|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:02 AM March 27th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Keep it in your pants if you dont want to be a father!!!
But men have to pay paternity for the good of the children!!!
And ignores all the really well made points...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:07 PM March 27th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Yup, I've seen this radfem crap again and again. Funny, isn't it, how these oh-so-convincing "arguments" don't come up when discussing abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:11 PM March 27th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
The brothers, husbands, boyfriends, sons, and fathers of women like Stephanie, and all men and women of good will in the world, should be very grateful for women like Stephanie. Thank you, Stephanie, for your courageous and important work!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by crescentluna
(evil_maiden @ yahoo.com)
on 02:14 PM March 27th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
*thumbs up* Very well thought out and reasoned arguments.
The most common problem I see, though, is women who decide to keep their children, either not tell the father or tell him to get lost, with the attitude of "I can do it myself! My baby doesn't need a daddy!" and then a couple of months or years later - "That bastard deserted me! He needs to take more responsibility!" And then they contact a lawyer and the rest is repeated history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by cnewbyuk on 03:48 PM March 27th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent article!!!!
My favourite paragraph:-
"Fact one: women may (a) choose to have sex, (b) choose to not use contraception, (c) after conception, choose abortion, abandonment, or adoption, and (d) make any number of children suffer from these irresponsibilities. Fact two: or, women may (a) choose to have sex, (b) choose to not use contraception, (c) after conception, choose to raise the child, (d) make the father and/or tax-payers literally pay for these irresponsibilities, and (e) make any number of children suffer from these irresponsibilities. Fact three: men may not (a) choose to have sex, (b) choose to not use contraception, and (c) after conception, choose to decline parenthood. Fact four: men may not (a) choose to have sex, (b) choose to not use contraception, and (c) after conception, choose to accept parenthood. Fact five: men have no legal post-conception family planning choices—to decline or, therefore, accept parenthood—but women do. Fact six: this is so, because society, hence the family court system, discriminates against men. Fact seven: fatherhood is legally determined by the choices of women and the law, whereas motherhood is legally determined by the choices of women, minus the law."
It becomes more clear. We need the male version of the pill. This will shake things up even more that the female pill.
Think about it, from the begining of time reproductive rights has always been fully controlled by the female. When the male pill becomes available, for the first time EVER - women will really need to ask men for their permission to have children. Just think how powerful that is. For the first time in history, men will have control of their reproductive rights. For the first ever, there will have to be REAL family planning!!!
cnewbyuk - British black dude who wants to become a dad, not a modern day slave
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:57 PM March 27th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
And, hopefully, an end to poking holes in condoms.
Now you must definitely protect those pills. You don't want them to be replaced by aspirin or placeboes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by ArtflDgr on 09:08 AM March 28th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
ohhhh i cant wait till the male pill is here... does anyone know if they will come in chewables? i was thinking goddeses of porn chewable birth control for men. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Yanyan on 04:29 AM April 6th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, the male pill is needed and the sooner the better. But while we're waiting lets just consider the enemy's next move.
The birthrate will drop dramatically. The government will panic and set up insemination clinics all over the country. There will always be some guys willing to toss off into a bottle for a few dollars and keep them supplied - The mother will receive generous benefits from the state to support her and her child. Naturally all of this will be paid for by the male taxpayer.
Then what?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by cnewbyuk on 10:57 PM April 12th, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
No if their details will be made available to the child at it's 18th birthday. The Aussies are stuggling to get men in to do the 5 knuckle-shuffle in to a jar.
cnewbyuk - British black dude who wants to become a dad, not a modern day slave
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:55 PM March 27th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
"Finally, parenthood by choice is also about giving our children what they deserve—a willing, appreciative, and loving parent or set of parents."
The author argues that only full and free reproductive choice for men and women will result in responsible parenting.
I have a small problem with her vision, as it assumes that promiscuity is to be accepted as the social norm, that all sexual intimacy should be treated as merely recreational, and that the choice of becoming a parent should be entirely disconnected from the act of coitus.
This piece reads like some manifesto from the Free Love movement from the 1920's!
Further, the implication of her argument is that a society of irresponsibly rutting sex addicts will at some point choose rationally to "become good parents."
If you re-read her piece, you'll see that at its core it is an argument for "choice without responsibility..." disguised as "good for children."
The concept of "choice without responsibility" should not be confused with freedom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by crescentluna
(evil_maiden @ yahoo.com)
on 06:22 PM March 27th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
See, my impression was that she was acknowledging the promiscuity in today's society, not promoting it. Acknowledging that we are never going to achieve a society wherein people only have sex for reproduction is different from saying everyone should be an "irresponsible rutting sex addict." Though I may be wrong, her vision was that everyone should be responsible for their sexual choices [choose when to have sex or not, choose whether or not to use contraception], but that responsibility does not come from lack of choices [ie, saying men cannot choose to give up parental responsibility via adoption] and that responsibility can only come with choice.
Someone who is forced into parenthood is not going to be a good parent. Whether it be a man with a manipulative spouse/girlfriend who wants to "keep him by having a kid" or a woman who, for whatever reason, feels she has no choice but to be a parent - they are not going to be as good a parent as someone who actually wants a child. I'm not saying that having 'irresponsible sex' is a precurser to that, on the contrary, some very strict religious folks, who wait until marriage and all, want and are prepared for children much better than others.
But it is all about having the choice to have children, not just be saddled with it because the law says so or whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by ArtflDgr on 09:11 AM March 28th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
I am assuming that you mean no disrespect to us "irresponsible rutting sex addicts". Be careful or else well have to start a group addressing the issues of the downtrodden irresponsible rutting sex addicts! well call it D.I.R.S.A., get federal funding, and then youl be sorry.... :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by crescentluna
(evil_maiden @ yahoo.com)
on 02:48 AM March 29th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't invent the phrase, so no disrespect intended on my end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:38 AM March 31st, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Child support is no more than that, forced marriage, and a punishment to people that have sex without being married, it is just disguised as responsability, as long as society are influenced by puritans men are dommed, only the pure and the chose will be sapared, (or the hipocrites and powerful),.
Those are the same people that are after reckless sex laws, anti porn laws, and so on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:27 AM March 31st, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
How pathetic!!, there are lawyers salling contract to prove that two individuals agreed to have sex, but society does not require the same regarding children.
Asimetrical laws, that considers more important the sexual rights of women, than reproductive rights of men, asimetrical when they give coustody to women, and financial burdens to men, Goverment benefits and so on.
Women having children and not been able to prove it was with the father consent should get lapidated, (stoned to death), as in Islamic countries, if rape, (non consensual sex) is a 20 years in prision, non consensual reproduction should be nothing less that death penalty.
Punishment must be proportional to the damage produced, lets just ask women what would they prefer, an undesired child, plus 20 years of being pimped by a man, and no custody ofcourse, or an undesired sexual encounter.
But as everone knows, for Christian puritans, what really matters is gender, women are angels and men evil, women are first class, and men just their willing slaves, under those values everything makes sense.
Pathetic!!
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
