Thursday, February 12, 2009

Equality the aim? Guess again!

It has been many years since the beginning of the feminist movement. And though it has made many gains it still has a way to go. In the past it was obvious that women were treated as inferiors. They were paid less than a man, yet did the equal amount and quality of work. In divorce cases they were usually left with the short end of the stick. Before legalized abortion, womens lives were threatened with back room abortions. Its impressive how far we've come as a culture. There is still room for improvement though, and not all of it is in regards to equality for women. There is a voice out there that is not being heard. This voice is that of the genuine father. It is true that a womans body is her own, yet in the event of her becoming pregnant it is forgotten that it took someone else for this to occur. What happens to the father of a fetus(child) that is about to be aborted? His voice is not heard, the determination is left solely up to the woman. Is this fair or equal treatment? There are good men out there that are left in an emotional wasteland because their concerns are not being heard. They are helpless, and yet this is considered the way it should be. Another example is in the case of child support, when it was clearly agreed upon that the couple would not have a child. If the woman then decides to change her mind and get pregnant without the consent of the father, he is then legally required to pay support. Is this fair? Is this not a similar type of oppression that women faced years ago? In both these instances the father has no rights, he is at the mercy of the woman. Is this a type of inequality that we want our culture to promote? If inequality is not right for women, how can it be right for men? Lastly in the event of a divorce, typically it has been the woman who gets primary custody. Now I know this has changed drastically in the past decade, but it still has room for improvement. We should not judge all fathers based on the ones who are negligent. There are many good, upstanding men who want equal treatment in the rearing of their children. It is a common mistake to assume that women make better nurturers than fathers. My hope is that we are treated as equals in all areas. The truth is, there are good and bad apples in both genders.

23 comments:

freestyleroadtrip said...

Yeah. I think I agree with most of that if not all of it. The pendulum in some ways seems to be swinging the other way with men taking the brunt of it now. Maybe the trade off for the centuries of abuse women have taken is a bit fair. But I agree that the goal should be equality in the end if that is possible. I would add another inequality in there to your list...school. School is geared towards girls. Sitting still all day. Listening much of the day. No exploring. No building. Mostly reading. Emphasis on politeness and fairness and no battling. All that is important but the emphasis is misplaced. Little boys are almost expected to act like little girls.

Luke said...

maybe that's why God is so often viewed as an "All-Loving Father." maybe that's also why the concept of God is so hard to believe.

there's few and far good fathers out there. JT, do you have any kids? Doug?

Tit for Tat said...

Hey Luke

Yes, I have a daughter who will be 12 in April and a stepson who will be 15 in April. We are fortunate that they are Healthy, Happy, and relatively well behaved lol.

Tit for Tat said...

Oh by the way Luke, theres a false belief(few good fathers), in a world of duality I would say its pretty much equal. There are no more dysfunctional men then there are women, its all perception.

Luke said...

"There are no more dysfunctional men then there are women, its all perception."

thanks for calling me on my crap! i guess i didn't get over my own bias of not having a good father of my own so i projected that unto the rest of the world. good catch! that's why i hang around here ;-)

my best to your kids, they're blessed to have you as a father (and vice versa i'm sure!)

Tit for Tat said...

Luke

Tit for Tat.......youve been stretching my brain for a while now. I cant wait to meet you and Kate. Hopefully pre baby .

freestyleroadtrip said...

Luke. Two boys. 9 and 10. I did have a pretty good father although, as you can imagine from my comment above, I don't feel like he taught me much about toughness and work. I learned that on my own and, yes, have gone overboard and struggle with the middle ground in teaching it to my boys. I am trying like crazy to offer my boys better than what I had although what I had was nowhere near terrible and most times was good. At least I know my dad loved and still does love me, and at least he was present most of the time. I think he was tied up with pastoring a church much of the time, but I was not abandoned.

A. Friend said...

Before legalized abortion, womens lives were threatened with back room abortions.
---------------

Its's amazing how people just say things because other people have said it too.

Exactly where did you get this information?

What is the nature of all these "back-room" or "back-alley" abortions that people drone on and on about?

How were they performed?

How many people yearly ended up in the hospital because of "coat hanger" abortions?

Before there was legal abortion, most abortions were performed by doctors in hospitals and doctor's offices.

http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/76383/time_to_end_the_"back_alley_butcher"_myth/

The "back room" thing was part of a deliberate campaign of mis-information that continues today.

I have the cold. That's why i might seem a little short, but it's meant in all politeness.

Thordaddy said...

Tit for tat,

If you want a solution then you must first identify the problem. And your problem is claiming a woman's body is her own.

That's true when she wants to eat a box of bon bons or get the coolest, trendiest tattoo. But if she wants to deceive you into child-rearing or even worse, kill your child, then only the most cowardly of males would consent to the idea that a woman has a fundamental "right" to her own body other than in the most trivial ways.

In the ways that count the most (procreation/abortion), a man would be derelict in his duty to concede to this notion as it not only gives your problem no solution, but it evidences the decline of civilization.

Tit for Tat said...

but it evidences the decline of civilization.(Thordaddy)

Where have you been, its been declining since you were born. And that had nothing to do with your birth. Thats just life bud.

Thordaddy said...

Tit for tat,

So you agree that the decline of real men parallels our civilizational decline or you just can't come to grips with standing firm on the moral principle that a woman does not have an absolute "right" to her body?

Tit for Tat said...

thordaddy

You said civilization, not "our" civilization. As far as rights go, she can do whatever she deems appropriate. I just dont have to like it. And the only Law I work with is the one of the culture in which I live.

Thordaddy said...

Tit for tat asks,

'Is it right that women have complete control over what they do with their bodies?'

Tit for tat answers,

As far as rights go, she can do whatever she deems appropriate.

Why ask a question in which you already have an answer? And you gave not just an answer, but you conceded the moral high ground.

You gave the impression that this was a moral question that gave you great pause, but apparently no such reservation actually exists?

Tit for Tat said...

Thor

Why not, thats what creates dialogue. Isnt our "moral" position based on the law of the land? At least in this country. By the way Im not claiming to be right, Im just discussing, whats your purpose in being here?

Thordaddy said...

Tit for tat,

I found your blog via another blog hosted by a self-loathing white liberal. When I got to read a few of your posts it seemed odd that you guys were linked. But now it seems that you are also a white "liberal" of the Canadian variety that may - and I am speculating - have been burnt by an even more liberal ex-wife?

This seems to explain your writing and linkage.

Tit for Tat said...

Thor

Actually I have a combination of "Liberal" and conservative ideas. The wife I have now is my first. Hey, do you like UFC?

Thordaddy said...

Tit for tat,

I see value in the UFC and excuse my speculation.

Does your wife think she has a fundamental right to do whatever with her body?

Tit for Tat said...

Thor

Under the laws of our country she does. Now that doesnt mean she is that absolute. The thing is, would you be willing to deny a woman(regardless of the situation) the option of abortion? And if yes, would you also enforce it?

Thordaddy said...

Tit for tat asks,

The thing is, would you be willing to deny a woman(regardless of the situation) the option of abortion? And if yes, would you also enforce it?

First, I like to make clear that abortion is really an act of killing one's child. The liberal habit of seeing it through the prism of absolute freedom conveys a false notion that we are absolutely free.

Because my understanding recognizes that NONE of us are absolutely free, it is logical to conclude that women are not absolutely free either. This means they can conceivably be denied certain freedoms just as the rest of us are.

With this idea, the truth of the matter is that a fundamental "right" to kill one's child in utero is immoral and false and therefore CANNOT be considered a fundamental "right."

To be absolutely free to do whatever one wants especially if such freedom means purposely denying the freedom of your own child by way of wilful death is no more than an act of "might makes right" and "my will" is paramount. These principles evidence a mentality that necessitates restraint from those that recognize radical freedom gone amok. And if killing one's child in utero and calling it a "fundamental right" is not radical freedom run amok then what is?

So to answer the question, I would be open to the idea that communities decide their abortion policy with the clear understanding that abortion is and always will be immoral and claiming it a "fundamental right" to be a false liberal notion.

At this point it seems counterproductive to punish brainwashed females for doing what liberal society has told them was a "fundamental right" and in exercising such a "right," one was exercising their freedom. In fact, it is quite something to think that the mother/child relationship has been so badly damaged at the transcendent level by our society's belief in a false notion of absolute freedom.

I think the best approach at this point is to get at the truth of the matter and convey it as much as one can.

Tit for Tat said...

Thor

And that is why in a Democratic society we vote and have our laws legislated. I guess if you want to have your belief of what is moral and immoral implemented, you best get the right amount of people to agree with you. If not, you need to follow the law of the land.

Thordaddy said...

Tit for tat,

I don't know how the right to kill one's child in utero came about in Canada, but Americans definitely did not vote for a mother's fundamental "right" to kill her child in utero. Such an immoral act did not come about by the traditional legislative actions. Instead, the assertion of a mother's fundamental "right" to kill her child in utero came about by liberal judicial fiat. The assertion has no legitimate basis either in morality or law.

Yet, you seem unwilling to state what you believe to be the truth other than stating that the law is your substitute for truth.

Tit for Tat said...

Thor

And you have a hard time accepting the "truth" of the law of your country. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Thordaddy said...

Tit for tat,

When it is clear, I no longer accept falsity even if such falsity has the cover of law. Of course, the remedy is to persuasively expose the falsity of claiming a mother's fundamental "right" to kill her child in utero, i.e., the "right" of abortion.

Again, it seems that you play the fence-sitting position which in turn guts the passion in your post.