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

[Fartsniffage]

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

You've not answered the question. You've avoided it, repeatedly.

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

When you consider that the reproductive process is not the same thing all the way throguh, but happens in stages, yes, it is a single point. That you don't want to conceptualize it that way doesn't change that it IS that way.

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

A consistent "Yes, I want to be a mother/father" up until the moment after the child is born. You of course recognize this for women. After all, you wouldn't dream of proposing that a woman having sex is consent to pregnancy and childbirth thereafter. Sex is not consent to parenthood.

And I know, I know, you'll come back and say "dur, but men finish der part afdur sex." Yes, we know, but that's not what determines parenthood. It's not the end of the reproductive cycle that determines when you're a parent, it's when the child is born. The difference being, a child isn't born while it's still growing inside the mother. That's why we allow abortions, and that's why fathers should be able to, like mothers, make the choice to not be a parent before the child is born.


And by the way, I know you keep saying that we should conceptualize reproduction as one continuous event, but you're being hypocritical when you say that. Because even you don't conceptualize it that way. Otherwise you would have no problem with men abdicating resppnsibility during pregnancy, because that's just "during the reproductive process." This whole "male vs female" part of the process is you trying to catagorize different sections of the process. That you refuse to recognize "pre/post-conception" as a part of catagorizing that process is nothing short of hypocrisy on your part. Hypocrisy inspired by bigotry.

I never denied that it did exist.

No?

Well then, you certain recognize that there is a time when an egg is not fertilize, and a time when it is fertilized. In otherwords, pre-conception and post-concpetion. Glad we're on the same page.

Now, why don't you want men to have the same rights as women, post-conception?

I'm not going to respond to your "argument" because you've been saying the same thing for pages now and so have I. I think we just simply don't agree on some basic concepts that make any further discussion a waste of time on both parts.

I am curious who I'm bigoted against though.

[Jocabia]

No, we don't. Women still die during childbirth. They are still harmed. They still have to go through the process of pregnancy.

And there is no malice. It is not malicious to make people take responsibility for their actions. Only you think that. Because the mother and father are both responsible for the existence of the child, they are both responsible for the care of that child for as long as it is dependent on care, unless an advocate for the child determines the child is better served by someone else taking that responsibility. Notice how none of that is malicious.

That's pretty rear in 1st world countries, or at least without having already warned the mother of the possible risks of because of some special conditions she may have. But a healthy woman of normal childbearing age rarely just up and dies in childbirth in the 1st world, I mean, it happens but it's largely de minimis here.

Also, epiderals exist now. Plus none of that suppose potential harm to which women are subjected as a result of biology negates the argument for equality between male and female parents, because we can remedy harm to unwilling fathers we should, likewise if we could remedy the harms to pregnant women that you cite we would do that as well. The harm mitigations here can be treated seperately from their underlying cause, ie an unwanted child.

Harm to the mother is not rare. Death is somewhat rare (28 per 100,000 live births), but it's not the only consequence. It's one of many. And even if rare, that doesn't change that it's a consequence that you want only women to suffer.

If we're coming up with stupid solutions, let's start forcing men to be injured by pregnancy and childbirth. An eye for an eye so to speak. Yes, that's stupid, but no less stupid than paper abortions. And at least it would actually take into account of all the consequences and not just the ones that you care about.

In the case of an unwanted child, mothers and fathers have identical rights.

[Aurora Novus]

I am curious who I'm bigoted against though.

As if it has to be said.

Your denial of equal rights for men makes you, obviously, bigotted against men. That you are a man makes no difference in this regard. You've internalized cultural misandry.

[Llamalandia]

And how is mercury poisioning, (a result of too much fish consumption in pregnancy) not a source of harm to children?

Also, here's the thing, if the childs rights were paramount, which they aren't for better or worse, (keep in mind for instance the USA has never ratified the UN rights of Child treaty for example ), then your arguments would likely carry the day. But Children's rights are far from paramount, if they weren't we'd have ended no fault divorce or at least given children a say in parental divorce ie vetoing it. Likewise we would require that all biological parents live together and parent together as that's usually in a childs best interest, but guess what we do don't do any of that.

It is a source of harm to children, once they exist. It's also a source of harm to children when you give it to them after birth.

You're incorrect. The children don't get a say unless they are deemed to be old enough to make a decision regarding the divorce. Otherwise the court acts as an advocate for the children and determines how they are best served.

The rest of your stuff is just completely made up. Are you claiming you can prove that a child's interests are served by forcing parents to live together? Source that please.

Ok, yes, some kids like teens get to decide which parent to live with post divorce, but they never get a say in whether or not the divorce takes place. Some kids, hell I think I can safely say most kids don't want their parents to get a divorce barring some rather extreme circumstances like abuse. So even when deemed old enough kids don't get a say.

Also no my stuff isn't made up for instance you'll find the USA only signed but never ratified the rights of the child convention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention ... _the_Child

also, kids of divorce may be more likely to be obese, that's hot off presses.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/0 ... 54453.html

Look, sure, when there's a good reason cited by the parent wanting a divorce, then usually it's in the best interests of kids as well, however the same isn't true of no-fault divorce as hell, these can often be handled with nearly no real court intervention.

[Ostroeuropa]

That's pretty rear in 1st world countries, or at least without having already warned the mother of the possible risks of because of some special conditions she may have. But a healthy woman of normal childbearing age rarely just up and dies in childbirth in the 1st world, I mean, it happens but it's largely de minimis here.

Also, epiderals exist now. Plus none of that suppose potential harm to which women are subjected as a result of biology negates the argument for equality between male and female parents, because we can remedy harm to unwilling fathers we should, likewise if we could remedy the harms to pregnant women that you cite we would do that as well. The harm mitigations here can be treated seperately from their underlying cause, ie an unwanted child.

Harm to the mother is not rare. Death is somewhat rare (28 per 100,000 live births), but it's not the only consequence. It's one of many. And even if rare, that doesn't change that it's a consequence that you want only women to suffer.

If we're coming up with stupid solutions, let's start forcing men to be injured by pregnancy and childbirth. An eye for an eye so to speak. Yes, that's stupid, but no less stupid than paper abortions. And at least it would actually take into account of all the consequences and not just the ones that you care about.

In the case of an unwanted child, mothers and fathers have identical rights.

And as I said, this is the stupidest argument i've ever seen on these forums.
It's akin to demanding that we cripple everyone who can walk to have real equality as a response to someone saying "Let's build ramps instead of stairs."
I have trouble thinking you could possibly actually believe this argument.

If you seriously don't understand the difference between POSITIVELY lifting someone up to get equality, and NEGATIVELY pushing them down, then I'm incredibly sorry for you.

[Fartsniffage]

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... glish/slut

Notice that word in there? Derogatory?

So it's fairly obvious you missed the point of the slutwalks then. Prudes might consider it derogatory, because they are prudes and think sex is bad. Given that we're debating political implications of the word, I don't think the dictionary is a very good source. You could try a sociology book or something, that might work.

I never saw a slutwalk so I guess I did.

And the Oxford dictionary is pretty much the definitive source on what words in the English language mean. If you disagree with it, fine. But you're most likely wrong. You see, dictionaries define what words mean in current usage.

[Ostroeuropa]

So it's fairly obvious you missed the point of the slutwalks then. Prudes might consider it derogatory, because they are prudes and think sex is bad. Given that we're debating political implications of the word, I don't think the dictionary is a very good source. You could try a sociology book or something, that might work.

I never saw a slutwalk so I guess I did.

And the Oxford dictionary is pretty much the definitive source on what words in the English language mean. If you disagree with it, fine. But you're most likely wrong. You see, dictionaries define what words mean in current usage.

Are the dictionaries immune to demonstrating societal prejudice?
As I said. Slut is a statement of fact. If you consider it derogatory, it's because you view sluts negatively. That's your problem.

[Jocabia]

Irresponsible and deadbeat mean the same thing. For you, it's not enough to simply call a woman irresponsible or a deadbeat though. You need to use a misogynistic term, because, in fact, you are misogynistic. And it doesn't seem disproportionate to you at all, because you don't really care if it is. We are talking about women, after all, and it's not like they're people or anything.

That's a nice straw man you've got there.

As I said though, whenever you feel like being honest and addressing my actual points, feel free to.

Dude, it's just language. You are the one that inserted a slur but only for women. You occasionally try to throw in one for men, but you always have one for women.

The equivalent of "deadbeat dad" is "deadbeat mom". And no one here would object to you calling mothers who abandon their children to fathers to raise alone "deadbeat moms".

The problem in your term isn't "irresponsible". It's "slut". And you know it. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem irrational to you to use it. And that's evidence of the problem.

I gotta tell you guys, you guys are doing a real service to the thread. What's better evidence of woman-hating than the way you guys handle abortion, pregnancy and children. You hate women so much that you'd harm the child just to get back at women.

[Forsher]

So, they're mercenary doxxers? Don't you see how there's a fundamental difference between that sort of behaviour and what has gone on with AVFM?

To be a hate anything there needs to be some actual hatred directed towards the group. From what you've said doxxing would happen in those places regardless of the groups that the victims are identified as belonging to (as with genocide, it is the identification applied to the victim that matters). In my view, this is not the case with AVFM.

It would mean the reach of terror from Anonymous would be far greater than AVFM as the guys from 4chan aren't fussy on who they strike. Both in reality are dangerous, just that one will attack as if they were the content of /b/, which is random.

I'm sorry, I don't understand this. You don't have to be a hate group to be dangerous. For instance, not all murders are hate crimes.

Please. What does "slut" mean to you then? Do MRAs have some new definition of the word not yet in common usage?

A slut is someone who is sexually promiscuous. Nothing more. Some people may decide that's a bad thing, but that's their prejudice showing.
That was the point of the slutwalks.

Fartsniffage is right about the derogatory bit but, also, slut is often used in a playful manner that has little to no connection with sex... see, for instance, my overheard conversation of holy trouser dude and hole concerned friend. I think you can say it is being reclaimed but it is far from there.

And the Oxford dictionary is pretty much the definitive source on what words in the English language mean. If you disagree with it, fine. But you're most likely wrong. You see, dictionaries define what words mean in current usage.

There is some lag though.

[Llamalandia]

That's pretty rear in 1st world countries, or at least without having already warned the mother of the possible risks of because of some special conditions she may have. But a healthy woman of normal childbearing age rarely just up and dies in childbirth in the 1st world, I mean, it happens but it's largely de minimis here.

Also, epiderals exist now. Plus none of that suppose potential harm to which women are subjected as a result of biology negates the argument for equality between male and female parents, because we can remedy harm to unwilling fathers we should, likewise if we could remedy the harms to pregnant women that you cite we would do that as well. The harm mitigations here can be treated seperately from their underlying cause, ie an unwanted child.

Harm to the mother is not rare. Death is somewhat rare (28 per 100,000 live births), but it's not the only consequence. It's one of many. And even if rare, that doesn't change that it's a consequence that you want only women to suffer.

If we're coming up with stupid solutions, let's start forcing men to be injured by pregnancy and childbirth. An eye for an eye so to speak. Yes, that's stupid, but no less stupid than paper abortions. And at least it would actually take into account of all the consequences and not just the ones that you care about.

In the case of an unwanted child, mothers and fathers have identical rights.

No they don't have equal rights, if a mom wants to keep a kid but the dad doesn't he has to pay child support, if a mom wants she can put the kid up for adoption, or as is far more relevant to our actual discussion, she can choose to have an abortion. SO the equality solution is to ban abortion, or make it available to both genders equally, that way like a woman who can terminate an unborn child she doesn't want a man can likewise terminate a child he doesn't want. Now since we obviously would like to avoid forcing a woman to avoid an invasive medical procedure like abortion (especially against her will) the next best alternative which in effect accomplishes the same thing as far as the law is concerned is to allow the father of the unwanted unborn child to get a paper abortion, ie giving up all parental rights in exchange for also no longer being liable for paying for the expense of an unborn child he doesn't want.

[Jocabia]

I never saw a slutwalk so I guess I did.

And the Oxford dictionary is pretty much the definitive source on what words in the English language mean. If you disagree with it, fine. But you're most likely wrong. You see, dictionaries define what words mean in current usage.

Are the dictionaries immune to demonstrating societal prejudice?
As I said. Slut is a statement of fact. If you consider it derogatory, it's because you view sluts negatively. That's your problem.

No, dictionaries actually demonstrate societal prejudice because their definitions are based on usage, because that's how language works.

When you say a term, the people listening hear it as meaning what it typically means in that context. Otherwise... jimmy consort mother happy pardon jelly sandwich... would have as much meaning as... your point is embarrassingly inaccurate.

[Fartsniffage]

I am curious who I'm bigoted against though.

As if it has to be said.

Your denial of equal rights for men makes you, obviously, bigotted against men. That you are a man makes no difference in this regard. You've internalized cultural misandry.

Hah. Okay then.

I'll write a letter to my male MP and ask him to go to our massively male dominated Parliament to pass some legislation to save my poor mind (educated by a male dominated university) from all the misandry I've internalised.

Thank you for saving me from all the scary girls.

[Ostroeuropa]

Are the dictionaries immune to demonstrating societal prejudice?
As I said. Slut is a statement of fact. If you consider it derogatory, it's because you view sluts negatively. That's your problem.

No, dictionaries actually demonstrate societal prejudice because their definitions are based on usage, because that's how language works.

When you say a term, the people listening hear it as meaning what it typically means in that context. Otherwise... jimmy consort mother happy pardon jelly sandwich... would have as much meaning as... your point is embarrassingly inaccurate.

Is there something wrong with being a slut?
No?
Then whats the problem being called a slut.

This seems pretty self-demonstrative.
It's a single word that fulfills a useful purpose. I.E, identifying that someone is sexually promiscuous with multiple partners.
If you think being identified that way is insulting, that's your prejudice showing.

[Fartsniffage]

I never saw a slutwalk so I guess I did.

And the Oxford dictionary is pretty much the definitive source on what words in the English language mean. If you disagree with it, fine. But you're most likely wrong. You see, dictionaries define what words mean in current usage.

Are the dictionaries immune to demonstrating societal prejudice?
As I said. Slut is a statement of fact. If you consider it derogatory, it's because you view sluts negatively. That's your problem.

Go and call a girl a slut to her face. I dare you. Let's see how far your idiotic view of the word gets you.

[The Serbian Empire]

It would mean the reach of terror from Anonymous would be far greater than AVFM as the guys from 4chan aren't fussy on who they strike. Both in reality are dangerous, just that one will attack as if they were the content of /b/, which is random.

I'm sorry, I don't understand this. You don't have to be a hate group to be dangerous. For instance, not all murders are hate crimes.

Maybe I'm wrong on this matter looking at it. I still don't see them as a hate group as long as there is any overlap with 4chan and AVFM. Of course, that might only increase the image of my old stomping grounds as mercenaries for hire. Don't worry, I'm not a mercenary and have left my old ways behind.

[Ostroeuropa]

As if it has to be said.

Your denial of equal rights for men makes you, obviously, bigotted against men. That you are a man makes no difference in this regard. You've internalized cultural misandry.

Hah. Okay then.

I'll write a letter to my male MP and ask him to go to our massively male dominated Parliament to pass some legislation to save my poor mind (educated by a male dominated university) from all the misandry I've internalised.

Thank you for saving me from all the scary girls.

...
You're aware that most AM-MRA's would point out it's you and those males being the people who oppress males, right?
The type of people who think there is only one acceptable type of male, and it's them.

[Aurora Novus]

Dude, it's just language. You are the one that inserted a slur but only for women. You occasionally try to throw in one for men, but you always have one for women.

Excuse me? Always have one for women? What are you talking about? You don't know me, outside of this topic and this one very specific conversation.

The equivalent of "deadbeat dad" is "deadbeat mom".

Stricly speaking, yes. But we don't call them "deadbeat moms" culturally, do we? We call them sluts. Which is why I used the term. If you're outraged at me using the term slut to refer to a woman who has sex and then aborts the child, good, you should be.

My point is to illustrate why the term "deadbeat dad" is just as offensive as "irresponsible slut". But, of course, that doesn't fit your prerogative now does it? Better to just dishonestly characterize me as a misogynist and completely look over my point. *nods*

And no one here would object to you calling mothers who abandon their children to fathers to raise alone "deadbeat moms".

Except they should, and would, if that is indeed how we referred to such women.

The problem in your term isn't "irresponsible". It's "slut". And you know it. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem irrational to you to use it. And that's evidence of the problem.

Of course I know it's offensive, that's why I used it. You've missed the entire point, or are willfully ignoring it. I can't tell if this is incompetance or malice, but either way, it's just as laughable stupid.

[Llamalandia]

That's pretty rear in 1st world countries, or at least without having already warned the mother of the possible risks of because of some special conditions she may have. But a healthy woman of normal childbearing age rarely just up and dies in childbirth in the 1st world, I mean, it happens but it's largely de minimis here.

Also, epiderals exist now. Plus none of that suppose potential harm to which women are subjected as a result of biology negates the argument for equality between male and female parents, because we can remedy harm to unwilling fathers we should, likewise if we could remedy the harms to pregnant women that you cite we would do that as well. The harm mitigations here can be treated seperately from their underlying cause, ie an unwanted child.

Harm to the mother is not rare. Death is somewhat rare (28 per 100,000 live births), but it's not the only consequence. It's one of many. And even if rare, that doesn't change that it's a consequence that you want only women to suffer.

If we're coming up with stupid solutions, let's start forcing men to be injured by pregnancy and childbirth. An eye for an eye so to speak. Yes, that's stupid, but no less stupid than paper abortions. And at least it would actually take into account of all the consequences and not just the ones that you care about.

In the case of an unwanted child, mothers and fathers have identical rights.

Also, all women choose to take the risk of such harm, by foregoing an abortion, if you don't want to "risk" it with child birth then a woman should get a freaking abortion. It's that simple. Now look if both parents are like we want the child, and the mother gives birth, then sure the dad is rightly on the hook, at that point, but if prior to birth he expresses a desire to bail out, he should be allowed to do so, the mother can then in full knowledge of the father's planned absence plan for herself and unborn child accordingly, and choose either to abort or not abort and accept all parental responsibility on her own.

[Occupied Deutschland]

As if it has to be said.

Your denial of equal rights for men makes you, obviously, bigotted against men. That you are a man makes no difference in this regard. You've internalized cultural misandry.

Hah. Okay then.

I'll write a letter to my male MP and ask him to go to our massively male dominated Parliament to pass some legislation to save my poor mind (educated by a male dominated university) from all the misandry I've internalised.

Thank you for saving me from all the scary girls.

...You mean you don't understand how social perceptions work?

That's...problematic for one involved in a discussion related to feminism.

[Llamalandia]

Are the dictionaries immune to demonstrating societal prejudice?
As I said. Slut is a statement of fact. If you consider it derogatory, it's because you view sluts negatively. That's your problem.

Go and call a girl a slut to her face. I dare you. Let's see how far your idiotic view of the word gets you.

I would, but i refuse to go to a strip club, just to prove a point...that point being that money speaks much louder than words.

[Fartsniffage]

No, dictionaries actually demonstrate societal prejudice because their definitions are based on usage, because that's how language works.

When you say a term, the people listening hear it as meaning what it typically means in that context. Otherwise... jimmy consort mother happy pardon jelly sandwich... would have as much meaning as... your point is embarrassingly inaccurate.

Is there something wrong with being a slut?
No?
Then whats the problem being called a slut.

This seems pretty self-demonstrative.
It's a single word that fulfills a useful purpose. I.E, identifying that someone is sexually promiscuous with multiple partners.
If you think being identified that way is insulting, that's your prejudice showing.

Is there anything wrong with being a nigger?
No?
Then what's the problem with being called a nigger?

[Ostroeuropa]

Are the dictionaries immune to demonstrating societal prejudice?
As I said. Slut is a statement of fact. If you consider it derogatory, it's because you view sluts negatively. That's your problem.

Go and call a girl a slut to her face. I dare you. Let's see how far your idiotic view of the word gets you.

I have previously. You'll find that provided you remain calm most of the time and don't just bring it up out of the blue you can say pretty much anything to anyone.
For the record, i'm a slut too. Well, I used to be at least. I got bored.

[Edward Richtofen]

Reminds me of No Ma'am from Married With Children.

[Jocabia]

Harm to the mother is not rare. Death is somewhat rare (28 per 100,000 live births), but it's not the only consequence. It's one of many. And even if rare, that doesn't change that it's a consequence that you want only women to suffer.

If we're coming up with stupid solutions, let's start forcing men to be injured by pregnancy and childbirth. An eye for an eye so to speak. Yes, that's stupid, but no less stupid than paper abortions. And at least it would actually take into account of all the consequences and not just the ones that you care about.

In the case of an unwanted child, mothers and fathers have identical rights.

No they don't have equal rights, if a mom wants to keep a kid but the dad doesn't he has to pay child support, if a mom wants she can put the kid up for adoption, or as is far more relevant to our actual discussion, she can choose to have an abortion. SO the equality solution is to ban abortion, or make it available to both genders equally, that way like a woman who can terminate an unborn child she doesn't want a man can likewise terminate a child he doesn't want. Now since we obviously would like to avoid forcing a woman to avoid an invasive medical procedure like abortion (especially against her will) the next best alternative which in effect accomplishes the same thing as far as the law is concerned is to allow the father of the unwanted unborn child to get a paper abortion, ie giving up all parental rights in exchange for also no longer being liable for paying for the expense of an unborn child he doesn't want.

Putting the kid up for adoption isn't a right of the mother. It's a right of the child. All parents have to agree and someone else, acting as an advocate for the child, has to agree, in order for an adoption or surrender to occur. If there is only one parent, then only one parent has to agree. The state doesn't have the ability, by the nature of biology, to determine who the father is unless the father comes forward. If the father does come forward and is named or sues for paternity, then as a parent, the father has the same rights as the mother.

In the case of abortion, there is no mother, there is no father and there is no child. There is only a pregnant women. Just like in the case of a birth control pill there is no mother, there is no father, and there is no child. Abortion is just another form of birth control. The fact that it happens slightly later does not change that both potential parents have access to birth control and both can choose to use it or choose not have sex. They both should be allowed to use any form of birth control available to them to prevent the birth of the child. If a man having an abortion would prevent the birth of the child, I would absolutely advocate it.

However, what you've discovered is that men and women don't have the same parts. As a result of not having the same parts, sometimes they have different things happen to their bodies and sometimes they have different options as a result. Whining about it just makes you seem petty. It's not rational. And it's not about equality. Which is why you want to ignore every other way the biology matters and only consider the ways you think are unfair to your gender.

[Fartsniffage]

Hah. Okay then.

I'll write a letter to my male MP and ask him to go to our massively male dominated Parliament to pass some legislation to save my poor mind (educated by a male dominated university) from all the misandry I've internalised.

Thank you for saving me from all the scary girls.

...
You're aware that most AM-MRA's would point out it's you and those males being the people who oppress males, right?
The type of people who think there is only one acceptable type of male, and it's them.

Hang-on, I hate men but also am one and I'm the alpha-type? But I also bowdown to women at the same time?

Is that about right?