RE: "If you're not a Feminist, you're a Sexist"
April 12, 2014 at 5:38 pm
(This post was last modified: April 12, 2014 at 5:43 pm by *Deidre*.)
The better example is FlyingNeanderthal's example above. That is an entire gender, and that is in direct comparison to how women were treated say when they weren't permitted to vote. THAT, is a true apples to apples comparison.
Child custody hearings are based on an individual basis. But, I will say men often get the shorter end of the stick, when it comes to wanting to gain equal custodial rights to their kids. Alimony/Palimony should be outlawed, except in cases where a woman/man are unable to work due to an illness or condition that prevents them from living the lifestyle they were accustomed to. No one needs to be taking care of anyone, who is healthy, and able bodied to work. It's an archaic system that keeps women (mainly) enslaved to thinking that they can't possibly learn to support themselves, and need a man to do it. I'm against that whole thing, unless there are valid reasons for the financial support. Valid would also be if a woman or man was in an abusive relationship, and they weren't permitted to work. Then, I can see financial support being necessary, but it'd have to be proven in court.
aw thank you for this. now i just want to hug you, and stop sparring with you.
me too. i think posting is so flat, definitely. like i was smiling the WHOLE TIME i was posting to you lol
thank you ...this has been an eye opening thread. i admit, there are some areas i'm unware of when it comes to male oppression. (the miliary rape situation would be one such area, as the majority of people who are raped are gay men, not women, and those cases are handled differently) but that's a whole other story.
when will everyone be treated equally?
Child custody hearings are based on an individual basis. But, I will say men often get the shorter end of the stick, when it comes to wanting to gain equal custodial rights to their kids. Alimony/Palimony should be outlawed, except in cases where a woman/man are unable to work due to an illness or condition that prevents them from living the lifestyle they were accustomed to. No one needs to be taking care of anyone, who is healthy, and able bodied to work. It's an archaic system that keeps women (mainly) enslaved to thinking that they can't possibly learn to support themselves, and need a man to do it. I'm against that whole thing, unless there are valid reasons for the financial support. Valid would also be if a woman or man was in an abusive relationship, and they weren't permitted to work. Then, I can see financial support being necessary, but it'd have to be proven in court.
(April 12, 2014 at 5:25 pm)Quantum Theorist Wrote: If we're talking about historically, that's an entirely different subject, I suppose I was talking about present day America or other very civilized countries. But thanks so much for your comments Deidre. I know I can be a bit blunt but don't take me so seriously. I wasn't trying to insult you just hard to express myself in text form sometimes.
Deidre, you and I should be on a tag-team against everyone calling us feminists and giving us our label for us.
aw thank you for this. now i just want to hug you, and stop sparring with you.
me too. i think posting is so flat, definitely. like i was smiling the WHOLE TIME i was posting to you lol
thank you ...this has been an eye opening thread. i admit, there are some areas i'm unware of when it comes to male oppression. (the miliary rape situation would be one such area, as the majority of people who are raped are gay men, not women, and those cases are handled differently) but that's a whole other story.
when will everyone be treated equally?
