Why do women want gender equality in the workplace, but not in dating?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Tiger Rag
How have we got from women supposedly only wanting equality / rights when it suits to abortion?
We have to face it - what women expect in dating does not fit with the notion of gender equality. Women must share equally the responsibilities in dating, not expect men to do everything. This is what true equality means.
Original post by Dominoes
if you look at this right
https://i.redd.it/ftft63cs2n3z.jpg
lets be 100 women dont deserve to complain
shut the **** up and sit down feminists
https://i.redd.it/ftft63cs2n3z.jpg
lets be 100 women dont deserve to complain
shut the **** up and sit down feminists
Men (by and large) still do all the physically demanding jobs and had to go to war to defend our country.
Women in 1st world western society are just as equal as men. They are privileged (in many cases over-privileged) and not "oppressed" as many would have you think. In 3rd world or middle east, sure women are still treated as second class citizens. But in the UK? Absolute rubbish! You have all the same rights as men, plus more.
Ann Widdecombe speaks sense on the issue of feminism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rccJRR9qrgY
Right at the beginning, she says "we do rather better than the men". She brands these women's marches for equality absolutely pathetic, because she can see women are equal to men (and in many cases, have significant advantages over men eg. court cases, marriage, children).
Original post by cherryred90s
But if you’ve elected to be put on the organ donor list, that means that you are willing and able to assist in such a situation, so how are they not dependent on them? If person A had decided to donate their kidney, wouldn’t person B thank them with something along the lines of ‘you saved my life’ ? Sounds pretty dependent to me.
A pregnant woman’s baby is only dependent on her until birth, not a few years afterwards.
For a perfect donor who refuses to donate their kidney, they too essentially have the final say between life and death of a helpless individual. Why is that not an issue for you?
Do you still believe that we shouldn’t be able to do what we want with our own bodies if someone’s life is at risk?
A pregnant woman’s baby is only dependent on her until birth, not a few years afterwards.
For a perfect donor who refuses to donate their kidney, they too essentially have the final say between life and death of a helpless individual. Why is that not an issue for you?
Do you still believe that we shouldn’t be able to do what we want with our own bodies if someone’s life is at risk?
I believe that pregnant mothers do not have a right to end the lives of their unborn children.
Being on the donor list is a massive deal and if someone gets on the list, then they have to go through with the donation imo.
The argument you are making, i think, is for someone who wants to donate a kidney and then refuses to do so. That is the same argument with a surrogate mother, who wants to donate her womb for pregnancy and then refuses to before conception. This is very different to a woman, who is already pregnant and then decides against it and kills the child.
If you look at it from a purely contract view, she broke the contract and deserves to pay with time in prison or her life. You cannot enter a contractual situation through having sex and then cancel the contract. In commercial law, i think you will probably be liable.
To your point, the potential donor is not responsible for the patient’s life until he accepts to do it. Once he does, then he is responsible. A woman is not responsible for any child until she gets pregnant, then she is responsible for the well-being of the unborn child.
Even after birth, she is still responsible as a parent for a child. The only case is where she decides to remove her legal responsibility by offering the child for adoption or to the state through the care system. It is only when the child is a legal adult that a parent’s responsibility ends.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Wired_1800
I believe that pregnant mothers do not have a right to end the lives of their unborn children.
Being on the donor list is a massive deal and if someone gets on the list, then they have to go through with the donation imo.
The argument you are making, i think, is for someone who wants to donate a kidney and then refuses to do so. That is the same argument with a surrogate mother, who wants to donate her womb for pregnancy and then refuses to before conception. This is very different to a woman, who is already pregnant and then decides against it and kills the child.
If you look at it from a purely contract view, she broke the contract and deserves to pay with time in prison or her life. You cannot enter a contractual situation through having sex and then cancel the contract. In commercial law, i think you will probably be liable.
To your point, the potential donor is not responsible for the patient’s life until he accepts to do it. Once he does, then he is responsible. A woman is not responsible for any child until she gets pregnant, then she is responsible for the well-being of the unborn child.
Even after birth, she is still responsible as a parent for a child. The only case is where she decides to remove her legal responsibility by offering the child for adoption or to the state through the care system. It is only when the child is a legal adult that a parent’s responsibility ends.
Being on the donor list is a massive deal and if someone gets on the list, then they have to go through with the donation imo.
The argument you are making, i think, is for someone who wants to donate a kidney and then refuses to do so. That is the same argument with a surrogate mother, who wants to donate her womb for pregnancy and then refuses to before conception. This is very different to a woman, who is already pregnant and then decides against it and kills the child.
If you look at it from a purely contract view, she broke the contract and deserves to pay with time in prison or her life. You cannot enter a contractual situation through having sex and then cancel the contract. In commercial law, i think you will probably be liable.
To your point, the potential donor is not responsible for the patient’s life until he accepts to do it. Once he does, then he is responsible. A woman is not responsible for any child until she gets pregnant, then she is responsible for the well-being of the unborn child.
Even after birth, she is still responsible as a parent for a child. The only case is where she decides to remove her legal responsibility by offering the child for adoption or to the state through the care system. It is only when the child is a legal adult that a parent’s responsibility ends.
It’s a foetus not a “child”.
An unborn being does not have a life. Life comes after birth.
Original post by Waldorf67
It’s a foetus not a “child”.
An unborn being does not have a life. Life comes after birth.
An unborn being does not have a life. Life comes after birth.
What? Life comes after birth? Are you serious? So when your mother was pregnant with you, you were a stone and magically had life when you were born. Yet another justification for murder.
Original post by snowman77
We got to this because loveleest had no argument for why she wants men to chase her and ask her out (i.e. given preferential treatment), but still expect to be treated equal in other areas. She kept repeatedly dodging the point, instead arguing about something else.
We have to face it - what women expect in dating does not fit with the notion of gender equality. Women must share equally the responsibilities in dating, not expect men to do everything. This is what true equality means.
We have to face it - what women expect in dating does not fit with the notion of gender equality. Women must share equally the responsibilities in dating, not expect men to do everything. This is what true equality means.
Sigh, I am not going to stick up/feel bad for men that feel scared to approach/to talk to women. it's odd.
Original post by Wired_1800
I believe that pregnant mothers do not have a right to end the lives of their unborn children.
Being on the donor list is a massive deal and if someone gets on the list, then they have to go through with the donation imo.
The argument you are making, i think, is for someone who wants to donate a kidney and then refuses to do so. That is the same argument with a surrogate mother, who wants to donate her womb for pregnancy and then refuses to before conception. This is very different to a woman, who is already pregnant and then decides against it and kills the child.
If you look at it from a purely contract view, she broke the contract and deserves to pay with time in prison or her life. You cannot enter a contractual situation through having sex and then cancel the contract. In commercial law, i think you will probably be liable.
To your point, the potential donor is not responsible for the patient’s life until he accepts to do it. Once he does, then he is responsible. A woman is not responsible for any child until she gets pregnant, then she is responsible for the well-being of the unborn child.
Even after birth, she is still responsible as a parent for a child. The only case is where she decides to remove her legal responsibility by offering the child for adoption or to the state through the care system. It is only when the child is a legal adult that a parent’s responsibility ends.
Being on the donor list is a massive deal and if someone gets on the list, then they have to go through with the donation imo.
The argument you are making, i think, is for someone who wants to donate a kidney and then refuses to do so. That is the same argument with a surrogate mother, who wants to donate her womb for pregnancy and then refuses to before conception. This is very different to a woman, who is already pregnant and then decides against it and kills the child.
If you look at it from a purely contract view, she broke the contract and deserves to pay with time in prison or her life. You cannot enter a contractual situation through having sex and then cancel the contract. In commercial law, i think you will probably be liable.
To your point, the potential donor is not responsible for the patient’s life until he accepts to do it. Once he does, then he is responsible. A woman is not responsible for any child until she gets pregnant, then she is responsible for the well-being of the unborn child.
Even after birth, she is still responsible as a parent for a child. The only case is where she decides to remove her legal responsibility by offering the child for adoption or to the state through the care system. It is only when the child is a legal adult that a parent’s responsibility ends.
Having sex isn’t signing a contract to be pregnant. I doubt many people who are trying to have a baby will get an abortion unless it’s medically necessary.
People can get pregnant even if they use contraception, they can get pregnant through rape, they can get pregnant through being a reckless teenager and not using protection. None of these people signed a contract to be a parent by having sex, and are often making the best decision for themself and their potential child, that they are not ready, equipped or willing to have.
People have sex mostly for enjoyment, most of the time it isn’t an act that people engage in to get pregnant. So terminating an unexpected or unwanted pregnancy breaks no such contract.
Original post by cat_mac
Having sex isn’t signing a contract to be pregnant. I doubt many people who are trying to have a baby will get an abortion unless it’s medically necessary.
People can get pregnant even if they use contraception, they can get pregnant through rape, they can get pregnant through being a reckless teenager and not using protection. None of these people signed a contract to be a parent by having sex, and are often making the best decision for themself and their potential child, that they are not ready, equipped or willing to have.
People have sex mostly for enjoyment, most of the time it isn’t an act that people engage in to get pregnant. So terminating an unexpected or unwanted pregnancy breaks no such contract.
People can get pregnant even if they use contraception, they can get pregnant through rape, they can get pregnant through being a reckless teenager and not using protection. None of these people signed a contract to be a parent by having sex, and are often making the best decision for themself and their potential child, that they are not ready, equipped or willing to have.
People have sex mostly for enjoyment, most of the time it isn’t an act that people engage in to get pregnant. So terminating an unexpected or unwanted pregnancy breaks no such contract.
When you engage in sexual intercourse, there is a social contract that is signed. You would be aware that you can get pregnant, contracting sexually transmitted diseases etc. The issue is that many people do not see it as that anymore. They like to use the phrase “sex is just sex” to try to normalise and downplay the significance of it.
There is a saying that “if you do not want to raise a child, do not have sex”.
This is the reason why if a man has sex with a woman and the woman has the child, the state still demands he supports the child through child and parental support.
Well to me some of those things in the relationships paragraph have to do with being a chivalrous gentleman, like paying for meals and holding open the door, but other things I completely agree on, like approaching someone you're attracted to and sharing household chores. I think gender equality comes with a lot of downsides, but women only seem to be interested in the parts of equality that benefit themselves, like equal pay.
Original post by loveleest
Sigh, I am not going to stick up/feel bad for men that feel scared to approach/to talk to women. it's odd.
Equality doesn't mean absolving all women of difficult responsibilities and forcing men to do it instead.
Original post by snowman77
Equality means equality in everything. Which means both genders should be sharing equal responsibility in absolutely everything.
Equality doesn't mean absolving all women of difficult responsibilities and forcing men to do it instead.
Equality doesn't mean absolving all women of difficult responsibilities and forcing men to do it instead.
Erm well when women get paid equally, women hold the top institutions, men stop slut shaming us, men stop abusing us then I will start approaching- because we will be equal
Original post by loveleest
Erm well when women get paid equally, women hold the top institutions, men stop slut shaming us, men stop abusing us then I will start approaching- because we will be equal
- There is equal opportunity for women to get to top positions. Just because there are fewer women in top positions doesn't mean they are discriminated against. Most likely reason is because women choose not to pursue them and/or decide to take time out to have kids.
- It's easy for women to sleep with lots of men. People in general (men and women) don't have respect for things which require little to no effort.
- Abuse happens to men as well as women. Abuse is carried out by nasty people in general, not just men. There are plenty of nice, kind men out there. It's your choice whether you hang around them or hang around the ****heads.
This is before we even consider all the difficulties men experience in society. Men experience a mixture of overlapping + different problem to women, that are just as serious.
But of course, for feminists, it's only women's problems that are the issue, not men's. Screw men, they just need to man up and deal with it.
Original post by Wired_1800
When you engage in sexual intercourse, there is a social contract that is signed. You would be aware that you can get pregnant, contracting sexually transmitted diseases etc. The issue is that many people do not see it as that anymore. They like to use the phrase “sex is just sex” to try to normalise and downplay the significance of it.
There is a saying that “if you do not want to raise a child, do not have sex”.
This is the reason why if a man has sex with a woman and the woman has the child, the state still demands he supports the child through child and parental support.
There is a saying that “if you do not want to raise a child, do not have sex”.
This is the reason why if a man has sex with a woman and the woman has the child, the state still demands he supports the child through child and parental support.
That’s your opinion, in reality there is no ‘social contract’. Especially if the two consenting adults use contraception.
The idea that sex is only for creating a child is outdated and luckily no longer stands in modern culture. Yay orgasms!
You manage to avoid the rape point every time it is brought up, that’s certainly not agreeing to have a child. Using contraception is not agreeing to having a child. Engaging in sex, whether you like it or not, is NOT agreeing to have a child.
If you personally only have sex to conceive, that’s fine. If you tell people they’re murders and should go to prison for terminating an unexpected and unwanted pregnancy, that’s nowhere near fine. You’re entitled to your opinion but don’t expect kind words or ‘agree to disagree’ when you judge people to your personal moral standards.
Original post by Wired_1800
I believe that pregnant mothers do not have a right to end the lives of their unborn children...
But they do have that right according to UK law and, no doubt, according to the majority of citizens. The point at which a foetus becomes a 'child' is debatable, but for many it is not until there is the possibility of physiologically independent life that the latter term becomes meaningful.
Original post by snowman77
- It's illegal to have 2 different rates of pay for the same job
- There is equal opportunity for women to get to top positions. Just because there are fewer women in top positions doesn't mean they are discriminated against. Most likely reason is because women choose not to pursue them and/or decide to take time out to have kids.
- It's easy for women to sleep with lots of men. People in general (men and women) don't have respect for things which require little to no effort.
- Abuse happens to men as well as women. Abuse is carried out by nasty people in general, not just men. There are plenty of nice, kind men out there. It's your choice whether you hang around them or hang around the ****heads.
This is before we even consider all the difficulties men experience in society. Men experience a mixture of overlapping + different problem to women, that are just as serious.
But of course, for feminists, it's only women's problems that are the issue, not men's. Screw men, they just need to man up and deal with it.
- There is equal opportunity for women to get to top positions. Just because there are fewer women in top positions doesn't mean they are discriminated against. Most likely reason is because women choose not to pursue them and/or decide to take time out to have kids.
- It's easy for women to sleep with lots of men. People in general (men and women) don't have respect for things which require little to no effort.
- Abuse happens to men as well as women. Abuse is carried out by nasty people in general, not just men. There are plenty of nice, kind men out there. It's your choice whether you hang around them or hang around the ****heads.
This is before we even consider all the difficulties men experience in society. Men experience a mixture of overlapping + different problem to women, that are just as serious.
But of course, for feminists, it's only women's problems that are the issue, not men's. Screw men, they just need to man up and deal with it.
- No, men are just more likely to hold positions in top institutions. Why are men more likely to become headteachers than women?
- Well, that's not us women fault wtf? THAT DOES NOT JUSTIFY SLUT SHAMING. Maybe if men decided to have higher standards when it comes to casual sex then it would be harder for women. Even then women have to still have a hard time. (dress nice, hair makeup etc)
- Every week two women in the UK are killed by an abusive partner. We are more likely to be sexually abused.
(edited 6 years ago)
"All men do this"
"Not all men"
"Don't mansplain to me, honey"
------------------------------------------------
"All women do this"
"Not all women, you misogynist."
Both are stupid.
"Not all men"
"Don't mansplain to me, honey"
------------------------------------------------
"All women do this"
"Not all women, you misogynist."
Both are stupid.
Original post by username3750700
I can guarantee every guy upvoting this crap is ugly.
If women dont want you, then they have every right to turn you down. Stop feeling so entitled you neckbearded idiots.
If women dont want you, then they have every right to turn you down. Stop feeling so entitled you neckbearded idiots.
Yeah, I got the impression that the whiners in this thread and the others upvoting them are the usual "nice guys" who feel that women owe them for the fact that these so called ''nice guys'' view them as trophies and properties, mere notches on the bedpost. These people are the farthest thing from actual ''nice guys'', who actually tend to get romantic partners and often stay happily in relationships for years.
True nice guys are not the trilby-wearing, patronising and creepy neckbeards who use terms like "ma'am" or "m'lady" and expect women to throw themselves at them, nice guys are men who treat women like individual human beings and equals.
Original post by loveleest
- No, men are just more likely to hold positions in top institutions. Why are men more likely to become headteachers than women?
- Well, that's not us women fault wtf? THAT DOES NOT JUSTIFY SLUT SHAMING. Maybe if men decided to have higher standards when it comes to casual sex then it would be harder for women. Even then women have to still have a hard time. (dress nice, hair makeup etc)
- Every week two women in the UK are killed by an abusive partner. We are more likely to be sexually abused.
- Well, that's not us women fault wtf? THAT DOES NOT JUSTIFY SLUT SHAMING. Maybe if men decided to have higher standards when it comes to casual sex then it would be harder for women. Even then women have to still have a hard time. (dress nice, hair makeup etc)
- Every week two women in the UK are killed by an abusive partner. We are more likely to be sexually abused.
It's actually white working class men who are the one of most disadvantaged groups in society. They are least likely to go to university and get good paying jobs. But you don't hear feminists talk about this, I wonder why?
- Men have higher sex drives than women. This is a biological fact, you can't get around it. From this stems different attitudes to sex among men and women. When you have all this surplus male sex drive in society, then it becomes frightfully easy for a woman to get laid as much as she wants.
Lets say it was the other way around - women had higher sex drives. Now if men slept around, they would be the ones who aren't respected. Get the point?
Makeup and clothes is time consuming, but I wouldn't call it difficult. Men also need to get ready before going out, it's not an issue only women face. You over-estimate how much men even care about looks anyway. There is diminishing returns to looking good in terms of attracting men. Most of the pressure women have for looks comes from other women.
- Well that's unfortunate and I'm sorry to hear, but that doesn't mean male sexual assault and rape victims should be treated with any less severity. Plus if you hang around and marry decent, kind men, you should generally avoid this. There are so many nice, kind, honest men out there who get overlooked by women for ****heads and abusers. If you're a good judge of character, such problems should be avoided. If you want to go out with the "badboy" because of a sexual thrill, don't come crying when later down the line, he cheats and abuses you.
Don't get me wrong - sexual abuse is wrong and men should be punished if they do it. But also don't put yourself in situations where it could potentially happen.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Wired_1800
I believe that pregnant mothers do not have a right to end the lives of their unborn children.
Wasn’t the question.
Do you still believe that we do not have the right to do what we want with our own bodies where someone else’s life is at risk?
Because if you do believe this then shouldn’t we all be placed on the donor list against our wishes?
Being on the donor list is a massive deal and if someone gets on the list, then they have to go through with the donation imo.
So should they get life imprisonment for murder if they refuse and the person dies because they couldn’t find another donor in time?
The argument you are making, i think, is for someone who wants to donate a kidney and then refuses to do so. That is the same argument with a surrogate mother, who wants to donate her womb for pregnancy and then refuses to before conception. This is very different to a woman, who is already pregnant and then decides against it and kills the child.
Well no because if it’s before conception, nobody will die if she changes her mind.
Now had conception already occurred and she then refused to have the fertilised eggs implanted into her womb then wouldn’t she be a murderer in your pro life view? Life imprisonment for her too?
If you look at it from a purely contract view, she broke the contract and deserves to pay with time in prison or her life. You cannot enter a contractual situation through having sex and then cancel the contract. In commercial law, i think you will probably be liable.
She accepts responsibility for the possibility of pregnancy/STDs as a result of her negligence sure but she didn’t sign up to endure a pregnancy, risk her life in the process or become a mother for the rest of her life.
To your point, the potential donor is not responsible for the patient’s life until he accepts to do it. Once he does, then he is responsible. A woman is not responsible for any child until she gets pregnant, then she is responsible for the well-being of the unborn child.
Don’t you accept to donate your organ when you put yourself on the list? That means that (according to you, fortunately the law doesn’t agree) if anyone is in desperate need for a donor, you have to give it to them. Even if you change your mind, you no longer have the right to keep your own kidney. It doesn’t matter if you have new medical conditions that could worsen as a result of the kidney transplant. You should be forced to risk the dangers of surgery and if you die as a result despite you not wanting to do it in the first place, so be it. Nobody will be held responsible for your death. You shouldn’t have put yourself on the list. RIP.
Original post by Axiomasher
But they do have that right according to UK law and, no doubt, according to the majority of citizens. The point at which a foetus becomes a 'child' is debatable, but for many it is not until there is the possibility of physiologically independent life that the latter term becomes meaningful.
This is a debate. Of course abortion is legal in the UK. This discussion is not about legality.
We both disagree on this point. Life begins at conception and not birth.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
