Feminism in decline

[Divitaen]

And specific instances is proof that all feminists hypocritically oppose male contraceptives while demanding female contraception. Yep. It's a mystery why they don't demand condoms be banned.

The difference between condoms and a male pill is that you generally know a condom is in use. Right now, if a woman wants to become pregnant by a man, all she has to really do is get him to not wear a condom (or use a condom with holes poked in it).

Also right now, nobody has to accurately disclose the fact that they are taking / not taking birth control before having sex, in part because feminists have been very gung-ho about making sure women's use of the female birth control pill is completely outside of male control, even informal male control.

Vasectomies are really hard to get (as alluded to previously) - and being fairly permanent, aren't viable options for men who don't want children right now or don't want children with this particular woman. While potentially reversible, reversals aren't by any means guaranteed to succeed.

So. With a male birth control pill, the option becomes available for men to become voluntarily infertile without letting women know. From the perspective of a typical woman who wants to have kids, this poses a scary potential problem. (It also increases the potential for serious backfires when a man on the pill denies being the father when he otherwise might decide to believe a woman who says he's the father.)

That is to say, we can see a way in which this causes problems for some women by giving men more control over their own reproductive output independent of the decision to have sex... a way that is very distinct from condom use.

No, it only causes problems for women who want to trap men into relationships by forcing them to have children against their own will through unplanned pregnancies. And feminists have no incentives to cater to this extremely, overwhelmingly small minority of wives.

Feminists have wanted women to have control over their bodies, arguing from a standpoint of bodily autonomy, sovereignty and that women have no obligation or "duty to reproduce" for their husbands. Supporting male contraception helps to bolster this feminist argument that a "duty to reproduce" for your spouse doesn't exist. Even from a selfish political or social standpoint, feminists should be supporting male contraception access.

[Periodspace]

The difference between condoms and a male pill is that you generally know a condom is in use. Right now, if a woman wants to become pregnant by a man, all she has to really do is get him to not wear a condom (or use a condom with holes poked in it).

Also right now, nobody has to accurately disclose the fact that they are taking / not taking birth control before having sex, in part because feminists have been very gung-ho about making sure women's use of the female birth control pill is completely outside of male control, even informal male control.

Vasectomies are really hard to get (as alluded to previously) - and being fairly permanent, aren't viable options for men who don't want children right now or don't want children with this particular woman. While potentially reversible, reversals aren't by any means guaranteed to succeed.

So. With a male birth control pill, the option becomes available for men to become voluntarily infertile without letting women know. From the perspective of a typical woman who wants to have kids, this poses a scary potential problem. (It also increases the potential for serious backfires when a man on the pill denies being the father when he otherwise might decide to believe a woman who says he's the father.)

That is to say, we can see a way in which this causes problems for some women by giving men more control over their own reproductive output independent of the decision to have sex... a way that is very distinct from condom use.

No, it only causes problems for women who want to trap men into relationships by forcing them to have children against their own will through unplanned pregnancies. And feminists have no incentives to cater to this extremely, overwhelmingly small minority of wives.

Feminists have wanted women to have control over their bodies, arguing from a standpoint of bodily autonomy, sovereignty and that women have no obligation or "duty to reproduce" for their husbands. Supporting male contraception helps to bolster this feminist argument that a "duty to reproduce" for your spouse doesn't exist. Even from a selfish political or social standpoint, feminists should be supporting male contraception access.

I couldn't agree more. Feminists don't have any reason not to support male contraception access, unless they're hypocrites.

[Blakk Metal]

No, it only causes problems for women who want to trap men into relationships by forcing them to have children against their own will through unplanned pregnancies. And feminists have no incentives to cater to this extremely, overwhelmingly small minority of wives.

Feminists have wanted women to have control over their bodies, arguing from a standpoint of bodily autonomy, sovereignty and that women have no obligation or "duty to reproduce" for their husbands. Supporting male contraception helps to bolster this feminist argument that a "duty to reproduce" for your spouse doesn't exist. Even from a selfish political or social standpoint, feminists should be supporting male contraception access.

I couldn't agree more. Feminists don't have any reason not to support male contraception access, unless they're hypocrites.

But they have numerous hypocrites within their ranks.

[Periodspace]

I couldn't agree more. Feminists don't have any reason not to support male contraception access, unless they're hypocrites.

But they have numerous hypocrites within their ranks.

True, which is part of the reason why feminism is in decline.

[Galloism]

A number of doctors have, in fact, in violation of standing medical protocols, required a wife's permission before giving a vasectomy; feminists haven't particularly troubled themselves over this. MRAs are not happy with this practice. And why is it happening in the first place? Because a number of women will throw a fit if their husband has a vasectomy.

Now, I'll be happy if my prediction is proved wrong... but history very strongly suggests that the movers and shakers of the movement will line the full power of feminist organizations behind women's interests regardless of what platitudes are preferred by rank-and-file feminists and regardless of what it means for gender equity.

Vasectomy is an interesting case
I generally agree with that

Consent by partner

It is not a legal requirement to involve both partners in the decision-making and consent process. There is a widespread misconception that a wife must consent to her husband undergoing vasectomy. If, against a man's wishes, his wife is informed of and asked to consent to her husband's vasectomy, this can be regarded as a breach of medical confidentiality and an infringement of an individual's right to self-determination (i.e. autonomy).

It's a matter of bodily autonomy of the male, allright.

Still, I think he MUST inform the partner (note: the partner, not the wife) of his decision.
He can NOT keep it secret.
Personally, I support the idea of rape by deception / rape by fraud

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/20 ... crime.html

And that should be the case: a partner must inform her about his reproductive decisions.

“My response to that is there are many ways to sexually assault a person. Violence is one of them. And there are no words that can come to relating the horrible violation of a person when that happens to them,” Short said. “But we should not look asunder. We should not simply cast away the concept that people are defrauded of sex.”

So if a woman goes off the pill without telling her partner she's raping him?

Just want to make your position clear.

[Ostroeuropa]

Vasectomy is an interesting case
I generally agree with that


It's a matter of bodily autonomy of the male, allright.

Still, I think he MUST inform the partner (note: the partner, not the wife) of his decision.
He can NOT keep it secret.
Personally, I support the idea of rape by deception / rape by fraud

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/20 ... crime.html

And that should be the case: a partner must inform her about his reproductive decisions.

So if a woman goes off the pill without telling her partner she's raping him?

Just want to make your position clear.

MRAs would argue that both are reproductive abuse, and constitute a form of domestic abuse.
But then, they also argue in favor of Legal parental surrender, so...

[Natapoc]

So if a woman goes off the pill without telling her partner she's raping him?

Just want to make your position clear.

MRAs would argue that both are reproductive abuse, and constitute a form of domestic abuse.
But then, they also argue in favor of Legal parental surrender, so...

Legal parental surrender, another name for: forced abortion or child neglect.

These "paper abortions" you advocate would cause tremendous suffering and lifelong pain for people... Just so men can have a legal way to be "deadbeats" who refuse to support the children they participated in bringing into the world.

[Haktiva]

MRAs would argue that both are reproductive abuse, and constitute a form of domestic abuse.
But then, they also argue in favor of Legal parental surrender, so...

Legal parental surrender, another name for: forced abortion or child neglect.

These "paper abortions" you advocate would cause tremendous suffering and lifelong pain for people... Just so men can have a legal way to be "deadbeats" who refuse to support the children they participated in bringing into the world.

then perhaps women shouldn't try and breed with guys who are like that. women try and entrap men all the time with pregnancy. Lots of guys end up paying to support kids that aren't there's. and the state allows or perhaps even encourages this because if they guy is paying for her and the kids, that's one less drain on the system in exchange for a broken man.

[Ostroeuropa]

MRAs would argue that both are reproductive abuse, and constitute a form of domestic abuse.
But then, they also argue in favor of Legal parental surrender, so...

Legal parental surrender, another name for: forced abortion or child neglect.

These "paper abortions" you advocate would cause tremendous suffering and lifelong pain for people... Just so men can have a legal way to be "deadbeats" who refuse to support the children they participated in bringing into the world.

I've already previously pointed out to you that the absence of legal parental surrender could cause forced abortions too, because a woman may be ok with giving birth and handing the kid over to the father and washing her hands of it, but in the current system may be unwilling to do so out of fear for child support lawsuits, and so aborts.

Who says it's child neglect? The MRM rejects biological models of parenthood, and espouses social ones. We do not support pressganging people into being parents. Am I neglecting my neighbors child by not paying for it? No, because it's not my child.
Similarly, it would not be child neglect in these cases either, since it isn't their child to begin with.
You should not be able to force someone into parenthood.

You're also using sexist language there with deadbeat dad. You don't see people talking about deadbeat moms, despite them being more statistically common. The reason people focus on dads in this issue is because of sexism and male gender roles.
And the reason people oppose LPS is support of those gender roles.

You previously talked about always taking the victims side. This, combined with your feminism, means we should completely ignore all your opinions on men and their rights and duties and such, since you also believe women to be the victim of the sexist system in society.
This colors your perception of mens issues and makes you biased.

The problem is, whereas you conceded you should be totally ignored on criminal justice issues, you still havn't realized that your prejudice extends further than that, and you should be ignored in general.

[Natapoc]

Legal parental surrender, another name for: forced abortion or child neglect.

These "paper abortions" you advocate would cause tremendous suffering and lifelong pain for people... Just so men can have a legal way to be "deadbeats" who refuse to support the children they participated in bringing into the world.

then perhaps women shouldn't try and breed with guys who are like that. women try and entrap men all the time with pregnancy. Lots of guys end up paying to support kids that aren't there's. and the state allows or perhaps even encourages this because if they guy is paying for her and the kids, that's one less drain on the system in exchange for a broken man.

They usually don't know the guy is like that until it's too late. If there was a way of forcing those types of men to always publicly identify themselves (forehead tattoo or something? ) that would be nice.

[Galloism]

MRAs would argue that both are reproductive abuse, and constitute a form of domestic abuse.
But then, they also argue in favor of Legal parental surrender, so...

Legal parental surrender, another name for: forced abortion or child neglect.

So do you support abolition of legal parental surrender which generally women, and only women, currently have?

[Tahar Joblis]

The difference between condoms and a male pill is that you generally know a condom is in use. Right now, if a woman wants to become pregnant by a man, all she has to really do is get him to not wear a condom (or use a condom with holes poked in it).

Also right now, nobody has to accurately disclose the fact that they are taking / not taking birth control before having sex, in part because feminists have been very gung-ho about making sure women's use of the female birth control pill is completely outside of male control, even informal male control.

Vasectomies are really hard to get (as alluded to previously) - and being fairly permanent, aren't viable options for men who don't want children right now or don't want children with this particular woman. While potentially reversible, reversals aren't by any means guaranteed to succeed.

So. With a male birth control pill, the option becomes available for men to become voluntarily infertile without letting women know. From the perspective of a typical woman who wants to have kids, this poses a scary potential problem. (It also increases the potential for serious backfires when a man on the pill denies being the father when he otherwise might decide to believe a woman who says he's the father.)

That is to say, we can see a way in which this causes problems for some women by giving men more control over their own reproductive output independent of the decision to have sex... a way that is very distinct from condom use.

No, it only causes problems for women who want to trap men into relationships by forcing them to have children against their own will through unplanned pregnancies. And feminists have no incentives to cater to this extremely, overwhelmingly small minority of wives.

First, it isn't a small minority of people who want to trap a partner in a relationship using a child (or want to have a child against their partner's explicit wishes and are willing to deceive to achieve that). This behavior is reported to be alarmingly common, and that's even with many victims being unaware that it has happened to them.

Second, women who are doing nothing wrong can be harmed by a male birth control pill. Men have (at least on paper) the same rights to individual medical privacy as women, which means that men are not required to disclose accurately whether or not they are on the pill (or to notify a long-term partner when they go on it or off it). This means that any woman relying on her partner being on the pill, or not being on the pill, faces the possibility of being betrayed. In the case of a woman who wants children, but whose husband is secretly on the pill, she's done nothing wrong. (Similarly with the woman whose partner claims falsely to be on the pill and impregnates her.)

This sort of stuff already happens to men. It will still be, in very concrete ways, a more serious problem for men, because men are handed parental obligations on an involuntary basis, while women are only subject to them voluntarily. Those women who are doing nothing wrong and yet harmed by men privately exercising their right to bodily autonomy will be exactly the banner around which feminists rally... just as the vanishingly small minority of women losing custody of their children were the banner around which feminists rallied to defend explicit maternal preference in child custody.

Feminists have wanted women to have control over their bodies, arguing from a standpoint of bodily autonomy, sovereignty and that women have no obligation or "duty to reproduce" for their husbands. Supporting male contraception helps to bolster this feminist argument that a "duty to reproduce" for your spouse doesn't exist. Even from a selfish political or social standpoint, feminists should be supporting male contraception access.

You could say the same thing about joint physical custody being the legal default arrangement for child custody in divorce and requiring cause to assign other arrangements. You could also say the same thing about not requiring women to sign up for Selective Service. You could say the same thing about recognizing that intimate partner violence isn't really a particularly gendered problem.

[Natapoc]

Legal parental surrender, another name for: forced abortion or child neglect.

So do you support abolition of legal parental surrender which generally women, and only women, currently have?

Biology is not oppression.

Many women would absolutely LOVE to be able to let men be the ones who get pregnant. But that's not possible for now. Yes only women should have that option because only women can become pregnant.

If the day comes that men can become pregnant than men should have those options too (enjoy! it's probably not nearly as fun as you think it is)

[Ostroeuropa]

So do you support abolition of legal parental surrender which generally women, and only women, currently have?

Biology is not oppression.

Many women would absolutely LOVE to be able to let men be the ones who get pregnant. But that's not possible for now. Yes only women should have that option because only women can become pregnant.

If the day comes that men can become pregnant than men should have those options too (enjoy! it's probably not nearly as fun as you think it is)

I guess we'll scrap maternity leave then, and women won't be able to hold down a job.
After all, biology is not oppression.

You're willing to have the public pay to help women overcome their biological hinderence, but not men?
Seems pretty sexist of you.

[Natapoc]

Biology is not oppression.

Many women would absolutely LOVE to be able to let men be the ones who get pregnant. But that's not possible for now. Yes only women should have that option because only women can become pregnant.

If the day comes that men can become pregnant than men should have those options too (enjoy! it's probably not nearly as fun as you think it is)

I guess we'll scrap maternity leave then, and women won't be able to hold down a job.
After all, biology is not oppression.

You're willing to have the public pay to help women overcome their biological hinderence, but not men?
Seems pretty sexist of you.

If there is a biological process that prevents men from going to work I'd happily give them as much time as they need to recover.

[Galloism]

So do you support abolition of legal parental surrender which generally women, and only women, currently have?

Biology is not oppression.

Many women would absolutely LOVE to be able to let men be the ones who get pregnant. But that's not possible for now. Yes only women should have that option because only women can become pregnant.

If the day comes that men can become pregnant than men should have those options too (enjoy! it's probably not nearly as fun as you think it is)

But women can unilaterally surrender their parental rights and responsibilities to already-born children after their biological role is completed. That's what I'm talking about.

[Ostroeuropa]

I guess we'll scrap maternity leave then, and women won't be able to hold down a job.
After all, biology is not oppression.

You're willing to have the public pay to help women overcome their biological hinderence, but not men?
Seems pretty sexist of you.

If there is a biological process that prevents men from going to work I'd happily give them as much time as they need to recover.

You mean that when women suffer an economic hardship due to their reproductive biology, you think they should be bailed out.
But when men due to their reproductive biology being used as an excuse (since there is no physical mechanism involved) for the government to enforce an economic hardship on them, that's ok.

Hey, you do realize that child support payments being missed do often lead to the male missing work right?
It's because they get arrested for it.

[Ostroeuropa]

Biology is not oppression.

Many women would absolutely LOVE to be able to let men be the ones who get pregnant. But that's not possible for now. Yes only women should have that option because only women can become pregnant.

If the day comes that men can become pregnant than men should have those options too (enjoy! it's probably not nearly as fun as you think it is)

But women can unilaterally surrender their parental rights and responsibilities to already-born children after their biological role is completed. That's what I'm talking about.

And lawyers In canada are working to try and get women the right to be able to remove a dads rights and duties to the child. Because it's making it harder for women to have kids with the current system they have. (Roommates and friends refusing to impregnate women because child support.)
But NOT for a man to be able to remove HIMSELF.
The gynocentrism and lack of male empathy is astounding.

[Galloism]

But women can unilaterally surrender their parental rights and responsibilities to already-born children after their biological role is completed. That's what I'm talking about.

And lawyers In canada are working to try and get women the right to be able to remove a dads rights and duties to the child. Because it's making it harder for women to have kids with the current system they have. (Roommates and friends refusing to impregnate women because child support.)
But NOT for a man to be able to remove HIMSELF.
The gynocentrism and lack of male empathy is astounding.

That I wish to see a source for.

[Ostroeuropa]

And lawyers In canada are working to try and get women the right to be able to remove a dads rights and duties to the child. Because it's making it harder for women to have kids with the current system they have. (Roommates and friends refusing to impregnate women because child support.)
But NOT for a man to be able to remove HIMSELF.
The gynocentrism and lack of male empathy is astounding.

That I wish to see a source for.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/com ... omen_seek/

MRM thread.
Click title for the news article.
(Read the whole thing.)

[Chessmistress]

Vasectomy is an interesting case
I generally agree with that


It's a matter of bodily autonomy of the male, allright.

Still, I think he MUST inform the partner (note: the partner, not the wife) of his decision.
He can NOT keep it secret.
Personally, I support the idea of rape by deception / rape by fraud

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/20 ... crime.html

And that should be the case: a partner must inform her about his reproductive decisions.

So if a woman goes off the pill without telling her partner she's raping him?

Just want to make your position clear.

No.
Being under the pill is not a permanent feature.
If a woman has ligated tubes or if a man has a vasectomy: this is a permanent feature. So, not informing the partner, I think it should be considered rape.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

No.
Being under the pill is not a permanent feature.
If a woman has ligated tubes or if a man has a vasectomy: this is a permanent feature. So, not informing the partner, I think it should be considered rape.

Wow... ok? Even if neither you or your partner had discussed having children?

What about people who are medically infertile? Should they be required to inform every partner, even partners they did not have long term relationship plans with?

[Galloism]

So if a woman goes off the pill without telling her partner she's raping him?

Just want to make your position clear.

No.
Being under the pill is not a permanent feature.
If a woman has ligated tubes or if a man has a vasectomy: this is a permanent feature. So, not informing the partner, I think it should be considered rape.

That seems a completely arbitrary and made up distinction trying to avoid the logical consequences of your argument.

You just said a partner must inform regarding his reproductive decisions. The pill is very much a reproductive decision.

[Ostroeuropa]

No.
Being under the pill is not a permanent feature.
If a woman has ligated tubes or if a man has a vasectomy: this is a permanent feature. So, not informing the partner, I think it should be considered rape.

That seems a completely arbitrary and made up distinction trying to avoid the logical consequences of your argument.

You just said a partner must inform regarding his reproductive decisions. The pill is very much a reproductive decision.

Do you agree with the MRM line that saying you are on the pill when you are not is a form of domestic abuse?
(They would be consistent with this and say it's also true of men who lie about the pill.)

To my knowledge, they don't tend to consider saying you AREN'T on the pill when you secretly are to be abuse, unless it gaslights the person into thinking they might be infertile.

[Chessmistress]

No.
Being under the pill is not a permanent feature.
If a woman has ligated tubes or if a man has a vasectomy: this is a permanent feature. So, not informing the partner, I think it should be considered rape.

Wow... ok? Even if neither you or your partner had discussed having children?

What about people who are medically infertile? Should they be required to inform every partner, even partners they did not have long term relationship plans with?

Yes, people who are medically infertile MUST be required to inform every partner! Also who have STDs. Otherwise it's rape, meh, at least, it should be.

Sometimes people don't discuss having childs but they still have childs.
I have a good personal example: I have a child. The father doesn't know he have a child with me. He'll never know, it's impossible: he's dead, he died few days before I discovered to be pregnant.