Underemployed (new TV series) promo: "Guess who turned out to be pro-life?"

[–]tyciol[S] 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago* (38 children) | Copy Link

The full trailer is 2:51 long (I think there's a commercial in some cases you have to watch first, sorry) and I set the time tag to 52 seconds in.

A guy opens the door to a girl named Viva (probably his ex?) and she utters this phrase.

Presumably she is deciding to have his child and will be charging him child support for it?

Naturally the guy caves and thinks they should get married. Surprisingly she seems to dislike the idea.

Haven't had a chance to catch that series but the way this line gets laughed off in shorter promos (admittedly this promo is longer than most I've seen and shows somewhat of a more serious reaction to it) was pretty offensive and reflective of our culture.

It's kind of like a guy showing up to his ex-girlfriend's house in the middle of the night saying "guess who turned out to be anti-consent?" and then raping her, because that's basically what's happening here.

As I continue to watch it, the girl says 'I don't want to be the reason you throw your life away', but if that's the case, why did she choose to have the baby? Why did she choose to come contact him about it?

A guy knows that if a woman contacts him, she wants him involved, otherwise she wouldn't tell him about it AT ALL. He's going to cave and support her because he knows that if he doesn't, she will hate him for not doing what she wants, and then sue him for support payments anyway, so he may as well try and stay on her good side.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ErasmusMRA 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol[S] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

no it's not because pregnancy issues and rape issues aren't the same on principle.

if you have sex you should bear in mind that contraception can fail and humans can make error. if you expose your cleavage that doesn't give someone the right to even touch you, let alone rape you.

also people don't get raped in bushes by horny strangers as often as they do their partners or acquaintances or whatever.

with pregnancy issues you've had sex with someone. the risks are having a child, and as the law stands like it or not it's their decision as to what they do with the child. most people going into sex are aware of this.

getting raped however can happen to you regardless of what decision you make, unless you're going to make the claim that rape victims generally do something that puts them at fault for getting raped

[–]tyciol[S] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It is okay for people to compare anything. Comparing things isn't making them 'the same'. Comparing pig and chicken burgers isn't saying 'these are the same kind of burger', it's looking at things which are the same and things which are different. That's what comparisons are. If comparisons were only done between equal things, we wouldn't invent mathematical symbols like < or >

if you have sex you should bear in mind that contraception can fail and humans can make error.

If you walking through an alley or show off your tits, you should bear in mind that someone might want to rape you. What's your point? Caution makes sense, but it doesn't make people at fault if they're violated.

if you expose your cleavage that doesn't give someone the right to even touch you, let alone rape you.

I never said it did. I said from the start that rape is wrong. That's because it's done without consent. I'm saying that non-consensual parenthood is ALSO wrong, because it is ALSO done without consent.

also people don't get raped in bushes by horny strangers as often as they do their partners or acquaintances or whatever.

I'm well aware. We can change it to 'bear in mind that if you get married, your husband may rape you' if you like. Point still stands.

with pregnancy issues you've had sex with someone. the risks are having a child

And the risk of living in a world with people who might rape you is that you may be raped.

Your argument seems to be that 'activity X has risk of Y, if Y comes true, it's X's fault'. That's how it seems to be for children, but not for rape. No idea why the double standard.

as the law stands like it or not it's their decision as to what they do with the child. most people going into sex are aware of this.

'As the law stands' is a horrible argument. The law used to pretty much allow husbands to rape their wives. Would a man back in those old times saying 'as the law stands, this is totally my perogative to do' make it a moral act? No, so the laws being unfairly biased against men here does not make it right. That's the whole point of my bitching about it.

getting raped however can happen to you regardless of what decision you make

So can being made a parent against your will. Rape happens to be one of those ways that people can be made parents against their will. So if universal circumstance is applied to rape, it extends to non-consensual parenthood.

unless you're going to make the claim that rape victims generally do something that puts them at fault for getting raped

No, I wouldn't, and I've never insinuated that. I'm saying that men having sex doesn't make them at fault for becoming a parent, because the choice they're making is sex-having, not kid-having.

If the argument is that men doing a behaviour (sex) that increases likelihood of becoming a victim of something (rape of the seed) makes them at fault for being violated, that same reasoning would extend to mean that women doing a behaviour (walking at night alone) that increases likelihood of becoming a victim of something (sexual assault) makes them at fault for being violated.

This logic is horrible, and it is not a just reason to claim someone is at fault for being violated in either circumstance. Rape or theft. Man or woman. People are not to blame for choices they did not make. If someone else makes a choice for them, the choicemaker is at fault.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

who the fuck does that? that's not even a proper rape scenario, that's you pulling up the most stupid scenario of rape and shows how little you know about the subject

It's called exaggerating to make a point, demonstrate a principle. The reason I use an extreme example is because even someone who does that doesn't ask to be raped and isn't at fault for being raped.

There is no such thing as a 'proper' rape scenario. It's not simply women who keep to themselves and who are chaste, dress conservatively and take precautions who don't deserve to be raped, because nobody deserves it.

you've gotta be trolling

No, I'm not. Go do some reading:

http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?AccusationThatAssumesKnowledgeOfInternalMotives

http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?FixContentNotMotivation

http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?KeepCriticismNarrow

http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?TrollDefinition

Then get back to me if you have a decent point to make. You're clearly reading between the lines here.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]skintightmonopoly 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]skintightmonopoly 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol[S] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol[S] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

it's not always unconsensual

There is not any such thing as a male giving consent to pregnancy in any nation where a man is legally obligated to support children regardless of his consent.

You have to have the power to say 'no' and have it respected before a 'yes' is really valid. If a wife can't say 'no' to her husband, does her 'yes' matter, or is it a yes coerced by the knowledge that it's pointless to say no?

if the pregnancy is an accident you can't expect a woman to get it aborted on demand

On the contrary, I can expect that of any woman who is moral and respect that a man should have to consent to fatherhood rather than have it thrust upon him unwillingly. We do not thrust motherhood on unwilling women anymore, they have the freedom to prevent that through abortions, and they should extend that power to men.

some women do take advantage of the money side of it but that's not all there is to it

What there 'is to it' doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what motivates someone to do an immoral act, it remains an immoral act. People don't always murder others for money. Sometimes they murder for love, out of anger, to feel a sense of control, etc. Motivations for rape also vary. Motivations for making people parents without their consent don't matter either, the act is wrong regardless of why.

Do you bicker over the benign motives behind why some people want to outlaw abortions for women and force all pregnant women to give birth? Do they matter? Or is the fact that it's a violation of women all that matters?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

women getting themselves concieved

People usually have no say in regard to the manner in which they're conceived unless they have some kinda time machine ;)

it's unfair for you to say that

It's unfair that men can't have abortions to prevent children. What's your point? It's unfair that to have children, women have to invest more. It's unfair men can't carry babies like Arnold did in 'Junoir'. The unfairness of our sexes does not mean either sex should be disqualified from commenting on each other's issues.

I've talked to someone who's had an abortion and what I gathered is that even though it's not properly formed what is basically happening is that you can feel something living inside of you

Like in Aliens?

making the decision to kill it is quite an emotional thing to go through.

I agree. Though the emotions that people will feel, and how stongly they are felt will varie amongst individuals.

to ignore that as if it's nothing is grossly insensitive.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm well aware of and acknowledge that people feel emotions about things, and that abortion is a big thing. I never called it nothing or compared it to nothing, that's arguing a strawman.

While it's a big thing, it's an option men aren't given, so there's an unfairness here that we lack veto yet share equal responsibility for support.

[–]TheChessSamurai 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Most men would certainly feel violated and hurt if someone used their seed against their will, to conceive a child that they have yet to consent to.

True, but it's difficult to get anywhere in arguments about emotional damage. It's an uphill battle establishing that men have emotions and can get hurt feelings, after all. We're the sex who is never traumatized from getting raped by the opposite sex, after all.

Feminist do seem to accept that men can value money though, so I figure it is easier to argue from that standpoint rather than 'emotional damages' suits.

After all, how many men have successfully sued women for emotional damages? Whatever success I'm sure it pales to success in suits over destruction of property or theft of wealth.

Not to mention the life time amount of perpetual stress, time loss, impact on family/friends and loss of other opportunities(romantic, professional, personal ambitions, etc).

These aren't necessary aspects of forced child support. Ambitions, careers, friends and romance are only inherently compromised by a man being deprived of wealth to pursue them.

Loss of time actually caring for children doesn't matter because actually caring for the child is optional and men are not obligated to do it, only support it financially.

The only way I could see owing child support as disrupting life ways aside from financial is if the mother or others were to stalk him, contact his friends and romantic partners, and tell them that he's a father.

Besides that, a father isn't really obligated to tell other people that he has a biological child. There is that stress of keeping a secret though, I suppose. I guess some victims of rape also feel like they're keeping secrets from others. But again: that gets into emotional damage, and that's just not a road I think we can succeed in. Quantifying men's emotional damage is a hard road.

I think if we can simply not obligate men to pay support that would be such a massive step forward that everyone could rest on their laurels about the comparatively mere 'oh no I didn't give permission for that' misgivings about seedrape.

[–]ExpendableOne 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

After all, how many men have successfully sued women for emotional damages?

How many men really recognize the emotional damages done to them or would seek compensation for those damages, rather than just "taking it like a man"? Man perpetuating the habit of suffering in silence and/or undervaluing their own experiences doesn't really change the fact that harm is being done.

Loss of time actually caring for children doesn't matter because actually caring for the child is optional and men are not obligated to do it,

You don't think that would have an emotional toll on someone? That there wouldn't be serious consequences one way or another? For some men, that wouldn't even really an option once that child is born or once they know it exists. If you knew you have a child of yours out there, one which you never consented to in the first place, growing up without a father, possibly suffering, possibly growing to hate and resent you, that would probably be a really stressful and emotionally straining circumstance.

Besides that, a father isn't really obligated to tell other people that he has a biological child.

It's not always that easy to hide that fact, and it's not something someone should really be hiding to potential partners. People who are close to you would probably know, and the people who know would probably judge you for it as well.

Ambitions, careers, friends and romance are only inherently compromised by a man being deprived of wealth to pursue them.

Not necessarily. What about, let's say, entering a depression as a result of these new emotional burdens? Would that not affect their ambitions(both professional and romantic)? What if they can't live with the idea of not being an active father to that child, or that they need to stay close/involved in it's life? Wouldn't that affect the types of jobs/women they could pursue, the opportunities where they could pursue them or the hours in which they can fully devote to that job/woman?

I think if we can simply not obligate men to pay support that would be such a massive step forward

I think so too but that still doesn't change the fact that this is a complex and emotional issue as well for men, and that even the existence of that unwanted child can have it's toll on a man, and that is something that should always be considered, rather than dismissed or ignored. Becoming a father has an inherent toll in of itself, without ever even getting into the matter of money, and to force unwilling men to go through that really isn't something that society should be condoning or accepting. No woman should really have the authority to impose that onto a man with absolute impunity.

[–]tyciol[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Man perpetuating the habit of suffering in silence and/or undervaluing their own experiences doesn't really change the fact that harm is being done.

Yeah I know, just saying it's not what I think is a priority. People can put their efforts toward that end, but I'm procrastinating that objective until the financial one is dealt with. The money guys save from not having it stolen for babyfood could be used to fund activism on other matters like emotional damage which to me seem harder to succeed in.

If you knew you have a child of yours out there, one which you never consented to in the first place, growing up without a father, possibly suffering, possibly growing to hate and resent you, that would probably be a really stressful and emotionally straining circumstance.

Good point. Maybe we shouldn't allow single parents to raise kids if they're a result of seedrape. A woman who's already abused a man's body in a way he hasn't consented to show a lack of morality which may lead them to abuse their children and try to turn them against their fathers. I've read posts from kids who grew up fatherless who wrongly think this way.

it's not something someone should really be hiding to potential partners.

Why not? What people should or shouldn't tell partners is kinda up in the air depending on how people think about how open relationships should be.

People who are close to you would probably know, and the people who know would probably judge you for it as well.

Guess I'm wondering how they know, and why. Were they snooping through his mail?

What about, let's say, entering a depression as a result of these new emotional burdens? Would that not affect their ambitions(both professional and romantic)?

Some guys face emotional burdens because women WON'T have kids with them, or maybe that women won't date them at all. I think we need to divide depressions surrounding the state of things versus damage we can more readily quantify. I don't know the first thing about quantifying emotional damages, I know it's done but I feel too much lack of expertise on the subject.

This applies to the emotional damage women face during abortions too, to be fair. I guess I just wonder if fault for damage gets misplaced and we're expecting too much compensation?

What if they can't live with the idea of not being an active father to that child, or that they need to stay close/involved in it's life? Wouldn't that affect the types of jobs/women they could pursue, the opportunities where they could pursue them or the hours in which they can fully devote to that job/woman?

If people can't live with the idea of not being an active father then they can choose to be an active father, I'm not sure I understand this... do you mean like a women choosing to give birth is forcing a man into a hard decision he would have preferred to make later in life when better prepared? Guess I understand in that case.

No woman should really have the authority to impose that onto a man with absolute impunity.

The only way to prevent that would be forced abortions, as far as I can think of. Unless there's some alternative avoidance measure I'm missing, may as well go straight to discussing that. I happen to be for it in nonconsensual cases but more for 'it's better for society' reaons than 'it upsets guys' reasons.

[–]ExpendableOne -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]tyciol[S] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Androcopter 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]loganizer 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Androcopter 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Underemployed (new TV series) promo: "Guess who turned out to be pro-life?"
Author	tyciol
Upvotes	16
Comments	45
Date	November 18, 2012 6:29 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/13enk3/underemployed_new_tv_series_promo_guess_who/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/underemployed-new-tv-series-promo-guess-who-turned.1008937 https://theredarchive.com/post/1008937

Comments