This is the common feminist meme as a response to Roe v Wade and the abortion bans, to which, yeah I understand, reproductive rights need to be better for women (and men for that matter). But the meme that "if men were the one pregnant you would be able to get abortions at a vending machine" is legitimately harmful and wrong. Men barely have any reproductive rights, hell some argue they have none if we dont count access to conraception.
And lets assume risking your bosy in pregnancy is a gender role. In a lot of countries men have the gender role of forced consciption.
What is terrofying is the statement "If men were the ones getting pregnant they would have a state enforced childbirth quota between the ages 18-25 that they could be considered felons or worse if they dont meet" because while the US is lax on the selective service sign up, ask how much options men in Turkey or hell Ukraine and Russia have out of military service.
Its like. Arguing for abortion is okay, indirectly arguing men dont have draconian gender role Requirements in society is dumb.
[–]rammo123 99 points100 points101 points (8 children) | Copy Link
Also the meme forgets that there's essentially no gender difference in the approval rating of abortion. Women are nearly as opposed to it as men. It's grossly inaccurate to portray it as something men are inflicting on women.
[–]lorarc 56 points57 points58 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Not only inaccurate but counterproductive. Instead of opposing the real enemy they hijack the topic and turn it into gender war.
[–]CloudLake0 14 points15 points16 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Yes. The single biggest predictor of opinion on abortion is religious belief.
[–]Grow_peace_in_Bedlamleft-wing male advocate 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
And I suspect conservative politics would be a close second predictor of anti-abortion sentiment. Nevertheless, it's interesting that men and women as a whole have practically identical views on abortion rights, despite more men in the US considering themselves conservative. That implies that conservative men are more open-minded on the matter than conservative women are.
[–]Grow_peace_in_Bedlamleft-wing male advocate 13 points14 points15 points (4 children) | Copy Link
And I feel like men would be much more approving of it if it weren't legal to violate their bodily autonomy the moment they're born by mutilating their foreskins. How can we expect men to support others' bodily autonomy when they are socialized from birth to normalize the violation of their own bodily autonomy?
[–]TNine227 13 points14 points15 points (1 child) | Copy Link
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that men’s approval rating on abortion isn’t based on circumcision.
[–]Grow_peace_in_Bedlamleft-wing male advocate 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Not directly so, but it's still worthwhile to compare and juxtapose them to refute feminists' delusional claims that society exists for men's benefit and is devoted to catering to their needs.
[–]ChimpPimp20 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
I think the mentality of "well we're not gonna help unless you help us" runs pretty thin. We should help women regardless if we are getting any help. The "you scratch my back, I scratch yours mentality" helps no one.
[–]Grow_peace_in_Bedlamleft-wing male advocate 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm not saying we shouldn't. What I'm saying is that if we teach men through our actions towards them when they're barely out of the womb that bodily autonomy just isn't that important, the natural consequence is that it's going to be hard for them to flip that switch on suddenly. It's meant to be an example of how treating men humanely and empathetically would help everyone.
[–]AskingToFeminists 72 points73 points74 points (4 children) | Copy Link
It's also absurd. The whole sexual dimorphism and the gender roles that developed as a consequence and all of societal attitudes that go along with it stem from the fact that one side gets pregnant and the other doesn't.
If men got pregnant, they would have ended in the exact situation women are in, because, for all intent and purposes, the ability ro become pregnant is what made the biological and social category of women. If it was men who became pregnant, then women would be men, and men would be women.
[–]Thal-creates[S] 12 points13 points14 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Thats true but I apied the scenario from the quote to my answer (apply current gender roles to just switched reproduction responsibikities)
[–]AskingToFeminists 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
And if pigs had wings, they would fly. But absurd hypotheticals reflect nothing about reality, how it works or how society actually function or would have functionned.
[–]ArmchairDesease 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
To be fair...they are using the phrase "If men were the ones getting pregnant" as a rhetorical tool.
Of course such a hypothesis would have all sorts of ramifications, but that's not the point. The concept they want to convey is: "in our world women's issues aren't taken seriously, while men issues are".
Your objection is, in my opinion, accurate regarding the reproductive function having a key role in the emergence of gender roles. And it points out that the sentence they are using is unfit to express the concept they want to express.
But it has nothing to do with the point they are trying to make with this meme (which is obviously very objectionable, but for other reasons).
[–]Grow_peace_in_Bedlamleft-wing male advocate 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Exactly. Not to mention that the changes to men's bodies to make them able to bear and nurse children would make them much more women-like than in our timeline (I'm thinking broader hips and larger breasts at the very least).
[–]ajpp02 20 points21 points22 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Identity politics, in particular this whole battle of the sexes, has ruined the discourse around pregnancy, causing stupid memes like this.
Our entire society, including the concepts of family, child care, and labor rights, was built on the fact that one gender has a babymaker. Nothing would fundamentally change if a different gender had it.
But because “mEn HaVe It BeTtEr,” it leads to stupid Harry Potter-like fantasy world-building like this.
The entire abortion issue is painted this way, and it does a disservice to the actual problem. “It’s all about men wanting to control women,” they say when half of women are pro-life, including many women politicians. “If a woman were in charge, we’d still keep Roe v. Wade,” they say when a woman justice was part of the group that overturned it.
Abortion is restricted not because of gender, per se. Its restriction is related to our system’s reluctance to make healthcare, contraception, and sex ed available to the public regardless of cost, as well as keeping workers in check so that employers wouldn’t have to foot the bill or risk losing an employee to the long and excruciating process.
[–]ArmchairDesease 16 points17 points18 points (3 children) | Copy Link
Pure delusion.
If men were the ones getting pregnant, we'd have mandatory pregnancy for every man between 18 and 29, with harsh punishment for "pregancy-dodgers".
Guaranteed.
Gender-specific obligations are widely accepted by the public when they are directed at men. They are unacceptable when directed at women. See duty of child support, even in cases of forced sex, and compulsory military service all over the world.
[–]gregm1988 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
Or the more trivial “man must pay on the first date” because “it is an interview and she’s interviewing you” that gets trotted out on mainstream news shows (Fox News granted but still)
It’s just brazen
[–]Grow_peace_in_Bedlamleft-wing male advocate 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
That's a bad analogy, since most jobs you have to pay to apply for are scams, unless the message is really supposed to be that dating in the modern world is a scam for men.
[–]gregm1988 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
No - it was about gender obligations. In this case that even the mainstream media pushes that men have certain obligations dating - even in a world with equal pay for women. The interview part was what the “dating expert” on the Fox News clip said. Basically you have to pay because we are interviewing you and not paying means you fail the interview
Not that you have to pay to apply. That wasn’t what I was saying but it probably was a bit unclear
But also - yes to the scam part
[–]Present_League9106 8 points9 points10 points (6 children) | Copy Link
Can anyone verify whether or not women's health care is taken seriously or not? One of the comments suggested that the reason men die younger is because they consider being healthy to be feminine (sounds like complete bullshit to me). They also say that women die more from poor medical care and that generally, women's healthcare is worse than men's because they tend to study men rather than women. Can anyone verify or refute this? It sounds like bullshit and I want to see something substantial that isn't just feminist propaganda.
[–]JetChipp 2 points3 points4 points (5 children) | Copy Link
The person who said that didn't provide any evidence whatsover until now, just use Hitchen's razor.
I think I saw a meta analaysis a couple months ago that concluded that men are taken more seriously my doctors when it comes to excruciating pain, problem is that by going by the methodology studies that show that there is no bias favouring men or women or studies that show that the bias favours women weren't taken into consideration.
Also u/problem_redditor made a pretty good comment about that topic in this comment.
[–]Present_League9106 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
What was the evidence?
[–]JetChipp 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
You mean the meta analysis or the comment of the person who claimed what you mentioned?
[–]Present_League9106 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
Oh, sorry. It said something different when I responded. I didn't see the person I was talking about substantiate what they were saying. Are meta analyses analyses of studies that they cherry-picked? Someone kept sending me them about something else, and they contradicted research I had seen elsewhere.
[–]JetChipp 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis
The meta analysis that I talked about did contain what I would call cherry-picking since it only reviewed studies that showed medical bias against women, but I don't know if most meta analysis on other research topics do the same.
[–]Present_League9106 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Thanks. That answers what I was curious about.
[–]Grow_peace_in_Bedlamleft-wing male advocate 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
How is the US lax on that matter? A fine of up to $250,000 and/or 5 years imprisonment plus disqualification from most federal benefits and employment (and state benefits and employment in some states) hardly seem lax to me.
Also, I wonder, does disqualification from federal employment also include elected office? I know it does in Mexico, which I find extremely unfair, since it means men are disqualified for refusing to do something that women legally don't have to do in the first place.
[–]Fantredath 23 points24 points25 points (2 children) | Copy Link
No. Men get none. The only thing you can do is use condoms and those aren't real contraception like the birth control pill, or an IUD, or the Hormone implant in the arm.
Condoms are a joke. The only thing they're good for is attempting to protect against disease, and they aren't even good at that, because they break all the time, making them basically useless as both disease prevention, and birth control.
Men have no reproductive rights. It's the real reason the Right-wing nut jobs overturned Roe vs Wade. They did it because it gave Women rights that Men don't have, and if the Feminists want it back, they need to agree to change all the other Laws that are unfair to Men and Fathers and parental and reproductive rights.
At a minimum they need to support Men having the right to "The Paper Abortion" called Legal Parental Surrender, where a guy that doesn't want children signs away all parental rights to a baby a woman is pregnant with, in order to not be held liable for child support or any other parental responsibility.
If Women can choose that they don't want a baby after they get pregnant, Men should have the same option. No more Women lying about taking the pill, getting pregnant, and either trapping a Man in marriage, or forcing him to pay child support when He had no intention of having a child.
They're all Strong Independent Women now. If they make the choice to keep the Baby and the father doesn't want a child, they can work and make money for child care, and take care of the child on their own. "WOMEN DON'T NEED MEN" anymore. I've heard this for decades now, now it's time that Women prove it.
[–]gregm1988 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
I don’t for one second believe that conservatives will agree to a quid pro quo to regrant women abortion rights in exchange for more rights for men in the same area. The points you raise are considered niche. And also ignore the religious element in overturning them. No religious conservatives are going to sign off on men being able to abandon their fatherly duties
[–]Clockw0rk 10 points11 points12 points (3 children) | Copy Link
It's just more Female Supremacist dogma and rhetoric, distracting the masses from the actual issues of Religious and Capitalist overreach.
Capitalism can't exist without perpetual growth, which is why the billionaires are starting to fear monger that we're all going to perish due to a so called population deficit. The machine needs human blood to run, and babies are its fuel; it just so happens that religion works as a taboo shield from scrutiny as it proselytizes "life is sacred" while simultaneously sidestepping taking responsibility for life once it's born.
The cruel reality is that if men also gave birth, they still wouldn't have any rights, because rights are purchased first and foremost by the rich. It's by design. That's what capitalism is, "might makes right" but with imaginary numbers. Rich women don't *have* to care about abortion because they've never had problems getting adequate medical care. The same would be true if men got pregnant.
Abortion is more a poverty issue than a woman's issue, change my mind.
But it's not a competition of 'who suffers more'.
The issue of parenthood, and abortion, needs to be both destigmatized, and degendered. Losing a child, if that's what your mind has latched on to, could be just as devastating to a person as a deadly tumor. Conversely, having and supporting a child, is a monumental task that not everyone is prepared or fit for.
It's my belief, that if a person is contracted into a civil union under the eyes of the law, then both parents must sign off on the termination of an unwanted fetus. We have to treat this as a reasonable arrangement between responsible adults. True reform includes being able to opt out of parenthood from either, or both, parents after birth. It's unfair to everyone for a child to grow up unwanted, and with a reformed adoption system, unwanted children could be rehomed to healthy family situations.
"My body, my choice" is regressive, female supremacist reductionist nonsense. You made your choice when you consented to sex, particularly if you didn't use protection. It became a couple's issue the second you fucked.
Women shouldn't be able to erase their partner from the picture as several week later regret birth control when it's impossible for men to do the same. Arguing the alternative is enforcing the belief that women should have inalienable rights above and beyond men.
We call that Female Supremacy.
[–]CloudLake0 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I disagree. While ideally the decision to terminate a pregnancy by a couple should be a joint one, women should still always have the right to terminate a pregnancy without the father's consent. Requiring the fathers approval makes potential for a situation which is far too open for abuse. In my opinion the right of a woman to bodily autonomy (and thus the ability to expel a fetus from her body) is more important than the right of her partner (regardless of gender) to a child.
[–]ChimpPimp20 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
But wait, I thought that was the argument male advocates here use for men not having any reproductive rights. Am I missing something here?
[–]Clockw0rk 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm not sure I understand what isn't being gotten, so excuse me as I try to elaborate a little and you can correct me or ask questions if it still doesn't jive.
Though I've been subbed here for a while, I only occasionally engage in conversations here because I'm often late to the table. To that end, outside the mission statement to the righthand column, I couldn't tell you what male advocates here pin as the reason for men not having any reproductive rights.
I, personally, am upset that many women use the "my body, my choice" argument to insist that they have complete agency over something that is, in my opinion, a group decision caused by a group action.
You don't get pregnant spontaneously, it is always a group action. Barring sexual assault, pregnancy is a consensual action between two people and I firmly believe that the termination of such pregnancy should also be a consensual action between two people. To argue that men do not suffer any from the result of an abortion, which many women reciting "my body, my choice" do, is to deny them emotional agency.
It should always be "our fetus, our choice". Abortion needs to be legal, both as an error correction for unfit parents and as a medical procedure to save the lives of those facing complications. We simply don't have the social structure in place to handle unwanted children, nor are any of the so-called "pro-life" candidates arguing for reforms that would build said structures.
[–]Disastrous-Pace-1929 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Since men don’t currently have any post conception reproductive rights, I think it’s clear that things would be more strict if men got pregnant. Society bends over backwards to help women. Take safe haven laws, to help women who don’t want their babies. For men, dumping a baby in a dumpster would never result in a law to help men who don’t want their babies. It would result in laws to create harsher punishments.
[–]Grow_peace_in_Bedlamleft-wing male advocate 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I totally agree with your sentiment. If society cared as much about men's reproductive rights as feminists say it does, legal paternal surrender would have been legalized decades ago and protected by a constitutional amendment in the U.S.
[–]Murky-Eagle4084 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
God, so many of the comments on that post are just genuinely infuriating, you can't even bring up men's health issues without feminists and their ally's either turning the conversation back around to women or blaming men for problems they face. It's just ridiculous at this point.
[–]Future_Adagio2052left-wing male advocate 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Jesus some of the victim-blaming shit in the comments🤦♂️
[–]Delicious-Tea-6718 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
If men where the ones getting pregnant they would be women. The only reason we have this "battle of the sexes" is because men and women some times face a different set of problems. The only real difference between people is that some people can get pregnant, others can impregnate. If what we normally call women were the ones doing the impregnating they would start facing the advantages and disadvantages that follows with that. And would culturally start to align with others that face the same conditions. If paternity fraud was on the table for women it would surely start to affect the way they think about the world and society etc
[–]TisIChenoir 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
If men were the ones getting pregnant, women would be the ones fighting wars and building skyscrappers.
[–]hendrixskileft-wing male advocate 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
If men were the ones getting pregnant then men would not be singled out for conscription, or for dangerous tasks at work, or for longer commutes which Keats to higher accident rates, or for... etc.