You're viewing part of a thread.
Men banned women from doing all those things.
Perhaps in the past, but nowadays women are totally free to become soldiers, farmers, butchers, construction workers, electricians, bus drivers, or garbage collectors. Yet all of those jobs are still overwhelmingly done by men. And if men didn't do them, there would be no houses, no roads, no electricity, and no food.
Men sexually harass women who do those things in the workplace, and they still have to cook your food and wipe your bum when they get home
No, they do not. Women do not have to stay in abusive relationships. They can go to court and get a restraining order, a divorce, or sue their employer if they are harassed at the workplace. No one is forcing them to stay in these types of situations. If they chose to do so anyways, they have no one but themselves to blame.
Ah, the good old "systemic oppression doesn't exist because free will"
Next you're gonna say women who are forced by the state to carry pregnancies to term can just choose not to raise their kids
They can always give their children up for adoption, can't they?
What you're failing to understand is that normal people are bound by moral standards of decent behaviour.
So you're saying it's immoral to give up a child for adoption when you are unable to raise it, but it's not immoral to abort it before it even has a chance to take its first breath?
You're very confused. We're talking about women who COULD raise a child while working a job, and would rather have a life of their own, but are bound by basic morality. You also seem to think a single celled organism with no nervous system is a child.
Yes, I am indeed confused. Are you saying that women who COULD raise a child but choose not to are acting immorally when they give their child up for adoption, but they are acting morally if they chose to abort their pregnancy instead?
Because it sounds like that's what you are saying.