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.
How about those women NOT get pregnant until they have a commitment from the man? Or they pick a man that won't abandon her. Or already has children by multiple women.
If I hear "baby-daddy" one more time, I may hurl.
How about these men don't have unprotected sex until they're ready to be fathers? Or have you forgotten that it takes two people to make a child? How does a woman know that a man won't abandon her once she's pregnant? The way a man acts before the pregnancy isn't necessarily how he'll act afterward.
Why are we only blaming the woman? Why isn't any responsibility being put toward men who run away from their children?
I am a big fan of the women rights movements that gained voting rights, employment rights, freedom of lifestyle choices for women, etc. These things were necessary, and I also wish an Equal Rights Amendment was passed so any violators of equal rights between the genders could have the weight of the Constitution against them.
I am not a fan of the current form of feminism being pushed by NOW and others. I am 100% for equal child rearing for mothers and fathers. Groups like NOW are fighting against state legislation allowing men to share child rearing with presumptive 50/50 custody. This is an example of "feminism" moving from being an equal rights agenda to being a "more rights for women" agenda.
The term feminism itself is exclusive to one gender. If people are for equal rights for both men and women, why not call themselves equalists? It does not compute for me to call myself a masculist yet be concerned with both female and male rights.
I'm also supportive of anything that allows fathers to take an equal part in child rearing and anything that gives women the same responsibilities in exchange for the same rights.
I think you should re-read the thread. It's been explained multiple times that there are different branches of feminism.
Should someone stay married to her husband because he's turned from "Mr. Right" to "Mr. Domestic Violence" or "Mr. Abuse" or "Mr. Chasing Anything In A Skirt"?
The better question is, why do you insist that this illusion of "equal" really exists? Until you can urinate your name in the snow with precision ... we won't be equal!
Seriously ... no one is equal .... neither gender nor even as individuals within our respective genders. You're head is so stuffed with propaganda, you can't see this plain fact.
No, you will not see in your lifetime a female linebacker playing for the Dallas Cowboys ... you're stuck with the lingerie league, so get over yourself.
What is it with you progressive liberals and your allergic reaction to honesty? You can't even bring yourself to say "I'm Pro-Abortion" ... you have to use the watered down version of "Pro Choice". Yet, when you deride the crowd you call "Pro Life" ... the opposite of that would necessarily be "Pro Death", would it not? You can't have it both ways.
Let's really get down to the nitty gritty truth ... grab yourself some Calamine lotion if you need to .... but the central theme of the Feminist movement focuses as much or more energy in promoting abortion as you do equality in the work place. One could reasonably conclude from that that you celebrate killing a baby as much as receiving a bloody promotion or a pay raise. So deeply ensconced in your own delusions of equality ... you can't even be honest with yourselves with regard to your own lack of morality. And the contradictions .... oh the great irony .... you hate men that behave like men ... yet you want to be one all at the same time. Your clocks are running backwards.
You've enthusiastically abandoned the fundamental nature and instincts which define the female in almost every species on the planet ... while you demand that the world acknowledge the legitimacy of your self delusions? Please!
You won't permit a challenge to your integrity or morality ... that is why any challenge is relegated to "hating women". Had it ever occurred to you that the behavior and attitudes being challenged are not "womanly" so therefore "hating women" is a thoroughly empty accusation?
This reminds me of an old joke .... a man entering an office building notices a woman right behind him ... so he opens the door and stands to one side to allow her to enter ahead of him. Poor fellow wasn't expecting the response ... woman: "How dare you, you male chauvinist pig ... I am woman, and I do not need you to open any doors for me ... and I find it insulting that you'd open a door for me because I'm a lady" ... the man replies: "Mam, I didn't open the door for you because you are a lady ... I did so because I am a Gentleman".
I actually do appreciate that you've put a considerable thought into your response. I think quite often in discussions that there are a lot of ramming heads not because people don't listen to one another, but because the foundations for having a true discourse are missing.
For instance, you consider equality to be a myth. I don't. The guy sitting at the desk in the next office, he's a fantastic athlete. A world champion, in fact. I could never duplicate his athletic achievements. We're unequal in that perspective. That guy, though, he could never duplicate some of my achievements. There are things he excels at, there are things I excel at. We are all individuals. Just because he's better at some things doesn't mean he's better than I. Just because I'm better than he at some things doesn't mean I'm better than he is. When our Founding Fathers talked about all men are equal, they didn't mean that every person was just the same as every other person. They did mean that society should value every person equally, because every person has something to contribute. My head isn't stuffed with propaganda. It's stuffed with respect for my fellow man.
You think that there is a natural order. And why wouldn't you? Men have benefited from the so-called natural order for millenia. The thing is, I haven't abandoned my "fundamental nature and instincts" at all. I've embraced them. Why would you think my fundamental nature would be to marry and have children? My fundamental nature is to challenge myself, to learn, to share ideas, even to argue with people who disagree with me. Because in that argument I have the opportunity to refine my ideas, to grow even more. My fundamental nature was never to have children. And I love children. But it would have been unfair to the world to unleash upon it a pack of brats spoiled and indulged by me.
I don't think there is a natural order. I think that different societies impose different orders, and that the people who benefit from these orders invariably see them as natural. I think that the nobility in aristocratic Europe saw the order which gave them infinite advantages thought that it was perfectly natural, that nature identified and rewarded the finer people. I think that slave-owners throughout world history perceived their ownership of other human beings as a natural order. And I think that men who've benefited for generations from a patriarchal system think that discriminating against women is perfectly rational, perfectly natural. But I suspect that the majority of serfs in aristocratic Europe didn't see anything natural about some people having everything while their families starved. The maids and servants were probably keenly aware of just how fallible their masters were, just how human. The servants could see that their masters weren't superior by nature, but only superior by opportunity. But their masters for the most part couldn't or wouldn't see that. The people on top always try to justify their superior social standing by asserting superiority in other ways. Like slave-owners asserting that slaves were sub-human. The fact is that while we are all individuals, with our own personal strengths and weaknesses, that we've progressed as human beings far enough to shun the idea that characteristics like skin color or gender can define an individual. And that any such characteristic makes us less equal than other human beings.
The % of babies born out of wedlock varies widely from income and ethnic groups.
Blacks have the highest % of their babies born out of wedlock, at around 70%.
Hispanics have about 50% of their babies born out of wedlock.
Among non-Hispanic whites, the figure is 28% and among Asians, around 15%.
According to the Virginia Project, high income people have 6% of their babies born out of wedlock, middle class families have about 25-30% of their babies out of wedlock and low income people have about 44% born out of wedlock.
You do realize that the earth is overpopulated and is not going to be in danger of human extinction due to a decrease in the birth rate. And that women are not made from the same mold and not all of the same mind so there will never be a time every woman decides never to become a mother. Actually a link from another thread stated that out of wedlock births were at 40% so it looks like the feminists are on board with motherhood and it is the fathers that you should be concerned with. Talk about selfishness.
Im sure that if the human species were ever at risk the same women who today make childbearing decisions based on their personal interests would make sacrifices for society as a whole.
Sent from heaven ... I've been waiting for you!
The earth is overpopulated? According to whom? Oh yes .. the same people that fund and champion planned parenthood, feminism, global warming, Obamacare, and eugenics, etc.
The overpopulation claim is propaganda for the depopulation agenda, and their tool box is filled with items for that purpose ... including global warming, abortion, feminism, homosexuality, and anything that reduces birthrates and destroys traditional families.
It's not a conspiracy theory any longer ... the terms that were previously used to disguise this agenda have been terms like "Sustainable Development" ... but now, it's out in the open, with guys like Ted Turner and Bill Gates openly calling for a reduction in population ... according to them, and I quote ... "there are too many people using too much stuff" -Ted Turner. Bill Gates claims that we need to reduce man made CO2 to near zero .... for those who were sleeping through biology class, human beings exhale CO2 ... so in order to reduce man made CO2 to near zero, that would necessitate the reduction of human beings to near zero ... I suppose they purposely target the "near" zero mark, because of course, they exclude themselves from the list of those that need to be reduced.
Like I've said a couple of times previously ... selfishness is self destructive ... and the reason I say this is because that selfishness is being preyed upon to manipulate the masses into promoting their own demise.
The obsolescence of morality will lead directly to events of such horrific immorality, it is beyond the comprehension of those useful idiots who are leading this charge.
Don't believe me ... investigate the founder and poster women for Planned parenthood .... Margaret Sanger. Read her writings and philosophies, and realize this women is revered, particularly amongst the sadists and eugenicists, and racists of the world. The women was one sick puppy .. as are those who revere her.
Should someone stay married to her husband because he's turned from "Mr. Right" to "Mr. Domestic Violence" or "Mr. Abuse" or "Mr. Chasing Anything In A Skirt"?
Been there...and I never saw it coming.
I just thank God I am still alive.
Women don't marry thinking "Yeah, someday he might turn out to be an ass!"
While it could happen, that is not what crosses the mind. I mean, if you think they guy will become the biggest a-hole, why even marry him in the first place?
I guess the person you quoted also thinks women should obey their husbands and stick with them - no matter.
I am a big fan of the women rights movements that gained voting rights, employment rights, freedom of lifestyle choices for women, etc. These things were necessary, and I also wish an Equal Rights Amendment was passed so any violators of equal rights between the genders could have the weight of the Constitution against them.
I am not a fan of the current form of feminism being pushed by NOW and others. I am 100% for equal child rearing for mothers and fathers. Groups like NOW are fighting against state legislation allowing men to share child rearing with presumptive 50/50 custody. This is an example of "feminism" moving from being an equal rights agenda to being a "more rights for women" agenda.
The term feminism itself is exclusive to one gender. If people are for equal rights for both men and women, why not call themselves equalists? It does not compute for me to call myself a masculist yet be concerned with both female and male rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doobage
I'm also supportive of anything that allows fathers to take an equal part in child rearing and anything that gives women the same responsibilities in exchange for the same rights.
I think you should re-read the thread. It's been explained multiple times that there are different branches of feminism.
Good afternoon,
I did read the entire thread before posting.
I suggest you reread my post and realize that I discussed the different branches of feminism in the first two paragraphs. Hint: the first branch I discussed are interested in true equal rights, and the second branch I discussed are interested in "equal plus extra" rights.
If you are for equal rights and support equal parenting laws, there is no need for the condescending post. I am not your adversary if our goal is the same.
The earth is overpopulated? According to whom? Oh yes .. the same people that fund and champion planned parenthood, feminism, global warming, Obamacare, and eugenics, etc.
The overpopulation claim is propaganda for the depopulation agenda, and their tool box is filled with items for that purpose ... including global warming, abortion, feminism, homosexuality, and anything that reduces birthrates and destroys traditional families.
It's not a conspiracy theory any longer ... the terms that were previously used to disguise this agenda have been terms like "Sustainable Development" ... but now, it's out in the open, with guys like Ted Turner and Bill Gates openly calling for a reduction in population ... according to them, and I quote ... "there are too many people using too much stuff" -Ted Turner. Bill Gates claims that we need to reduce man made CO2 to near zero .... for those who were sleeping through biology class, human beings exhale CO2 ... so in order to reduce man made CO2 to near zero, that would necessitate the reduction of human beings to near zero ... I suppose they purposely target the "near" zero mark, because of course, they exclude themselves from the list of those that need to be reduced.
Like I've said a couple of times previously ... selfishness is self destructive ... and the reason I say this is because that selfishness is being preyed upon to manipulate the masses into promoting their own demise.
The obsolescence of morality will lead directly to events of such horrific immorality, it is beyond the comprehension of those useful idiots who are leading this charge.
Don't believe me ... investigate the founder and poster women for Planned parenthood .... Margaret Sanger. Read her writings and philosophies, and realize this women is revered, particularly amongst the sadists and eugenicists, and racists of the world. The women was one sick puppy .. as are those who revere her.
Charles Lindbergh also believed in Eugenics. He thought Hitler was brilliant. The truth about Margaret Sanger is that her views on race were TYPICAL of the times she lived in. Nowadays we find those ideas repugnant. I wish we'd been wiser human being then. But we have progressed. And we still have further to go. Shouldn't we get on with it, rather than debate about whether a woman is a man's equal?
How nice of you to take the responsibility to be a father off the man's shoulders. I guess now men don't have to stick around and care for their own children.
If the women don't even want them around, I suppose not. Guess those guys picked the wrong women.
I've only picked women that didn't want kids in the first place. Lucky me.
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.
