Is feminism becoming an obsolete movement?

[The Dharma Bum]

Now, I totally agree that the so-called family unit is biullshit and only exists to support the existing system our society uses.

But it is the system we are using so it's all we have to work with. You can't just leave little kids out in the cold because our system is stupid and archaic. Until something reasonable emerges we kind of have to go with the social contract we have and it is in fact based on a patriarchal ideal. And no one should ever be considered "disposable" in any sort of sane society.

On that, at least we are agreed.

[The Comrade]

[Thatcher]

[Darkhorse]

[Winchester]

When it comes down to the pecking order on who has to financially support a child, the sperm donors ought to cough up their share long before the taxpayers have to.

Men took the risk knowing full well what potential consequences were, to argue otherwise is ludicrous. Fair or unfair, what man does not know that dipping his wick in a worse case scenario can result in an unwanted child and child support payments... and yet they take the risk anyway. Get a girl/woman preggers and she doesn't want to abort (for whatever reason), too damn bad, cry me a river, you knew that was a possibility. Man up and support your offspring, don't dump your mistakes on the taxpayers to support, we didn't even get laid out of the deal.

[exploited]

Girl: We both f**k up. Now I'm pregnant.

Guy: Well, just abort it. That is your decision.

Girl: I don't want to abort.

Guy: Again, that is your decision. But if you don't abort, you are solely responsible for raising and providing for that child.

*Nine months later, the child support bill comes in*

Guy: Extorrrrtion!!!!!---"""~~~


Now that is a f**k.

[Thatcher]

[Leviathan]

[exploited]

The whole argument is ridiculous in the extreme, a classic example of theoretical equality versus substantive equality, and how the former is often used to subjugate the latter.

To Com and Hyperion, it isn't about establishing equality in the real world, it is about satisfying the internal logic of the concept of equality.

The real world dictates that women, and women alone, carry the child. It resides in their body. Meaning that women, and women alone, have the right to decide to go through with the pregnancy or not.

In their minds, this means that the man is at a disadvantage, because he didn't have a say in the matter, but he is expected to pay for the child once it is born. Nevermind the tremendously negative realities of being pregnant, or of aborting a child you want to have. These consequences don't matter.

On the face of it, it makes sense, because what appears to matter is equality of choice. If she can decide this, I can decide that.

The real world impact of these choices are not evaluated. The substantive consequences are ignored, because the choices are "equal," even if they are not.

On one hand, you have a person who is given the choice between having an abortion or raising the kid on her own. On the other hand, you have a person whose choices are pay nothing or pay nothing. Either way, the entire life, and responsibility for that life, resides with the woman - and that is "fair," in their minds.

It is fair because men have penises and women have vaginas, which means that no matter what choices the man makes, or the woman makes, or they both make together, it is ultimately her responsibility to face the negative consequences of those decisions. But the man? Nope, he can never face a negative consequence. That would be unequal.

[Bauce]