Let's hear it for the men, the other half of the reproductive process

[McRocket]

You can't do it (and you know it) so you are desperately trying to deflect

What deflect, McButtBlaster? You want me to produce an entire library of thousands of years of history and documentation here just for YOU?

So you can just dismiss it all as "not credible" or "unbiased?" (your conditions inserted so you'll dismiss ANY proof)

YOU are the one saying I'm wrong.

So prove it.

If you can't prove your case, then STFU. You have no case.

If you want proof of my case, go to college and get an education.

You don't say 'the sky is falling' and when people say 'prove it'; you say, 'no, you prove it isn't'. That's asinine. You started the ENTIRE theory in this thread pal...it is up to you to back it up. Duh.

You can't do it (and you know it) so you are desperately trying to deflect. You have not even posted one link...yet you say it's SO OBVIOUS.


So, once again, misogynist:

please show me a link(s) to unbiased, factual proof that women could not have survived without men from the beginning (assuming they could procreate without men)?

 

[SandSquid]

Just a thought, back in the 1970s a tennis match between a world class pro (King) and a male non pro tennis player(forgot his name) and men thought he would win. and bet money on it. common sense would have dictated that a pro would beat a non pro. men continue to fight hard to keep women subservient, that's why men are so vocal on abortion.

Well that's a bit of a different subject. There were actually three of those matches. King and Court, two female tennis players in their playing years played Bobby Riggs, who was 55. Riggs beat one Court, who was in a season she won 3 of the 4 grand slam singles and 3 of the 4 grand slam doubles, but lost to King.

Then the repeat with Connors and Martina which Connors won. Men bet on both sides of the match and both players made a lot of money for it. After Riggs beat Court, the #1 tennis player in the world, King was the next opponent. Amazingly talented but coming off a couple years out for childbirth, yet to regain her dominant form, had recently forfeited the US open (heat and sick), was struggling with a wrist injury, and playing Riggs in the middle of a tournament she was in.

Not sure common sense says after Riggs dominated the #1 female tennis player in the world 4 months earlier, now playing a more inconsistent female tennis player with a lower ranking, the betting shouldn't be on him.

And that had nothing to do with keeping women subservient but rather acted as a jumping off point for increasing the following of women's tennis. This was fun and pageantry lets not forget. More like a scene from professional wrestling than tennis.

 

[satrebil]

Without the male spermatezoa, all of the females of our species wouldn't have a choice to make. No sperm, no fertilized egg, no pregnancy, no choice to make. No us.

No offense, but speaking on behalf of all the men in the world, we seem to be the catalyst for that choice, IE, we are just as critical to human procreation as the woman is.

Therefore, I contend, men have an equal say in the reproductive process and the decision whether or not the fully healthy woman he inseminated should have an abortion.

Think about it. The man wants the child, but for some reason the woman doesn't. Why is the choice to arbitrarily exterminate the growing life in the womb exclusively hers?

The entire "pro choice" argument is misandrous (sexist toward men). That's the bottom line. That's my opinion. If you don't like it, comment or put me on your ignore list. I'm a free thinker, not a conformist.

If you follow me solely because you assume I agree with you politically, you are no more of a kindred spirit to me than the vacuum of space is to the prospects of life.

That's it, that's all.

Keep it in your pants. Don’t want to be part of an abortion, don’t impregnate a woman. Some chicks you fucked might have already had abortions and you’d never know about it. Shows how little you care.

Why is it that leftists are always "I am woman, hear me roar" but when it comes to matters of sex they portray women as helpless victims and not willing participants? The cognitive dissonance never ceases to amaze.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Sorry, pal...it don't work that way.

Nope. It will NEVER work that way because if you could produce ONE SHRED of evidence to prove anything I said was wrong, you already would have.

Only a fool jackass like you would try to argue that while biology rules in the entire animal kingdom, it doesn't in the case of the biological organism.... MAN.

For the most part..you are correct..historically--there never really has been a true matriarchy in history..at least not a significant one--some might amuse themselves by bringing up some tribe or another....but men have ruled..via biology..and the fact that both socially and culturally--superiority myths have been thought of as gospel. To wit..women had the idea of their inferiority beaten into them, in some cases literally, by religion, culture..and their husbands and fathers.

However...that was then..and this is now--while the equality of women may have started as an artificial construct--supported by the fact that technology and education have rendered the superior physical strength of men as moot--it is a real construct..and not likely to change.Our mainstream culture has bought into the idea of gender equality in a way that has superseded the male superiority myths...and the upcoming generations will imbibe that idea..with their mother's milk.

It is our ability to transcend our biological natures and imperatives by the use of our intelligence that makes us human..and not slaves to nature's imperative of breed and die.

Also of some note..and amusement..is the fact that men are the ones that seem to have such problems with the 'new order' in society. Usually such grumbling is somehow put into a context of disaster..to wit, "When the SHTF, things will go back to normal in a hurry". It is an admission that my argument is correct..in that they cannot conceive of things ever going back to the 'good old days'--without disastrous intervention first.

I find few women pining for the 'good old days' when they were chattel. Go figure??

 

[HappyJoy]

Without the male spermatezoa, all of the females of our species wouldn't have a choice to make. No sperm, no fertilized egg, no pregnancy, no choice to make. No us.

No offense, but speaking on behalf of all the men in the world, we seem to be the catalyst for that choice, IE, we are just as critical to human procreation as the woman is.

Therefore, I contend, men have an equal say in the reproductive process and the decision whether or not the fully healthy woman he inseminated should have an abortion.

Think about it. The man wants the child, but for some reason the woman doesn't. Why is the choice to arbitrarily exterminate the growing life in the womb exclusively hers?

The entire "pro choice" argument is misandrous (sexist toward men). That's the bottom line. That's my opinion. If you don't like it, comment or put me on your ignore list. I'm a free thinker, not a conformist.

If you follow me solely because you assume I agree with you politically, you are no more of a kindred spirit to me than the vacuum of space is to the prospects of life.

That's it, that's all.

I agree men should have an equal say. If a woman says she does not want the baby, and the man does, he is absolutely within his rights to take that baby home from the hospital and raise it himself, with the woman signing away her rights and never seeing the baby again.
That is part of the reason--a good part of the reason, I believe--that women find pro-lifers to be taking away their freedom and their right to direct their own lives. Being a mother in this society means that YOU will be the primary caregiver and it will completely change your life, narrow your choices and probably, if you do not have a partner, put you in poverty.

I disagree.

The woman has to carry the baby, lose wages, give birth and carry the burden of any health risks.

It's not a fair world but I think the woman has final say, pregnancy is not a 50/50 proposition.

 

[satrebil]

Sorry, pal...it don't work that way.

Nope. It will NEVER work that way because if you could produce ONE SHRED of evidence to prove anything I said was wrong, you already would have.

Only a fool jackass like you would try to argue that while biology rules in the entire animal kingdom, it doesn't in the case of the biological organism.... MAN.

For the most part..you are correct..historically--there never really has been a true matriarchy in history..at least not a significant one--some might amuse themselves by bringing up some tribe or another....but men have ruled..via biology..and the fact that both socially and culturally--superiority myths have been thought of as gospel. To wit..women had the idea of their inferiority beaten into them, in some cases literally, by religion, culture..and their husbands and fathers.

However...that was then..and this is now--while the equality of women may have started as an artificial construct--supported by the fact that technology and education have rendered the superior physical strength of men as moot--it is a real construct..and not likely to change.Our mainstream culture has bought into the idea of gender equality in a way that has superseded the male superiority myths...and the upcoming generations will imbibe that idea..with their mother's milk.

It is our ability to transcend our biological natures and imperatives by the use of our intelligence that makes us human..and not slaves to nature's imperative of breed and die.

Also of some note..and amusement..is the fact that men are the ones that seem to have such problems with the 'new order' in society. Usually such grumbling is somehow put into a context of disaster..to wit, "When the SHTF, things will go back to normal in a hurry". It is an admission that my argument is correct..in that they cannot conceive of things ever going back to the 'good old days'--without disastrous intervention first.

I find few women pining for the 'good old days' when they were chattel. Go figure??

There has never been a prominent matriarchy due to one universal truth, and that is that there are only 2 ways to persuade someone to do your bidding: By reason or by force.

If reason fails, force is the only other option. Nature has designated males to be the superior sex in the matter of force. This is indisputable. If push comes to shove, women physically CAN NOT beat men, which is why you will never have a matriarchy.

 

[toobfreak]

For the most part..you are correct..However...that was then..and this is now--

I know I'm right. And that has been my point all along: THAT WAS THEN-- -- -- -- about 99.998% of mankind's time on this planet. And THIS IS NOW, over the past 150 years roughly, we have slowly transitioned into a socially modern form where laws have elevated women to an equal status with men over biology, more or less, leveling the playing field as it were.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Sorry, pal...it don't work that way.

Nope. It will NEVER work that way because if you could produce ONE SHRED of evidence to prove anything I said was wrong, you already would have.

Only a fool jackass like you would try to argue that while biology rules in the entire animal kingdom, it doesn't in the case of the biological organism.... MAN.

For the most part..you are correct..historically--there never really has been a true matriarchy in history..at least not a significant one--some might amuse themselves by bringing up some tribe or another....but men have ruled..via biology..and the fact that both socially and culturally--superiority myths have been thought of as gospel. To wit..women had the idea of their inferiority beaten into them, in some cases literally, by religion, culture..and their husbands and fathers.

However...that was then..and this is now--while the equality of women may have started as an artificial construct--supported by the fact that technology and education have rendered the superior physical strength of men as moot--it is a real construct..and not likely to change.Our mainstream culture has bought into the idea of gender equality in a way that has superseded the male superiority myths...and the upcoming generations will imbibe that idea..with their mother's milk.

It is our ability to transcend our biological natures and imperatives by the use of our intelligence that makes us human..and not slaves to nature's imperative of breed and die.

Also of some note..and amusement..is the fact that men are the ones that seem to have such problems with the 'new order' in society. Usually such grumbling is somehow put into a context of disaster..to wit, "When the SHTF, things will go back to normal in a hurry". It is an admission that my argument is correct..in that they cannot conceive of things ever going back to the 'good old days'--without disastrous intervention first.

I find few women pining for the 'good old days' when they were chattel. Go figure??

There has never been a prominent matriarchy due to one universal truth, and that is that there are only 2 ways to persuade someone to do your bidding: By reason or by force.

If reason fails, force is the only other option. Nature has designated males to be the superior sex in the matter of force. This is indisputable. If push comes to shove, women physically CAN NOT beat men, which is why you will never have a matriarchy.

The cultural concept of patriarchy and matriarchy--is not an either/or concept. It is to be hoped that we grow out of our 'boys against the girls' mentality and transcend into a culture where gender is irrelevant as regards to rights or who rules. In fact, I would not call our culture a patriarchy anymore..would you?

 

[satrebil]

Sorry, pal...it don't work that way.

Nope. It will NEVER work that way because if you could produce ONE SHRED of evidence to prove anything I said was wrong, you already would have.

Only a fool jackass like you would try to argue that while biology rules in the entire animal kingdom, it doesn't in the case of the biological organism.... MAN.

For the most part..you are correct..historically--there never really has been a true matriarchy in history..at least not a significant one--some might amuse themselves by bringing up some tribe or another....but men have ruled..via biology..and the fact that both socially and culturally--superiority myths have been thought of as gospel. To wit..women had the idea of their inferiority beaten into them, in some cases literally, by religion, culture..and their husbands and fathers.

However...that was then..and this is now--while the equality of women may have started as an artificial construct--supported by the fact that technology and education have rendered the superior physical strength of men as moot--it is a real construct..and not likely to change.Our mainstream culture has bought into the idea of gender equality in a way that has superseded the male superiority myths...and the upcoming generations will imbibe that idea..with their mother's milk.

It is our ability to transcend our biological natures and imperatives by the use of our intelligence that makes us human..and not slaves to nature's imperative of breed and die.

Also of some note..and amusement..is the fact that men are the ones that seem to have such problems with the 'new order' in society. Usually such grumbling is somehow put into a context of disaster..to wit, "When the SHTF, things will go back to normal in a hurry". It is an admission that my argument is correct..in that they cannot conceive of things ever going back to the 'good old days'--without disastrous intervention first.

I find few women pining for the 'good old days' when they were chattel. Go figure??

There has never been a prominent matriarchy due to one universal truth, and that is that there are only 2 ways to persuade someone to do your bidding: By reason or by force.

If reason fails, force is the only other option. Nature has designated males to be the superior sex in the matter of force. This is indisputable. If push comes to shove, women physically CAN NOT beat men, which is why you will never have a matriarchy.

The cultural concept of patriarchy and matriarchy--is not an either/or concept. It is to be hoped that we grow out of our 'boys against the girls' mentality and transcend into a culture where gender is irrelevant as regards to rights or who rules. In fact, I would not call our culture a patriarchy anymore..would you?

Yes I would.

Gender is relevant and will always be relevant. We are not an androgynous species. We have 2 distinct sexes and as a result there will never be this phantom "equality" you dream of. One will always dominate the other. Period.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Without the male spermatezoa, all of the females of our species wouldn't have a choice to make. No sperm, no fertilized egg, no pregnancy, no choice to make. No us.

No offense, but speaking on behalf of all the men in the world, we seem to be the catalyst for that choice, IE, we are just as critical to human procreation as the woman is.

Therefore, I contend, men have an equal say in the reproductive process and the decision whether or not the fully healthy woman he inseminated should have an abortion.

Think about it. The man wants the child, but for some reason the woman doesn't. Why is the choice to arbitrarily exterminate the growing life in the womb exclusively hers?

The entire "pro choice" argument is misandrous (sexist toward men). That's the bottom line. That's my opinion. If you don't like it, comment or put me on your ignore list. I'm a free thinker, not a conformist.

If you follow me solely because you assume I agree with you politically, you are no more of a kindred spirit to me than the vacuum of space is to the prospects of life.

That's it, that's all.

Have you ever heard the phrase "Possession is nine points of the law" (Probably you've heard it misstated as "nine tenths of the law", do not even get me started on the ignorance of average humans)? Simply put, nature and biology dictate that males are giving females possession of their sperm and of the resulting embryo; which effectively means that she has possession of the decisions about that embryo, abstract philosophical arguments notwithstanding.

As a staunch pro-lifer myself, I will say the same thing for men as I do for women on this subject: the time to make your decisions and have your "say in the reproductive process" is BEFORE YOU ACTUALLY REPRODUCE. Trying to decide what you want to do after you've already done it is closing the barn door after the horse is galloping down the road.

If you don't want your progeny aborted, I would suggest that you limit your "insemination" efforts to women who agree with you on that subject.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

For the most part..you are correct..However...that was then..and this is now--

I know I'm right. And that has been my point all along: THAT WAS THEN-- -- -- -- about 99.998% of mankind's time on this planet. And THIS IS NOW, over the past 150 years roughly, we have slowly transitioned into a socially modern form where laws have elevated women to an equal status with men over biology, more or less, leveling the playing field as it were.

Yes, I got your point..I would point out that it is not just laws that have leveled the playing field..but technology, as well..in fact..one of the things that contributes to the true equality of the sexes is the 2nd amendment..A woman with a gun..and the training and willingness to use it...can cancel out a man's superior strength in a hurry..along with cancelling his ticket..if needed.But for sure, contraception and legal abortion have made women the true mistresses of their bodies--like it or not.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Think about it. The man wants the child, but for some reason the woman doesn't. Why is the choice to arbitrarily exterminate the growing life in the womb exclusively hers?

Responsible men won't put themselves in that position to begin with.

Uh, what is that supposed to mean?

Why is it solely up to the man to be 'responsible'? Do male and females have the same capacity for better judgement?

Who said "solely"? I for one have always said about abortion that women should be responsible enough not to put themselves in that position in the first place.

If women don't want to have to deal with a pregnancy, and men don't want abortion decisions made without them, STOP FUCKING PEOPLE YOU HAVEN'T AGREED TO REPRODUCE WITH.

Easy-peasy.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Sorry, pal...it don't work that way.

Nope. It will NEVER work that way because if you could produce ONE SHRED of evidence to prove anything I said was wrong, you already would have.

Only a fool jackass like you would try to argue that while biology rules in the entire animal kingdom, it doesn't in the case of the biological organism.... MAN.

For the most part..you are correct..historically--there never really has been a true matriarchy in history..at least not a significant one--some might amuse themselves by bringing up some tribe or another....but men have ruled..via biology..and the fact that both socially and culturally--superiority myths have been thought of as gospel. To wit..women had the idea of their inferiority beaten into them, in some cases literally, by religion, culture..and their husbands and fathers.

However...that was then..and this is now--while the equality of women may have started as an artificial construct--supported by the fact that technology and education have rendered the superior physical strength of men as moot--it is a real construct..and not likely to change.Our mainstream culture has bought into the idea of gender equality in a way that has superseded the male superiority myths...and the upcoming generations will imbibe that idea..with their mother's milk.

It is our ability to transcend our biological natures and imperatives by the use of our intelligence that makes us human..and not slaves to nature's imperative of breed and die.

Also of some note..and amusement..is the fact that men are the ones that seem to have such problems with the 'new order' in society. Usually such grumbling is somehow put into a context of disaster..to wit, "When the SHTF, things will go back to normal in a hurry". It is an admission that my argument is correct..in that they cannot conceive of things ever going back to the 'good old days'--without disastrous intervention first.

I find few women pining for the 'good old days' when they were chattel. Go figure??

There has never been a prominent matriarchy due to one universal truth, and that is that there are only 2 ways to persuade someone to do your bidding: By reason or by force.

If reason fails, force is the only other option. Nature has designated males to be the superior sex in the matter of force. This is indisputable. If push comes to shove, women physically CAN NOT beat men, which is why you will never have a matriarchy.

The cultural concept of patriarchy and matriarchy--is not an either/or concept. It is to be hoped that we grow out of our 'boys against the girls' mentality and transcend into a culture where gender is irrelevant as regards to rights or who rules. In fact, I would not call our culture a patriarchy anymore..would you?

Yes I would.

Gender is relevant and will always be relevant. We are not an androgynous species. We have 2 distinct sexes and as a result there will never be this phantom "equality" you dream of. One will always dominate the other. Period.

Relevance and domination are two different things.

 

[toobfreak]

I would point out that it is not just laws that have leveled the playing field..but technology,

Yep. I said that in one of my posts.

as well..in fact..one of the things that contributes to the true equality of the sexes is the 2nd amendment..A woman with a gun..

True. That can be part of it. Like a republic of laws, a gun gives a woman much the same advantage/voice in certain situations as a man. Held by male or female, a .45 is a .45.

 

[satrebil]

Nope. It will NEVER work that way because if you could produce ONE SHRED of evidence to prove anything I said was wrong, you already would have.

Only a fool jackass like you would try to argue that while biology rules in the entire animal kingdom, it doesn't in the case of the biological organism.... MAN.

For the most part..you are correct..historically--there never really has been a true matriarchy in history..at least not a significant one--some might amuse themselves by bringing up some tribe or another....but men have ruled..via biology..and the fact that both socially and culturally--superiority myths have been thought of as gospel. To wit..women had the idea of their inferiority beaten into them, in some cases literally, by religion, culture..and their husbands and fathers.

However...that was then..and this is now--while the equality of women may have started as an artificial construct--supported by the fact that technology and education have rendered the superior physical strength of men as moot--it is a real construct..and not likely to change.Our mainstream culture has bought into the idea of gender equality in a way that has superseded the male superiority myths...and the upcoming generations will imbibe that idea..with their mother's milk.

It is our ability to transcend our biological natures and imperatives by the use of our intelligence that makes us human..and not slaves to nature's imperative of breed and die.

Also of some note..and amusement..is the fact that men are the ones that seem to have such problems with the 'new order' in society. Usually such grumbling is somehow put into a context of disaster..to wit, "When the SHTF, things will go back to normal in a hurry". It is an admission that my argument is correct..in that they cannot conceive of things ever going back to the 'good old days'--without disastrous intervention first.

I find few women pining for the 'good old days' when they were chattel. Go figure??

There has never been a prominent matriarchy due to one universal truth, and that is that there are only 2 ways to persuade someone to do your bidding: By reason or by force.

If reason fails, force is the only other option. Nature has designated males to be the superior sex in the matter of force. This is indisputable. If push comes to shove, women physically CAN NOT beat men, which is why you will never have a matriarchy.

The cultural concept of patriarchy and matriarchy--is not an either/or concept. It is to be hoped that we grow out of our 'boys against the girls' mentality and transcend into a culture where gender is irrelevant as regards to rights or who rules. In fact, I would not call our culture a patriarchy anymore..would you?

Yes I would.

Gender is relevant and will always be relevant. We are not an androgynous species. We have 2 distinct sexes and as a result there will never be this phantom "equality" you dream of. One will always dominate the other. Period.

Relevance and domination are two different things.

And I spoke to only one of them. What's your point?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Until it is a man's life and health at risk in a pregnancy...they can sit down and STFU. They can have an opinion, but have no say.

. . . Unless they agree with you, in which case they should not only speak at length, but also lecture actual women on what's best in the most patronizing, misogynist tone of voice possible.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Is the husband’s life and health at risk by the woman carrying a fetus? Does he have the right to force her to risk those things because he chose not to keep it in his pants?

Your lack of basic understanding of how the human procreative process works is astounding.

Read the very first sentence in my OP again.

If there is no male to fertilize the egg, the egg won't divide. Therefore there will be no fetus, and no risk to life on behalf of the woman.

Women aren't like cars, you can't hotwire them. You need a key to turn the engine. A man.

Simply put.

Cool. Stay a virgin and you won’t have this problem.

Thing is, I am. And, unlike you, I adhere to my morals. If a woman doesn't want to screw me and I don't want to screw her, it's better we don't meet and make a mistake we will BOTH regret.

Curious, what if all the men in the world chose to be virgins?

The human race would die. Quickly.

Could be why Nature made men such horndogs, generally speaking.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

For the most part..you are correct..historically--there never really has been a true matriarchy in history..at least not a significant one--some might amuse themselves by bringing up some tribe or another....but men have ruled..via biology..and the fact that both socially and culturally--superiority myths have been thought of as gospel. To wit..women had the idea of their inferiority beaten into them, in some cases literally, by religion, culture..and their husbands and fathers.

However...that was then..and this is now--while the equality of women may have started as an artificial construct--supported by the fact that technology and education have rendered the superior physical strength of men as moot--it is a real construct..and not likely to change.Our mainstream culture has bought into the idea of gender equality in a way that has superseded the male superiority myths...and the upcoming generations will imbibe that idea..with their mother's milk.

It is our ability to transcend our biological natures and imperatives by the use of our intelligence that makes us human..and not slaves to nature's imperative of breed and die.

Also of some note..and amusement..is the fact that men are the ones that seem to have such problems with the 'new order' in society. Usually such grumbling is somehow put into a context of disaster..to wit, "When the SHTF, things will go back to normal in a hurry". It is an admission that my argument is correct..in that they cannot conceive of things ever going back to the 'good old days'--without disastrous intervention first.

I find few women pining for the 'good old days' when they were chattel. Go figure??

There has never been a prominent matriarchy due to one universal truth, and that is that there are only 2 ways to persuade someone to do your bidding: By reason or by force.

If reason fails, force is the only other option. Nature has designated males to be the superior sex in the matter of force. This is indisputable. If push comes to shove, women physically CAN NOT beat men, which is why you will never have a matriarchy.

The cultural concept of patriarchy and matriarchy--is not an either/or concept. It is to be hoped that we grow out of our 'boys against the girls' mentality and transcend into a culture where gender is irrelevant as regards to rights or who rules. In fact, I would not call our culture a patriarchy anymore..would you?

Yes I would.

Gender is relevant and will always be relevant. We are not an androgynous species. We have 2 distinct sexes and as a result there will never be this phantom "equality" you dream of. One will always dominate the other. Period.

Relevance and domination are two different things.

And I spoke to only one of them. What's your point?

LOL...since you used both words in your post...I addressed both..My point? Gender will always be relevant...but equality is not a phantom--and one gender need not dominate another..or strive for said domination.

 

[satrebil]

There has never been a prominent matriarchy due to one universal truth, and that is that there are only 2 ways to persuade someone to do your bidding: By reason or by force.

If reason fails, force is the only other option. Nature has designated males to be the superior sex in the matter of force. This is indisputable. If push comes to shove, women physically CAN NOT beat men, which is why you will never have a matriarchy.

The cultural concept of patriarchy and matriarchy--is not an either/or concept. It is to be hoped that we grow out of our 'boys against the girls' mentality and transcend into a culture where gender is irrelevant as regards to rights or who rules. In fact, I would not call our culture a patriarchy anymore..would you?

Yes I would.

Gender is relevant and will always be relevant. We are not an androgynous species. We have 2 distinct sexes and as a result there will never be this phantom "equality" you dream of. One will always dominate the other. Period.

Relevance and domination are two different things.

And I spoke to only one of them. What's your point?

LOL...since you used both words in your post...I addressed both..My point? Gender will always be relevant...but equality is not a phantom--and one gender need not dominate another..or strive for said domination.

It's not a question of need, it's the natural order and has been since the beginning of time. Men have been and will always be the ultimate authority on this planet for the reasons I already mentioned.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Until it is a man's life and health at risk in a pregnancy...they can sit down and STFU. They can have an opinion, but have no say.

Yeah, when half of your genetic code is at stake, you have a say. Without a man and his sperm, your choice, your agenda, is nonexistent.

When a man can grow a womb and put their health at risk they have a say. Since that is not yet scientifically possible, they have an opinion only.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2011/11/01/health/multiple-pregnancies-mother/index.html?r=https://www.google.com/

Unfortunately for you, you don't get to dictate whether or not a man has a say in the reproductive process.

Until a woman can evolve the ability to reproduce asexually, without the need of male intervention, then men have just as much say. Whether you like it or not.

Well, let me put it this way. You're basing this insistence that men have a say in whether or not the unborn child is aborted on how essential they are to the process of reproduction, right? But in practical terms, what does that mean for their ability to do more than simply piss and moan about how their wishes are being ignored? I mean, they have the power to decline to contribute their sperm to the process; but it's a little late to do that by the tme you're having this argument.