NationStates

Kelinfort wrote:Do I support a more fair and equal divorce and court custody system? Absolutely. Do I despise MRA's activity in any fields beyond what I stated last sentence? Yes.

Male rape victims?

(And indeed, female victims of female perpetrators get concern from the MRA too.)

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

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

"Thief of a mother" and "metaphorically raped"? Yes, that's greatly helping the image of MRAs as anything other than sexist pricks.

Aurora Novus wrote:

Gravlen wrote:The argument usually amounts to - frankly, in all of the debates here I can remember - that one shouldn't be able to simply walk away from ones responsibility, and that this goes for both men and women.

What makes it the man's responsibility to raise the child the woman is pregnant with? The fact that he had sex with her and impregnanted her, right?

So why isn't the same logic applied to women? We don't say "Oh, you had sex, you made your choice. It's your responsibility to raise the child. No abortion for you." Yes, a fetus has no inherent right to a mother's womb, which is why abortion is allowed. But that's not the only reason. Part of the reason also is that it allows for propsective mother's to make the choice if they want to be mothers. That's why we don't say they have a responsibility to to give birth to and raise the child once they're pregnant. Because we believe they should be able to make that choice for themselves, not have it forced upon them by society.

There is no reason men should not be afforded something similar.

They are afforded something similar. They have the right to remove their consent to the reproductive process right up until their part is concluded.

Condunum wrote:

Gravlen wrote:Biology does indeed have an impact on rights. This should not come as a surprise. A woman carries to term, and gives birth, A man does not, and his part in the reproduction process is over about nine months before a child is born. These differences mold the basic rights we're talking about, but while the basis may be slightly different, the rest is as similar and equal as we can manage.

I'm not seeing how this has to do with anything, all you're doing is conflating things.

You don't see how a particular biological process has got anything to do with how biology has an impact on legal rights?

You claim Men and Women don't have the same parental rights. I claim they are as equal under the law as biology allows. The post above is my explanation on how biology influences those parental rights. It's substantially one point: Because the reproductive process is different, and women carries to term and men do not, parental rights start off differently. As in, one can easily see who the mother is - she's the one giving birth - while it's not as easy to know who the father is (that was a man who was near the mother around nine months ago). This is why establishing paternity from the outset is different for men and women.

After having established paternity, they have the same rights. Or, they should have. In some areas there's "safe haven" rules, like inmost of the US. This may be an inequality, but my solution is to remove that rule, not to expand it.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Kelinfort wrote:Do I support a more fair and equal divorce and court custody system? Absolutely. Do I despise MRA's activity in any fields beyond what I stated last sentence? Yes.

Male rape victims?

Something they did nothing for instead focusing on "fake rape accusations" while Feminist groups drew attention to male victims ignored by Canada's "Don't Be That Guy" campaign.

Edlichbury wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Male rape victims?

Something they did nothing for instead focusing on "fake rape accusations" while Feminist groups drew attention to male victims ignored by Canada's "Don't Be That Guy" campaign.

So you're ignorant of what the MRA actually gets up to.
Ok. That's fine. YOU know that you havn't bothered to look into it and are just accepting what you are told, and I know it too. You aren't fooling anyone.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Aurora Novus wrote:
What makes it the man's responsibility to raise the child the woman is pregnant with? The fact that he had sex with her and impregnanted her, right?

So why isn't the same logic applied to women? We don't say "Oh, you had sex, you made your choice. It's your responsibility to raise the child. No abortion for you." Yes, a fetus has no inherent right to a mother's womb, which is why abortion is allowed. But that's not the only reason. Part of the reason also is that it allows for propsective mother's to make the choice if they want to be mothers. That's why we don't say they have a responsibility to to give birth to and raise the child once they're pregnant. Because we believe they should be able to make that choice for themselves, not have it forced upon them by society.

There is no reason men should not be afforded something similar.

They are afforded something similar. They have the right to remove their consent to the reproductive process right up until their part is concluded.

^^Yep.

Both parties may choose to terminate their part in the reproductive process at any time until their part is over. At that point it is too late.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Edlichbury wrote:Something they did nothing for instead focusing on "fake rape accusations" while Feminist groups drew attention to male victims ignored by Canada's "Don't Be That Guy" campaign.

So you're ignorant of what the MRA actually gets up to.
Ok. That's fine.

So then link me to a single fucking MRA group discussing male rape as a counter to Canada's Don't Be That Guy campaign. I'll wait.

Gravlen wrote:

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

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

Relevant:

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

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

Do you know who spends more time attacking gay men than MRAs?

Feminists. Ranging from feminists who fetishize gay men but are tired of not getting special treatment at gay bars, feminists who think drag queens are evil "appropriation" of femininity (or should be treated as being sexist in the same way that minstrel shows are treated as racists), all the way down to feminists who, like the Redstockings of yore, think that male homosexuality itself is an expression of misogyny.

The Reddit r/MensRights group has a slightly larger than usual population of vocal gay men, and then an incredibly disproportionately large number of male bisexuals (a vanishingly rare species in the outside world). AVFM - which, like it or not, is one of the main other focal points for the MRM - has a position on gay men, bisexual men, transmen, asexual men, queer men, et cetera that can be summarized as "All these men really have the same interests (and feminists hate you)." The men's rights community and the gay community together are the most passionate segment of the "intactivist" movement looking to classify male circumcision as genital mutilation (and accordingly banned as a procedure to be performed on children).

Not all anti-feminists are in the same boat, but for the most part, opposition to male homosexuality within the modern men's rights movement occupies a similar position to opposition to lesbianism within the feminist movement of the 1970s - really not particularly mainstream and generally on the losing side of the fight within the movement.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Edlichbury wrote:Something they did nothing for instead focusing on "fake rape accusations" while Feminist groups drew attention to male victims ignored by Canada's "Don't Be That Guy" campaign.

So you're ignorant of what the MRA actually gets up to.
Ok. That's fine. YOU know that you havn't bothered to look into it and are just accepting what you are told, and I know it too. You aren't fooling anyone.

Not being funny but here is your opportunity to show what MRA groups are doing, with links and such.

Just a reminder for those believing MRAs care about gay men: an actual survey of MRAs found higher than normal indices of homophobia and lower than normal proportions of gay men than the general population.

Gravlen wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
They are afforded something similar. They have the right to remove their consent to the reproductive process right up until their part is concluded.

^^Yep.

Both parties may choose to terminate their part in the reproductive process at any time until their part is over. At that point it is too late.

Which is why LPS is a good idea.

I grew up with the feminism of the seventies and eighties, and it was about equality, yes there was some extremism that I couldn't get behind , but for the most part it was just progress that with hindsight seems so obvious.

MRAs just don't represent me as a man.

Edlichbury wrote:Just a reminder for those believing MRAs care about gay men: an actual survey of MRAs found higher than normal indices of homophobia and lower than normal proportions of gay men than the general population.

Which "actual survey"? Link, please.

Fartsniffage wrote:They are afforded something similar. They have the right to remove their consent to the reproductive process right up until their part is concluded.

That is not affording them something similar. That would be like me saying that a woman has no right to an abortion, because she has the ability to remove her consent to the reproductive process up until sex concluded. Being able to stop having sex doesn't mean you shouldn't be afforded equal rights post-sex.

The fact is, when you allow women to have abortions, whether intentional or not (though I would hold it is intentional) you afford them the right to determine whether or not they want to be mothers post-conception. Fathers are not afforded this right, and while mothers get to choose for themselves whether or not they want to be mothers, fathers don't get that choice. Women make it for them. To suggest that this is okay "because biology" is nothing more than blatant sexism. Rights, even indirect, unintended rights, ought not be determined based upon biology. They ought to be determined based upon a conscious effort on the part of society to equalize life for men and women. At least legally anyway.

Tahar Joblis wrote:[T]hen an incredibly disproportionately large number of male bisexuals (a vanishingly rare species in the outside world).

Bisexuals in general are fairytales, hun.

It's not hard to imagine that while biphobia reflects into sexual fetishism when monosexuals think of women, the obvious conflation of the impossibility of convergence between the straight/gay world would bring people to exclude and bullshit about us.

No wonder we are more often victims of rape than either kind of monosexuals when it comes to both sexes. We are essentialized and erased.

Please don't repeat this sort of idiotic joke.

Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:

Tahar Joblis wrote:[T]hen an incredibly disproportionately large number of male bisexuals (a vanishingly rare species in the outside world).

Bisexuals in general are fairytales, hun.

It's not hard to imagine that while biphobia reflects into sexual fetishism when monosexuals think of women, the obvious conflation of the impossibility of convergence between the straight/gay world would bring people to exclude and bullshit about us.

No wonder we are more often victims of rape than either kind of monosexuals when it comes to both sexes. We are essentialized and erased.

Please don't repeat this sort of idiotic joke.

So according to this, Coffee Cakes is some sort of fairy tale I'm talking to on Facebook since he's a male bisexual.

Sounds legit.

The Republic of Lanos wrote:So according to this, Coffee Cakes is some sort of fairy tale I'm talking to on Facebook since he's a male bisexual.

Sounds legit.

1. Cakey is ace. Biromantic ace.

2. I'm bi and this was a rant against biphobia

The Republic of Lanos wrote:

Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:Bisexuals in general are fairytales, hun.

It's not hard to imagine that while biphobia reflects into sexual fetishism when monosexuals think of women, the obvious conflation of the impossibility of convergence between the straight/gay world would bring people to exclude and bullshit about us.

No wonder we are more often victims of rape than either kind of monosexuals when it comes to both sexes. We are essentialized and erased.

Please don't repeat this sort of idiotic joke.

So according to this, Coffee Cakes is some sort of fairy tale I'm talking to on Facebook since he's a male bisexual.

Sounds legit.

It's true. I was written by the Brothers Grimm and I have a dark ending that Disney hasn't given me on the movie version.

Tahar Joblis wrote:

Edlichbury wrote:Just a reminder for those believing MRAs care about gay men: an actual survey of MRAs found higher than normal indices of homophobia and lower than normal proportions of gay men than the general population.

Which "actual survey"? Link, please.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamo ... -atheists/
Less than 10% supported gay marriage, a far removal from the majority support in the United States. And it also found that 98% were white, so as typical minority issues were largely ignored. Also their hatred of poor men: 10% support minimum wage increase, 10% support single-payer health care. And if you are a trans man, just GTFO because only 7% supported any trans* rights.

Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:

The Republic of Lanos wrote:So according to this, Coffee Cakes is some sort of fairy tale I'm talking to on Facebook since he's a male bisexual.

Sounds legit.

1. Cakey is ace. Biromantic ace.

2. I'm bi and this was a rant against biphobia

I think it might have been aimed at TJ.

Coffee Cakes wrote:It's true. I was written by the Brothers Grimm and I have a dark ending that Disney hasn't given me on the movie version.

You sure are fast.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Kelinfort wrote:Do I support a more fair and equal divorce and court custody system? Absolutely. Do I despise MRA's activity in any fields beyond what I stated last sentence? Yes.

Male rape victims?

(And indeed, female victims of female perpetrators get concern from the MRA too.)

Forgot to add that. Besides that and the previous one, no.


Edit: That reminds me, why do female victims of male rape receive no sympathy by your own admonition?

Condunum wrote:

Gravlen wrote:^^Yep.

Both parties may choose to terminate their part in the reproductive process at any time until their part is over. At that point it is too late.

Which is why LPS is a good idea.

I think it's a bad idea all around, and I've repeatedly stated why so I'll leave it at that.

What I will say, however, is that the MRM might be a little more sympathetic if the argument for LPS and custody focused a little less on money and a little more on the child (or even taking them into consideration at all).

Coffee Cakes wrote:I think it might have been aimed at TJ.

Yes, I was calling out on him.

I thought Lanos misunderstood me only reading a line of my post.