Feminimsm - when does it get out of hand?

Eleas · Post by **Eleas** » 2003-05-13 11:28am

innerbrat wrote:Eleas, are you really saying that a man has the right to force a woman to have an abortion?

No more than you're saying that a broken condom is tantamount to eighteen years of paid child support.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-05-13 11:35am

Now that's just a silly statement. I advocate black people and gays getting equal pay for equal work, BUT as long as they do the work JUST AS WELL.

I also find it a silly statement because everytime I talk with people on these matters they say that and it feels like they're suggesting that the people in question won't work as hard.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-13 03:29pm

Darth Wong wrote:[Maybe he should have thought of that before having sex with her. I never shirked my responsibility.

BTW i happen to consider the fact that men cannot give birth one of the greatest injustices ever pertetrated against men.
Have you ever seen a birth, "up close and personal"? We got off easy. And I don't buy it when men complain about being forced to take responsibility for their actions. Too bad; the difference between a man and a boy is that a man can do precisely that.

Ohh so you dont Buy it when men refuse to take responsability for getting a woman pregnant bu you DO buy it when women refuse to take responsability and abort the brat? Yea yea her body...well half the kid is still the man's period, he should have some say. A woman can as you put it "shirk her responsabilities" as i would put it "correct a mistake" but the man cannot? im sorry but that is simply bullsh*t. Either let the man have a say in whether or not there is an abortion, or give him the opportunity to refuse all rights and privilages of having a child and get rid of his responsabilities. It is purely and simply discrimatory to give the woman this option but not the man.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-13 03:36pm

NapoleonGH wrote:Ohh so you dont Buy it when men refuse to take responsability for getting a woman pregnant bu you DO buy it when women refuse to take responsability and abort the brat?

No one should ever be FORCED to have an abortion. This somehow strikes you as a silly assertion?

Yea yea her body...well half the kid is still the man's period, he should have some say.

Maybe he should be careful whose pussy he sticks his dick into, then. All of these idiots and assholes who fuck somebody and then say later "she turned out to be a crazy bitch" obviously didn't look before they leaped. If you screw someone and have no idea what kind of person she is, who do you have to blame but yourself?

A woman can as you put it "shirk her responsabilities" as i would put it "correct a mistake" but the man cannot? im sorry but that is simply bullsh*t.

Why? She's the one who's carrying the baby inside her body, it's her choice. If you disagree, you should think about that before screwing someone you don't know too well.

Either let the man have a say in whether or not there is an abortion, or give him the opportunity to refuse all rights and privilages of having a child and get rid of his responsabilities. It is purely and simply discrimatory to give the woman this option but not the man.

Biology is discriminatory. Go sue the biosystem.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-13 03:38pm

Eleas wrote:
innerbrat wrote:Eleas, are you really saying that a man has the right to force a woman to have an abortion?
No more than you're saying that a broken condom is tantamount to eighteen years of paid child support.

In the case of a broken condom, to use my tort analogy from before, he was not negligent, therefore I suppose he would have an argument to evade responsibility. However, if I fathered a child, however inadvertently, I would not shirk my responsibility. It appears I am a minority in that respect.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-13 04:21pm

Darth Wong wrote:[No one should ever be FORCED to have an abortion. This somehow strikes you as a silly assertion?
Yea yea her body...well half the kid is still the man's period, he should have some say.
Please by ALL means tell me where i said a woman should be forced into an abortion? I simply said that perhpas the person who is 50% responsable for the predictament happening and who is held responsable to the end result by the law, should have some say in the matter.

Maybe he should be careful whose pussy he sticks his dick into, then. All of these idiots and assholes who fuck somebody and then say later "she turned out to be a crazy bitch" obviously didn't look before they leaped. If you screw someone and have no idea what kind of person she is, who do you have to blame but yourself?
Maybe she should be careful who's dick she lets get put into her pussy. I love it how you blame men for unwanted pregnancies, im sorry but unless we are talking rape the woman could have either used the pill, a female condom, told the guy who didnt want to use a condom to drop dead, or any of a number of other things. The responsability for the use of contraceptives/entering into a sexual relationship falls EQUALLY on both sides.

Why? She's the one who's carrying the baby inside her body, it's her choice. If you disagree, you should think about that before screwing someone you don't know too well.

Yes she is carring HIS baby inside her body. Perhaps she should think about who she is having sex with before screwing with him too? What I am saying is plain and simple, I have no problem with women choosing to abort, in fact I am 100% pro-choice and have defended it repeatedly, what I DO have a problem with is that the woman can choose not to have to deal with the problems of raising/funding/taking care of a child, but that the man cannot chose to do the same thing. So she wants to have the kid fine, but as she could decide not to have to raise it and pay for it if she wants, the man should be able to decide not to have to raise it or pay child support too, by signing away all his rights, privilages, and responsabilites to the child, effectively making it as if the child was aborted from the legal stand point towards the male. This is only fair.

Biology is discriminatory. Go sue the biosystem.

Perhaps if you go back and read though my argument i am not blaming the biosystem, im blaming society for not giving the man a legally equivalent way out of dealing with a choice that BOTH made and went into knowing full well that Sex can = Babies.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-13 04:31pm

NapoleonGH wrote:Please by ALL means tell me where i said a woman should be forced into an abortion? I simply said that perhpas the person who is 50% responsable for the predictament happening and who is held responsable to the end result by the law, should have some say in the matter.

No, you are saying that if a woman gets pregnant, doesn't believe in abortion, and the man wants to walk away, he can just walk away. No strings attached.

Maybe she should be careful who's dick she lets get put into her pussy. I love it how you blame men for unwanted pregnancies, im sorry but unless we are talking rape the woman could have either used the pill, a female condom, told the guy who didnt want to use a condom to drop dead, or any of a number of other things. The responsability for the use of contraceptives/entering into a sexual relationship falls EQUALLY on both sides.

Yes, it falls equally on both sides. If the man doesn't do his share, then he must bears 50% responsibility for the resulting pregnancy, regardless of whether he agrees with her decision not to abort.

Yes she is carring HIS baby inside her body. Perhaps she should think about who she is having sex with before screwing with him too?

Of course. She will have to live with this. So will he.

What I am saying is plain and simple, I have no problem with women choosing to abort, in fact I am 100% pro-choice and have defended it repeatedly, what I DO have a problem with is that the woman can choose not to have to deal with the problems of raising/funding/taking care of a child, but that the man cannot chose to do the same thing.

Blame biology.

So she wants to have the kid fine, but as she could decide not to have to raise it and pay for it if she wants, the man should be able to decide not to have to raise it or pay child support too, by signing away all his rights, privilages, and responsabilites to the child, effectively making it as if the child was aborted from the legal stand point towards the male. This is only fair.

She can decide to terminate the fetus, in which case there is no baby and no responsibility. Only she has the power do this, since her body is supporting its existence. However, once the child is born, the responsibility exists and must be apportioned out.

Perhaps if you go back and read though my argument i am not blaming the biosystem, im blaming society for not giving the man a legally equivalent way out of dealing with a choice that BOTH made and went into knowing full well that Sex can = Babies.

Both made the decision, both can live with it. The woman has an unusual option available to her because she's the carrier; I don't see why the law should be skewed to create some kind of legal escape route into order to give a similar option to men when the option itself is purely biological in nature. Should we also make some kind of allowance for men because they can't breast-feed?

"We shall fight for your RIGHT to have babies, brother! Erm, sister!"

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-13 04:39pm

Nice python quote.

BUt regardless, no no need to blame biology, instead just give the man the option to loose his rights and privilages to the kid. The woman can even shirk her responsabilities towards the kid AFTER it is born by putting it up for adoption, many times without paternal consent. Furthermore, im saying that the man give up all rights to the child long before it is born, within the same time scale as we allow abortions to take place, thus he has no responsabilities OR rights to it, regardless of whether it was aborted. A woman has the currently unique right to decide, hey kid or no kid?. The man likewise should have the same choice, kid or no kid? Since the man cannot abort it himself, he could remove his rights to it and sign them away.

Biology isnt the issue here, the fact is that we are only discussing the law, as the law can determine whether or not a woman has the right to have an abortion anyway. AS it is now abortions are allowed by the law, the woman is legally allowed to remove her responsabilities and rights to her child, incuding the responsability to take care of it (inutero as well as post birth). The man HAS no responsability to it inutero but he has the exact same responsabilities as the woman has towards it post birth. Why not allow him to take the exact same legal position as the woman and remove his rights and responsabilities towards his child?

Claiming this is an issue of biology is a red herring, this is an issue of law.

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2003-05-13 04:48pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Eleas wrote:
innerbrat wrote:Eleas, are you really saying that a man has the right to force a woman to have an abortion?
No more than you're saying that a broken condom is tantamount to eighteen years of paid child support.
In the case of a broken condom, to use my tort analogy from before, he was not negligent, therefore I suppose he would have an argument to evade responsibility. However, if I fathered a child, however inadvertently, I would not shirk my responsibility. It appears I am a minority in that respect.

--Everyone knows the risk of a condom breaking. I don't see how that changes anything. IMHO, the parties should agree ahead of time whether they want a child or not and what happens if things don't work out (e.g., she gets pregnant by accident). If this is done ahead of time then everything is spelled out in the agreement. If this is not done ahead of time then both parties are equally responsible for the screw up. No pun intended. Since the woman gets to decide whether or not to keep the baby she must also take on the burden of supporting the child by herself if the father does not want to be involved (minus what the abortion would have cost including emotional distress). If the father does want to be involved he gets joint custody and each party pays 1/2 the cost of raising the child. My point is that responsiblity lies equally on both parties not just on the father.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-13 04:55pm

Nova, i agree with you, except for two exceptions.

I would not say automatically that both should have to pay an equal amount for the child support in that one of them may have a crap job and only afford to give the child the quality that 10,000 dollars a year gives and the other could give more than 50,000 with the same burden. I would say both are responsable for providing for the kid, but the amount should be determined by capacity.

I also would throw away the modern and IMHO moronic stuff of "emotional distress" im sorry but that is simply a part of life that you could have emotional problems, and i dont see why anyone should have to pay for it.

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2003-05-13 05:09pm

NapoleonGH wrote:Nova, i agree with you, except for two exceptions.

I would not say automatically that both should have to pay an equal amount for the child support in that one of them may have a crap job and only afford to give the child the quality that 10,000 dollars a year gives and the other could give more than 50,000 with the same burden. I would say both are responsable for providing for the kid, but the amount should be determined by capacity.

I also would throw away the modern and IMHO moronic stuff of "emotional distress" im sorry but that is simply a part of life that you could have emotional problems, and i dont see why anyone should have to pay for it.

--On the first point, a child cost X amount of resources to raise. Both parties are equally responsible (for the sake of arguement). Therefore, both parties should pay 1/2X or owe the other party. If one party only has 1/4 of the rights for raising the kid (such as only visitation rights or something) then they should pay 1/4 the cost.
-On the second point, emotional distress is objectively verifiable and it is a significant cost that the woman cannot avoid. The man is 50% responsible for this and needs to pay up.

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2003-05-13 05:12pm

In circumstances i've seen both sides of feminism. I've the personal experience of having seen the effects of rape against a member of my family. However i've also seen a friend of mine accused of rape. He went home with a girl and when she thought about it the next day she cried rape. It went all the way to court and she fell apart on the stand. However my friend Paul now has it in his record that he has been charged and tried for rape. He's never worked since.

I've seen my older sister go through a messy divorce where by rightly or wrongly my estranged brother in law sees his own daughter for 2 hours every other weekend and he has to pay £150 a week for that prevlidge.

In my own experience i've been in the company of a Feminist who was happy to let me buy her drinks and dinner while she preached but when i mentioned sharing the bill she screamed in my face that that was unfair becuase she was a woman.

I work in a job, i'm a secretary where it's assumed i'm not as good at my job because i am a man.

All i'm saying here is there isn't sexual equality in the world yet. Not by a long shot. We're only human at the end of the day and it's natural to assume superiority for yourself and people who fall into the same categories as you.

PrinceofLowLight · Post by **PrinceofLowLight** » 2003-05-13 06:27pm

How about this: If the man doesn't want the kid, he leaves her with enough money for the safest abortion money can buy, and this MUST be within three months of the pregnancy (he has to make up his mind quick and not let the woman believe that she's going to be taken care of if she decides to have the kid). This relinquishes all legal responsibility to the kid.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-13 07:03pm

In my own experience i've been in the company of a Feminist who was happy to let me buy her drinks and dinner while she preached but when i mentioned sharing the bill she screamed in my face that that was unfair becuase she was a woman.

This is an example of the "all benefits, no responsibilities" mentality I've seen in a lot of ideological feminists; they want the privileges of what they perceive as "chivalry", but at the same time, they want to get away with behaving not at all like the sort of lady to whom chivalrous regard would normally be extended.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-05-13 07:10pm

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:
In my own experience i've been in the company of a Feminist who was happy to let me buy her drinks and dinner while she preached but when i mentioned sharing the bill she screamed in my face that that was unfair becuase she was a woman.
This is an example of the "all benefits, no responsibilities" mentality I've seen in a lot of ideological feminists; they want the privileges of what they perceive as "chivalry", but at the same time, they want to get away with behaving not at all like the sort of lady to whom chivalrous regard would normally be extended.

This also has a lot to do with the fact that women dn't tend to earn as much as men.
Now, I get taken out and wined and dined all the time, but we NEVER go Dutch. Rob usually pays because he's got a well paid job and I'm an impoverished student, but I get in my rounds/foot the bill occasionally. We don't don't keep tabs.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-13 07:22pm

I understand that aspect of it, Innerbrat. See, what I'm talking about is, well, I'll give you an example:

Let's say I take a girl out on a date. She wants me to pay for the movie. Of course! She wants me to pay for dinner! Sure! She wants me to open doors, walk on the street-side, pull out her chair, all the old-fashioned gentleman stuff. No problem, I can hack that. Nothing wrong here.

Now let's say she's verbally abusive most of the way through these events, and still expects them. That's about midrange into the "all benefits, no responsibilities" mentality.

Now let's say she expects these things, and it's not even a date. There's where a few girls I've met have been.

Nasty, nasty mentality, and I've seen it more times than I care to.

EvilGrey · Post by **EvilGrey** » 2003-05-13 08:31pm

^^^Maybe it's time to jump ship.

Ditch the bitch, make the switch!

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2003-05-13 08:32pm

Why are you dating verbally abusive women? Maybe these particular women have adopted feminism as their excuse to be thoughtless bitches, but that's says a lot more about them than it does the movement.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-05-13 08:36pm

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:Why are you dating verbally abusive women? Maybe these particular women have adopted feminism as their excuse to be thoughtless bitches, but that's says a lot more about them than it does the movement.

No, don't get the wrong idea... I don't date women like that, on purpose. I've been on a few dates where the woman turned out to be of the, "all benefits" mentality; they didn't get second dates.

beyond hope · Post by **beyond hope** » 2003-05-13 09:06pm

Radical Feminism, Andrea Dworkin ("all heterosexual intercourse is rape") style, is generally what people are talking about when they mention feminism getting "out of hand." Radical feminism is not about equality: in one of those ironies that's lost on the True Believers, radical feminism teaches all the age-old male chauvanist stereotypes about women. The only difference is that where the supposedly "gentler, weaker and more emotional disposition" of women was used to relegate them to second-class status in the past, radical feminists use these supposed traits to justify the promulgation of all manner of laws restricting men in an effort to "equalize" things. Men, they teach, are callous thugs out to abuse and take advantage of women every chance they get. Granted that's true of some men, but then there's no shortage of that type among women either.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-13 09:58pm

Nova Andromeda wrote:[--On the first point, a child cost X amount of resources to raise. Both parties are equally responsible (for the sake of arguement). Therefore, both parties should pay 1/2X or owe the other party. If one party only has 1/4 of the rights for raising the kid (such as only visitation rights or something) then they should pay 1/4 the cost.
-On the second point, emotional distress is objectively verifiable and it is a significant cost that the woman cannot avoid. The man is 50% responsible for this and needs to pay up.

Fact is then nova, if Bill Gates had a child with some random homeless woman, you would expect both of them to only pay 1000 dollars a year to maintain the child? No of course not. Have them each pay the same percent of their income it is equally fair and doesnt majorly f*ck over the child.

Ohh emotional distress, im sorry but that is just crap, seriously suck it up, "ohh im so sad, I never knew my father", seriously as darth wong has so aptly put it cry me a river, find some form of self worth and deal with it, not a big deal, what the f*ck should anyone care that person X never knew their father, and i gotta say that the entire concept of emotional distress is hogwash for people who are too damned insecure to deal with their own problems.

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2003-05-13 11:09pm

NapoleonGH wrote:
Nova Andromeda wrote:[--On the first point, a child cost X amount of resources to raise. Both parties are equally responsible (for the sake of arguement). Therefore, both parties should pay 1/2X or owe the other party. If one party only has 1/4 of the rights for raising the kid (such as only visitation rights or something) then they should pay 1/4 the cost.
-On the second point, emotional distress is objectively verifiable and it is a significant cost that the woman cannot avoid. The man is 50% responsible for this and needs to pay up.
Fact is then nova, if Bill Gates had a child with some random homeless woman, you would expect both of them to only pay 1000 dollars a year to maintain the child? No of course not. Have them each pay the same percent of their income it is equally fair and doesnt majorly f*ck over the child.

Ohh emotional distress, im sorry but that is just crap, seriously suck it up, "ohh im so sad, I never knew my father", seriously as darth wong has so aptly put it cry me a river, find some form of self worth and deal with it, not a big deal, what the f*ck should anyone care that person X never knew their father, and i gotta say that the entire concept of emotional distress is hogwash for people who are too damned insecure to deal with their own problems.

--In the Bill Gates senario I would only expect him to pay his share of the cost of raising the child (which is 50%). If child support were 10% of your income that would be tens of millions of dollars for Bill Gates which is clearly obscene! What makes you think his child is entitled to that much money let alone the mother? Children via his wife would not be entitled to anything close to that sum. Raising a child costs X amount. He should pay his share (perhaps 10-30k per year). Anything in addition is should be his choice. Do you also think rich people should also be punished more severly than poor people for crimes such as stealing one TV?
-On the emotional distress issue, I was referring to the emotional distress the woman will have from having to abort. This will vary acording to the timing of the abortion of course, but it is a real cost. Deal with it. Ignoring people's mental health is idiotic.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-13 11:42pm

Ohh get off it, she CHOOSES to get the abortion, if she gets emotionally distressed because of it, its her own damned fault and she bloody well should be paying for it out of her own pocket. If the man had any say in whether an aborition happens, then you MIGHT have a case. Otherwise you should cry me an even larger river.

And we arent talking about mental health, we are talking about emotional health. mental health, according to many definitions, only deals with mental problems with a definite physical cause, ie schizophrenia, alzheimers, bi-polar disorder. Not emotional distress.

Ohh So then as i said, if you say they should each only pay 50%, then once again you are screwing over a bunch of kids, one person is richer than the other, yet they pay the same amount, if you make the amount payed the maximum that can be afforded by the poorer parent, you then are giving the child a lower quality of life than should be provided. Basically if one parent has an income of 12,000 dollars a year the other is making 90k, and you say each should pay 4000 dollars a year to pay for the child, you have the child getting only 8000 dollars a year worth of being raised, that is NOT equivalent to the proper cost of providing the child with a decent standard of living.

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2003-05-13 11:59pm

NapoleonGH wrote:Ohh get off it, she CHOOSES to get the abortion, if she gets emotionally distressed because of it, its her own damned fault and she bloody well should be paying for it out of her own pocket. If the man had any say in whether an aborition happens, then you MIGHT have a case. Otherwise you should cry me an even larger river.

And we arent talking about mental health, we are talking about emotional health. mental health, according to many definitions, only deals with mental problems with a definite physical cause, ie schizophrenia, alzheimers, bi-polar disorder. Not emotional distress.

Ohh So then as i said, if you say they should each only pay 50%, then once again you are screwing over a bunch of kids, one person is richer than the other, yet they pay the same amount, if you make the amount payed the maximum that can be afforded by the poorer parent, you then are giving the child a lower quality of life than should be provided. Basically if one parent has an income of 12,000 dollars a year the other is making 90k, and you say each should pay 4000 dollars a year to pay for the child, you have the child getting only 8000 dollars a year worth of being raised, that is NOT equivalent to the proper cost of providing the child with a decent standard of living.

--Yes, she chooses to get an abortion, but that is the least costly alternative and part of that cost is emotional distress. Furthermore, mental health is dependant on emotional well being. Depression severly inhibits a person's ability to be productive and in some cases it kills or didn't you know that? Perhaps you would like to ignore that fact instead?
-I don't understand why you think a parent shouldn't go into debt to either the other parent or to the gov. to pay for the cost of raising the child. Let me repeat it yet again. Raising a child costs X dollars. Each parent is responsible for .5X dollars. If one parent doesn't make that much then they should be forced into debt for it (either to the gov. or to the other parent if that parent can afford it). This is applicable for any child BTW. If the parent's can't afford it out of pocket they should be forced into debt to pay for child rearing basics (which can be objectively determined) since no child should be left out in the cold regardless of how they came into the world.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-14 12:34am

[quote="Nova Andromeda--Yes, she chooses to get an abortion, but that is the least costly alternative and part of that cost is emotional distress. Furthermore, mental health is dependant on emotional well being. Depression severly inhibits a person's ability to be productive and in some cases it kills or didn't you know that? Perhaps you would like to ignore that fact instead?
-I don't understand why you think a parent shouldn't go into debt to either the other parent or to the gov. to pay for the cost of raising the child. Let me repeat it yet again. Raising a child costs X dollars. Each parent is responsible for .5X dollars. If one parent doesn't make that much then they should be forced into debt for it (either to the gov. or to the other parent if that parent can afford it). This is applicable for any child BTW. If the parent's can't afford it out of pocket they should be forced into debt to pay for child rearing basics (which can be objectively determined) since no child should be left out in the cold regardless of how they came into the world.[/quote]

As i said, many definitions of mental health wont even include any depression beyond major depression, which that wouldnt qualify. basically anything that is caused by external factors isnt a mental health problem, non-major depression undoubtably so. Basically a REAL mental health problem is one that is caused by internal physical factors, I already gave examples, certain forms of depression qualify in this area too. Emotional Distress is no mental illness, it means that you have emotions that you have to deal with, nothing more or less. It is all part of the whole new age, lets get therapy for every little problem in our lives, mentality. and quite simply i wont buy into any subjective mental illness. And damned right its subjective, it is based on someone's subjective interpretation of their emotions, and then someone else's subjective interpretation of their interpretation of their emotions.

Case in point, my aunt was pulling out of her driveway and hit a car that was driving down the street causing very mild damage (we are talking under 10 MPH). The woman she hit sued her for causing you guessed it "emotional distress" becuase of being hit. that woman won the case. Emotional distress is no more of a mental illness then Teen Angst.

I really would say that nothing that is a real mental illness can be caused by any external factors, must be something the physically effects neurochemistry directly.

Furthermore, im sorry but the woman has the choice whether to have an abortion or not, she chose whether or not to use an effective form of birth control, she can choose whether or not to have the abortion. If making that choice leaves her with regrets, let her pay any problems out of it.

So then people shhould go into debt which they can never hope to even come close to repaying? How are you going to collect? we dont have debtors prison or indentured servitude. Inorder to go into debt, you have to have something to offer in case you default and cannot make your repayments, it is called "collateral" in my example the person has no collateral.