Unhelpful 'gendering' of social issues

The Corinthian

pwurple wrote: »

Yes, it would hopefully begin a basic shift in ideology, a positive move towards equality and where roles can be interchanged without prejudice. This would have much more chance of achieving the aims which quota's wish to get towards.

It wouldn't, at all. Remember, paternity leave would still be dependant upon the mother's permission. What's the point of paternity leave when you have no (enforceable) right to even take care of your child?

Honestly, the whole thing is great for mothers who need the assistance, or fathers who are in happy relationships and can ignore the reality that their rights are dependant on that happy relationship, but ultimately it changes nothing.

I actually wouldn't suggest extending paid paternity leave to fathers who were not the legal guardians of the child.

I wasn't arguing for that at all; I was pointing out the irony that a hired babysitter technically has more rights than an unmarried father.

I know you and I disagree on marriage. There is already a fix in place for the lack of rights incurred for being unmarried, and that is to have the relationship and the family acknowledged legally, by getting married.

Oh, so you're suggesting now that the way to have any rights to your children, is to marry and become financially liable to support the mother for the rest of your lives? Even if you don't like her, let alone love her?

How can you justify such a thing on the basis of equality?

I know already your response will be that marriage is to be avoided it in order to avoid ending up supporting and caring for a spouse and children you no possibly no longer care if divorce occurs.

Sorry, but there's no "avoid ending up supporting and caring for a spouse and children" - only "avoid ending up supporting and caring for a spouse". Please don't try lumping them in together, because it would be false to do so.

But this to me is another prime example of having your cake and eating it. It makes no sense to declare an interest in your child, and a non-interest at the same time.

I think you're confusing mother and child as the same thing. They're not, and presuming they are or should be is part of the problem.

Rev Hellfire

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think you're confusing mother and child as the same thing. They're not, and presuming they are or should be is part of the problem.

A cynic might suggest it comes from a female mindset of it's her child when there are decisions to be made and our child when there's money to be paid.

The Corinthian

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

A cynic might suggest it comes from a female mindset of it's her child when there are decisions to be made and our child when there's money to be paid.

Raising the idea, for example, that avoiding marriage avoids paying for the child is completely false as a father must pay for the child regardless. It is only possible to make that link if you believe that mother and child must be treated as a single and indivisible unit, where it can only be the mother and a father could never take up that role, which is precisely the prejudice that creates these inequalities.

Not that it would make that much difference if married, because custody will still be awarded to the mother, often regardless of who the actual carer was, and any rights that a married man may have are either ignored or unenforced. Separated and divorced men have often just as hard a time as unmarried ones.

The only way that such an inequality can be addressed, for both men and women, is that there is no presumption of 'woman and child', that it can be either parent, based upon the best interests of the child, that has custody and that even with custody it still remains a child with two parents, not some hybrid entity made up of a parent and a child, that can act unilaterally and without accountability.

Seriously, the suggestion that to have rights to your child you must marry the mother is frankly a return to the nineteenth century.

Carlos Orange

The Corinthian wrote: »

This is the flaw I find in feminism today; it's become wholly biased in favour of one side of the equality debate, yet labours under the delusion that it still represents equality. Problem is that equality requires a lack of bias and that while you may gain rights in some cases, you may need to lose them in others, because it's not always possible to achieve equality where no one loses out.

Hasn't it always been like that? It is like an upwards only rent review, during a property boom it is fine but otherwise the inherent unfairness is reasonably obvious. We are well past the boom phase of equality.

The Corinthian

psinno wrote: »

Hasn't it always been like that? It is like an upwards only rent review, during a property boom it is fine but otherwise the inherent unfairness is reasonably obvious. We are well past the boom phase of equality.

Well, I used to think that way, and overall it may still always been that way, but, after doing some research into early feminism, found that it wasn't so straight forward. For example consider the following:



Forget for a moment the specific topic, capital punishment, and view it in terms of someone arguing equality. In it you see an example where suffragettes, or 'early' feminists, were willing to put aside partisanship for that principle of equality and campaign to have a patriarchal privilege afforded to them overturned in that name.

There are other examples from that period of such selfless egalitarianism, btw.

You will not see any example of selfless pursuit of equality in existence in modern feminism. It doesn't matter that the above example was to do with capital punishment and today feminism opposes capital punishment for all, fact is you won't find any example of feminism sacrificing women's interests in the pursuit of equality under any topic. Seriously, I challenge anyone to find a single one.

Where this changed was probably around the sixties and seventies, when second wave feminism began to gain traction. As the gap in gender rights narrowed (at least those rights that disadvantaged women), the emphasis began to shift from 'equality' to 'choice'. However, even though it changed, there remained a mass delusion in the feminist movement that it was fundamentally still about equality. It's not; it pursues women's interest and to a much lesser extent token efforts at the interests of other groups, so long as they do not negatively impinge on those of women.

So while you are right to a great extent, I've concluded that early feminism was historically far more true to the ideals of egalitarianism than modern feminism, which attempts to deceitfully dress itself in the clothes of the suffragettes.

clairefontaine

Wibbs wrote: »

Well that's a bit of a stretch TC. What daft hack said was along the lines of "all men should be responsible for the potential and actual rapists out there*". Nearly as daft I grant you, but not "all men are rapists".

I have seen similar enough in the mainstream regarding African Americans in the US. Blaming African American men for being layabouts and crap fathers and that more should step up and guide their Black brothers(often enough by their own too). As for "Muslims being terrorists" inference that's very common, though twisted into the less overt BS of "all terrorists are Muslims" to appear non daft and the idea that the vast majority of non nutbag Muslims should clean their own house is also very common in the mainstream media. Fox in the US trawls these depths regularly, never mind the more nutty radio hacks.








*for some reason women who presumably know the same potential rapists in their midst as friends can remain silent on the matter. Handy that...

The things is Wibbs, there are truths in it. In a way the writer is correct, chances are we do know someone who has or will commit rape, or a sex offence, either in family, an immediate circle, or neighbourhood. But seriously, her delivery and strategy was so warped and stupid, the motivations are suspect.

It's laying the responsibility on other innocent parties the way she handles

Obama made a famous Father's Day speech, addressing the problem of fatherhood in Black communities. Was he being a bigot? Where is the fine line between acknowledging a problem in a community and being a bigot. I have regularly called out my own culture for its love affair with violence. Does that make me a bigot? maybe. But I'm still not going to shut up about it.

As for refuges in the USA, I'm not sure I know of any refuges for anyone, men or women, except for ones run by private Churches. And as for violence, and I include sex assaults here, on both children and women, yes the perpetrators are mostly men, but you have to look at the whole culture, full of heroes and villains. It was and is also mostly men who ran into those buildings on 911 (Irish American men if you really want to get specific.) Gangs too are also mostly,most entirely male. So this certainly is where American feminism fails, because it is mostly a white upper middle class platform who likes to blame the patriarchy for why they have to wait so long on line in their nearest Starbucks.

MR are just as bad and divisive. Honestly, if they started focusing on family in terms of childcare, it would change the paradigm entirely. Childcare does not stop at maternity leave. How about working after 5? weekends? travel? If you are the main or sole childcare provider in your home, your answer to all those questions is a resounding NO and that puts you at the bottom of theory scale and hiring eligibility, and then you have more kids raised in poverty and we all know where that leads.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Honestly, if they started focusing on family in terms of childcare, it would change the paradigm entirely.

How would focusing on childcare address the complete inequality in rights that men suffer where it comes to our children?

All you appear to be doing is reiterating the strategy of policies that make life easier for the existing child custodians (women), without bothering to addressing the underlying gender inequities.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

How would focusing on childcare address the complete inequality in rights that men suffer where it comes to our children?

All you appear to be doing is reiterating the strategy of policies that make life easier for the existing child custodians (women), without bothering to addressing the underlying gender inequities.

Onè thing at a time. I can't solve everything you know. This is a big big problem. And one feminism can't or won't solve. It's in fathers interests too to sort out the childcare problem too.

I wouldn't call it complete inequality. That's a bit OTT. Individuals are also capable of sorting things out themselves, they don't need governments to solve everything for them.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Onè thing at a time. I can't solve everything you know. This is a big big problem. And one feminism can't or won't solve. It's in fathers interests too to sort out the childcare problem too.

Of course one thing at a time, but given this thread is about gender rights, I suspect we might disagree on which thing should be dealt with first.

I wouldn't call it complete inequality. That's a bit OTT. Individuals are also capable of sorting things out themselves, they don't need governments to solve everything for them.

By that logic, women never needed the vote, they could simply agree upon who their husbands should vote for with them.

People are not always able to sort things out themselves and that's where rights and laws come in. And if one side in a dispute has an overwhelming advantage over the other, then there's a problem.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Of course one thing at a time, but given this thread is about gender rights, I suspect we might disagree on which thing should be dealt with first.

By that logic, women never needed the vote, they could simply agree upon who their husbands should vote for with them.

People are not always able to sort things out themselves and that's where rights and laws come in. And if one side in a dispute has an overwhelming advantage over the other, then there's a problem.

Um. Women (black and white) got the vote 50 years after black men did. Things don't happen overnight, not even in a progressive nation.

As long as you buy into one side over the other and not look at things wholistically, nothing will ever get solved because you are reinforcing the false paradigm and keeping things divisive. Doing exactly the same thing feminists do.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Um. Women (black and white) got the vote 50 years after black men did.

In the US. In the UK universal suffrage for women came in ten years after that for men - less said about black men, or women, actually being able to exercise that right, before the 1960's. In Ireland, the Irish Free State gave both genders universal suffrage at the same time. In fact, many countries afforded universal suffrage to both genders at the same time.

The US is not a good example in this area.

Things don't happen overnight, not even in a progressive nation.

It certainly won't happen if nothing is done about it and what you've just suggested is putting finite resources into something else.

As long as you buy into one side over the other and not look at things wholistically, nothing will ever get solved because you are reinforcing the false paradigm and keeping things divisive. Doing exactly the same thing feminists do.

You're not looking at it 'wholistically' though. If you were you'd realize that, to begin with, if you want to choose to put something on the back-burner, someone's rights, often the most basic ones, to their own children are far more fundamental to a 'right' improved childcare facilities. And also that in enfranchising men to their children will increase support for such childcare, thus making it more achievable politically.

I don't disagree that both are aims that should be pursued, but frankly men have waited long enough for these basic rights, TBH.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

In the US. In the UK universal suffrage for women came in ten years after that for men - less said about black men, or women, actually being able to exercise that right, before the 1960's. In Ireland, the Irish Free State gave both genders universal suffrage at the same time. In fact, many countries afforded universal suffrage to both genders at the same time.

The US is not a good example in this area.

It certainly won't happen if nothing is done about it and what you've just suggested is putting finite resources into something else.

You're not looking at it 'wholistically' though. If you were you'd realize that, to begin with, if you want to choose to put something on the back-burner, someone's rights, often the most basic ones, to their own children are far more fundamental to a 'right' improved childcare facilities. And also that in enfranchising men to their children will increase support for such childcare, thus making it more achievable politically.

I don't disagree that both are aims that should be pursued, but frankly men have waited long enough for these basic rights, TBH.

Ok so we are now mixing up three nations.

So I'm clear on what you are talking about, when you talk about rights to children, which nation are you talking about because they are all different in this regard.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Ok so we are now mixing up three nations.

Why did you mention the US? If as a general example of how long it took women to get the vote, then it's not a good example to pick from (unless you want to give the impression that women waited much longer to get the vote than men everywhere). Otherwise, why would we be talking about the US on an Irish site?

So I'm clear on what you are talking about, when you talk about rights to children, which nation are you talking about because they are all different in this regard.

Again, this is an Irish site. We've been discussing an article that was published in the Irish Times. Most discussions have been revolving around Irish law and politics here. So what do you think?

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Why did you mention the US? If as a general example of how long it took women to get the vote, then it's not a good example to pick from (unless you want to give the impression that women waited much longer to get the vote than men everywhere). Otherwise, why would we be talking about the US on an Irish site?

Again, this is an Irish site. We've been discussing an article that was published in the Irish Times. Most discussions have been revolving around Irish law and politics here. So what do you think?

To illustrate things take time. And in Ireland things really take time.

People talk about the US all the time on this site. They use US and UK stats too. So it's a valid question to ask for clarification.

Now, as I'm starting to feel a little henpecked and my ideas are not really valued here with you, I'll let you come up with solutions, as to rights in Ireland, where by the way children have more rights than their parents, thanks o the children's rights act, albeit in a context in which enforcement is flimsy across several contexts.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

To illustrate things take time. And in Ireland things really take time.

Then, as I said, you picked a bad example, because it took less time in Ireland than in the US for suffrage to be extended to both genders.

Look, my main objection to what you wrote was that you want to place priority on 'affordable childcare' and that all other issues are of lesser importance. You even went to suggest that seeking to improve our rights, men are being 'decisive'.

Unfortunately, if men don't then it's clear that these rights will never be afforded. Feminism isn't going to campaign for them. Would you prefer that we stay quiet and accept our lot instead?

I'm afraid, as such, I'll have to disagree with you there, for the reasons I've given.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then, as I said, you picked a bad example, because it took less time in Ireland than in the US for suffrage to be extended to both genders.

Look, my main objection to what you wrote was that you want to place priority on 'affordable childcare' and that all other issues are of lesser importance. You even went to suggest that seeking to improve our rights, men are being 'decisive'.

Unfortunately, if men don't then it's clear that these rights will never be afforded. Feminism isn't going to campaign for them. Would you prefer that we stay quiet and accept our lot instead?

I'm afraid, as such, I'll have to disagree with you there, for the reasons I've given.

Ok so if you're talking exclusively about Ireland, what rights are you talking about?

And how in practical terms would you like to see them manifest?

I didn't say MEN were being divisive. I said MR groups are being divisive. Just as feminism doesn't speak for all women, MR groups don't represent the the voice of all men either. So NO, I didn't say MEN were being divisive, but that special interest partisan political activists are being divisive.

And just as feminism earns resentment from many women, so will MR groups too for assuming to speak for half the population.

pwurple

The Corinthian wrote: »

It wouldn't, at all. Remember, paternity leave would still be dependant upon the mother's permission. What's the point of paternity leave when you have no (enforceable) right to even take care of your child?

If there are two guardians, it should be be a joint decision. Both signatures on the form deciding who is to take leave when. And it can also be enocuraged easily enough, as it is in sweden, where there are tax breaks for sharing the leave, but none for one parent taking the whole lot. (And as we all know in sweden, where taxes are massive, a tax break is no small encouragment).

Oh, so you're suggesting now that the way to have any rights to your children, is to marry and become financially liable to support the mother for the rest of your lives? Even if you don't like her, let alone love her?

Not quite, but I'd ask what you are doing having children with someone you neither like nor love enough to even become the guardian of the child created during the period immediately after the birth? Best to start at the root of that problem.

As they say, hard cases make bad law. Best policy is always to legislate primarily for the most common case... Which is two people having a baby who do intend to remain together.

I would even hope, that with better balance, where there isn't as much pressure on a man to do a job he resents, or pressure on a woman to fulfill a role she where she is unhappy, that maybe some relationships would be under less stress?

It is actually all tied up together. When a woman has lost her career and earning abililty by having to step out and become a child carer, while a man progresses his career unhindered... when a divorce occurs, a case can be made (and often is) that the man undertook to support her for the rest of her days. I would expect that attitude would also change if a womans earning power was not curtailed in the first place, or if it was split at the beginning. I do know women who pay their spouses maintenance currently when they outearn. The reason it is unbalanced now is because the income and childcare is unbalanced.

Taking the example of sweden again, it has a high divorce rate. The general thinking is that there are not as many financial barriers to divorce (because the female earnings are roughly equal, spousal support is not as common) So people living in unhappy marriages are more free to dissolve the contract if it suits them.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Ok so if you're talking exclusively about Ireland, what rights are you talking about?

I've touched on this in an earlier post and at this stage I don't want to derail the thread further by turning this into a father's rights discussion.

I didn't say MEN were being divisive. I said MR groups are being divisive. Just as feminism doesn't speak for all women, MR groups don't represent the the voice of all men either. So NO, I didn't say MEN were being divisive, but that special interest partisan political activists are being divisive.

So who do you suggest seeks to represent the rights of men in society? Feminism certainly isn't. No one, because that would be 'divisive'?

And just as feminism earns resentment from many women, so will MR groups too for assuming to speak for half the population.

That's the danger, but what do you suggest? That we go on ignoring the widening gulf in rights between men and women in many areas for fear of being resented? What alternative do you suggest?

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've touched on this in an earlier post and at this stage I don't want to derail the thread further by turning this into a father's rights discussion.

So who do you suggest seeks to represent the rights of men in society? Feminism certainly isn't. No one, because that would be 'divisive'?

That's the danger, but what do you suggest? That we go on ignoring the widening gulf in rights between men and women in many areas for fear of being resented? What alternative do you suggest?

Look, I've already proposed more of a family approach to the entire philosophy and culture of all of this.

You shot it down.

So there ya go. Your solution is MRs and mine is drop both feminism and MRs and take on a family approach. And I would say this for both the US and Ireland and the UK, which given current emmigration levels would make germane sense.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

The Corinthian

pwurple wrote: »

If there are two guardians, it should be be a joint decision.

It should be, but in practice it's not. Worse still, the proposed reform of guardianship under the last government would have demoted the non-custodial role to a consultative one, making this lack of rights de jura, rather than the present de facto situation.

Not quite, but I'd ask what you are doing having children with someone you neither like nor love enough to even become the guardian of the child created during the period immediately after the birth? Best to start at the root of that problem.

Because accidents happen. Because people sometimes go into relationships and they don't work out. Because of many other reasons that don't happen to those lucky enough to be in happy relationships.

As they say, hard cases make bad law. Best policy is always to legislate primarily for the most common case... Which is two people having a baby who do intend to remain together.

Then we should not bother legislating for minorities, as they don't represent the most common cases either. Or gay rights; after all they're only ten percent of the population - much less than the percentage of failed relationships out there.

The expression 'hard cases make bad laws' is used when exceptional cases are used as a basis for legislation. Problem is these are not exceptional cases. Excluding non-marital relationships, even marital separations and divorces still make up a substantial percentage of all marriages - there's nothing exceptional about them, yet the rights of both parties are not addressed equally.

I'm sorry, but not all people are as lucky as you in their relationships. And if your attitude is 'tough' to them, then don't expect others to sympathize with you.

It is actually all tied up together. When a woman has lost her career and earning abililty by having to step out and become a child carer, while a man progresses his career unhindered...

Then we should be addressing this, not promoting it, which is what current legislation and daft policies such as quotas do.

clairefontaine wrote: »

Look, I've already proposed more of a family approach to the entire philosophy and culture of all of this.

How did what you suggested address the point of representing the rights of men in society? If it does, you'll have to explain it to me. If not, you didn't propose anything constructive and we'll have to agree to disagree.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

How did what you suggested address the point of representing the rights of men in society? If it does, you'll have to explain it to me. If not, you didn't propose anything constructive and we'll have to agree to disagree.

Are men not part of families? Family is inclusive of men. Did you forget that?

And I'm still waiting for your constructive, practical proposals. It's give and take here isn't it or are you just going to keep demanding solutions from me, shoot them down and then not offer alternatives?

Femme_Fatale

Nathanael Jolly Barmaid wrote: »

there is a thread on the Lades Lounge about why we need feminism. Recently in the thread the argument was made that feminism is needed because of instances of child sexual abuse.

When the point was made from some men and women that this wasn't an area that needed to be gendered it was shot down.

Why does child sexual abuse show that we need feminism? Is it because only feminists care about children?

I found that bizarre and annoying too. To be fair, I don't think the implication was that men don't really care about sexual abuse of children and only women do, but I dislike the stream of feminism that latches on to any cause for vulnerable people.
It reminds me of the way a street protest starts in town on a Saturday and then all these other completely non related causes join in. I know they're in solidarity with the original protesters - and that's a good thing, but they're also showcasing their own causes, and trying to shoe-horn their angle into it.

I would agree feminism (along with other ideologies) is needed in relation to sexual assault of women in societies where their being women alone is the cause for them being "easy prey" - the message needs to be taught in these societies that women are not inferior; that's where some feminist theory comes in, and one doesn't even need to be a feminist to advocate it.

But child sexual abuse in general, and in the western world - obviously it's going to be a concern for feminists and every other kind of person, but how can it mean we "need" feminism?

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Are men not part of families? Family is inclusive of men. Did you forget that?

No, I didn't forget because in reality families are not always inclusive of men thanks to the present system. So your point fails, I'm afraid.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, I didn't forget because in reality families are not always inclusive of men thanks to the present system. So your point fails, I'm afraid.

And the current system is driven by whom?

And one of the reasons I'm saying replace it by a family ethos. Duh.

Still waiting for your suggestions. Guess you don't have any.

Ah well.

Sauve

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

A cynic might suggest it comes from a female mindset of it's her child when there are decisions to be made and our child when there's money to be paid.

Mod
This type of lazy generalisation is not welcome around here, please bear that in mind when posting.

Agent Green

clairefontaine wrote: »

And the current system is driven by whom?

And one of the reasons I'm saying replace it by a family ethos. Duh.

Still waiting for your suggestions. Guess you don't have any.

Ah well.

What difference does it make who it's being 'driven' by? Surely making the system fair is what matters?

Agent Green

More examples of gendering of social issues. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/menstruating-is-normal-sex-is-normal-contraception-is-normal-abortion-is-normal-it-s-time-to-get-over-it-1.1549402 Incidentally - this article had almost 800 comments earlier today - mainly critical of the journalist.

The article is abysmally bad. It's easily the worst article ever printed in the Irish Times, at least in recent memory. It's shocking. And people lined up to let them know.

So much so - that they've removed every single comment. Every one - and they've disabled the comment function for this article of sheer lunacy. The Irish Times is becoming a laughing stock. The usual suspects are circling the wagons (like they did for Una) on Anthea's Twitter.

Wibbs

Agent Green wrote: »

More examples of gendering of social issues. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/menstruating-is-normal-sex-is-normal-contraception-is-normal-abortion-is-normal-it-s-time-to-get-over-it-1.1549402

While I think the article is badly written in more than a few places I don't see how it's gendering of social issues. Pregnancy and abortion are about as gender based as you can get. As a man I'm kinda on the sidelines*. Maybe I'm missing something?

So much so - that they've removed every single comment. Every one - and they've disabled the comment function

Yep I agree with you there. If you have a view and express that in a medium that invites commentary, removing that commentary(unless it's clearly abusive) just because it doesn't agree with your view is pure cowardice.



*I do have some issues around it. EG in the wider areas of reproductive choice. As a man I can't legally "terminate" my fatherhood. I'm stuck with it and the decision of the woman/mother. If she decides to terminate the pregnancy I have no say, but if she decides to bring a child to full term I have no say either and after that I'm responsible in law as a father. Though TBH I can't see that changing until we get artificial wombs. Until then like I say I'm gonna be a bystander because of nature and my gender, just as a woman goes through pregnancy because of nature and her gender.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

And the current system is driven by whom?

Read the thread; that's what the topic of it largely is about.

And one of the reasons I'm saying replace it by a family ethos. Duh.

Define family. Not all families are based upon standard, happy relationships between the mother and father. Many relationships fail. Many relationships didn't exist in the first place.

Just because it sounds like a nice, positive approach doesn't mean it is. As things stand, without a reform of family law, your 'family ethos' is just more of the same.

Or tell me; were the tables turned, and fathers automatically got custody of the children, able to cut the mother out of her children's lives, would you be as enthusiastic to promote a 'family ethos'?

Still waiting for your suggestions. Guess you don't have any.

I already said that I didn't want to drag the discussion off topic further into one on father's rights.

However, if you did want to focus on a 'family ethos' you have to first reform what that ethos is, removing the inequities first. Give equal rights to both genders to their children. Remove the presumption that only one gender is the natural carer and award custody based on the child's best interests rather than this presumption. Enforce the rights of the non-custodial parent (father or mother).

Only then can you begin to talk about 'family ethos' seriously.

Rev Hellfire

Wibbs wrote: »

Pregnancy and abortion are about as gender based as you can get. As a man I'm kinda on the sidelines*. Maybe I'm missing something?

That would be true if the result of a pregnancy had no impact on the male, but that is not the case. The decision of another person determines if you'll be bound into a financial burden for almost two decades with potentially little to show for it other than a collection of bills.

I think that makes it very much an issue for both sexes. Perhaps for different reasons, but both with very real world consequences.