Oh, it totally wouldn't, because you know, we just bring our best grain and blacksmithery when we go to restaurants.

I hoped so, haha. I guess I'm too used to people saying things like that seriously. I don't feel that anyone should be required by law to serve in the military, so yeah, if one gender has to do it, it's only fair that women could be too. But I'm pretty fervently anti-war. The thing is, I'm not just a women's rights activist, feminism just means that you believe men and women should be treated equally.

And men should have equal right to see their children as well, in some places they do not have that.

And remember it was really about a kind of division of labour in the past. Men went out and got the money and women looked after the home. Some might argue women got the better deal sometimes (not conscripted into war), and it's not like most men for 100s of years got much of an education either or had any real political rights. And there were no doubt some societies in the past where women did have a different role as well.

Anyway I have no problem with equal rights, as long as it's for everyone. In practice of course governments will always side with some people against others (minorites) anyway. And in entertainment pay, as I said, is based on audience draw not on whether you do the same thing.

Sime might argue but they would be wrong. When your expected role is to look after the house and children while the male goes out and not only establishes himself in the business world and brings home bread to take care of all of them he clearly has the power over the rest of his family.

That alone is the reason women go out and get jobs. They could sit at home and play housewife (nothing wrong with that) but instead they want to take charge of there own life and not rely on a man for dinner at night.

look at you being all feminist, d'awww!

Some still want to look after their children for example, women certainly get maternity benefits. Women had the power in the home some might say, and that power over children has extended into the modern age (to men's detriment perhaps). So an estranged partner might not be able to see his children, women can carry out an abortion while the partner who contributed half the baby has no say.

I think it is good that there is more freedom for people to do what they want, but ultimately there will be some kind of division of labour because one person can't do everything very easily in a family.

Also you talk about all women like they are all the same, that is wrong. Same if you did that with men.

Thats a mighty big accusation!

from the way you've been posting, not really

I know you said in some places but it seems like the tide is turning on that.

Deadbeat dads are still able to have rights to see their kids even if they aren't providing for them.

My female friend is going through a similar situation like this and maybe he just has a really good lawyer but it's a crap situation to be in.

This was not power. The men at any time could have taken that "power" away on a whim. Any "power" that the wielder can not prevent from being taken by a third party (and that third party is given the authority to take that "power", by force if they choose, by the government) is not power. It is an illusion.