US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7391

On April 24 2017 20:48 maybenexttime wrote:


No, I'm saying that they apparently do not mind and do not think that one's gender is relevant.

On April 24 2017 20:48 maybenexttime wrote:


No, I'm saying that they apparently do not mind and do not think that one's gender is relevant.

edit: I certainly do not think there's some nefarious conspiracy of men, called "the Patriarchy", that is trying to oppress women and is making sure that men have the final say in every matter. That's a tinfoil conspiracy theory.

On April 24 2017 21:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:

It doesn't need to be a conspiracy, just a multisecular social and ideological construct.

Women have been held in minority for pretty much the whole of history, and denied pretty much every right until the enlightenment and then feminist struggle started to change the situation.

Thanks to those, society is infinitly more equal and fair than it was even a century ago, but thousand of years of patriarchy leave traces for a long time. So, no, no conspiracy, just some deep rooted behaviour, habits and prejudices that will take a long time to go if they ever do.

On April 24 2017 21:55 Trainrunnef wrote:



There's a riddle that plays along with these gender stereotypes and behaviors...

A man and his son are driving down a winding road,
They get into a car accident and the father dies,
the son is rushed to a hospital, and the surgeon says
"I cant operate on you, you're my son." Who is the surgeon

+ Show Spoiler +

On April 24 2017 22:03 Sbrubbles wrote:


All the riddle does is show that most people think there are more male surgeons than female surgeons.

Also, the surgeon could be the boy's second father and you're a homophobe for not considering that.
+ Show Spoiler +

On April 24 2017 16:27 Wegandi wrote:


Should the Jefferson Memorial be taken down as well? What about all of the greek monuments depicting people of a time when slavery was legal there? Rome? What about the depictions of Kings and Queens when serfdom was a thing? Taking down memorials of history because some bad shit happened is not a good precedent and isn't a good teaching lesson. I'd feel the same thing if the USSR demolished all of its Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin statues. It's history to be learned from not to be hidden. ISIS doing the same shit in the middle east - destroying relics and monuments (and yes, slavery was a thing everywhere in antiquity).

On April 24 2017 22:35 Trainrunnef wrote:


AKA a stereotype...

Edit: my original answer was that the mom cheated and this was his real dad....

On April 24 2017 22:41 KwarK wrote:

There is a difference between remembering the past and celebrating it. Remembering the past is good, and the opposite, destroying all evidence of the sins of the past, does a disservice to the memory of the victims. But celebrating it isn't the opposite of destroying all evidence. The people of Ukraine should be able to remember the victims of Stalin's genocide but that shouldn't mean allowing neo-Stalinists to salute a statue of him erected in front of their Parliament. There's a difference.

Also the comparison between the few surviving remnants of antiquity we have, which should obviously be kept in museums for study, with the history of The Confederacy doesn't really hold up. The Confederacy isn't about to be lost to human memory if we ask that they stop flying the flag. We have plenty of other evidence it existed.

On April 24 2017 23:16 Arevall wrote:
If teenagers only "think there are more male surgeons than female surgeons" they probably would have managed to solve the riddle.

Since most kids trying to solve the riddle didn't manage to do that (less than 22 %, the number of female surgeons) it's seems like it's mainly because of a stereotype along the "all surgeons are male"-line.

Well, either that or they seriously suck at problem-solving. I'm undecided.

On April 24 2017 23:06 Gahlo wrote:

In 2014 an AAMC study showed that among full-time surgeons, females only made up 22%. It isn't a stereotype if it's true.

On April 24 2017 22:57 KwarK wrote:
The right to abortion in the United States didn't touch on when a fetus becomes a baby, it left that to the theologians and philosophers. Instead they addressed the issue of whether a woman could exercise her bodily autonomy to end the parasitic relationship with a fetus. I'm sure someone here is going to immediately accuse me of misusing the word parasite but I'm not using it to try and dismiss the value of the fetus, only to underline the degree to which the fetus fucks with the mother/host. The fetus exists and grows at the expense of the mother, it hijacks her blood stream, prioritizes itself for nutrients, uses her organs etc. It's not a mutual relationship. The Supreme Court ruled that the pregnant woman has the right to choose not to be subjected to pregnancy if she does not wish to be. The fetus is killed as an unfortunate side effect, precisely because it is a parasite and cannot live without continued support by the mother.

If you want to attack abortion in the United States the only grounds under which to do so are whether women have the right to bodily autonomy. It wouldn't actually make a difference if the fetus was alive and had human rights, the judgement didn't touch on that at all. If someone with organ failure hooked their bloodstream up to yours and forced your organs to work double time, with significant health costs to you, you would have the right to unplug them, even if doing so led to their death, even though they're a human. If four different people were dying and harvesting your organs would save all of them you would have the right to kill them rather than let them take the organs from you by force. You have a right to bodily autonomy in the United States, and that includes opting out of a pregnancy.

On April 24 2017 23:32 Danglars wrote:

The Supreme Court ruled that there's many different ways that a woman loses "woman has the right to choose not to be subjected to pregnancy if she does not wish to be." She waits too long or the state passes a law affecting third trimester/whatever.

I can see how abortion supporters want to deny an alive growing human hisbor her autonomous rights in a stage where he or she is very dependent on the mother. You make the philosophical and moral judgement that the autonomy rights of the mother supersede the autonomy rights of the baby. Even arguing the intense kind of support in the location of the womb is the hinging point IS recognizing that the debate must be expanded to whether or not the sustenance is a legal right and others after birth. And no amount of parasitic dialogue will change the fact that you hold radical views on the subject way out of line with the population, and indeed the philosophy of science.

Falling is much more eloquent than I am on the subject and I don't want to repeat the same arguments with less clarity. It is not so easy to dismiss human life claims to assert "No, just a parasite." They're very hard to dismiss on a multitude of subjects from "Back alley abortions would be much worse for society" to "Nobody sheds a tear over the morning after pill." Parasite dialogue probably means you're too far down the rabbit hole to be open and honest with where and why you've staked your position.