The point I’m trying to make is this.

Feminism took as its point of departure the situation that women had had the advantages and disadvantages of patriarchy for x thousand years.

The disadvantages of patriarchy are such as feminists have told us all about.

The main advantages of patriarchy for women were:
1. the moral idea that a man is jointly responsible for the material upkeep of his biological child
2. legal obligation on a man to contribute to the upkeep of his biological child
3. a sexual morality biased against a man’s interest in casual sex with many and various women, and biased in favour of a man’s interest in monogamy.

These advantages to women had been part of the scenery for so long that it never occurred to feminists that there was a time when they didn’t exist.

But now women having insisted on the abolition of the disadvantages of patriarchy for women, there is no reason why men should continue to be bound and burdened by the disadvantages of patriarchy for men.

True equality requires that men and women are equally released from the obligations of patriarchy, not just women.

We have already seen that a man’s capacity to increase his reproductive success by begetting multiple other children by multiple other partners simultaneously, is a natural sexual difference, not a social construct. Therefore it is an area in which talk of equality is literally meaningless and there is no reason why there should be equal rights.

Therefore men’s liberation from the obligations of patriarchy requires the abolition of any compulsion on any man to pay involuntarily for a woman to look after her own child, whether or not he is the biological father.

All relations between the sexes should be based on consent, not just the ones that suit women.

Jefferson

The reasons why most men look after their own children go well beyond laws and arbitrarily defined conventions. It is hard to imagine a time when people of both genders don't want to protect kids, especially their own.

Some of us just dispute the exact quantity of cash that is extracted by the CSA, as we've all discussed once or twice on OLO. I would also like to see progress on a male contraceptive pill, to give men more say in the circumstances under which we become fathers. Giving women the responsibility of taking the pill also gives them the ability to "forget" to take it.

"The reasons why most men look after their own children go well beyond laws and arbitrarily defined conventions. It is hard to imagine a time when people of both genders don't want to protect kids, especially their own."

I don't doubt it and I'm not against it.

I'm just saying that there is no reason why it should not be based on consent. This more than anything would promote equality between the sexes, both as to equality before the law, and equality in substance. The main reason why men in the western world are burdened with an unfair double standard, is because they have unthinkingly carried forward this key assumption of patriarchy, while all the rest of it has been demolished around them.

Jefferson
You talk about children as if they belong to the mother alone and assume men want no part in raising children. If this were so, why is there so much fuss by many men over inequities in child custody arrangements. Clearly most men have a natural desire to be involved with and to protect their children.

Monogamy has advantages for men too and speaking to men they all seem to want a faithful and fulfilling relationship with one person even if it is not perfect. Stable relationships provide security and companionship as well as sex. Look at the emotions stirred up by some men even on OLO when they have obviously been through a divorce they did not instigate.

Clearly monogamy suits many men and women. People already have the freedom not to get married and they can have as many sexual partners as they choose. The natural consequences of too many sexual partners is of course STDs and the loss of a more fulfilling relationship - but that is a personal choice.

If two people enter a partnership and agree to an open relationship then there is no betrayal but most people enter a committed relationship with an assumption of monogamy and fidelity. If there are children they are a joint responsibility no matter the outcome of the relationship.

Asking men to support their own children is nothing to do with patriarchy but shared responsibility and equality.

Robert, I accept your rebuke; my remark was over the top. I wrote in irritation.
JamesH, you raise an interesting point in how we judge others; and other periods. I'm not sure I would describe myself as 'righteously indignant' about 5 year old children being shoved up chimneys 200 years ago, but I'm certainly glad we -in this country- don't do it any more. Would you suggest it would be morally wrong to speak out against children working in sweat shops?
How will we look to people 200 years hence?
I for one hope they look on us as being just as socially primitive as we see the Victorians. It would be wonderful to think each generation has it a little better than the last; unfortunately, the last few decades don't give me much cause for hope.
I think I had it better than my children will; but at least my girls will (I hope) get the same pay doing the same job as a man.
Jefferson, you remind me strangely of another Misean who hangs around these parts.
“Once a woman gets pregnant, there is nothing more she can do to ensure her reproductive success than to keep looking after that child. But a man is different by nature. He can beget more children by more women.”
Are we talking about humans, or cattle? And can you detect a qualitive difference between the two?
I'm reminded of another Libertarian who pointed out that we shouldn't worry about being cruel to chooks; after all they treat each other just as badly.

“If the law treats people equally - formal equality - in practice people will arrange themselves unequally.”
Why? Says who? Perhaps you would be so kind as to give examples (but not from Mises; that would be a circular argument, and we don't like those, do we?)
Dane, sadly Egalitarianism isn't a guarantee that everyone will be (equally) blissfully happy; it is merely the observation that no one should have the right to push himself out of the shite by standing on someone else's head.
If you or any other individual feels exploited or discriminated against, then of course they have a right to complain.
But you weren't talking about individuals, were you? You were trying to fit about half the human population into one size pair of shoes.
But maybe, just maybe if you force one group of people into a particular mould, for generation after generation, maybe they'll think they belong in that mould, and conform to the boundaries of that mould.
I wonder how much the feminist movement owes to world wars one and two? When women were forced out of the mould and into the factories.
Pelican, I agree. It appears Peter Ah Jefferson agrees with Vanna:
“Why be paying child support for children you will rarely see...”
As if children are inanimate toys. If you can't play with them, why pay for them?
Personally I'm much happier being the father of 2 beautiful children, than merely being the husband of a women who had my kids.
Oh and I did love this 'killer' line by Jefferson;
“Do men have an equal right to give birth to a child, and if not, why not?”
As far as I'm aware, there's no law against it...