Women don't HAVE to work.

Post Reply New Topic

Wait....isn't that the essence of what WP PPR is about? That could summarize nine out of ten threads here.

of course not. What i'm saying is women use thier bodys as an excuse to why they get to make all the decisions reguarding pregnancy. wich would be fine if they could get pregnant by themselves, but they cant.

Yup, a lot of the matter feminists want the man to have no choice over whether the child is theirs. They want the man to pay for child support for a child they never wanted to have in the first place - one can get pregnant, even with condoms. They want men to basically suck it up when many times it is of no fault of their own that pregnancy has occurred - there are some nasty women out there who will deliberately get themselves pregnant by, say, tampering with condoms. Just as there are some men that tamper with condoms so as to expose women to risk. It's scumbag behaviour from all sides - misogynists will laud and support dickhead behaviour by men, misandrists will laud and support dickhead behaviour by women. Neither is good or healthy.

They've entirely frozen men out of any and all debate about abortion - their opinions don't count.

I think the best protective measure that guys can do is just not to get involved with women like that in the first place. The same way as I would advise against women getting involved with violent, women-hating psychos too. Neither is good.

It takes two to bring a child into this world, and a man needs to have his feelings understood and respected too. If a man doesn't want to get involved with a pregnancy but the woman does, fine. He shouldn't have to pay child support.

At the moment the women have all the cards, men have no say whatsoever, and that's wrong and breeds (if you'll excuse my term of phrase) bitterness. Those kinds of people just want their own way.

True. I mean, a woman can go behind the "fathers" back to get an abortion. without his consent
typically in america if the relationship turns sour the women always get the kids, unless its quite apparent that shes mentally unstable and can be proven so. even if they have joint custody the father still has to pay child support

I know this because i have Three sisters.

Its just unfair. I'd like to see more equal rights for fathers

Teh pooor menz...!

I need some equal rights ok. Its my baby too!
but seriously.

Is being curtious that hard of a thing to do these days?

And here we are, back among the men (most of whom, I would hazard to guess have never fathered a child) whining about "men's rights" regarding children.

I don't care how many times I have to say it, I will repeat this message until my fingers go numb: Neither men nor women have rights with respect to children. Children have rights that they can enforce against their parents.

Men who are required to pay child support aren't being punished. When men and women have a dispute over child custody, it is not a battle to be won between them, it is a test of the best interests of the child.

There is one, and only one consideration when a child's well-being is at issue: what is in the best interests of the child. The best interests of the parents or guardians of that child always--always--take second place to the best interests of the child.

Now, if we are going to have a debate about children would be better off in the custody or their mothers or their fathers, have at it. But remember, always, it's not about fathers' rights, it's about children's rights.

+1

Cleaning the home can actually be somewhat more frustrating because there are no set hours. Even at a crappy job there are set hours scheduled (even if they change each week) but working to keep a house in order is practically 24/7.

Actually cleaning the home and a crappy job both have a similar program - both have an hour or two worth of work that, if you build yourself a schedule and say "I do A,B, and C on Monday, D,E, and F on Tuesday" etc. you get everything you need to done and - at the crappy job - you have seven ours to surf Youtube or play Freecell and Hearts, at home that's more time to devote for all kinds of self-improvement. Obviously if you have kids at home its a bit different but, workouts, day-trading, all kinds of things like that can be done at home.

That must be a nice world you live in, but here back on earth children have no rights. They have to do whatever thier dumb parents say, Unless of course someone is breaking child labour laws. physically/mentally/sexually are being abused, then they have rights Otherwise they dont

So, once more, women making their own medical decisions annoys you because you feel being female and sexually-active constitutes relinquishment of bodily autonomy to a second party?

If the unborn are to be considered completely the property of the mother, then they are also to be considered completely the financial responsibility of the mother as well. If however they are not to be considered completely the financial responsibility of the mother, then the unborn are not to be considered completely the property of the mother either.

Because you cannot have personal experience of having a child inside your body, your opinions are utterly irrelevant.

Femiloons 101.

Hhhhhhuhhhhhmmmm...

I think that you are lucky if you are one of those women who are happy with the "little wife" concept of living. It must be very relaxing to have neat little gender roles that you fit into. Seriously, if you are heterosexual and otherwise gender-typical, you should get up and dance. You have no idea how complicated and confusing your life is if you are not.

But in the name of Christ, leave those of us who already have complicated lives the heck alone! Really, the rest of us think it's groovy if you can arrange a traditional, heterosexual marriage and have a family and kids. Most of us, if not virtually all of us, think that the traditional marriage is a wonderful thing. The thing is, it's not a viable option for everybody.

You are going to have situations where the mom has to work, and the dad has to stay at home. You're going to have situations where the kids have to spend part of their time with their grandparents or some other relation. Sometimes parents have personality clashes between each other and have to juggle the kids between one home and another, but HELLO...those of us for whom life hasn't exactly set us up for the ideal are doing the best that we can. You can't just force a stilted and hackneyed and overformalized system on the whole entire world.

It's like overplanning versus underplanning. Establishing social guidelines is a good thing, but the places in the system where there is some flexibility keep just enough room for variability that someone who has a complicated enough life isn't going to be faced with more complications.

Heck, I've never been against the traditional family. That's not what us libs are all about.

A pregnant woman is not a mother per se,
and the issue usually isn't referred to in terms of property, any more than removal of a tumor involves it.
Although that not withstanding, your assertion is still unsupported.

The differences in biology wherein *only* women become pregnant and give birth and the corresponding right to be the *only* ones with a say-so over when and if this happens doesn't at all negate a man's choices. A kneejerk appeal to a man's "right" to be free of financial responsibility in reaction to and as an irrational attempt at a countermeasure to women's right to control their reproduction is fallacious in that it does not address the very issue- completely different biological requirements of a man versus a woman- which gives rise to the notion that the rights for the two regarding pregnancy should be likewise completely-different.

Circular reasoning is circular? If A = B, not A = not B? Too many "if's".

If there lies a right for men to "opt out" of financial responsibility,
it would have to be meritorious on it's own, as part of a system where both men and women have as many options as possible at every step of the process, from the freedom with whom, when, and under what circumstances to have sex, to refuse sex, access to birth control and birth control options, access to abortion services, freedom to surrender any resulting offspring, and freedom to abdicate intent to financially-support them should the other party choose parenthood. Will the choices of one party affect the choices of the other? Naturally. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be choices.

Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 27 Jul 2011, 7:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.