Flavia Agnes, the Indian feminist against criminalizing rape of BOYS

SamaelET · 2021-08-11T19:46:46+00:00

From her Wikipedia page : "Agnes has voiced opposition to making rape laws gender neutral, expounding that criminalizing rape of men 'harm...

[–]reddut_gang 19 points20 points21 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 19 points20 points21 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SporkTornado 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]reddut_gang 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Greg_W_Allan 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThrowawayGhostGuy1 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SamaelET[S] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rarefatbeast 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Greg_W_Allan 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]StudentOfTheTruth0 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WeaknessTechnical654 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-feminist-throwaway 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (47 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 16 points17 points18 points 4 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[+]a-feminist-throwaway -8 points-7 points-6 points 4 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

everyone

Is this going to be where you pretend almost no feminists are "bad"? Because you just saw a list of countries where feminists have bandied together to lobby against defining rape as something a woman can do to a man. ironically including the USA with your own example of the FMF and other feminist groups lobbying for the FBI UCR definition that says rape means a man doing the raping.

All large movements have terrible people in them

Feminists are all bad at all levels. You people make jokes about genocide so often you can't even be bothered typing out "KillAllMen" so you shorten it to "KAM"

a socialist endorsed Stalin?

Of course. Stalin was one of the most popular leaders in world history. Russians still see him as a national hero. He defeated the Nazis for god's sake. If Stalin was alive today he'd walk into any democratically elected position he wanted in Russia. It's just dumbasses in America that get told silly lies about him.

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2017/02/15/stalins-popularity-in-russia-reaches-16-year-high-a57152#:~:text=The%20survey%20results%20show%20Stalin%27s%20popularity%20at%20a,Russian%20leader%20from%20current%20Russian%20President%20Vladimir%20Putin.

I'd say pick a better example next time but maybe that's the point --you can't.

[–]strobro 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-feminist-throwaway -5 points-4 points-3 points 4 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Is this going to be where you pretend almost no feminists are "bad"?

No, I'm not going to pretend almost no feminists are bad. At most, I will say almost no feminists I personally know are bad. There is no shortage of bad feminists on the internet and in academic journals.

ironically including the USA with your own example of the FMF and other feminist groups lobbying for the FBI UCR definition that says rape means a man doing the raping.

See my reply to SamaelET if you are referring to Mary P Koss. Otherwise, do you have a source for them actively lobbing for that?

Feminists are all bad at all levels. You people make jokes about genocide so often you can't even be bothered typing out "KillAllMen" so you shorten it to "KAM"

I never make jokes about genocide, and neither do any of my feminist friends. Some feminists do, and I wish they didn't, but I don't think it's fair to judge me for that unless you want to be judged for everything that was happening on /r/MGTOW and its successors. I have actually never seen "KAM", probably because I'm not on Twitter.

Of course. Stalin was one of the most popular leaders in world history. Russians still see him as a national hero. He defeated the Nazis for god's sake. If Stalin was alive today he'd walk into any democratically elected position he wanted in Russia. It's just dumbasses in America that get told silly lies about him.

Stalin is also popular among people in Russia who are definitely not socialists, so that doesn't do much to refute my point. It's not a lie that he is responsible for many million deaths, and I don't think the average socialist in the world would endorse or want to take responsibility for that.

[–]Public-Plantain9789 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-feminist-throwaway 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Do you and your feminist friends make jokes about "male tears"

No, I have never done that or heard anyone do that IRL.

complain about "mansplaining" and "manspreading"?

No, not unironically. I hate those words, we should not be inventing more gendered words and especially not derogatory once.

Do you assume the man is at fault if you see a man and a woman in a physical altercation?

No. I don't assume or expect anything based on gender. At least not consciously.

Sightly related anecdote from high school: A boy and a girl got into a fight that seemed mutual (but I later learned that the girl was bullying him, and had coerced him into it by promising to leave him alone if he won) and almost immediately, another boy randomly jumped in and stared beating on the boy for no reason and kicked him when he fell to the floor. I tackled the boy who jumped in and pinned him down to save the other boy. I'm still proud of myself for that. The girl left him alone after that as well, and I like to think it was because she was afraid of me.

Should women be required to sign up for the draft if men are forced to?

Yes. It would be even better to abolish it, but the same rules should apply equally to everyone.

Should women be saved before men.

No. Whether someone is a man or a woman is irrelevant.

[–]Public-Plantain9789 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]a-feminist-throwaway 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Should all women be believed? Should all men be believed?

Yes, in the sense that when someone tells you that they have experienced something, you should take them seriously and assume they are telling the truth in your interactions with that person, absent convincing evidence to the contrary. It doesn't mean that you should assume that someone is a rapist just because someone has accused them of rape, or that someone is a false accuser just because they have accused someone without evidence.

Is the pay gap real?

Yes, in the sense that the median salary is lower for women than for men in general terms. The difference almost disappears when controlling for job and qualifications, but the choice of job and the opportunity to attain qualifications (especially experience) is affected by discrimination and gender norms. In particular, women are likely to spend significantly more time away from work to take care of children, in part because of cultural norms and in part because it's often more difficult for fathers to get parental leave.

Is the patriarchy real?

Yes, in the sense that the vast majority of powerful institutions are controlled mostly by men and that those men (like all people in power) use those institutions to benefit themselves and impose their values and preferences on everyone else. That doesn't mean that men are collectively responsible for this, or that the average man benefits from it in any way, but it means that men have a disproportionately larger share of power than women and that it's generally easier for a man to attain power. Patriarchy is still a powerful force, but it's much weaker than before the rise of feminism. I believe feminism is to thank for the weakening of patriarchy and I want feminism to destroy it completely, but I don't want feminism or a matriarchy to take its place. I want everyone to be treated equally and as the individuals they are, without regard to gender.

Is it more okay to mutalate boys' genitals compared to girls' genitals?

No. The practice of genital mutilation on girls encompasses a broad range of different actions of varying severity. The least severe being a symbolic cut with nothing removed. The most severe (among relatively commonly practiced forms) would likely be the complete removal of the labia and clitoral glans and the swing shut (except for a 2-3 mm hole) of the vulva to later be opened after marriage. Genital mutilation on boys overwhelmingly take the form of the removal of the foreskin, which is obviously more severe than the least severe form of FGM and less severe than the most severe form and likely most forms in between, although I cannot judge what form of FGM is closest in severity to the removal of the foreskin. All forms of genital mutilation on girls are considered child abuse in almost all the western world, I see no reason it should be seen any differently for boys.

Are mothers and fathers equally important?

Yes.

Is man-on-woman and woman-on-man domestic violence equally bad and worthy of condemnation?

Yes, in the sense that the gender of the victim or perpetrator has something to do with how wrong an act is or how culpable a person is.

Is street harassment or women and men equally bad and worthy of condemnation?

Yes, in the same sense as above.

Are boys treated unfairly by the school system?

Probably. The fact that girls often do better on teacher assessed grading while boys often do better on standardized tests could indicate discrimination by teachers against boys, but it could also be explained by other factors. Regardless, the gap in high school graduation rates and grades are concerning and deserving of attention. I have seen many men on this subreddit talk about their experience of teachers treating boys much harsher than girls. My experience in school was the opposite, as I was often punished for behavior that was tolerated for the boys (e.g. I and some boys climbed on the roof and the teachers decided that I instigated it and was therefore responsible).

[–]DavidByron2 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Yeah Stalin killed a lot of Nazis. You're welcome, and yes his popularity does refute your point. As I recall you were trying to use him as an example of how all movements have bad people. No, it's just you and the Nazis and the other hate movements.

I never make jokes about genocide

Terrific if true. How many movements have so many people in them "joking" about genocide that they have a short hand form of the saying and made a popular hashtag advocating genocide?

I don't think it's fair to judge me for that unless you want to be judged for everything that was happening on /r/MGTOW

So you think you - who are deliberately calling yourself a feminist - a movement that hates men - on a sub for men's rights - basically like a Nazi going on a Jewish sub - shouldn't be held responsible for that because I - not in any way connected to MGTOW - shouldn't be judged for that? Oh wait I get it because you think I'm a man so I must be MGTOW, right? You're a real asshole you know that? Good grief.

I have actually never seen "KAM"

Yes it's amazing what you feminists pretend not to know about feminism when the discussion is feminist hate. Although this was a real gem:

See my reply to SamaelET if you are referring to Mary P Koss. Otherwise, do you have a source for them actively lobbing for that?

So YOU brought up the FMF pushing the FBI to change it's UCR rape definition. Then YOU scoffed at a couple of people for never having heard of it. And now YOU want ME to prove to you that it happened? Is that right? Is this the way you've never heard of KAM? Like maybe you used it in a paragraph ten minutes ago but now it's gone from your mind? Is this the sense in which you mean your feminist friends don't practice anti-male hate? They do but that was all like twenty four hours ago so it doesn't count?

I wish some of you pretend to be nice feminists would cut the shit and cop to what kind of filth you're involved with. If you were a Nazi you'd be like "Oh gee none of my Nazi friends are racist this is the first I am hearing about any of this stuff".

Why do you all think it works?

KAM isn't "just" an example of thousands or hundreds of thousands of feminists advocating for genocide "as a joke" it's also a seriously held belief in the movement. Feminists have discussions about how it would be brought about. Like oh well we'd just get all women to abort male foetuses. LOL, what a fucking giggle.

You didn't react at all when you heard that there's a list of countries where feminists lobby to prevent rape becoming gender neutral. Because of course there is. Because you're in a hate movement. That's the point.

So why are you in a hate movement? |

[–]a-feminist-throwaway 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Public-Plantain9789 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]WikiSummarizerBot 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Public-Plantain9789 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As I recall the old definition did NOT exclude women as rapists specifically; the new one does.

As for whether they specifically demanded it I don't know. But they had a long campaign to change the wording and the wording was changed which they celebrated as a victory and the change excluded women as rapists. It's not like the feminists weren't told what the change was going to be. They certainly didn't object to the new wording. They didn't continue the campaign. So what's the argument? That the FBI just happened to change the definition to remove women rapists at coincidentally the exact same time as the feminist campaign which coincidentally ended after the FBI made the change? That the feminists celebrated the new changes while.... not realizing what the change was? even though it was all public knowledge?

Where were the objections to this sexist change from feminists if they were against it? Why did they stop their campaign for change and celebrated a victory if they didn't get what they wanted?

[–]reddut_gang 10 points11 points12 points 4 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-feminist-throwaway -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Some do, but not many enough. I think the reasons vary and are largely rooted in sexist views held by those individuals. Some subscribe to gendered norms that cause them to deny the reality that women rape and men are victims of rape. Some see the world as a zero-sum competition between women and men, and think they can and should help women by harming men. There is concern that male rapists will accuse their female victims of rape, but the risk of it happening the other way around doesn't seem to be discussed in this context (I have only seen that argument in written form). There are probably other considerations that apply to societies such as India that I have not been exposed to.

I don't mean for this to be minimizing the harmful impact these people are having, and I recognize that it isn't the case in all other areas (e.g. not with domestic violence laws), but I do want to note that they are working to maintain laws that were written long before women were allowed to vote and anyone called themselves a feminist. Every time that I'm aware of when feminists have influenced a successful change in rape laws, it has made the law less gendered. The affirmative consent laws have usually meant going from a fully gendered system to a (at least on paper) gender-neutral system. That's even true to a lesser degree for the very flawed FBI definition of rape that feminists are often blamed for. It was changed from “carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will” to “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim”. Still bad, but definitely an improvement.

[–]SamaelET[S] 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

For the FBI definition : It only counts male on male rape. Not female on female. Because the feminist advisor at that time, Mary P Koss said that men are simple victims lf "unwanted sexual contact by women" and not rape.

Then I don't even believe male on male rape was included to really protect male victims. It was more about feminism's image and more than anything more male rapists to demonize men even more.

I don't even believe that when laws become less gendered because of feminism, it was to help men and boys. The affirmative consent laws usually refer to the definition of rape which usually exclude female on male rape

Do you know why "made to penetrate" is counted as rape in France since 2018 ? To protect women and girls. During the parliamentary talk, men and boys were discussed three times. Men and boys were just protected by side effect.

I am not aware of feminists changing laws that explicitly called rape victims "women or girls". But even if they do so, I will always think that they did it because of their image or that somehow it will be more inclusive of sexual violence against LGBT, more than real concern for men and boys or female rapists.

Accidentally helping men and boys is not helping. Certainly not after everything that feminists do in academia to hide male victims and female perpetrators of sexual and domestic abuse or to blame female on male rape on masculinity.

[–]a-feminist-throwaway -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

That quote is from Detecting the Scope of Rape: A Review of Prevalence Research Methods published in 1993. The FBI changed their definition in 2012, so I think it's unlikely that they were influenced by that particular statement. As for the statement, I would encourage you to read the chapter "methodological choices that may influence rape detection" from the beginning and at least up to the quote to understand the context. There is at the very least an argument to be made that she made that statement not to deny that men who are raped by women were raped, but to say that it was a bad idea to ask men on a victimization survey if they were raped because many male rape victims may still answer in the negative. In any case, the quote is not about what the law or legal definition should be.

I don't think it's necessary to assume bad faith. I think we should generally assume that lawmakers and lobbyists mean what they write. It's true that some feminists in academia have tried to hide or minimize male victims and female perpetrators, but we should also recognize that there are feminists (e.g. Lara Stemple) who have not done that and have made significant contributions studying male victims and female perpetrators.

[–]SamaelET[S] 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You link send me nowhere. Assuming good faith from "men are not raped, just unwanted sexual contact" lol.

And Lara Stemple get trampled on by feminists. How many Lara Stemple, who simply did some studies vs how many feminists who proteced female rapists from being recognized by laws ?

some feminists in academia have tried to hide or minimize male victims and female perpetrators

By some you mean most ? Every time a feminist write that sexual and domestic abuse and male violence against women, an oppression for male and patriarchy, an issue caused by masculinity or gender their campaign of information into "men bad, women good", it is an attack on male victims. It is like I went and said : "suicide in due to having a prostate" and insisted that my statement did not exclude the existence of female suicide.

There are archive of all the effort made by feminists to hide and hurt male victims. eg

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233717660_Thirty_Years_of_Denying_the_Evidence_on_Gender_Symmetry_in_Partner_Violence_Implications_for_Prevention_and_Treatment

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=2790940

Until "good feminists" do as much for male than the "bad feminists" do against male , I will never assume good faith from feminists until explicit proof. Only Christina Hoff sommers, Warren Farrell and Camille Paglia can be trusted among feminists. Look at how they are shitted upon by feminists now.

Wanna see how it feels to go against feminists nonsense ? Go into feminists space (r/Feminism) and talk about female violence without sugarcoating it. Without using feminists buzzwords like "patriarchy" or "toxic masculinity". Go talk about everytime feminists attacked male victims. See what the movement really is.

[–]a-feminist-throwaway -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

The link should have sent you to the paper so that you can read the relevant chapter and decide how you want to interpret the statement. If you think the best interpretation is equivalent to "men are not raped" rather than something like "men who were raped don't always recognize that they were raped" I won't dispute that because your interpretation is just as valid as mine, and I'm not even sure how to interpret it myself.

I will go ahead and guess without any evidence (because I can't find any pointing in either direction) that most feminists want all forms of rape to be recognized equally, but that most don't consider it important enough to actively fight for. I think it's very important, and I'm not alone in that among feminist.

Regarding the first paper you linked, I acknowledge that it describes many ridiculous choices made by researchers and that academic dishonesty is a likely explanation for at least some of them. Although skimming some of the referenced studies make me consider pure stupidity as an alternative explanation. Regardless, the authors of most of the studies don't necessarily seem to have a strong connection to feminism. You don't need to be a feminist to study domestic violence. I would say the view of women as aggressors is actually more unpalatable to traditionalists. I think a possible alternative explanation for some of the studies is that a traditionalist researcher refused to believe that women whom he saw as meek and submissive could initiate violence against their male partner. I'm unable to access the second link, it shows a 404 error.

I would like to think I'm assuming good faith with MRAs and do my best to understand your perspective. I don't understand why you can't do the same with feminists.

I'm pretty sure talking about how feminists attacked male victims on r/Feminism will end similarly to talking about how MRAs attacked female victims here. Both have happened, and pointing out either would not be welcome.

[–]throwawaybear61 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iamsoulzero 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]reddut_gang 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]a-feminist-throwaway 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PrimarchPerturabo 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-feminist-throwaway 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]PrimarchPerturabo 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-feminist-throwaway -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's a difficult question. My initial reaction would be to say that dating is bad for women too and that the red pill community is wrong, but I have to acknowledge that I don't have first-hand experience dating as a man and I should not deny the lived experiences of those that do. I can say that I do not think and act like the red pill community say women do, and would not want to date a man who acts like they say a man should.

My female friends and I are on average asked out more than my male friends and get many more matches on dating apps, but that doesn't translate into actual relationships because the odds that two people that share nothing but mutual physical attraction will be compatible is very low. All successful relationships I have had come from mutual activities and have not included any first date or similar situation where gendered dating norms apply.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like if I have female privilege in dating, it's that I get to go on more failed dates and have to reject more people who all too often refuse to take no for an answer. I don't think I get much out of it that I actually want. I don't think the norms that apply to the situations my successful relationships have originated from are particularly gendered or likely to favor or disfavor me because of my gender.

I'm sorry if this comes of as dismissive, I understand that other people have different experiences and those are just as valid and important as mine. I guess my answer to your questions is: I don't know.

[–]PrimarchPerturabo 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Powerful_Software_14 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-feminist-throwaway -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SamaelET[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]a-feminist-throwaway 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I genuinely believe feminism has on balance made the world a better place for men and boys too. Gender norms and expectations are harmful for almost everyone, and feminism have worked against norms and expectations that harm men and boys. I don't think a men's rights movement could have worked without feminism first weakening patriarchal norms, and I don't think there was any other movement that attempted to do that before feminism.

I understand that men have experienced sexism by feminists, and I'm not trying to minimize your experience in any way, but I hope you can recognize that MRAs have also perpetuated sexism against women. I don't think our movements are so different, and I wish we could see past the bad acts on both sides and work together towards the goal of equality.

To be clear, I don't want any privileges for being a woman. I want women and men to have the same rights and responsibilities, with no exceptions. I don't want you to submit to anyone's tyranny or feel like you have to do something you don't want to.

[–]Powerful_Software_14 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]a-feminist-throwaway 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree with those principles, but there is no egalitarian movement that can do what feminism does. For example, there are no egalitarian-branded lobbyists that fund political campaigns or egalitarian-branded philanthropist who fund non-profits, but feminist-branded organizations will happily fund candidates and NGOs who fight for equality as long as it's explained in feminist language. I think MRAs would be much more successful if you were willing to work within feminism.

The goal for me is equality and the abolition of gendered roles, norms, and expectations. Biased courts and laws can obviously not achieve that goal. The Spanish law I think you are referring to (1/2004 Comprehensive Protection Measures against Gender-based Violence) is bad. I don't support any gender-specific laws or laws that limit the rights of defendants.

[–]Rarefatbeast 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

I appreciate the comment as many others do.

Unfortunately too many leaders of legislature who have labeled themselves as feminist have also actively screwed over men. And not in the "when you lose the privilege, you feel like you are being discriminated but you're not" sort of way

The most recent example I can think is Title IX changes, where no due diligence was allowed needed for the boys, and they just let them go if there was a complaint, false allegation or not, mistaken identity or not.

However, I am for people like you who truly believe feminism = equality.

Although what equality means some overlapping things may have some issues, as in abortion rights. Well, do men have a say in this or do they not? How about paying child support when they are born?

Autonomy gets fuzzy when you force someone to father (or pay for) someone when they don't want, or take away a child they do want.

[–]a-feminist-throwaway 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I agree that many universities' investigations and proceedings under Title IX are unfair and harmful. Basic procedural safeguards such as the right of the accused to access all evidence, present evidence, be represented, and have witnesses cross-examined on their behalf are essential to finding the truth, and it's of course unacceptable to consider the gender or sex of anyone as relevant.

With abortion rights, I would say it's a matter of bodily autonomy and therefore a prerogative of the pregnant person. I would maybe be okay with allowing parents to surrender parental responsibility unilaterally as long as it's equal for both parents. That means the woman would have the right to surrender parental responsibility in the same way as the man while still giving birth to the child if she wants to. However, I worry that children who are abandoned by their parents under such a scheme would be mistreated by the state and wonder if it really is more fair to lay the financial consequences of two people's choice to have sex on the taxpayer instead of on those people.

[+][deleted] 4 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]a-feminist-throwaway 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Safe haven laws provide an exception from prosecution for the act of leaving a child in a designated place. In Nebraska, the law currently reads:

No person shall be prosecuted for any crime based solely upon the act of leaving a child thirty days old or younger in the custody of an employee on duty at a hospital licensed by the State of Nebraska. The hospital shall promptly contact appropriate authorities to take custody of the child.

The part about the child being thirty days old or younger was added after the article. Those laws apply to fathers, mothers, and anyone else who is in the possession of a child, but they don't legally have any effect on parental responsibility. The state can still pursue someone for child support or even make them take back the child if they can identify the parent, although they don't try very hard because it's usually assumed they are too poor to pay anything significant.

Laws related to paternity, child support, and custody are often bad and have discriminatory effects. Men and women should have the same rights and responsibilities after birth, but that's often not the case in reality, although the family court system seem to be horrible for everyone. I don't know exactly how to fix the system, but equally shared custody by default and a right to a DNA test when there are disagreements about paternity seem like a good start.

[–]SaintJewiub -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-feminist-throwaway 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SaintJewiub 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WeaknessTechnical654 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Flavia Agnes, the Indian feminist against criminalizing rape of BOYS
Author	SamaelET
Upvotes	81
Comments	60
Date	August 11, 2021 7:46 PM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/p2kkon/flavia_agnes_the_indian_feminist_against/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/flavia-agnes-the-indian-feminist-against.1058728 https://theredarchive.com/post/1058728

Comments