SecretMethod70

well, SF, the point is that your argument is NOT a pro-female argument.

Based on your logic, perhaps the reason women do not have these opportunities is because their "natural place" is in the home? And the "natural role" of the male is that of the breadwinner? Perhaps you have discovered why we have so many problems in society today. It IS those damn liberals! Women aren't equal to men - they're nurterers! The woman's job is to care for children, and clean house, and cook dinner. And the man's job is to throw money toward the woman and child. I knew it - we were wrong about all this equality stuff all along!

/sarcasm

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

analog

Nor am I, but I am able to have a discussion in which I remain emotionally disconnected from the unnecessary, emotional variables. We are talking about rights and legality and multiple grey areas, where not every scenario involves your pieces of shit.

Indeed. I have also noticed at least one person in here whose posting is damn near the entire opposite end of the political spectrum with respect to how they normally post in Politics and other threads in general. I would say my bouts of sexist remarks are mild, few and far between. I think it would be difficult for anyone to claim a total lack of sexism. I hate political correctness, but that doesn't mean i'm an asshole, rude, disrespectful, or unfeeling with regard to women, other cultures, personal situations, or anything else being "PC" is determined to protect.


Sorry, not sure how else to phrase that.

1. Actually, yes, men can breastfeed if need be. It's well documented.
2. "Superior" is a bit of a lofty term. I'm curious what sort of horrible defects you're asserting bottle-feeding causes vs. the incredible edible breast? Can there really be that much of a difference in the way the child ends up in the long run? I doubt it. Just because natural milk is "best", doesn't mean that alternatives aren't "perfectly good" as well.
3. Studies conducted to relate the psychological impacts of the breast vs. the bottle do not accurately measure the relationship between the person doing the feeding and the child. Given the same attention, support, and embrace, there is no conclusive evidence that the breast is significantly, if at all, better than the bottle with regard to developemental psychology.
4. I think there are hundreds of thousands of fathers who would curse you out for saying a man is not as good at being a parent as a woman. Were I a father, I'd throw in the first obscenity. Also, i'm trying to find the figure, but I remember distinctly that infanticide (murder of a baby) is committed by the child's mother, not father, in over soemthing like 92% or 93% of the cases. And no, that does not include abortion. What does that say about the notion that mothers are better than fathers? And we're not talking about total psychos, or some small number, these are women who just couldn't take it and killed their baby.
5. I never said anyone SHOULD dodge responsibility, what I'm merely trying to say is that childbirth is a 50/50 deal, regardless. Women have numerous ways of getting out of their responsibility should they decide not to keep the child, men do not have such a choice. I hear a lot that a man is "a child" because he decides he doesn't want to be a dad, but NEVER would those same people say the same thing to a woman if she gave the child for adoption, gave it to the father and ran off, or aborted it.

"Adoption"? She's being responsible since she knows she can't handle it. "Give it to the dad"? She's making sure the baby is taken care of since she can't. "Abortion"? She's not ready, it was an accident, etc.

A man says, "I'm no dad" and it's "You stupid sophomoric fuck, you fucking child, you are leaving that poor woman alone to take care of that baby?? You insensitive prick, you bastard! I hope you burn in hell for abandoning that child and shirking your responsibilities!!" **note: I am not speaking from personal experience. This is not a personal issue for me. Just so you know.

THAT is where the inequality starts, and it permeates all areas of the topic.

I support equality, not "deadbeat dads". No one calls a woman a "deadbeat mom" if she leaves a child with the father. Just because one happens less than the other doesn't mean it's not just as bad when it does happen.

If we were completely, equally, 50/50 responsible for a car crash we had, and you had an extra car because you're rich and were virtually unaffected by the event, but I had to walk 4 miles to work for 9 months while I made enough money to buy another car, you are not more at fault or more responsible for the accident simply because I endured hardships afterward that you did not.

I'm curious how you could possibly think that. But not in this thread.

Also, in regards to your "sexism doesn't exist from females to males in a patriarchal society" bit, does that also mean that racism doesn't exist from a minority race to a majority race in a specific geographic area? If you were in China and went around calling the people whatever racial slurs there are for them, you would be a racist. If you went to a gay club and went around doing the same, you'd be a bigot. Hire only handicapped people, and you are still discriminating. Sexism very much exists regardless of the "society" it's living in, and regardless of who it's "from" and "to".

Strange Famous

In my opinion, women tend to be superor in the workforce. Although men are better suited to some menial manual labour intensive jobs, do to better than average physical strength. I dont really see your argument applying to me, purely because being a mother and having a career are not mutually exclusive - there are many childcare options, and these should be extended and subsidised, to allow even more mothers to play an active role in the workplace. This is of course resisted by patriarchal power within work bureaucracy, which attempts to exclude women from certain area's.

And in any equal relationship, cooking and cleaning and the getting of financial resource should be shared equally.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Strange Famous

I do not believe it is possible for an anglo saxon white to suffer from racism, the only reason the examples you give dont ring true, is that I view them from a global perspective. Because we understand that China has been a victim of Western colonialism for very much of its recent history, the Chinese people do not have the same power as the Western people. For the gay adult, the gay club is a sanctuary from a deeply and legally hostile state - a state where discrimination is not only openly preached by moral leaders, but enshrined in law - the power of the gay person is less equal because they are the victim of massive prejudice in society. To hire only less abled people may be discrimination in the literal sense of the word (in the same way as we discriminate between the fire and the fire hose) - but again this may be seen as an act of empowerment within an environment when people who are not as physically able face many difficulties and prejudices in the workplace.

It is possible for a Chinese man, a gay woman, a disabled child - all of these - to be prejudiced, and bigoted. But concepts like sexism and racism are not based on individual prejudice, they are based on the exercise of power on a societal level against one group. A woman in America cannot make a man the victim of sexism, although she may be prejudiced against men. A white man cannot suffer racism in America, although there may be some groups or individual who are prejudiced against white men,

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

kutulu

There are very few issues that I see as black and white. This is one of them. If a child results from your sexual activities you need to be an adult about it and play a role in that child's life. Although it's best to be there as a parent emotionally, I will accept a simple financial contribution. If you refuse to do either, it makes you the lowest form of life possible.

1. Although yes, it's possible in some cases, after extreme work it is possible for men to lactate in small quantities. However, the volume is not sufficient to sustain a child.

2. and 3. Best is still better than perfectly good. There are many things contained in breast milk that cannot be properly reproduced in formula. I'll leave it at that since there is no point in digging up sources that can be refuted by other sources and then re-refuted by other sources and on and on.

4. I never said that men cannot be just as good at parenting then men, I'm sorry if you interpreted my post as saying so. Men can do just as well, however women are designed by nature to take care of infants with no outside assistance. Men are not. It's a fact of nature. Once a baby moves past that time they are completely equal.

I can't believe you brought up infanticide. It is so rare that it is statistically insignificant. There are a lot of babies born each year, out of several million births each year I'm sure there is much less than 1,000 cases where a parent murders the child. You can't base any arguement on statistical outliers.

5. Women do not have 'numerous ways of getting out of their responsibility' There is abortion, adoption (if both parents want out), or giving the child to the father. If the father wants it, the mother is bound to provide financial support at a minimum. Men have adoption (if both agree), or giving the child up to the mother and providing financial support. My math tells me women have one more option. That's hardly numerous, right? If the two can reach an agreement that one takes all child raising and financial responsibility, that is their right.

If she leaves and provides no financial support, then I sure as hell do.

Strange Famous

I think you are way off there. White men are able to experience racism and sexism. If a black boss denies you a promotion because you are white, that is a form of racism. If you want to say that one person projecting that on another is prejudice, not racism you are splitting hairs. The end result is the same.

analog

Racism is defined as "discrimination or prejudice based on race".

Sexism is defined as "discrimination based on gender".

The prejudice or discrimination you speak of IS the racism and sexism of which I speak.

Thinking "globally" is all well and good in many instances, but I think many would agree with me in my opinion that you're just plain incorrect on this one. Your opinions on the inability of a white man to suffer racism, etc., do not factor into the reality of law and ethics. They can endure racism, some do, and your personal appraisal of society as a whole does not change that it's racism, nor how wrong , illegal, or immoral it still is. Same goes for sexism.

To anyone else who's still in this thread:

I never buy the "slippery slope" argument unless there's some sort of backing to it, and i'm not seeing that here. People have argued an innumerable amount of times that certain things would bring about the complete and utter downfall of society- gay marriage, microwaves, TV, radio, movies, cellular phones, robotics, that jar of peanut butter that also has the jelly mixed in with it (the jury's still out on that one ) - lots of things.

Therefore, to say that making things fair would really only be giving the so-called "deadbeat dads" a way to ditch their responsibilities, and that society would collapse from all the unwed single moms, seems farfetched at best.

[unpopular opinion]

And who knows, maybe women- since they comprise the other half of this very important unplanned birth debate, and it's just as much their fault as the man's- would see the new ways of truer equality and step up to the plate and close their legs once in a while (mild sarcasm). Maybe if women weren't so flippant about their baby-maker, knowing there ARE repercussions to being unsafe or unprepared, they'd rethink their unsafe sexual practices. Lots of men think about it constantly. Many women don't care, since they'll get their free ride if they conceive- if not from the man, from the government. Many people will say what a shame it is the man ran out on her, what a slimeball he is- I say she should have been more careful, and it's just as much her fault. She brought it on herself.

If you see a 20 -year-old unwed, single girl with 4 children, you are not looking at the poor, unfortunate victim of 4 bastard men, you are looking at a girl who has been horridly irresponsible at least 4 times.

[/unpopular opinion]

Bottom line: If you're not ready to be a parent, regardless of your sex, don't put yourself in a situation where it could happen- and if that means abstaining completely from sex, THEN FUCKING ABSTAIN. That especially goes for those irresponsible teens.

maleficent

Ding Ding Ding - -We have a winner!!! Absolutely the truth... Just because you don't think it could happen to you - -doesn't mean it can't....

__________________

StickODynomite

Men are talking about it not being equal, but they dont have to carry the child for 9 months and give birth. Their bodies aren't changing. I dont think it's equal that guys get the easy part while women get the big belly, pregnancy symptoms and labor.

It is her body. If the father could say 'i want her to have an abortion' and be able to do that legally, we'd be taking huge steps backwards. It'd be a slap in the face to women's rights.

While it is not equal, not many things in life are.

__________________
"The human mind is like a parachute, it works best when open."

analog

Well it's good you feel that way, because NO ONE in this thread has suggested the notion that a father could cause the mother to have an abortion. Not one person. We're talking about a father being able to absolve himself of the child and the responsibilities therein.

Also: If carrying the baby is so difficult and so painful and so inconvenient, THEN DON'T GET PREGNANT. Every pregnant woman is just as at fault for her pregnancy as the man involved. "Responsibility for your actions" applies to both. Refer to my last post. Abstain.

StickODynomite

Analog: I must've read something wrong then. My bad.
So you're saying men shouldn't have to pay child support ? It takes two to tango, that baby didn't make itself.
It might be the woman's choice to keep the baby, but he's also responsible for that human life because he helped create it. Consequences.

__________________
"The human mind is like a parachute, it works best when open."

kutulu

However, because women have the one extra choice it makes men all butthurt. The whole thread revolves around the fact that women have one more choice than men and as a result men are oppressed.

kutulu

What exactly is 'making things fair' other than giving irresponsible men a free ride?

Didn't he bring it on himself also?

What you aren't seeing is the 1-4 men who were irresponsible also. The fact that she was irresponsible once should have been a warning to the others, right? How are things made fair if the men don't have to be responsible?

analog

I'm done with this thread. When my statements are argued against by offering not more than a question that simply contradicts what I'd said, that marks the beginning of the end of reason.

Now that it's reached that point, I absolve myself of the responsibilities of this thread.

Parting shot: Saying "we" feel oppressed is a bit over the top. Seriously. To begin with, not all the men in this thread are even on the same side. If you want to debate, do so. If you want to resort to calling names, taking sarcastic shots at the "other side", we'll leave you alone in the playground so you have the swings all to yourself.

AngelicVampire

Kutulu you keep mentioning basically that men have one fewer option and that this is basically fair, however its not really one choice, its the choice. Its not a choice that involves both parties, its not a choice that gives both partners an option its a final choice in which one partner has significantly less choice than another. Giving men the option to "abort" the child gives them a less significant choice (they are not removing the choice from a woman to have her child or not) however it gives them the option to express their opinion on this child and to ensure that a "pre-fuck contract" is actually upheld from at least one point of view.

kutulu

'pre-fuck contract'? Are you kidding me? Is this contract signed and notarized?

I'm done with this thread too. 134 posts and not one proponent went beyond 'it's not fair'

AngelicVampire

I think we have gone beyond "its not fair", being forced into supporting a child is wrong, being forced to live below the poverty line to provide for a child you do not see is wrong, I think the other side of the arguement has given fewer credible responses other than "suck it up, you are men!"... Equality needs to recognise that Women are not incompetent and need additional rights to protect them, either that or recognise that men are equally incompetent and need the same rights to protect them.

maleficent

Not seeing the child is entirely your choice, if you make payments then you have every right to be involved in that child's life and should be as well. It doesn't matter if you think the mother is a crack whore, that child is still part of you.

Until the time comes where men do have the option to absolve themselves of all responsibilities when it comes to children they father. The answer is quite simple... Protect yourself beyond a reasonable doubt, do not let yourself get into that position of fathering a child.

__________________

kutulu

Maybe you've completely missed the point. Child support payments are not about the mother, they are about providing for the child that THE FATHER played an equal role in creating.

Was the man forced into having sex?

Is it right for a child to be forced below the poverty line because his father didn't want to inconvenience himself?

You still haven't gone beyond it's not fair.

raveneye

There is certainly legal precedent for relinquishing the responsibilities of the genetic father. For example, in Florida (and many other states):

As far as "abortion" is concerned, in the U.S. the legal question is: How broad is the right to privacy? Roe v. Wade itself extended that right to include "distress" resulting from unwanted parenthood in general. Since both fathers and mothers can experience such "distress" then according to Roe v. Wade both sexes are similarly situated in regard to this privacy construal. Hence it could be argued that the equal protection clause applies here. The only difference in applying it to men would be to broaden the concept of "abortion" to include not physical abortion, but relinquishment of parental rights/responsibilities.

Here's the pertinent section of Roe v. Wade opinion:

Reverse the gendered language in this Supreme Court opinion, and it is equally true.

Certainly there is a double standard here, I don't see how that can be disputed. Planned Parenthood lists nine reasons why abortion is legal. Here's a summary of their reasons. Again, reverse the gender terms in this quote, and it is equally true:

I'm not arguing that there should be any law requiring women to have abortions at any time. That would be absurd. However I do believe that if men's role and contribution as a parent are to be fully respected, then the potential mother needs to take the father's opinion /feelings /beliefs /desires about parenthood absolutely as seriously as she takes her own.

Strange Famous

I think the point is Raveneye, that men dont give birth.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Hektore

You are right, and you even said it yourself, its not fair and we haven't given more than that. Women have another option men don't have. Well, I don't know about you, but that seems like a gender bias in the laws, women have another option. Aren't we all supposed to be guaranteed equal right under the law, regardless of Age/Sex/Race? We found an inequality(gender bias) in the laws: those who say the men should be able to opt out are choosing to correct the inequality.

"It's not fair" is all we need to establish when our laws are built on the principles of equality. I know everything in life is not fair, but the legal system is someplace it's supposed to be fair. Unless of course my picture of what the government of the US is, is completely wrong.

__________________
The advantage law is the best law in rugby, because it lets you ignore all the others for the good of the game.