Men Are The Expendable Gender

[Trippy]

`

It is biology that women have more reproductive power than men. Men and women have EQUAL responsibility to prevent, and then provide for any child born from that sexual union.

You continue to misunderstand me and argue against a point I am not making. Of course a man should use contraception if he doesn't want kids. Can prevent himself from having children, but he can't have a child on his own. A woman can, she can just go to a sperm bank and most likely she be pregnant fairly quickly. A man can't do that.

Shouting "that's biology" doesn't mean anything. It's biology that males should want to have children with as many females as possible too, but we don't accept that. Humans are intelligent beings, we are supposed to be above simple biology.

Shouting biology Um, Hermy? I thinks you might have to go back to high school. Unless science has been able to transport a womb in to a man's body and give him milk producing breasts, it IS BIOLOGY that women have the ability to carry the baby. Women have the reproductive power, because we carry and nurse the babies.

Men can have babies with as many women as he wants, as long as he can be a good father to them, emotionally and financially.

Single women do not have easy access to adopt babies either. Married couples don't have easy access to adopt babies either. Success in adoption is to adopt an older child, whether a single parent or a married couple.

It's a lot easier for women than it is for men to the point where a man trying on his own is more likely to end up being labelled a paedophile than a good father.

Is he trying to have children with children? Then, yes, he is a pedophile. If he is trying to have a child with a woman (a surrogate), that's not pedophilia!

Women can go to a sperm bank. Men can't pay a woman to be a surrogate in many territories because it's illegal. If they're lucky they'll find a woman willing to help them but even then the baby is legally her child, she has full parental rights which a sperm donor wouldn't have.

Men can pay women in America, apparently. Micheal Jackson did it, and no one arrested him!

In my country, they do. Maternity leave is one year. Six months for mom, six months for dad. The division is optional. The man could take the whole year; the woman could take the whole year. It is a decision that particular couple makes.

For it to be equal, the man should be able to stop working the day the woman stops and not go back until she does.

Then who is earning to support the family? How will these parents support their baby, pay the rent/mortgage, etc.?

Exactly. It isn't right, but again, that is what our society believes.

Our society has believed in a lot of things that were wrong but we learned and then we changed them.

Like what? Racism? Still exists. Sexism? Still exists. Homophobia? Still exists.

 

[Hermiod]

Shouting biology Um, Hermy? I thinks you might have to go back to high school. Unless science has been able to transport a womb in to a man's body and give him milk producing breasts, it IS BIOLOGY that women have the ability to carry the baby. Women have the reproductive power, because we carry and nurse the babies.

Men can have babies with as many women as he wants, as long as he can be a good father to them, emotionally and financially.

I'm only going to answer this one point, because so far you've been rather obtuse, answering points that I wasn't making. I'm mean, go back and read what you just said in reply to my comment about men trying to adopt alone. Now seriously, do you really think that's what I said ?

The last time I checked, our society was largely based on monogamy. We've built a whole family structure on one man, one woman. We've enshrined this in law with the concept of marriage. By doing this we put ourselves above the more basic biological need to reproduce. Biologically speaking, a male's chances of success are greater if he attempts to reproduce with multiple females. We choose to ignore that and stick to that one man, one woman system.

Basic biological needs are things we choose to ignore every day. That's part of what makes us intelligent.

Throughout this thread, in an attempt to bring this back on topic, multiple posters have said that female lives are more valued because of their role as potential mothers. That's only an issue of biology, something we, as I've pointed out above, are capable of ignoring.

For the record, paid surrogacy beyond basic expenses is illegal in the United Kingdom and surrogate mothers may be recognised as the child's legal parent, something sperm donors to not receive.

 

[Hermiod]

Just to lighten the mood in this thread a little bit, I have to admit that this is frighteningly true.

 

[Pingfah]

For the record, paid surrogacy beyond basic expenses is illegal in the United Kingdom and surrogate mothers may be recognised as the child's legal parent, something sperm donors to not receive.

Mu problem with this, and I believe it's probably the reason surrogacy is illegal and sperm donation is legal, is that contractually obliging a woman to give up a child after 9 months of pregnancy followed by labour, and the obvious emotional bonds that are unavoidably formed in that process is entirely different to contractually obliging a man to give up a child after he's tossed off into a test tube.

They are not the same thing and therefore they do not deserve equal treatment.

I think your comments throughout the thread have demonstrated that you are not prepared to accept biology as a distinguishing factor between men and women when determining laws that apply to both of them. This to me is entirely illogical because it patently IS a distinguishing factor.

Given what I consider to be the obscene idea of forcing a woman to give up a child after pregnancy by contract, the only fair way to balance the situation in my opinion, would be to ban sperm donation, which is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Men WANT to be able to donate sperm and not be financially responsible for the resulting child, if they didn't they wouldn't do it. And couples require donated sperm too.

I think inequality in this respect is perfectly reasonable, personally.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

I think your comments throughout the thread have demonstrated that you are not prepared to accept biology as a distinguishing factor between men and women when determining laws that apply to both of them. This to me is entirely illogical because it patently IS a distinguishing factor.

And yet should this same argument be used to defend something considered detrimental to women, logic be damned there would be outrage. Biology, like any other factor, is all too often ignored or promoted as a factor at a whim. Either biology is an excuse all the time, or none of the time. Indeed, if biological matters are so important, let's return to the point that men are naturally designed to reproduce with multiple females at once- women are not designed to mate with multiple men at once. I guess you must therefore believe it's okay for men to sleep around but disgraceful for women to do so? And women are equipped biologically to breast feed- so I guess if a law stated women had to remain at home and look after babies and men had to go out to work that would be okay? After all, biology patently IS a distinguishing factor.

 

[Pingfah]

And yet should this same argument be used to defend something considered detrimental to women, logic be damned there would be outrage. Biology, like any other factor, is all too often ignored or promoted as a factor at a whim. Either biology is an excuse all the time, or none of the time. Indeed, if biological matters are so important, let's return to the point that men are naturally designed to reproduce with multiple females at once- women are not designed to mate with multiple men at once. I guess you must therefore believe it's okay for men to sleep around but disgraceful for women to do so? And women are equipped biologically to breast feed- so I guess if a law stated women had to remain at home and look after babies and men had to go out to work that would be okay? After all, biology patently IS a distinguishing factor.

Oh, stop being ridiculous and stop making wild assumptions, biology is a factor when it creates an impasse, when it defines a difference between the sexes that affects the matter at hand, it doesn't always do that.

You are trying to apply a singular unflexible standard to multiple nuanced situations, and assuming I must therefore do the same.

Just because I think what I do about surrogacy does not mean I have to apply the same standard to sexual behaviour or anything else, they are two completely different things. Why on earth would my practical attitude about surrogacy have anything to do with my opinions on what is acceptable sexual practice? Not even slightly related.

 

[Hermiod]

Mu problem with this, and I believe it's probably the reason surrogacy is illegal and sperm donation is legal, is that contractually obliging a woman to give up a child after 9 months of pregnancy followed by labour, and the obvious emotional bonds that are unavoidably formed in that process is entirely different to contractually obliging a man to give up a child after he's tossed off into a test tube.

They are not the same thing and therefore they do not deserve equal treatment.

I think your comments throughout the thread have demonstrated that you are not prepared to accept biology as a distinguishing factor between men and women when determining laws that apply to both of them. This to me is entirely illogical because it patently IS a distinguishing factor.

Given what I consider to be the obscene idea of forcing a woman to give up a child after pregnancy by contract, the only fair way to balance the situation in my opinion, would be to ban sperm donation, which is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Men WANT to be able to donate sperm and not be financially responsible for the resulting child, if they didn't they wouldn't do it. And couples require donated sperm too.

I think inequality in this respect is perfectly reasonable, personally.

This is where we'll just have to agree to disagree. There are plenty of ways in which we override biology and don't treat it as the most important factor.

 

[Pingfah]

This is where we'll just have to agree to disagree. There are plenty of ways in which we override biology and don't treat it as the most important factor.

Yes, I suppose we will, because there are also plenty of ways in which we don't and shouldn't override biology just to equalise things between people who are different. We don't let blind people drive cars, or deaf people become air traffic controllers for instance.

Precise exact equality between everyone is simply not always practical or possible for biological reasons, sometimes it IS the most important factor, and complaining about it doesn't change this.