Does anyone else agree with feminism?

Post Reply New Topic

FWIW, I agree with you in theory. I don't know how it would work in practice, though.

AspieRouge why would a man need to cut a hole in a condom when you can still get a girl pregnant wearing a condom?

I ultimately agree with that, on the basis that both parents have to take financial responsibility and only the woman can decide if she wants to have the child, since she is the one who is pregnant. But the "have sex and risk pregnancy" argument doesn't really sit well with me.

The same argument is used by conservatives who argue against abortion. They too view pregnancy as a risk of having sex and demand that women take responsibility for their mistake / accident / sin by carrying an unplanned embryo or fetus to term, no matter how inconvenient or medically ill-advised it might be. In this case, it is obvious that the argument is insulting and degrading. Women shouldn't be punished for having sex. But neither should men be punished, imho.

Of course we can't force women to abort because the father of the fetus doesn't want the financial responsibility. The high cost of raising a child is a general problem that also affects low-income families, who would love to have children but can't afford them. The solution is obvious and logically follows from the so-called intergenerational contract.

In times when children were the only form of old-age insurance, it made sense for parents to pay for their own children (who were also used as cheap laborers and farmhands from an early age). Nowadays, we have taken things to a larger scale. Children no longer provide for their parents and grandparents; instead, retirees are provided and cared for by the entire workforce of younger generations. Since we collectively benefit from everybody's offspring, it is only fair that a nation collectively pays for its children.

This would go a long way towards creating more socio-economic equality and equal educational opportunities, as well as more gender equality. Many children are raised by single mothers, and the meager alimony payments of low-income fathers -- which might not always arrive on time or sometimes not at all, or the checks turn out to be bad -- don't even begin to cover the cost of raising a child. So in the end, many mothers pay the lion's share of child support. This shouldn't be the case.

Socialized child care would also provide a great incentive for couples in countries with low birth rates. And it is consistent with the idea that children are persons with human rights, not the property of their parents. Children are essentially citizens who are unable to provide for themselves, and they should be financially supported just like any other member of society who can't earn a living. In my opinion, this makes a lot more sense than tax breaks for married couples who may or may not have children.

Yeah.... that pretty much disgusts me, as a person who hates paying for other people's life choices.

And that's where feminism has gone too far - men are being discriminated against.
If a certain percentage of women have to be put in corporate boardrooms regardless of competence, competent men are refused those positions based on their gender.
Now, if that happened to women, it would certainly be branded sexism.

I think I'd be in agreement with most of WP (hey, now there's a rarity), that this guy goes too far: (Unless these two are both into this kind of role playing.)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqo6lngxmhE[/youtube]

That's actually a very good idea.

Humor aimed at bigotry is often enjoyed by the bigoted. It appeals on more than one level.

Feminism is outdated, because we're entering an age where people are starting to reject being labeled by society for the genitalia they possess ("man", "woman"), rather than for who they are as persons. If you're a "female" who identifies as a male, what are you? Don't you have the right to be a male, if that's how you identify? And vice versa. And then there's transgender. So, "feminism" changes its meaning for those who reject being labeled by others. It would become merely a belief in supremacy of the feminine -- be that feminine nature in a "male", in a "female", or in a "transgender" person.

Interesting little article on the subject

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinio ... 75793.html

And if you're a female who doesn't fit what society tells you, what are you? Oh wait you're a guy because women are only suppose to be "feminine" whatever the fck that means. As for feminism, if it hadn't been for the movement women would still be scrutinized like they are today only worse. Seriously some of the people in this thread make me sick to my stomach. The attitudes are still the same with exception to some who are see both sides. Are there females who are extreme with their views? Yes but very few compared to the amount of bashing I'm not only seeing on this thread but in general. Go back to the kitchen...alright I'm leaving. Anyway if anyone wants women to be a traditional stepford wife might as well bring up the men who should work for a living because there is good proportion who not only don't work but don't help in raising the kids.

Well, at least you're not bitter.

No surprise there.

Ditto and welcome back.

LOLwut?
Who do you think is responsible for that?
You do know feminist groups are some of the greatest champions of transgender rights?

Awesome, masculism does exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism

I'm definately on board with that as a counter to feminism. There should be more awareness about this, imo. I never heard of this word before I "invented" it myself yesterday.