Willkommen!

Without a doubt a first post that will lead to an interesting discussion.

First: the abortion thing is about power, plain and simple. We women will determine whether or not YOU are born ... period!

The "-ism" and "ist" words are stupid leftovers from the '60's, an era dominated by buzzwords such as communist, fascist, capitalist and imperialist (communism, fascism, capitalism and imperialism). A bunch
of pseudo-intellectual academics co-opted these suffixes and inappropriately stuck them on the end of words like race and sex.

"You are a sexist!" Is that anything like an artist, an economist, a pugilist??? How about an industrialist?!! Does it mean you are skilled at sex, or that you practice it several hours a day? (Just remember a pig is an animal that has a one-hour orgasm.)

Let's see, a florist must be anyone who believes his flower arrangements
are innately superior, and who consequently discriminates against other arrangers, based on the ideology of florism. An aerialist is anyone who is inherently convinced his circus act dominates all others.

I'm not going to use the term feminist any more. I prefer the term "an ersatz woman".

Quote from Benji Duncan

Secondly, legal abortion also does not create a double standard. Men cannot get pregnant, hence men cannot have abortions. Is it unfair that women can "terminate a pregnancy" and men cannot stop them? Yep. It's also unfair that I cannot slam dunk a basketball. It's unfair that I'm lactose intolerant and most people can eat cottage cheese. Abortion rights have nothing to do with "which gender has a right to end the pregnancy," the rights exist because people should have a say in what they do with their own body. If babies grew inside men's bodies men should be able to do whatever they want. I wish I could give birth to a baby and make that choice, but I can't. I also cannot eat cottage cheese without having serious diarrhea. That's life. If men could get pregnant and men were denied the right to an abortion, or if the woman could decide the outcome of the man's abortion, that would be a double standard.

It is not only that. If we think about unmarried couples, he has no right to see his kid, but is forced to pay for it, if she wants to keep it. I mean even after birth, where things should be equal, they are not. Often children are still treated as if they were a property belonging to the mother (you can not be punished for not letting him see his child), where the father has to pay upkeep for. This has nothing to do with fairness. I is just plain wrong.

The current development in Switzerland is interesting. The gouvernment is planning to do some revolutionary things like:
- Giving both parents custody
- Even giving unmarried fathers custody
- Punishing those who won´t let their partner see their kids (with up to 3 years in prison)

This is a step in the right direction. Or see it that way. Once feminist promised that "Women´s liberation aims to free men, too". Almost 40 years after Gloria Steinem wrote this, women have become equal when it comes to working or society in general. The role women once had in society (mother) is dissolved and nothing more than an option. The fact that fathers still have little to no parenting rights prooves that feminism did nothing to help free men. It is about time to change that...

Quote from bababob

First: the abortion thing is about power, plain and simple. We women will determine whether or not YOU are born ... period!

That would be the case regardless of what the law says. Changing the law does not change the biological facts. "Reproductive privilege" is a byproduct of having a womb, it is not a privilege created by the law. Is this fair? Of course it isn't fair. I wish I was born a woman in that respect, but I wasn't.

The "-ism" and "ist" words are stupid leftovers from the '60's, an era dominated by buzzwords such as communist, fascist, capitalist and imperialist (communism, fascism, capitalism and imperialism). A bunch
of pseudo-intellectual academics co-opted these suffixes and inappropriately stuck them on the end of words like race and sex.

"You are a sexist!" Is that anything like an artist, an economist, a pugilist??? How about an industrialist?!! Does it mean you are skilled at sex, or that you practice it several hours a day? (Just remember a pig is an animal that has a one-hour orgasm.)

Let's see, a florist must be anyone who believes his flower arrangements
are innately superior, and who consequently discriminates against other arrangers, based on the ideology of florism. An aerialist is anyone who is inherently convinced his circus act dominates all others.

I'm not going to use the term feminist any more. I prefer the term "an ersatz woman".

The term "sex" has more than one definition and one of those definitions contains unstated cultural connotations that make it an entirely different term than the term "gender." In social psychology for instance, the term "sex" is stated as being short for the term "sex role" and is clearly different than the term "gender," which merely distinguishes people according to reproductive functions.

A "sexist" is therefore someone who condones sex roles. This is similar to "racist," in which a person condones the idea of "races," which are also an abstract- not concrete- way of categorizing people and their behaviors.

Quote from Feckless

It is not only that. If we think about unmarried couples, he has no right to see his kid, but is forced to pay for it, if she wants to keep it. I mean even after birth, where things should be equal, they are not. Often children are still treated as if they were a property belonging to the mother (you can not be punished for not letting him see his child), where the father has to pay upkeep for. This has nothing to do with fairness. I is just plain wrong.

I agree.

The current development in Switzerland is interesting. The gouvernment is planning to do some revolutionary things like:
- Giving both parents custody
- Even giving unmarried fathers custody
- Punishing those who won´t let their partner see their kids (with up to 3 years in prison)

This is a step in the right direction. Or see it that way. Once feminist promised that "Women´s liberation aims to free men, too". Almost 40 years after Gloria Steinem wrote this, women have become equal when it comes to working or society in general. The role women once had in society (mother) is dissolved and nothing more than an option. The fact that fathers still have little to no parenting rights prooves that feminism did nothing to help free men. It is about time to change that...

I agree.

Our system is designed to try to keep one parent out of the picture. I know, because I share a child with someone and we have an extremely cordial situation where we discuss things and never argue, always trying to see what is right for both parties.

The system does whatever it can, it seems to try to get us to fight one another. A couple times court dates have been set for custody wars that neither of us asked for. They tried to charge me with child support (even though I have the child five days a week) and she had to tell them she didn't want it. When it comes to things like hospital bills they always make one of us pay it- never both- it seems to try to get us to have a fight over the matter. Split families cannot sign children up for taxes in a split way either. The system is just not set up for parents to get along with each other.

The most ridiculous thing is the idea of how child support is allocated only to people who want to keep their parental rights. If you sign off your rights to a child, you don't have to pay child support anymore. If you keep you want to see your child, you have to pay. Then the payment is so ridiculous that you don't have the resources to see the child as much as the other parent, so you're forced into this weekend thing regardless of whether the other parent wants it or not.

People should be charged child support for voluntarily avoiding their parental responsibilities (this includes not moving to a county where the other parent lives.) If the child is taken from you without your say, you should not have to pay. If you see your child almost as much or the same amount as the other parent, you shouldn't have to pay. If all parents were given the option of avoiding child support by seeing their child more, the world would be a much better place.

Divorcing couples have the option of creating their own divorce agreement terms. They alone can decide custody issues, child support terms, property division, and visitation. The best way to keep the government out of your personal life (in circumstances of divorce) is to settle the terms between yourselves. Problems come in when couples cannot or are not willing to work out the issues with each other. Problems also come into play when lawyers fail to properly advise couples to settle terms between them. Divorce lawyers are in it for the money. If they can create fear, anxiety, greed, discord, and anger between couples (or exacerbate it), they stand to make more money. I am thoroughly convinced that most divorce lawyers are not interested in what's best for the people they represent, and don't care much about whether or not certain actions harm the people they are not representing....as long as their making money somehow. It's not uncommon to see lawyers taking full advantage of people in the middle of volatile circumstances who have vulnerable mental states.

Quote from Benji Duncan

A "sexist" is therefore someone who condones sex roles.

It's not just that. It is also about believing one sex is superior to the other. Superior in ability and/or rights. Many women for instance think they are superior to men.

Quote from brian44

It's not just that. It is also about believing one sex is superior to the other. Superior in ability and/or rights. Many women for instance think they are superior to men.

And vice-versa..

Quote from TERA

And vice-versa..

Yes, that's why I said "for instance". The trend these days though is increasing numbers of women and decreasing numbers of men believing they are superior.

Quote from TERA

Divorcing couples have the option of creating their own divorce agreement terms. They alone can decide custody issues, child support terms, property division, and visitation. The best way to keep the government out of your personal life (in circumstances of divorce) is to settle the terms between yourselves. Problems come in when couples cannot or are not willing to work out the issues with each other. Problems also come into play when lawyers fail to properly advise couples to settle terms between them. Divorce lawyers are in it for the money. If they can create fear, anxiety, greed, discord, and anger between couples (or exacerbate it), they stand to make more money. I am thoroughly convinced that most divorce lawyers are not interested in what's best for the people they represent, and don't care much about whether or not certain actions harm the people they are not representing....as long as their making money somehow. It's not uncommon to see lawyers taking full advantage of people in the middle of volatile circumstances who have vulnerable mental states.

The greatest obstacle is that women know they will generally come out far better off by going through lawyers and courts then they would by working with their spouse toward a fair and equitable solution. The current system offers women incentives to divorce their husbands and encourages them to act against anyone's best interests except for their own.

Quote from Benji Duncan

Abortion has nothing to do with gender equality. The issue simply doesn't qualify as a men's rights or a woman's rights issue.

I do have to disagree with you on the abortion issue, Benji. First of all, the concept of absolute gender equality is a myth. Unless we engineer human beings to be identical, there will never be absolute gender equality because the genders are different.

I believe abortion does qualify as a men's rights issue because a man should have the right to a say concerning the life of his child. Yes, that life exists for a time within the body of the woman, but it is a life that is still fully one half of him. A life that, should the woman choose to carry to term and keep, he will share in the responsibility for the care of.

Additionally, regardless of whether it causes her some lack of equality for a time, women should not have the power to decide life, at least not beyond the point where the decision is made to have sex. Equality on this matter is both men and women having the option to choose to have or to not have sex. Once they've decided to engage in behavior which could lead to the conception of life, the right to determine life should end. The option to terminate life should no more be given to women than it is to men.

God (or nature depending on your beliefs) decided women would carry the children. Bearing this responsibility and blessing should not give women the extraordinary right to determine life or death, especially when she is only one half of those involved in the creation of that life and when someone else will be equally responsible to care for that life.

Quote from Billy

I agree with you Benji. I think the government is full of greed and wants to make money off the men. The governments should have no say in parenting or marital disputes.

I think that is a bit extreme. If there is a "dispute" it must be resolved some way. If the parents cannot resolve it, they must be able to turn to someone to resolve it for them. The resolution simply should be without prejudice and be in the best interest of keeping a child with both parents if possible.

Quote from TERA

Divorcing couples have the option of creating their own divorce agreement terms. They alone can decide custody issues, child support terms, property division, and visitation. The best way to keep the government out of your personal life (in circumstances of divorce) is to settle the terms between yourselves. Problems come in when couples cannot or are not willing to work out the issues with each other. Problems also come into play when lawyers fail to properly advise couples to settle terms between them. Divorce lawyers are in it for the money. If they can create fear, anxiety, greed, discord, and anger between couples (or exacerbate it), they stand to make more money. I am thoroughly convinced that most divorce lawyers are not interested in what's best for the people they represent, and don't care much about whether or not certain actions harm the people they are not representing....as long as their making money somehow. It's not uncommon to see lawyers taking full advantage of people in the middle of volatile circumstances who have vulnerable mental states.

To avoid parents turning to the government, it should simply be known that the outcome will almost always be a certain thing. For instance if the parents know that if they sue the other parent for custody that it will almost always turn out that both parents will have equal time without support, parents are going to be less likely to waste their time.

In my experience, neither party would want the state mandating a specific, standard custody arrangement (like mondays-wednesdays one week, mondays-thursdays the next week) because it would always interfere with work schedules and the like. If it were well known that the state would always implement such a schedule the parents would be more prone to want to work out matters between them.

As it is now, there is no specific expectation of the outcome of a family court decision, so people sue all the time thinking that no matter what happens they can always improve their situation somehow. Besides the gender of the parent, It also seems the outcome of these matters is determined by really superficial facts that rarely characterize which home is better. The parent that can arrange more of these superficial facts wins, so the whole thing turns into a "game of court" where litigants show off their court skills for cash prizes.

Quote from brian44

It's not just that. It is also about believing one sex is superior to the other. Superior in ability and/or rights. Many women for instance think they are superior to men.

You're partially right. I don't think the term sexism is dependent on the idea of superiority but feeling superior is a side effect of being sexist. A person cannot feel they are superior to the other gender unless they first believe in "sexes." If my gender does not predetermine me to behave and think differently than people with a different gender, then obviously my gender cannot be superior or inferior to the other gender.