Legally, right now, we have strict female choice. Seriously, WTF? Are you talking about sex still? Because seriously, wtf? A woman can legally choose not to have sex with a man, sure. But so can a man choose not to have sex with a woman.
"Responsibility"? Do you mean about who asks who out and who pays for whose dinner? That too is becoming more and more equal.
I'm just taking a wild guess here, but -- you're a man, right?
Because you're exemplifying my entire point, which is that men find it really hard to see that feminism makes things better for them.
Economically, enabling women to work outside the home if that suits them increases productivity a heapload, which makes the country richer, which makes it more able to support people who don't for whatever reason have a job.
Recognising more widely that working in the home is equally valuable would more enable men to do that if it suits them.
When women gain benefits pertaining to parenthood, these benefits generally accrue to men too. (Not universally, but under actual feminism they do, as with parental leave in New Zealand.)
When women can choose to wait before marriages, and when both men and women have the right to divorce - and the ability to divorce without suddenly being financially impoverished - men don't get stuck in loveless marriages for the rest of their lives.
When women have rights and opportunities, men's sacred chromosomes that happen to be passed on via their daughters and sisters get as good a chance as those chromosomes that happen to be passed on via their sons and brothers.
And here's one for the evolutionary biologiests: when women are able to choose not to have sex and able to choose *to* have sex, it turns out that a lot of women rather like sex -- and this makes it *easier* for men to get sex.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-04-11 10:59 pm (UTC)Seriously, WTF? Are you talking about sex still? Because seriously, wtf? A woman can legally choose not to have sex with a man, sure. But so can a man choose not to have sex with a woman.
"Responsibility"? Do you mean about who asks who out and who pays for whose dinner? That too is becoming more and more equal.
I'm just taking a wild guess here, but -- you're a man, right?
Because you're exemplifying my entire point, which is that men find it really hard to see that feminism makes things better for them.
Economically, enabling women to work outside the home if that suits them increases productivity a heapload, which makes the country richer, which makes it more able to support people who don't for whatever reason have a job.
Recognising more widely that working in the home is equally valuable would more enable men to do that if it suits them.
When women gain benefits pertaining to parenthood, these benefits generally accrue to men too. (Not universally, but under actual feminism they do, as with parental leave in New Zealand.)
When women can choose to wait before marriages, and when both men and women have the right to divorce - and the ability to divorce without suddenly being financially impoverished - men don't get stuck in loveless marriages for the rest of their lives.
When women have rights and opportunities, men's sacred chromosomes that happen to be passed on via their daughters and sisters get as good a chance as those chromosomes that happen to be passed on via their sons and brothers.
And here's one for the evolutionary biologiests: when women are able to choose not to have sex and able to choose *to* have sex, it turns out that a lot of women rather like sex -- and this makes it *easier* for men to get sex.
As long as they're not awful, anyway.