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

[Seriong]

"They have no connection to the MRM, but I can imagine they do, so lets lump them together"

That's a bit messed up.

It's to show that these are tactics used by some, and such tactics have been advocated within the MRM. Which isn't to say at all that they are mainstream.

Except it doesn't show that in the slightest.

[Llamalandia]

Given that a woman can refuse to name the father and put the child up for adoption unilaterally AFTER the child is born, you have a few options:

1. Stop them doing this (How? How would you enforce it? What if they ""Forget""?)
2. Give both parents the option to opt out of parenthood so that there is no longer a power imbalance.
3. Be a sexist

Which options do you choose and why, and if none, which is the fourth option and how does it deal with the power imbalance and the female having the right to abandon parental responsibility, but not the male?

You seem obsessed with the rights of the parents. What about the child? To quote Robin Williams from Good Will Hunting "It's not about you, you ignorant prick!" These laws exist to look after the kid.

If a mother is refusing to name the father and wants to give the child up then that certainly seems to be in the best interests of the child. After all, the mother doesn't want it and isn't naming the father so no love and no money coming in for the kid. Sucks to be that kid.

If the mother keeps the child and names the father then the father is responsible for paying towards the upbringing of the kid. It's that simple. The kid is the one who matters here. The child didn't ask for this, it was brought into the world without it's consent but now it needs shoes and food and shit. The father was there at the start and bears some responsibility.

And to be honest, I refuse to accept your premise that this is inherently sexist. There are differences in biology that require differences in laws.

Well then why not pass alas banning abortion for the good of the child then? Or more practically, requiring pregnant women not eat too much fish, or take prenatal vitamins etc etc to ensure a healthy baby? I mean he'll I'm pretty sure it's not even illegal for women to drink alcohol despite fetal alcohol syndrome. If we're going to be so "concerned with the children" fine the. I'm taking it all he way.

[Ostroeuropa]

So why is it ok for the female to do that, but not the male. Why is it "Sucks for that kid" for a female, but the moment a male wants to do the same suddenly you aren't ok with it.
What's the difference.

It isn't okay for the female to do it. At all. Nobody says that it is. If both parents are known, then safe haven laws apply to both parents. If only one parent is know, then it only applies to one parent. It is equal.

So, how do you propose we address this power imbalance between males and females.
You don't.
You have no solution for it.

[Jocabia]

You seem obsessed with the rights of the parents. What about the child? To quote Robin Williams from Good Will Hunting "It's not about you, you ignorant prick!" These laws exist to look after the kid.

Abortion laws don't exst for the benefit of the kid. They exist for the benefit of the mother.

As for adoption and safe haven laws, they exist to allow parents who don't feel ready ot be parents to give them up to familes who do feel ready to raise kids. Yes, that's a benefit for the kid. But it's a benefit born out of, essentially, preventing paternal abuse. That's the exact reason why safe haven laws came about anyway. It was to try and stop mothers from comitting infantacide.

So while these laws exist to benefit kids, they exist to do so by assuring the rights of mothers to not have to be parents if they don't want to.


Why don't you feel similarly about fathers?

You're incorrect. They do not assure that mothers don't have to be parents if they don't want to. If a father is known, then they cannot give up the child.

[The Serbian Empire]

I can say it's a hate site quite easily and refer to a ruling on NS to support it.

I could produce a poll that would say the same of 4chan or even the Southern Poverty Law Center, but one has to take polls with a grain of salt as this forum isn't anywhere near representative of the population at large.

[Aurora Novus]

I can say it's a hate site quite easily and refer to a ruling on NS to support it.

What the NS staff thinks doesn't concern me, and doesn't determine truth.

[Jocabia]

It isn't okay for the female to do it. At all. Nobody says that it is. If both parents are known, then safe haven laws apply to both parents. If only one parent is know, then it only applies to one parent. It is equal.

So, how do you propose we address this power imbalance between males and females.
You don't.
You have no solution for it.

I don't have a solution that isn't stupid and mistreats children. Neither do you.

Nor can you fix the power the other power imbalance that is unavoidable as a result of females being the part of our species that gives birth. Unless you have a solution for the power imbalance of women dying in child birth and men not dying. Or the problem that women's bodies are damaged by pregnancy and men's bodies are not. Or the plethora of other consequences of pregnancy and abortion that you're choosing to ignore because they don't affect you.

[Aurora Novus]

You're incorrect. They do not assure that mothers don't have to be parents if they don't want to.

Yes, they do. Abortion, adoption, and safe havens all exist to benefit mothers and children by allowing them to abdicate their responsibility towards the child (or motherhood altogether in the case of abortion).

If a father is known, then they cannot give up the child.

Only in the case of adoption, and very rarely in the case of safe havens. Even then, this caveat is easily avoided.

[Fartsniffage]

Again, I don't consider the reproductive process to be split between pre and post conception.

Irrelevant. Your "conception" of reprodiuction doesn't change what reproduction is. So unless you're prepaired to claim that a sperm fertilizing an egg isn't something that happens, there is a time in the reproductive process before the egg is fertilized, and a time after the egg is fertilized. Pre and post-conception.

You're not answering the question, you're still trying to dance around it through rhetoric. It's not working.

But I will expand a little. You tried to fuck around with that answer before but failed to notice that my wording was quite deliberate. The conception process and reproductive process are different things.

Women don't have any more control over whether men become parents than men do. Both play their part in the reproductive process.

If you want to play semantics, fine. Let's reword the question.

During the "conception process" (or whatever term you would use for the time the child is growing inside the mother's womb), the mother has a right to abort the fetus. Whether intended or not, the mother has the right to choose whether or not she wishes to be a parent due to that right to abortion.

Given that, why don't you want fathers to have the same right to choose whether or not they wish to be a parent during this time? Why do you want women to be able to make that choice for them?

Jesus Christ. Don't they teach basic biology where you come from? Conception is the bit where the egg is fertilised and implanted, the reproductive process is everything between convincing a woman that our sorry arse is worth taking to bed and the moment the child is born.

My point is that the amount of time a male is involved in the process is less than the time a woman is. This is simple biology.

[Seriong]

Abortion laws don't exst for the benefit of the kid. They exist for the benefit of the mother.

As for adoption and safe haven laws, they exist to allow parents who don't feel ready ot be parents to give them up to familes who do feel ready to raise kids. Yes, that's a benefit for the kid. But it's a benefit born out of, essentially, preventing paternal abuse. That's the exact reason why safe haven laws came about anyway. It was to try and stop mothers from comitting infantacide.

So while these laws exist to benefit kids, they exist to do so by assuring the rights of mothers to not have to be parents if they don't want to.


Why don't you feel similarly about fathers?

You're incorrect. They do not assure that mothers don't have to be parents if they don't want to. If a father is known, then they cannot give up the child.

No, it's if the father is named. As well, the father doesn't have the right to force a paternity test.

[Ostroeuropa]

So, how do you propose we address this power imbalance between males and females.
You don't.
You have no solution for it.

I don't have a solution that isn't stupid and mistreats children. Neither do you.

Nor can you fix the power the other power imbalance that is unavoidable as a result of females being the part of our species that gives birth. Unless you have a solution for the power imbalance of women dying in child birth and men not dying. Or the problem that women's bodies are damaged by pregnancy and men's bodies are not. Or the plethora of other consequences of pregnancy and abortion that you're choosing to ignore because they don't affect you.

How is the child mistreated provided child welfare is present? Go ahead. How are they mistreated. Merely insisting it doesn't make it so.
And yeh, we can fix this power imbalance, by having LPS.


And again, this women dying in childbirth thing is the stupidest argument i've ever heard, it's jaw-dropping, it's entirely irrelevant.
If you want a male to have to pay for the medical costs of a pregnancy i'd be on board with that, because it's actually proportional to their involvement.

[Jocabia]

You seem obsessed with the rights of the parents. What about the child? To quote Robin Williams from Good Will Hunting "It's not about you, you ignorant prick!" These laws exist to look after the kid.

If a mother is refusing to name the father and wants to give the child up then that certainly seems to be in the best interests of the child. After all, the mother doesn't want it and isn't naming the father so no love and no money coming in for the kid. Sucks to be that kid.

If the mother keeps the child and names the father then the father is responsible for paying towards the upbringing of the kid. It's that simple. The kid is the one who matters here. The child didn't ask for this, it was brought into the world without it's consent but now it needs shoes and food and shit. The father was there at the start and bears some responsibility.

And to be honest, I refuse to accept your premise that this is inherently sexist. There are differences in biology that require differences in laws.

Well then why not pass alas banning abortion for the good of the child then? Or more practically, requiring pregnant women not eat too much fish, or take prenatal vitamins etc etc to ensure a healthy baby? I mean he'll I'm pretty sure it's not even illegal for women to drink alcohol despite fetal alcohol syndrome. If we're going to be so "concerned with the children" fine the. I'm taking it all he way.

Actually, the latter part is a much more interesting argument. There is a healthy debate about it, actually. However, given that we don't require parents to feed their children vitamins or to not feed them too much fish, that bit is moot.

However, the fetal alcohol bit is under much debate and should be. The child, once it exists, is very much harmed through the actions of the mother and the child should have the right to made whole, in my opinion. However, that's a separate debate and still doesn't justify a paper abortion.

[Ostroeuropa]

In before it's the childs human right to own slaves.

[Aurora Novus]

Jesus Christ. Don't they teach basic biology where you come from? Conception is the bit where the egg is fertilised and implanted, the reproductive process is everything between convincing a woman that our sorry arse is worth taking to bed and the moment the child is born.

Yes. but I didn't say "conception and reproduction". That's something you said. What I said was "pre/post-conception." Which makes what I'm talking about very clearl. Once the egg has been fertilized, mothers still have the capability to decide whether or not they want to be mothers via abortion.

Why don't you want men to have the same capability?

My point is that the amount of time a male is involved in the process is less than the time a woman is. This is simple biology.

Yes...and? So what? Why should that mean that women get to determine whether or not they have to be fathers, post-conception? Why do you allow women the ability to decide whether or not they will be mothers post-conception, but not fathers? Why do you not want fathers to decide for themselves whether or not they want to be fathers, post-conception?

[The Serbian Empire]

I can say it's a hate site quite easily and refer to a ruling on NS to support it.

What the NS staff thinks doesn't concern me, and doesn't determine truth.

Outside of Violet, it's a volunteer force.

[Forsher]

I can say it's a hate site quite easily and refer to a ruling on NS to support it.

What the NS staff thinks doesn't concern me, and doesn't determine truth.

It does concern you... you post here. As to truth? That wasn't really what I was saying, I am satisfied by NS's assessment of it because I don't engage with the site in any other context.

I can say it's a hate site quite easily and refer to a ruling on NS to support it.

I could produce a poll that would say the same of 4chan or even the Southern Poverty Law Center, but one has to take polls with a grain of salt as this forum isn't anywhere near representative of the population at large.

I believe the NS reasoning is based on the assessment of the latter, which is, in turn, primarily derived from doxxing's being supported on AVFM.

[The Serbian Empire]

In before it's the childs human right to own slaves.

I bet $20 NSG that we don't see this argument.

[Ostroeuropa]

Jesus Christ. Don't they teach basic biology where you come from? Conception is the bit where the egg is fertilised and implanted, the reproductive process is everything between convincing a woman that our sorry arse is worth taking to bed and the moment the child is born.

Yes. but I didn't say "conception and reproduction". That's something you said. What I said was "pre/post-conception". Which makes what I'm talking about very clearly. Once the egg has been fertilized, mothers still have the capability to decide whether or not they want to be mothers via abortion.

Why don't you want ment to have the same capability?

My point is that the amount of time a male is involved in the process is less than the time a woman is. This is simple biology.

Yes...and? So what? Why should that mean that women get to determine whether or not they have to be fathers, post-conception? Why do you allow women the ability to decide whether or not they will be mothers post-conception, but not fathers? Why do you not want fathers to decide for themselves whether or not they want to be fathers, post-conception?

This is what i'm talking about. They have things that LOOK like arguments, but are actually entirely fucking irrelevant and don't make any sense.
It's them answering the question with a few statements of fact and acting like it justifies their conclusion.
Nothing about anything they say actually justifies forcing people to be parents against their will, especially when one sex has an opt-out and the other doesn't.
It's like answering "Why did you burn down the house?"
"Well, they were cooking eggs."
"Would you like it if I burned down your house?"
"That's different, i'm not cooking eggs."

[Jocabia]

I don't have a solution that isn't stupid and mistreats children. Neither do you.

Nor can you fix the power the other power imbalance that is unavoidable as a result of females being the part of our species that gives birth. Unless you have a solution for the power imbalance of women dying in child birth and men not dying. Or the problem that women's bodies are damaged by pregnancy and men's bodies are not. Or the plethora of other consequences of pregnancy and abortion that you're choosing to ignore because they don't affect you.

How is the child mistreated provided child welfare is present? Go ahead. How are they mistreated.

As I already stated, there has to be a consideration of what is best for the child. If you can show that welfare is better for a child than having both parents present, then I think that's a much more valid point than "wah, it's unfair. We want to have the benefits of having a womb without the consequences." Can you demonstrate that children are better off in single parent households under state aid than they are in households where the father pays child support but would prefer not to?

And again, this women dying in childbirth thing is the stupidest argument i've ever heard, it's jaw-dropping, it's entirely irrelevant.

You're right. Considering all the consequences of women being the ones that give birth doesn't make any sense at all. Let's ignore as many as we need to until it's only unfair to men.

If you want a male to have to pay for the medical costs of a pregnancy i'd be on board with that, because it's actually proportional to their involvement.

What is proportional to their involvement is them raising their child.

[Fartsniffage]

You seem obsessed with the rights of the parents. What about the child? To quote Robin Williams from Good Will Hunting "It's not about you, you ignorant prick!" These laws exist to look after the kid.

If a mother is refusing to name the father and wants to give the child up then that certainly seems to be in the best interests of the child. After all, the mother doesn't want it and isn't naming the father so no love and no money coming in for the kid. Sucks to be that kid.

If the mother keeps the child and names the father then the father is responsible for paying towards the upbringing of the kid. It's that simple. The kid is the one who matters here. The child didn't ask for this, it was brought into the world without it's consent but now it needs shoes and food and shit. The father was there at the start and bears some responsibility.

And to be honest, I refuse to accept your premise that this is inherently sexist. There are differences in biology that require differences in laws.

So why is it ok for the female to do that, but not the male. Why is it "Sucks for that kid" for a female, but the moment a male wants to do the same suddenly you aren't ok with it.
What's the difference.

If a male is named and can talk the mother into giving up the kid then fine.

Until then, there is a child that need to be paid for. The father is partially responsible for that.

[Aurora Novus]

It does concern you... you post here.

No, it really doesn't, because what the NS staff thinks doesn't determine truth, which is the only thing that concerns me with regards to the site, and whether it is or is not hateful.
You seem to be under the impression that I respect rules and authority. I don't.

[Fartsniffage]

You seem obsessed with the rights of the parents. What about the child? To quote Robin Williams from Good Will Hunting "It's not about you, you ignorant prick!" These laws exist to look after the kid.

If a mother is refusing to name the father and wants to give the child up then that certainly seems to be in the best interests of the child. After all, the mother doesn't want it and isn't naming the father so no love and no money coming in for the kid. Sucks to be that kid.

If the mother keeps the child and names the father then the father is responsible for paying towards the upbringing of the kid. It's that simple. The kid is the one who matters here. The child didn't ask for this, it was brought into the world without it's consent but now it needs shoes and food and shit. The father was there at the start and bears some responsibility.

And to be honest, I refuse to accept your premise that this is inherently sexist. There are differences in biology that require differences in laws.

Well then why not pass alas banning abortion for the good of the child then? Or more practically, requiring pregnant women not eat too much fish, or take prenatal vitamins etc etc to ensure a healthy baby? I mean he'll I'm pretty sure it's not even illegal for women to drink alcohol despite fetal alcohol syndrome. If we're going to be so "concerned with the children" fine the. I'm taking it all he way.

The right to bodily autonomy. But you knew that didn't you.

[The Serbian Empire]

I could produce a poll that would say the same of 4chan or even the Southern Poverty Law Center, but one has to take polls with a grain of salt as this forum isn't anywhere near representative of the population at large.

I believe the NS reasoning is based on the assessment of the latter, which is, in turn, primarily derived from doxxing's being supported on AVFM.

So 4chan and YouTube are hate sites due to the occasional use of doxxing? If that's the case, never watch a YouTube video again. That's the problem with the logic of doxxing equals hate site.

[Jocabia]

You're incorrect. They do not assure that mothers don't have to be parents if they don't want to. If a father is known, then they cannot give up the child.

No, it's if the father is named. As well, the father doesn't have the right to force a paternity test.

He doesn't? Hmmm... here I thought that you could sue for paternity. But, hey, I was just basing that on people actually being able to do that. That's only if you want to base things on reality.

Now, if there is a state where you cannot do so, then that's what you need to change, not a paper abortion.

[Ostroeuropa]

How is the child mistreated provided child welfare is present? Go ahead. How are they mistreated.

As I already stated, there has to be a consideration of what is best for the child. If you can show that welfare is better for a child than having both parents present, then I think that's a much more valid point than "wah, it's unfair. We want to have the benefits of having a womb without the consequences." Can you demonstrate that children are better off in single parent households under state aid than they are in households where the father pays child support but would prefer not to?

And again, this women dying in childbirth thing is the stupidest argument i've ever heard, it's jaw-dropping, it's entirely irrelevant.

You're right. Considering all the consequences of women being the ones that give birth doesn't make any sense at all. Let's ignore as many as we need to until it's only unfair to men.

If you want a male to have to pay for the medical costs of a pregnancy i'd be on board with that, because it's actually proportional to their involvement.

What is proportional to their involvement is them raising their child.

So basically your argument is based around vengeance and how men need to be punished because females don't like being pregnant.
Malice based legislation against males. Ok. That's not creepy or anything. I'm sure you aren't a hateful person or anything.

As for the child, what about it's future interests. Some of those kids are males too you know. And plenty of kids are raised by single parents, and they turn out JUST FUCKING FINE. It's obvious that there is no benefit to having both parents that justifies doing this to males. You are the only proposing the state intervene, show me the benefits of child support compared to child welfare, go ahead.
If you want to fuck over a demographic, you should have the evidence on your side to back it up.