21, Currently attending Stevens Institute of Technology as an Art Tech major.
Reblogged from xkayla-mariex  274 notes
Why is it that feminists never really seem to consider the fact that men can be forced to pay 18 years for a child they never wanted a problem? I mean we never hear about this from feminists! I'm genuinely curious.

xkayla-mariex:

poppypicklesticks:

christyna-c:

boundbabe:

shotguntactic:

fuck-yeah-feminist:

Why is it that the same men complaining about paying never really seem to consider what it’s like for a woman having to spend 18 years of her life dedicated to caring for the “unwanted” child?

Obviously it’s a two-way street. The bottom line is that it takes two to tango— biologically, a man and a woman form the baby together. And unless they are willing to have an abortion or put the baby up for adoption, it is both of their duties to raise the kid.

Societal (read: patriarchal) gender roles dictate that the mother should provide primary care, and that the father should help financially. Feminist critiques would argue against these binary roles, but they certainly wouldn’t give a free-escape card to men who just don’t want to help with the child that’s half theirs.

In fact, many feminists disagree on the topic of alimony payments. Some argue that they are a sexist construction that maintains the notion of women’s inability to support themselves and resulting reliance on men. Others argue that they are “retroactive pay for years of free labor” (x) that make up for career sacrifices made by women who conform to traditional familial constructs.

Check out some more notes on the topic.

But if the man never wanted the child, surely it’s not fair to ask him to pay, since it’s the woman that agrees to bring a child into the world, not him. If she can’t take care of a child without child support from a forced-to-be-dad, she should get an abortion. Have a look at the Ferrari analogy I made at my blog if this is not clear enough. I really do appreciate the time you took to answer my question.

He is a grown man and should  realize that mistakes can happen—particularly if he is leaving the birth control up to her. And he should also be aware that  many women would never consider abortion because they believe it to be taking a human life; and that many others are emotionally unable to give their own child up for adoption after carrying him or her for nine months.  A human baby is not analogous  to a car.

If  you dont want to have the responsibility of fatherhood, dont have unprotected sex .It is unreasonable to expect that she have to have an abortion when it may be against her moral beliefs. And unreasonable to expect that the  child will not need the financial and parental support of a father .  . (Also a lot of women who think they can raise a baby without any financial help from the father later find out they can’t and end up on welfare. )

So religion and moral choice is used by feminists only when its convenient to them and favors a woman’s choice ? What about the fathers moral and religious choices when a woman aborts their child ?

What about women who impregnate themselves through raping a man? What about women who get pregnant on purpose against their sexual partner’s wishes, such as lying about being on the pill or poke holes in condoms? Women who seduce underage boys?

In all of these situations, you can find men who were forced to pay child support.  

I wonder how feminists would feel if a woman’s rape was described as “two to tango”? 

And let’s not forget the feminists who were outraged at the idea of men being able to control their fertility through a male version of the pill: apparently this represented a dangerous loss of control for women.   Only women are allowed to control their fertility. 

Damn OP is a mess

Reblogged from xkayla-mariex  59,959 notes
4gottendaughter:

xkayla-mariex:

melissaannandthecool:

Just a reminder

How did they vote against something that has existed since 1963?

i was just thinking; “I didn’t know there was Twitter in 1963.” time travel will fuck you up, beyond that it passed in 1963!

a short span a research shows that republicans rejected the bill because of thinks like: A) it is already illegal.  B) the bill would make it so employers couldnt base salary on effort and experience (which sounds like people wanting to get paid more for doing less and C) because they feel that this was  some political bullshit to get people to forget about all the major issues with obamacare that need to be fixed.
Most of the sources I looked at were still trying to claim that the wage gap is purely based on gender and even so their statistics proved the complete opposite. For example, one survey said more women were staying home to raise kids and it was because they couldnt get jobs.  Sounds bad right?  But then they said who these women were: young, foreign-born, and college degree-less.  They werent missing out on jobs because they were women, they were missing out on jobs for very obvious reasons.
If you are a female and you truly believe you are being paid less even with having the same experience, same effort, and same hours as one of your male coworkers then you need to sue the shit out of the place you are working, because it is already illegal to do that to you

4gottendaughter:

xkayla-mariex:

melissaannandthecool:

Just a reminder

How did they vote against something that has existed since 1963?

i was just thinking; “I didn’t know there was Twitter in 1963.” time travel will fuck you up, beyond that it passed in 1963!

a short span a research shows that republicans rejected the bill because of thinks like: A) it is already illegal.  B) the bill would make it so employers couldnt base salary on effort and experience (which sounds like people wanting to get paid more for doing less and C) because they feel that this was  some political bullshit to get people to forget about all the major issues with obamacare that need to be fixed.

Most of the sources I looked at were still trying to claim that the wage gap is purely based on gender and even so their statistics proved the complete opposite. For example, one survey said more women were staying home to raise kids and it was because they couldnt get jobs.  Sounds bad right?  But then they said who these women were: young, foreign-born, and college degree-less.  They werent missing out on jobs because they were women, they were missing out on jobs for very obvious reasons.

If you are a female and you truly believe you are being paid less even with having the same experience, same effort, and same hours as one of your male coworkers then you need to sue the shit out of the place you are working, because it is already illegal to do that to you

Reblogged from ohheyitsshanaj  5,672 notes
maggiemunkee:

ultrafacts:

Source If you want more facts, follow Ultrafacts

I read an anecdote from someone whose African Grey didn’t particularly get along with her Amazon parrot, Paco. One night she was preparing cornish hens for dinner, while the grey hung out with her in the kitchen. He got a closer look at one of the hens, looked his mama dead in the eyes and asked, “Paco?” Then he laughed.

maggiemunkee:

ultrafacts:

Source If you want more facts, follow Ultrafacts

I read an anecdote from someone whose African Grey didn’t particularly get along with her Amazon parrot, Paco. One night she was preparing cornish hens for dinner, while the grey hung out with her in the kitchen. He got a closer look at one of the hens, looked his mama dead in the eyes and asked, “Paco?” Then he laughed.