Question: Why Do MEN Have ANY Say In A WOMAN'S Right To Choose ???

[rrneck]

157. Well, maybe I missed it.

Let's have a look.

rrneck
82. It means that the husband has the right to determine whether or not he assumes the responsibilities of parenthood.

I don't think any reasonable person could rightfully force the responsibilities of parenthood on another. Just as it is wrong to compel a woman to carry a pregnancy to term and assume the responsibilities of motherhood, it's wrong to compel a man to assume financial and emotional responsibility for a child.

But here's where you went with it (even after I repeated myself in post 81):

ancianita
72. Even if the wife says no? So then, they can rape their wives all they want?
Because men say rights are what one can enforce... isn't that the logical end of your "rights" line of reasoning?

My assertion of choice assumes no sexual contact at all by either party. It it the right to not have a child enjoyed by both genders. Three posts into the subthread and you leap to a worst case scenario founded on a non sequitur.

ancianita
89. Subject only to his wife's agreement. His rights, or "say" don't give him any right to coercion.

Another non sequitur since the choice to do nothing precludes coercion on the part of the male. Note no such preclusion exists on the part of the female to coerce him by initiating a pregnancy without his consent.

ancianita
97. Collective male class dominance.
106. There are men all over the world who don't want a child. Yet, most of them have them.
(Wait, what? If they didn't want kids, whose fault is that?)
I'm calling the injustice that you say you don't deny...
Then there's you asking me why "we" are having this conversation when you blithely assert that men have "rights." That's like asserting that birds fly.
(Wait, you mean they don't? Aren't you asserting biological determinism here?)
...that make male behaviors and "rights" sound more like some 'natural' phenomenon than laws can possibly govern.

So after a flurry of non sequiturs and confrontational assumptions, post #116 quickly devolves into what would appear to be word salad. It's not. I have a fairly thick accent, and when I get upset or in a hurry a sort of "Ricky Ricardo" thing happens and nobody can understand a word that I say. What we have in this post is a flurry of feminist ideology shorthand. It appears as well when you refer to Chauncer.

Now, I obviously can't tell you how to feel but it's pretty obvious you're feeling something pretty strongly. And there's nothing wrong with that either. But the way this subthread has evolved displays what would appear to be an interesting set of objectives for those feelings.

A fundamentalist religion is just another ideology. It seems to me that it is characterized by, among other things, the understanding of the ideology as an end rather than a means. That understanding results in the creation of specific ingroups and outgroups and the application of a moral standard for both which is designed to favor the ideology. In my experience, the embrace of religion as an objective in itself can be seen with a retreat to litany, discounting of the rights of members in an outgroup, and the presentation of sacred text as a rebuttal.

Feminism is, well, an "ism" not unlike Catholicism or Buddhism, and people can feel any number of different ways about it. Nobody has any right to define those feelings for another. The question is not how they feel, but who profits from those feelings. In the case of conventional religion it's pretty obvious. In the case of feminism, not so much.

Just like most religions, feminism has played and continues to play an important part in the development of a just and compassionate society. The feelings that drive dedication to the cause of feminism also represent the source of a lucrative revenue stream for ideology producers interested in expanding their market. The conversion of a set of valid ideals into little more than a product happens when it is presented as something to be possessed and defended in it's own right like any other precious object. Dedication to an ideal becomes brand loyalty.

We have been in agreement about the facts of human rights throughout this entire conversation. The source of our disagreement is my lack of emotional conformity. I don't seem to share your dedication to feminist ideology, and you have flung everything but the kitchen sink at me for it.

And that's how the 1% makes money off ideology. Not only do they get to sell you the books, internet access, and other media to support your faith, it becomes a lever to divide you from others that share your ideals. That's how the rich are able to pay one half of the poor to kill the other half.