Many Women Will Never See Justice in This Lifetime

Jules said:
One common explanation for the longevity difference is that woman start going to doctors while young. Men tough it out, often for too long or too late.
Click to expand...
that's also true... at least for our generation and the generations before us...

A classic example.. I never new my father to go to any doctor..ever...

My mother was a nurse he thought if he got sick she would sort him out.. so when he had to have stitches in his neck after an accident then he insisted she take them out etc...

I was told that when I was baby and they were first married, he worked lots of hours, and he got an infected finger which was really badly infected, and he still wouldn't go to the doctor..

..having worked 18 hour days for a week or more, back to back.. he came home for dinner one evening and fell asleep at the table..

My mother called the doctor, the doc lanced his finger, dressed it.. and my father never knew a thing until he woke up the next day..


I've been married to my husband for 24 years.. and known him 40, to my knowledge he's only been to the GP surgery twice..
 
Last edited:
gruntlabor said:
Childbirth in and of itself is good for us. Childless women are prone to problems like cancer, my understanding.
Click to expand...
Yes, breast cancer is more common in childless women but also in women who don't breast feed, or who, like me who give up and resort to bottle feeding. Some forms of breast cancer are genetically inherited. Childless or with children makes no difference to this very aggressive form of breast cancer.

Before human papilloma virus was discovered, cervical cancer did not occur in celibate women, including spinsters and nuns. It was transmitted to the woman via semen. Vaccination of adolescent girls and boys has all but eliminated this kind of cancer in Australia.
 
Warrigal said:
Yes, breast cancer is more common in childless women but also in women who don't breast feed, or who, like me who give up and resort to bottle feeding. Some forms of breast cancer are genetically inherited. Childless or with children makes no difference to this very aggressive form of breast cancer.

Before human papilloma virus was discovered, cervical cancer did not occur in celibate women, including spinsters and nuns. It was transmitted to the woman via semen. Vaccination of adolescent girls and boys has all but eliminated this kind of cancer in Australia.
Click to expand...
And cancer of the ovaries is seen more in childless women I believe.
 
VintageBetter said:
What percentage of women (or men) were having pre-marital sex in 1950?

Tell the men to get vasectomies . Tell the men to be celibate. Stop blaming women for all of this.

We should also demand insurance companies make tube tying and vasectomies FREE.
Click to expand...
I have no idea how many women were having pre-marital sex in the 1950's. I only know that only 4% were getting pregnant so what ever they were doing was working. You sound like you think pre-marital sex is something women have to do and not a choice.

I wouldn't tell young men to get vasectomies anymore than I would tell a young woman to get her tubes tied. I recommend birth control not sterilization.

I do blame the women because they are the ones with the many birth control options. Her options are far more statistically reliable than his one option and hers can be used in the cold light of day while his has to be used at the last minute often while one or both people are under the influence. Women have options that are 99.9% effective and only need to be thought about once every three years. The man's one option has to be thought about and prepared for every single time. Women even have an after the fact, sober morning after option that men don't have.

If women fail to use any of those birth control options they also have, until recently, had the option of abortion. Men have nothing similar and are usually not even consulted about that choice. Men can't force the woman to get an abortion or to give the baby up for adoption. Those choices are hers.

With women having all these options why are you blaming the men? Why would you advise young women, to leave this important part of their health and lives up to the men in their lives? She is the one who will make the big decisions if she gets pregnant and the one who may be giving birth to and raising a child alone for the next twenty years?

I find few things as silly and short sighted as women saying men should handle the birth control.
 
RE: Birth control. I think each party should be 100% responsible for birth control. If it far too taxing on a man’s brain to buy a 100 pack of condoms at the store and keep 3-4 in his wallet at all times, then that man CANNOT BE A FATHER. Those are easy tasks - buy big box, put things in wallet. He has lost his right to be a parent, IMO, if those two simple tasks are too challenging for him.
 
Pepper said:
What they are not responsible for are dead beat dads.
Click to expand...
All the women had to say was NO ! And they would have never ended in whatever predicament they ended in. The moment of lust was just as much their failure in responsibility as the man involved.

IMO, in many cases the trap just didn't work.
 
I know a number of young women who are single mothers. I estimate at least half were told repeatedly that the guy she is with is a bum and will leave her in the lurch. Usually she is told this by her father, brother, often a good male friend. They don’t listen.

this is not an excuse for their useless bum of a boyfriend. But, a warning to young gals to listen to responsible men in their lives. Just as women can see the cheap flirt, the gold digger, or the future high maintenance princess, we can see the bums.
 
The problem with using statistics to support argument is that those very same statistics are fraught with room for error. For instance that 4% unmarried birth rate in the 1950’s. While ig was true that all births were supposed to be acknowledged with a certificate of birth by that time…births were not always recorded. That was left to the states. Home births were still a thing. Stigma was a huge thing. I bet most of us are aware of folks raised by grandparents passed off as parents. Another thing…birth control might be 99% effective…and you still get pregnant the second time you have sex.
 
Muskrat said:
The problem with using statistics to support argument is that those very same statistics are fraught with room for error. For instance that 4% unmarried birth rate in the 1950’s. While ig was true that all births were supposed to be acknowledged with a certificate of birth by that time…births were not always recorded. That was left to the states. Home births were still a thing. Stigma was a huge thing. I bet most of us are aware of folks raised by grandparents passed off as parents. Another thing…birth control might be 99% effective…and you still get pregnant the second time you have sex.
Click to expand...
Statistics do have a margin of error but just making things up has an ever greater margin of error.

You don't want statistics? Then let's just make things up to suit our arguments like birth control is sometimes ineffective so the 1,461,305 of births to unmarried mothers last year alone are all examples of the 1% failure, and before birth control came along almost all the children born were born to unmarried mothers at home and we just pretended they had fathers. It's a wonder they all didn't starve to death since there were no food stamps back then.

Another fun non-statistical fact is the one Vintage Better just made up about how men who don't buy condoms CANNOT BE FATHERS.

Somehow in her world men who don't bother to buy condoms are huge losers, but women who don't bother to buy any sort of birth control are sad victims of the big bad men.

Why do we infantilize women like this? Women are capable of controlling their own bodies!
 
Muskrat said:
@Della …with all do respect…why do we stigmatize single parents? Fact is…some people become parents (both men and women) with persons unfit for marriage. I do not think just because society thinks kids need both parents that makes it so. There are wonderful single parents of both sexes. Easy? Nope.
Click to expand...
I'm not in favor of stigmatizing single parents.

I'm in favor of encouraging people of both sexes to use birth control if they're having an active sex life, but not prepared to raise children.

I don't think children are better off with two parents because society says so, but because those statistics you don't like show kids in single parent homes are much more likely to grow up poor or go to prison. Now, I'm sure you know some children who grew up in single parent homes who are rich, happy and successful, but I don't think your anecdotal existence makes all those fatherless young men sitting in prison disappear.

When I was in grade school in the 1950's, my huge baby-boomer class had only one child without a father and his father had died in WWII. Whether you use the statistics or my anecdotal evidence I think it's clear that things have changed for children, and I don't agree that they've gotten better.
 
Della said:
Why do we infantilize women like this? Women are capable of controlling their own bodies!
Click to expand...
I was taught, by my mother, that since it is My Body, I was responsible for birth control. And that's before the 'cultural revolution' and I was expected to not do much before marriage. Glad mom had her facts straight=want protection? Protect yourself!
 
gruntlabor said:
Because government wants us ignorant and helpless so as to be dependent upon them.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that for a moment. The government does not control information, and doesn't alter our life experiences. A lot of what we do is learned behavior. I'm beginning to wonder if those that constantly blame governments, the elites, big business, big pharma - are just those looking for excuses to cover their own failures. It's a tired trope in 2024. The vast majority of time we do as we please, and if it all goes wrong, it's mostly due to poor choices and/or ignorance. IMO.
 
VaughanJB said:
I don't believe that for a moment. The government does not control information, and doesn't alter our life experiences. A lot of what we do is learned behavior. I'm beginning to wonder if those that constantly blame governments, the elites, big business, big pharma - are just those looking for excuses to cover their own failures. It's a tired trope in 2024. The vast majority of time we do as we please, and if it all goes wrong, it's mostly due to poor choices and/or ignorance. IMO.
Click to expand...
You don't believe it because you are a socialist. I do believe it. Our views are incompatible, we will never agree.
 
gruntlabor said:
You don't believe it because you are a socialist. I do believe it. Our views are incompatible, we will never agree.
Click to expand...

That's not why we disagree. I appreciate you might think it is, but it's not. It's a lazy assumption that slapping a label on someone defines each and every detail, thought, and belief about them. It's the kind of thinking that has led us into these hated-filled days and ways of thinking. In fact, the comment I replied to isn't about the core role of government at all in my eyes. Still, carry on....

What has bred today, and seemingly accepted, is a state of fear, hate, and suspicion. We got here not through left wing ideas, or right wing ideas, but as an accumulation of both sets of beliefs. When there is a party swing in government, people react as though everything has changed. But it's never the case. Successive governments play around the edges, and policies last as long as they do.

Personally, I think it's vital we have different governments in power. No matter how good a government seems, they all seem to run out of steam after 10 or so years. We need perspective. What about our last government (in the UK) truly affected my every day life? Not much. A little bit here or there, but nothing large or truly worth hating on. It's pretty easy to do as you please, as long as you're not hurting or endangering others. And most of what each of us want and need are the same, regardless of where we fall politically.

But I'm not afraid of the government. I'm not afraid of big business. You just need to understand how it works, and act accordingly to avoid its influences. There are far too many cases of Americans hating on Americans these days. British hating on British. People hating on others without any clear idea of how things improve with changes to the law. It's all about soundbites and headlines, with no thinking things through.

In the UK we had Brexit. We voted for it, and a slim majority wanted it, so we got it. Fine. But too many people were so fixated on the headline "Leave the EU", they hadn't given a minute to think about the consequences. Cut migration? Nope. Make us more free to trade with whom we want to? Nope. Increased jobs? Nope. Helped the National Health Service? Nope. Instead it's added layer upon layer of government, red tape, and additional costs which are strangling parts of the economy.

At least we showed those Europeans. :D
 
Last edited:
Pepper said:
I laughed, @gruntlabor as my BFF of 52 years, is an evangelical member of the opposite political party to mine.
We have 95% in common.

ps
We certainly agree on The Young & The Restless!
Click to expand...

Indeed. Too often we let stereotypes dictate our reactions. My brother is far right. As humans, we're a lot more complex than that.

Politics isn't a big thing in my life. I have better things to think about. I have opinions like everyone else, but I don't think they define me.

Most people on this site are good people. I can't say there aren't one or two that are "special", but hey, tis life. But hating on someone based on a post in a forum.... it seems so surface level.... Meeting/reading someone with a different view on a topic ought to fascinating. However, today it's used to create a hatred, a right-fighting attitude, and a means to attack. IMO.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top