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

[Ostroeuropa]

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?

When you call someone a nigger, you are calling them an inferior race. that's the implication of the word. At least it's one of it's meanings. I'd argue it's slowly evolving into a neutralized "dude" or "bro" kind of deal, but only in usage between same-ethnicity persons. That barrier will come down eventually and "Muh nigga." will be used as a term of endearment.

A slut is merely a sexually promiscuous person. Some people consider that to be in and of itself a damning thing. Those people are prejudiced.

[Aurora Novus]

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.

What in the world are you talking about? Holding positions of power does not in any way diminish one's capacity for creating self-depracating legislation and internalizing cultural hate for one's own group. Just look at the number of conservative female politicians out there who vehementally argue against abortion rights and other aspects of women's liberation.

[Condunum]

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.

Being a player was derogatory right up until being a player was cool, which was when the counter-culture of "players" became the big thing. Same applies onward.

For instance. I'm a fag. I'm a fag who likes to smoke a fag after I shag a fag. Nothing wrong with being a fag, because it's a reclaimed word.

[Ostroeuropa]

...
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?

Where the fuck are you getting this shit? Did I say you bow dow to women? Where?

[Llamalandia]

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?

Depends on context. I mean rappers use it all the time for instance, and people (generally black people) do sometimes refer to each other as "my nigger". That being said, I've yet, to hear one deadbeat father refer to another as "my deadbeat".

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

Being a player was derogatory right up until being a player was cool, which was when the counter-culture of "players" became the big thing. Same applies onward.

For instance. I'm a fag. I'm a fag who likes to smoke a fag after I shag a fag. Nothing wrong with being a fag, because it's a reclaimed word.

I dunno. I think calling yourself a fag or calling a close friend a fag is in general a different use of the term compared to its main use.
Fag is usually a generic go-to insult, though I do actually quite like the channers and their usage of it if i'm honest.

I'm a britfag, a ponyfag, etc.

[Fartsniffage]

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

Depends on context. I mean rappers use it all the time for instance, and people (generally black people) do sometimes refer to each other as "my nigger". That being said, I've yet, to hear one deadbeat father refer to another as "my deadbeat".

I intended deadbeat as an insult.

People seem to be arguing that slut wasn't an insult.

[Ostroeuropa]

Depends on context. I mean rappers use it all the time for instance, and people (generally black people) do sometimes refer to each other as "my nigger". That being said, I've yet, to hear one deadbeat father refer to another as "my deadbeat".

I intended deadbeat as an insult.

People seem to be arguing that slut wasn't an insult.

It is often used as one by people who don't understand that all they are doing is revealing their prejudice. It's like when a republican uses Liberal as a snarl word. It doesn't make Liberal an insult. It just makes them stupid.

[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.

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.

Ta-da. We've nailed it. There is your equality.

Women can get an abortion. That's the balance. Only women can get an abortion and if they do it avoids death and most of the other consequences of pregnancy (most, not all). If they don't they take on the consequences of pregnancy and birthing process. The person who participated in the pregnancy holds less responsibility in the course of the pregnancy and has less control, both as a result of biology.

However, once there is a child, the child has rights. At that point, it doesn't matter what else happened other than the fact that there are two parties responsible for the dependent nature of that child. Those two parties are the mother and the father. Now, the mother, acting as an advocate for the child, can legally take on the responsibilities of the father. Or the father, acting as an advocate for the child, can legally take on the responsibilities of the mother. Or the state, acting as an advocate for the child, can legally take on the responsibilities of both parents. But in every case there MUST be an advocate for the child actively choosing the outcome because it is in the best interest of the child.

Your solution is entirely different as it is the ONLY case where there is no child advocate. No one is agreeing to replace the father because it is in the best interest of the child. The only interest you're even taking into account is that of the father. And that's not how the law works. There is no legal equivalent.

[Fartsniffage]

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?

Where the fuck are you getting this shit? Did I say you bow dow to women? Where?

You say I'm a misandrist. You also say I'm like the men who lead my country, alpha males types. You also say that I'm bowing down to women, misandrist remember.

Honestly, what the fuck are you talking about?

[Condunum]

Being a player was derogatory right up until being a player was cool, which was when the counter-culture of "players" became the big thing. Same applies onward.

For instance. I'm a fag. I'm a fag who likes to smoke a fag after I shag a fag. Nothing wrong with being a fag, because it's a reclaimed word.

I dunno. I think calling yourself a fag or calling a close friend a fag is in general a different use of the term compared to its main use.
Fag is usually a generic go-to insult, though I do actually quite like the channers and their usage of it if i'm honest.

I'm a britfag, a ponyfag, etc.

The channers pretty much popularized the usage of fag as a non-insult on the internet. I haven't seen or heard fag used as a serious insult much myself, but this is because most of the time it's shouted through gaming headsets at That Other Guy Who Obviously Had A Lag Box And A Modded Controller.

[Forsher]

I support some of their points, but others almost make me want to avoid both the MRAs and the Feminists and run down the middle where nobody is.

The middle of issues are usually filled with people who don't care.

Sometimes both groups are actually flawed. In this case, that's true but feminism is fixable.

The Radfems are just the most vocal and if anyone who's a feminist opposes them they're accused of being an MRA.

On the internet this is a major problem. It's almost impossible to criticise feminism on NSG because no-one is interested in understanding the differences between the criticisms of persons A, B and C and those of groups E, F and G. Likewise, critiques of feminism commonly don't separate between different groups, situations (eg real world or internet) or people either.

But instead we got the first MRA killing spree because some frustrated and insecure young man couldn't get laid and joined an MRA forum instead. And remember, there are still hordes of frustrated and insecure young men out there whose idea of fighting for 'male rights' is to send rape threats to any woman who dares to be a person with opinions.

The first part is true (ignoring the MRA killing spree bit). The second part is debatable. My understanding is that it's more an anti-PUA forum (that's pick up artist apparently) and, apparently, PUA and MRAs are loose allies. "The enemy of my ally is my ally" would therefore apply. I notice that your Cracked article also identifies anti-PUA as being aligned with MRAs (and to be honest, the above reasoning doesn't actually necessarily exclude the possibility).

However, I think it was very much an incident that was picked up by people who read like MRAs even if it wasn't actually an MRA who was responsible. (Read the reply in the first quoted Tweet.)

Of course, IMO, arguing about the intricacies of divorce-related laws and practices is like arguing about the arrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic, and smells of selfish entitlement. The real problem is the very high divorce rate itself. If you're more concerned about what happens upon divorce than about how to make a marriage last, you're doing it wrong.

You do still have to worry about what happens if a divorce occurs because they will still happen.

* Men claiming the title feminist for themselves is source of major controversy. Avoiding it is kinda good if you don't want to attract negative feminist attention.

I don't think is the case. Think about Farn's signature and the quote she has of Neo Art's. It even made it to Twitter. See here. Neo Art's response to that on record.

Maybe where you live. But in the US, self-proclaimed male feminists are largely accepted.

I, personally, would imagine that much of the opposition to such proclamations comes from males.

I may read more of the thread, I may not, I have other things to do with my time.

[Ostroeuropa]

Where the fuck are you getting this shit? Did I say you bow dow to women? Where?

You say I'm a misandrist. You also say I'm like the men who lead my country, alpha males types. You also say that I'm bowing down to women, misandrist remember.

Honestly, what the fuck are you talking about?

Where did I say you bow down to women. Go ahead. You can be a misandrist simply because you view males with contempt or hold them to unreasonable standards or hold prejudicial views, or advocate laws that are prejudicial.

So where the fuck are you getting this shit? I'm asking because you might realize
"Oh, i'm imagining shit that they never actually argued. HMM. MAYBE I DO THIS QUITE OFTEN." and you might hopefully have a revelation dog moment.

[Llamalandia]

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.

Umm, there is a child it just hasn't been born yet, or better yet, then we would have to have all parents actively consent to be parents. If one consents and the other doesn't fine, let the consenting parent have the kid, but don't punish the non consenting parent for refusing to pay money for to support something they DON"T WANT.

Right they don't have the same parts, however this is a situation, which we can quite easily remedy through the simple use of what this thread has taken to calling " paper abortions. " Given that such a paper abortion doesn't infringe any more on a potential childs (ie an unborn child's rights) than an abortion does (and giving that an abortion terminates an unborn child's life, actually even less) it ought to be allowed if the goal is to further the equal rights/respnisibilities between males and females.

[Aurora Novus]

You say I'm a misandrist. You also say I'm like the men who lead my country, alpha males types. You also say that I'm bowing down to women, misandrist remember.

Honestly, what the fuck are you talking about?

Where did I say you bow down to women. Go ahead. You can be a misandrist simply because you view males with contempt or hold them to unreasonable standards or hold prejudicial views, or advocate laws that are prejudicial.

So where the fuck are you getting this shit?

Yeah, being anti-male has nothing to do with being pro-female. You can have an entirely reasonable, neutral view of women, but be a misandrist. Just like how every misogynist isn't a male-supremacist.

[Condunum]

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.

Ta-da. We've nailed it. There is your equality.

Women can get an abortion. That's the balance. Only women can get an abortion and if they do it avoids death and most of the other consequences of pregnancy (most, not all). If they don't they take on the consequences of pregnancy and birth.

However, once there is a child, the child has rights. At that point, it doesn't matter what else happened other than the fact that there are two parties responsible for the dependent nature of that child. Those two parties are the mother and the father. Now, the mother, acting as an advocate for the child, can legally take on the responsibilities of the father. Or the father, acting as an advocate for the child, can legally take on the responsibilities of the mother. Or the state, acting as an advocate for the child, can legally take on the responsibilities of both parents. But in every case there MUST be an advocate for the child actively choosing the outcome because it is in the best interest of the child.

Your solution is entirely different as it is the ONLY case where there is no child advocate. No one is agreeing to replace the father because it is in the best interest of the child. The only interest you're even taking into account is that of the father. And that's not how the law works. There is no legal equivalent.

Why are you pretending that the outcome of a paper abortion is plopping the child next to the other person and going, "Right! Fuck all everything, you are your own problem now! TOODLES, BITCHES!"

When really paper abortion is the same fucking thing as adoption without the end-receiver being the state or a foster home. The child goes to a different care-giver than the forfeiting parent. Yes, that's right. The child has an advocate. A care-giver.

[Ostroeuropa]

Ta-da. We've nailed it. There is your equality.

Women can get an abortion. That's the balance. Only women can get an abortion and if they do it avoids death and most of the other consequences of pregnancy (most, not all). If they don't they take on the consequences of pregnancy and birth.

However, once there is a child, the child has rights. At that point, it doesn't matter what else happened other than the fact that there are two parties responsible for the dependent nature of that child. Those two parties are the mother and the father. Now, the mother, acting as an advocate for the child, can legally take on the responsibilities of the father. Or the father, acting as an advocate for the child, can legally take on the responsibilities of the mother. Or the state, acting as an advocate for the child, can legally take on the responsibilities of both parents. But in every case there MUST be an advocate for the child actively choosing the outcome because it is in the best interest of the child.

Your solution is entirely different as it is the ONLY case where there is no child advocate. No one is agreeing to replace the father because it is in the best interest of the child. The only interest you're even taking into account is that of the father. And that's not how the law works. There is no legal equivalent.

Why are you pretending that the outcome of a paper abortion is plopping the child next to the other person and going, "Right! Fuck all everything, you are your own problem now! TOODLES, BITCHES!"

When really paper abortion is the same fucking thing as adoption without the end-receiver being the state or a foster home. The child goes to a different care-giver than the forfeiting parent. Yes, that's right. The child has an advocate. A care-giver.

They will never stop pretending, because it's the only figleaf they have.

[Jocabia]

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.

My work is done here. You just highlighted the problem. You're advocating for us accepting your use of the term slut so as to make it more derogatory for women, because "deadbeat mom" isn't good enough for you. You don't want equal. You want it to be worse for women.

[Fartsniffage]

Where did I say you bow down to women. Go ahead. You can be a misandrist simply because you view males with contempt or hold them to unreasonable standards or hold prejudicial views, or advocate laws that are prejudicial.

So where the fuck are you getting this shit?

Yeah, being anti-male has nothing to do with being pro-female. You can have an entirely reasonable, neutral view of women, but be a misandrist. Just like how every misogynist isn't a male-supremacist.

You've spent pages asking me why I think women should have more right than men?

[Condunum]

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.

My work is done here. You just highlighted the problem. You're advocating for us accepting your use of the term slut so as to make it more derogatory for women, because "deadbeat mom" isn't good enough for you. You don't want equal. You want it to be worse for women.

No, he's highlighting the truth in our language and using it accordingly.

[Llamalandia]

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.

Ta-da. We've nailed it. There is your equality.

Women can get an abortion. That's the balance. Only women can get an abortion and if they do it avoids death and most of the other consequences of pregnancy (most, not all). If they don't they take on the consequences of pregnancy and birthing process. The person who participated in the pregnancy holds less responsibility in the course of the pregnancy and has less control, both as a result of biology.

However, once there is a child, the child has rights. At that point, it doesn't matter what else happened other than the fact that there are two parties responsible for the dependent nature of that child. Those two parties are the mother and the father. Now, the mother, acting as an advocate for the child, can legally take on the responsibilities of the father. Or the father, acting as an advocate for the child, can legally take on the responsibilities of the mother. Or the state, acting as an advocate for the child, can legally take on the responsibilities of both parents. But in every case there MUST be an advocate for the child actively choosing the outcome because it is in the best interest of the child.

Your solution is entirely different as it is the ONLY case where there is no child advocate. No one is agreeing to replace the father because it is in the best interest of the child. The only interest you're even taking into account is that of the father. And that's not how the law works. There is no legal equivalent.

Also what's with you and this uber "guardian ad litem" obsesssion. I mean, ok, fine you want an advocate for the child post birth fine, but prebirth, either men get to force literal abortions on women, or abortions are banned, or we create "paper abortions" those are the only three options which secure equal rights between males and females wrt parenting.

Your bullshit about harm from pregnancy is just that. Hey, if someone wants to take the risk of childbirth fine, but since it's HER CHOICE, (seeing as men can't force a pregnant woman to give birth), then it's also entirely HER RESPONSIBILITY, if the man makes his intentions to step out of the picture clear in advance by use of a "paper abortion".

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

My work is done here. You just highlighted the problem. You're advocating for us accepting your use of the term slut so as to make it more derogatory for women, because "deadbeat mom" isn't good enough for you. You don't want equal. You want it to be worse for women.

Because he's quoting a sexist culture he must be a sexist.
That's hilarious man. You do childrens parties?

[Llamalandia]

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.

My work is done here. You just highlighted the problem. You're advocating for us accepting your use of the term slut so as to make it more derogatory for women, because "deadbeat mom" isn't good enough for you. You don't want equal. You want it to be worse for women.

Look, no one needs to be calling anyone a slut or deadbeat ok? Can we at least agree on that folks? I mean come on now.

[Jocabia]

Ta-da. We've nailed it. There is your equality.

Women can get an abortion. That's the balance. Only women can get an abortion and if they do it avoids death and most of the other consequences of pregnancy (most, not all). If they don't they take on the consequences of pregnancy and birth.

However, once there is a child, the child has rights. At that point, it doesn't matter what else happened other than the fact that there are two parties responsible for the dependent nature of that child. Those two parties are the mother and the father. Now, the mother, acting as an advocate for the child, can legally take on the responsibilities of the father. Or the father, acting as an advocate for the child, can legally take on the responsibilities of the mother. Or the state, acting as an advocate for the child, can legally take on the responsibilities of both parents. But in every case there MUST be an advocate for the child actively choosing the outcome because it is in the best interest of the child.

Your solution is entirely different as it is the ONLY case where there is no child advocate. No one is agreeing to replace the father because it is in the best interest of the child. The only interest you're even taking into account is that of the father. And that's not how the law works. There is no legal equivalent.

Why are you pretending that the outcome of a paper abortion is plopping the child next to the other person and going, "Right! Fuck all everything, you are your own problem now! TOODLES, BITCHES!"

When really paper abortion is the same fucking thing as adoption without the end-receiver being the state or a foster home. The child goes to a different care-giver than the forfeiting parent. Yes, that's right. The child has an advocate. A care-giver.

Who is acting as the advocate and agreeing to the contract? Not the mother. In the case where the mother agrees it is in the best interest of the child, that is already legal. It's not enough that an advocate for the child exists. That advocate has to agree that the contract is in the best interest of the child. In the case we're discussing, the only advocate the child has is the mother and the mother does not agree.

In the case of surrender, the state is the advocate for the child. In the case of adoption, the adopting parents are the advocate for the child. In both of those cases, the advocate agrees the contract is in the best interest of the child. Their agreement isn't implied. It's explicit.

[Aurora Novus]

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.

My work is done here. You just highlighted the problem. You're advocating for us accepting your use of the term slut so as to make it more derogatory for women, because "deadbeat mom" isn't good enough for you. You don't want equal. You want it to be worse for women.

What the fuck are you talking about? No, I'm not advocating that at all. I'm advocating against using the term "deadbeat dad", and I'm doing so by comparing it's offensiveness to another highly offensive term that I, quite obviously, also don't think we should use.

I'm settling on incompetance with you, because if this is malice, it's some very, very poorly orchestrated malice. Jesus christ.