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

[Coffee Cakes]

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.

My date said that last night, heyo! xD

Alright, I'm out of this thread because I don't want to derail it. >_>

[Fartsniffage]

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.

Okay, what you need to understand is that the biological implications of sex is very different for men and women. A man's part in the reproductive process is over when he ejaculates in the vagina of a woman. A woman's part isn't over until around 40 weeks later when the baby is born. The length of the consent to the process is far longer in terms of absolute time for the woman than for the man. Looking at it as a percentage of the total time consent is being given then the woman has it worse than the man. A man can pull out just before climax whereas a woman loses the right to withdraw consent only about a third of the way in, depending on jurisdiction.

But let's look at it from another perspective. If you want a paper abortion and the woman can't afford to look after the child properly then as a decent society we pay to make sure the child has at least the essentials in life, food, clothes and what not. Who the hell are you to make me pay for your child? Why should I be paying taxes towards looking after your offspring? I didn't get my jollies with the mother, I didn't even know her. You complain about slavery for the father but at least he had the choice about whether he had sex, I wasn't asked about it.

[Gauthier]

Really? That's insane.

No, it isn't. If people are having consensual sex, then it should not become illegal the moment one partner falls asleep.

If your partner falls asleep during sex, legality is not your biggest problem.

[Galloism]

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.

Okay, what you need to understand is that the biological implications of sex is very different for men and women. A man's part in the reproductive process is over when he ejaculates in the vagina of a woman. A woman's part isn't over until around 40 weeks later when the baby is born. The length of the consent to the process is far longer in terms of absolute time for the woman than for the man. Looking at it as a percentage of the total time consent is being given then the woman has it worse than the man. A man can pull out just before climax whereas a woman loses the right to withdraw consent only about a third of the way in, depending on jurisdiction.

But let's look at it from another perspective. If you want a paper abortion and the woman can't afford to look after the child properly then as a decent society we pay to make sure the child has at least the essentials in life, food, clothes and what not. Who the hell are you to make me pay for your child? Why should I be paying taxes towards looking after your offspring? I didn't get my jollies with the mother, I didn't even know her. You complain about slavery for the father but at least he had the choice about whether he had sex, I wasn't asked about it.

Why are you ok with letting women force that on the government but not men?

[Galloism]

No, it isn't. If people are having consensual sex, then it should not become illegal the moment one partner falls asleep.

If your partner falls asleep during sex, legality is not your biggest problem.

Lotta fuckin' truth right here.

[Jocabia]

Lol its no where near what a real hate group is and is capable of doing.I disagree with most of them, but they do have some points such as this.
(Image)

Well to be fair with anabolic steroids and lots of working out and the right diet etc etc, He-Man is an actually obtainable body. Barbie, not so much, like she's literally an impossible standard to meet and still be ya know...Alive.

But yeah, it's a fair point nonetheless.

Well, if we're being fair, He-Man gets that way from magic.

[Fartsniffage]

Okay, what you need to understand is that the biological implications of sex is very different for men and women. A man's part in the reproductive process is over when he ejaculates in the vagina of a woman. A woman's part isn't over until around 40 weeks later when the baby is born. The length of the consent to the process is far longer in terms of absolute time for the woman than for the man. Looking at it as a percentage of the total time consent is being given then the woman has it worse than the man. A man can pull out just before climax whereas a woman loses the right to withdraw consent only about a third of the way in, depending on jurisdiction.

But let's look at it from another perspective. If you want a paper abortion and the woman can't afford to look after the child properly then as a decent society we pay to make sure the child has at least the essentials in life, food, clothes and what not. Who the hell are you to make me pay for your child? Why should I be paying taxes towards looking after your offspring? I didn't get my jollies with the mother, I didn't even know her. You complain about slavery for the father but at least he had the choice about whether he had sex, I wasn't asked about it.

Why are you ok with letting women force that on the government but not men?

Forcing what on the government but not men?

[Galloism]

Well to be fair with anabolic steroids and lots of working out and the right diet etc etc, He-Man is an actually obtainable body. Barbie, not so much, like she's literally an impossible standard to meet and still be ya know...Alive.

But yeah, it's a fair point nonetheless.

Well, if we're being fair, He-Man gets that way from magic.

[Galloism]

Why are you ok with letting women force that on the government but not men?

Forcing what on the government but not men?

Child care.

[Edlichbury]

Male rape victims?

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

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

[Tahar Joblis]

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

Bisexuals in general are fairytales, hun.

No. Bisexuals are quite real. I hang out with a disproportionately large number of male bisexuals IRL, and if you take my best male friends from middle school, high school, college, and graduate school, and put them all in a room, the percentage who are bisexual (and the ratio of bisexual men to gay men - normally 2:1) is astonishingly high. Which would not be a surprise to you if you actually knew me, but you don't.

However, men are, on the population scale, far less likely to identify as bisexual than as homosexual... and also less likely to identify as anything other than straight in the first place than women are. Women, conversely, are far more likely to identify as bisexual than as homosexual. I can set my anomalous personal experiences aside to say that men who identify as bisexual - i.e., male bisexuals - are vanishingly rare. They are shockingly not in men's rights circles.

Please don't repeat this sort of idiotic joke.

It's not an "idiotic joke." It's the simple truth. Reddit's /r/MensRights has a disproportionate number of bisexual men according to the most recent survey that can be trusted. (There was another one this year, but someone very obviously flooded it with bot responses.)

I don't track /r/MensRights very closely, but I've read enough of it to note that there are a lot of men identifying as bisexual there. The central reason is that many men who would identify as bisexual out in the world don't, because they're busy obeying the strictures of the masculine gender role; whereas in men's rights circles, questioning and critiquing the strictures of the masculine gender role are commonplace.

Men who have stopped responding positively to shit like "man up" are more likely to question the biphobic narratives common to traditionalist (and therefore feminist) depictions of male sexuality.

[Fartsniffage]

Forcing what on the government but not men?

Child care.

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're asking.

[Ostroeuropa]

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?

From me?
They do, regularly. You're welcome to find an instance where I have taken a stance otherwise.
From the MRA?
The feminists take care of it.

[Aurora Novus]

Okay, what you need to understand is that the biological implications of sex is very different for men and women.

I understand that perfectly well thank you.

A man's part in the reproductive process is over when he ejaculates in the vagina of a woman. A woman's part isn't over until around 40 weeks later when the baby is born. The length of the consent to the process is far longer in terms of absolute time for the woman than for the man.

Which changes...what, exactly? Did you not just say that a man has the ability to revoke his consent up until the moment sex is over? So why do women get more time to mull things over and make their choice? Because they're pregnant? Because the child isn't born yet?

There is no reason that during that time men should not be allowed to make a decision as well. What you are proposing is nothing more than legal discrimination. Not to mention the social rammifications of that. When you tell men that they have to make their choice before they finish sex, while a woman has up to 12 weeks to make their choice (and sometimes even beyond that when it comes to safe haven laws), what you're doing, whether you mean to or not, is controlling the sex lives of men. It warrents women more sexual freedom, while restricting men's sexual experiences through fear. The same as limiting abortions is trying to control women's sexual life. It's women controlling men's sex lives, the same as denying abortion is men trying to control women's sex lives. It's no different, and biological differences doesn't excuse doing it.

But let's look at it from another perspective. If you want a paper abortion and the woman can't afford to look after the child properly then as a decent society we pay to make sure the child has at least the essentials in life, food, clothes and what not. Who the hell are you to make me pay for your child?

I am me, a member of this society, same as you. And there are times when we work together for the benefit of the community, in a fair manner. Having everyone, male or female, to help raise a child in a single-parent home is more fair than forcing one sex to be a parent against their will, while not forcing the other sex to do the same. One solution is democratic and non-discriminatory. Another is blatant sexism. Surely you can at least see that.

[Ostroeuropa]

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

I think it's a little disgusting that you people regularly imply this kind of thing. It makes me view you with utter contempt, frankly, as well as the majority of the public it turns out if you view any polls on the matter and how feminists are viewed. But nevermind being accurate if you can just imply slanderous things about people, then that's what you'll do. It's scientology levels of cultish practices.

[Galloism]

Child care.

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're asking.

We, here in the states, have a very real legal situation.

For the most part, any woman can, after the completion of her biological role in reproduction, divest herself (and the child's father) of all legal rights and responsibilities and surrender her child to be a ward of the state. She can do this with or without the father's knowledge or acquiescence.

Why is this ok?

[Gauthier]

Well to be fair with anabolic steroids and lots of working out and the right diet etc etc, He-Man is an actually obtainable body. Barbie, not so much, like she's literally an impossible standard to meet and still be ya know...Alive.

Valeria Lukyanova

[Tahar Joblis]

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.

theclitocracy:
Okay but if you go onto the Mens Rights reddit (I mean I don’t encourage this, my brain cell count just plummeted), and find their post discussing it apparently bots went through the survey and put all the same answers thousands of times. And it seems legit. So I mean I’m all for laughing at the fact that the people on r/MensRights are very very similar in a ridiculous way, but only if that’s true… which it probably is but this data is massively fucked.
First, we’d like to thank you for apparently being the only person to reblog this post with any level of common sense.
The issue you’ve mentioned (see the post here) is actually trivially obvious when you compare to their (relatively clean) results from last year. Unless the subreddit exploded over the last 9 months with thousands of identical clones who’re all under-20 white male atheist strong conservatives who support marijuana legalization and nothing else, it’s pretty clear that the survey was sabotaged by a (probably feminist) asshole with a voting bot. Most particularly, note a complete reversal in supposed political affiliation. The prior survey was dominated by independents, with libertarians and democrats in similar numbers and republicans trailing at a measly 7%, whereas this survey is overwhelmingly “strong conservative.”
When we ignore the single anomalous vote pattern (and, with that in mind, consider the potential for other similar behaviors), the demographics seem reasonably congruent with the prior survey.

In a word, someone threw a bot at the survey to skew the results in order to be able to claim that /r/MensRights is a haven for social conservatism, they published the results anyway (while noting the apparent presence of bots), and then anti-MRA types propagated the claim that the survey results were accurate in spite of the information about it having been wrecked by a bot being available.

And then, because anti-MR rhetoric circulates with very little fact-checking by the people picking it up and running with it, you ran with those results anyway and believed them.

[Galloism]

Well to be fair with anabolic steroids and lots of working out and the right diet etc etc, He-Man is an actually obtainable body. Barbie, not so much, like she's literally an impossible standard to meet and still be ya know...Alive.

Valeria Lukyanova

Jesus Christ she's creepy.

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

theclitocracy:
Okay but if you go onto the Mens Rights reddit (I mean I don’t encourage this, my brain cell count just plummeted), and find their post discussing it apparently bots went through the survey and put all the same answers thousands of times. And it seems legit. So I mean I’m all for laughing at the fact that the people on r/MensRights are very very similar in a ridiculous way, but only if that’s true… which it probably is but this data is massively fucked.
First, we’d like to thank you for apparently being the only person to reblog this post with any level of common sense.
The issue you’ve mentioned (see the post here) is actually trivially obvious when you compare to their (relatively clean) results from last year. Unless the subreddit exploded over the last 9 months with thousands of identical clones who’re all under-20 white male atheist strong conservatives who support marijuana legalization and nothing else, it’s pretty clear that the survey was sabotaged by a (probably feminist) asshole with a voting bot. Most particularly, note a complete reversal in supposed political affiliation. The prior survey was dominated by independents, with libertarians and democrats in similar numbers and republicans trailing at a measly 7%, whereas this survey is overwhelmingly “strong conservative.”
When we ignore the single anomalous vote pattern (and, with that in mind, consider the potential for other similar behaviors), the demographics seem reasonably congruent with the prior survey.

In a word, someone threw a bot at the survey to skew the results in order to be able to claim that /r/MensRights is a haven for social conservatism, they published the results anyway (while noting the apparent presence of bots), and then anti-MRA types propagated the claim that the survey results were accurate in spite of the information about it having been wrecked by a bot being available.

And then, because anti-MR rhetoric circulates with very little fact-checking by the people picking it up and running with it, you ran with those results anyway and believed them.

Ohohoh, he's a free-thought blogger. That explains so much. Well, now I know not to bother responding to him.

[Fartsniffage]

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're asking.

We, here in the states, have a very real legal situation.

For the most part, any woman can, after the completion of her biological role in reproduction, divest herself (and the child's father) of all legal rights and responsibilities and surrender her child to be a ward of the state. She can do this with or without the father's knowledge or acquiescence.

Why is this ok?

Oh, now I understand. I don't think that's okay. The father should be given first option of taking on responsibility for the child and the same child support requirements that are used to determine support levels applied to the woman should he decide to take on the responsibility.

[Avenio]

Lol its no where near what a real hate group is and is capable of doing.I disagree with most of them, but they do have some points such as this.
(Image)

Well to be fair with anabolic steroids and lots of working out and the right diet etc etc, He-Man is an actually obtainable body. Barbie, not so much, like she's literally an impossible standard to meet and still be ya know...Alive.

But yeah, it's a fair point nonetheless.

I can't imagine what kind of horrible surgery you'd need to undergo in order to become a cartoon.

[Aurora Novus]

Why do people complain about Barbie? She's a beauty doll, yeah. She's a toy. Often times toys aren't built proportionally to real human beings. The same as Ken dolls. Or Bob the Builder.

It's just a silly thing to complain about. "Oh no, this obviously non-realistic thing is non-realistic!" It's like people complaining about body image in gaming. Good lord. These things aren't made to be realistic, they're made to be appealing, and more over, appealing in the form they appear in.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

The MRM is a movement of hate and misogyny and I despise MRAs just as much as I despise the WBC, the KKK, or any other hate group.

[Ostroeuropa]

We, here in the states, have a very real legal situation.

For the most part, any woman can, after the completion of her biological role in reproduction, divest herself (and the child's father) of all legal rights and responsibilities and surrender her child to be a ward of the state. She can do this with or without the father's knowledge or acquiescence.

Why is this ok?

Oh, now I understand. I don't think that's okay. The father should be given first option of taking on responsibility for the child and the same child support requirements that are used to determine support levels applied to the woman should he decide to take on the responsibility.

How do you functionally enforce that though if the female just refuses to name the father or says she can't remember him or can't find him.
We are proposing to address the inequality by giving males the same power as females.
Your way of addressing it would be absolutely and completely fucking impossible, or absolutely and completely ineffective.