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

[Fartsniffage]

But they're not so all you're advocating is either the kid suffering or me having to pay for it after being responsible.

That's not what I'm advocating. If this was a topic about child care or healthcare, I'd bring it up.

Yes, it is.

[Geilinor]

Because clearly being a deadbeat father carries more career and social-impairing status than being an unwed mother. *nod nod*

Possibly, but the mother had an out not available to the father, hence she chose to be a single mother, a single father was forced into that role, at least in the generic type of cases were talking about here.

She didn't choose to be a single mother because abortion is not free in the United States and fathers often leave after the child is born.

[Shie]

These aren't rights that I want given to men, they're obligations, duties. If the MRAs had their way, men wouldn't have to be men, they'd have the option of being man-children.

The MRAs get their way if both genders follow Traditional Roles like you've decreed. Where's the difference?

What is the MRA way? I thought the MRAs were the male-oriented version of feminists.

[Tahar Joblis]

Gee, Misters Prime and Alternate Universe Fartsniffage, it doesn't seem fair to say that just because you don't use a condom, you should get smacked with involuntary obligations so serious. I mean, we're talking serious life-changing consequences, especially considering the knock-on effects of social stigmatization & crap like that.

You really want to make the argument that fatherhood carries the same social stigma as unmarried motherhood? Being a deadbeat dad maybe....

I would argue that being a deadbeat dad is more stigmatized than single motherhood, right now. And the "deadbeat dad" who never wanted to become a father in the first place has a place at the very center of the discussion on involuntary paternity... whether "deadbeat" is referring to being behind on child support payments, or absent from the mother & child's life. (I've heard the label and stigma applied, rightly or wrongly, to both situations...)

[Fartsniffage]

And once the rest is in place I wouldn't really have a problem with paper abortions. But they're not so all you're advocating is either the kid suffering or me having to pay for it after being responsible. Fuck that.

So you do, in fact, support LPS.
Fine, great. Congratulations on no longer being a part of the problem.

I never was. You on the other hand....

[Ostroeuropa]

That's not what I'm advocating. If this was a topic about child care or healthcare, I'd bring it up.

Yes, it is.

"Why should I pay for equality between the sexes!?"
This is what you are complaining about. It's a little disgusting of you.

You already pay for females who put the kids up for adoption unilaterally to avoid parental responsibilities.
Why not afford the same option to males?
Why are you so terrified of equality of the sexes?

[Jocabia]

If the woman has an abortion then it's everyone back to their corner, no harm don't.

Not according to anti-abortion activists. They would say irreparable harm has been done to a child. Look, Alternate-Universe Fartsniffage doesn't agree with you on that. He just uses the exact same arguments as you do to defend the status quo in his universe.

If the child is born then it's no longer just about the man and woman, there is also a child involved. The game changes and people need to step up.

Except that if the woman doesn't want to step up, neither parent has to, as she can give the child up for adoption. And if states actually start cracking down on giving up kids for adoption without fingering a father and getting his consent, then we'll see women using the safe haven laws for that reason.

Your description simply has nothing to do with reality here, but what I'm focusing on here is your argument for why men should be held responsible. The simple fact is that when you're saying responsibilities are assigned at conception (or consent-to-become-a-parent), that's exactly a common anti-abortion argument; and that's the argument you're offering. You're saying that having sex means it's cool to burden you with life-changing obligations. This is what anti-abortion activists say.

But he's not saying that. He's saying responsibility is assigned at birth for the results of that birth, i.e. a child. That child has two parents and it has rights to two parents unless a child advocate chooses to exercise the rights of that child in another way. In the case of giving a child up for adoption, the state acts as the advocate and makes that choice. In the case of a paper abortion, no one is acting as the child advocate. No one is even taking the needs of the child into account. At all.

But you know this. And continually pretending that men should get to sever the rights of the child arbitrarily and without consequence is nonsensical. There is no comparable right that women have. None. Pretending that a real abortion is similar is ignorant and you know it.

[Llamalandia]

Oh really I can say the same about women and abortion then because after all women had those exact same options to a kid motherhood and have since now demanded a new right to kill a fetus be recognized. Look I'm not strong prolife but give me a freaking break, feminists need to be consistent or just admit they only really care about advancing women's rights at which point unfortunately one can then justify the existence of mra's to fight for men's rights.

Feminism is already fighting for the rights and privileges I mentioned. It's why it exists, because women don't get a fair shake of the stick in current society, mostly because they are the ones to bear children. Jesus.

They're not fighting for them on behalf of men because men already have them.

Really I wasn't aware that society condone forced impregnation, how enlightening. Seriously? No woman has to bear children if she doesn't want there are plenty of childless women, but if you do decide to have children then yes certain responsibilities become attached to that, but even then haven't you ever heard of stay at home dads?

[Fartsniffage]

If the woman has an abortion then it's everyone back to their corner, no harm don't. If the child is born then it's no longer just about the man and woman, there is also a child involved. The game changes and people need to step up.

Again that's fine if both parties have for knowledge of the child and have an opt out (ie abortion for women, paper abortion for men). Post partum it may be fair to say the calculus us changes I can concur with that.

If a child is born with no knowledge of the father then it doesn't change the fact that the child exists. Consequences and all that.

[Geilinor]

The MRAs get their way if both genders follow Traditional Roles like you've decreed. Where's the difference?

What is the MRA way? I thought the MRAs were the male-oriented version of feminists.

MRAs would win even if the status quo was maintained. Males are paid more on average, are dominant in politics and business, females are raped more often, many people continue to believe that a woman's true place is in the home, etc.

[Shie]

What is the MRA way? I thought the MRAs were the male-oriented version of feminists.

MRAs would win even if the status quo was maintained. Males are paid more on average, are dominant in politics and business, females are raped more often, many people continue to believe that a woman's true place is in the home, etc.

What are MRA's arguing in favor of specifically? I don't know what their core tenants are.

[Ostroeuropa]

Again that's fine if both parties have for knowledge of the child and have an opt out (ie abortion for women, paper abortion for men). Post partum it may be fair to say the calculus us changes I can concur with that.

If a child is born with no knowledge of the father then it doesn't change the fact that the child exists. Consequences and all that.

Yeh, and if the mother decides she doesn't want to be a mother she can just refuse to name the father and put it up for adoption.
You still have absolutely no response to this problem, you just keep flailing your arms and complaining about irrelevant shit and bemoaning that we're asking you to pay taxes for gender equality.

How do you propose we stop mothers doing that.
If you admit we can't (Hint, we can't) then what do we do to address the power imbalance.
My answer is LPS.

[Fartsniffage]

If the woman has an abortion then it's everyone back to their corner, no harm don't. If the child is born then it's no longer just about the man and woman, there is also a child involved. The game changes and people need to step up.

I do believe good sir that the growing entity in the mother's womb is distinctly harmed by being killed.

The difference is, you're willing to end a life in support of a mother's rights, but you're not willing to mildly incovinience society with some taxes in support of a father's rights. Because fuck fathers, right? All they do is just sleep around and walk out on their ki--their "responsibilities", yeah yeah. That's the ticket. Think of the ki--your responsibilities.


The is the same trotted out argument with a new face. "Think of the children" is one of the worst fucking crocks of bullshit ever thought up by bigots.

Do you have some kind of weird idea that I'm some kind of self-hating male?

[Geilinor]

MRAs would win even if the status quo was maintained. Males are paid more on average, are dominant in politics and business, females are raped more often, many people continue to believe that a woman's true place is in the home, etc.

What are MRA's arguing in favor of specifically? I don't know what their core tenants are.

I don't know. Since the defense of gender roles which place men in a superior position is your domain, I'll let you tell me.

[Gauthier]

MRAs would win even if the status quo was maintained. Males are paid more on average, are dominant in politics and business, females are raped more often, many people continue to believe that a woman's true place is in the home, etc.

What are MRA's arguing in favor of specifically? I don't know what their core tenants are.

You claim you're not like an MRA and you don't even know their platform follows The Traditional Roles you're preachy about.

Just. Wow.

[Aurora Novus]

Do you have some kind of weird idea that I'm some kind of self-hating male?

It's interesting that you bring up that notion. Are you?

[Llamalandia]

Possibly, but the mother had an out not available to the father, hence she chose to be a single mother, a single father was forced into that role, at least in the generic type of cases were talking about here.

She didn't choose to be a single mother because abortion is not free in the United States and fathers often leave after the child is born.

Ok so lets see you want what? State funded on demand abortion and "shotgun weddings" basically, really? I mean I'm all for equality but not at the cost of liberty.

Ok so some fathers bail post partum? Ok fine we maybe shouldn't allow that, however if we are to forbid that, then there absolutely must be some way for potential dads to "paper abort" prior to birth.

[Ostroeuropa]

I do believe good sir that the growing entity in the mother's womb is distinctly harmed by being killed.

The difference is, you're willing to end a life in support of a mother's rights, but you're not willing to mildly incovinience society with some taxes in support of a father's rights. Because fuck fathers, right? All they do is just sleep around and walk out on their ki--their "responsibilities", yeah yeah. That's the ticket. Think of the ki--your responsibilities.


The is the same trotted out argument with a new face. "Think of the children" is one of the worst fucking crocks of bullshit ever thought up by bigots.

Do you have some kind of weird idea that I'm some kind of self-hating male?

You've merely internalized the misandric arguments and sentiments. You don't hate males. You just oppress them. You're comfortable because you are a stereotype. You don't notice that those of us who aren't a stereotype are not happy with you and others forcing us to act like one or punishing us when we don't.
Cut it out.

[Seriong]

I should have been more clear. He's saying that if the child is aborted, then no harm is done to either party, regardless of their opinion on the matter. In the case of a father wanting a child however, it would be the former.
Besides, the point still stands, that even voluntary abortions aren't casual occasions.

A father renouncing all his future rights to the child would not be a casual decision.

I made no claim that it would be.

[Fartsniffage]

You really want to make the argument that fatherhood carries the same social stigma as unmarried motherhood? Being a deadbeat dad maybe....

Which you're trying to perpetuate by the use of the term deadbeat dad.

Yes. I am.

[Geilinor]

I do believe good sir that the growing entity in the mother's womb is distinctly harmed by being killed.

The difference is, you're willing to end a life in support of a mother's rights, but you're not willing to mildly incovinience society with some taxes in support of a father's rights. Because fuck fathers, right? All they do is just sleep around and walk out on their ki--their "responsibilities", yeah yeah. That's the ticket. Think of the ki--your responsibilities.


The is the same trotted out argument with a new face. "Think of the children" is one of the worst fucking crocks of bullshit ever thought up by bigots.

Do you have some kind of weird idea that I'm some kind of self-hating male?

I'm getting the idea that you're hostile towards fathers because of personal experience.

[Forsher]

This topic being what it is I can just quote myself from threads ago.

If feminism's popular image is of a plane filled with reasonable people being flown by nutjobs then MRM's popular image is of an aeroplane with one sane guy trapped in the loo while the rest of the passengers and pilots do loop-de-loops.

Which is to say, regardless of how it started, the internet expression* does tend towards being opposed to things rather than for stuff; for many people that identify as or are included as MRAs by others this does translate to "fighting women". That is not to say the things that they are, theoretically for, are invalid complaints because many of them are not and I don't think other movements have the right perspective/s to address these.

*Personally, I don't think there are many real-world groups that identify as part MRA in real life, instead they choose to focus on their specific issues (such as father's rights).

decline in male academic achievement

Changed your tune I see. Although the issue is more that we've replaced one attainment gap with another: no groups have been going backwards.

The MRM is just a natural development. Look at how extreme feminism is getting these days. They are turning to men to have a scapegoat, and someone needs to stick up for men.

I don't think feminism is any more extreme. I think that the internet is just full of dilettantes that don't actually grasp why people take issue with something and then apply these misunderstandings more wildly... thus creating an impression of extreme feminism on the internet.

You can see this in NSG very easily. Or, at least, you could but perhaps we're due for another round of feminism threads.

The MRM is just a natural development. Look at how extreme feminism is getting these days. They are turning to men to have a scapegoat, and someone needs to stick up for men.

You can't blame a whole group for the actions of some insane individuals.

Consecutive posts.

To be fair, he's blaming a group for the actions of a group. Extreme feminism (a group) is responsible for scape-goating men (an action of that group). The better criticism is that this isn't really happening but it is an impression that internet discussions can give.

You could, at a stretch, interpret his statements as referring to individuals but I don't see that as the more natural reading.

They had their chance, failed, and started going after the group that, for the most part, is actually fighting for equality for all genders (and doing so successfully, and, not actually alienating any supporters).

I don't think that last bit is true. I do think that there are many people who don't feel that they can support feminism because of what they know about it... and not all of them don't know enough. Patriarchy is a classic example of a potentially alienating source.

Yeah, remember that radical feminist shooting the other day? Oh, wait...

To be fair, buttmad radfems only oppress trans* people and force others into rapey lesbianism. They don't affect men.

None of the other feminist ideologies actually harm anybody.

From Wikipedia:

Some radical feminists have proposed that because patriarchy is too deeply rooted in society, separatism is the only viable solution.[197] Other feminists have criticized these views as being anti-men.[198][199][200]

So, you cannot characterise some aspects of radical feminism as not having negative views towards men in the same way that you couldn't characterise radical feminism and dismiss the existence of TERFs. That is, doing either would be dishonest or ignorant. It should be stressed that radical, by definition, excludes mainstream feminism (which is probably why Wiki has three sources of dismissal).

[Ostroeuropa]

Which you're trying to perpetuate by the use of the term deadbeat dad.

Yes. I am.

Ok. So long as you admit it.

[Viritica]

I don't think it's inherently a hate group. I'm sure it does have a lot of hateful members, though.

[Shie]

What are MRA's arguing in favor of specifically? I don't know what their core tenants are.

You claim you're not like an MRA and you don't even know their platform follows The Traditional Roles you're preachy about.

Just. Wow.

I don't believe that men are more oppressed than women. I'm in favor of male and female equality in terms of worth, just not their respective function.