Feminism: it's always rights for women and responsibilities for men.

[–][deleted] 9 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde[S] 41 points42 points43 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde[S] 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde[S] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]flimflam_machine 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm not a great fan of feminism but I'm not sure what point you're making here. Feminists are wholly in favour of paternity leave or shared parental leave. Adoption, childcare and part-time work don't seem like inherently gendered problems. I'm not aware of a specific feminist approach with regard to birth control that particularly impacts men's rights.

Which leave us with abortion. Men have no rights with regard to abortion but that's not a feminist argument, it just falls out of the universal legal principal of bodily autonomy, which men have just as much as women (with the exception of circumcision). There is just no way of squaring the circle of giving men a say in abortion without infringing on the pregnant woman's bodily autonomy. The rights are "equal" to the degree that our differing biology allows and there's no getting round that.

[–]EricAllonde[S] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

My comment is in the context of an unplanned pregnancy, where the man does not wish to have a child. Or, if the woman is determined to continue with the pregnancy and have the child, then the man does not wish to be involved in the child's life or support it financially.

Our laws allow the woman to unilaterally decide whether to continue with the pregnancy or abort it. I have no argument with that: her body, her choice etc.

The problem is that if she decides to have the child, she's able to force the man to support it financially, against his wishes. That's unjust, because he is just as entitled to reproductive choice as she is.

She cannot argue that she's entitled to his support out of financial necessity, because she has ready access to alternatives such as abortion and adoption.

Her financial need only arises from making a lifestyle choice, and one person's free choice does not give them the right to force another person into financial slavery.

In this situation, women should act like responsible adults. If you can't afford the child, don't keep it. Past feminists fought for you to have choices and options in this situation, but no one promised you immunity from the consequences of your choices.

The situation is the same as me deciding to buy an expensive new car, and then forcing you to contribute to the lease payments for the next 18 years. You'd argue that the decision to buy the car was mine alone, so the resulting financial responsibility should also be mine alone - and you'd be right. Choosing to continue with an unplanned pregnancy and not utilise adoption is the exact same type of decision.

[–]flimflam_machine 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's unjust, because he is just as entitled to reproductive choice as she is.

It's unfortunate, but it's not unjust. Your argument fails at this point because you are arguing for equality above all in a situation where equality has to be secondary to a higher legal principle i.e., bodily autonomy, in light of fundamental biological differences between the sexes.

Her right is not primarily one of reproductive choice. It is of deciding what happens to her body; not her genetic material, not her time, not her money, her body. The fact that that this right to decide what happens to her body necessarily creates reproductive choice does not mean that men are entitled to the same degree of reproductive choice because any reproductive choice we give to them does not, by necessity, emerge out of the same right of bodily autonomy.

She cannot argue that she's entitled to his support out of financial necessity, because she has ready access to alternatives such as abortion and adoption.

Her financial need only arises from making a lifestyle choice, and one person's free choice does not give them the right to force another person into financial slavery.

It is the need of the child that necessitates the support of the father. Once we get decent state support for such children I'd be wholly in favour of legal parental surrender for both sexes, but that's not what's being argued here. Regarding adoption, the child would be better off with the mother than adopted (in most cases) if financial support could be provided to her and we have no right to take the child from her unless there is a very good cause. As for abortion, we cannot force her to have an abortion any more than we can force her not to. Any financial disincentive we apply to to the mother for carrying the child to term will just end up impacting the life of the child, which is genuinely unjust and, pragmatically, bad for society.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]UseApostrophesBetter 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wambo45 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

This touches on the point that I was trying to make. You see, I can empathize with a lot of the intention behind socially "progressive" ideas. But unfortunately, in actual practice, it's sometimes very hard to reconcile what ostensibly seems like the "right" thing with cold, hard reality.

At the end of the day, if you can't afford to raise a child and you have one anyway with the intention of collecting government assistance, you've essentially just stolen money from other people. Likewise, if you force a man to pay child support when he didn't want the child, you've again stolen this money. You've demanded that you be compensated for a decision that you made. And that is quite clearly an immoral position, if you ask me.

But of course, it'd be ludicrous for most people to consider the idea that women not be allowed to reproduce if they can't afford to raise the child, wouldn't it? And so we find ourselves in a precarious position of where we draw these lines and how we deal with these problems, in a way which preserves the liberty of the individual as well as the nation mutually.

[–]UseApostrophesBetter 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Totally. At the same time, it would be completely socially-unacceptable to allow a mother (or parents, for argument's sake) to have a kid, and then provide them with no support whatsoever, with the assumption that "people will just learn not to make bad decisions", or some other logically-floppy idea, because that's just not how people work. You would have a lot of people with starving kids, parents who were mentally incapable of having kids, and basically just dead kids all around.

The weirdest part of the /r/LateStageCapitalism thread was that the general rationale behind letting people have as many kids as they want, even if they couldn't afford them required (their words) a guarantee that "society should ensure their wellbeing", which should be instituted immediately.

None of this jived with my attitude that 8 billion people on the planet is too many, and we need to be more responsible about how selfish the human race is to the millions of other species and ecosystems out there. That lizard brain just overwhelms some of these subs where the be-all end-all of human existence is to REPRODUCE! REPRODUCE! REPRODUCE! as if we're going to go extinct. We aren't, and even if we do, it won't be because we weren't fucking in the front hole enough.

[–]Wambo45 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Totally. At the same time, it would be completely socially-unacceptable to allow a mother (or parents, for argument's sake) to have a kid, and then provide them with no support whatsoever, with the assumption that "people will just learn not to make bad decisions", or some other logically-floppy idea, because that's just not how people work. You would have a lot of people with starving kids, parents who were mentally incapable of having kids, and basically just dead kids all around.

Yeah, and I agree with that up until the point of it being incumbent upon government (the people) to provide that support. In Switzerland for instance, the amount of children being born out of wed lock is surprisingly very low (cultural values). The way they handle child support is to defer to the man first, and the woman's parent's second, before drawing on the state. These are ideas that I find interesting because we have to find a way to somehow reconcile our compassion and sense of decency, with individual rights and obviously, personal responsibility. They have nurtured a culture of responsibility for those kinds of choices. Ideally I would expect women to just simply not have children that they can't afford to raise. That's just the simple, responsible and ethical thing to do. But as you so adequately said, that's simply not how people work.

The weirdest part of the /r/LateStageCapitalism thread was that the general rationale behind letting people have as many kids as they want, even if they couldn't afford them required (their words) a guarantee that "society should ensure their wellbeing", which should be instituted immediately.

Which is a bit of a contradiction, isn't it? If we were to foster an environment where society ensures it's own well being, than we wouldn't have this problem to begin with. And so it begins to look like what they mean by that, is that people who are conscientious enough to work to ensure theirs and their communities' well being, are now forced to take care of people who simply don't care about much at all. It's a form of idealism which rationalizes the theft as moral because it's a means to an end, but sees no moral ambiguity in enabling the behavior which ultimately exacerbates itself.

None of this jived with my attitude that 8 billion people on the planet is too many, and we need to be more responsible about how selfish the human race is to the millions of other species and ecosystems out there. That lizard brain just overwhelms some of these subs where the be-all end-all of human existence is to REPRODUCE! REPRODUCE! REPRODUCE! as if we're going to go extinct. We aren't, and even if we do, it won't be because we weren't fucking in the front hole enough.

I would guess that most of the people you'd interact with on that sub are young millennials and losers who've never accomplished anything in life, and have very little historical understanding of what socialism inevitably stands for and ends up becoming. They're driven by emotional idealism, rather than pragmatism.

[–]UseApostrophesBetter 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wambo45 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]UseApostrophesBetter 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sateeshsai 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]UseApostrophesBetter 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wambo45 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]UseApostrophesBetter 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Wambo45 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sateeshsai 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sateeshsai 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]UseApostrophesBetter 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GhostOfDawn1 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]flimflam_machine 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Wambo45 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ideally, I think your idea is spot on. This is on the surface, the most fair and egalitarian way to handle these situations.

However, the unspoken argument that never seems to be brought up, is that the state does not want to grant men that freedom, because it's aware that it will have to subsidize even more single mothers than it already does. Women having babies that they can't afford to raise is affording them a purchasing power that they haven't actually earned. I think the reasons for why our society holds men to a double standard is largely because we recognize that someone is going to have to pay for this woman's decision, one way or another. And so in some people's minds, that responsibility should fall on the guy who fucked her, not society as a whole. Although in all honesty, often times it ends up being both.

[–]sillymod[M] [score hidden] 9 years ago stickied comment (82 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 40 points41 points42 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 24 points25 points26 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 37 points38 points39 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]sillymod 27 points28 points29 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nydusurmainus 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]chaun2 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nydusurmainus 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]EochuBres 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Nydusurmainus 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chaun2 -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nydusurmainus 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]yebsayoke 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]MyOtherTagsGood 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]splodgenessabounds 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LadySaberCat 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]you_cant_banme 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]morerokk 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sillymod 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]slayerx1779 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iHeartCandicePatton 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sillymod 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HellaBrainCells 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sillymod 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alclarkey 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fuckswithboats -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SimCity8000 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]sillymod 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]lavaslippers 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sillymod 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]lavaslippers 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SimCity8000 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]sillymod 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]SimCity8000 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]sillymod 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]SimCity8000 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

There is a comment in my history from about week back that simply shares the dictionary definition of feminism to a person here. That comment was down voted 47 times.

Now obviously I don't think there is collusion, I don't think people are out to get me and my intention is not to play the victim card (thanks for that, btw). But to get down voted by 47 people for literally sharing the dictionary definition of a term is outside the bounds of Reddit's etiquette. I do believe the ideal is to not down vote a comment just because you disagree with it. So, brigading or not, Im guessing it probably plays a role in why I can't easily participate in discussions in this subreddit anymore.

I ask you, as a mod, to please reflect on that, and reflect on whether this is the sort of behaviour you would like to defend in this community. Thanks.

[–]sillymod 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]SimCity8000 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

If an opponent of an ideology is changing the definition of said ideology in order to justify their opposition of it, what exactly are they opposing? The ideology, or their conception of it? If they oppose their own conception of the ideology rather than its actual manifestation, this is what is extremely unhelpful to discussion.

I do know the dictionary definition gets posted here often, and I've seen a variety of counter-arguments to it, which usually end up being a person trying to hold me accountable for radical feminist opinions (which I'm sure you can understand, because I know there are people out there who hold individual MRAs accountable for the ones who make the whole movement look bad), or petty insults:

"I thought you had a life? I guess not if you need to constantly post here."

"you every siingle time replied with "zomg guiz i lyke have then lyke, 10 min post restrictionz cuz free speech iznt realz here, so lyke, im not wasting my time refuting each valid accurate point you made cuz lyke, i can't"

"Cute darling, cute."

"and i give your "logic" a -1/10 you can get a lobotomy, i'm sure"

" Trust me when I say you better hope nobody who cares about you should ever learn about your sick hobby. You ought to be ashamed of yourself."

The last comment from a fellow who has convinced himself I purposefully seek out male rape victims to troll. I don't, for the record.

Anyway, the only thing users here are achieving by downvoting opinions they disagree with is the deepening their own echo chamber by forcing out dissenting voices, which, at the end of the day, is their own loss.

[–]EricAllonde[S] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SimCity8000 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BlightedArrow91 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TacoNinjaSkills 534 points535 points536 points 9 years ago (47 children) | Copy Link

[–]Marx0r 290 points291 points292 points 9 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Konraden 90 points91 points92 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]YuriKlastalov 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Konraden 30 points31 points32 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Marx0r 31 points32 points33 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]kfijatass 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alaysian 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Raidicus 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I guess this is the difference between /r/trp and /r/mensrights,

Yep. MR is "this is how it should be". TRP is "this is how it is, here's how you navigate what is". MR is attempting to fix the problem on a societal scale. TRP is about to understand and navigate the problem space on an individual scale.

The two are not necessarily at odds and really shouldn't be at odds at all. Both want to help men. MR wants to help all men by changing society, TRP wants to help men who are willing to help themselves by showing them how to succeed with what is.

The problem is that when we had a liberal influx into MR, MR turned away from TRP and decided to ignore the actual problem space and just focus on egalitarianism as the golden cow. Because of that, MR lost sight of how men and women are actually different and MR started copying feminism (victim culture) thinking that since it worked for women it should work for men too....

The new MR is dead wrong, but is too blinded by equality disease to understand why. They believe so strongly in egalitarianism that they no longer see or understand the differences between men and women. The sad part is that MR needs TRP more than TRP needs MR, but MR is too tied to the golden cow of Egalitarianism to understand that. The two together could help men faster and better (MR solving the actual problem in ways that would actually work, TRP helping men navigate what is until society improves for men), but MR would have to give up egalitarianism in order to do so. MR is not willing to do so, which is why it will continue to fail: men and women are actually different and MR cannot do what feminism did and have any hope of success.

[–]maniclurker -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TacoNinjaSkills 30 points31 points32 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThelemaAndLouise -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]stop_stalking_me 68 points69 points70 points 9 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]TacoNinjaSkills -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points25 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TedTheAtheist 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]testdex -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]testdex 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]drazzy92 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnomalousAvocado 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lose__Not__Loose 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kireol 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jbird1992 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thegeicogecko 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

However I think an important note is how people view this. I read that post earlier today and didn't even blink an eye at it. My only reaction was 'yeah, duh, that's how the world works idiot, of course you can't force some girl to give up those rights'. Rereading it now, I'm realizing a bit how absurd that mindset is.

Men should be allowed to decide if they want a child during the first trimester. This would legally bind them to supporting the child if they said they wanted it. If they say they don't want it, it still allows the woman to have the child or not have the child, simply with the knowledge that they will be a single parent. I think that remains reasonably fair, despite the fact that it will not allow men to have a kid the woman wants to abort. I think it would be unreasonable for a woman to be forced to take a child to term they did not want to.

[–]theskepticalidealist 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thegeicogecko 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]ABC_Florida -9 points-8 points-7 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ultramegasaurus 727 points728 points729 points 9 years ago (147 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde[S] 378 points379 points380 points 9 years ago (123 children) | Copy Link

[–]nvolker 68 points69 points70 points 9 years ago (56 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 61 points62 points63 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]nvolker 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]just_lesbian_things 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpiritofJames 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

[–]ElPeneMasExtrano 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGDBatman 35 points36 points37 points 9 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]Raidicus 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheGDBatman 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]flimflam_machine 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]flimflam_machine 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGDBatman 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]flimflam_machine 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGDBatman 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]nvolker -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]RubixCubeDonut 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

It's a stupid thought experiment that begins with a fundamental flaw: you don't just wake up and are suddenly pregnant. And most everybody already agrees that the closest scenario to the one being argued (becoming pregnant because you were raped) should allow for abortion.

To even properly adjust this batshit retarded thought experiment to have any semblance to reality for abortion in general you'd have to construct a scenario where somehow women are choosing to "tie themselves to the violinist" or to engage in activity that will lead to being tied to a violinist... maybe by going to the "tie to violinist" section of the hospital, asking to have a violinist tied to them, signing a contract saying they want to be tied, having them walk of their own volition to the changing room then the operating room...

[–]nvolker -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]RubixCubeDonut 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGDBatman -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]garglemesh42 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]flimflam_machine 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]flimflam_machine 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]flimflam_machine 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So you advocate murder, so long as it's done by a woman to her child.

No, I acknowledge the right of the woman to deny the fetus (not "child") the use of her body, even if it results in the fetus dying. If there were a way, once the fetus is past a certain stage of development, to remove the fetus from the woman and bring it to term elsewhere then I think she should be obliged to do that. In the absence of such technology her right to bodily autonomy takes precedence up to a certain point (see below).

The thing is, I'm in favor of abortion where the fetus is unsustainable. 3 weeks? OK, it's not an independent person. 8 months? Uh... that's an independent person who could live on it's own if you had let it.

It's telling that you've chosen two timepoints right at the beginning and end of pregnancy. Where do you actually draw the line? I think we've got it about right in allowing abortions only up to 24 weeks (roughly when the fetus becomes viable) if the woman has free access to an abortion beforehand. Beyond that I think it's reasonable that the mother is required to carry the fetus to term, although even that does create serious issues, since late-stage pregancy and childbirth are still very risky things that can cause serious and chronic health issues for the woman.

[–]drazzy92 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pcyr9999 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]flimflam_machine 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ronnocerman 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rob__T -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PerniciousOne -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]_puddle_wonderful_ -15 points-14 points-13 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Senorbubbz 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I hope you're right, but it's a lot of peoples impression that the vast majority of feminists are not very welcoming to different opinions (to say it mildly). http://i.imgur.com/xvizcQJ.jpg The way this mod from /r/legaladvice responded to criticism is pretty much the norm whenever women's issues are brought up and somebody dares to argue against the majority. It's not just on the internet, but irl as well. In my country Norway there was recently a rape case that got an enormous amount of attention in the media. There are a lot of important details and I don't have time to go through them all, but essentially a girl received MDMA pills from three guys she met that night and she supposedly passed out later and were raped while she was unconscious. The case went through court three times and they were found innocent two of those times. It resulted in a massive shitstorm and brought out the worst in normal everyday people (not just feminazis or whatever). The girl published the names of the guys on her facebook and they received a huge amount of death threats. Even the judges that found them innocent received death threats. Journalists, politicians, bloggers, normal people on facebook were absolutely sure that these men were guilty even though objectively it was really hard to tell and you'd be portrayed as a bigot and a rape apologist for even arguing that there was an UNCERTAINTY in whether they were guilty or not. People were demanding that the criteria for being found guilty should be lowered in rape cases only. People were demonstrating in the streets with torchlights and it was all a big mess. I'm going off on a tangent, but my point is that the atmosphere is so very toxic whenever women's issues are brought up. Everything from abortion to equal pay, you get a lot of shit for arguing against the hivemind and it's frustrating to me that we can't have a normal discussion like with every other topic.

[–]theskepticalidealist 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]raxical 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kadivs 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Revoran 20 points21 points22 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mushybees 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Marko_The_Martian 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]Taylor1391 -16 points-15 points-14 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheKingOfCrumpets 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]B0yW0nd3r 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Voidslan -13 points-12 points-11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]ulthrant82 -14 points-13 points-12 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points28 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]Diesel-66 -14 points-13 points-12 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BlueDoorFour 188 points189 points190 points 9 years ago (67 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 81 points82 points83 points 9 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 27 points28 points29 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Trail_of_Jeers 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Trail_of_Jeers 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Trail_of_Jeers 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

More straw man.

I don't care a wit about the child, but many arguments put forward talk about the best interests of the child. Since single motherhood is positively damning to a child's well-being, it's something that should be thought of long before conception occurs. This isn't some "surprise, I gots a case of the babbies". Babies have been made the same way since mammals. So while at conception no child exists (and therefore the man cannot pay child support), if the argument for child support is "to protect the child" then a better solution is to end single motherhood or not have a baby.

So, you missed the point entirely.

And as for "keeping it in their skirt", let me repeat myself. Women are the primary agent in 99.9999% of all sexual encounters. Except for actual rape, if the woman doesn't want to have sex, sex will not occur.

This isn't that hard to understand. Well, I suppose it seems it is hard for you.

[–]ametalshard 50 points51 points52 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]steenwear 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]probpoopin 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 years ago* (32 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

So essentially women have the right to have sex and forego parental responsibilities in the event of pregnancy, but men do not, and that's that?

To reduce that even further, a woman's right to not be forced to have an abortion trumps a man's right to not have to work for no wages to support someone else.

The right to not have to bear children and be a mother just because they chose to have sex is something that was fought for when it comes to women, why are people so content to apply the exact same regressive mindset that held back women to men?

Why is it only men that have to risk autonomy when having sex? Because we can't force women to have abortions?

There doesn't have to be an abortion, just laws in place that dictate how and when parental responsibilities are assigned during pregnancy that allows either to opt in or out, and how to share resulting expenses based on that choice.

There is no legitimate reason why men should not be afforded the same freedom to decide to not become responsible for children they do not want that doesn't apply equally to women. There is a more reasonable discussion to be had then "wrap it up or pay up."

[–]LeoShags -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 9 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

So essentially women have the right to have sex and forego parental responsibilities in the event of pregnancy, but men do not, and that's that? [...] There doesn't have to be an abortion, just laws in place that dictate how and when parental responsibilities are assigned during pregnancy that allows either to opt in or out, and how to share resulting expenses based on that choice.

It's not quite as cut and dry as you put it.

"Parental responsibilities" as a concept is a subset, consequence of and essentially derived from "pregnancy responsibilities." Ultimately, it is a woman's responsibility to see a pregnancy through to whatever end, be it an abortion, adoption, safe surrender, miscarriage or whatever. A man's parenting responsibilities are therefore fairly presumed to be equal to that of a woman's. If a woman aborts, she has the same parenting responsibilities as the father. None. If a woman gives the child up for adoption, she has the same parenting responsibilities as the father. None. If a woman gives birth and raises the child, the father has the same parenting responsibility as the mother. Asking to opt out while still not being held to the pregnancy responsibilities is, in essence, asking for special treatment before the law as opposed to equal treatment. Sorry, not a feminist here. I'll leave that kind of hypocritical double-standard for /r/twoxchromosomes. I would encourage you to, as well.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Ultimately, it is a woman's responsibility to see a pregnancy through to whatever end, be it an abortion, adoption, safe surrender, miscarriage or whatever. A man's parenting responsibilities are therefore fairly presumed to be equal to that of a woman's. If a woman aborts, she has the same parenting responsibilities as the father. None. If a woman gives the child up for adoption, she has the same parenting responsibilities as the father. None. If a woman gives birth and raises the child, the father has the same parenting responsibility as the mother. Asking to opt out while still not being held to the pregnancy responsibilities is, in essence, asking for special treatment before the law as opposed to equal treatment.

I don't see that as equal parental responsibilities. It seems to me that despite it taking two to make a child, the man still has little to say over that child who takes half of his DNA from him. If a woman doesn't want to keep the child she can put it up for adoption or simply have an abortion. So what about a man's right to continue be a father in the event that the woman chooses not to be a mother? I don't see any double standard in allowing men to opt out of financial/parental responsibilities as they wish. Women already get the option to opt out of pregnancy/parental responsibilities under our current laws.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpiritofJames 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpiritofJames 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rj2029x 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]habitualtroller 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]habitualtroller 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]NULLTROOPER 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]holyhellitsmatt 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]flimflam_machine 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Trail_of_Jeers 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rj2029x 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Trail_of_Jeers 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]habitualtroller 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sonickid101 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]habitualtroller 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde[S] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]habitualtroller 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]generic_name1 points 9 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]habitualtroller 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SnackMagic 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FrogTrainer 86 points87 points88 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde[S] 67 points68 points69 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]helsquiades 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Moonvie 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]helsquiades 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Moonvie 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nicktod 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MyL1ttlePwnys 102 points103 points104 points 9 years ago (136 children) | Copy Link

[–]UseApostrophesBetter 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde[S] 28 points29 points30 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jd-scott 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]drazzy92 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Spektr44 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (128 children) | Copy Link

[–]MyL1ttlePwnys 54 points55 points56 points 9 years ago (64 children) | Copy Link

[–]Meto1183 53 points54 points55 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Okymyo 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Okymyo 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]HotDealsInTexas 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

First: this is partially a concern of practicality. We have tried telling people not to have sex. It just doesn't work.

Is it shitty to tell someone they shouldn't smoke cigarettes if they don't want lung cancer and heart problems?

Do we deny people medical care for conditions caused by smoking?

Is it shitty to tell people to not do drugs while pregnant or to avoid incestual sex if they don't want defective babies?

The big difference here is that causing a birth defect is clearly harmful to the child. On the other hand, having a child not be born in the first place due to abortion doesn't harm a nonexistent child, and usually improves the potential parents' quality of life if they're considering abortion in the first place. With safe haven laws, it is usually in a child's best interest not to be raised by parents who either cannot care for it, or don't want it.

[–]Okymyo 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]FireHazard11 -8 points-7 points-6 points 9 years ago (53 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]shadowboxer47 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[+]FireHazard11 -9 points-8 points-7 points 9 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lawnmover_Man 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shadowboxer47 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoGardE 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FireHazard11 -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]shadowboxer47 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]FireHazard11 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]shadowboxer47 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I have 3 children. I am intimately aware of how much they cost.

I don't see reason for it at all, because 50/50 should be required. 50/50 eliminates any reason to have child support. If you can't have 50/50, support them yourself or DON'T HAVE THEM.

I think you have a very poor view of men indeed to think that all of them would abandon their children given the option.

Most wouldn't.

But the guy who had a one night stand with a girl who got pregnant shouldn't have to pay for that the rest of his life.

She has an easy, over the counter option she can use at any time.

A man has nothing even close to the option.

Why is it that people like yourself are all about responsibility when the male is on the line, and all about mercy when you have a vagina in play? I'm not advocating for anything more than the woman currently has.

[–]Terry_Bruce_Dick 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FireHazard11 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

50/50 isn't always possible for various reasons. You can't just hand wave away all of the thousands of situations where 50/50 isn't feasible and say that people should just have equal custody as your argument.

And no where have I said that women shouldn't also be responsible. If a woman wants to have a child but the father doesn't she shouldn't have one. But even if she's a shitty person and has a child anyways, the child still deserves to be taken care of. If the father has a financial abortion then the child suffers for it. And then all of the taxpayers have to pay for the welfare of the child instead of their father. Unless the father was raped then he implicitly agreed to the risks of having sex when he had sex. If he hates child support so much then he shouldn't have had sex. The shitty woman is completely irrelevant to this.

[–]Prof_Acorn 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]FireHazard11 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Revoran 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Prof_Acorn 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]FireHazard11 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MyL1ttlePwnys 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[+]FireHazard11 -8 points-7 points-6 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]shadowboxer47 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]matthew_lane 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheKingOfCrumpets 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]matthew_lane 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]electricalnoise 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde[S] 59 points60 points61 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[+]Spektr44 -10 points-9 points-8 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Rejected_Stone 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]Spektr44 -7 points-6 points-5 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheKingOfCrumpets 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Truhls 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

umm, we basically have 99.99 effective birth control. A Tube implant has as low as a .05% failure rate.

The woman doesnt even need to be on birth control, she can get the day after pill which has a 95% effective rate for certain brands.

I dont understand how a woman can have so many options to stop getting pregnant, get rid of the baby, or just give it away and never have to worry about it again, but for some reason if a man has the option its...wrong?

You also act like men are going to go out and have MORE sex because they dont have to worry about the baby anymore......i guarantee you it wouldnt rise by much if at all. Most men going out to get laid already dont care, or use protection. There isnt going to be some magical jump in sex because we dont have repercussions for unsafe sex....women arent going to magically get more promiscuous at the sounds of this.

[–]ForgingFakes 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shadowboxer47 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HotDealsInTexas 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]habitualtroller 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]NoGardE 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]habitualtroller -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NoGardE 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]electricalnoise 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PrinceOfTheSword 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chaun2 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mushybees 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]baskandpurr -13 points-12 points-11 points 9 years ago* (41 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dr_Robotnik_PhD 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]FireHazard11 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]shadowboxer47 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]FireHazard11 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]shadowboxer47 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chadwickofwv 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Spektr44 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]baskandpurr -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]doinggreat 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Spektr44 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]shadowboxer47 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Spektr44 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]shadowboxer47 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Meistermalkav 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Okay, lets do this:

If the operation is badly done, it fucks up the vagina
if you take sub standart pills, they may exasterbate cancer growth.

sounds to me like you just don't have any faith in the medicine of the country you are with. Which is cool.

But men would baulk?

Lets take this from the top. You are telling me if you have men the opportunity to get additional testosterone, which helps in training and building muscle mass, had to take a pill daily and they could with a 99 % like probability never father a child, and be free of the fear of getting a girl pregnant and be legally required to spend the next 18 years paying for ... you are telling me men would not be fucking extatic? Partying in the streets? you wouldn't see these pills everywhere, even in bars, popular like peanuts?

This is only possible if you never had no choice in the matter at all.

To compare this, think about the fact that for men, we never had a fear of consequences, because we never had any choice at all. We knew no other situation, world wide, than if you got a girl pregnant, she essentially decided for you.

had a life? not if she didn't want you to.

had a plan to pay your debts back timely? Now setb that aside.

The right of a woman to have an abortion is directly comparable to the right of a man to opt out of parenthood. Except that it is generally accepted that a woman has a right to opt out of motherhood.

A man has no such legal choice what so ever, and in most cases, he can't even demand a paternity test without the express agreement of the mother, he just has to take her word for it.

So, the right of the man to opt out of parenthood is non existant, compared to the right of women to opt out of parenthood. Imagine being forced, not voluntarily, to carry the pregnancy to term. Imagine being chained to the hellspawn, for 18 years, because your husband decided that he wanted a kid, and you had no say in it. Imagine the legal system being absolutely on the husbands side. No matter if you were able to or not, you now had to provide for that child, and even if your husband cheated on you, divorced you, or simply put beat the everliving fuck out of you, as long as he wanted to take custody of the kid, he got it, but you had to support it.

Now, switch out husband for wife, and you have the situation men are in now, when children are concerned. We tried to have opt out parenthood, alimony reform, and so forth, but mostly feminism blocked it.

We tried to get it done with the support of women, and strangely enough, there was no support coming forth.

The first generation that has a male oral contraceptive, no matter if it runs on hormones or wossnames, will be the first generation that grows up free of a fear that mankind has had since the dawn of time, and even if it causes cancer, I am not talking exasterbates cancer, or metastisizes cancer, I am talking of the pill causes cancer all over your body to break out and sprout from your skin, men will be eating the pills religiously, because this will be the FIRST time we had any say in the matter.

[–]shadowboxer47 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]shadowboxer47 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]shadowboxer47 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]electricalnoise 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wile-E-Coyote 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]baskandpurr 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mushybees -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]baskandpurr 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mushybees 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]baskandpurr 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mushybees 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points28 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]nikdahl 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]qwertpoi 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I think the worst were the ones who were saying that a man owes child support because the child was not a party to the decision to conceive it and deserves to have support if it is brought into the world.

Which creates an interesting double standard. The child has no right to live if the woman decides to abort it (despite the fact that the child's interests aren't represented in that decision) YET if the child is born suddenly it is entitled to the man's support, even if the man had not consented to its birth. They want to both have the child's interests outweigh the fathers' and yet NOT outweigh the mother's rights.

Look, if you care about the child's interests, then you have to accept that it has an interest in not being killed too. If you're willing to force the man to pay for the kid via child support, then you have to use twisted logic to exempt the woman from having to carry the kid.

But apparently the woman's right to control her body is literally overriding everything.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]--Visionary-- 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]QuasiQwazi 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde[S] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AAKurtz 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerEwigeKatzendame 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ricwulf 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Some countries including Sweden are proposing "male abortion" laws which allow a man to abort all responsibility within the first 18 weeks (same window women have to terminate the pregnancy).

Interesting. Because there will be an interesting problem I believe. In situations of one night stands, cheating, or breaking up close to when conception happened, there is the very easy possibility for a woman to not tell the father that she is pregnant.

Would she be required to declare to the father of her pregnancy, so that he is actually given a chance to abort?

There are plenty of cases where men find out years down the line that they are a father, sometimes through court ordering them to pay child support for a child they didn't know even existed.

What protections are offered to these men I wonder?

[–]ionstorm20 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]speedisavirus 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ionstorm20 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]blfire 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AAKurtz 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KrimzonK 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RebelWitch 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

We live in a culture of female worship. That world leaders, statesmen, the brightest minds in university, judges, lawyers and the media elites...most of them think or cow tow to the above.

There is no end in sight. Rich societies always worship women it seems and give rise to feminism and misandry.

One only needs to look at the Ukraine how a western, feminist woman worshiping society turns into "man up" "send the men to war, protect the women" mentality when the going gets rough again.

In female worship societies even common sense and equality is completely ignored because men simply do not matter. In many of these female worship societies, western countries, five to ten times more money is given to womens health over men. There is even more awareness for homeless dogs than there is for homeless men.

[–]MickDaster 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerEwigeKatzendame 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]blfire 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DerEwigeKatzendame 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]earl_sleek1 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DerEwigeKatzendame 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bunker_man 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Trail_of_Jeers 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bunker_man 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SKNK_Monk 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RobDog101 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rafoie 25 points26 points27 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]SKNK_Monk 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ronnocerman 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]helsquiades 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde[S] -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WolfeBane84 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SilencingNarrative 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde[S] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ztsmart 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rockbottom503 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Raidicus 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde[S] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Raidicus 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Comyu 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Trail_of_Jeers 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]equiposeur 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Walawalawow 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (56 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheRavenousRabbit 30 points31 points32 points 9 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]Walawalawow 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheRavenousRabbit 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lose__Not__Loose 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nwokilla 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheKingOfCrumpets 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheKingOfCrumpets -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheKingOfCrumpets -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]NonOpinionated 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]qwertpoi 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Siganid 35 points36 points37 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

The problem is that it's not "exactly" the same.

Feminism claims to be seeking equality, but then tries to imbalance nearly every goal they set by denying that men can even experience the same things. They actively avoid any comparisons that might expose an advantage for women.

Men's rights is actually seeking equality, and will actually engage in direct, rational comparisons. They will even admit when men have an advantage, for example physical strength. Or in this thread, the fact that carrying a baby is a disadvantage.

This leads to any male that asks for equal rights being told the lie that he is arbitrarily advantaged in every comparison, and any attempt to compare the genders is sexism.

Feminism is actively blocking equality for men, and very effectively since women are massively privileged in our society.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]JakeDC 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

One big one is that women often are not held to the same standards of conduct as men. They are not expected to control themselves to the extent that men are. This is especially true for white women. These low expectations/requirements are female privilege.

Criminal charging and sentencing are great example. Take two people - a woman and a man - under identical facts, who could be charged with a crime. Studies show that when the relevant other factors are controlled for, the woman is significantly less likely to be charged with anything in the first place. Studies also show that, again controlling for other relevant factors, women receive significantly lesser punishment/sentences then men do for identical crimes. There are fewer women in prisons, and women's prisons generally are far less dangerous and more habitable than men's prisons. And yet, many people still believe the criminal justice system treats women unfairly.

In relationships, much domestic violence is reciprocal, and women actually hit more then men. There is no doubt that men generally do more damage than women, but society treats DV as solely a men hitting women issue. DV by women is rarely discussed, and men who bring it up usually are denounced as either being wimps or being anti-woman. Or both.

Folks have done studies of gendered violence in public settings. There are some interesting videos on YouTube too. Upshot - if a man hits a woman in public, everyone loses their minds and goes after the guy. What if she hits first? Same result. What if she brutally attacks him first? Same result. What if he screams "please stop hitting me!" during the unprovoked attack? Same result. Even if he uses the minimum force needed to stop the attack? Yes, same result. Upshot - if you are a woman, it is OK to hit people, and nobody questions you. Indeed, even when you are clearly in the wrong, people will not stop you and will actually physically attack a male who tries to defend himself. If you are a man, you just can't hit. Ever.

More generally, women hit men on TV and in movies routinely, and it is either played for comedy or as a manifestation of legitimate anger. The reverse is much more rare, and always pathological. This reflects different broad expectations based on gender.

Perhaps more controversially, think about how we often discuss the intersection of drinking and rape/sexual assault on college campuses. Most of the complained-of sexual incidents on college campuses involve mutual intoxication. Yet men (only) are told that if a woman has been drinking, she cannot consent. What does this mean? Basically, the bar got lowered from "incapacitation" to "intoxication." The former is a reasonable standard for calling consent into question. The latter is a much, much lower standard that, again, both parties likely meet in the vast majority of complained-of sexual encounters. And if a woman has been drinking at all, all of the risk falls on the man. A woman with basically any alcohol in her becomes a retarded infant. The man must treat her as such or face dire consequences, even if he is intoxicated as well.

Those are just some examples. Makes you wonder why so many feminists think so little of women and work so hard to maintain and enlarge systems that are based on these lower expectations.

[–]ionstorm20 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JakeDC 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BulbasaurusThe7th 25 points26 points27 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Some of us specialize. I'm an intactivist for example.

Every woman you'll likely see has a full intact set of genitals. If you live in the US, most of the men you see, won't.

It's illegal to even pinprick a girl's clitoris, or nick with a razor the outer labia.

But it's perfectly OK to remove the adult equivalent of fifteen square inches of deeply innervated genital tissue, if the baby is male. I challenge you to find any place on your body where you would be OK with the removal of a 3x5 card worth of skin. Keep in mind, this isn't just any skin, but skin that helps with orgasm control, orgasm strength, sensitivity to oral sex, and reduces the need for sexual aids like porn, lubricant, and novelty. It releases pheromones, it's a mechanical bearing to reduce friction during intercourse. It has specialized nerve endings not found elsewhere on the penis.

Every male mammal has a foreskin, for a reason. It isn't a mistake, it's a gift. A birthright.

I don't know about you, but a pinprick sure sounds a lot nicer.

We don't even use the same terms. Equality would be genital cutting, but men get euphemisms like, just a snip compared to female genital mutilation. If you mention any of this, being upset, what is missing, etc, you will be instantly emasculated, ... you see ... you have no right to want a full set of genitals. A woman's clitoris is a delicate flower, that needs protection, while men have rape sticks and should be happy more isn't removed.

If you were circumcised at birth, you were robbed. Circumcised girls have orgasms too. One of the side effects of circumcision is the diminishment of the pleasure and intensity of sex. Fewer nerves to activate.

[–]Nwokilla 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chadwickofwv 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Siganid 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Theothor 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThugOfWar 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AmuseDeath 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You need to understand the context in which you say those things. We live in a world that vastly gives women a lot of luxuries one of the biggest being the right to complain. We see female empowerment everywhere. On facebook, there are so many articles that say "hey look a female is doing X, go girl". On local meetup groups, there are tons of women mixers, women only clubs. In our schools, we have tons of women's groups, women's studies classes and even gender studies is focused majorly on women's issues. You can go ahead and proclaim international women's day and get likes and high fives. See what happens when you parade international men's day. Nobody gives a shit.

You go to the mall, 90% of the stores cater towards women. Hell even go outside, you'll have tons of shopping centers catered towards women. Things such as pumpkin spice lattes to cellphone covers that look like small animals... the target audience is women. That Brock Turner rape case is such a famous thing, yet nobody bats an eye over how Crystal Mangum fabricated an entire story over the Duke lacrosse team and ruined the reputation of those players and the school. Or look at how much support Hope Solo has when she's being penalized in soccer even though she is a double-faced domestic abuser.

My point is that the world is won over by women for the most part. You can't criticize feminism at all without being called a misogynist. MRM has such a negative undertone, yet nobody actually bothers to see that there are real issues men go through.

Part of solving the problem of gender equality is undoing the false narrative that feminism has succeeded in implanting in people. Things such as the wage gap are clearly false, yet it is spread by tons and tons of feminists. Feminists use terms such as the male gaze without understanding that women objectify male bodies as well.

We have to counter the false claims of feminism because it distorts what is true and what is false. We're not saying you can't be for woman's rights (in fact you can be and not be a feminist), but when your movement is saying inaccurate things, you need to call that shit out. The word feminism actually means a person who is for the advancement of the rights of women. A lot of people out there assume it means gender equality, when it actually does not. The word for that is an egalitarian.

Part of MRM is the awareness of men's issues and that simply can't happen if feminists out there are spewing false facts. Why should anyone care about men's issues when the airspace is constantly filled with women's issues?

[–]Lawtonfogle1 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fly_Caster 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]casemodsalt 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Yeah_Yeah_No -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]SKNK_Monk 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shadowboxer47 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde[S] 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]Yavanne -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde[S] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

If you are male you can have a vasectomy, if you are female you can have your tubes tied.

Fixed that for you.

If you don't like it that as a male you cannot have a procedure performed on you that works after the pregnancy started, blame biology.

We don't care about that. We only want access to a "financial abortion", which means the woman assumes responsibility for the financial consequences of her choice to proceed with a pregnancy against the man's wishes.

Considering that this biological difference is as big as biological differences between sexes get, that's pretty equal to me.

It's nothing to do with biology, it's solely about choices and the consequences of those choices.

If I decide I want a new car, I can't come to you and say, "I want a car, so you have to contribute to my monthly lease payments for the next 18 years". Of course you can choose to give me money every month if you want to, or if there's a benefit to you such as you get to drive the car too. But I can't just decide "I want the car" on my own and force you to help pay for it.

And it's the same if a woman decides on her own that she wants to proceed with a pregnancy and then raise the child, rather than having an abortion. That's her choice, sure, but she's not entitled to stick a man with the bill for it if he doesn't want the same thing.

[–]speedisavirus 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]speedisavirus 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]chambertlo 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]helsquiades 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]helsquiades 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

if women would actually settle on ONE SIDE where they get both advantages and disadvantages then at least i can stand it. i may not agree with their side but at least i can respect it. instead what they do, like the entire feminist movement, is pick and choose only the best of BOTH SIDES.

so it's her body her choice. cool. then it's his money his choice to support. no? ok, then let him choose whether to keep the baby or not. no? so her body her choice, his money her choice? if you don't want a baby, then don't have sex? oh? cool. then how come women get to choose whether they get an abortion?

the pussy pass existed for about 9970 years of recorded human history because men were superior to women in society. so no man would cry about it. today, women have lawful equality and demand social equality too. they don't get to also keep their pussy pass.

[–]garrypig 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Convicted_Vapist420 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatGuyYuKnow 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Trail_of_Jeers 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lmac7 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]noxumida 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]shadowboxer47 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TedTheAtheist -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]john133435 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde[S] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Trail_of_Jeers 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kiwi_klutz 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde[S] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]kiwi_klutz 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde[S] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kiwi_klutz 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Trail_of_Jeers 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]kiwi_klutz -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]Trail_of_Jeers 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]kiwi_klutz -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]Trail_of_Jeers 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]atonementfish -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Trail_of_Jeers 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Free_The_Elves0 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

From a societal standpoint, we don't want unwanted babies, because unwanted babies are more likely to end up a burden on society, therefore we should allow abortion. However, when the baby is kept, it is in society's best interest to have both parents contributing. Yeah, maybe women should sleep with better men, and I'm sure pretty much everyone agrees with that, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen.

My interpretation of MensRights is that it supports equal rights for men and women and it's against feminism when feminism is fighting for additional rights for women. However, it is impossible for equality on this issue because a man can walk away without having to carry a pregnancy to term, whereas a woman has to decide between abortion or adoption in order to walk away. Those two options suck a lot more than just walking away and forgetting about the situation (the option MensRights seems to support). A man can't have the responsibility of choosing abortion/adoption/keeping the child so he also doesn't get the right to choose. Since we can't make the options equal for both sexes, we go with the option that makes society better as a whole.

[–]Trail_of_Jeers 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

However, when the baby is kept, it is in society's best interest to have both parents contributing.

So, end no fault divorce.

Yeah, maybe women should sleep with better men, and I'm sure pretty much everyone agrees with that, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Yeah, maybe the criminally inclined ought not commit crimes, and I'm sure pretty much everyone agrees with that, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Before you shriek "what's dat gotta do wit' it!?!?", or worse "babby is not crime!", I shall explain.

A person makes the bad and short-sighted decision to commit a crime. Because the choice was theirs to commit the crime and so the consequences of that crime, through restitution, choice loss, and incarceration fall on the criminal.

A woman makes a bad choice to sleep with a bad person, or to push away a good person, and she SUDDENLY is absolved of consequences by getting someone else to foot the bill for her kid.

If I pick a low-paying job, or quit my job, I don't get money from them to alleviate the lack of income.

However, it is impossible for equality on this issue because a man can walk away without having to carry a pregnancy to term, whereas a woman has to decide between abortion or adoption in order to walk away. Those two options suck a lot more than just walking away and forgetting about the situation (the option MensRights seems to support).

Except that's not our problem. That's a woman's problem. We have plenty of different problems, such as, for example, being 93% of Homeless and 90% of workplace accidents and getting our wallet ass-raped by women who don't want to take responsibility for their decisions.

It's also damned-near impossible for a man to have sex without the woman's consent, and so while some will concede that her choices in the matter are worse (I won't), she is the main agent. If she sees no benefit to having sex, sex won't happen.

So, make better decisions.

Since we can't make the options equal for both sexes, we go with the option that makes society better as a whole.

Except single motherhood doesn't (see link above). So, by your admission, we must end no-fault divorce, end the welfare state, and shame pre-marital sex - the three things that most contribute to single motherhood.

[–]fucks_with_dolphins -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]usernametakenbs 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]fucks_with_dolphins -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde[S] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mentioned_Videos -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Videos in this thread: Watch Playlist ▶

VIDEO	COMMENT
Why do MRAs attack feminism?	9 - Why do MRAs attack feminism? - karen straughan
The Ultimate Conspiracy Debunker	1 - Ok so you really need to watch this
Bill Burr 5 Minute stand-up.	1 - 2:22

I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch.

Info | Get it on Chrome / Firefox

[–]the4thaggie -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Trail_of_Jeers 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Trail_of_Jeers 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Trail_of_Jeers 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Feminism: it's always rights for women and responsibilities for men.
Author	EricAllonde
Upvotes	3288
Comments	477
Date	August 30, 2016 7:00 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/50csr6/feminism_its_always_rights_for_women_and/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/feminism-its-always-rights-for-women-and.942579 https://theredarchive.com/post/942579

Comments

Equality