In any case, a woman can force a man to be a father who doesn't want to be (and thereby claiming alimony) or she can deny that to the man. That in itself is inequality.

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.

how about.... fraternity leave?
it is not require by law for dads to have a leave after having a kid and based on company policy....
women have the law (i believe) but the length is not defined and based on company's policy.

from your above post > "My Fiance' first request is we do a circumcision."

Well then... you seem to be just fine with double standards in your own home so I would think your views on equality between genders would indeed fall the same way.

So when the baby pops out of it's mother it's no longer hers either right? cos... ya know it's not in her body.

I fear you've completely misread/didn't read/don't understand the whole thread anyway, the OP is making the point that a woman has the right to choose not to be a mother and there is no such path available for the father, if he doesn't want to be a father but she wants to keep the child in many countries the state will subtract cash from the man to help raise the child, turn tables around if she decides she doesn't have the cash to raise the kid she can terminate it regardless of if the guy wants to attempt to raise it or not.

Also say hi to your horse for me!

To be fair, there hasn't been a draft since The Vietman Police Action (War). It's not as if we're (US male citizens over the age of 18) scared to open our mail, worried that at any moment we'll be called into service.

We'll have plenty of warning, and plenty of notice if and when that ever does occur. (Hopefully never).

I don't know how much experience you have with divorce but I do and it might not be in every state but 2 and 4 are part of the law. 3 is a little silly because it implies you pay more if you don't see your child by your own free will, which doesn't make much sense to me but "The primary caregiver should not be allowed to restrict access to secondary caregiver" is part of a lot of laws in many states.

Your first one is a good start, but it really plays into the hands of more likely a chance of abortion and adoption. Believe it or not your choice restricts her choice over her body.

If I was to make a fairer one it would be a more limited time of child support payments if you don't have visitation rights. If a man gives up parental rights to his child he would only be liable for a set amount of years such as 6 (enough time that she would be able to find a job and not have to be at home taking care of the child) or it would work like alimony does. Also the government would help single parents more. And of course this would work both ways for both parents. DNA testing would be a part of it too. SInce it would be easily documented that the child is the mothers, unless they both agree the child is both of theirs, the father would have to get DNA tested at both parties expense. Once determined he is not, he has a choice to be reimbured the expenses he paid so far or to legally adopt. Also the mother could be sued in such cases if it can be proved she knowingly knew he wasn't the father and hid information.

Most of what you think are laws are sexist bias not laws. Now  there are states that do have such laws, but for the most part they concern unwed parents, which I think is really unfair. Paying support and no visitation rights is disgusting.

Most of those are gender specific anyway, just happens that one sex can reproduce and the other can't. #2 is bullshit though, men having to sign for the draft to even vote doesn't go beyond America though. 'Land of the free' Just ironic.

also i don't quite get the point with #3/4. Men can easily avoid parenthood by wearing a condom though. But despite that, the law is certainly one-sided otherwise. But how would you suggest it be changed? i'm not sure if it can be equalised due to the biological differences in both genders. Hard to call

Gender equality can hardly fall that way when men can't get pregnant. I feel gender equality just has to be about having decent attitudes and respect to the opposite sex. Certainly no coercion between them

What I meant was, on one hand he is saying that a man has no right to say anything about what happens with the body of a woman yet his fiance told him to to cut the top of either his own penis or their childs I'm not sure which but either way, She dictates actions on a males body just fine in that relationship.