Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As long as government is willing to step in, women don't directly NEED men anymore. Otherwise we wouldn't have so many single mothers these days.
Of course one could argue that government intervention is paid in part by male tax payers. (the other part being female taxpayers of course)
For once, I agree with feminists. I actually don't want society to pressure me to get married and work hard while my wife stays at home. I like that I can choose to opt out of marriage without society giving me a hard time. I like that women can earn their own money, own property, determine their own lives. Now, if feminists would stop arguing for "extra rights" and against certain male equality goals, I could support them in other areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vicket
Again- you are only seeing one side...maybe there are so many single mothers because FATHERS are bailing on their responsiblities. "Feminists" are not arguing for "extra rights"- but as long as women bear more than half the burden for children then they are going to need more help if the fathers aren't there. Talk to your men friends who are not pulling their weight before you just jump on the women.
We are all paying for people who don't take care of their own.
Hi Vicket,
What's funny is I wasn't really criticizing single mothers in my post, I was discussing the current reality based on government policies.
Of course I wrote about one side. It was a post describing what I personally agree and disagree with about how feminism has changed our society. We all know there are irresponsible fathers out there, they already get a crapload of well-deserved public criticism and legal consequences. Do I really have to throw a disclaimer in my posts to cover something that is common knowledge? Funny, I usually do and the one time I don't, someone has something to say about it.
In regards to extra rights, as long as feminist groups like NOW keep fighting 50/50 custody laws (as I have proven in other threads), then YES they do want extra rights for women. I don't have a problem with people advocating for their side, but they should stop trying to define feminism as equality if they fight laws that propose true equality. Just because there are deadbeat fathers out there, doesn't mean the men who WANT equal parental time after divorce should be denied.
In regards to friends, I don't associate with deadbeat fathers. Every man I know who has a child is pulling his weight, many are pulling more weight. If they ever weren't, there would be hell to pay from me and other men in our circle. These men and I already discussed at length years ago why it's important to be an active father, and continue to do so when the men we know have their first child. We even talk to the mothers and tell them to let us know if he's screwing up or she needs some help. So, there's no need to lump my friends in with deadbeats out there, since you're not privy to our conversations. Your points were all based on incorrect assumptions about people in my life that you don't know.
The "jump on the women" thing is unnecessary. This is not a "team sport" for me, I call out both sides when I believe they're wrong.
men, when they are all in love swear that they are going to be married forever and how meeting this woman changed their life blah blah and then 5 years down the road they are full of complaints about how it wasn't like they thought it was going to be, their life sucks etc. etc. WELL...
i'm sure there are a few men that are in good marriages but most I have met have some sort of regret, they stay in the marriage only because a divorce means they lose everything they have worked for in their life to the woman..not to mention access to his children will be severely limited.
Most recently this has happened to a friend of mine, married for over 10 years then the wife decides she is "bored" of this marriage and tells him to fly off, takes a huge settlement (she never worked a day in her life and they don't have kids), now the poor guy who makes a good living as an engineer is living in some ****hole apartment paying half his salary as support to this woman that he now hates while she is living the good life...what a life!
Why did he choose to marry a woman without career aspirations? Or at least a woman that works? Career minded women seem to prioritize marrying a career minded man. I just cannot understand how this situation happens, especially with no children involved. This engineer is not independently wealthy, to state the obvious. It only makes sense to have both spouses working. One salarly can be used for savings, retirement, and fun money. Then, there's the reality that the primary earner could lose his/her job, become ill, or whatever. The other working spouse should be able to provide back up.
I asked the older guys whether it was like that back in the 60s. They said, "no, back then, the women were more worried if they weren't getting that kind of attention."
.
Yeah. Ask a bunch of sexist a-holes what their victims were thinking. I am sure it went along the lines of "They enjoyed it!"
I believe the reason why more men don't fight for custody is because they know being a custodial parent will short-circuit their careers and limit their earning potential.
And their dating, golfing, fishing, etc, prospects.
Why did he choose to marry a woman without career aspirations? Or at least a woman that works? Career minded women seem to prioritize marrying a career minded man. I just cannot understand how this situation happens, especially with no children involved. This engineer is not independently wealthy, to state the obvious. It only makes sense to have both spouses working. One salarly can be used for savings, retirement, and fun money. Then, there's the reality that the primary earner could lose his/her job, become ill, or whatever. The other working spouse should be able to provide back up.
well, most people do not marry based on statistical compatibility but rather because they are in this lust/love blindness. I guess when they are in that frame of mind they are optimistic that all the other incompatible issues will sort themselves out somehow...but as we know the novelty of being in love, the "love high" dies out and then the couple is left to face the realities of day to day living and the friction that comes with it if the couple has major differences.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
