Quote:
|
Originally Posted by analog
I'm not sure why you quoted my entire (lengthy) post... it doesn't seem to be relevant to what you've posted...
However, with all due respect, I am very curious how you consider what you've said here to not only be correct, but not incredibly sexist? Are you trying to insist that a father is not a "natural relationship" to a child? Are you trying to insinuate that a man cannot rear a child properly without a woman, or that he could never do as "good" a job as a woman? Lastly- are you, in fact, totally unaware of how completely one-sided, disrespectfully and illogically anti-male and unequal your comments just were?
Equality. How can anyone claim anything besides equality is "unfair"?
INequality is "unfair", but men have been dealing with that since this topic first came to bear.
|
I do not share your understanding of the ideal of equality, first of all - when two things are not equal, equality does not mean necessarily levelling, we do not seek to be impartial between the fire hose and the fire. Men and women do not have equal roles in child birth, from this they do not have equal rights or responsibilities.
In answer to your direct questions - no, I do not believe the relationship between a father and child is of the same worth as a relationship between a mother and a child.
A child raised by a man alone if not raised in a natural relationship... individual men may fulfill this role well, and care adequately for the child, but in general the man is not as "good" a parent as the woman. The same instinctual bond does not exist between fathers and children as exists between mothers and children. if all things are equal, it is always better for the child to be with the mother.
There may be exceptional cases where the mother is less capable a parent do to abuse or fitness issues - and of course these should be treated accordingly. if a mother is unfit to raise a child, the child should be taken into care of the state, or other relatives that are fit to care for the child - a judgement must be made in each case,
Some of the talk here seems to come from the view that children are objects, or possessions, that must be divided "fairly" - my concern is that the child has the best environment, and this is imo with the mother in 95% of cases... of course, the man has SOME degree of responsibility. If the mother is expected to make the HUGE "sacrifice" of parenting alone, the father should be expected to make a smaller "sacrifice" in terms of financial support.
Lastly, in my opinion, within a patriachal society, it is not possible to talk of sexism AGAINST men. Sexism is the exercise of power against one gender, and in all of the major societies I can think of, this power is exercised against women. The fact is simply that women DO NOT have the same career prospects, do not have the same power relationships, are more frequently the victims of violence by men than the other way round, are discouraged and discriminated against in many ways and so on...
It is possible for some women to be chauvenistic, bigoted, or anti-male - but a woman cannot be a sexist, and a pro-female attitude cannot be described as sexist in my opinion. The defence of reproductive and family rights as a laying within the female sphere is, in my interpretation, a defence of the natural order and a defence against a society that claims equal parenting rights for men and women (a concept which to me is sexist).