Quote:Men do choose what to do with their bodies. They choose whether to have sex and whether to use a condom.

I'm sorry, and women don't? Women have the choice of not having sex with a man. Really, if a woman gets pregnant because a man does not use a condom, its the fault of the woman for not requesting it.

Quote: If a woman gets pregnant, why the hell should a man have anything to say about it?

Then a woman should not request any help from the man should she choose to give birth.

Quote:His only contribution was his sperm meeting an egg, which takes seconds.

Well, that's the only contribution needed. If you so belittle it, try to conceive without it.

Quote:The woman is the one who is burdened with a parasite for nine months.

I'd say that the man also is burdened with a similar parasite(the woman) when she is going through these nine months.

(January 31, 2014 at 10:39 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: These are all ills that the modern world has produced. The old world had already a good solution to all of these. Sex would happen in marriage, and the child that is born would be born into a family, where both parties had accepted the responsibility of having a child beforehand, no one would have to face such dilemmas.

The normalization of out-of wedlock relations have resulted in these things. They made life for both sexes much more complex than it was before.

No, actually, "the old world" didn't work quite so nicely. Women were little more than property to their husbands, whether he was an abusive asshole or not. That isn't exactly the situation I'd want to be in.

Also, there was sex before marriage, and before the twentieth century, it was common for men and women to live together, have sex with each other and sometimes even have children together long before they got married or had anyone officiate a marriage. Early in the 1900's, if women got pregnant out of wedlock, she simply went to stay with family out of state and gave the baby up for adoption.... whether she liked it or not. Again, not so great if you ask me.

Take off those rose tinted glasses, buddy.

(January 31, 2014 at 10:42 pm)TaraJo Wrote: What if the same claim were made about women? That women can choose wheter to have sex and whether to use birth control and, therefore, don't need abortion rights? Would you agree with that assessment? Why or why not?


Have you ever dealt with family courts? I have. He shouldn't be able to tell her she has to have an abortion, but he should be able to decide whether or not he wants to be involved in the childs life. Instead, family courts find him and force him to pay child support for the next 18 years, whther he wants to or not.

That claim would be erroneous because a woman does not always have a choice about whether she becomes pregnant. Sometimes she is raped, for example. In any case, pregnancy entails a 9-month sentence, an incredible burden, and anyone experiencing it should reasonably be able to terminate it.

Why shouldn't he be financially responsible as long as the child is a minor if he chooses to get a girl pregnant?

Quote:Have you ever dealt with family courts? I have. He shouldn't be able to tell her she has to have an abortion, but he should be able to decide whether or not he wants to be involved in the childs life. Instead, family courts find him and force him to pay child support for the next 18 years, whther he wants to or not.

Well, that is what a man should do. Being a man involves taking responsibilities. I personally would marry a woman if I had made her pregnant. Responsibilities come before personal happiness.
But under the present context, I totally agree with you.

(January 31, 2014 at 10:44 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote:

Quote:His only contribution was his sperm meeting an egg, which takes seconds.

Well, that's the only contribution needed. If you so belittle it, try to conceive without it.

You're not up on your biology, are you? Scientists have already developed a method of producing life through cloning that does not require male sperm at all. If we didn't live in such a theocracy, we would have tried this on humans by now.

Quote: That claim would be erroneous because a woman does not always have a choice about whether she becomes pregnant. Sometimes she is raped, for example. In any case, pregnancy entails a 9-month sentence, an incredible burden, and anyone experiencing it should reasonably be able to terminate it.

Why shouldn't he be financially responsible as long as the child is a minor if he chooses to get a girl pregnant?

Why are you so hostile towards pregnancies?
Besides, in the case of a consensual sexual relation, it is up to the girl to give the go.
Not the man. We look to the female for "consent" regarding sex, don't we?
Frankly, its very one sided, and I think that under this context, the whole responsibility should lie with the female who gave consent to the male.

---

(January 31, 2014 at 10:51 pm)futilethewinds Wrote:

(January 31, 2014 at 10:44 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: Well, that's the only contribution needed. If you so belittle it, try to conceive without it.

You're not up on your biology, are you? Scientists have already developed a method of producing life through cloning that does not require male sperm at all. If we didn't live in such a theocracy, we would have tried this on humans by now.

Indeed, that surely would be a great victory for the feminist struggle. You surely would be able to raise your glorious feminist liberation army in underground spawning labs without needing the sperm of us evil, evil males.
Though really, don't change the subject.

(January 31, 2014 at 10:47 pm)futilethewinds Wrote: That claim would be erroneous because a woman does not always have a choice about whether she becomes pregnant. Sometimes she is raped, for example.

So, are you saying that abortion should only be legal in cases of rape?

Quote: In any case, pregnancy entails a 9-month sentence, an incredible burden, and anyone experiencing it should reasonably be able to terminate it.

Why shouldn't he be financially responsible as long as the child is a minor if he chooses to get a girl pregnant?

Yes, a baby is an incredible burden. Not just the pregnancy, but raising the child as well. Which is why, as you put it, anyone experiencing it should reasonably be able to terminate it. But that option is only available for one sex.

And, no, he doesn't always get an option about whether or not he got pregnant. Sometimes birth control fails; sometimes she lies about birth control. Sometimes they just get so stinking drunk or high that they don't even think about those things.

Me, I say men should have more options about this. This story went into more detail about what I'm talking about.... and, to get back on topic, I NEVER hear feminists talk about this.

http://content.time.com/time/nation/arti...14,00.html

(January 31, 2014 at 10:59 pm)TaraJo Wrote:

(January 31, 2014 at 10:47 pm)futilethewinds Wrote: That claim would be erroneous because a woman does not always have a choice about whether she becomes pregnant. Sometimes she is raped, for example.

So, are you saying that abortion should only be legal in cases of rape?

Quote: In any case, pregnancy entails a 9-month sentence, an incredible burden, and anyone experiencing it should reasonably be able to terminate it.

Why shouldn't he be financially responsible as long as the child is a minor if he chooses to get a girl pregnant?

Yes, a baby is an incredible burden. Not just the pregnancy, but raising the child as well. Which is why, as you put it, anyone experiencing it should reasonably be able to terminate it. But that option is only available for one sex.

And, no, he doesn't always get an option about whether or not he got pregnant. Sometimes birth control fails; sometimes she lies about birth control. Sometimes they just get so stinking drunk or high that they don't even think about those things.

Me, I say men should have more options about this. This story went into more detail about what I'm talking about.... and, to get back on topic, I NEVER hear feminists talk about this.

http://content.time.com/time/nation/arti...14,00.html

Men do have choices it's called a condom or get fixed

(January 31, 2014 at 8:42 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: I wonder about this because there are some real liars and hypocrites that label themselves under the banner of feminism. I have often noticed that these people often call critics mysogenist or sexist when ciriticism is leveled at them. So is it sexist to criticize radical feminists? Or the movement as a whole for failure to condemn the often disgusting things they say and support?

That depends; Which kind of feminism are you looking to criticise? Or do you seek to criticise the idea that women should be treated as equals to men in and of itself (bear in mind, by definition, this is what feminism is)?

(January 31, 2014 at 9:10 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: I criticize it on a number of levels and aspects, yes. Feminists are a lot like communists, and if you look at the history of both communism and feminism, you'll see how much they both entwine.
They are both internationalist ideologies, one takes the working class as the basis of identity, the other takes the female sex as the basis of identity.
And just like communists declare non-communsts as fascists and reactionaries, so do feminists declare non-feminists as sexists and male-chauvinists.

Much like how nationalists could label everyone who disagrees as "communists" or how Christians could label everyone who disagrees as "satanists". I think you're problem here is with reactionary individuals who grossly mis-interpret any opposition as purely antagonistic. You're simply attributing this trait to people that you don't agree with, as though no one else perpetrates this kind of behavior when heatedly defending their ideology. This trait is not mutually exclusive to people of ideologies that you don't agree with.

Quote:They are both internationalist ideologies, one takes the working class as the basis of identity, the other takes the female sex as the basis of identity.

So you're bashing these ideologies on the grounds that they have followers and a common group of people? That's literally every ideology, ever. Internationalist ideology or not, what you're saying is insane and isn't a direct comparison of communism and feminism at all. You could easily make correlations between capitalists and communist or feminists and masculinists by that flawed logic.