Get the state out of male-female relationships!

I disagree with this assertion, because I know there are a lot of single fathers out there too who have just as hard a time as single mothers. Just wanted to point that out.

 

Yes, but I was comparing a single male without kids to a single mother with kids.

 

Maybe so, but I was just pointing out that the direction of the conversation in this thread was so broad and was on a trend of expanding that this had to be stated.

Because when we start taking about legal posture, and general real world observations, it just becomes a mess in communication.

-----

There are some points (Cherea listed a lot) that I agree with and others I don't.


Also an apples to apples comparison can't be made to rights yet regarding fatherhood until there's a pill out there that stops sperm production temporarily.

But I do see Cherea's point of complaint overall I just don't think he's stating it well.

This is gruesome to me but I can't think of another way to say it, when a women gets an abortion, she ends her projected motherhood by ending the life or lives she would've been a mothered.

If Cherea's suggestion regarding this matter was taken seriously, a father not being forced to be legally responsible for the child if he declares he doesn't want the child with a __ number of months, leaves a large loophole for children who would still exist in this world, with their biological father not being a dad.

The need for society to care for the children in this situation would still be a problem and would drain Cherea's taxpayer dollars in one way or another, unless you start a legal policy that eliminates the need problem.

From a cost savings perspective and it doesn't make sense.


Now, for Cherea's points I agree or disagree with or other.

1) Agree on the government not defining marriage anymore whether it would be hetero or same-sex. The only exception I'd like to add is that I think the government does have a role to make sure couples are within the same species. To me this falls into health reasons.


2) Agree. Adding that it be regulated, taxed, and there be strict protections for the sex workers and their families.


3) Non sequitur (see above comment)


4) Non sequitur (another poster already pointed a rebuttal out). I'll add that I think welfare is capped at a certain point. This is an accounting question I'd have to see pure financial data to have an option on this. If the amount of $ to everybody is small at an individual level then I don't think it's a big deal.


5) Agree


6) Disagree (Because children are involved and suffer from squabbling during a nasty divorce already as is)

----

 

Wait...what? Last I checked we attempt to all the time. Does "innocent until proven guilty" ring any bells?

But it's not your money, and you're free to move somewhere else with different tax conditions.

 

Actually not true, I've known a few guys who were quite upset to learn their girlfriend up and aborted a pregnancy caused by their intimate moments.

I think you mean physical trauma of actually giving birth, not emotional/psychological trauma.

 

I meant in the case of the man wanting the woman to get an abortion. Cherea believes that if a woman does not choose abortion as a last ditch effort towards birth control, a man has the right to waive paternity. I don't think its reasonable for a man to expect a woman to choose abortion because a man will never know the psychological trauma of it, nor does a woman's choice to keep a child give a man the right to pretend that child does not exist.

 

I see what you were trying to say now.

Ya know the one thing about child support payments is that I would like them to be regulated to make sure the $ actually goes to services that support the child.

I think Cherea is upset about abuses of the system which is a very specific argument, and he's arguing against a general label called feminism.

Like any philosophy, the kind of feminism he is complaining about is a very extreme variation of it and does have problems.

He's allocating blame too broadly, but he has a right to his opinion.

 

Agree on everything but 1.
You should have choice if you want religious marriage, bureaucratical one or both.

 

Thats just an assumption. And I dont think its true. Not saying nasty stuff doesnt happen to girls, but the 'more likely' part, no.

 

Whoa there, buddy. Somebody doesn't understand what feminism is about AT ALL.

Feminism is not about hating men. I love the men in my life.
Feminism is not about not getting asked to prom. There are feminist beauty pageant winners and prom queens, as a matter of fact.

Feminism is about equality. All feminists are asking for is that women be equal to men. And don't you dare say that women are equal now, because we still earn about 20% less than men on average and are at much higher risk for rape, murder, and other violent crimes. Until I can walk down the city street at night without fearing for my life (which men can do) then feminism will always be relevant.

 

You're saying homeless men are just as likely as women to become victims of sexual assault?

 

Anybody Who Lives On The Street Is Open To Any Type Of Assault....



Cheers Glen.

 

I wish. Feminism is about entitlement.

Your figure is wild and incorrect if you're claiming the disparity to be wage-for-equal-work. Not even pandering liberal mouthpieces such as The New York Times claim a figure that high.

To the extent that women earn less than men, it's because they work less than men. Women choose part time jobs more often, women choose majors such as Communication more often in college, women interrupt their careers for child-bearing and raising more often, and women choose to depend on higher income partners more often.

"It is generally accepted that the majority of the wage gap is not due to explicit discrimination, but rather is due to differences in the choices made by each gender."

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

I dare you to cite one reputable source for this. Men are significantly more likely to be murdered, robbed, or assaulted; and male rape is routinely dismissed by the courts. Prison rape is summarily ignored, and women-to-men sexual harassment and abuse is taken as a joke.

"Several studies argue that male-male prisoner rape, as well as female-female prisoner rape, might be the most common and least-reported forms of rape, with some studies suggesting such rapes are substantially more common in both per-capita and raw-number totals than male-female rapes in the general population."

"Male victims of sexual abuse by females often face social, political, and legal double standards. While gender-neutral laws have combated the older perception that rape never occurs to men, and other laws have eliminated the term altogether, the double standards still remain."

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

-----------

All of your grossly inaccurate assumptions above are made possible by the fact that state bureaucracy puts pussy on a pedestal in order to borrow tax payer dollars to purportedly serve women's interests. So, the perceived safety and economic needs of women are considered a priority, and men are considered disposable. Particularly, lower income men. Low income men and their grievances are invisible to most women.

--------

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/safety/

"Assault rates are slightly higher for men across OECD countries, with 4.4% of men reporting assault or mugging, compared with 3.8% for women."

"Homicide rates for men are usually higher than those affecting women , with 3.3 per 100,000 for men and 1.0 per 100,000 for women."

 

There is enough femme bashing in this thread already, but I feel I must point out that if that is your main point, money, as it is with a lot who bring it up. Then it just sounds like its more about money, before all other points. Even though its only true directly. You might earn 20% less than them, but most of those earning more than the girls have the wife controlling the money and / or mistress / girlfriend. Overall, the female of the species controls most of the worlds money

Some of that is relative, some of that is just garbage. Guys do worse things to other guys than they do to girls, and more often.

Even when it comes to sexual assualt, stats in the US are roughly 17% of women, 3% of men in their lifetime, but thats whats reported, not equal if you assume they are reporting at the same rate. And just reading over the stuff about the Dozier school recently as they've found another couple dozen bodies ( god knows what went on there), the real nasty stuff does seem to happen in boys homes or to boys more often, or the more brutal versions anyway

Yes and no. The top of the bell curve for girls is that 16 to 19 range, 4 times more likely than anyone else. So is a homeless man just as likley to become a victim as a 17 yr old girl, no, but even then whats likely to really happen is she'll cosy up to the biggest homeless guy that can kick every other guys ass, and as someone else pointed out, less likely to be homeless in the first place. But by the time you get to around 24 yrs the rates for guys under 16 start to overtake the rates for women. Then past 34 overtaken by the rates of teenage guys and younger perpetrated by females.


So, are homeless men just as likely as women to become victims of sexual assault? No of course not in every case.

But, Overall are there more homeless males that are victims of sexual assault than homeless females? The answer is probably yes