u/TheseCabinet6222

People always say feminism “supports both genders equally,” and if you support only women, or only women’s liberation, you are not a feminist.

Feminism advocates for women's equality.

Women’s equality results in equal rights between women and men, but feminism is not a gender-neutral movement that advocates equally for both sexes.

"Equal rights for both genders"
saying this includes men (the oppressors), implying that they need empowerment too, when they need the opposite in a patriarchal society.

Feminism focuses on equal rights and opportunities FOR women because women have historically been, and still are, disadvantaged and denied rights on the basis of their sex.

However, only when it benefits men, even if they are already privileged, is when feminism has value.

Watering down feminism to "just gender equality" in order to cater to the egos of men defeats the whole purpose.

1. Women are three times more likely to experience common mental health problems than men, including depression, anxiety, eating disorders,
   Women are 1.5 to 2 times more likely to attempt suicide and 2 times more likely to engage in NSSI (self harm) compared to men.

2. Women's mental health is heavily under researched, leading to late or no diagnosis and therefore less treatment.
   Standard medical research and clinical trials historically focused primarily on male subjects and male physiology. Women were left out of major clinical trials for decades, meaning doctors had a poor grasp of how medications, hormones, and distinct illnesses uniquely impacted women's mental and physical health

3. Historically, women's mental health was minimized and pathologized. One notable example was the widespread, fabricated diagnosis called
   "hysteria", shaming women for showing normal emotion- grief, anger, anxiety. The term
   "hysteria" comes from the Greek word "hystere," meaning "uterus." Women were prescribed erratic and cruel treatments, which included rape, institutionalizations and hysterectomies.
   The term was not officially removed from psychiatric manuals until 1980. In the 18th and 19th centuries, expressing independent thought, unhappiness with domestic servitude, or rebellion against gender roles often led to diagnoses of
   "melancholia" or "nymphomania".
   Women were frequently labeled as unstable or difficult by male authority figures, making normal psychological distress into oppression

.

Women's mental health involves unique biologieal, hormonal, and social factors
Fluctuations during the menstrual cycle, postpartum period, and perimenopause heavily impact emotional regulation and sleep.
Postpartum depression affects up to 15% of women.
Roughly 10% of women develop significant mood or anxiety symptoms during the shift into menopause.
Environmental burdens also influences this.
Societal expectations, caregiving wethands, and emotional labor contribute heavily to chronic stress and burnout.
Higher exposure to gender-based discrimination, domestic stress, or past trauma increases vulnerability to PTSD also play a role.
There are also Healthcare Disparities affecting women, as mentioned before. Women's physical and psychological symptoms are sometimes dismissed by providers as "just stress," delaying proper multi-faceted diagnosis.

Feminism focuses on abolishing the patriarchy and achieving total liberation for women.
Men have no need for liberation. They hold disproportionate social and legal power and authority.
Their safety, status and rights cannot change in a patriarchal society, meaning they cannot be systemically oppressed.
Hatred of men is a defensive reaction towards the oppression women have suffered under throughout history.
Excluding men and saying you hate men is valid and often necessary for female liberation. Humans naturally have an aversion to their oppressors, the people who hate them even more and cause them immense suffering. "Misandry" is based on anger at injustice.
You can't include men in feminism. Feminism is the only movement that is expected to include its oppressors.
Most gender-based "problems" targeted at men does not come from hatred towards them but from the patriarchy and misogyny.
Prejudice from recognizing patterns of bad behaviour does not equate to misandry and cannot compare to the large scale inequities of misogyny
Misandry doesn't exist as a movement. Hating men is not a real systemic force.

This is why so called “misandry” doesn’t affect the feminist movement.

What are your thoughts on this? If I’m missing anything please let me know so I can educate myself.

this is my biggest fear and it’s coming true !

If I’m not wrong, over 20 countries fully ban abortion in all cases, and even more countries restrict it severely. A lot of US states have banned it entirely/restricted it heavily.

If abortion was legal and intuitive under the eyes of the law, I wouldn’t think about it much and I wouldn’t spend much time arguing about it.

Except there are little girls being forced to carry their rapists baby to full term and being forced go through the horrors of pregnancy/labour against their will. Or there are women are dying from abortion bans because people are prioritizing fetuses over real people.

Do you think these bans/restrictions will go on further?
Does this frustrate anyone else, how people are taking away basic human rights?

People are legally (and often morally) allowed to exercise bodily autonomy at the expense of another persons life in many scenarios besides abortion.

Here are just a few hypotheticals:

1. Someone is naturally hooked onto your body, using your body's resources (e.g. blood, nutrients, organs, etc.). If you disconnect, they die. Are you still allowed to refuse that use?
2. A parent deliberately caused a car crash for an untold reason. The car crash injured their child, even though they had no intention of doing that. Should they be forced to donate part of their physical body, such as their organs or tissue, to save the child? Should they allow their child use their body/it's resources against their will to keep them alive?
3. A person is fully dead. They are the only viable organ donor in the state. A child needs a new kidney. They check the ID of the deceased person and it does not say they are an organ donor. Should people still take the organs from their body in order to save the child?

---

In all these analogies, the people whos lives are at risk are fully living people, with consciousness, awareness, autonomy, established identity, potential relationships and memories. Not unsentient cells.

---

Here is what the law says about each of those hypothetical scenarios.

1. Yes: In many countries, like the US, the law treats bodily autonomy very strongly: people usually cannot be forced to let another person use their body, organs, blood, or tissue, even if refusing means the other person dies
2. No: Even if a parent caused the situation that endangered the child, we do not force someone to donate organs, tissue, blood, or other bodily resources against their will. The parent could absolutely face serious legal consequences-- negligence, criminal charges, loss of custody, etc. Though that is usually treated separately from compelled bodily sacrifice.
3. No: Even if it could save a child’s life, doctors and hospitals are not allowed to take organs from a deceased person if they did not consent. The core legal idea is still bodily autonomy and consent after death: If someone did not register as an organ donor, that means their body cannot be used for organ recovery, even in very urgent cases.

---

Why can't the same rights to control your own body apply to pregnant women?

Do PLers plan on making an exception for bodily autonomy in abortion cases specifically?

Why is everyone on there so 😡

"But abortion is killing life! It is ending a life. It is preventing a person from living" "You had sex now you must suffer for unsentient cells" "You are murdering children. How could I support murder? You are a murderer. A mother murders a child in an abortion." "Abortion is women running away from responsibility" "Keep your legs closed" "You must accept the consequences of your actions." like have you got anything new to say

Arguments against them often say stuff like "fetuses are not human." you don't need to deny facts.

They do not understand "bodily autonomy," or they do not know what that word means at all. They confuse it with "free will" all the time.

"does the fetus not have autonomy?" "so a father can refuse to pay child support?"

"If a 13 year old wants to commit suicide would you help her do it? It's the same logic as bodily autonomy. She is using her bodily autonomy to end her life." I've seen several people use this analogy!!

People say its worse than rape and the holocaust ALL THE TIME. It's infuriating!

-

There are a lot of people on both sides who do provide better arguments. There are very good points from time to time. Still, there are a lot of people who don't know what they're saying. It's as bad as teenager subreddits.

I mean I know that app is full of teenagers, which would be a lot more understandable, but a lot of the people saying these things are 20+ year old people.

It is still annoying regardless of how old they are. age doesn't matter anyway since im like 13

-

still, for my mental health, I'm not commenting, watching or posting videos anymore.

Someone else could educate them. I'm not doing it.

Let them spread their anti choice propaganda. I'm not going to stop them.

I've heard about women who were pro life before pregnancy. Then they were impregnated, and they got an abortion themselves. You won't fully know how you'd react in a scenario unless you're in that exact position yourself. or is it just hard to empathize with pregnant women?

I know the slight majority of pro-lifers are male (I'm assuming cis). They have never and will never experience being in a huge, serious, life-changing situation like deciding whether or not to have an abortion. Because It’s easy to dismiss or take away rights when you’re not the one who depends on them, or you wont be affected by the loss. People are very comfortable taking away rights they will never need. This can also apply to some women as well. not your choice to make

Sure, it is possible you can be pro life and empathize with the weight of going through the situation, or have experienced it yourself. The point I'm making here is not that pro lifers are ignorant. Though I think the person experiencing the pregnancy should have the greatest say in the decision, because they are the one affected by its physical, emotional, and long-term consequences.

I saw a video saying the reason why “80% of organ donors are women and 80% of receivers are men“ are because women are expected to take on self sacrificing roles. I think it also applies to abortion.

Pro lifers always think because the woman engaged in certain acts she had to sacrifice everything she has and go through immense pain to give birth. They think she owes the fetus her body, mental/physical health, pain, time, energy, money, life, career, future, etc.

Just a random thought. It feels like straight misogyny at this point.

There’s little use wasting all your time arguing about the fetuses’s moral worth, which is what a lot of people I’ve seen do. Of course you can do that if you want, but it is rather ineffective in my experience.

The core of abortion is the right to control your own body. Women are under no obligation to sacrifice their entire life just because they engaged in risky behaviour. They don’t owe the fetus anything.

Fully living people don’t have the rights to use someone else’s body without consent even if disconnecting support would kill them. Key word: people, as a fetus is not a person even if it is alive and human. Someone can refuse to let another person use their body even at the expense of their life. It doesn’t matter what the doctor says or the person who’s life is at stake says, only the person whose body is being used. People can exercise bodily autonomy at the expense of another persons life in many scenarios.

You can’t take the organs of a fully dead person unless they consented before, even if another persons life is at risk and they are the only person who can save them.

Banning abortion means fetuses get more rights than fully living people and women get less rights than dead people

Some PLs might argue about how pregnancy is natural, how the woman caused the situation and “did this to herself”, how abortion is a positive act not just refusing to help, or how pregnancy is “temporary” and organ donation is not, but all those arguments do not fully solve the bodily autonomy issue and can be argued against easily.

-

I think I’ve mentioned this before in this sub, but a lot of pro lifers do support and advocate for forcing you to let people use your body and it’s resources to keep them alive, even against your will, like making forced organ donation legal. however, there are very clear reasons why these autonomy rights are protected by the law. Why can’t the same bodily autonomy rights apply to pregnant women?

random post but this is something that’s bothering me, how 49% of people are against basic human rights.

I would not mind these statistics if abortion was legal but it’s not in a lot of places. The numbers are so close that I’m afraid that women will actually lose their bodily autonomy rights one day.

No one has the right to use your body without ongoing consent even if they die when they disconnect from your body. End of discussion. They give fetus more rights than living people and give women less rights than dead people. Even though fetuses aren’t even a person by definition, even if they’re alive and biologically human.

Over 1 in 3 labour experiences are traumatic. It is the 2nd most painful thing a human can experience and people compare it to breaking 20 bones at once. Not to mention the pregnancy itself or the serious complications and risks that follow. Women still face obstetric violence which can literally be classified as torture. I just don’t want any woman or girl going through this for a baby they don’t want. They do not owe the fetus shit and are under no obligation to sacrifice their entire life for it.

Probably due to religion even though God mass murdered people and babies but.

I know it’s different as the fetus’s worth is debated, but the intent and impact are the same. The intent is to terminate a pregnancy and the end result is the same. It’s not the same as maliciously stabbing someone who isn’t threatening you in any way.

A fetus is biologically human and alive but it is not a person. It does not possess any of the traits defining personhood. sentience, consciousness, awareness, identity, etc.

Even fully living people don’t have the rights to use someone else’s body without consent even if disconnecting support would kill them. e.g. someone can refuse to let another person use their body even at the expense of their life. it doesn’t matter what the doctor says or the person says. Not like fetus have abilities to exercise autonomy in the first place.

Pro lifers always think because the woman engaged in certain acts she had to sacrifice everything she has and go through immense pain to give birth. Women don’t owe the fetus shit. The reason why 80% of organ donors are women and 80% of receivers are men are because women are expected to take on self sacrificing roles. It’s just misogyny at this point.

a LOT of pro lifers do support and advocate for forcing you to let people use your body and it’s resources to keep them alive, even against your will, like making forced organ donation legal. but there are very clear reasons why these autonomy rights are protected by the law, so that’s not happening as it’s pretty immoral if you use your brain and think about it. Why can’t the same bodily autonomy rights apply to pregnant women?

not all killing is unethical

people can legally and morally exercise bodily autonomy at the expense of real living people's lives.

a fetus is biologically a human and alive but it is not a person because it doesn't possess the traits that define personhood.

women don't owe anyone their body, health, time, energy, labor, pain, life, etc, even if

-

In many abortion cases, the fetus dies simply because support from the pregnant person’s body is withdrawn. Abortion is just ending bodily assistance that the fetus cannot survive without, not maliciously killing for the sake of inflicting suffering.

The core issue is bodily autonomy, whether someone can be legally required to continuously use their body for another person.

The law usually does not force bodily support even when refusing it foreseeably causes death.

when i make an analogy about how forced organ/blood donation is illegal, im not claiming pregnancy and organ donation are identical. It is meant to test a principle, that if bodily autonomy is strong enough to prevent forced organ donation at an expense of a persons life, should the government force someone to use their body for a fetus?

-

Some argue the difference between just refusing to help or a positive action like ending a pregnancy, though a person can disconnect themselves from donating blood or marrow even after the process has begun, or a patient can refuse continued medical use of their body at any point.

someone is usually not legally required to continue providing bodily resources simply because the dependency already exists.

-

people argue about how pregnancy is natural and temporary, while forced organ donation is usually losing an organ for life, though many bodily impositions are temporary and biologically natural, but we still normally require consent for them.

something being natural does not automatically mean the state can compel someone to endure it. saying pregnancy just naturally resolves understates the physical demands and risks involved.

pregnancy can involve major bodily changes, pain, permanent effects, and medical complications even when it ends normally, and often the effects can last for life, like gestational diabetes as one example.

-

you cannot take the organs of a fully dead person, even if it’s a perfect match, unless they gave you consent before they died. so does that mean pregnant women have less rights than the deceased?

and pregnancy continuing is not morally neutral, as letting it continue is not just passivity, it is requiring ongoing bodily support from one person for the benefit of another.

even if both sides have right conflicts, usually bodily autonomy rights outweigh another persons right to life in many scenarios.

Creating a dependent human does not automatically mean another person loses the right to control their own body. Parents have obligations after birth, but those obligations do not include being legally forced to donate organs, blood, or bodily tissue to their child. Even if a parent caused a car accident that injured their child, the government still could not force them to give up a kidney or blood.

Pregnancy is unique as it requires continuous physical use of someone’s body, organs, nutrients, and health for months. That is fundamentally different from ordinary parental responsibilities like feeding or caring for a newborn.

It is not that people who never developed consciousness, sentience, awareness, autonomy or an established identity is less valuable, because bodily autonomy is legally and morally allowed to be exercised at the expense of a fully grown fully functioning human’s life.

Bodily autonomy is limited in some ways, but society generally does not force people to physically sustain another person with their organs. We can require financial support or basic care, but compelled bodily sacrifice is treated differently because bodily autonomy is considered a foundational right.

Any human, even a fetus, shouldn’t have the legal right to use another person’s body without ongoing consent.

this is my favourite quote. I’m sick of people treating women as subservient, as secondary, as less than human. I’m sick of people generalizing and stereotyping half the population using faulty reasoning. I’m sick of people saying motherhood, marriage, love, or the domestic sphere is all a woman is fit for.

this is my personal experience but some of the most talented, hard working, pure hearted people I know are women/girls. I cannot imagine my life without some of the women in my lives— I love them more than anything.

it pains me to see them disrespected by people with no lives. who cannot see them as functioning independent people with a mind. or act like they’re objects for dating or pleasure.

when will women be taken seriously

The vast majority of pro lifers I’ve talked to are religious. I think religion is a big reason people justify or formed their pro life beliefs.

If the christian god values life So much, why did he command, support and help with a bunch of killing in war? (in many old testament passages)

the bible doesn’t condemn abortion once. It never says a woman should have to give up her basic rights and go through immense suffering just to give a fetus a chance to live.

you can be christian and support woman’s bodily autonomy rights. people need to realize this. If your religion forces you to support something immoral like forced pregnancy without questioning, it is an unhealthy cult. As an agnostic ex christian, I do not believe christianity is like that.

Do they realize pregnancy is a huge life changing event? I know you can be pro-life and understand it, but I’ve talked to people who tell women to go through pregnancy/labor like it’s nothing. As if it’s fairly easy and simple, and won’t leave an impact on the woman whatsoever.

Imagine sacrificing your body, career, health (physical/mental), money, energy, etc. on an unwanted baby.

Many women have died from abortion bans already. Not pea sized, unsentient clumps of cells with no self awareness, no established identity, no meaningful cognitive function, no ability to exercise autonomy etc. (i don't care whether they're alive or not as it isn't the topic of discussion right now.)

I want to keep this short so I am not going to list all the effects pregnancy but I know that diabetes/preeclampsia/hemorrhaging/cystitis/anemia/severe nutrient deficiencies are extremely common. Just to name a few. The labor/birthing process and obstetric violence can be considered literal torture for some women, and over 1 in 3 labor experiences are traumatic.

I know this topic usually isn’t a part of the abortion debate but it still pains me to see people treat this as a light topic when it’s no where close. I guess this topic isn't talked about often and is often romanticized which could be a factor of why a lot of people are ignorant.

There are a lot of people who believe death is worse than mental/physical torment or severe dehumanization. I've had people say abortion is way worse than r*pe or the Holocaust, which baffled me.

the point of abortion is to prevent a fetus from using your body, period. At the expense of a fetuses life. I feel like simply saying the purpose of abortion is killing a fetus is too simple.

the main goal of abortion is not to kill foremost (though it is a result). it is just refusing a fetus to use your body without consent.

if there was another way to take the baby out without ending its life, and the woman is not affected either, many women would choose that.

they aren't being malicious. they're exercising bodily autonomy.

it's vastly different from killing someone who isn't threatening you for malicious reasons. just to inflict suffering, etc.

-

do u justify forced organ donation against people’s will? if not why can’t the same autonomy rights be given to pregnant women.

if i am hooked up to your body and you're using my body and my organs and i want to disconnect but you'll die, im still allowed to refuse that use because i deserve autonomy.

.

forced pregnancy is violence. and by definition the fetus is a type of same-species parasite. taking into account all the mental, physical, emotional, career/financial, social risks of pregnancy, it’s important that individuals retain the ability to make big decisions about their own bodies.

(this was very rushed, sorry. i am new to reddit, idk what flair to add)