Are you skeptical of vaccines? If so, why?

EntWife

Robin
Woman
While it's unlikely that you'll respond, I hope you see this. Your responses, and a few from others here, are quite encouraging to see. You are an intelligent and respectful individual. Challenging another's ideology isn't out of line -- especially in the manner that you did, and without resorting to cheap personal attacks (because you don't need to). Iron sharpens iron. However, not every Christian is made of such. And those who break under it shows. You are not one of those Christians.

To those of you who might feel this applies to you (e.g. "not every Christian is made of such [iron]"), then it probably does. This does not mean you're not a Christian, or that your faith's weak, or that you're thought less of, or that I even disrespect or dislike you (I respect those who thoughtfully engage with me and put effort into it). Absolutely not. What this is, is an indication that more preparation is needed. Because if one can't defend their faith to a fellow Christian, they may struggle to defend it at all to one who isn't.
Women's study major, with a minor in feminist dance theory.
 

Elspeth

Sparrow
Woman
Women's study major, with a minor in feminist dance theory.
It's much easier to evade challenging questions when you can find something else to give you an excuse not to defend your own reasoning behind what you believe, isn't it? But alas, that's not what I study. I won't bore anyone with the details of what I do (due to doxxing concerns), but I can assure you that it'll probably disappoint you.
 

Cpsal

Pigeon
Woman
It's much easier to evade challenging questions when you can find something else to give you an excuse not to defend your own reasoning behind what you believe, isn't it? But alas, that's not what I study. I won't bore anyone with the details of what I do (due to doxxing concerns), but I can assure you that it'll probably disappoint you.
I know it will.
 

Aurini

Ostrich
That attitude is extremely common in women, especially women in college, even christian college. The superiority complex is visible 80 miles away (even when trying to mask it with "I just want to learn about people's opinions"
I spent the night thinking about this (thank you for your kind words). It seems to me that there are two different ways to suss out truth using the group, discreetly and directly. Discreetly, "So what do you think of this?" and Directly, "This is what I think, prove me wrong." We might characterize the first as feminine and the second as masculine, but like most differences between the sexes it's a rather minor variation - maybe 5% difference on the bimodal distribution. I'll frequently use the former, especially when I want to hear the raw, uninfluenced opinion of another person - "Tell me what you really think, not what I want to hear." And women frequently use the direct method - the one that came to mind was an episode of Penn and Teller where a busybody was going around trying to get everybody to stop swearing in her town, and one of the Salon owners looked at her and said "Holy S---!" (Meaning: I don't want your stupid anti-swearing policy in my store.)

It's funny how the sexes are nearly identical, and yet so different. I attribute it to second-order effects. Women are silghtly better at sussing out group opinion, so they specialize in that; men are slightly more hierarchical so they specialize in debate.

Which brings us back around to why your comment tripped my radar. I don't think it's women, or feminists, per se - but general immaturity of people in general.

The 'indirect' form of communication can be used the way I, and Cpsal described it - the pretense of remaining aloof, while gathering information on your opponent to determine weak points. Obviously this is disingenuous. If you have an agenda, you should admit it. And in the previous life of this board as a masculine space was a pretty major red flag. But the 'direct' form of communication can be equally toxic - the archetype of the Gamma Male, who endlessly argues about things that nobody else cares about. Everybody on here knows about that too.

A lot of people - both men and women - are using childish tactics to manipulated conversations and 'win' arguments these days. And in all likelihood, women are slightly more prone to the discreet version, while men are slightly more prone to the direct version. So - this board being a former male space - I misread it as a manipulation tactic. It's also quite possible that it got my back up because I've had a lot of women do that to me. I've had a lot of left-leaning women come on to me over the years because I'm the monstrous werewolf of their fantasies, and then proceed to dissect me in a manner that doesn't acknowledge any moral worth; they're aroused by my monstrous thinking, but they view me as an animal to be caged.

Anyway, just some thoughts. Regarding the initial question:

I dated a woman years ago whose mother was a very prominent pediatrician. She told me privately that, while not opposed to vaccines, she firmly believed we were over vaccinating at too young an age; an opinion she was loathe to share publicly, because the anti-vaxx movement of 10 years ago was headed by celebrities, and made a lot of ridiculous statements. I don't yet have children, but if I ever do I'll be considering each vaccine on its own merits, and I certainly won't be pumping a six-month old (essentially still a fetus - humans are born prematurely) full of half-damaged viruses when his/her body is still trying to grow.
 
Top