it's a fantastic idea.

austin

Jeanie wrote:

Agreed!

And my only issue with foreign ownership of PRIVATE companies is if there is too much foreign ownership of PRIVATE companies in a country. I'd prefer that things were more evenly balanced between locally owned and run private companies and foreign owned private companies.

BUT most definitely government should own and run a country's infrastructure. Well in this country and other evenly (???) governed societies at any rate.

Are you saying that women's bodies are private companies and that the government should control that?

Trau

Jeanie wrote:

So anyway, stupidly, I did initially attempt to respond to ALL that you had to say here, but then I realized, why am I bothering?

"What we have here is a failure to communicate"

You have a nice day. I'm done.

I think the failure is yours. It seems you are incapable of addressing my points.

soulsinging

Trau wrote:

I think the failure is yours. It seems you are incapable of addressing my points.

and it seems you are incapable of letting things go. this is an issue where nobody has real "points," only beliefs. many have adequtely responded to your points. just becos you disagree with them doesn't mean their rebuttal is not reasonable or valid.

Jeanie

soulsinging wrote:

i think you'd agree with me far more than you'd expect. im by and large a pretty reasonable guy. i just like to be provocative at times and play with stereotypes. i get a kick out of it. others get offended by it.

Yes, I have noticed this ss. I didn't really ever have any expectations of you. Well except that you would speak your mind!

So it's all good.