MRA's: Fighting for Men or Fighting Against Women?

[Ostroeuropa]

Oh screw it, one more, to show why you are exactly the sort of person i'm talking about.

Women aren't "Punished" by being forced to quit their job when they get pregnant (or to keep going while pregnant.) they have the same legal rights as males do. However, no legal rights will change the fact that males cannot give birth.

This is your argument. I'm simply using it against a demographic you want to be privileged in society.

You still don't make any sense.

Women aren't being forced to quit their jobs because they get pregnant, even without any maternity leave. Having no parental leave only means they'd have to find alternative ways to take time off work (sick leave, vacation days, leave of absence) or risk being fired. But they wouldn't have to quit. Heck, the parents could even decide that the father was the one staying home after the child was born. (Interesting that you fail to take that into consideration, by the way...)

Neither is it all about biology, there's other beneficial sides to parental leave too. It benefits the child, it benefits the partner, it benefits society, and it arguably benefits the employer.

Sooo... what's your point?

Many women would be unable to work while pregnant. If it comes down to sick leave and such, that'd be them being unable to claim sick leave later on and such, or reducing their career prospects and all that.
The parents could decide that, yes, but it's utterly up to the decision of the male in that circumstance, so it's akin to the situation with LPS. The female could up and decide she doesn't want to screw over the father, or she could decide she wants to. It's entirely in her power, same as it'd be in his. I don't see why it's interesting, your vague accusations have become a little tiresome really. I'm very consistent in supporting maternity leave AND paternity leave for precisely that reason, so basically you just come off as desperate here, it's a little sad.

Sure, and theres other benefits to LPS too. It benefits the male, it benefits society since it means no forced parenthood and less animosity toward females, and it benefits females who decide they'll give birth, hand it to a willing male, then declare themselves unaffiliated with the child. It won't force them into an abortion to protect their financial interests, which is what the lack of LPS amounts to.
Empowerment of persons to decide the course of their own lives is a good thing.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Sounds a little contradictory, considering you said you would not visit an MRA site. Specifically, you should be visiting an AM-MRA site.

There's no such thing in Brazil and I really am not American to entertain becoming critical of their non-fucked up social movements, since I can barely stay tuned to a debate on them here in NSG.

[Gravlen]

You still don't make any sense.

Women aren't being forced to quit their jobs because they get pregnant, even without any maternity leave. Having no parental leave only means they'd have to find alternative ways to take time off work (sick leave, vacation days, leave of absence) or risk being fired.

Forcing someone to use sick leave and vacation days for paternal leave is just cruel.

...

Cruel? Sorry, but that's very much a "first world problem" mindset there.

But we agree that paternal leave is a good thing. Ostro is the one arguing for its removal here.

Heck, the parents could even decide that the father was the one staying home after the child was born. (Interesting that you fail to take that into consideration, by the way...)

Ostero has regularly been supportive of the sharing gender roles. This one included.

Maybe you can explain to me what his point was then? I'm still confused about it.

[Ostroeuropa]

Sounds a little contradictory, considering you said you would not visit an MRA site. Specifically, you should be visiting an AM-MRA site.

There's no such thing in Brazil and I really am not American to entertain becoming critical of their non-fucked up social movements, since I can barely stay tuned to a debate on them here in NSG.

Well, there probably should be. Are your feminists regularly and routinely attacking the notions of "Man up" and such as their main focus?
Despite the fact that these notions are the bedrock of most societal sexism?

The feminists have it entirely backward. Women suffer because prejudice against Males gets them caught in the crossfire.

[Ostroeuropa]

Forcing someone to use sick leave and vacation days for paternal leave is just cruel.

...

Cruel? Sorry, but that's very much a "first world problem" mindset there.

But we agree that paternal leave is a good thing. Ostro is the one arguing for its removal here.

Ostero has regularly been supportive of the sharing gender roles. This one included.

Maybe you can explain to me what his point was then? I'm still confused about it.

I'm not arguing that. I'm saying you are basically arguing in the exact same manner when you oppose LPS as those people who oppose Mat/Pat leave.

[Condunum]

Forcing someone to use sick leave and vacation days for paternal leave is just cruel.

...

Cruel? Sorry, but that's very much a "first world problem" mindset there.

Is there a point to be made here, or are you just blabbering?

But we agree that paternal leave is a good thing. Ostro is the one arguing for its removal here.

No he's not.

Ostero has regularly been supportive of the sharing gender roles. This one included.

Maybe you can explain to me what his point was then? I'm still confused about it.

Men and Women don't have the same parental rights.

[Murkwood]

I became sympathetic to the men's rights movement after my father was metaphorically raped in a divorce settlement by my thief of a mother.

If I am to ever give a shit about gender issues, it's when men are given the shaft by parasitical lawyers and voracious spouses.

That's one of the many reasons for the MRM: Court Cases favoring women.

[Fartsniffage]

When it comes to MRAs, I'll have a whole lot more sympathy for the cause when I see them campaigning for groups of men who actually don't have the same rights or privileges as others. Gay men, black men, Muslim men, that sort of thing.

As a straight, white male, I feel I'm pretty good in terms of how I get treated by society. But maybe that's just me.

Because you've been blinded to the oppression you are under. How often do you simply ignore or not take seriously when someone tells you to man up and such.
How often do you alter your behaviour based on those passive insults and such.

In addition, a lot of the MRAs do advocate for minority males as well. Specifically, as regards gay males, a lot of them will point out that a lot of the homophobia they face is because males are bullied and coerced into being stereotypes. End the "Man up" type of nonsense, and a lot of that will go away.

I honestly don't remember the last time I was told by anyone to man up.

I'd really like to see some examples of that. On the few occasions I've perused MRA forums of site, I've seen quite prodigious use of the word "fag".

[Edlichbury]

When it comes to MRAs, I'll have a whole lot more sympathy for the cause when I see them campaigning for groups of men who actually don't have the same rights or privileges as others. Gay men, black men, Muslim men, that sort of thing.

As a straight, white male, I feel I'm pretty good in terms of how I get treated by society. But maybe that's just me.

Because you've been blinded to the oppression you are under. How often do you simply ignore or not take seriously when someone tells you to man up and such.
How often do you alter your behaviour based on those passive insults and such.

In addition, a lot of the MRAs do advocate for minority males as well. Specifically, as regards gay males, a lot of them will point out that a lot of the homophobia they face is because males are bullied and coerced into being stereotypes. End the "Man up" type of nonsense, and a lot of that will go away.

Let's try it this way: of the groups Feminists and MRAs, which has suggested that all "real" men have sex with women and that if a woman dresses provocatively she will attract the attention of all men? Which has suggested that women can use sex appeal as a coercive power over all men? Which one had as their founding intellectual document a book that described male power as a "myth" because women "oppress all men" with their "sexual prowess"?

Now then, which one clearly does not give a shit about gay men or even acknowledge their existence?

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Well, there probably should be. Are your feminists regularly and routinely attacking the notions of "Man up" and such as their main focus?
Despite the fact that these notions are the bedrock of most societal sexism?

The feminists have it entirely backward. Women suffer because prejudice against Males gets them caught in the crossfire.

That is not at all what our society is, I think I'd have more background on it than you, unless you have a Portuguese, Spanish, Brazilian or Latin American studies qualification (and even such, I don't think you speak our languages or ever lived here).

But kinda. "Você é um homem ou um saco de batatas?" is what they ask to boys. And guess what is the term we genderqueer people use as a nickname for ourselves here? Yes, potatoes.

[Gravlen]

You still don't make any sense.

Women aren't being forced to quit their jobs because they get pregnant, even without any maternity leave. Having no parental leave only means they'd have to find alternative ways to take time off work (sick leave, vacation days, leave of absence) or risk being fired. But they wouldn't have to quit. Heck, the parents could even decide that the father was the one staying home after the child was born. (Interesting that you fail to take that into consideration, by the way...)

Neither is it all about biology, there's other beneficial sides to parental leave too. It benefits the child, it benefits the partner, it benefits society, and it arguably benefits the employer.

Sooo... what's your point?

Many women would be unable to work while pregnant. If it comes down to sick leave and such, that'd be them being unable to claim sick leave later on and such, or reducing their career prospects and all that.

Right, so parental leave is a good thing, and many other factors than biology is at play.

The parents could decide that, yes, but it's utterly up to the decision of the male in that circumstance, so it's akin to the situation with LPS. The female could up and decide she doesn't want to screw over the father, or she could decide she wants to. It's entirely in her power, same as it'd be in his.

A good reason why safe haven laws shouldn't - and isn't - a thing in our respective nations.

I don't see why it's interesting, your vague accusations have become a little tiresome really. I'm very consistent in supporting maternity leave AND paternity leave for precisely that reason, so basically you just come off as desperate here, it's a little sad.

I'm sure you're crying bitter tears.

Sure, and theres other benefits to LPS too. It benefits the male, it benefits society since it means no forced parenthood and less animosity toward females, and it benefits females who decide they'll give birth, hand it to a willing male, then declare themselves unaffiliated with the child. It won't force them into an abortion to protect their financial interests, which is what the lack of LPS amounts to.
Empowerment of persons to decide the course of their own lives is a good thing.

Not a single word about the child, I notice.

The few scant benefits you outline (i would dispute that it benefits males in general, society as you claim, and women when there's an alternative through adoption which takes the interests of the child into consideration) is outweighed by the interests of the child, and the interests of society to protect the child.

[Ostroeuropa]

Because you've been blinded to the oppression you are under. How often do you simply ignore or not take seriously when someone tells you to man up and such.
How often do you alter your behaviour based on those passive insults and such.

In addition, a lot of the MRAs do advocate for minority males as well. Specifically, as regards gay males, a lot of them will point out that a lot of the homophobia they face is because males are bullied and coerced into being stereotypes. End the "Man up" type of nonsense, and a lot of that will go away.

I honestly don't remember the last time I was told by anyone to man up.

I'd really like to see some examples of that. On the few occasions I've perused MRA forums of site, I've seen quite prodigious use of the word "fag".

It doesn't necessarily need to be "Man up" directly, it's the sentiment it portrays. (That there is an acceptable way of being male and you are deviating, which isn't allowed.)

As for examples, well, most of the ones in this thread would argue it i'm betting. And as for fag, yeh, I posted earlier about how I view the MRA as two distinct movements.

The Anti-Masculine MRA that hates the idea of man up and such, and is usually the one that argues for mens rights.
And the Pro-Masculine MRA, which is basically organized misogyny and maybe a few mens rights things thrown in for legitimacy.

It's akin to the Sex-positive and Sex-negative wings of feminism. They believe two completely different things.

[Edlichbury]

There's no such thing in Brazil and I really am not American to entertain becoming critical of their non-fucked up social movements, since I can barely stay tuned to a debate on them here in NSG.

Well, there probably should be. Are your feminists regularly and routinely attacking the notions of "Man up" and such as their main focus?
Despite the fact that these notions are the bedrock of most societal sexism?

The feminists have it entirely backward. Women suffer because prejudice against Males gets them caught in the crossfire.

Such prejudice, like believing only males are capable of making money or responsibly voting!
Cause you know, when it was stated that women are simply incapable of voting because of their underdeveloped brains, it was clearly just a by-product of "prejudice" against men by assuming that men are actual fucking humans.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

I honestly don't remember the last time I was told by anyone to man up.

I'd really like to see some examples of that. On the few occasions I've perused MRA forums of site, I've seen quite prodigious use of the word "fag".

My friends who complain about feminist hypocrisy really have no qualms about the humorous use of homophobic and transphobic slurs.

[Gravlen]

...

Cruel? Sorry, but that's very much a "first world problem" mindset there.

But we agree that paternal leave is a good thing. Ostro is the one arguing for its removal here.


Maybe you can explain to me what his point was then? I'm still confused about it.

I'm not arguing that. I'm saying you are basically arguing in the exact same manner when you oppose LPS as those people who oppose Mat/Pat leave.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Seriously. My posts aren't that difficult to read.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

I became sympathetic to the men's rights movement after my father was metaphorically raped in a divorce settlement by my thief of a mother.

If I am to ever give a shit about gender issues, it's when men are given the shaft by parasitical lawyers and voracious spouses.

That's one of the many reasons for the MRM: Court Cases favoring women.

tHeY aRe ExPlAiNaBlE bY aBoUt AlL fEmInIsT tHeOrY

[Ostroeuropa]

Well, there probably should be. Are your feminists regularly and routinely attacking the notions of "Man up" and such as their main focus?
Despite the fact that these notions are the bedrock of most societal sexism?

The feminists have it entirely backward. Women suffer because prejudice against Males gets them caught in the crossfire.

Such prejudice, like believing only males are capable of making money or responsibly voting!
Cause you know, when it was stated that women are simply incapable of voting because of their underdeveloped brains, it was clearly just a by-product of "prejudice" against men by assuming that men are actual fucking humans.

Certainly. And those aspects of prejudice have been addressed or are being addressed. The problems women suffer now are for the most part backfires from anti-male prejudice.
It isn't all one way you know.
It's why feminism is completely ill equipped to deal with the problem, because when it sees a situation where the female is losing out it assumes misogyny is the cause. These days, it's usually misandry that backfired.

[Libertarian California]

I became sympathetic to the men's rights movement after my father was metaphorically raped in a divorce settlement by my thief of a mother.

If I am to ever give a shit about gender issues, it's when men are given the shaft by parasitical lawyers and voracious spouses.

That's one of the many reasons for the MRM: Court Cases favoring women.

Often times, men lose custody of their children, have to shelve out a lot of money to someone who never earned it, and then have to pay child support because the ex-spouse is too fucking lazy to get her own employment.

[Gravlen]

...

Cruel? Sorry, but that's very much a "first world problem" mindset there.

Is there a point to be made here, or are you just blabbering?

Lack of paternity leave is many things, but cruel is not among them.

But we agree that paternal leave is a good thing. Ostro is the one arguing for its removal here.

No he's not.

Indeed he was, in his strange attempt to link it to paper abortions and safe haven laws.

Maybe you can explain to me what his point was then? I'm still confused about it.

Men and Women don't have the same parental rights.

In short, they do. They have as equal rights as biology allows for.

[Fartsniffage]

That's one of the many reasons for the MRM: Court Cases favoring women.

Often times, men lose custody of their children, have to shelve out a lot of money to someone who never earned it, and then have to pay child support because the ex-spouse is too fucking lazy to get her own employment.

What are the %s of men who lose custody when they contest the case? What is the % of men who actually contest it in the first place?

[Ostroeuropa]

Often times, men lose custody of their children, have to shelve out a lot of money to someone who never earned it, and then have to pay child support because the ex-spouse is too fucking lazy to get her own employment.

What are the %s of men who lose custody when they contest the case? What is the % of men who actually contest it in the first place?

If the number who bother contesting is lowered by the fact that males think it isn't worth contesting as they'll likely lose, isn't that just as big a problem?

[Gravlen]

Because you've been blinded to the oppression you are under. How often do you simply ignore or not take seriously when someone tells you to man up and such.
How often do you alter your behaviour based on those passive insults and such.

In addition, a lot of the MRAs do advocate for minority males as well. Specifically, as regards gay males, a lot of them will point out that a lot of the homophobia they face is because males are bullied and coerced into being stereotypes. End the "Man up" type of nonsense, and a lot of that will go away.

I honestly don't remember the last time I was told by anyone to man up.

I'd really like to see some examples of that. On the few occasions I've perused MRA forums of site, I've seen quite prodigious use of the word "fag".

Relevant:

This article summarizes things quite nicely.

"I would rather not see these kinds of "gay, redpill, and proud" posts. Masculinity is in part defined by our attraction to the feminine. If your preference is to be a man-pleaser then you're not expressing any kind of masculinity that's worth celebrating."

By the time I got to this point in part 3, I was more than won over. Jesus fucking christ. I guess because I don't hang around these groups I was only ever exposed to their more intellectual sides. I never knew this kind of shit was going on in the deeper communities.

[Ostroeuropa]

Indeed he was, in his strange attempt to link it to paper abortions and safe haven laws.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Seriously, my posts aren't that difficult to read.

[Fartsniffage]

What are the %s of men who lose custody when they contest the case? What is the % of men who actually contest it in the first place?

If the number who bother contesting is lowered by the fact that males think it isn't worth contesting as they'll likely lose, isn't that just as big a problem?

How many men think that? What studies do you have to show that's a problem?

[Condunum]

Is there a point to be made here, or are you just blabbering?

Lack of paternity leave is many things, but cruel is not among them.

So it's just semantics.

No he's not.

Indeed he was, in his strange attempt to link it to paper abortions and safe haven laws.

Where are you getting this?

Men and Women don't have the same parental rights.

In short, they do. They have as equal rights as biology allows for.

So that's it, we're to dictate rights by biology? What?