@iamthemob I did not ask what you think ABOUT feminism. I asked what you think feminism IS. I think it is a systemic methodology to acquire parity with men but not at face value. That is what I see feminism as and how applied.
*Man does not have any legal control over his “DNA.” If you’re talking about abortion rights, I understand the personal stake.” I don’t care what you want to call it but a man do not have say over any part of a creation which his DNA was vastly important in the creation. As you say about test, they were overly done as to keep women out, here it is overly done to give women more rights at the expense of the men,—-I can blame many generations of pussy whipped men and vote whore politicians for that one—. If it was his house with his money and the marriage goes south under the way the law is applied to his DNA he should not have to share any part of the house with her, she should move out and go get her own.
However, a person does not have much in the way of legal rights to parts of themselves once they’ve been removed. Part of my case right there, the use of semantics and junk logic to try to bamboozle the issue when it appears women will have to give up some part of the pie or share it for a seat at the table. Trying to say if he has sex with her without a condom and she becomes pregnant he has no say over than DNA once it departs his penis into her vagina. The bamboozling come where one tried to cleave men of the right, but not the responsibility should she decide to keep it. If he don’t have any claim to it he should be allowed to keep that up or exact it after the birth, if we are talking all fairness and equality.
This is because, once it, ahem, LEAVES your body, and meiosis starts, what is created is either (1) a life of its own, on one side, which means that YOU don’t have ANY rights to it greater than its own rights (I think the thirteenth amendment frees us all from slavery) or (2) a part of HER BODY. To clear up, it is, as you say, a life of its own, at the appropriate time he/she will be expelled to live a life of its own and not forever a symbiant of the woman. It is NOT a part of the body or the woman’s “other” tissue. It was not a spontaneous growth that just happened without the present of male sperm; it did not form like a cancer. If so, I would say men has no say, if we want to be fair and equal about it. The mother has only limited rights in pure logic as to what she should be able to do with it because it is a life of its own whose creation is equally shared by both parents. I guess we can curse God because He made it that females carry and birth the children. That is one of their primary roles. In the creation part and early childhood era of a person it is the mother who carries them until birth and feeds them –I will give bottles took some of that away in most industrialized nations, but that is quite a new thing over the totality of history, that is why females have breast that make milk. But the important but different function seem to miss feminist who think we all should be just alike. Maybe one day we can take the woman out of it and gestate the unborn in long black tubes then she can walk away and go sex it up more with out ever having risk of being ”stuck” with a child in the womb or having to vacuum it out like rubbish. That day is not today. However you call it if you are going to be true to fairness it took 2 sets of chromosomes to get things going, both parties have a say.
The fact that you donated an ounce of material and six seconds of time to the process doesn’t mean you should have equal say as the person who has to gestate, feed, and birth a child because of that. Donate? If you have consensual sex with someone of legal age and she did not enforce birth control there is no donation because unless she is a whopping loon she knows the risk. Even if it were an accident and unintended to say everyone else go to hell because she get to be sole arbitrator when we are speaking fair and equal shows that to be a fraud. If it were anything else the court would weight it out on a case by case basis. If I and a woman built a house together and somehow she went hiking in Egypt and ended up arrested I could not just decide to sell the house, my half and hers with out some legal proceeding just because I am paying the mortgage, utilities, and upkeep with out any help from her. If we can take such detail over property we should be 10 times more attentive to detail on children (even if unborn).
Some women want that, and I’ve already said that the law has been changed in order to ensure that the requirements do not create a disparate impact on women being able to participate. Many of the standards set were higher than necessary and designed to keep women out (kind of like the clean-shaven requirement for firefighters was designed to keep black men out). When it comes down to anything in which physical ability comes into play feminist more than not want the rules bent or broken so they can succeed at them. What better way to say ”I can’t compete head to head” than that? Using shaving as a way to exclude other men has no physical basis at all. A man with stubble can carry a 425lb man just as well as one who is clean shaven. Those that can’t, can’t clean shaven, full beard or whatever. Women, no matter what the race will have a harder time doing it, again, blame God for not making women with the same physical attributes and traits as men, then I guess He would not have need of Eve people might just be hatched from eggs then it would be all equal. To say safety was overplayed to undermine women? Really? Reeeeeealy? Guess that is why they kept women out of the military because they just knew in a knife fight in a fox hole women could take out the enemy just as much as any guy –just not here in America when they report wife beater—but they just did not want women to get medals for valor, bravery and outstanding conduct. Now I see it……. That is why the illustration of sports comes in, it is the purest and easiest barometer of the feminist fraud ”we want to play but we can’t play head to head because we would get our clocked cleaned as is being said”. Gals want to play with the guys to play with the guys because they are just as capable BUT we have to do so that every team is balanced equally with females or rules modifies to make up for shortcomings.
They want to be executives when they want to but want to take off and be mommies when they choose. All fair and well, it is there choice. They want to hold the business or company hostage while they do so. If a company is working on a big project and she decides to take off to have a baby, why should she think she should come back in at the same rate and pay when she has been out of it by her own choice for many months or a year plus? What if there is nothing for her to really do to warrant a promotion or raise? Everyone else has been there the past week, months and more working on this big project. What are they suppose to do? Hold her hand while they take extra effort to bring her back up to speed? If there is one road to the ivory tower and only 2 condos left in the tower should she have the right to park her car in the lane and bar anyone from those last 2 condos because she chose go be a parent? That would be to tell anyone hired after her to fill the void she left, “no matter how hard you work, or how great it is you can’t advance because we have to save that office for _______ or when she decided to come back and there is not place for her or she gets passed over she will sue and cry foul”. No matter who leaves and for what, you pass on the kudos is what I say. You want to go to Tuscany to ”find yourself” go, just don’t expect the company to hold your job or your position as a “have to”, if they chose to then it is a different matter.
As for your other suggestions, the ADA covers disabilities, and states that they would have to otherwise qualify for the job if there is some way they can be accommodated, and if not offered there must be a legitimate business reason.” Good thing you mentioned that. The ADA is a good thing for the most part, but any person with a disability who don’t realize their limitations need to be checked. It is all feel good junk logic to say you can be anything you set your mind to, it is a disservice to tell disable kids that. Can a blind person or one in a wheel chair be an effective mail carrier? More likely not. Can a blind person be a bike messenger? More likely *NOT, there are things people with disabilities just can’t do or cannot do effectively. If you age going to demand a job because you feel you can keep up and that you are no different and equal to your fellow workers then you should be able to do that, if the company or business has to modify or change anything for that person or small group of workers that only they will benefit from them logically they were not good enough head to head because they could not do the job effectively enough. That would be like telling students about to take a test that those from the barrio and the ghetto who is suppose to be just as smart as the students from the affluent and private schools that they can take the test “open-book” to give them greater assurances to pass. If they really were smart enough there would not be any special treatment needed.
The latter is a weak attempt to show “difference and therefore no equality.” That would be the feminist game, unless equal in size, color, material, amount, etc then there is not equality. I say as say there is no computer with out both the software and the hardware to have just on or the other you really don’t have anything. They are both different, function different, but goes together with out being a mirror of the other.
Composing members:
0
