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.
I wouldn't take anything seriously from someone who considers themselves to be a "feminist"
Women are at least equal in almost all walks of life now. The ones who still need to belong to some club just need other stronger women to hide behind.
Any man that complains that life is tougher for a man, is a whiner and a wimp.
Just another shaming tactic to keep normal men from addressing. It's only complaining if it's a normal man. If it was a female, you could sympathize with her.
Forced? Not since those drafted in 'Nam.
It's all volunteer.
Yes, I can voluntarily sign up for selective service or face five years in jail, up to $250,000 in fines, be denied financial aid, voting rights, a driver's license, and much more. But I have a choice, right?
Yes women have to carry and deliver the child, but to assume that they have to raise the child is a misassumption. Plenty of the men are willing to be there to raise the child, but the woman doesn't want to be with them
.
If the woman doesn't consider a man good enough to be with, she's not going to think he's good enough to raise the child.
The financial burden should not be on the man, it paints a picture that women are incapable of supporting themselves and the decisions they made to have sex and have the baby. It assumes that men are bread winners who have a moral and financial obligation to pay to see their child because they chose to have sex, while a woman does not have a moral and financial obligation to support and pay for their child because they chose to have sex. It's saying men have accept responsiblity for having sex and getting a woman pregnant, while a woman does not have to take resposiblity for haveing sex and getting pregnant.
Right. The woman should shoulder all the financial obligations (and they're HUGE) if she decides to keep the child.
Sound like a whole lot of rationalization to rut-and-run.
.
If the woman doesn't consider a man good enough to be with, she's not going to think he's good enough to raise the child.
Which means he shouldn't be financially obligated to support the child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by weltschmerz
Right. The woman should shoulder all the financial obligations (and they're HUGE) if she decides to keep the child.
Sound like a whole lot of rationalization to rut-and-run.
Her body, her choice. Her choice, HER responsibility. Choice = Responsibility.
His life, his choice. His choice, his consequence. Choice = consequence.
You see what I did there? Making a choice means dealing with the consequences and responsibilities that come with such a choice. A woman who has an abortion or not has to deal with the consequences of her decision, and be responsible based such choice. Electing to have an abortion is not an easy thing to do. I can't imagine anyone doing it without some sort of regret of feelings of loss.
A man that chooses to financially support his child or not will have to deal with the consequences and responsibilities that come with his choice. It's not an easy decision to make and again, I can't imagine someone giving up their child in such a way without feeling some sort of regret. But he should have such a choice available to him as the woman has a choice available to her. It is not right that a woman should be allowed to inflict such a financial burden onto a man, just as a man is not allowed to inflict the physical burden of carrying and delivering a child.
You don't like the idea of the man being able to dump financial obligation on the woman, but you have no issue with a woman being in control of dumping financial obligations onto men.
People with this type of mentality generally don't like or trust men for illogical reasons. They think the entire male population of the world owes them something and should be at their mercy. Please tell me you aren't one of those types of feminists? I thought they had died out. You know, the misandrists who used to infect feminism and women's rights groups.
A man-hater? No, not at all.
All I see from you are justifications for a man to able to fu*k-and-flee, or rut-and-run.
Sorry. You don't want to pay? Don't play. Or wrap it up.
We'll never see eye to eye on this, so it's best to just end it now. If a man impregnates a woman, he should help support the child. He doesn't get to run away. Period.
If you have an issue with it, write your representative or congressman, proposing a bill in support of deadbeat daddery. Good luck.
Last edited by weltschmerz; 04-10-2013 at 03:50 AM..
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.
