Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017) • Hacker News Board

Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)

#51

Post by burfog » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 7:45 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #41

ben1 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now men or women can decide when they want a child and on what terms Women currently have much more choice which gives them an unfair advantage. If a woman becomes pregnant by accident then she can abort or not abort without the man having any say in it. So if you make the argument that it's her body and the man shouldn't have a say (which is fine, I agree), then at the very least the man should have the equal opti…

When someone contribution to child raising is money and nothing else, that someone is still better off then their partner. The impact on livestyle, socializing or ability to he part of society, hobby options, career options, free time or regular fun, possible achievements etc etc is quite large for the other partner. Regardless of gender.

That's not how it works. We're so used to the status quo that most of us don't see what is going on. I'll try, but distancing yourself from that will be hard:

Suppose it was a car, not a kid. The woman gets the car. The man pays for repairs, fuel, oil changes, and so on. He is not better off.

Normally in law, if you take something away from a person, you'll have to pay restitution. You pay damages of some sort. You have caused a loss, and so you must pay. The fact that the loss is human is not terribly special in our law: people are frequently ordered to pay compensation for wrongful death.

Normal fathers are in deep agony over the loss of their children. These fathers are often driven to suicide. The mothers frequently train the children to dislike their fathers, completely breaking the relationship.

So if the mother gets the child, logically she should pay damages to compensate the father for his loss.

Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)

#52

Post by newnewpdro » Sun, Jan 06, 2019, 7:56 PM UTC

Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #43

newnewpdro wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not something I've spent much time looking into. When my friends mentioned their health problems to me, which happened roughly all at the same time as I was visiting family and friends in another state, I was motivated enough to read up on what the heck fibroids are (I had never heard of them) and at least do some plausibility checks on what they were saying the doctors told them. What I came up with in my cu…

> I think there's a lot of mixed information out there and probably a lot of suppression from the industry going on, because of course there's a lot of money to be made in prescribing hormonal birth controls. This is of course your choice, which, as a grown adult you are forced to make sometimes. But it seems there is no scientific data showing this way or the other way. It just seems very ill-advised in general to c…

Did you not read the linked webmd article or search for additional information yourself?

I never said they cause fibroids, they promote the growth of them, and that's clearly stated in multiple reliable sources found online.

Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)

#53

Post by patrickg_zill » Mon, Jan 07, 2019, 2:33 AM UTC

klyrs wrote: post #50

plainOldText wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here you go: Does the contraceptive pill alter mate choice in humans? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19818527 Oral contraceptive use in women changes preferences for male facial masculinity and is associated with partner facial masculinity https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23528282 Edit: Oops, I posted studies linked to mate choice and not issues later in life as you requested. Arguably, choosing the wrong mat…

The evolutionary selection aspect is curious. Is "natural" always "better"? Facial masculinity is correlated with higher testosterone production in response to competition [1]. Higher testosterone levels are also correlated with aggression and violence [2]. Could birth control steer evolution towards a less aggressive, less violent society? Is that a bad thing? You argue that choosing the "wrong" mate could be an iss…

When does nature ever give us anything for free?

Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)

#54

Post by watwut » Mon, Jan 07, 2019, 4:30 PM UTC

burfog wrote: post #51

watwut wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When someone contribution to child raising is money and nothing else, that someone is still better off then their partner. The impact on livestyle, socializing or ability to he part of society, hobby options, career options, free time or regular fun, possible achievements etc etc is quite large for the other partner. Regardless of gender.

That's not how it works. We're so used to the status quo that most of us don't see what is going on. I'll try, but distancing yourself from that will be hard: Suppose it was a car, not a kid. The woman gets the car. The man pays for repairs, fuel, oil changes, and so on. He is not better off. Normally in law, if you take something away from a person, you'll have to pay restitution. You pay damages of some sort. You h…

Actually, the employed women are the ones who divorce more. Unemployed women divorce less. Female employment affect primary divorces in unhappy marriages - in happy marriages it does not affect divorce. Women do pay for their portion of costs after divorce.

And of course, child is not about your needs. Funny how you don't count work in child-raising at all into expenses - the times when you have to go from work sooner daily (meaning forget about projecting passionate programmer image), the part where you are not free to do what you wish in the evenings, the part where you deal with school and what not.

For you it is all about money and parents own needs. Plenty of fathers do the above work tho, including divorced ones. Universally, they don't see the child as possession the way you talk about them.

Yes, women are on average happier after divorce and men are less happy (but have it easier to find new partner). I don't know about mothers who frequently train the children to dislike fathers, it does happen occasionally just like father who is not willing to take time away to spend it with child. However, I could see how the child that is treated as a possession by father would come to resent that.

Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)

#55

Post by burfog » Mon, Jan 07, 2019, 7:04 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #54

burfog wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how it works. We're so used to the status quo that most of us don't see what is going on. I'll try, but distancing yourself from that will be hard: Suppose it was a car, not a kid. The woman gets the car. The man pays for repairs, fuel, oil changes, and so on. He is not better off. Normally in law, if you take something away from a person, you'll have to pay restitution. You pay damages of some sort. You h…

Actually, the employed women are the ones who divorce more. Unemployed women divorce less. Female employment affect primary divorces in unhappy marriages - in happy marriages it does not affect divorce. Women do pay for their portion of costs after divorce. And of course, child is not about your needs. Funny how you don't count work in child-raising at all into expenses - the times when you have to go from work soone…

Say what? How does my 4th paragraph mean I think "it is all about money and parents own needs"?

The man is suffering. Just as if his child had been wrongfully killed, we can't fix things with money but that is normally how our law would work. It's the best we can do for the loser.

Flipping things around from our legal norm, as is done with children, is simply pouring salt into his wounds.

If child-raising is such work and annoyance (your 2nd paragraph), then let the other parent (father normally) have the kid. Oh, but giving up that sweet child support money... it sounds like you are the one for whom "it is all about money and parents own needs".

Re: Women on the pill don't 'need' to have simulated periods? (2017)

#56

Post by belorn » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 12:36 AM UTC

corvallis wrote: post #36

ben1 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now men or women can decide when they want a child and on what terms Women currently have much more choice which gives them an unfair advantage. If a woman becomes pregnant by accident then she can abort or not abort without the man having any say in it. So if you make the argument that it's her body and the man shouldn't have a say (which is fine, I agree), then at the very least the man should have the equal opti…

> Women currently have much more choice which gives them an unfair advantage. Men are free to choose to abstain from PIV intercourse, get vasectomies, or wear condoms, depending on their level of risk acceptance. They can also choose to have sex only when they are on the same page as their partner about what to do in the case of unplanned pregnancy. This requires a pre-coital conversation, and the acceptance that one…

Support to a child does not go away just because a child has one parent or no parents. Demanding that the payment be done by an unwilling parent rather than society has everything to do with our cultural views. If we truly saw this as the child rights to get support then it should not matter who is paying the bill. The mother, the father, or the government.

Parenthood should be built on consent by both the mother and the father. Biology dictate that women should have the finally decision if she wants to have an abortion, but there is nothing biological to the fact that women have the exclusive right to declare in legal document who will fathering the child. That is just law, which can be changed and rewritten in any form depending on cultural values.