It's clear to me that we need to organize.

Corporations and government organize but while we remain divided and separate we are easily pitted against each other and out-maneuvered. It seems to me we need to organize. The 1% govt corporations all organize. While we are all disorganized and at each other's throat about nonsense, we are screwed, totally and basically at their mercy. As a result we have little say in what happens to us.

A number of groups are trying to organize into broader groups, Love-in-action network, March Against Monsanto, which I hope if they are successful will morph into March Against Koch Bros and Wal-mart, occupy, uniteblue and there are many others. There is no point in reinventing the wheel, but it is useful to build alliances between the various groups.

Sometimes these groups are often plagued by internal politics, often hair-line fractures magnified to obscure the continents of common-ground we share. We all want approximately the same thing, to wrest back control of our country from the corporations. While some of us are trying to protect the environment, defend animals, help the homeless, get better pay, we are generally on the same side.

I think we need to set up a kind of alliance of groups and an ambassador who is gregarious and smart and who is wired normally, with the same objectives as the group. Someone who is prepared to work on this in his/her time and not expect to be paid, at least not initially.

Initially if we have a problem, as Will Potter did, or Aaron Swartz, Glenn Greenwald etc etc then we need to band together. Surely they can't arrest us all?

But it has broader applications as well, like I am thinking we need to incorporate the people of America, so we can negotiate better health care services directly, instead of via insurance corporations, and an alternative news service that is verified news and perhaps host debates with non-major candidates for presidential elections. We can lobby back the government... But that's kinda the grander vision of how it could evolve.

People could participate only to use some of these benefits, like healthcare for example, but not participate as much in the political aspects, although the implication would imply their support for the politics.

Its a big job and a job that would probably require many people working on together.

Recently I was having a discussion about understanding. I said probably most of what I know is wrong. The friend asked what did I mean.

Its not that I choose to know things that are wrong, its just most of what makes up my life is based on what I have heard and taken for granted. Its not that I don't examine what I think, but for the most part I believe what I've read about ocean currents and not examined them for myself, for instance.

Reality is mostly by consensus. We seem to be constantly checking each other for a shared understanding of the universe and when there is a dispute we dismiss our misunderstanding as probably tribal, "damn republican", for example. We magnify miniscule differences to the point where they obscure the continents of common ground that we share. Even though the problem is probably perspective or a phrasing of the question.

For example, progressives want unemployment benefits so people won't starve, however people who stay on unemployment benefits for too long tend to get bored, so most conservatives think that the unemployed should find a job very quickly or some alternative employment strategy. Both people are right, in my opinion, but this is the simple version.

I suspect we will never create a perfect model on anything as Godel proved. If mathematics is thought over by the most brilliant of minds, how will we ever develop a perfect model of economics, law or politics? All systems must have the ability to evolve, especially models that involve humans. At the same time, every evolution of a system is not necessarily better and should be prepared to be dismissed.

This is also because our understanding is too limited of human behavior and human behavior can only be modeled to a limited extent. Average human behavior can be only predicted for so long, unless we do something like restrict choice and options with law, superstition and/or social pressure.

Having said that, I think it is still worth a try to model it. I think the important thing is that systems must be allowed to evolve as our understanding improves, so must the system. This is what most models ignore, once cast they tend to be rigid. People are still talking about Keynes, Marx, von Mises... We don't do that in physics and math, this is the equivalent of living in the past. We have learned so much from the failure of the communist states, where is this history written down? Yet people are still looking at Marx.

As soon as you say 'there are as specific group of actions'... you are modelling. Once you build even partial models you can test it for accuracy. Models can be tested to see how well they perform, this is part of the scientific method.

Most of the stuff I learn is wrong. Things like 'boys will never read books written by women' was held to be true by publishers until J K Rowling's Harry Potter books were published and proved the publishers wrong. We learn stereotypes all the time... this is usually labelled as a prejudice but its shorthand for our brains as it is difficult to relearn over and over again and only becomes important when we deal with certain things often. This is not an excuse for prejudice, but more an explanation as to why we know this is a sea-shell rather than having to learn sea-shells all the time unless we, for instance, collect sea-shells for a hobby, then we can categorize sea-shells. The reality is with any class of people there will be some good and some bad, some fat and some thin, some stupid, some caring, some clever... Does anyone think Obama or W represents them? Yet to much of the world Obama or W does represent the USA to the world. Scary thought, huh?

Sometimes we have insights into the nature of the world and sometimes it takes a long time to fully understand what that means. I have had those Eureka moments where I realized something but then it took me a long time to fully understand what the eureka moment actually meant. Understanding is not simple and it can take a while for our brain to truly grasp the insight. This concept is encapsulated by Gandhi:

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

While this is more relevant to the idea of once you have your idea, and you try telling other people your idea. First of all people have to hear you, then they laugh because of cognitive dissonance - your idea conflicts with their notion of how they see the world as is when they fight you. Once the cognitive dissonance disappears, people have grasped your idea, they will applaud you, presumably. But mostly only people who haven't thought about the subject will adopt and accept your ideas. But that is the corollary of what actually happens in understanding a concept yourself.

New ideas take awhile to be fully understood and to crystallize.

Part of the problem with artificial intelligence has just been merely understanding what it means to learn something by a computer. Mostly we are trying to replicate - or model human learning. I have been amused when I have read articles that then suggest as a eureka moment that computer learning is startlingly like human learning! Um yeah!

Human learning evolved as our understanding of the universe evolved. We know so little about the universe and ourselves. Our models of ourselves and the universe must be able to adapt as our understanding evolves.

Any MBA will tell you that what is important is to own something that people depend on and then make them pay for it so then it will be a revenue stream forever.

The mad rush to owning everything probably started with electricity and making sure people pay to be connected to the grid and then make them stay (by getting such laws passed). Since then there has been a rush to own everything in the commons, whether it is water, land, roads, schools, prisons, the DNA of food crops....

It was stated that owning the commons was the only way to protect it from becoming a tragedy. But Ostrom cites Clark, who asks who can own the oceans for fisheries?

Lin Ostrom studied methods of handling various commons as partial systems. What I mean by partial systems is in life we are part of many systems as we need many things for us to live. For instance, we need food, water, the atmosphere, shelter, clothes, methods of communications... All of these systems are associated with a commons and how we can access the commons is part of the management of it. Lin Ostrom looked at alternative methods of managing the commons sustainably and her answer was very often not private ownership.

Ostrom states:

Institutions are rarely either private or public - "the market" or "the state." Many successful CPR (common pool resources) institutions are rich mixtures of "private-like" and "public-like" institutions defying classification in a sterile dichotomy.

They strive for an equilibrium of management of a commons. Thus leading to stability, yet the management is still open to flexibility.

Many primitive societies had completely sustainable societies thus in complete equilibrium with the environment. However their societies were often very static. Personal choice was limited. There was probably little option to take the day off sick and stay in bed reading a book. I don't know how the very nomadic Australian Aborigines handled it if someone broke their leg, were they doomed to die when they were unable to walk with the other members of their tribe?

There was not a lot of redundancy in tribal societies as we have in our society. By redundancy, I mean somebody else can take your place and there will still be enough leftover for you. For instance, in normal situations (in countries like Europe and Australia) you stay at home and recover from your illness and life goes on without you while you do so, you'll still be paid and getting all the healthcare you need.

In tribal societies although they were often extremely sustainable, there was very little personal freedom. If you were a woman, you would no doubt be a mother. Women couldn't choose to be academics or mechanics although perhaps there were positions available for "healers" (depending on the tribes) or spiritual pursuits, perhaps, depending how the society was set up. If you were a man, your first job is to protect the tribe and hunt food.

Tribal societies may not have unemployment but they didn't have many advances in healthcare. They may not have been homeless but then the whole tribe may have been nomadic. I have no idea about tribal legal systems and it probably varied vastly from tribe to tribe, and probably varied with the need for people.

Mostly though tribal societies lived in sustainable societies in equilibrium with the environment with the one famous exception being Easter Island. And they lived their sustainable lives at the expense of personal freedom and to some extent, technology development.

But in our society we have these things because we have excess. We have an abundance of labor, food, resources, education, skill and one person can fill in for another and all in all, we have a better quality of life with optimal personal freedom. We can chose to be a parent or a doctor or a mechanic... However even this abundance has gone to excess, as our excess has become a wasteful society. Wasteful of people, resources, the environment and community. We are so apt to throw people away that I only see it as a tragedy.

I like Ostrom because she talks about breaking our commons down into sustainable partial systems. But all things we need to support us, are partial systems. There is the mechanisms for fresh water, the use of used or grey water, dealing with the rubbish our society produces, harvesting food, materials to make our clothes, materials for our furnishings, homes, food, paper, computers...

In our new optimal society, we must optimize for personal freedom and abundance while still living sustainably.

We are human beings and we need other human beings in our life. We may belong to several communities
which are commons and managing them can be difficult. We have lost the art of dealing with people, yet our desire to belong remains. Care for one another.

In this blog entry I wrote about the dust bowl in California and how plants should be planted on the median between the I-5 lanes and on either side of the road to help cut down on the soil erosion that causes the dust bowl effect. Between the fields there should be lines of trees as well. The added benefit is that it (is hypothesized) that it rains naturally more often on trees.

The fields of course should be left to the farmers (corporations) to plant trees between their fields, because after all it is their property, after all, however I am sure they will demand some kind of compensation for growing additional trees that will benefit the most from.

We have extreme problems with current farming techniques. Major corporate farming techniques are derived from the perspective that greed is good and the commons must be exploited at all costs because all resources are limited. The reality is nature is all forgiving and when we farm with the objective there is plenty for all as in this wonderful TED talk, everyone benefits, not only the environment, other animals and people as well.

We must move towards the perspective there is plenty.

If we started planting drought tolerant plants, such as the above date palm, or the following plant that likes salt water or non-edible plants like Nerium which are extremely easy to grow from cuttings but extremely toxic or Salvation Jane which is also toxic but edible by live stock in a pinch and makes good ground cover. Jasmine is also quite good ground cover but not so easy to strike from a cutting but is edible. Geraniums are super easy to strike (just break a branch off and stick a few of the nodes in the ground), edible as well and extremely drought tolerant.

There are plenty of plants that are edible or produce edible fruits that are also drought tolerant. Edible is useful not only for humans but also for farmed animals and wild life.

But ideally we want to grow plants to heal the earth and ourselves. Our selfishness and greed is hurting ourselves mainly.

I believe we have to be taught greed but then someone said haven't I seen the feeding frenzies of wild animals? Animals know scarcity too but they are not in the same position we are in where we can learn that if there is plenty for all we can turn our damaged planet back into a paradise.

When someone finally wanted to publish J K Rowling's first Harry Potter book they wanted her to use initials because the publisher didn't think boys, who they considered to be the principle audience, would want to read a book written by a woman.

Ouch! and people think that feminism does nothing for them anymore.

How did we train boys to think women have nothing of interest to say? Fortunately many boys proved the publishers wrong. But how many other industries believe equally ridiculous things?

Australian Aborigines don't like to discuss their dead because they feel we are trapping their souls on this plane by doing so. The result is that they are effacing themselves from history.

This is something men have been doing forever to women. Who knew women had a long history in the sciences? How many other women have been erased from history? Matilda, William the Conquerer's Queen wasn't even included in the indices on historical books on the subject of William, yet she wielded her own power.

Men often behave shamefully when it comes to women in politics, as was the case when Australia had a female prime minister, Japan, and Hillary Clinton in the US along with Michelle Bachmann and her shoes, eyes etc. where the topic of conversation instead of discussing her politics. No man has ever had his shoes discussed in politics.  Also we have men in politics talk about what is and isn't rape. These are the respective countries elected representatives and they act like women have 'girls germs'. These men demean their positions by acting like young boys, not adult men.

This is appalling behavior of men in politics and as such it is clear men shouldn't be involved in politics if they cannot act with dignity and treat women with respect. Men exhibit too much appalling emotion as the following indicates:

But the sexism doesn't end with 'make me a sandwich' or 'get back in the kitchen'. The sexism includes not respecting the dangers of hurricanes when they have a female name.

And women being told they are the sinners when they are raped while attending religious colleges. But this isn't the only sexism in schools, girls are sent home because their bra strap is visible and it might distract the boys. This is primarily saying boys education is more important than a girls and boys can't control themselves so girls need to wear burqa's to protect boys so boys won't get out of control...

That is really teaching the boys they really don't need to restrain themselves. How on earth can we expect the next generation of boys to be leaders if we teach them its okay to not control themselves? What are we teaching girls? That you are really only there for boys? This is outrageous. Boys must know how to control themselves and girls have a right to exist for her own purposes.

There are other subtle sexist attitudes like a man will friend me on facebook and assume I have nothing better to do than contact him and/or call me 'dear' rather than bother to remember my name and/or will ask me my age, like I might just be eligible to be his love interest if he finds me pleasant enough. How arrogant.

I am not here for your purposes. I am here because I want to be here and I have other stuff I can be doing. People who want to be a part of my life put effort into attracting my interest.

Its the same with being a mother, people think women have nothing better to do than be a mother. That once she's had a baby she will automatically love it and put her life on hold for it and then expect the woman not to resent the baby if forced into being a mother when she does not want to be one. Yes she can put a baby up for adoption but the foster system is full of unloved kids already and people will gasp at the woman if she does: how can you possibly think of putting your child up for adoption!!!

There is so much sexism in the system that this is not the time to hang up 'feminism' as no longer relevant.

And none of the: but the court awards custody of children to women over men nonsense. This should be about the children, not the gender of the parents. Men who whine about women getting preferential custody are being selfish.

What I think women need to do is to work together and build communities of women so if one does want to have children, a couple of her female best friends support her while she does so. Or women sharing together the raising of children. They need not be lesbian, just female friends who share the responsibility of raising kids together. Perhaps some of these friends could be both males and females together who are not necessarily lovers.

Women are taught all their lives they need a man to complete them. This is nonsense. What we need is each other.

Nevertheless women give sex to get love and men give love to get sex. Women are raised to expect a man to fulfill their needs. We all need affection and men go have sex with a prostitute when they need a dose of affection from a woman if they don't have a current girlfriend. Most prostitutes say a lot of men often only want to talk, or to feel close to someone briefly. This is why escort services are acceptable, because sex isn't assumed although is often implied.

But there shouldn't be this necessary assumption that women should NOT enjoy sex. Why? If a woman enjoys sex she's a slut? Women evolved to have orgasms as well, why shouldn't she enjoy something her body provides her? I have no issue with women working in the sex industry. Its ridiculous women should NOT enjoy sex. Its teen girls who have sex with boys I feel sorry for, who get pregnant based on 2mins of pleasure for the boy and no pleasure at all for her. No one even considers that women should enjoy sex in the US. And just because a woman enjoys sex it doesn't mean she is always ready and wanting sex.

We keep attacking those weaker than us rather than making those with power accountable. Part of this is a result of what the Milgrim experiment shows, we want to please authority and I assume those in power, men. Seldom does society attack men for any reason yet it seems that it is mostly men that cause our problems. It is men who run Wall St, it is men who are the CEOs of BIG OIL and other negligent corporations, it is men who run Monsanto and start the wars, it is men who are the lawyers, who do the raping and murdering. It is men who run government. I know not all men do it but as a society we generalize about women yet we don't generalize about men. Not until we control those with power will we be able to start repairing society.

It is time we stop trying to control women because women are already under control. It is time we start controlling some of the men.

It's time we live a different way and this war on women is part of how broken society is.

I did take photos when I first saw these signs in 2009. But when I recently drove down the I-5 these signs were gone and new ones had taken their place.

I planned to write this back then but I went back to my urban area and completely forgot all about it.

What I noticed first was the land between the divided road had no trees on it nor did either side of the road.

The first law of drought prone land is to grow trees. Growing trees cuts down on soil erosion and has the added benefit of attracting rain. Strangely enough it rains over trees more than other places. Hmm. The added benefit of trees growing in the area in the center of the divided road is that it cuts down on glare from on-coming traffic for those who drive at night.

This is something people could do themselves rather than wait for government to do it and I was shocked the farmers weren't doing that themselves since it is in their own best interests to cut down on soil erosion. No doubt you'd need lawyers running interference on planting the trees because the police would sooner or later turn up and ask why people are planting trees. It may be necessary to get government approval but the land belongs to US citizens after all and citizens and legal residents should be allowed to plant plants if they want.

However this time the trees were being bulldozed and the drought was much worse. The trees were bulldozed out by the roots to maximize the harm to the earth and definitely kills the tree. I can only assume this is the scorched earth approach to corporate farming. And it seems also to have a note of petulance. My husband quipped, they want water served up to them at the tax payers expense.

Nevertheless we need water in California and there are no water restrictions on people living in the big urban areas. Surely we should be building solar powered desalination plants however we have a problem with all the water used for fracking is being dumped off the coast. Will that water be useful for drinking? Do you want to fill your swimming pool with water that has been used for fracking?

I can't believe Gov Jerry Brown allowed fracking in California when there is a drought. I can't even begin to understand this. We can't drink oil and plants will die if watered with it, it is time we cut our dependency on oil. It is time that a ban was placed on selling non-hybrid or electric cars. When I was in Yosemite they had hybrid buses. It is clear the technology has come of age.

Water is our priority, not oil.

Kintsugi is the art of repairing broken objects with gold, silver or platinum. The idea being something is more beautiful when it has a history.

What I particularly like about this is something that you have poured parts of your life into, such as a ceramic dish, which you have served guests and friends at special events, was part of your life: in that you saw it every day, washed it, cleaned it, cared for it, if it falls and breaks it can be repaired and so you can add this to the story of your life, a beautiful treasured object now has even added value.

In the west we know what to do with beautiful objects when they are broken, we throw them away to become landfill if we have enough money, and just buy a brand new set of crockery.

We live in a totally disposable society. We throw away lounge suites when they are no longer fit our decor. We buy new jeans, new eyeshadow, new dresses, shoes and sunglasses. Every home has a trash can, every household knows when the trash is collected and weeks revolve around this phenomena. Whole industries exist based on throwing stuff away. Trash bags are bought just to make it easier to throw stuff out. We tear up the planet so we can get the oil to make the plastics only to throw them away. Industry makes all this packing that is often only used once, ONCE, before it is trash.

We are trashing the planet to throw stuff away in land-fill.

Some trash is designed to be recycled, so we can sort our trash, and feel a bit better about ourselves.Nature is kind of forgiving and will eventually break down the trash if it doesn't kill all marine life in the process.

But our throw away society doesn't stop and destruction of the planet, its atmosphere, our water or the biosphere, it extends to ourselves.

Industry throws away employees to raise stock prices, and doesn't care who's lives are shattered in the process. Banks foreclose on homes and possessions are confiscated because ownership is more important than the lives of those people the banks must make profits from.

And it even extends to our personal lives. Men sleep around with women and then dispose of them even if they get pregnant. Women have abortions because they can't afford to raise the kids by themselves, and people dispose of friends because we don't like what we are saying. Something that becomes increasingly easy with things like facebook and twitter. I know I am done throwing people away. Kids are tossed out of home when they become too troublesome for some parents.

And even worse we throw away whole classes of people. I was recently driving through the Mojave desert and saw random trailers with rusted out car chassis, an image repeated over and over again. I assume these were the homes of native Americans disposed of to places out of sight.

Some of us are tired of living in a disposable society. Some of us are so sick of the waste and the insane obsession with making a profit that some of us are looking at starting to see the way forward is to work in cooperation with the environment. We need sustainable farming, instead of the scorched earth approach to farming I saw in the California central valley where orchards are pulled up by the roots to exacerbate the dust bowl with the deep drought farmers are experiencing. We need to live in harmony with the environment, somewhat like the native Americans did before we destroyed their way of life. If they remember how they lived perhaps they can teach us how to live again in harmony with the earth.

This planet is our only home, we cannot throw it into landfill, we must take care of it and repair it when it hurts, we have a shared history with it. We must take care of our friends and not discard them. We all need a home and this is it. We cannot throw it away.

I recently read a book 'The Kindness of Strangers: Penniless Across America' by Mike McIntyre who hitches across America penniless from San Francisco with his destination being Cape Fear.

Towards the end of his journey he wonders whether a black man in America would be able to make it as far as he'd come in the same amount of time. He hopes so. I hope so too.

During his journey he has a few experiences where he wondered whether they were sexual advances by other men. I don't recall him having too many sexual advances from women though.

But I wondered why he didn't wonder about a woman and how far she could have hitched across America without sex being demanded from her. It is likely she would get more rides but it is also likely it would have been a lot more frightening for her, and I suspect that a woman hitching would have sex demanded from her (isn't that rape?)

I know this because I am constantly being asked for sex by strangers (men). While waiting no more than a few minutes for my husband to pick me up on the Vegas strip I was asked if I was 'working' and I was wearing the usual tourist stuff, a t-shirt, jeans, nothing that yelled 'working girl'. I've been walking down a road in sweats and asked if I wanted sex. I assume men are constantly asking women for sex.

McIntyre makes some interesting points, though, and made me wonder if money is actually a way to keep our lives anonymous. Whether money is one way to prevent us being/getting involved in other people's lives. My experience is helping others really benefits us more than those who are receiving the help.

Anyway, back to men, sex and feminism, I saw this on facebook:

Of course I was dismayed.

For a start it implies all feminists are 'dumb' and the implication that 'feminists' want all women to be hooked up with a man and basically the man has no choice in the matter and finally that women's only real purpose in life is to hook up.

When I look at men I do NOT think of sex. Sorry guys. I can't speak for all women, but in general women are not there purely in case you feel like sex and to scorn in case you don't find them attractive enough. Who cares if you don't find them attractive. Why do you think your opinion is important to anyone anyway?

Did you ever think that neither of these women might find you attractive? The woman on the left is what MSM tells you to find attractive but I believe there are many men who find the woman on the right attractive too.

I don't care what you find attractive.

I don't care what you define as curvy.

Are feminists dumb? There are many feminists and really you can't generalize about us. But of course generalizing is just another way of dismissing us.

The sooner society realizes that men are optional for women, the better for everyone, just as women are optional for men. I am not saying there is anything wrong with men and women forming partnerships but it should be the individuals choice rather than an unspoken law of the universe that women must have a man.

I know someone who thinks that criticism is how you show you care. Nevertheless, they saw this picture and thought it was a good idea. What this person doesn't realize is the world is full of people who criticize. You don't have to give a damn about someone to criticize someone.

Sure, none of us are perfect. We all have things we could do better, think more clearly about, we all make mistakes, we all have faults, even and probably especially the critics.

Its often hard to hold back on a bout of criticism. But when criticizing our best friends we really need to sugarcoat our criticisms as much as possible. We usually hold back on our criticisms of acquaintances if only to be polite, and for people we don't care about on the internet, we usually shower them with criticism, like this girl who made a lame joke got told to suicide. She handled it well.

The i-ching warns that constant criticism and punishment will make people into fools especially when the punishment is public. This could also be a sign that the relationship is abusive. It lowers people's confidence.

I once scolded a friend publicly and I was deeply ashamed of myself. I knew when I did it I shouldn't have and wished there was some way I could undo it. It took my friend sometime to forgive me understandably.

Yes I love advice, yes I love being told when I am doing something wrong that I am unaware of. Yes I love pointers. Too many times I've done stuff I'd wished people and had said, have you thought about this instead? Here's an idea, try this? What about this instead? I love this!!!! I mean so many times I've regretted (not) doing something (else) and wished people had butt in on my side and offered suggestions at the time. Perspective is invaluable and hindsight is often useless only as a guide to the future.

The world is full of people who do not wish us well and who are out to hurt us. If you are prepared to criticize people you like and hate equally then what is the difference between the people you like and hate?

If you were never able to speak to someone again for whatever reason, what would you want the last thing you said to that person to be? How will they remember you? Will it be a fight? Will it be words of gratitude? Will it be encouragement?

Too often people slip out of our lives. Years later we wonder where they are, what they are doing, how they are. Sometimes you get a phone call telling us they have died, sometimes you just don't know how to contact them anymore, other times you hear of people who cross the street when they see people they haven't seen in years, I know I have. So I try to be positive.

So be kind, let people you love know that you love them, wish them well, wish them warm, wish them happiness.

Too often we want and often advocate for a better world and that better world starts with someone else. Ghandi told us that if we want to change the world we should start with ourselves first rather than someone else.

Here are some examples.

First example: Some feminists want to ban pornography and girls working in the sex industry because they think it exploits other women.

I am not sure if it exploits men if women go see male strippers for a girls night out. But honestly, the world is far from perfect. Working in the sex industry is one way girls can make a quick buck.

No, I do NOT want anybody hurt. If the woman wants to work in the sex industry for whatever reason I have no issue with it. Perhaps she is even eager to. I don't care. So long as she knows what she is doing, wants to do it, isn't being coerced then I don't see why its anybody's business but the woman's involved.

And no she shouldn't be shamed for her choice. What is that anyway?

Why should you care if she is working as a prostitute, stripper or whatever. Who are you to complain if she chooses to work thus? Some women have no other options and perhaps will enjoy the work. Stopping her from working won't stop men from wanting the service. If you want to stop the sex industry, change men first. Otherwise women will be kidnapped and forced to work as sex slaves etc.

I don't think feminism should be prudish. Sex is normal and natural.

Second example: Women who think feminism is passe, who think women are already equal enough. Oh boy. Women are far from equal while there are Lilly Ledbetter's in the world, there is no equality. These women who think feminism has nothing to offer them tend to be mothers. She's content, she doesn't think women should be doing this running around getting equal pay etc etc... If it wasn't for feminism, she couldn't vote, she may not be allowed to divorce her husband, she probably wouldn't be allowed access to her kids, she probably wouldn't be entitled to a bank acct or property, all of that would be her husbands. And we are a long way from being equal.

You may not consider yourself a feminist, that’s fine but why destroy the movement that you've benefited from yet don't want future generations of women, your daughters to benefit from?

Third example: abortion is probably one of the best ways of preventing guaranteed poverty for some young women, especially if the father disappears or turns out to be abusive. I would prefer to prevent the pregnancy in the first place by using contraception, but most pregnancies are unplanned and people are often elated with the news of a pregnancy and can't wait for their new arrival. 

Abortion is a sad option but it can mean the girl goes on to marry a suitable man and will get pregnant later on and raise a great family with her husband's help. However there are times when the pregnancy goes horribly wrong.

There are people who think that pregnancy never goes awry, when the baby is wanted but for some reason or another the fetus dies and the pregnancy doesn't terminate naturally in a miscarriage, or the fetus has severe deformities like not producing amniotic fluid which means the fetus will die anyway after birth, but causes severe pain as it rubs against the uterus walls. And sometimes the pregnancy will even kill the woman.

I have seen men and women both arguing for a so-called better world where there is no abortion, letting the mother die in some cases, or forcing her to live in poverty. These people are usually badly informed and idealistic.

All of these things are not their business why women choose abortion.

If you want a better world start with something you can control, rather than denying women rights.

"Be the change you wish to see in the world" (Ghandi) rather than demanding someone else give up rights or give up the fight for rights because you wish to force your view of 'your' perfect world upon somebody else.