"By the way Pete, if anyone becomes a parent, ANYONE, be they male or female, that person has an obligation towards financially supporting the child or children."

Well women would say that, wouldn't they? That's because they have an UNEQUAL interest in proclaiming this so-called obligation so as to con, or force, men into paying for them - while indignantly denying they have any such interest!

There is no such moral obligation. Those who want to support the child, can go right ahead and support it. But they have no more right to use threats or violence to treat anyone else, regardless of gender, as a money object to pay for their choices, than others have to use threats or violence to treat them as a sex object. If a woman wants more money to raise her child at a higher standard, that is entirely her business. There is no reason why anyone else should be forced to subsidise her. Women can always get child support the way they did before the dreaded patriarchy came along. They have everything they need to get child support and it's right between their legs. No need for the cornucopia of hypocrisy and violence that we see from samsung - pretending to deplore inequality while leading the cheersquad for it - against men.

Mikk
Women of my acquaintance dont equate to the women you decribe
They continue to be thoughtful, fair, reflective and caring.

Peter
I find I really cant empahise with your views......fine it hard to understand your stance about parental responsibility for the children we produce
Women often have the responsibilty of the day to day management in a marriage break up.........why isnt the sperm component of the activity responsible for some effort on the child's behalf
Find your philosophy odd at the least and irresponsible on the other end.

GAJ, "I too was tired on returning from a days work..after preparing and serving a meal it would have been fair to have the dishes done and put away......for the man to take over that responsibilty , organising the children to assist and let me get on with the washing"

Agreed. There are still too many around of both genders who bludge on their partners or assume that one portion of the work belongs to the other gender. The point of contention was in the way those stereotypes and twisted stats are used by the gender warriors to reinforce tension between the genders.

I had a wife who strongly believed that outside work was men's work and inside work should be shared according to her preferences which usually left me doing the bigger portion of the basics.

I've also seen how unused to having support with household stuff a couple of women I've dated have been as well, almost shocked when the dishes or some other basic task is done even after some time.

It's not every case but I've also seen how one persons insistence that tasks be done their way can demotivate the other from doing those tasks. The person who criticizes their partner for not doing a job the way they would do it is not someone who really wants the other to keep doing it.

R0bert

http://www.alternet.org/sex/148291/why_do_we_demonize_men_who_are_honest_about_their_sexual_needs/?page=3

<"The only way for a guy to guarantee that he won’t be called 'creepy' is to suppress entirely his sexuality>

Clarisse Thorn seems to think that if there were more male feminists, things would change, she does use labels such as privileged without defining exactly how being born male gives males a privilege, and she also sees being male as being part of the oppresser class.

She does however acknowledges some important points.

"shallow, emotionless and stupid as the men" combined with men aren't taking enough responsibility, and men aren't looking after the children well enough, and men are abusive.

What is missing from the feminist dialect so far.

Oh, men arn't sexually satisfying, or men don't listen, or men won't commit, or men only think about themselves, or men don't care blah, blah, blah.

Seems that feminism has been very active in poisoning the minds of so many.

There still seems to be a common thread in the conversation, that being equal must mean essentially being the 'same'.
One orange can be equal to, better than or worse than one apple, according to personal preference; it doesn't have to 'be' an apple, to be equal.
After attending the births of both my children, I think all mothers deserve a medal for 'uncommon valour'. Never have I felt so useless, or outclassed in the courage department; and that's without the discomfort, pain and disadvantage of the preceding 9 months.
Almost all ancient tribes recognised this 'inequality'; before a boy could be considered eligible to have a mate and be a father, he had to go through quite difficult and dangerous Manhood Rites; effectively proving he was as willing and capable of enduring as much pain and sacrifice as his mate would.
Later, more 'civilised' societies probably decided it was easier to treat women as different, or inferior, rather than have to compete with them.
If we really want equality between the sexes, perhaps we should reintroduce Manhood Rites, and remind men what they are, and what they really are for, instead of sublimating these drives into football or war.