Without birth control most of you ladies would be pregnant right now. Isn't nature the ultimate Anti-feminist?

Question

If I am wrong why don't you explain to me why I am instead of just saying that I am eh?

Answer 1

Your problem is in your limited knowledge of both subjects:  feminism and s*x. If you had any idea of what you are discussing here, there would be absolutely no reason for your angry question and just as angry comments.

Answer 2

How did gatherer-hunter tribes keep their population levels down to around 40 persons so that population growth would not outstrip resources?  Abortion and infanticide, that's how.  If that hadn't been, none of us would be alive today; our species would never have survived.  

That was a very long rant.  You must be totally exhausted.  Take a break.  Have a Kitkat.

*^^^. Add anthropology to that.

Answer 3

Pregnancy is not anti-feminist is actually pro-human existence.

Nature(God?) is actually the genious who created pregnancy...no pregnancy, no more humans....the best child control you can use relies on the brain.

A combination of taking care of themselves plus having  partner that actually loves them and no s*x or s*x with ovulation control that will reduce the chances.

Answer 4

Why would being pregnant be anti-feminisim?  Do feminists not support pregnancy?  You may want to rethink your theory.

Answer 5

"Without birth control"

That is a truly frightening thought.

Mother Nature an anti-feminist?  I suppose one could look at it that way.

I'm just glad I live now, where those of us who choose to can have Better Living Through Chemistry.

Answer 6

Birth control is good for men too. We don't all want to be fathers. Many of us don't want to have anymore kids than we already have. Women should have the option of not conceiving babies with men who don't want to be fathers.

Birth control simplifies the human experience. Besides that, human beings have no natural predators to control our numbers, so we have to control them.  

Answer 7

It is the values and judgments placed upon the reproductive abilities of a woman's body that is the problem far more than the natural fact of reproduction.

Answer 8

Not necessarily. In the Neaderthal societies, the only part of life that women didn't participate in with men was the hunting. And even then, after the hunting was finished, they would still help to carry the dead animal home from the hunting site. Everyone participated in the skinning and cooking of the animal, and fathers helped with the rearing of the children.

The current thought is that patriarchy started with the rise of agricultural societies. Somewhere along the line both men and women came to a mutual agreement that patriarchy worked. And it did work, at the time, because the birth rates increased after that. But now that we don't need our birth rates increased (or to be paid less than men, or to have a harder time obtaining birth control then men, or to be seen as a burden in the workforce when we have a child whereas men are encouraged to work harder, or to be given less sexual autonomy than men, etc.) patriarchy can go bye-bye.

Answer 9

"Isn't nature the ultimate Anti-feminist?"

Yes, and you have expressed a mountain of truth in just a few words.

Edit

Btw  Its funny how many feminists seem to try to take credit for 'giving women the pill', whereas in fact it has been around since the 1950s and was introduced in the UK in 1961 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/250337...

Edit

I'm not sure its a good idea to equate stopping the reproductive cycle with medicine - one prevents life and the other promotes it.

Answer 10

Huh?

"Nature" is an abstraction, and has no beliefs.

Now that we have reliable means of preventing pregnancy, nature is irrelevant.

Even before birth control, it wasn't true that all women were pregnant all of their lives. Being pregnant doesn't mean that one is not human and therefore has no rights. Being pregnant doesn't prevent women from also being and doing other things. It certainly doesn't turn them into property!

If you actually have a question, you need to explain it in such a way as it makes some sense. What you wrote here makes none.

So are you saying that women should have no human rights? Why do you hate all women?

Edited after reading your latest Additionals (which don't show up in this Edit screen, unfortunately).

Find a dictionary, and look up 'feminism' -- no, it's not about reproduction. Feminism is simply the notion that, since women are NOT some sub-human, lesser species, they should enjoy all human rights.

To the extent that "nature" "gave" women all the basic characteristics of humanity (such as intelligence, and talent, and hopes and dreams), nature is a feminist, not a hater of all women (an anti-feminist).

It's not "nature" that decreed women should be treated as property, and never allowed to do anything but give birth and clean house.

Answer 11

Your initial statement is not backed by fact.  The answer to the question is NO

Answer 12

huh? Your question doesn't make any sense.

Nature does not contain a set of values. Claiming that "nature has a morality" is simply false. "Morality" is a set of rules which apply to moral agents (usually meaning beings with free will) and which requires a conscious choice to violate. Is nature conscious? Is nature a moral agent? If not, then nature does not have a morality. By trying to equate something that naturally "is" with a moral "ought," you are committing a logical fallacy.

You also don't seem to ever say what your point is. Let's say nature is "anti-feminist." So what? Since moral "oughts" do not follow from nature, there seems to be no further point to your question.

"Nature values fitness and competition and rids the world of those who fail." This sentence in particular makes me laugh. It trades on the ambiguity of the word "values." The meaning of "value" here is something like "nonconsciously tending to allow the spread and continuation of genetic material." As nature poses no consciousness or intentionality, the tendency to "reward" by allowing the spread of genes is not a moral decision.

So contrast that use of the word "value" with the moral use of "value," which means something like "consciusly awarding moral worth to." It should be clear that "nonconsciously tending to allow the spread and continuation of genetic material" is not at all synonymous with "consciously awarding moral worth to." So claiming that nature has values in the latter sense (morality) since it has values in the former sense (biological fitness) is to commit another fallacy, the fallacy of equivocation.

Not being pro-feminism does not automatically make one unintelligent, no. But questions with the quality of this one do indicate a certain lack of intelligence. There is no relevant point to your question which does not rest on an obvious logical fallacy.  

Answer 13

Are you assuming I have penetrative s*x with men?

Answer 14

Without modern medicine, many of us would not be here. I, for one, would have died when I broke my arm six weeks ago. Just because humans in "nature" would have to go without something doesn't mean we should.

Answer 15

I know. That's why I like it so much.

Answer 16

Wrong on both counts, cupcaque.

Edit:  The reason is none of your business.

Answer 17

Many answers have demonstrated why you are wrong, I won't bother to repeat what has already been aptly stated.

And you are the one littering the screen with your boring, illogical, and obviously angry questions.

Oh, I forgot to mention arrogant.  

Answer 18

Without modern medicine , life expectancy was around 30 years.

Isn't nature the ultimate human nemesis ?

No, as it is not in your question. Nature is a system, and does not follow deontological ethics nor any kind of morality.

Moreover your syllogism doesn't work from a logic point of view: who tells you that birth control and nature are in contradiction?

And that feminism is just birth control? and that pregnancy and birth control are in contradiction? (they coexist in different moments in the same couple).

When and where nature left you with a single choice (pregnancy or nothing) ? this is just a cultural choice

Answer 19

I think that what you're saying is partly true, but nature also makes it's own birth control: Ovulation.

You can go your whole life without BC and not get pregnant, theoretically. By charting your fertility closely and abstaining from s*x during ovulation, you can keep from getting pregnant. So nature does have some form of BC.

EDIT: Yeah, that is true. It doesn't eliminate it, but no artificial BC eliminates it either.

Answer 20

I guess we should all start wearing burkhas, pretend we don't have an IQ, and learn to start tip toeing around men's egos.