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

[Jocabia]

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.

Yes, it does. Provided the father is proven the father, the mother is required to take parental responsibility. If both parents are known, adoption or surrender requires the agreement of both parents.

I'm curious. How many fathers have died in childbirth? If we're going to correct a difference in biology, shouldn't we go all the way? Or are you really arguing for inequality?

[Seriong]

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.

And feminism just complains about being asked for coffee in an elevator.

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....

Please tell me you're not talking about Elliot Rodger, for such would be incredibly ignorant of you.

MRAs created the friend-zone?

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

Men =\= MRAs
Women =\= Feminism

In fact, only a minority belong to either.

[Gauthier]

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.

Every single feminist in existence is possessed by the angry spirit of Valerie Solanis. *nod nod*

[Seriong]

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

"They have no connection to the MRM, but I can imagine they do, so lets lump them together"

That's a bit messed up.

[Dyakovo]

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.

You shouldn't.

[Condunum]

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.

Yes, waiving liability is totally not at all admitting that you don't want to raise the child and that it'd be better off with someone else. If we're going to call adoption by default done in the interest of the child, the same logic can extend to paper abortion.

[Ceannairceach]

I think they take valid points and twist them for an invalid cause.

Yeah, straight, cis men should have the same rights as other people. Cool. Yeah, they shouldn't be stereotyped or otherwise insulted for what they are. Cool.

Now do they really need to "counter" feminism to do that?

[Seriong]

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.

Every single feminist in existence is possessed by the angry spirit of Valerie Solanis. *nod nod*

Is that merely a lack of reading comprehension on your part, or are you willfully misconstruing what I said?

[Ostroeuropa]

I think they take valid points and twist them for an invalid cause.

Yeah, straight, cis men should have the same rights as other people. Cool. Yeah, they shouldn't be stereotyped or otherwise insulted for what they are. Cool.

Now do they really need to "counter" feminism to do that?

Well, feminism doesn't seem to be doing much about it, and is actually a part of the problem in some respects. (Demonization of males in media.)
In addition, where the hell do you get the cis and straight part from?

[Geilinor]

I doubt that's widespread within the MRA movement.

You shouldn't.

Why not? Your argument is like stating that feminists want to castrate men.

[Jocabia]

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?

4. Allow men to sue for paternity as already exists and respect the rights of the child by disallowing a contract that affects their rights unless there someone acting as advocate for the child and choosing to act in the stead of the severed parent.

I choose 4.

[Dyakovo]

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

All you have to do is Google avfm and doxxing.

[Llamalandia]

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.

Couldn't find the exact story I was looking for(saw it on CNN a couple years back), but here's a somewhat similar case detailing paternity fraud and how hard it can be to surmount even with DNA evidence.
http://politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1266143

[Ostroeuropa]

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?

4. Allow men to sue for paternity as already exists and respect the rights of the child by disallowing a contract that affects their rights unless there someone acting as advocate for the child and choosing to act in the stead of the severed parent.

I choose 4.

And if the female neglects to inform the male of the pregnancy?

[MERIZoC]

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

"They have no connection to the MRM, but I can imagine they do, so lets lump them together"

That's a bit messed up.

It's to show that these are tactics used by some, and such tactics have been advocated within the MRM. Which isn't to say at all that they are mainstream.

[Fartsniffage]

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?

Again, I don't consider the reproductive process to be split between pre and post conception. We've already been through this. But I will expand a little. You tried to fuck around with that answer before but failed to notice that my wording was quite deliberate. The conception process and reproductive process are different things.

Women don't have any more control over whether men become parents than men do. Both play their part in the reproductive process.

[Gauthier]

4. Allow men to sue for paternity as already exists and respect the rights of the child by disallowing a contract that affects their rights unless there someone acting as advocate for the child and choosing to act in the stead of the severed parent.

I choose 4.

And if the female neglects to inform the male of the pregnancy?

Clearly you go Republican and make abortions illegal under any circumstances,

[Ostroeuropa]

And if the female neglects to inform the male of the pregnancy?

Clearly you go Republican and make abortions illegal under any circumstances,

Or allow LPS, yes. I regard no abortions as an abhorrent answer to the problem.

[Geilinor]

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

Again, I don't consider the reproductive process to be split between pre and post conception. We've already been through this. But I will expand a little. You tried to fuck around with that answer before but failed to notice that my wording was quite deliberate. The conception process and reproductive process are different things.

Women don't have any more control over whether men become parents than men do. Both play their part in the reproductive process.

They do. After a women becomes pregnant, she can get an abortion.

[Jocabia]

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.

Yes, waiving liability is totally not at all admitting that you don't want to raise the child and that it'd be better off with someone else. If we're going to call adoption by default done in the interest of the child, the same logic can extend to paper abortion.

No, it cannot.

In the case of abortion, the state, as the child advocate, is choosing to inherit the responsibility for the child, because it determined that in these cases the child is best served by doing so. Who is choosing to take the place of the father in the case of a paper abortion? Who is the child advocate that is party to the paper abortion and ensuring that the child is best served? The mother? Nope. If the mother agreed, this would already be legal. The state? Nope. The state isn't agreeing to take on the role of the father in the case of a paper abortion. The state would be forcing the role of the father onto the mother, even in cases where it is not in the interest of the child to do so.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I think they take valid points and twist them for an invalid cause.

Yeah, straight, cis men should have the same rights as other people. Cool. Yeah, they shouldn't be stereotyped or otherwise insulted for what they are. Cool.

Now do they really need to "counter" feminism to do that?

Feminist campaigns tend to be one of the things stereotyping cis men, so one would presume yes. (Hell, doesn't even really apply only to 'cis' men, either)

Remember, only you can prevent forest fires women are sexually assaulted.

[Ostroeuropa]

Again, I don't consider the reproductive process to be split between pre and post conception. We've already been through this. But I will expand a little. You tried to fuck around with that answer before but failed to notice that my wording was quite deliberate. The conception process and reproductive process are different things.

Women don't have any more control over whether men become parents than men do. Both play their part in the reproductive process.

They do. After a women becomes pregnant, she can get an abortion.

Or put the child unilaterally up for adoption by refusing to name the father.

[Jocabia]

Again, I don't consider the reproductive process to be split between pre and post conception. We've already been through this. But I will expand a little. You tried to fuck around with that answer before but failed to notice that my wording was quite deliberate. The conception process and reproductive process are different things.

Women don't have any more control over whether men become parents than men do. Both play their part in the reproductive process.

They do. After a women becomes pregnant, she can get an abortion.

How many men die in childbirth? As a result of biology, women have access to birth control for longer than men. That's not something that can be changed, any more than we can make men take on the difficulties of pregnancy. However, both sides have the ability to use birth control and in the event that a birth is prevented by either party, there is no child to consider.

[Llamalandia]

And if the female neglects to inform the male of the pregnancy?

Clearly you go Republican and make abortions illegal under any circumstances,

That does achieve parental rights termination equality, unfortunately it opens up a whole other set of issues. Better to just let men terminate their parental rights/ responsibilities prior to birth.

[Jocabia]

Clearly you go Republican and make abortions illegal under any circumstances,

Or allow LPS, yes. I regard no abortions as an abhorrent answer to the problem.

Severing the child's rights is not up to you. It's not equal. It's not even kind of equal. And it's ignoring one of the people involved entirely.