truth dancer wrote:A father should have equal rights as a mother.
What does that actually mean in practice?
OF COURSE the child's best interest should be the first priority. Children do much better when two healthy parents are involved. To suggest only one parent in a divorce situation, should have a child is cruel to a child and NOT in the child's best interest.
I certainly agree. For this reason, I see the child's rights as relevant to this issue, not any rights of the parents. Regardless of the man's rights to his child, if he's a crack addict and homeless, he's not getting the child - the rights of the child override his. So really, his rights aren't relevant.
Children do better when a father is involved in her/his life. The bonding that takes place in those early days is important. Why should a father not be able to bond with his child just as a mother. Why shouldn't a family have time together after the birth of a child? It can only be a great thing!
During the time immediately after the birth, the most important bonding to take place is the bond between mother and child. The father's capacity to bond with the child won't be in the least impeded by his not taking six months off work when the child is born, and the father is incapable of bonding with the child in the same way that the mother does. I'm sure you'll find some women who will say that having the man around the place trying to get a foot in the door is going to impede the mother's bonding with the child at this crucial stage. Personally, I would put my wife's need to bond with our newborn ahead of mine any day. From my experience with early childhood age kids, the mother figure is the most important figure in their lives for at least their first five years, and should be. The father's complete role doesn't mature until after that.
You seem not to understand the importance of a father in the life of a child.
Having lost my father before I was 18, I can assure you I do.
NO ONE suggests men and women are the same. OF course not.
Great, so why try and treat them the same? Why would anyone try and argue that men need the same time off as women immediately after the birth?
Which in my opinion, is exactly the point. The world needs the unique contributions and creativity of women. Why prevent them from sharing their gifts with the world in whatever way they believe is best... like men?
Well sure, I agree. What's the issue? I wasn't aware that I was arguing that women should be prevented from sharing their gifts with the world. But I'm not at all convinced that men enjoy that privilege at present either.
And, children do much better in life when a father is involved.
I agree entirely. In fact I'm amazed to find someone in this day and age saying what you're saying. A child is best off with two parents? Mirabile dictu! Where I come from in Australia, you could get snubbed for saying that (it discriminates against single parents, and implies they are inferior and that their children are missing out on something).
Equality is not about sameness.... it is about equal opportunities, equal rights and priviledges, and laws that provide for equality.
I agree. But so many of the laws are attempting instead to provide 'sameness', not equality, and you get men strapping plasting breasts to their chests in order to pseudo-suckle their child and 'bond' with it just like their wives, beause they think this is 'equality'. It's not equality, it's just being very stupid.
If a father wants to stay home after the birth of a child, and the mother wants to go to work, and they think this arrangement is in the best interest of their child and their family... why not?
I agree, why not indeed? But the law has nothing to do with this. It's a personal decision the parents make. We don't need to make laws about this.
I truly do not see how, disallowing women (and men) to bring their gifts and unique contributions to our world in the way they think is best, is a good thing.
Er, I agree. I have never argued that anyone should be disallowed from bringing their gifts and unique contributions to our world in the way they think is best (even if in reality their gifts are pathetic, not at all unique, and we don't want them).
I think you would find Mill's work interesting!
I took two years of philosophy in university. Mill was a high point, but he's not the last word on the subject.
You mistake sameness for equality.
No, I am saying that other people mistake sameness for equality - 'Women need time off during pregnancy and after birth, oh, better give the same amount of time off to men as well, they need it just like the woman does!'.
No one suggests there is no difference between men and women. There are also differences between men, and there are differences between women.
I agree. But that is not the way many people treat them, and there are people who want to legislate as if they're the same. They think that if you give the women X, you have to give the men X, and if you give the men Y, you have to give the women Y. No you don't, not if they don't need it.
This has nothing to do with giving all of humankind equal opportunities and rights.
I agree. That's why I think a lot of alleged 'equal opportinities and rights' legislation isn't anything of the kind.
Would someone suggest disallowing a man certain human rights because his feet are too large, or because he is bald, or because his ears stick out, or because his skin is a certain color? (Disregard that last one... men finally got a clue that skin color doesn't matter).
The point is.... people are not all the same regardless of what sexual organs they happen to have.
You're preaching to the choir.
