Along with any other polarised view I am not a supporter, so it is with interest that I consider such.

The general argument seems to be spearheaded by woman

"there is an over-emphasis on physical prowess as opposed to personality - and in fact women have always complained about this. We mostly like to get to know someone first - as a product of the childbirth and rearing dependency thing and because most of us are going to suffer if the person we choose is not what they seem and particularly if they turn out physically abusive in some way... Economic opportunity/security has a lot to do with generating this dynamic but even affluent women need to consider the `unknown` factor... "

and supported more, recently by those of the male persuasion.

My lack of support for this is similar to that I have for 'Fathers for Justice'. It is not that I disagree with their factual representation as I have felt hard done by, by the power the mothers of my children enjoy. But that's the point, it is power that people enjoy so much, so what if it's a woman rather than a man that wants or wields that power.

My experience is more of mother and father and here lies a door to my escapism.

First let me say that I have no support for any absolute right, human or otherwise and any such benefit or enjoyment is just an inherited or earned privilege or standing.

When those too weak to find a solution to exploiting a resource alone, they may co-operate or use, exploit or employ others to help. It is only economic sense to share the benefit amongst those in cahoots. The agreement to divide the booty is the rights each has subsequent to their effort in supporting the group gathering of benefits. It can be lost, stolen or forfeited. Such gain is not a right. Animals nor plants have a right to be, but those that enjoy being a consumer may eventually succumb to death and loose all 'rights' they enjoyed.

So having po-pooed rights, then where is the enjoyment in such an argument?

It's it's use in sexism and sex is my favourite subject, at least until both man and woman are resigned to history and humans are conceived and born in laboratories, something I have no interest in developing yet cannot forstall.

Within the benefits than both sexes may enjoy there has to be a contract. I am not aware of a contract that differentiates between the sexes, well not any that I am part of. So a parent may seem to have rights, but not the mother or father.A child is general entitled to access to its parents, but not necessarily a mother ad father. In same gender couples both their will not be a mother and a father. Law, or contract defines the 'rights' and once a child has been adopted the former father or mother is no longer a parent and can only use he term father and mother to describe the conception of the child i.e. biological mother. Such a mother has no rights.

Given the arguments above it is clear that a mother and father refer to the conception whilst parent alludes to the caring of the child. Parents should not exploit their gender in parenting which is exactly what 'Fathers for Justice' do, and it seems many if not the majority of female parents indulge in. That this is picked up also by infertile mangers of people, both young and old shows not only the weakness of the individual but a clear lack of identity and the need not just to shroud themselves in the warmth of company but to have a power over others.

The excuse that such people may have been abused when young does nothing to alleviate the continuing abuse that they inflict upon all sort of life forms whatever their nature.

Fighting for woman or men's right's is sexism, just as fighting for other animals is specism.

In human legal framework there is a basis that gender is not the deciding factor. So if the de facto best parent is the mother with her womb and breasts to succour the infant child, if she so chooses, then it's no surprise that those who support this have sexist views.

So to be picky and argumentative I have edited the earlier quote

"there is an over-emphasis on physical prowess as opposed to personality - and in fact women have always complained about this. We mostly like to get to know someone first - as a product of the childbirth and rearing dependency thing and because most of us are going to suffer if the person we choose is not what they seem and particularly if they turn out physically abusive in some way... Economic opportunity/security has a lot to do with generating this dynamic but even affluent women need to consider the `unknown` factor... "

• there is an over-emphasis on physical prowess as opposed to personality
• Prowess and personality are complementary attributes of consuming animals. That a more mindful one as a human may express more personality is no benign quality as it will only be used to benefit the survival of the owner, where it grows
• and in fact women have always complained about this.
• I'm sure often as a male i have winched at the prowess of the more powerful, whether that prowess is due to physical or mental ability, in fact I still cringe here and there, more so as i get older and I so the idea that all woman do is only true if all men do, not to be sexist.

What more could I say to combat such sexist views.

So having suffered as a child and been humiliated as a parent, due to none other than my own aberrations from those expected of me by me I would love a lover, someone who sees sexism as the mutual exploitation of gender.

Mothers and fathers are for the offspring of man and woman to exploit not for parents. Parents have no gender, but any gender can act as parent, whether equally should not be a divisive issue; and where one chooses to use it so they are being sexist and not a parent.