Feminist "Rights"

Men and women are different. There, I've said it. It's been mentioned a couple of times in other posts on this blog as well. But different doesn't mean 'not equal in value'. Men and women are complementary; each has talents or skills (or a lack of them) that are complemented by those of their partner.

I also find it interesting that males are often referred to as 'chauvinist' or 'misogynist' but there doesn't seem to be a male version of the word "feminist" - a word describing male rights or a similar movement. Perhaps there hasn't needed to be one in the past; I do agree that women haven't always had the same legal rights as men, and that needed to be addressed and I think largely has been (apart from pay equity, which I'm not really sure about).

In some respects, it isn't that men feel they are better than women - we don't think about it at all actually - it's that feminists seem to have an inferiority complex which, at this time in history, is largely of their own making.

Feminists seem to be angry that men seem to be telling them what to do with their bodies (with regard to abortion), but I don't see it that way. Let's say a woman had given birth, and her baby was a week old and she was going to kill it, does a man have a right to tell her that is wrong? I think, as a card-carrying member of the human race, he has every right, and no man or woman would disagree. But for some reason, when the baby is still in the womb, it becomes a "woman's choice" and her choice alone. Perhaps because it is still inside her and it could be argued that it is a part of her body and dependent on her. The writer of this article (which article Lucia mentioned here) makes the point that her body is "mine to control", but is her baby's body hers as well? Are they not two different lives, even as small as the baby is?

To me, a baby is it's own person - growing and changing in the womb and it doesn't stop growing and changing even after it is born; nor is it any less dependent on it's mother after it is born - it still needs feeding (most often mother's milk - still relying on sustenance from the mother's own body), and still needs changing, and all the other things that parents do.

In answer to some other points the writer makes -

so ridiculously classic Leftist Chauvinist that I’m not sure it’s not satirical. Self-interest, The Great Left, and then, maybe, some tiny wee gender bonus.

As if abortion is (mostly) about anything other than self interest.

And having abortion on demand couldn’t ever possibly be an indicator of more liberal attitudes to sex and contraception which result in fewer unplanned and unwanted pregnancies.

You might think that is logically so, but liberal attitudes to sex and contraception actually lead to MORE abortion; in fact, abortion today is largely used as a contraceptive, or is the result of failed contraception.

Because no human being, living, breathing, or otherwise, actually has a “right” that allows them to commandeer another human being’s body. Not even to survive.

Wow.. being pregnant is having your body "commandeered"? Really? That's how she sees it? How selfish. Tell that to the State that enlisted men and women to fight for us in WWII, that they had no right to commandeer the lives of those they enlisted so that others may survive. In re-reading the post, she seems to be saying that having children is a burden.. or a curse that women are slaves to. The next line confirms this -

It’s about women having sex and being punished for it through biological slavery.

You know, men can't have children. It's a gift that God has given to women, to be able to bring forth new life into the world; yes, I said a gift, although she considers it more a curse. She also says that an unplanned pregnancy is an organism "occupying a human being against her will", almost like the creature on Alien. Yes, I'm going to say it - it's not possible to become pregnant (apart from rape) without an act to which you give your consent. Sure, you might not have wanted a baby as a result, but babies are largely what sex was made for.

Here's a clue: men and women weren't supposed to have sex until they found the partner they were going to spend the rest of their lives with. Sex was never meant as a casual, fun pursuit, to be engaged in on a Friday night with a stranger as a temporary pleasure akin to having a wine.

The fault can be placed largely at the feet of bra-burning feminism itself and the liberalism and Free Love of the 60s that told us it's OK to have sex with whomever and wherever you want, and here's a Pill to stop the otherwise expected (but unwanted) result.