Feminist Philosophy

[NynJa]

If maz says fuck this site and acts like hes leaving, but he posts again, does that mean he just raped all of us by not delivering on his promises?

[Salodin]

If maz says fuck this site and acts like hes leaving, but he posts again, does that mean he just raped all of us by not delivering on his promises?

Dude, you're on a roll today.

I find it telling that maz hasn't responded to the criticism about the reports in this thread.

[Mazmaz]

Yeah.. you'll do great in the public sphere with an attitude like that...

If you want the subject to remain on rape statistics, continue the convo. Don't just drop the info, give a sarcastic reply to Nynja (the guy who you don't want anyone talking to, ironically), peace out, and then get upset the conversation isn't where you want it to be

I think I remain pretty level headed despite the vitriol - you can continue the convo with me maz, I don't hate you

I made an extensive response to you right after your post and it's the only post I've acknowledged since you're the only one who (mostly) read the articles.

[NynJa]

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/littl...s-11390999.jpg

^-- Maz right now

[Thunder]

I made an extensive response to you right after your post and it's the only post I've acknowledged since you're the only one who (mostly) read the articles.

Oh right, you did. But you didn't reply to my response must not have liked my response?

I'll try again, this time responding to all the things I didn't to originally because I thought it'd detract from the discussion. B

First of all, the claim was 1 in 5 women are raped OR FACED ATTEMPTED RAPE. I don't know about you, but I'm much more comfortable identifying the "sexual coercion" section as an attempted rape than as nothing at all.

You're right, I exaggerated and said raped instead of raped or faced attempted rape because it fit my agenda better. I'm not comfortable identifying "sexual coercion" as attempted rape, either. If she was lied to and ran away... sure, in some twisted way she could say it's attempted rape. If she was lied to and had sex, how can that be attempted rape?

Makes me think you didn't read it either.


And that's exactly how I read it. It's not saying that if you're drunk or high you're automatically unable to consent and therefore you were raped. It's asking the women "Have you ever been so drunk or high which made you unable to consent, and had sexual things done to you?" It's essentially the same as saying "Were you unable to give consent BECAUSE you were drunk/high. i.e. would you have still had consented to those things if you were sober".

No, I read it, but we're not shown the questions that were asked, just that we're supposed to trust that the CDC made some super survey. Do you remember in this thread that thing about <4% of date rape accusations being just alcohol related and not some other drug, even though the person swears on it? That's what popped into my head.

It's just a point of friction that many people would not be able to swallow, I still don't doubt that

Did you get those numbers from your gut then? As Colbert would put it, were you thinking with your gut?

No, those numbers I got from the survey. If you take away all the drunk sex (50% of the women in the 1 in 5 figure, so 15 million women) and the sexual coercion being rape (9% of the women which would be like 3 million) you're left with 12 million and 12 million of 150 million is a 1:12 ratio. So no, I didn't pull those numbers from my gut, but maybe I should have explained it better.

And I still think rolling with that and omitting the sexual coercion and drunk/consent stuff you're left with 1 in 12. Which would be way more compelling to a guy like me, nynja, salodin, and whoever else think sexual coercion being rape or attempted rape is a farce

[Vandalhart]

I'm going to pop another topic of conversation in here also. It may get some LOLCanada comments, but it intrigues me as I'm finding it hard to come to a decision on the topic. I'm not sure how things work in the States, so maybe this isn't something that's taxed down there already.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1836441/is...iscriminatory/

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...232122019.html

http://www.thesocial.ca/news/headlin...etition-for-no

Here's one I remember seeing from the UK a ways back:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...giene-products


So, I'm curious what other people's take is on this. I think there's a case for them being a convenience and not a necessity, but I also understand that feminine hygiene products are something that makes it easier for women during their menstrual cycle. I mentioned this to some women I know and they made the claim that ~50% of the population use them. That's not true, as girls who have not hit puberty and women who have had hysterectomies or hit menopause would not have a need for these products.

My first thought was just about the missing money from the tax dollars. The government would have to replace that money somehow, which seems like a silly primary thought, but where my mind went first.

Is there a male equivalent? My first thought was condoms, but I'm not sure if they are taxed nor do I believe it's a fair comparison. It's just the closest thing that came to my mind. Here, in Canada, I believe that various contraceptives for women are prescribed, and because of that, would be claimable on many drug plans. Condoms, as far as I know, are not. I can't seem to find an answer in my own healthcare service provider, so I can't confirm. A Google search turned up nothing. The reason I think they are not is because you don't require a prescription to purchase them.

The next statement is more towards the making them free argument. I already help pay for these because my wife and I share household incomes, but I'm not overly okay with paying for other women's. I can understand why single men who don't have girlfriend would be not be okay with doing that either.

[Aksannyi]

I firmly believe making them free is absolutely retarded. They cost money to make, just like other things. We pay for food, gas, electricity, and clothes, and all of those things are necessities.

That said, so are tampons and pads. They are not a mere convenience. Do you know how much blood comes out during a menstrual cycle? If we are unable to purchase or use pads or tampons, we would literally not have a single article of clothing without copious amounts of blood on them, and blood stains are an absolute bitch to get out. Not to mention, there is the issue of hygiene, because bleeding through clothes in public places such as work or school means that the next person who sits where you have sat will have to sit in your bodily fluids. Not only is that incredibly gross, but it's unhygienic. And yes, there is enough blood to seep through clothing during menstruation without anything to catch it. Honestly, the people who oppose this literally do not understand enough about the female anatomy and how menstruation works. Pads and tampons are a necessity. It isn't like a bra, which is something that you're socially expected to wear but have no actual need of (though the argument could be made that for women with large breasts, it's much more comfortable than having them hanging.) There is also the issue of odor, which pads and tampons help to neutralize. It's generally not severe and it might be seen as a weak argument, but it's still there.

Birth control such as condoms are not a necessity. (You could argue that some pills are, but those are necessary for other health reasons and generally not contraceptive purposes.) You (generally, obviously not counting rape) have absolute and complete control over when you put your dick in someone and ejaculate, which is the instance for which a condom would be useful. Women can't just stop the flow of their uterine walls on a whim. A period may start or end light, but most women during the menstrual phase of their lives will bleed heavily for an average of 5 days every month. Seriously, if guys understood the sheer amount of blood that comes out of us every month, you would not say that tampons and pads are just a convenience.

[Vandalhart]

I firmly believe making them free is absolutely retarded. They cost money to make, just like other things. We pay for food, gas, electricity, and clothes, and all of those things are necessities.

That said, so are tampons and pads. They are not a mere convenience. Do you know how much blood comes out during a menstrual cycle? If we are unable to purchase or use pads or tampons, we would literally not have a single article of clothing without copious amounts of blood on them, and blood stains are an absolute bitch to get out. Not to mention, there is the issue of hygiene, because bleeding through clothes in public places such as work or school means that the next person who sits where you have sat will have to sit in your bodily fluids. Not only is that incredibly gross, but it's unhygienic. And yes, there is enough blood to seep through clothing during menstruation without anything to catch it. Honestly, the people who oppose this literally do not understand enough about the female anatomy and how menstruation works. Pads and tampons are a necessity. It isn't like a bra, which is something that you're socially expected to wear but have no actual need of (though the argument could be made that for women with large breasts, it's much more comfortable than having them hanging.) There is also the issue of odor, which pads and tampons help to neutralize. It's generally not severe and it might be seen as a weak argument, but it's still there.

Birth control such as condoms are not a necessity. (You could argue that some pills are, but those are necessary for other health reasons and generally not contraceptive purposes.) You (generally, obviously not counting rape) have absolute and complete control over when you put your dick in someone and ejaculate, which is the instance for which a condom would be useful. Women can't just stop the flow of their uterine walls on a whim. A period may start or end light, but most women during the menstrual phase of their lives will bleed heavily for an average of 5 days every month. Seriously, if guys understood the sheer amount of blood that comes out of us every month, you would not say that tampons and pads are just a convenience.

Having been with my wife for 12 years, I'm fully aware of quantity in terms of her menstrual cycle.

The only thing I can see that would make me think they are a convenience is to know how women dealt with their periods before they were invented, and currently in places where they aren't available.

There are oral contraceptives available for women which, when injected or ingested, allow them not menstruate. That's not to say they should be used for that, nor should they be used without a break in between. I believe these would be available to all under a drug plan here in Canada. I know my wife's oral contraceptive was covered under both her and my plan when she was taking it.

[Aksannyi]

Pointing to oral contraceptives that halt menstruation is a pretty flawed argument.

1. Not everyone is medically able to use contraceptives.
2. Not everyone agrees with using contraceptives, and should be afforded that choice. Bodily autonomy. It's always relevant.
3. Not every contraceptive halts menstruation, and those that do are not completely effective at erasing all evidence of menstruation.
4. When a woman wants to come off of that contraceptive in order to procreate or for any other reasons, guess what comes back, and with a vengeance? Menstruation.
5. Women who have just given birth will bleed for several days, possibly up to a few weeks after childbirth. While tampons are obviously not appropriate during that time frame, pads are medically necessary as the vagina heals.
6. It implies that because women have access to such drugs, women should never have to have a period again, and therefore, pads and tampons are not necessary, while simultaneously ignoring the points I just made as to why you can't use contraceptives which halt menstruation as a reasoning for counting tampons and pads as non-necessities.

Furthermore, the idea that halting menstruation is a good thing is kind of ... well, misogynistic, and I'm not saying you, specifically, Vandal. Men (in general) are disgusted by the notion of periods and generally refuse to acknowledge, talk about, or learn about menstruation. It's actually really funny how turned on males get by the vagina, especially when women are wet or squirting all over them, but turn that into blood and they're suddenly repulsed. Why? Why are they so squeamish about blood? I really don't understand it, honestly, but that's beside the point, I guess.

[Pirian]

Furthermore, the idea that halting menstruation is a good thing is kind of ... well, misogynistic, and I'm not saying you, specifically, Vandal. Men (in general) are disgusted by the notion of periods and generally refuse to acknowledge, talk about, or learn about menstruation.

Huh? I specifically remember an add for some injectable that went something along the lines of "do you know there is no medical reason for you(women) to need their period?" I think it was for the depo shot, but it has been like 3 or 4 years since I watched TV. Ever single girlfriend that I've had has tried to reduce the amount of times they menstruate a year in order to reduce the pain and other adverse side effects, or to better regulate their own hormones. There are lots of reasons why people thinking that halting menstruation might be a good thing, and I know the least of which, at least in my anecdotal case, being the blood aspect. Your second statement, once again in my anecdotal experience, is completely baseless, but that may be simply due to the company I keep, though I would like to think that we are not that deviant from normal men, lol.

[Aksannyi]

You could argue that it's because of internalized misogyny that many women think that they "need" to halt their periods. Though I won't discount that some women do have severe symptoms that I absolutely would not fault them for wanting to get rid of. At worst, mine is a monthly inconvenience with some slight discomfort, but I know that I'm not the entire female population. I personally can't understand wanting to take drugs and introduce something into my body to halt something that really doesn't cramp my lifestyle just because I can. I may be atypical, and I recognize that, but I don't like to take any sort of drug unless absolutely necessary. As with most things, the most vocal are the ones who have horrible, terrible symptoms of menstruation, so I'd wager that the women who feel generally incapable of doing anything are a minority, just like many other vocal subsets of the population.

The vast majority of men who speak about menstruation don't understand it fully. BG is, in general, more educated than average, we have established that on multiple occasions. We can blame poor sex education for this one, as heaven forbid we talk about (gasp) vaginas! So I wouldn't exactly call this a representative sample of the population.

[Gokku]

You could argue that it's because of internalized misogyny that many women think that they "need" to halt their periods. Though I won't discount that some women do have severe symptoms that I absolutely would not fault them for wanting to get rid of. At worst, mine is a monthly inconvenience with some slight discomfort, but I know that I'm not the entire female population. I personally can't understand wanting to take drugs and introduce something into my body to halt something that really doesn't cramp my lifestyle just because I can. I may be atypical, and I recognize that, but I don't like to take any sort of drug unless absolutely necessary. As with most things, the most vocal are the ones who have horrible, terrible symptoms of menstruation, so I'd wager that the women who feel generally incapable of doing anything are a minority, just like many other vocal subsets of the population.

The vast majority of men who speak about menstruation don't understand it fully. BG is, in general, more educated than average, we have established that on multiple occasions. We can blame poor sex education for this one, as heaven forbid we talk about (gasp) vaginas! So I wouldn't exactly call this a representative sample of the population.

funny note , i went to elementary school / middle school in cali. my female teacher whom avidly refused to answer or educate the male portion of the class on females during our classes on sex ed which were conducted in single sex groups. The girls were also informed not to tell us what class was about. This was 15+ years ago but still , when handicapped with schooling as inadequate, its a not surprising so many don't know. I only know as much as i do because i live with a lady and shes not shy about making know the struggle is real lol.

[Vandalhart]

Pointing to oral contraceptives that halt menstruation is a pretty flawed argument.

1. Not everyone is medically able to use contraceptives.
2. Not everyone agrees with using contraceptives, and should be afforded that choice. Bodily autonomy. It's always relevant.
3. Not every contraceptive halts menstruation, and those that do are not completely effective at erasing all evidence of menstruation.
4. When a woman wants to come off of that contraceptive in order to procreate or for any other reasons, guess what comes back, and with a vengeance? Menstruation.
5. Women who have just given birth will bleed for several days, possibly up to a few weeks after childbirth. While tampons are obviously not appropriate during that time frame, pads are medically necessary as the vagina heals.
6. It implies that because women have access to such drugs, women should never have to have a period again, and therefore, pads and tampons are not necessary, while simultaneously ignoring the points I just made as to why you can't use contraceptives which halt menstruation as a reasoning for counting tampons and pads as non-necessities.

Furthermore, the idea that halting menstruation is a good thing is kind of ... well, misogynistic, and I'm not saying you, specifically, Vandal. Men (in general) are disgusted by the notion of periods and generally refuse to acknowledge, talk about, or learn about menstruation. It's actually really funny how turned on males get by the vagina, especially when women are wet or squirting all over them, but turn that into blood and they're suddenly repulsed. Why? Why are they so squeamish about blood? I really don't understand it, honestly, but that's beside the point, I guess.

Thank you for the response. All very good points that weren't coming to my mind.

One thing that I've always thought sounded right, was that men are squeamish about blood because we don't actually have to see it regularly because of a healthy and normal bodily function.

[Gokku]

One thing that I've always thought sounded right, was that men are squeamish about blood because we don't actually have to see it regularly because of a healthy and normal bodily function.

speak for yourself lol i had chronic nose bleeds since i was little *the vien in my nose bursts* blood aint stopped nothing and if you cant handle it..... turn off the lights make sure you got towels down and a clear path to the shower and you get them red wings.

[Pirian]

You could also argue that getting a shot that completely takes away your menstruation for 6 months-1 year could be completely a convenience decision. You even described it as "a monthly inconvenience" to yourself. 5 days a month, 12 months a year is 60 days a year where you are inconvenienced - that is almost 1/6th of a year where you are dealing with something that you would rather not deal with. I can completely understand your point of view of not "wanting to take drugs and introduce something into my body to halt something that really doesn't cramp [your] lifestyle," and I actually happen to fully, 100%, back your position, but I'm also not going to discount women that do want to take advantage of the drugs that are out there to avoid the 60-day inconvenience, mild though it may happen be, and call them misguided, internalized misogynist. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that women aren't taught to hate their bodies, but I don't think there is any evidence that those women wanting to halt their period out of a societal-induced sense of misogyny rather than it being a completely utilitarian decision.

[Pirian]

funny note , i went to elementary school / middle school in cali. my female teacher whom avidly refused to answer or educate the male portion of the class on females during our classes on sex ed which were conducted in single sex groups. The girls were also informed not to tell us what class was about. This was 15+ years ago but still , when handicapped with schooling as inadequate, its a not surprising so many don't know. I only know as much as i do because i live with a lady and shes not shy about making know the struggle is real lol.

This was also almost exactly the case in my 5th grade class in the year 2000, but my school was actually a progressive magnet.

[Salodin]

There's a tax because it costs money to make, and reselling a product generally incurs a tax fee. It has nothing to do with it being basically a necessity for women and everything to do with capitalism. You can petition your gubment for subsidized access to such things, which are available in clinics in the states, but that's a whole other topic.

It costs money to survive and function in society. No one gets a free ride, at least so long as there are no extenuating circumstances.

[Aksannyi]

I'm not going to sit here and tell you that women aren't taught to hate their bodies, but I don't think there is any evidence that those women wanting to halt their period out of a societal-induced sense of misogyny rather than it being a completely utilitarian decision.

This is fair, and why I said that "you could argue" that being a reason. I am sure there are people who could more eloquently talk about why hating periods is internalized misogyny, but I don't subscribe to that myself so admittedly, even bringing that up in my post came across as weak.

However, I do want to state that simply because this choice - and I don't necessarily want to illustrate it as a full 100% choice because it often is not, counting things like socioeconomic status, health reasons, and other factors, etc. - exists, that doesn't mean that pads and tampons are non-essential. For women who are of menstruation age, they are absolutely essential, and to suggest otherwise simply because "an option" exists is not prudent. Similarly to abortion, where we do agree that adoption exists and is a viable alternative for some women, it is not always the case for others, and forcing someone to undergo something they do not want (a pregnancy) which will irrevocably change their body and place unnecessary health burdens on them simply because "another option" exists is ludicrous.

Obviously, they are not the same, and so I won't continue to throw that comparison out there, as it will obviously be debunked rather easily, and I recognize that. And I do think most of us here recognize the flaw in touting menstruation-free medications as the solution to paying for pads and tampons, especially if you want to do a cost-comparison analysis. I would assume (though I cannot say absolutely) that the cost of monthly drugs which stunt or halt menstruation would be significantly more costly than pads and tampons. When you consider the cost of healthcare, that obviously muddies things somewhat, unless you're talking about government-provided health care (such as Medicaid) versus the cost of removing taxation on feminine hygiene products. And I honestly don't know if those drugs are even covered under most health plans.

If you imagine that a box of 36 tampons, which costs an average of $7.50 and may last up to two months (depending on flow and length of periods) will be taxed on average between $.06 or $.08 on the dollar, then every two months, the government gets between $.45 to $.60 off the purchase of tampons per woman. I have no reasonable estimation to how many women are purchasing these products and of course the variance in how many tampons single women are purchasing, but I can't imagine that removing tax on these products is making a profound difference in government expenditures.

There's a tax because it costs money to make, and reselling a product generally incurs a tax fee. It has nothing to do with it being basically a necessity for women and everything to do with capitalism. You can petition your gubment for subsidized access to such things, which are available in clinics in the states, but that's a whole other topic.

It costs money to survive and function in society. No one gets a free ride, at least so long as there are no extenuating circumstances.

Then please explain why food and clothing is not taxed. Those things also cost money to make. Why are those items deemed essential while tampons and pads are not?

[thetruepandagod]

This is fair, and why I said that "you could argue" that being a reason.

I dare say that this could be true for anything in life given the eloquence of the person speaking in favor of it.

[Salodin]

Then please explain why food and clothing is not taxed. Those things also cost money to make. Why are those items deemed essential while tampons and pads are not?

Certain food is taxed, just like certain clothing is taxed (actually, most clothing is taxed at least partially in most states). It's all about specifics. I'm not going to waste your time and tell you women don't get the short end of this stick, but you can just as easily take bundles of insert tax free cloth here and use it to keep your blood flow from inconveniencing the chair you sit on. It's a terrible thing to put you through or to even try, but the point stands they are taxed because they are reselling a product, and that incurs a tax.