(February 25, 2016 at 7:44 am)pool the great Wrote: I would appreciate it if someone could elaborate on how consent to sex is the same as consent to parenting....o.O

Well, anytime a man and a woman engage in intercourse, and the woman is able to get pregnant, they run the risk of conceiving. There are ways to mitigate the chances such as using more than one form of birth control. If they choose not to use anything, full well knowing what the risks are, then essentially they are putting themselves in a position of conceiving. However, BOTH parties would have to agree. An exception to this would be in the case of a rape. If one party forces sex on the other (and yes, a man can be raped, IMO), then there is no consent. Another example would be a person taking advantage of a disabled (mentally, in this example) person who is unable to make such decisions. While the disabled person may want to have sex, they may not fully uunderstand the risks involved. In both examples, at least one party either isn't consenting or isn't capable of understanding what the end result could be. If they don't consent or are unable to understand this, then they obviously don't agree to become a parent.

(February 25, 2016 at 11:41 am)Nymphadora Wrote:

(February 25, 2016 at 11:13 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Lol. It's just as bad as when women refer to their menstrual cycles as "aunt flow." I hate pregnancy forums...*grumble*

I use Aunt Flo because my teenage daughter doesn't want her brothers knowing that it's that time of the month. For her it makes her feel better thinking we're talking in code.

Sure, and when children are involved that is of course appropriate. [emoji846]. I'm talking about these grown women who are on pregnancy messages boards talking to each other like that. That's when it grinds my gears!

My experience of Mumsnet (searching for hot Milfs Obvs) is that they tend to be more extreme than even race supremacy groups, sometimes.

I don't consider myself a diehard feminist but ..
In my opinion, our society is slightly sexist - portraying women as weak and inferior to men. Women are just as good as men(perhaps better)and anyone that thinks otherwise is sexist scum. Furthermore, it is degrading to women for the law system to have men pay them support. We aren't living in the 80s, it's 2016, women are capable of standing tall by themselves without men "supporting" them financially or otherwise. Of all the women i've known my entire life perhaps 2 of them didn't have a job, all the other women had highly respectable jobs - more women should be like them - strong and independent. More women should refuse to take "support" from men and illustrate that they are just as good as men. I really wish this sexist society would stop bringing women down - portraying them as weak and inferior to men in need of "support from men".

To be fair the support isn't for them.

(February 25, 2016 at 12:33 pm)pool the great Wrote:

---

I don't consider myself a diehard feminist but ..
In my opinion, our society is slightly sexist - portraying women as weak and inferior to men. Women are just as good as men(perhaps better)and anyone that thinks otherwise is sexist scum. Furthermore, it is degrading to women for the law system to have men pay them support. We aren't living in the 80s, it's 2016, women are capable of standing tall by themselves without men "supporting" them financially or otherwise. Of all the women i've known my entire life perhaps 2 of them didn't have a job, all the other women had highly respectable jobs - more women should be like them - strong and independent. More women should refuse to take "support" from men and illustrate that they are just as good as men. I really wish this sexist society would stop bringing women down - portraying them as weak and inferior to men in need of "support from men".

---

Also, you're ignoring the institutional sexism that results from male privilege: women are (on average and when compared to men in the same job/role, with only a couple of exceptions) paid less, less likely to be hired in to secure roles, less likely to be promoted and less likely to be able to rise to as high a rank as their male counterparts. Given that disparity, it's acceptable to me, overall, that there might be an generalised expectation that men would pay more of the upkeep however I would expect a case-by-case assessment of earnings and for maintenance payments to be set fairly, according to circumstances.

(February 25, 2016 at 12:33 pm)pool the great Wrote: I don't consider myself a diehard feminist but ..
In my opinion, our society is slightly sexist - portraying women as weak and inferior to men. Women are just as good as men(perhaps better)and anyone that thinks otherwise is sexist scum. Furthermore, it is degrading to women for the law system to have men pay them support. We aren't living in the 80s, it's 2016, women are capable of standing tall by themselves without men "supporting" them financially or otherwise. Of all the women i've known my entire life perhaps 2 of them didn't have a job, all the other women had highly respectable jobs - more women should be like them - strong and independent. More women should refuse to take "support" from men and illustrate that they are just as good as men. I really wish this sexist society would stop bringing women down - portraying them as weak and inferior to men in need of "support from men".

There's a problem that has been overlooked though. Not all women can (or should be) lumped into the same category. Families come in all shapes and sizes. If you have a mother, who has had the opportunity to stay at home with the kids for several years, while her partner works and is able to comfortably provide so that mom can stay at home, then that scenario is entirely different than the family that has both parents working and living paycheck to paycheck. Suppose the SAHM finds her spouse cheated on her and leaves the marriage or suppose the cheating spouse just walks away from the marriage himself. She's never held a job other than to be a parent so she has no reasonable job skills that would permit her to maintain the lifestyle her children have grown accustomed to. Factor in the number of kids and their ages and now you may have to consider that she now has to find daycare for her kids while she works a minimum wage job. If her husband, according to your ideas, doesn't have to abide by any financial responsibility towards kids they have, then Mom is going to find it very difficult to not only pay for living expenses, but daycare as well. This isbnearly impossible to do on a minimum wage job without some sort of government assistance. Why should dad get out of any sort of financial responsibility when both of the parents chose to have the children in the first place?

The only difference is, see, and this is again, going back to the original issue, is if one parent is willing to fully assume all responsibilities while the other parent signs away their rights entirely. The parent who keeps the kids, would ideally be financially capable of supporting the kids on their own.

Unfortunately that is not everyone's circumstance and not everyone is able to do just that. Nor is that what everyone wants.

There are just too many variables to consider and suggesting that a parent can just be absolved of any sort of financial responsibility to provide for their child is illogical. We don't live in a society where families are all cut from the same cloth. They aren't like the houses you see in the suburbs where every house is the same on every street in the neighborhood.

For what it's worth, there are plenty of women who pay child support because the man has more time or custody of the kids or it happens that her income is higher than his. Paying support FOR the kids shouldn't always rest on one parent unless their circumstances warrant it.

(February 25, 2016 at 11:25 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(February 25, 2016 at 11:21 am)Whateverist the White Wrote: Okay, I'll bite.  What is your favorite euphemism for pregnancy?  Personally I like "great with child" but "in the family way" and (dare I say it?) preggers is right up there.

Lol!  Ugh, they are all so terrible!  I've never heard of "in the family way."  That one is pretty annoying.  I also don't like it when the man says "we're pregnant."  I mean, for fuck's sake!

Exactly.  We sank the basket; it isn't as though we are the basket, right?

(February 25, 2016 at 12:33 pm)pool the great Wrote: We aren't living in the 80s, ..

Oh geez, does anyone else remember thinking of the 80's as the future.  As in the novel 1984.  Hell even 2001 is in our rear view mirror now.  Hey, you kids quit running through my future so fast!  

@bendavis,
I would agree with you if you were right. But you are not. I know it's hard to swallow but you really aren't. The wage gap is a myth and all your other assertions are the equivalent of saying there aren't many dwarfs in executive positions and hence there is a discrimination against dwarfs. Your logic really isn't sound, i hope you figure it out...