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

[Kelinfort]

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.

So the very people you accuse of berating MRA's and a group MRA's constantly berates deals with it? See, you say feminists should deal more with men's issues, but where are you dealing with women's issues?

[Ostroeuropa]

It doesn't address the problem. It gives males a parallel power that females have.
If a woman isn't married and doesn't wanna be a parent and gives birth, she can lie and just put the child up for adoption unilaterally.
A male has no such opt-out of parenting.
LPS would provide males that option, and in addition, would mean the females would not need to lie about the father and could name him, but then use LPS.

Without LPS, females may be forced into an abortion to protect their financial interests. Or they may forcefully seperate a child from it's willing father, etc.
It's a societal good to provide LPS, and provides females more options as well as males. As it currently stands, they may be forced into abortions or forced to "Orphan" their child in order to protect their financial interest from the male who could sue for child support, etc.

As for the courts, someone else can probably grab the relevant links soon enough. (I'm a bit busy. Sorry.)

Question. Is child support in the US based on the names of the parents on the birth certificate?

I think so, yes.

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

So the very people you accuse of berating MRA's and a group MRA's constantly berates deals with it? See, you say feminists should deal more with men's issues, but where are you dealing with women's issues?

The feminists claim to be in favor of equal rights. Many of them claim that feminism is the forum for discussing male oppression too.
The MRA claims to be in favor of mens rights. No MRA will argue that womens oppression should be addressed there.
That's the distinction here.

And by the way, I don't identify as an MRA precisely because I think the factionalism is a shitty idea. I'm a gender abolitionist. I'll happily advocate for both.

The feminist movements failures to deal with the issues males face led to the rise of the MRA. (Well, the anti-masculine sect of it. The pro-masculine sect is just a bunch of misogynists running around.)

[Edlichbury]

So the very people you accuse of berating MRA's and a group MRA's constantly berates deals with it? See, you say feminists should deal more with men's issues, but where are you dealing with women's issues?

The feminists claim to be in favor of equal rights.
The MRA claims to be in favor of mens rights.
That's the distinction here.

And by the way, I don't identify as an MRA precisely because I think the factionalism is a shitty idea. I'm a gender abolitionist. I'll happily advocate for both.

So despite being a "gender abolitionist", you see fit to discriminate against rape victims on the basis of gender? Because if you saw no difference in gender and wanted to abolish it, a great way to start would to not make distinctions between "male victims" "female victims" and "female victims with a female assailant".

[Ostroeuropa]

The feminists claim to be in favor of equal rights.
The MRA claims to be in favor of mens rights.
That's the distinction here.

And by the way, I don't identify as an MRA precisely because I think the factionalism is a shitty idea. I'm a gender abolitionist. I'll happily advocate for both.

So despite being a "gender abolitionist", you see fit to discriminate against rape victims on the basis of gender? Because if you saw no difference in gender and wanted to abolish it, a great way to start would to not make distinctions between "male victims" "female victims" and "female victims with a female assailant".

Excuse me?
How do I discriminate against rape victims based on gender. Where the fuck are you getting that from?

Unless you meant discriminate as in distinguish between them.
In which case, i'm kind of arguing we stop doing that, duh.
I'd prefer we just refer to rape victims and when someone says "rape victim" we make no assumptions about the gender of the victim or assailant.
Currently, that isn't the system, in part due to feminist efforts and in part due to societal prejudice.

[Fartsniffage]

Question. Is child support in the US based on the names of the parents on the birth certificate?

Question. Ignoring safe haven laws for a moment, whether intended or not, abortion laws give the mother the ability to determine whether or not she wishes to be a parent post-conception.

Why don't you want men to have the same capability?

The capability to avoid permanent bodily changes and risk of death in the process of child birth? Men already have that.

[Llamalandia]

LPS. Whining about your tax money having to pay for inequality strikes me as pretty suspect, by the way.
It gives the male the same functional power that females have.

Why, how do you propose addressing the power inequality?

How the fuck does LPS address the problem of women giving up children to the state and claiming they don't know who the father is? Are you even reading what you're writing?

I don't think there really is a power inequality. If you want to somehow end people being dicks to each other then I've got a few windmills you can tilt at. On the other hand, I'm still waiting for some sources showing that males have it worse than women in court.

No but principles of fairness and equity seem to me to suggest that we shouldn't allow women to be dicks to men and use the court to accomplish their dickishness (ie extracting monies from unwilling fathers). Ya know in some states failure to pay child support can in fact result in freaking prison time?! How does that even make any sense? I mean pretty hard to make money to pay child support if your in prison.

[Edlichbury]

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.

So wait, I repost an unanswered question by another poster and where one gets a response, the other gets accused of slander? You literally accused one poster of "implying slander" while not accusing the posters who actually made the original post of nothing, and for some reason it's proof that feminism is all evil.

Also still waiting on my original question: what proof do you have that MRAs responded to Canada's Don't Be That Guy campaign by highlighting male victims as you claimed they have?

[Llamalandia]

Question. Ignoring safe haven laws for a moment, whether intended or not, abortion laws give the mother the ability to determine whether or not she wishes to be a parent post-conception.

Why don't you want men to have the same capability?

The capability to avoid permanent bodily changes and risk of death in the process of child birth? Men already have that.

Women have that as well thanx to on demand abortions.

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

So wait, I repost an unanswered question by another poster and where one gets a response, the other gets accused of slander? You literally accused one poster of "implying slander" while not accusing the posters who actually made the original post of nothing, and for some reason it's proof that feminism is all evil.

Also still waiting on my original question: what proof do you have that MRAs responded to Canada's Don't Be That Guy campaign by highlighting male victims as you claimed they have?

I never made any claims about the dont be that guy campaign in this thread. I'm sorry if you don't understand that. So when you ask for proof of a claim I didn't make, i'm not going to respond to it, because i'm assuming you can't possibly be talking to me. I'm going to assume you are talking to yourself.

[Aurora Novus]

Question. Ignoring safe haven laws for a moment, whether intended or not, abortion laws give the mother the ability to determine whether or not she wishes to be a parent post-conception.

Why don't you want men to have the same capability?

The capability to avoid permanent bodily changes and risk of death in the process of child birth? Men already have that.

No no. That's not what I said.

Whether intended or not, abortion gives women the ability to decide whether or not they want to be a parent, post-conception. Why do you not want men to also have this capability?

Answer my actual question, if you please.

[Geilinor]

Question. Ignoring safe haven laws for a moment, whether intended or not, abortion laws give the mother the ability to determine whether or not she wishes to be a parent post-conception.

Why don't you want men to have the same capability?

The capability to avoid permanent bodily changes and risk of death in the process of child birth? Men already have that.

Not the point. Women can renounce any future responsibilities of parenthood by getting abortions.

[Ostroeuropa]

The capability to avoid permanent bodily changes and risk of death in the process of child birth? Men already have that.

No no. That's not what I said.

Whether intended or not, abortion gives women the ability to decide whether or not she wants to be a parent, post-conception. Why do you not want men to also have this capability?

Answer my actual question, please.

And that's ignoring that they STILL have that ability even if they give birth, provided they are unmarried at the time.

[Edlichbury]

So wait, I repost an unanswered question by another poster and where one gets a response, the other gets accused of slander? You literally accused one poster of "implying slander" while not accusing the posters who actually made the original post of nothing, and for some reason it's proof that feminism is all evil.

Also still waiting on my original question: what proof do you have that MRAs responded to Canada's Don't Be That Guy campaign by highlighting male victims as you claimed they have?

I never made any claims about the dont be that guy campaign in this thread. I'm sorry if you don't understand that. So when you ask for proof of a claim I didn't make, i'm not going to respond to it, because i'm assuming you can't possibly be talking to me. I'm going to assume you are talking to yourself.

So when I noted their response regarding Canada's Don't Be That Guy campaign, and you responded by accusing me of ignorance about MRAs (viewtopic.php?f=20&t=299197&p=20396135#p20396135), you weren't making claims about that?

[Aurora Novus]

No no. That's not what I said.

Whether intended or not, abortion gives women the ability to decide whether or not she wants to be a parent, post-conception. Why do you not want men to also have this capability?

Answer my actual question, please.

And that's ignoring that they STILL have that ability even if they give birth, provided they are unmarried at the time.

Yes, but not all places, especially outside the US, have Safe Haven laws. I'm trying to make an argument that won't be responded to with "Well let's just get rid of Safe Haven laws" or "We don't have those laws here, so the point is null."

I find it interesting though that they are purposefully trying to dance around my question. It makes you wonder what they think.

[Ostroeuropa]

I never made any claims about the dont be that guy campaign in this thread. I'm sorry if you don't understand that. So when you ask for proof of a claim I didn't make, i'm not going to respond to it, because i'm assuming you can't possibly be talking to me. I'm going to assume you are talking to yourself.

So when I noted their response regarding Canada's Don't Be That Guy campaign, and you responded by accusing me of ignorance about MRAs (viewtopic.php?f=20&t=299197&p=20396135#p20396135), you weren't making claims about that?

You said the MRA does nothing for male rape victims. That's why you're ignorant of their activities.
The DBTG campaign is largely irrelevant. The only response to it would either be from G.As demanding a gender neutral approach, or from Sexists.
Non-abolitionist and non-sexist MRAs ofcourse wont respond to it. Why would they.

So bawwwing about how the "Only response" from MRAs on it was a sexist one makes you look a little silly, especially when you are apparently ignorant of their other activities.

You'll note I didn't say anything about the DBTG campaign. So you just assumed I was responding to that part. I guess because it was convenient for you.

[Fartsniffage]

How the fuck does LPS address the problem of women giving up children to the state and claiming they don't know who the father is? Are you even reading what you're writing?

I don't think there really is a power inequality. If you want to somehow end people being dicks to each other then I've got a few windmills you can tilt at. On the other hand, I'm still waiting for some sources showing that males have it worse than women in court.

No but principles of fairness and equity seem to me to suggest that we shouldn't allow women to be dicks to men and use the court to accomplish their dickishness (ie extracting monies from unwilling fathers). Ya know in some states failure to pay child support can in fact result in freaking prison time?! How does that even make any sense? I mean pretty hard to make money to pay child support if your in prison.

You know what? Fuck unwilling fathers. The guys have the options to prevent the conception of the child, they didn't take them. Once the child is born then it requires money to survive in a capitalist society and that is the responsibility of the parents, both of them.

If MRAs really want this to stop then they should shut the fuck up about paper abortions and start fighting for free child care, higher pay for women, health insurance in part time job (stupid fucking US) and getting rid of at will employment so the mothers of these children can earn enough that they don't need the fathers income to raise the kid.

[Tahar Joblis]

So the very people you accuse of berating MRA's and a group MRA's constantly berates deals with it? See, you say feminists should deal more with men's issues, but where are you dealing with women's issues?

The feminists claim to be in favor of equal rights. Many of them claim that feminism is the forum for discussing male oppression too.
The MRA claims to be in favor of mens rights. No MRA will argue that womens oppression should be addressed there.
That's the distinction here.

And by the way, I don't identify as an MRA precisely because I think the factionalism is a shitty idea. I'm a gender abolitionist. I'll happily advocate for both.

The feminist movements failures to deal with the issues males face led to the rise of the MRA. (Well, the anti-masculine sect of it. The pro-masculine sect is just a bunch of misogynists running around.)

The major difference is that the men's rights movement does not claim a monopoly on gendered issues, while feminism does.

Another very significant difference is that many MRAs do actually, in many cases, come from a position of already having supported measures intended to help women. For example, I am often identified as one of NSG's MRAs; yet I consistently endorse such policy positions as affirmative action bringing more women into STEM fields. I stand strongly against sexism of all kinds. I am vociferously egalitarian. And IRL, I have probably done more work "in the trenches," so to speak, on behalf of women, because I can do that sort of thing in my line of work easily enough.

The thing is, though, my opposition to anti-female sexism tends to get ignored when people argue with me over misandrist policy positions on things like (say) rape, domestic violence, et cetera. Those positions might be "feminist" positions, and I used to identify as feminist for that reason, but being opposed to sexism against women is something my opponents have considered far less important than my opposition to sexism against men. And my eventual disillusionment with the feminist movement has, of course, only added to the level of hatred I get from people who are really attached to policies that discriminate against men.

Such as involuntary paternity. Such as defining female-perpetrator/male-victim rape as something other than rape.

[Edlichbury]

So when I noted their response regarding Canada's Don't Be That Guy campaign, and you responded by accusing me of ignorance about MRAs (viewtopic.php?f=20&t=299197&p=20396135#p20396135), you weren't making claims about that?

You said the MRA does nothing for male rape victims. That's why you're ignorant of their activities.
The DBTG campaign is largely irrelevant. The only response to it would either be from G.As demanding a gender neutral approach, or from Sexists.
Non-abolitionist and non-sexist MRAs ofcourse wont respond to it. Why would they.

So bawwwing about how the "Only response" from MRAs on it was a sexist one makes you look a little silly, especially when you are apparently ignorant of their other activities.

You'll note I didn't say anything about the DBTG campaign. So you just assumed I was responding to that part. I guess because it was convenient for you.

So they totally have these activites, but you can't provide one measly link to them?

Yes, that should prove your point entirely.

[Geilinor]

No but principles of fairness and equity seem to me to suggest that we shouldn't allow women to be dicks to men and use the court to accomplish their dickishness (ie extracting monies from unwilling fathers). Ya know in some states failure to pay child support can in fact result in freaking prison time?! How does that even make any sense? I mean pretty hard to make money to pay child support if your in prison.

You know what? Fuck unwilling fathers. The guys have the options to prevent the conception of the child, they didn't take them. Once the child is born then it requires money to survive in a capitalist society and that is the responsibility of the parents, both of them.

If MRAs really want this to stop then they should shut the fuck up about paper abortions and start fighting for free child care, higher pay for women, health insurance in part time job (stupid fucking US) and getting rid of at will employment so the mothers of these children can earn enough that they don't need the fathers income to raise the kid.

Women can take measures to prevent the birth of the child even after it is conceived. Paying a certain sum of money up front to renounce responsibility for the child is similar.

[Ostroeuropa]

No but principles of fairness and equity seem to me to suggest that we shouldn't allow women to be dicks to men and use the court to accomplish their dickishness (ie extracting monies from unwilling fathers). Ya know in some states failure to pay child support can in fact result in freaking prison time?! How does that even make any sense? I mean pretty hard to make money to pay child support if your in prison.

You know what? Fuck unwilling fathers. The guys have the options to prevent the conception of the child, they didn't take them. Once the child is born then it requires money to survive in a capitalist society and that is the responsibility of the parents, both of them.

If MRAs really want this to stop then they should shut the fuck up about paper abortions and start fighting for free child care, higher pay for women, health insurance in part time job (stupid fucking US) and getting rid of at will employment so the mothers of these children can earn enough that they don't need the fathers income to raise the kid.

Women also have that option of contraception and they still have the functional power of LPS. So, yeh. Not an argument, just a long protracted whine that ignores the argument.
Like I said, functionally, you are letting women have this power and not allowing men. Why?

And how do you know they don't?
In fact most MRAs who argue for LPS explicitly note that, yeh, that's kind of the alternative they're suggesting. Raise child care.

[Aurora Novus]

You know what? Fuck unwilling fathers.

Ahhh, yes. And the bigotry begins pouring out. Because wome--men exist only to raise children, right? Fuck wome--men who don't want to raise kids.

But go on, tell us what you really think. Fuck men, am I right?

[Ostroeuropa]

You know what? Fuck unwilling fathers.

Ahhh, yes. And the bigotry begins pouring out. Because wome--men exist only to raise children, right? Fuck wome--men who don't want to raise kids.

But go on, tell us what you really think. Fuck men, am I right?

Yeh pretty much.
He's got this misandry drilled into him. That's why he doesn't experience male oppression, because he's internalized the arguments.
A REAL MAN obviously doesn't do unwilling father stuff. No no, thats lame. The notion that a guy should have control over his own life? pfft

[Fartsniffage]

The capability to avoid permanent bodily changes and risk of death in the process of child birth? Men already have that.

No no. That's not what I said.

Whether intended or not, abortion gives women the ability to decide whether or not they want to be a parent, post-conception. Why do you not want men to also have this capability?

Answer my actual question, if you please.

Simple really. I see the reproductive process as being a complete thing, not separated into pre and post conception. The fact a woman has a bit longer to consider it is simply a product of biology.

Let me ask you this, if the baby popped into existence a few moments after conception, would you still be arguing for paper abortions? We live with the consequences of our choices. Don't like it? Get a vasectomy or don't have sex.

[Pandeeria]

I consider modern-day Feminism not to be that far worse then MRA's.

I disagree with both Feminism and MRA's, but I don't think either are hate groups.