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

[Condunum]

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.

Why does someone have to raise the child? Explain exactly what reasoning permits forcing someone to raise a child?

[Aurora Novus]

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

Oh, but wasn't having sex and getting pregnant their consent to having the child? They had sex, they knew the risks. If they didn't want a child, they should have tied their tubes or something. Now they have a responsibility that they need to take ownership of and not be an irresponsible slut.

[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.

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.

Not as responsible as the mother given all the opt-outs she had. But you aren't arguing he pay proportionally less either, you want him to pay half.

[Fartsniffage]

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?

I'm going to say this once more. I'm even going to try to use short words. I think that the moment of conception doesn't matter. I think that the reproductive process should be considered as a whole when talking about parental responsibilities. By that measure, men and women have the exact same amount of input into the decision. Each can withdraw their consent until their part in the reproductive process in finished. Men just happen to finish earlier. Men have exactly the same capability as women to withdraw their biological consent.

[Fartsniffage]

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.

Not as responsible as the mother given all the opt-outs she had. But you aren't arguing he pay proportionally less either, you want him to pay half.

I want him to pay according to his ability. But thank you for putting words in my mouth.

[Fartsniffage]

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

Oh, but wasn't having sex and getting pregnant their consent to having the child? They had sex, they knew the risks. If they didn't want a child, they should have tied their tubes or something. Now they have a responsibility that they need to take ownership of and not be an irresponsible slut.

You seem to really like the word slut. It's quite telling you know.....

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

You seem to really like the word slut. It's quite telling you know.....

Treta, treta, treta

[Jocabia]

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?


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.


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.

No, it isn't about vengeance. It's about the idea that you think it's inherently unfair but are only using a portion of the data to determine that it's unfair. I'm pointing out all the consequences to women of pregnancy, but you only want to focus on the consequences to men. They aren't equal. You're correct. Women have WAY worse potential consequences, but they also have more ways to avoid pregnancy. After birth, both parents have the same rights and responsibilities. It only appears unfair because you're only looking at a partial picture.

As for "some kids turn out fine" I didn't say just state it. It's not enough to prove that some kids turn out okay from it. You have to demonstrate that it's in the best interest of the child to have a surrogate take the place of one or both of its parents. That's the requirement. There must be a advocate acting in the best interest of the child, all the time, not just the male children.

And men are not harmed by being "forced" to be parents, any more than I am harmed by being forced to be responsible for a car accident. Me paying for a car accident isn't about vengeance. The state requires us to take responsibility for our actions. That is all.

[Aurora Novus]

I'm going to say this once more. I'm even going to try to use short words. I think that the moment of conception doesn't matter.

What you think in this regard doesn't matter. The fact is, post-conception, there is a right women have that allows them to decide whether or not they want to be a mother.

I think that the reproductive process should be considered as a whole when talking about parental responsibilities. By that measure, men and women have the exact same amount of input into the decision.

Even by that measure, no, they don't. Men have one time to make a decision (before they finish sex). Women have...several.

But it's painfully obvious the reason you want to try and muddle all of the reproductive process together is because you don't want to recognize that fact that at multiple points in the reproductive process women have rights that men don't have.

So, why don't you want men to have those rights? Please, just answer that question, without avoiding it. Show some intellectual honesty for once in your life.

Each can withdraw their consent until their part in the reproductive process in finished. Men just happen to finish earlier. Men have exactly the same capability as women to withdraw their biological consent.

Biological consent =/= consent.

[Aurora Novus]

Oh, but wasn't having sex and getting pregnant their consent to having the child? They had sex, they knew the risks. If they didn't want a child, they should have tied their tubes or something. Now they have a responsibility that they need to take ownership of and not be an irresponsible slut.

You seem to really like the word slut. It's quite telling you know.....

Oh the irony. The painful, delicious irony.

[Fartsniffage]

You seem to really like the word slut. It's quite telling you know.....

Oh the irony. The painful, delicious irony.

Do tell?

[Jocabia]

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.

Not as responsible as the mother given all the opt-outs she had. But you aren't arguing he pay proportionally less either, you want him to pay half.

See, this is the point. Women are more involved in the reproductive process. They have more opt outs, but they also can be killed in the process. You want to even out the part about more "opt outs" as you call them, but you don't want to correct for anything else. You don't want to make it more equal. You want to make it more unequal.

[Forsher]

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.

You're now conflating your two points so that it looks like the latter, which I already dismissed as irrelevant to my purposes in posting the statement while acknowledging the validity of "NS staff don't determine the truth".

However, the continued assertion that an NS poster is unaffected by NS mods is inane. It has nothing to do with whether or not you respect authority. For example, if you went out and shot someone your lack of respect will not stop the police from impacting your life in somehow. If you did something like pornspamming on NS you would also find your lack of respect doesn't help.

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.

Note the word "supporting". Now refer back to your examples and re-assess them in light of this important contextual information. Then, consider whether or not either YouTube or 4Chan are sites that can be fairly compared in website type to what is essentially a very specifically focussed newspaper/forum combination.

[Aurora Novus]

Fartsniffage, why do you want to deny the existence of fertilization? Can abortion happen before conception?

[Aurora Novus]

Oh the irony. The painful, delicious irony.

Do tell?

You do recall that I brought up calling people "irresponsible sluts" in response to you calling people "deadbeat dads", yes?

If my calling mothers who abort or legally abandone their children "irresponsible sluts" is supposedly telling, then what does that say about you, the individual who openly calls men who don't want to be fathers "deadbeat dads" and "pricks"?

That my lad is where the irony lay.

[Forsher]

You seem to really like the word slut. It's quite telling you know.....

For a complete irrelevance this random guy was talking to a female friend of his when she noticed that his jeans or whatever they were had a hole in them. Her reaction? She called him a slut and I never saw either or them ever again (to my knowledge).*

*Possibly more relevant is that I think he wanted his mum to patch them or something.

[The Serbian Empire]

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.

You're now conflating your two points so that it looks like the latter, which I already dismissed as irrelevant to my purposes in posting the statement while acknowledging the validity of "NS staff don't determine the truth".

However, the continued assertion that an NS poster is unaffected by NS mods is inane. It has nothing to do with whether or not you respect authority. For example, if you went out and shot someone your lack of respect will not stop the police from impacting your life in somehow. If you did something like pornspamming on NS you would also find your lack of respect doesn't help.

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.

Note the word "supporting". Now refer back to your examples and re-assess them in light of this important contextual information. Then, consider whether or not either YouTube or 4Chan are sites that can be fairly compared in website type to what is essentially a very specifically focussed newspaper/forum combination.

Note how often 4chan actually encourages it. I see a request just about once or twice a day. And YouTube, there's enough bad eggs on that site that doxxing may be against the rules but there's too many people out there doing it anyways. Of course, 4chan's the guys who tend to do the dirty work for any number of groups. They'll dox both feminists and MRAs alike just because they can.

[Jocabia]

Oh the irony. The painful, delicious irony.

Do tell?

Don't you get it. Calling a woman a slut is just like calling a man a dad. He already told us this.

See, no one would object to calling a woman a deadbeat mother if she put the burden of raising the child entirely on the father. It would be correct. But to him, when a women is irresponsible and it's not enough to call her a deadbeat or irresponsible like we do with the father. We need to call him a slut. Because in his mind, woman and slut are interchangeable.

[Jocabia]

Do tell?

You do recall that I brought up calling people "irresponsible sluts" in response to you calling people "deadbeat dads", yes?

Right, because dad and slut are totally the same thing, right?

[Ostroeuropa]

Not as responsible as the mother given all the opt-outs she had. But you aren't arguing he pay proportionally less either, you want him to pay half.

See, this is the point. Women are more involved in the reproductive process. They have more opt outs, but they also can be killed in the process. You want to even out the part about more "opt outs" as you call them, but you don't want to correct for anything else. You don't want to make it more equal. You want to make it more unequal.

Um.
We do have medicine to address the women dying thing you know. We do actually try to remove those consequences for her. So yeh, this, again, is nonsense masquerading as an argument you are using.
You are arguing for malice based revenge legislation against males. It's creepy.

[Ceannairceach]

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

Oh, but wasn't having sex and getting pregnant their consent to having the child? They had sex, they knew the risks. If they didn't want a child, they should have tied their tubes or something. Now they have a responsibility that they need to take ownership of and not be an irresponsible slut.

Consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy.

Learn how consent works.

[Fartsniffage]

I'm going to say this once more. I'm even going to try to use short words. I think that the moment of conception doesn't matter.

What you think in this regard doesn't matter. The fact is, post-conception, there is a right women have that allows them to decide whether or not they want to be a mother.

I think that the reproductive process should be considered as a whole when talking about parental responsibilities. By that measure, men and women have the exact same amount of input into the decision.

Even by that measure, no, they don't. Men have one time to make a decision (before they finish sex). Women have...several.

But it's painfully obvious the reason you want to try and muddle all of the reproductive process together is because you don't want to recognize that fact that at multiple points in the reproductive process women have rights that men don't have.

So, why don't you want men to have those rights? Please, just answer that question, without avoiding it. Show some intellectual honesty for once in your life.

Each can withdraw their consent until their part in the reproductive process in finished. Men just happen to finish earlier. Men have exactly the same capability as women to withdraw their biological consent.

Biological consent =/= consent.

I have answered, repeatedly. That you don't like my answer really doesn't matter. I'm not repeating it again.

Men may have a shorter time to make the decision but it certainly isn't a single point.

If biological consent isn't consent, then what is?

[Fartsniffage]

Fartsniffage, why do you want to deny the existence of fertilization? Can abortion happen before conception?

I never denied that it did exist.

[Aurora Novus]

Do tell?

Don't you get it. Calling a woman a slut is just like calling a man a dad. He already told us this.

See, no one would object to calling a woman a deadbeat mother if she put the burden of raising the child entirely on the father. It would be correct. But to him, when a women is irresponsible and it's not enough to call her a deadbeat or irresponsible like we do with the father. We need to call him a slut. Because in his mind, woman and slut are interchangeable.

In this context, yes. Just like "dad" and "slut" are interchangable in this context, because the definition behind "dad" and "mom" in this context is equivalent to "slut".


Of course, you can contonue to ignore that point I brought up several pages ago, and continue to present your straw man. But if you ever feel like being honest, let us know.

[Jocabia]

:roll:

Do tell?

You do recall that I brought up calling people "irresponsible sluts" in response to you calling people "deadbeat dads", yes?

If my calling mothers who abort or legally abandone their children "irresponsible sluts" is supposedly telling, then what does that say about you, the individual who openly calls men who don't want to be fathers "deadbeat dads" and "pricks"?

That my lad is where the irony lay.

You don't see the difference. That's what is scary.

Dad = a man who has a child.

According to you
Slut = a woman who has a child.

You can't abort a child. Legally abandoning a child, once again, has someone acting on behalf of the child. The reason it is legal is because it's been found that the child is actually better off in those cases.

A more comparable scenario is when a woman abandons a child to the father. That does happen. And she's very much a deadbeat mother or mom.

Notice, how slut isn't necessary because it's just a derogatory term that has nothing to do with the problem at hand.