@tinuviel That explains the volunteers.
But the fact that the volunteers and the 'successful adopters' come from the same demographic almost certainly means that the vetting process is biased.
Now that I'm looking, there seem to be quite a few reports of racist discrimination against potential pet-adopters.
@derp said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
@tinuviel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
@ganymede said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
@tinuviel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
Adopting a pet should be more like adopting a child than just buying a toaster.
Having seen a lot of abuse cases involving adopted children, some people should really just be relegated to buying toasters.
Amen. The same can be said for having children.
I have always been an advocate for a license to procreate, but my colleagues give me horrified expressions and lectures on human rights and state intrusions and how horrible it would be for minorities.
And yet... I dunno man. Still tempting. You want it because people suck, but you can't have it because people suck.
I mean. How would you even enforce it?
Mandatory invasive surgery, or just taking away every unauthorized birth and having the completely problem-free state care system handle it?
@insomniac7809 said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
@derp said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
@tinuviel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
@ganymede said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
@tinuviel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
Adopting a pet should be more like adopting a child than just buying a toaster.
Having seen a lot of abuse cases involving adopted children, some people should really just be relegated to buying toasters.
Amen. The same can be said for having children.
I have always been an advocate for a license to procreate, but my colleagues give me horrified expressions and lectures on human rights and state intrusions and how horrible it would be for minorities.
And yet... I dunno man. Still tempting. You want it because people suck, but you can't have it because people suck.
I mean. How would you even enforce it?
Mandatory invasive surgery, or just taking away every unauthorized birth and having the completely problem-free state care system handle it?
There are tons of ways that it could be done. Circumcision is still practiced widely in this country almost as a default, and god help you if you come out swinging against the practice. Mandatory vasectomy is even less invasive, easily reversible upon approval, etc.
It's not even that new of an idea. "If you were serious about stopping abortion because you think it was murder, you would make vasectomies mandatory just like you do vaccinations for school children" has been a very real argument for many many years.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
@derp said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
Mandatory vasectomy is even less invasive, easily reversible upon approval, etc.
So... you are advocating for eugenics.
While I am aware there are many bad parents out there.....
I would have zero desire to live in a society where we are taking away children at birth from their mother's because they are not approved by the state to be mother's ahead of time or where we are forcing people who are not approved by the state to have surgery even if it can later be reversed.
If we think the same middle aged white women approving people for pet adoptions is a problem, imagine the problems if the same middle aged white women are deciding who gets to have children?
Will people from certain religions and cultures be denied because of their religion and culture? Will people be disallowed from having children because of the color of their skin? Are we going to make it illegal for people with physical disabilities or certain sexual orientations to have children?
And one can say oh that won't happen, it will be totally fair and all about having a safe home. But when has the state been totally fair and not corrupt? Won't money end up being a huge factor in who gets chosen and who doesn't and don't certain ethnic groups control higher percentages of the wealth?
I gave birth when I was underage and not just barely underaged, but quite young. My son has a great life and should be with me. He has autism and I wouldn't trust any another person to provide him for like I do and work for him like I do. If the state took my disabled child away from me, I doubt he would have a good life. I would be concerned about families being less interested in adopting him because of his special needs and not thinking of his future, not in the way that I do anyways. I wouldn't have /passed/ and wouldn't have been allowed to keep him if the state decided because I was young, poor and disabled myself.
Instead of talking about forced surgery or taking children away from undesirables who don't meet the state's idea of an upper class perfect home, I would rather look at increased support for high risk families and parents, such as increased programs and assistance for young parents, improvised parents, single parents and etc. I would also like to look at increased support for children who are in the foster system.
@kk I mean. All of that has literally happened in exceedingly recent history just in the United States. So it's not even remotely hypothetical.
He/Him
I just looked it up and you are right. Apparently in the US this was happening as recent as the 70s. Very depressing and heartbreaking.
@kk said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
I just looked it up and you are right. Apparently in the US this was happening as recent as the 70s. Very depressing and heartbreaking.
One could argue it still happens in many developed nations, at least the removal of children based on bigotry rather than an actual justified cause.
@kk said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
I just looked it up and you are right. Apparently in the US this was happening as recent as the 70s. Very depressing and heartbreaking.
If you've heard the reports from the immigration detention centres, it's happening in the US now. Fuck 'as recent as the 70s'. It's still happening.
@tinuviel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
@kk I mean. All of that has literally happened in exceedingly recent history just in the United States. So it's not even remotely hypothetical.
Which is why I said:
@derp said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
You want it because people suck, but you can't have it because people suck.
@kk said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
Instead of talking about forced surgery or taking children away from undesirables who don't meet the state's idea of an upper class perfect home, I would rather look at increased support for high risk families and parents, such as increased programs and assistance for young parents, improvised parents, single parents and etc. I would also like to look at increased support for children who are in the foster system.
Agreed. It seems many countries are much more intent on protecting fetuses from abortions than caring for and supporting them once they are actually born.
I suppose it's the cheaper option.
@arkandel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
Agreed. It seems many countries are much more intent on protecting fetuses from abortions than caring for and supporting them once they are actually born.
I suppose it's the cheaper option.
It's less that than that a fetus is the perfect minority to advocate for. It can't contradict your narrative or criticize your methods or ask you to listen to its perspective before you begin speaking for it, and because it hasn't been born yet it hasn't committed any crimes you can be associated with. Once it's born, it gains a voice and loses its use as a political prop, so they kick it to the curb with a line about how it should have had a strong enough moral character to have been born to a richer family and maybe if it weren't so lazy it would learn to pull itself up by its bootie straps.
To go 'feminist' for a moment... its worse than that. Anti-abortion movements are a way to showcase and prove that women aren't people. We are merely objects and incubators for the 'precious life' inside us. This is a way for men to keep power over us, to control us.
A man can walk into a doctor's office with no symptoms, no issues, and get a vasectomy with zero problems because its his right to choose whether or not he wants to have kids.
A woman has to be screened by OB/GYN, has to under go psychological screening, and can still be told that she can't have her tubes tied because of the possible future children she might be giving up. Even when its a matter of her health over those potential future children, she has to jump through flaming hoops for the procedure because she's told her body isn't her own, it belongs to those future children she might one day have.
Women are not viewed as individuals with rights and needs, we are treated as objects for men to control and use as they see fit, including telling us that we have to put the lives of fetuses that don't even exist yet above our own health and welfare.
But God forbid we infringe upon the rights of men like ours have been since... forever. With an easily reversible outpatient procedure covered under health insurance that requires less recovery time than the COVID vaccine.
To be fair, last time I checked it was easier to reverse vasectomies than tube-tying.
Also, last time I checked, it's a lot harder to convince a dude to get a vasectomy than for a woman to get her tubes tied.
I am totally on your side on this when it comes to the dominion of men, but I'm going to say that there's probably more dude-bros who need a vasectomy than women who need their tubes tied.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
My older sister, who already has a child, has been fighting for years to get a hysterectomy because of Dysmenorrhea. She has a legitimate medical condition where her uterus makes her life living hell and now in her forties a doctor finally took it out.
It's fucking stupid.
@ganymede That's what I was saying. I wasn't advocating tube-tying over vasectomies, just showcasing how much easier it is for men to get it than women, and yet men will scream bloody murder at the idea of having it done like it will end their lives for forever.
@cobalt But what if she wants another child. Or her husband/boyfriend wants another child. You really should think about how a man might be affected by this.
<just gonna leave this here>
@too-old-for-this said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
@ganymede That's what I was saying. I wasn't advocating tube-tying over vasectomies, just showcasing how much easier it is for men to get it than women, and yet men will scream bloody murder at the idea of having it done like it will end their lives for forever.
I've heard things on TV that make it sound like men consider their virility a defining aspect of their personality.
@greenflashlight said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
@too-old-for-this said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
@ganymede That's what I was saying. I wasn't advocating tube-tying over vasectomies, just showcasing how much easier it is for men to get it than women, and yet men will scream bloody murder at the idea of having it done like it will end their lives for forever.
I've heard things on TV that make it sound like men consider their virility a defining aspect of their personality.
I had a friend once come to be pretty much just flat-out distraught because he was getting married and his wife didn't want to take his name.
His wife who, I should note, has a graduate degree and a semi-recognizable name as a professional artist.
Apparently, he felt that his family name was "the only thing he could really give her" and definitely did not appreciate my opinion that if the only thing he was offering his future wife as a part of their marriage was his last name (and not, y'know, things like love, understanding, emotional support, companionship, patience, divisions of household labor, shared financial security, an equitable share in raising their future children, and generally just a life together), that he was gonna make a real shit husband.
I was not invited to that wedding and I have zero regrets.
TL;DR - Dudes get weird about a whole lot of shit there's no need to get weird about because patriarchy tells them to and patriarchy is toxic and bad for everyone.
@kk said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:
I just looked it up and you are right. Apparently in the US this was happening as recent as the 70s. Very depressing and heartbreaking.
If you've heard the reports from the immigration detention centres, it's happening in the US now. Fuck 'as recent as the 70s'. It's still happening.
