Is feminism inherently negative?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
And if they had been correct - that without slavery our very society would implode or disappear - perhaps we should have kept slavery!

No

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Kidicious




If they don't want to breed they shouldn't have too.

Women are encouraged not to have children because in Capitalism such relationships aren't advantageous.

This is a weakness of capitalism, not an empowerment of women. Society needs to be such that children are an advantage, not a shackle, otherwise it is sick, and doomed to failure.

Jon Miller

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Women are encouraged not to have children because in Capitalism such relationships aren't advantageous.

Women had motivation to have more children when they needed to for economic purposes. No one today is encouraging women not to have children they simply don't want as many and don't need as many.

I don't know what you propose for a communist system but women are still not going to choose to have more children if they don't need to.

This is a weakness of capitalism, not an empowerment of women. Society needs to be such that children are an advantage, not a shackle, otherwise it is sick, and doomed to failure.

Jon Miller

Why is it doomed to failure? Some women are still going to choose to have children just as they do today.

[Jon Miller]

Women today, especially intelligent, successful women, are encouraged to not have children by our capitalist society. I don't understand why you can't see this as a problem.

Children are no longer valuable, what is is money... which you have less of if you have children.

The women who are going to have children will be punished for their biological urges, as they are today. Even today, it is mostly those who are religious or poor (and so not fully within capitalist soceity) that bear most of soceities young. This seperation is not healthy for soceity.

Jon Miller

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Women today, especially intelligent, successful women, are encouraged to not have children by our capitalist society. I don't understand why you can't see this as a problem.

Children are no longer valuable, what is is money... which you have less of if you have children.

The women who are going to have children will be punished for their biological urges, as they are today. Even today, it is mostly those who are religious or poor (and so not fully within capitalist soceity) that bear most of soceities young. This seperation is not healthy for soceity.

Jon Miller

What exactly are you proposing?

[Jon Miller]

Well, a couple of my suggestions were of the sort of women who have children don't have to pay income tax (or get other income benefits). In a capitalist soceity (which we have...), things must be tied money.

Basically, in a money based society, children shouldn't be a money sink.

Jon Miller

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Well, a couple of my suggestions were of the sort of women who have children don't have to pay income tax (or get other income benefits). In a capitalist soceity (which we have...), things must be tied money.

Basically, in a money based society, children shouldn't be a money sink.

Jon Miller

They already have taxable income deductions and refundable tax credits for having children. I seriously doubt however if those actually encourage women to have more children. Rather they just make people happy who would otherwise decide to have children anyway.

Let me ask you this. Have you decided to have children? And what did you base your decision on?

[Jon Miller]

I am not a woman.

Jon Miller

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I am not a woman.

Jon Miller

Jeez, I didn't mean how many you decided to give birth too. What does it matter if you are a women or not? You don't want to answer?

[Jon Miller]

Well, what was under discussion was the amount of time and money that women have to sacrifice to give birth to a child, and to take care of them for a time (after birth).

As a not woman, I don't have to concern myself with giving birth to a child. Additionally, I am less likely than a woman to take significant time away from work after birth.

Additionally, I fall under the religious subgroup.. and am not a capitalist.

Jon Miller
(money isn't really important to me)

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Well, what was under discussion was the amount of time and money that women have to sacrifice to give birth to a child, and to take care of them for a time (after birth).

As much as they ***** about having to do it giving birth is something that they want to do these days. In the past they may have been forced into it or they had to do it so that they could have some farm labor, but these days women who give birth are doing it because they want to.

As far as paying women to have babies I don't think you could pay any well off women to do that. You could probably pay desperate poor women to do it.

Even if you could pay women to have babies I don't think that's a good idea, because they wouldn't make good mothers.

[Kidlicious]

Right now I'm listening to a song called "Baby let's have a baby, before Bush do something crazy"

What sense does that make?

[Jon Miller]

Look at the response of humans whenever there is a disaster or things are uncertain or whatever. We definitely still have some biological motivations.

Jon Miller

[Kidlicious]

Yeah, I don't think humans are going to stop breeding. But then I don't think you are going to get them to keep having large families. No one wants all those damn kids running around.

[Fake Boris]

Ned -

Socialism is not based on a social contract, quite the opposite actually : it stipulates that the term has been coined by the bourgeoisie.

There is no peculiar concern for the poor in liberalism. Some thinkers show it, others don't.