I agree things are not so cut and dry. But overall women are far less violent then men and better able to resolve issues peacefully. I had 2 previous partners, one was bi-polar and the other alcoholic. They both used their gender to try and get over but I refuse to classify a whole gender because of a few problems.

@jorj Agreed. One of many feminist litmus tests. Another is do you support chivalry, do you assume a man should pay on a date, are you willing to admit the discrepencies in western society that support women. Child support, law, paternity leave, social attention and divorce. As long as a feminism isn't one sided she isn't sexist.

@jorj

I actually don’t agree with this because once a child exists, the best interests of the child come first. That includes financial contributions from both male and female people.

@jorj

There is a slight difference between being forced to to risk your life for another (banning abortions- there was just a headline of a 14 year old dying in child birth in a country that bans abortions) and being forced to provide financial support for a another (which should apply equally to men and women)

@jorj

I mean you are acting like women who have perfectly normal looking pregnancies with no apparent complications don’t go into labor and then die. (Which does happen)

Also you are acting as if even when you survive your body goes back to normal.
-Ask a mom if she thinks her organs went back to the position they were before.
-Ask a mom if she had incontinence after pregnancy, read constantly peeing yourself (happened to a woman I know). Be sure and ask her how long it lasted and if she needed surgery to correct it
-Ask a mom if her abs went back together. If her doctor told her to never do flutter kicks again because it might make the separation worse. (Woman I know)
-Ask a mom if she had fluid around her heart after her pregnancy (Woman I know)
-Ask a mom if pregnancy triggered an auto-immune disease in her (Woman I know)
-Ask a woman who has decided not to have biological children if the prospect of potential death informed her decision to adopt (Woman I know)

So often we only talk about the pain of child birth, and act as if when the pregnancy was healthy and not life threatening that the health issues associated with pregnancy stop there. You don’t need to die in child birth to be permanently affected by it.

You are not asking a woman just to be financially responsible for that child (which applies to her same as men). You are asking her to role the dice on her life and health. That is why abortion is freely available even in low risk pregnancies. What I am saying is the risks are incongruent and you are acting like they are the same. You are acting like financial interests are the only reason to get an abortion.

Once a child exists their needs come first and that is why both men and women are financially responsible for them.

@jorj

Ah, I see, I think the difference is we justify our pro-choice stances differently. You apparently take into account whether the woman is ready to be a mom to justify being Pro-choice. Hence the apparent double standard in your eyes.

I am Pro-choice almost exclusively based on bodily autonomy. Hence the reason I don’t consider it a double standard because there is no bodily autonomy issue in males. I don’t base my support of pro-choice based on the woman’s financial stability.

You might ask in future debates how they justify their pro-choice stance. I bet you will find that people who rely on bodily autonomy logic will not see it as a double standard. While those who use difference reasons to justify their pro-choice stance, such as not being ready financially, will probably see the double standard.

Do you see any holes in my interpretation of our different approaches? I thought it was an interesting nuance that explained why we were talking past each other.

@jorj , it seems like you're kind of missing the point here. No offense intended.

You're expecting equality in a fundamentally unequal situation. That fundamental inequality is that women gestate babies. That's a biological fact that is, thus far, incontrovertible.

I tend to regard this issue as having three stages, each with its own dynamic and metrics.

1. Before sexual activity. At this point everyone is equal. Equal choice, equal responsibility, and equal opportunity.
2. After sexual activity and into conception/gestation. At this point, everything shifts. Now we're talking about a woman's body and the ethical priorities MUST reflect that.
3. This is where things take an entirely different turn. Now there's a third party involved: a child. A third party, it should be noted, who had no say whatsoever in previous proceedings and is therefore in no way beholden to anything that came before.

This third party now takes absolute precedence over the other two. The other two are back to being equal again, but still of less priority than the child. A child who, due to biology, is unable to maintain itself and MUST rely on others. Currently we determine who takes on that responsibility with geneology. That is, the genetic parents of the child. It doesn't HAVE to be that way, but that is the way it is. Perhaps that's what needs to change.

Regardless, it is the details of that third dynamic that make your position untenable. Is that unfair? That depends on who you are prioritizing in your analysis, and it seems very much like you are prioritizing men... rather than the children.

@jorj
"You're expecting equality in a fundamentally unequal situation. so u are admitting that men and women CAN NOT be equal?"

Wow. Complete non sequitur. No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the reality is that women gestate babies... and men don't. That's a fundamental fact of nature and that circumstance creates a basic inequality of situation that must be considered.

"cause the truth is all u talk about is risks of sex... "

I haven't actually talked about risk at all, in fact. Who's post are YOU reading?

"... if men are expected to be responsible for taking the risk then women should be too."

They are. That's the first and third stages that I laid out above. Did you even read my comment?

"‎I guess feminist are prioritizing women over children with allowing abortions for the "im just not ready" ladies?"

Cell conglomerations, zygotes, and fetuses are not children. They are aspects of a woman's body. As such, no, I really don't care what a woman's reasons for aborting are. It makes no difference to HER decisions regarding HER body. Again, read my comment. Slowly, if you have to. You're addressing the second stage as if it were the third: it isn't.

"I think u are missing the point about what risks are and what responsibility is."

I'm really not, actually. You, however, seem to be missing the point about an individual's right to make decisions regarding THEIR bodies.

"if one can risk it and have an out then both should be able too. that is equality."

Yeah, you've completely missed the point here. I'll try another approach.

In the second stage, a woman's "out" does NOT result in a third party that requires care. The man's "out", as you're proposing, DOES. This simple fact changes the whole dynamic. The only way to fix this fundamental, realistic, biological disparity would be forced abortions for women if the man decides to oot out. That's simply not going to happen, nor should it.

"get rid of all abortion but medical reasons and rape and u might have an argument."

I already have an argument and it is that YOU do not get to dictate what others can or cannot do with THEIR bodies. It's actually quite simple, really.

"if she takes them then she needs to be accountable the same as men or men need the same option to opt out when he is not ready. that is equality"

Look, as long as it is a biological fact that women gestate babies and men do not, there is going to be a fundamental disparity here. What that means is that equality, in that context, isn't going to seem fair. The alternatives, however, are even less fair. Either we're impinging upon an individuals right to autonomy or we're causing a child to suffer unnecessarily.

Perhaps, in your zeal to protect "men's rights", those strike you as negligible aspects, but... well, you're wrong, plain and simple. I recommend you get over yourself, break out of your egocentric reference, and consider the whole picture. And I mean that in the nicest way possible.

@jorj
I accept your surrender and implicit concession to my arguments. Have a nice day.

@jorj
It's not arrogance. It's just recognition that you've bowed out of the discussion without addressing even a single one of my arguments, much less mounted anything even approaching a coherent counterargument.

In fact, you are still going on about risk when risk has nothing at all to do with my premise. Frankly, I doubt you even read my post.

So, here's the deal. Either offer counters to the arguments I HAVE made, or concede the point. It's pretty straightforward.

Agree
Same for black people and I'm black myself but I hate victim culture even if is has basis. It doesn't have enough basis to justify acting down trodden.

@jorj its abit different here in the UKI'm aware America is abit behind on certain things. Every time something like a black person facing injustice there's a great upheaval. Fed's don't care for it much.

No they do not. As long as sex discrimination is based on Intermediate scrutiny instead of Strict scrutiny (the standard for race, national, religion, etc) I will never say that women have equal rights.

Yes that is right, religion has more legal protection against discrimination than women do. (Which is one reason why religion is allowed to legally discriminate against women so blatantly)

The Supreme Court invented Intermediate scrutiny just for women because they didn’t want to apply to Strict scrutiny for women.

I don't believe one can fully support something unless one has knowledge of what is being supported. The best way to gain knowledge is to get involved. The article talked about involvement.

@JackPedigo Knowledge of it is easy enough to come by, intense research and life obsession is not needed. It shouldn't take more than 10 minutes to understand the basics unless you are seriously ignorant (used literally not insultingly). No amount of researching is going to change the basic premise or cause. Researching and obsession is for activists not the average every day person. All things like this do is exclude men and increase resistance against feminism. It isn't helpful to the cause of feminism to bring about equality. More activism means nothing if you've alienated the general public.

@Pembronze I totally agree. Here in the midst of the Trumpocalypse so many groups are clamoring for my energy, time and money that it's overwhelming. I can't hit the streets for progressivism, anti-corruption, impeach Trump, feminism, the environment, plus work full time and be some kind of husband and [grand]father. Sorry, I have to do triage.

I consider myself very supportive of and understanding of women's issues and if that makes me in some people's eyes a feminist or a poser to feminism then so be it. Also, more to the point for me, my wife is a very strong woman who does not define herself in terms of her gender and she considers me an enlightened man.

This extends to my reading list, if it were focused on women's issues enough to satisfy any random feminist then I'd be neglecting other things I need to be paying just as much attention to. There are a lot of interesting books I (1) don't have time or energy to read and (2) I'm still interested in, sympathetic to, and pretty well-versed relative to the average bear, in the topic. The other day I decided not to buy a book by Lawrence Tribe on how impeachment actually works, for that exact reason. It's probably an excellent book, but I understand the broad strokes of the limitations of impeachment and the ways in which the Mueller investigation and eventual report are actually likely to play out. The book isn't going to contribute THAT much to my knowledge base, good as it doubtless is.

@Pernbronze Unfortunately, that is not how the wold works. All the important human rights progress has been done through fighting and taking stands. Women didn't get the right to vote until there was a lot of suffering. To me, it is too bad about the possible exclusion of some heretofore dominate males. They have excluded and abused women for eons and its high time that changed. True decency, humanism and fairness is not gender exclusive!

@JackPedigo You didn't make a bit of sense there? How is not being obsessive somehow dominant and against being a decent human being?

All my life as I am a humanist.