Why do so many feminists not see how illogical and unequal some of their arguments are?

Question

This a response to an earlier question about why some men want control over a woman's uterus but not over a vacuum or something like that.

I don't want to control your body but the second you say I'm going to be responsible then I'm going to pipe up. Again, isn't that just painfully obvious??

I think what they fail to consider is that men are people too and shouldn't have to be dictated to about what they HAVE to be responsible for. As long as you as a woman can choose not to have a baby (after you've done the act) then wouldn't it stand to reason that I as a man can also choose not have the responsibility of a child on my hands?

Or am i making so much sense that it goes against feminist ideals?

Answer 1

I have two kids and look after them both myself... I would not want my children to think that their dad did not want to have anything to do with them... and if that was the case i would not pursue him to anyway.  They do need emotional support, but by people who actually want to provide it.  Not only that, it is my body, yes accidents happen... but ultimately i think that if i don't want a baby then i have a responsibility to myself not to get pregnant, and if i am in a relationship then it should be for us both to decide.  Surely the child's well being is the most important factor, and if you do not want or agree with abortions then you have to be careful about your sexual encounters...and ultimately be responsible for your actions.  (Unless that is impossible for eg being raped.)  I don't think there is much point forcing someone into a situation, and really i do think men don't get enough options...but they do not have to carry the child either...it should be less about money and more about both parties taking and having equal responsibility.....if that is their mutual choice...

Answer 2

Not sharing/taking responsibility for a child is one of the underlying problems with youth in America.  Any woman who looks at sexual activity, without taking into account for the potential of having a baby, and likewise, any man that does the same, is immoral and cheap, in my book.

Answer 3

Feminists have got away with crazy illogical arguments for far too long. After 40 years of giving in to their pester-power we are at the point where feminists in government and law feel they have the right to discriminate against men in any way they like (e.g. Section 4 here http://www.freewebs.com/feminism-evaluat...

The days of this outrageous nonsense going unchallenged are over, feminists. Everyone else is waking up to the damage that has been done in the name of gender equality, and you should too.

Answer 4

The thing is, it's easier for a man to walk away from a baby. Meaning the mother has to nurture it and all that. If the baby is born then there needs to be two people for it to grow up healthy, if you know what I'm saying.

Abandoning a child and abortion are completely different. Once the abortion has taken place, there is no financial burden, no time burden or anything like that. But if you leave the woman with the child she's stuck with it! SHE has to look after it.

EDIT: But with completely different consequences! An abortion is a one time payment, a one-time thing.. well of course depending. But abandoning a child is hurting both the woman and you financially. Because you'd have to pay child support. IF finance and time consumption (for the woman) wasn't a factor then YES it is exactly the same thing. But you are creating a problem for somebody else and not taking responsibility. While an abortion isn't really creating a problem for anybody else. Do you see my logic?

Answer 5

Hatred of men blinds them.  Racists are the same way.  They argue that they are only trying to make life better for everybody using false statistics and lies.

Answer 6

Women do not have the right to avoid parenthood, they have the right to avoid pregnancy, as it can and does kill many thousands of women every day.  When paying child support carries as many risks as pregnancy then yes, men should be able to opt out of it.  But I don't see 1 in 7 men in Africa dying due to fatherhood, do you?  :-)

Edit - You are incorrect.  The physical risks of pregnancy and childbirth are exactly why abotion is legal - because the threat of death / injury to the mother is greater when she continues the pregnancy than with abortion.  If childbirth and pregnancy were safer than abortion, then it would not be legal.  Caesarians are dangerous in themselves, as well as being expensive and complicated, so abortion would remain the safer option regardless of whether women were offered them  :-)

Answer 7

This argument is really two different issues, and they need to be addressed separately.

First - responsible sexual behavior.

If you wish to avoid parenthood, you must use contraceptives or sexual techniques that do not result in pregnancy.  You must also accept that contraceptives do sometimes fail, and be prepared with a plan of action if your contraceptive method fails.  

If you are opposed to abortion, you must avoid sexual activity with people who hold opposing beliefs.

Second - a baby has been born...now what?

The choices are to keep it or give it up.

The law requires BOTH biological parents to sign away their rights in order to release an infant for adoption.   If one or the other refuses, then BOTH biological parents are held financially responsible for the child until it reached adulthood.

If you wish to use "male abortion" as an escape route from a lifetime of child support, then the same rules for abortion should be applied to both men and women.... the decision must be made early into the pregnancy (prior to 12 weeks, ideally), and the cost is several hundred dollars (may vary by location).    

Questioner:  What sort of person withholds such important information?  I'd say you made a poor decision about your sexual behavior.  Refer to my first point, above.

#2: Well, perhaps in the interest of "fairness over absolute equality"  the male abortion option could be available for say, 90 days from the time he is informed of his impending parental responsibility.  

You do realize what can of worms this will open, don't you?

Answer 8

Men have no choice and all the responsibility.

It's a win-win situation for women and they want us to shut up and like it.

Simple as that.

Answer 9

Really, listen to your argument - it's you who's being illogical.  You DO have a choice.....you have the choice to retain control over your sp*rm.  Practice safe s*x always.  It's your body and your choice.  But know that even the safest s*x carries a slight risk and here's where most guys go wrong.......if you choose (there's that word again) to put birth control in the woman's hands, then you are assuming a risk.

As far as the "responsibility", sorry but you're missing the larger point and the bigger issue.......when a man walks away from the responsibility of a child, it's not the mother who carries the responsibility - it's often society.  Single mothers on public assistance rely on the public to support the baby.  So the real question is why should "we" have to assume responsibility just because you abdicated it?

And finally, at the end of the day, there's a kid.  And no matter who did what or who lied to whom, there's a child who just needs a father.

BZZZ - nope.  sorry.  you know "the rules" going into it.  Contraceptives avoid the possibility of pregnancy but don't eliminate it.  You know going into it that if a pregnancy occurs, you will lose your right to choose.  Right then and there, you either walk away or assume the risk.  Your remark about the woman being an adult, assuming the responsibility sidesteps the fact that TWO people each assumed a risk and now one of them wants to change the rules in the middle of the game and place the financial responsibility on the woman and society.  

And again, you're not addressing the point of the child.  If a child is born, why should the child be penalized by being deprived of financial and emotional support?

EDIT:  You can disagree all you want but you're fighting the proverbial windmill Mr. Quixote.  You entered into an ironclad contract and voluntarily signed on the dotted line when you had s*x.  You understand that when you own a car, you have ultimate responsibility for the actions of the car.  You understand that if you let another person drive that car, you are assuming responsibility for the actions of the person behind the wheel.  So you give the keys to your girlfriend and she drives the car through the front doors of Town Hall.  And now all of a sudden, you want to walk away and say "well I had NO idea she was gonna do THAT", why should I have to be responsible for the damage to Town Hall.  Make her pay and if she's unable, let the taxpayers pay to repair the building.  You can't change or argue away that pregnancy takes place in a woman's body.  It's simply how it is.  It's no surprise, you learned it at a young age, no one pulled the wool over your eyes, you were absolutely fully informed of the potential risks involved in the transaction and entered into it anyway.

EDIT:  You bought insurance?  Then you knew there was a potential risk and you insured against it.  Just like using a condom.  She's not on your policy.  I beg to differ.  Read your policy.  She became an unamed insured as long as she was licensed and had permission to drive the car.  You simply got luckily in your scenario.  How 'bout a little 10 point wager?  Call a personal injury attorney and ask him - if you lent the car to your GF and she maimed or killed a pedestrian and you have $500,000 comp/collision who is he also going to name as a defendant.  He will hands down/no contest tell you that BOTH of you are going to be sued.  One thing he's not going to tell you is he's going to tell the pedestrian (child) sorry, but the owner of the car is sulking because the "choice" wasn't his.  Ding ding ding....think I hear the sound of 10 more points coming my way!!

EDIT:  They made a business decision, that's all.  They had say $1000 worth of damage and they took the easiest/fastest most expedious route....let's bill the driver and see what happens.  Your GF paid and everybody was happy.  If you're GF balked, they would have made another decision.  Do we let it go, or do we spend $2000 to subrogate against the vehicle owner?  But....it's a whole different ballgame when injuries are involved.  (With the caveat that if your GF has her own vehicle policy with a large amount of insurance they MAY be content with only looking at her - my scenario assumes she has limited or no insurance on her own, although it would border on malpractice if they let you off the hook just as a backup.)  She is on your policy.  I am theoretically on your policy (imagine that!).  Your policy has an entire section (in the US) on unnamed drivers.  Don't take my word for it.  Call a personal injury lawyer.  Now give the child a hug, pay the child support, and most importantly, give me my darn 10 points so I can move on to slaying the christians in religious studies section!  Playing devil's advocate is such a demanding position.