Is feminism becoming an obsolete movement?

[wormwood]

It seems like a lot of time and energy went into questioning the motives of the pro-equality crowd, rather than arguing the point. Someone's motivation for a statement doesn't change the truth of the statement. Maybe they are just guys who want consequence free sex or guys who are against abortion or guys who are just arguing to be difficult, but the truth of the double standard can not be denied. Their motivations for addressing it are irrelevant.

Just to be clear anyway, in either scenario I would gladly pay for my child without the state getting involved, so this isn't about what I want for myself. This isn't springing from some adolescent fantasy about consequence free sex for men, I actually started arguing this issue after reading Camille Paglia. I am really talking about true legal equality, it isn't code for something else. Is true legal equality desirable? I would say in an abstract sense yes, but in practice almost no one here agrees with it. Why do you suppose you find it so repulsive?

From the posts I've seen, the justification for having a double standard is "because they're women, and women need to be protected because they are at a natural disadvantage". That is patriarchy, but is patriarchy bad? Is feminism rooted in an idealism that is not socially desirable or biologically plausible in practice? Or do we just need to adapt to the social consequences of true legal and social equality?

[Spider]

[lil bit]

101 pages, yet still Dharma bum still doesn't understand how human reproduction works.

[lil bit]

[lil bit]

[Bauce]

[The Dharma Bum]

[exploited]

[exploited]

[The Dharma Bum]