Feminism

Anon or delete

Yeah so, feminism? They claim to be for equal rights but what about them not speaking out for (as we have seen today on TSR) the retierment age, the courts casual sexism towards men in children's cases, divorce, rape ect, car insurance (regardless of statistics) and paternity leave.

Another point I would like to bring up is abortions. I know it's a touchy subject but it HAS to be discussed. If a women gets pregnant she can terminate it if she pleases (And is knowingly aware of the physical and emotional side-effects). Yet a father has no right to this? Why is that? the child is 50% his. I propose a "Paternal abortion". Which would be a contract a father signs, which is in effect an abortion. It wouldn't really terminate the pregnancy, but it would strip the father of all legal and financial responsibility for the child. Women can do it when they please so why must a father (if he doesn't want the child) have to have his life screwed up when a women can choose wheather or not to have hers screwed up?

Thats hardly equal.

How can feminists claim to be equal? They are sexist towards men by NOT campaigning for these.

One of my friends volenteers as a Trauma Center and one of the projects he was working on was creating a male only trauma group. The center already have a women only one by the way. Yet when he called up a few hospitals the female receptionists claimed that a male only group was 'bad', 'illegal' and 'immoral'. I would like to know why the hell some feminists feel this way?

How can they claim to promote equality when they go against men in these senses?

Disclaimer: *NOT ALL but a number of them are against men to some extent. Even if its that they don't campaign for rights of the father in court or other points I've brought up*

The whole concept of a group campaigning for equality through adopting a gendered perspective confounds me.

Seven_Three

as we already discussed, women have to fight for their rights before fighting for those of other people.

it's no use going against campaining for a cause by saying OMG but what about us?! that's not the point. for example, black people campaining against racial discrimination, you wouldn't say "yeah but whites are also discriminated against, are they?". No, because in history it was black people getting all the stick, not whites. The same as women get all the stick, and not men.

No, there is a distinct difference. Black people haven't campaigned to have a compulsory quota of MPs, for example. Women have (argued at 40%, which Spain already has) - though their plan of course didn't also extend to men also getting a compulsory 40%.

You may claim that this is to redress the balance in Parliament, true, but if this law were to come to pass, what may then happen is that the balance may skew the other way, and no feminist I have ever heard sounded particularly bothered about this happening. If they were truly equalitarians they would argue that both genders get a minimum quota of 40% each (and the remaining 20% is free to be either gender). If what you're saying is true, why don't they do this? Instead of women alone?

Using the Black civil rights movement is a flawed argument as they were fighting for equal rights, not extra rights, which is the modern priority of feminism.

This is a ridiculous suggestion, seeing as the vast majority of MP's are men anyway. It would mean that some male MP's would have to be sacked, with the excuse of "sorry, but we have exceeded the minimun quota of 40%".

I already covered that. Changing the law may lead to the balance skewing the other way - who knows? Either way, the fact that men don't currently need this law is completely irrelevant, it's the principle, you'd be giving women a right that men don't have. If you think that men will always have 40% representation in parliament, then why not give them the law too as a gesture, just to make sure? If you're right that men will always have good representation then you don't have anything to lose.

I can't believe the hypocrisy that you would support such an unreasonable change of the law - after you claimed that feminism fights for equality. Can't you see how this view contradicts that? You've just proved my point, feminists don't fight for equality, they fight to increase the rights of women with complete disregard for what men's rights are.

I already covered that. Changing the law may lead to the balance skewing the other way - who knows? Either way, the fact that men don't currently need this law is completely irrelevant, it's the principle, you'd be giving women a right that men don't have. If you think that men will always have 40% representation in parliament, then why not give them the law too as a gesture, just to make sure? If you're right that men will always have good representation then you don't have anything to lose.

I can't believe the hypocrisy that you would support such an unreasonable change of the law - after you claimed that feminism fights for equality. Can't you see how this view contradicts that? You've just proved my point, feminists don't fight for equality, they fight to increase the rights of women with complete disregard for what men's rights are.

It's pretty hard to disagree with this. Surely the logical thing to do would be to give both genders 40% representation, and then no one can complain about not being treated as equals. How can anyone disagree with that? If you disagree, you're supporting some form of prejudice, whether it be against man or woman.

Well it would certainly reduce the number of male MP's in parliament and balance the gender disparity. Looking at it from that perspective I suppose it would be a good thing.

But you don't just give laws as "a gesture", in order to keep both males and females happy and stop them from complaining, as you say. And whether men need such laws or not is totally relevant, how can you say otherwise?

But what happens if the woman gets raped and wishes to abort? How on earth would she go about doing that?
I'm not a feminist, in fact i'll even go on to say that they annoy me. I'm very content with the way things are now, but the abortion thing is a touchy subject for me. As the woman is the one carrying the baby for 9 months, has to give birth to the baby and breast feed it I do feel that she should have a choice on whether she wants to abort it or not.

The reason why women abort is because they feel that they are unable to raise a baby in their current circumstances. It's not an act of selfishness, it's the exact opposite!
Maybe if men were the ones who had to give birth then they'd understand!