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

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

This is just a whine you keep repeating. So what if men do not die in childbirth. It's irrelevant to the question. It's like someone bitching about privilege and demanding we cripple all the people who can walk in order for equality to happen.
It's complete fucking nonsense compared to the sane argument of "Let's build ramps instead of stairs." and using it as a reply to that "Let's build ramps, for equality." "WHY NOT CRIPPLE EVERYONE HUH!?!?"
I'm sure you convinced yourself that it's a really clever argument, but it's just ridiculous.

[Condunum]

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.

Ah, your argument hinges on paper abortions not resulting in some sort of state aid. Well, suppose the state ensures the child receives a minimum in support. Your argument would seem farce with that.

[Aurora Novus]

Again, I don't consider the reproductive process to be split between pre and post conception.

Irrelevant. Your "conception" of reprodiuction doesn't change what reproduction is. So unless you're prepaired to claim that a sperm fertilizing an egg isn't something that happens, there is a time in the reproductive process before the egg is fertilized, and a time after the egg is fertilized. Pre and post-conception.

You're not answering the question, you're still trying to dance around it through rhetoric. It's not working.

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.

If you want to play semantics, fine. Let's reword the question.

During the "conception process" (or whatever term you would use for the time the child is growing inside the mother's womb), the mother has a right to abort the fetus. Whether intended or not, the mother has the right to choose whether or not she wishes to be a parent due to that right to abortion.

Given that, why don't you want fathers to have the same right to choose whether or not they wish to be a parent during this time? Why do you want women to be able to make that choice for them?

[Jocabia]

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.

Terminating parental rights prior to birth is the equivalent of saying that I can contract a child into slavery prior to birth because it doesn't exist yet. Once a child exists, it has rights. The paper abortion only takes effect (like a contract to slavery) once a child exists. And like a contract to slavery, the rights of the child must be dealt with. You haven't.

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

Ah, your argument hinges on paper abortions not resulting in some sort of state aid. Well, suppose the state ensures the child receives a minimum in support. Your argument would seem farce with that.

It is a farce. It's always been a farce. LPS is so blatantly a good idea to combat inequality of the sexes that the only thing left to them is things that sounds like arguments and look like them in order for them to refuse to confront the fact that they are being sexist, when really it's all mostly irrelevant shit.

[Dackmanistan]

Okay, so I'm just going to specify right off the bat, I am a white, straight, fit male.
For gods sake this is the biggest butt-hurtiest thread ever. That's all the MRA's are. too. Yet people are taking this seriously. Like they're off lobbying and having wood chopping circles to raise funds. They're angry guys on the internet who feel pushed around, and aren't the type to fight back.
Yet everyone says they're going to be the downfall of humanity. Lord, just ignore them? Yet you say this is going to be the downfall of society? Yeah, alright. When you put them down and try to say they're hate groups, that advances their illusions of the world matriarchy. Just sigh, take a couple of advil for that pain in your butt, and scroll on.
Do men and women have different roles in society? Commonly, yeah. They're biologically set to be better at different things and compliment eachother's strengths and weaknesses. Why can't we accept that not everyone is going to be equal?
EDIT:
It was my privilege to post this.

[Llamalandia]

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.

Ok look here's the thing back in day before legal abortion women were "punished with a baby" and men were "punished with child support payments". Fast forward post roe v wade we've decided (rightly so many would argue) to stop punishing women with unwanted babies and hence we have allow abortion and yet for some reason selfs decided to continue punishing fathers for unwanted babies( ie with child support payments) because...?

[Ostroeuropa]

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.

Terminating parental rights prior to birth is the equivalent of saying that I can contract a child into slavery prior to birth because it doesn't exist yet. Once a child exists, it has rights. The paper abortion only takes effect (like a contract to slavery) once a child exists. And like a contract to slavery, the rights of the child must be dealt with. You haven't.

It's funny you bring up slavery.
What gives the child a right to it's parents work if they don't want to be the parent?
You may as well just repeat the slavery line verbatim.
It's my human right to own slaves. (Yes, they literally used to fucking argue this.)

You're basically the modern equivalent of a slaver. All opponents of LPS are. It's hilarious. But you decided it's only kids who can own slaves. And only if mommy agrees. (Or fucks up.)

[Dyakovo]

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

That is messed up. There shouldn't be deadlines to challenge paternity.

[Aurora Novus]

I'm pretty sure we all know what his answer is to my question too. He doesn't think men can be trusted to be "responsible" enough and make the "right" (see: what he wants) choice when it comes to the child, and so that choice needs to be left up to the mother. He thinks men are irresponsible when it comes to reproduction and children, and women are responsible. He thinks men's sexuality needs to be controlled and restrained. He thinks men are bad.

[Jocabia]

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.

Ah, your argument hinges on paper abortions not resulting in some sort of state aid. Well, suppose the state ensures the child receives a minimum in support. Your argument would seem farce with that.

If the state determined that acting in place of the father was in the best interest of the child, then I would support such a thing. You've not shown that to be the case. That is reason for safe haven laws. The state, acting as the advocate for the child involved in the safe haven activity, determined that it is in the best interest of the child to allow the activity. If you can show the children would be served by a similar activity where the state replaces the father, then I'd support that. However, the father's desire to be served is no more important to me than the mother's, once a child exists. If a father or mother benefits, it's incidental.

So can you show that children are better served by single mothers?

[Llamalandia]

Okay, so I'm just going to specify right off the bat, I am a white, straight, fit male.
For gods sake this is the biggest butt-hurtiest thread ever. That's all the MRA's are. too. Yet people are taking this seriously. Like they're off lobbying and having wood chopping circles to raise funds. They're angry guys on the internet who feel pushed around, and aren't the type to fight back.
Yet everyone says they're going to be the downfall of humanity. Lord, just ignore them? Yet you say this is going to be the downfall of society? Yeah, alright. When you put them down and try to say they're hate groups, that advances their illusions of the world matriarchy. Just sigh, take a couple of advil for that pain in your butt, and scroll on.
Do men and women have different roles in society? Commonly, yeah. They're biologically set to be better at different things and compliment eachother's strengths and weaknesses. Why can't we accept that not everyone is going to be equal?
EDIT:
It was my privilege to post this.

Sure some of us accept that, unfortunately the loudest voices never do, that's why tumblr is full of sjw nonsense. But yeah I largely agree.

[Ostroeuropa]

Ah, your argument hinges on paper abortions not resulting in some sort of state aid. Well, suppose the state ensures the child receives a minimum in support. Your argument would seem farce with that.

If the state determined that acting in place of the father was in the best interest of the child, then I would support such a thing. You've not shown that to be the case. That is reason for safe haven laws. The state, acting as the advocate for the child involved in the safe haven activity, determined that it is in the best interest of the child to allow the activity. If you can show the children would be served by a similar activity where the state replaces the father, then I'd support that. However, the father's desire to be served is no more important to me than the mother's, once a child exists. If a father or mother benefits, it's incidental.

So can you show that children are better served by single mothers?

So you're arguing that there has to be inequality of the sexes, for the childrens sake. What about the male children? They just gotta put up with being second class citizens in this respect?
You're arguing fucking nonsense. And you're doing it so you can justify a sexist position and prejudice.

What about the women forced into an abortion to protect their financial interests if the male is willing to raise the kid but she isn't?
Fuckem, right?
Or the women who "orphan" their kid by putting it up for adoption to protect their financial interests if the male is willing?
Fuckem too.

[Jocabia]

Terminating parental rights prior to birth is the equivalent of saying that I can contract a child into slavery prior to birth because it doesn't exist yet. Once a child exists, it has rights. The paper abortion only takes effect (like a contract to slavery) once a child exists. And like a contract to slavery, the rights of the child must be dealt with. You haven't.

It's funny you bring up slavery.
What gives the child a right to it's parents work if they don't want to be the parent?
You may as well just repeat the slavery line verbatim.
It's my human right to own slaves. (Yes, they literally used to fucking argue this.)

You're basically the modern equivalent of a slaver. All opponents of LPS are. It's hilarious. But you decided it's only kids who can own slaves. And only if mommy agrees. (Or fucks up.)

The child is dependent. It needs care and its need for that care is the direct result of the actions of its parents. Parenthood is no more slavery then me being forced to pay for t-boning a car and crippling the occupant.

[Llamalandia]

If the state determined that acting in place of the father was in the best interest of the child, then I would support such a thing. You've not shown that to be the case. That is reason for safe haven laws. The state, acting as the advocate for the child involved in the safe haven activity, determined that it is in the best interest of the child to allow the activity. If you can show the children would be served by a similar activity where the state replaces the father, then I'd support that. However, the father's desire to be served is no more important to me than the mother's, once a child exists. If a father or mother benefits, it's incidental.

So can you show that children are better served by single mothers?

So you're arguing that there has to be inequality of the sexes, for the childrens sake. What about the male children? They just gotta put up with being second class citizens in this respect?
You're arguing fucking nonsense. And you're doing it so you can justify a sexist position and prejudice.

I agree with you here largely though I would caution you to calm down a bit.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's funny you bring up slavery.
What gives the child a right to it's parents work if they don't want to be the parent?
You may as well just repeat the slavery line verbatim.
It's my human right to own slaves. (Yes, they literally used to fucking argue this.)

You're basically the modern equivalent of a slaver. All opponents of LPS are. It's hilarious. But you decided it's only kids who can own slaves. And only if mommy agrees. (Or fucks up.)

The child is dependent. It needs care and its need for that care is the direct result of the actions of its parents. Parenthood is no more slavery then me being forced to pay for t-boning a car and crippling the occupant.

Yeh it needs to be cared for. And the state is one that can do it if noone else is willing. Why should the male not be afforded the same powers as the female?

[Fartsniffage]

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?

You seem obsessed with the rights of the parents. What about the child? To quote Robin Williams from Good Will Hunting "It's not about you, you ignorant prick!" These laws exist to look after the kid.

If a mother is refusing to name the father and wants to give the child up then that certainly seems to be in the best interests of the child. After all, the mother doesn't want it and isn't naming the father so no love and no money coming in for the kid. Sucks to be that kid.

If the mother keeps the child and names the father then the father is responsible for paying towards the upbringing of the kid. It's that simple. The kid is the one who matters here. The child didn't ask for this, it was brought into the world without it's consent but now it needs shoes and food and shit. The father was there at the start and bears some responsibility.

And to be honest, I refuse to accept your premise that this is inherently sexist. There are differences in biology that require differences in laws.

[Forsher]

There's a reason for that.

MRA's don't hate women. They don't.

MRAs are basically an internet thing (well, that's my view) and you'd be better off not identifying as such because it does associate you with some very unsavoury positions. As others have pointed out it is a branch off an entirely more substantial body of thought.

40% of domestic violence sufferers are men. Men simply can't fight back because of "you can't hit women thing"

Feminism explains this as part of patriarchy.* Of course, as pretty much anyone can tell you, the bigger issue is not being able to fight back it's that wider society is as about as open to the idea as a locked door... this leads to the marginalisation of male victims of domestic violence, a relative absence of objections to humour around it (compare and contrast opposition to such jokes where the victim is female) and a culture of non-reporting. In other words, quite similar to the situation regarding domestic violence directed towards women (particularly in the past).

*I don't like the idea of "The Patriarchy" but societies around the world, operating in their own cultural contexts do tend to be patriarchal, to greater or lesser extents. Domestic Violence is a very clear explanation of how particular mindsets around men and women in society more widely are harmful to men and women. As a quick example, there is/was an anti-domestic violence ad here that had, in every single case, a male abuser with at least ten examples (these were figurines). Sometimes the victim was probably male (when the figurine was a child) though so it's not all bad in this respect. There is, of course, nothing wrong with the wider message "domestic violence is not okay?"

Both sides are morons focused on making one better than the other. They should both be abolished.

This^^^

Not this. Feminism has its flaws but these derive from an issue of perspective (and on the internet it's worse because the dilettantes are dismissive of other perspectives, real world this isn't so) not an attempt to oppose itself to what is a minor social force/movement.

I didn't say all, did I?

I hope you realise that saying all isn't necessary.

Carrots taste disgusting. It's a very strange person who reads that and immediately thinks "well some carrots are disgusting and this may be many, most or even all of them". The connotations are, very much, that all carrots are disgusting and any quantification will invariably be to point out that not all are.

Threads like this only serve to cement the fact that many MRAs are insane.

Posts like this are 98% spam.

*sigh* Do you have to generalize a whole group?

It was only a small group of MRAs that started hating women, the rest just tagged along.

So, all MRAs hate women or, at least, don't have a problem with those that do. That's what you've just said and what he said with this construction is an equally problematical interpretation. However, neither are blaming a group for the actions of individuals because it says that the group has become the problem... it's allowed itself to become something else.

It was only a small group of carrots that started hating people, the rest were carried along. That would be blaming the group (carrots) for the actions of a small group of individual carrots. On reflection though, the use of "only" and "just" have made me less certain in these assessments than if it had been "It was a" and "The rest then tagged" along.

I do believe the person who started the thread and created the poll is male.

1) They're probably talking about the distribution of responses (eight hours after this post it's at 6/7/23/17/36/11).

2) Men can be misandrists in the same way women can be misogynistic.

I don't browse AVfM, so I couldn't say if it's a hate website or not. However, I fail to see how one website indicates an entire movement is a hate movement. I could just as easily pull up some hateful Feminist website.

Of course, if you're alright with me calling Feminism a hate movement as well, I'm down with that. The MRM and Feminism are hate groups. Neat.

I can say it's a hate site quite easily and refer to a ruling on NS to support it.

[Llamalandia]

It's funny you bring up slavery.
What gives the child a right to it's parents work if they don't want to be the parent?
You may as well just repeat the slavery line verbatim.
It's my human right to own slaves. (Yes, they literally used to fucking argue this.)

You're basically the modern equivalent of a slaver. All opponents of LPS are. It's hilarious. But you decided it's only kids who can own slaves. And only if mommy agrees. (Or fucks up.)

The child is dependent. It needs care and its need for that care is the direct result of the actions of its parents. Parenthood is no more slavery then me being forced to pay for t-boning a car and crippling the occupant.

A finally every child is also a direct result of a mother choosing not to abort as well so your logic doesn't really hold up here. I mean then make the woman pay for the kids well being if she wants to keep the little bugger and the father doesn't.

[Jocabia]

If the state determined that acting in place of the father was in the best interest of the child, then I would support such a thing. You've not shown that to be the case. That is reason for safe haven laws. The state, acting as the advocate for the child involved in the safe haven activity, determined that it is in the best interest of the child to allow the activity. If you can show the children would be served by a similar activity where the state replaces the father, then I'd support that. However, the father's desire to be served is no more important to me than the mother's, once a child exists. If a father or mother benefits, it's incidental.

So can you show that children are better served by single mothers?

So you're arguing that there has to be inequality of the sexes, for the childrens sake. What about the male children? They just gotta put up with being second class citizens in this respect?
You're arguing fucking nonsense. And you're doing it so you can justify a sexist position and prejudice.

I'm arguing that it isn't unequal. You believe it is, but neither parent has the right to unilaterally sever their responsibilities. The child or an advocate for the child can choose an arrangement in which the child is better served.

I know you want to ignore the child and its rights, but your ability to do that doesn't change that the state has the responsibility to make laws that include all persons in considering contracts and other negotiations. In the case of child and parent relationships, the parents have responsibility for the nature of the relationship, and thus it is the child that gets to determine, for as long as it is dependent as a result of the actions of the parents, how it is made whole.

[Condunum]

Ah, your argument hinges on paper abortions not resulting in some sort of state aid. Well, suppose the state ensures the child receives a minimum in support. Your argument would seem farce with that.

If the state determined that acting in place of the father was in the best interest of the child, then I would support such a thing. You've not shown that to be the case.

That is a task for a God, considering it is a physical impossibility for me to do so.

That is reason for safe haven laws.

And so long as those reasons are not sexist in nature, fine.

The state, acting as the advocate for the child involved in the safe haven activity, determined that it is in the best interest of the child to allow the activity.

ok.

If you can show the children would be served by a similar activity where the state replaces the father, then I'd support that.

State child support. Really doesn't take an Einstein to conceptualize.

However, the father's desire to be served is no more important to me than the mother's, once a child exists. If a father or mother benefits, it's incidental.

Yeah, don't care. Forcing people to be parents is a fucking stupid idea and it always will produce poor living environments.

So can you show that children are better served by single mothers?

I'm not chasing you down the rabbit hole.

[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?

You seem obsessed with the rights of the parents. What about the child? To quote Robin Williams from Good Will Hunting "It's not about you, you ignorant prick!" These laws exist to look after the kid.

If a mother is refusing to name the father and wants to give the child up then that certainly seems to be in the best interests of the child. After all, the mother doesn't want it and isn't naming the father so no love and no money coming in for the kid. Sucks to be that kid.

If the mother keeps the child and names the father then the father is responsible for paying towards the upbringing of the kid. It's that simple. The kid is the one who matters here. The child didn't ask for this, it was brought into the world without it's consent but now it needs shoes and food and shit. The father was there at the start and bears some responsibility.

And to be honest, I refuse to accept your premise that this is inherently sexist. There are differences in biology that require differences in laws.

So why is it ok for the female to do that, but not the male. Why is it "Sucks for that kid" for a female, but the moment a male wants to do the same suddenly you aren't ok with it.
What's the difference.

[Jocabia]

The child is dependent. It needs care and its need for that care is the direct result of the actions of its parents. Parenthood is no more slavery then me being forced to pay for t-boning a car and crippling the occupant.

A finally every child is also a direct result of a mother choosing not to abort as well so your logic doesn't really hold up here. I mean then make the woman pay for the kids well being if she wants to keep the little bugger and the father doesn't.

It's a direct result of the actions of both the mother and the father not preventing the birth of the child. Correct. And that is why neither of them can unilaterally determine that they aren't responsible for that birth. Only the child, or an advocate for the child, can determine that.

[Aurora Novus]

You seem obsessed with the rights of the parents. What about the child? To quote Robin Williams from Good Will Hunting "It's not about you, you ignorant prick!" These laws exist to look after the kid.

Abortion laws don't exst for the benefit of the kid. They exist for the benefit of the mother.

As for adoption and safe haven laws, they exist to allow parents who don't feel ready to be parents to give them up to familes who do feel ready to raise kids. Yes, that's a benefit for the kid. But it's a benefit born out of, essentially, preventing paternal abuse. That's the exact reason why safe haven laws came about anyway. It was to try and stop mothers from comitting infantacide.

So while these laws exist to benefit kids, they do so by assuring the rights of mothers to not have to be parents if they don't want to.


Why don't you feel similarly about fathers? Do men need to start killing their kids before you'll give them equal rights? Is that what it takes?

[Jocabia]

You seem obsessed with the rights of the parents. What about the child? To quote Robin Williams from Good Will Hunting "It's not about you, you ignorant prick!" These laws exist to look after the kid.

If a mother is refusing to name the father and wants to give the child up then that certainly seems to be in the best interests of the child. After all, the mother doesn't want it and isn't naming the father so no love and no money coming in for the kid. Sucks to be that kid.

If the mother keeps the child and names the father then the father is responsible for paying towards the upbringing of the kid. It's that simple. The kid is the one who matters here. The child didn't ask for this, it was brought into the world without it's consent but now it needs shoes and food and shit. The father was there at the start and bears some responsibility.

And to be honest, I refuse to accept your premise that this is inherently sexist. There are differences in biology that require differences in laws.

So why is it ok for the female to do that, but not the male. Why is it "Sucks for that kid" for a female, but the moment a male wants to do the same suddenly you aren't ok with it.
What's the difference.

It isn't okay for the female to do it. At all. Nobody says that it is. If both parents are known, then safe haven laws apply to both parents. If only one parent is know, then it only applies to one parent. It is equal.