pepharytheworm said:
This whole argument is based on the "extra rights" women have that deal with their own bodies. Please tell me how a man can absolve himself in the same way if he can't be pregnant? Tell me a fair way in which a man can absolve his reponsibility. |
So great that we're all in agreement.. oh wait... we're not exactly.
It's one thing to say men and women SHOULD have equal rights after birth, but what I am arguing and several other people are pointing out is that such is not the case.
As Lawlight pointed out in the most recent post, there is no point in time that a man can self exclude himself from being a parent without it being imposed on him by either the mother or a court of law. The only way that will happen is if the woman will give her consent. The mother, on the other hand, can decide to, 1- terminate the pregnancy; 2- give the child to adoption and thus relinquishing her 'duty' to said child at several points, during and after pregnancy.
Also society itself also gives preferencial treatment to women in deteriment of men in terms of child custody and alimony cases. It is perhaps a sexist view that mothers are the natural caretakers of children. It is a bias and it is indeed a sexist look, but not all sexism is against women as I was attempting to point out.
I find the fact that the most popular feminists who gloss over every possible injustice that favours women a contradiction to the claim that all they want is equality. I believe that is a much more important issue than the size of breasts of a fictitional character in whatever videogame you chose.







