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

[Aurora Novus]

Ok. So long as you admit it.

A prick is a prick. No need to sugar coat it.

A bitch is a bitch. No need to sugar coat it.

[Jocabia]

But he's not saying that. He's saying responsibility is assigned at birth for the results of that birth, i.e. a child.

For the results of that sex act. Because the sex act is what involves the father.

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.

Which is exactly what anti-abortion activists say about abortion. The main difference is that anti-abortion activists generally consider it to be a child back before birth, whereas you're waiting until it's born to call it a child. In both cases, you're saying that because you had sex with a person, you are obligated to the consequences of that.

I was actually a participant in an anti-abortion / paternal surrender thread here on NSG where a pro-choice poster accidentally energetically agreed with a pro-life poster because the former didn't realize the latter was talking about actual physical abortions, not "paper abortions," and the rhetoric was not terribly specific.

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.

There are, in fact, three comparable rights that women have to legal paternal surrender.

• The right to abortion is superior to, and therefore includes as a consequence, a right to voluntary maternity.
• The de facto right to give a child up for adoption regardless of the wishes of the father is a de facto right to voluntary maternity.
• Safe haven laws also provide an implicit right to voluntary maternity.

Legal parental surrender mitigates, rather than eliminating or reversing, the gap between men's and women's rights on this subject.

You're not this dumb, TJ. In the case of abortion, there is no child. That anti-abortion people try to make a born child and an embryo or fetus equal doesn't make it so.

And no, I'm not saying that because you had sex you must face consequences. I'm saying that because a baby is universally agreed to be a person, that person has rights.

The anti-abortion argument hinges on the existence of a person or not (at least the argument you're talking about). This argument isn't about the existence of a person. We agree a child is a person. It's not even kind of the same argument.

Whether or not safe haven laws have the effect of voluntary maternity (in some cases), they have a child advocate choosing to take responsibility for the child and act as the parents. The state, the child advocate, is a voluntary actor in the case of safe haven laws. It is choosing this because it believes it is in the best interest of the child. Still not comparable.

Who is the child advocate choosing to replace the responsibility that is entering in the contract you call a paper abortion? Please enlighten me.

[Gauthier]

What is the MRA way?.

Blame women/feminists for any difficulties they encounter and threaten women they disagree with with rape and/or assault.

Like, complain about being "put in a friend zone" when the women doesn't want to fuck them right off the bat.

[Llamalandia]

Why no one here is to trying to perpetuate a stereotypic slur of women who abandon their children? Do you care about equal rights or women's rights?

Perhaps because the subject under discussion is fathers who don't want to pay towards the raising of their children?

No the topic is the fair treatment regardless of gender of parents who don't want to take parental responsibility. Women can keep a kid and demand an unwilling father pay child support, it doesn't really work the other way around, on top of that women have abortion to fall back on as well if they don't want a kid/the responsibility. But hey I'm not going to be childish here and resort to perpetuating stereotypes or using quasi slurs against single mothers as some have obviously done with absent fathers.

[Geilinor]

What is the MRA way?.

Blame women/feminists for any difficulties they encounter and threaten women they disagree with with rape and/or assault.

I doubt that's widespread within the MRA movement.

[Fartsniffage]

What is the MRA way?.

Blame women/feminists for any difficulties they encounter and threaten women they disagree with with rape and/or assault.

Ha ha ha...oh shit, that's not funny. People just died because of this shit....

[Condunum]

What is the MRA way?.

Blame women/feminists for any difficulties they encounter and threaten women they disagree with with rape and/or assault.

[Geilinor]

Blame women/feminists for any difficulties they encounter and threaten women they disagree with with rape and/or assault.

Like, complain about being "put in a friend zone" when the women doesn't want to fuck them right off the bat.

MRAs created the friend-zone?

[Jocabia]

Perhaps because the subject under discussion is fathers who don't want to pay towards the raising of their children?

You mean like mothers who decide they aren't ready to be mothers and get abortions?

Wait a minute...

They aren't mothers. There is no child in the case of abortions. Your comparison fails.

[Llamalandia]

Blame women/feminists for any difficulties they encounter and threaten women they disagree with with rape and/or assault.

Like, complain about being "put in a friend zone" when the women doesn't want to fuck them right off the bat.

Wasn't that thread locked? Is it really a good idea to open it up again over here? Really?

[Fartsniffage]

There was no question in that post.

Merely in a bunch of the other ones.

Pick one then and I'll answer it for you.

[Fartsniffage]

A prick is a prick. No need to sugar coat it.

A bitch is a bitch. No need to sugar coat it.

Exactly.

[Ostroeuropa]

Blame women/feminists for any difficulties they encounter and threaten women they disagree with with rape and/or assault.

Ha ha ha...oh shit, that's not funny. People just died because of this shit....

So you've just shut down, gone glassy eyed, and started posting one liners about how all the people who question Hubbard are criminals.
Ok.
Well, we tried I guess.

[Condunum]

Like, complain about being "put in a friend zone" when the women doesn't want to fuck them right off the bat.

MRAs created the friend-zone?

The friend-zone as a negative thing exists because of 4chan.

[Gauthier]

Like, complain about being "put in a friend zone" when the women doesn't want to fuck them right off the bat.

MRAs created the friend-zone?

Women sure don't complain about being friend-zoned much.

[Geilinor]

A bitch is a bitch. No need to sugar coat it.

Exactly.

You didn't get the point. Calling males pricks is like calling females bitches. The words are roughly equivalent.

[Seriong]

What is the MRA way?.

Blame women/feminists for any difficulties they encounter and threaten women they disagree with with rape and/or assault.

And feminism is the belief that men should be castrated.

Oh wait. That's wrong. Perhaps, since I'm not an advocate of feminism, I shouldn't try to be the one to define the movement, but rather leave that to feminists.

[Llamalandia]

A bitch is a bitch. No need to sugar coat it.

Exactly.

Lol you're both potty mouths.

[MERIZoC]

Blame women/feminists for any difficulties they encounter and threaten women they disagree with with rape and/or assault.

I doubt that's widespread within the MRA movement.

Well, they aren''t necessarily MRA's, but a few of them might be.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/guns-bullying-open-carry-women-moms-texas

[Jocabia]

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.

Why are we pretending that a mother putting her child up for adoption against the wills of the father is somehow better than the father or mother waiving liability?

I don't approve of the father being cut out. I don't want it ever to occur.

However, you're still failing to see the relevant point. In the case of adoption, it is required that someone act on behalf of the child and determine that adoption (or surrender) is in the best interest of the child. Safe haven laws are specifically designed with that in mind. In the case of waiving liability, a right no parent has, there is no one acting on behalf of the child.

[Aurora Novus]

Merely in a bunch of the other ones.

Pick one then and I'll answer it for you.

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?

And as an addendum, why do you want women to be able to control men's parental satus?

[Dyakovo]

No, not at all. If you take legal responsibility, you're legally responsible.

Yeah problem is i this case which I need to look up a link for if I recall correctly the guy was borderline retarded and didn't even understand what sex was mor did he have it with the woman as I recall.

I'm going to need a source.

[Llamalandia]

MRAs created the friend-zone?

The friend-zone as a negative thing exists because of 4chan.

Pretty sure friend zoning and friend zoning as a negative hint existed in "teen movies" predating 4 chan by a few years. Just saying.

[Ostroeuropa]

Merely in a bunch of the other ones.

Pick one then and I'll answer it for you.

Given that a woman can refuse to name the father and put the child up for adoption unilaterally AFTER the child is born, you have a few options:

1. Stop them doing this (How? How would you enforce it? What if they ""Forget""?)
2. Give both parents the option to opt out of parenthood so that there is no longer a power imbalance.
3. Be a sexist

Which options do you choose and why, and if none, which is the fourth option and how does it deal with the power imbalance and the female having the right to abandon parental responsibility, but not the male?

[Dyakovo]

No, not at all. If you take legal responsibility, you're legally responsible.

So, if you're fed inaccurate information, with no legal way to find the correct information, it's still binding, because who cares about their rights?

There is no issue of rights involved in that.