This really resonated with me

[–]BobbyDropTableUsers 405 points406 points407 points 10 years ago (67 children) | Copy Link

[–]mochacola 321 points322 points323 points 10 years ago (56 children) | Copy Link

[+]HoundDogs 10 years ago* [recovered] (54 children) | Copy Link

Goddamn that patriarchy.

[–]Lord_ThunderCunt 82 points83 points84 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]deanat78 38 points39 points40 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]JupeJupeSound -23 points-22 points-21 points 10 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]deanat78 25 points26 points27 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]Ruadan -9 points-8 points-7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]super_franzs 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]perverted_alt 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]eyephone314 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]perverted_alt 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]nuesuh 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[+]cptjmshook -14 points-13 points-12 points 10 years ago* (41 children) | Copy Link

Here's the thing most people don't understand about patriarchies: they don't exclusively benefit men, nor are they exclusively to the detriment of women. Being allowed/expected to wield power and accept responsibility comes with certain advantages and certain disadvantages, just as being expected/allowed to forsake power and eschew responsibility comes with certain advantages and certain disadvantages. So yes, we do live in a patriarchy. It would be foolish to deny it. But it would be equally foolish, not to mention callous, not to recognize and work to remedy the ways in which that fact hurts men.

Here's another thing about patriarchies: just because the system places men in positions of power, and gives them certain privileges while denying those same privileges to women, doesn't mean that only men are to blame. Just as there are many male feminists working alongside female feminists to end the patriarchy, there are many female non-feminists who are just as complicit as their male counterparts in perpetuating it. And it is exceedingly foolish, not to mention hypocritical and self-serving, of feminists to assert that women, simply by virtue of the fact that they are women, can only be victims and must never be criticized or held accountable in that regard.

EDIT: Guys, relax. I'm on your side. I upvoted OP's cartoon because it very pithily and poignantly made a point I agree with, and I too frequently feel frustrated and offended by the way so many feminists seem to claim a monopoly on victimization, and discount the double standards from which they benefit, and trivialize the very real struggles men face, and constantly chastise us and treat us all like potential rapists and abusers. I just don't think the knee-jerk, petulant, and frankly equally myopic response of "Pff, stupid feminists. What patriarchy?!" makes for a particularly compelling or respectable counterargument. At least not if we want our movement to be taken seriously.

EDIT #2: Oh, and for the record, /u/Masamune_, I agree about the wage gap.

[–]Lance_lake 14 points15 points16 points 10 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[+]cptjmshook -9 points-8 points-7 points 10 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

We've come a long way since the days when women weren't allowed to vote, or hold public office, or seek divorce--so no, there are no privileges that are officially granted men that are denied women. But patriarchy is about more than policy. It's about cultural tropes and traditions and deeply ingrained ways of thinking, so deeply ingrained that we consider them intuitive if we consider them at all. Indeed, it's in our very language. To say that because women are now legally allowed to do anything a man is allowed to do we live in a post-patriarchal society is as naive and simplistic as saying that because a black man currently occupies the office of the presidency we live in a post-racial society. There are still many systemic biases in place that privilege men over women, because our current society, however evolved it may be compared to a century or two ago, is still founded in that once strict patriarchal system.

[–]bufedad 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]cptjmshook 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]quwertie 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]cptjmshook 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]mzwaagdijk2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cptjmshook1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]quwertie1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]cptjmshook 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

Since when has it been socially acceptable for the socially preferred gender to be assaulted?

That was your claim, not mine.

Because the patriarchy has never been proven, yet you are sure it exists.

What exactly do you think the patriarchy is? Some mysterious force like the Force? Some intangible entity like a god? Feminists didn't invent the word. It's an anthropological term. The definition is a society in which descent is traced through male lines and in which men are considered to be the de facto heads of their families and by extension tend to dominate the power structures of the society as a whole. Does that definition describe Ameirca? Yes? Voila! Patriarchy proved.

That men are the socially preferred gender has never been proven, yet you are sure it is true.

Again, I never said that. You said that. You should go back and read your previous comment, as well as my previous comments, more carefully.

Believing something without proof is indicative of an ideologue, and ideologues are incapable of reevaluating their beliefs.

Actually, believing something without evidence is indicative of an ideologue. Reasonable, scientific-minded people believe things that have yet to be proved all the time. We call them theories. In fact, even believing something without evidence isn't quite right. Rather, I would say that believing something despite evidence to the contrary is what's indicative of an ideologue, and I have yet to be presented with any compelling evidence against the patriarchy.

You are losing this debate. You should reconsider your approach.

[–]bufedad1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What exactly do you think the patriarchy is? Some mysterious force like the Force? Some intangible entity like a god? Feminists didn't invent the word. It's an anthropological term.

It is, and yet, the anthropological term has nothing to do with a preferred gender.

Definition of patriarchy:

a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.

Neither the father, nor the eldest male is head of the family.

a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.

Women are not excluded from positions of power in any way because of their gender.

Yes? Voila! Patriarchy proved.

Hence accepting it's existence without evidence.

Again, I never said that. You said that. You should go back and read your previous comment, as well as my previous comments, more carefully.

You've never said that men are the preferred gender?

Reasonable, scientific-minded people believe things that have yet to be proved all the time.

Evidence is a synonym for proof.

Thesaurus

We call them theories.

No, you call them hypotheses. Theories have been supported by evidence/proof.

In fact, even believing something without evidence isn't quite right. Rather, I would say that believing something despite evidence to the contrary is what's indicative of an ideologue, and I have yet to be presented with any compelling evidence against the patriarchy.

Then you would be describing an ideologue based on your desire not to be one. You accept something as true that has not been proven, and is not supported by evidence. That's an ideologue. And you aren't going to change your mind based on truth, fact, or anything else.

Since you didn't require it to be proven, it cannot be disproved to you.

[–]cptjmshook1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It is, and yet, the anthropological term has nothing to do with a preferred gender.

If we're going to keep employing this term, then you're going to have to define it more clearly. Preferred in what sense? Preferred in the sense that they are overwhelmingly more likely to be elected and appointed to positions of power? Or in the sense that they will be the first allowed off a sinking ship? Preferred in the sense that they are often referred to as the "fairer sex"? Or in the sense that they are often referred to as the member of the household who "knows best"?

Neither the father, nor the eldest male is head of the family.

Which family are you referring to exactly? Or do you mean any given, hypothetical family? Also, where is your evidence that our society does not still predominantly consider the father or eldest male to be the de facto head of the family? Or are you merely stating your own opinion on the matter?

Women are not excluded from positions of power in any way because of their gender.

Largely excluded. So while it's true there is no law excluding women from positions of power, and there are indeed some women public officials, they are still vastly outnumbered. Why? Because women are far less likely to be voted into those positions than men. In other words, they are excluded by the voters--or by systemic biases, if you prefer.

Hence accepting it's existence without evidence.

I have already offered plenty of evidence. That you do not consider it evidence does not prevent it from being so. Indeed, you are being far more stubborn than I am in your refusal to budge from your entrenched position.

You've never said that men are the preferred gender?

When? In the context of this debate? I have, but only when repeating you. In life? I honestly don't think I ever have.

Evidence is a synonym for proof. Thesaurus

Thesaurus.com is not a reliable source by which to ascertain the subtle differences between the definition of evidence and the definition of proof when those words are being used in a scientific context.

No, you call them hypotheses. Theories have been supported by evidence/proof.

Theories are hypotheses that have been supported by evidence, yes, but not which have been proved. A theory, once proved, ceases to be a theory and becomes a fact. Look it up.

Then you would be describing an ideologue based on your desire not to be one.

No, I am describing an ideologue based on my correct understanding of the word, as well as of the words evidence, proof, and theory.

You accept something as true that has not been proven, and is not supported by evidence. That's an ideologue. And you aren't going to change your mind based on truth, fact, or anything else. Since you didn't require it to be proven, it cannot be disproved to you.

Here's the thing. You are talking about the patriarchy as if it is something that exists independently of mankind, like God or gravitational waves, and for which mankind can only search for evidence. But it is not. It is an invention of mankind. If a society is patriarchal, it is because we designed it to be. So whether or not a society is patriarchal is not a matter of evidence but of record. And it is a matter of record that our society was founded by men (the "Founding Fathers" as we still so tellingly refer to them), who wrote a document establishing that only men could lead it, and that only other men could vote those leaders into office. Yes, we have since changed those laws so that women can vote and hold office, but that does not retroactively change the fact that we were founded as a patriarchy, and that foundation still informs every aspect of our culture. It is also a matter of record that descent is traced through male lineage. Whose last name do you and most of your friends have? Your mothers' or your fathers'?

The only claim I made that you have disputed is that we live in a patriarchy, and I have now both provided you with the dictionary definition of that word and established that it is a matter of record that our society fits that definition. If you continue to argue, then you prove yourself the ideologue.

[–]bufedad1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If we're going to keep employing this term, then you're going to have to define it more clearly

Let's ignore that for the moment, since I seem to keep attributing something to you that you aren't actually saying.

Which family are you referring to exactly? Or do you mean any given, hypothetical family? Also, where is your evidence that our society does not still predominantly consider the father or eldest male to be the de facto head of the family? Or are you merely stating your own opinion on the matter?

I don't think you understand how this works. You've stated that the Patriarchy was proven, with the following as part of your evidence. Can you please supply the evidence that brought you to the following conclusion?

in which men are considered to be the de facto heads of their families

As far as why I can say that men aren't the de facto heads of the families:

10 Million families with only the mother as the parent (and eldest male children do not get to be in charge of the family).

80% of family finances are controlled by women.

70% of divorces are initiated by women.

The only claim I made that you have disputed is that we live in a patriarchy, and I have now both provided you with the dictionary definition of that word and established that it is a matter of record that our society fits that definition.

No, you haven't established that it is a matter of record that our society fits that definition.

You've made that conclusion, repeatedly, but you haven't actually proven it.

You've stated that men are the de facto heads of the household, but you've provided no evidence to support that.

The only part of the definition of patriarchy that our society fits is that the lineage is traced through the male. That's it.

[–]bufedad1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cptjmshook1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mzwaagdijk2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bufedad1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Sbaker777 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cptjmshook -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Well thought out and mature response. I like you.

Likewise! Thank god there's at least one other reasonable person in this sub.

But I disagree.

I'm afraid I must say "likewise" to this, too. Thanks to the way third wave feminism has appropriated and popularized the term, there now seems to be a misconception among both sides of the debate that "patriarchy" means a society that is invariably and exclusively injurious and oppressive toward women. But that's not what it means. All it means is a society in which descent is traced through male lines and men are considered the de facto heads of their families and, by extension, tend to dominate the power structures of the society as a whole. America, along with most of the world, is unarguably such a society. True, women are now legally allowed to vote and hold public office, but the fact remains that we began as a society in which they were not, and the effects of that foundation are still being felt (not to mention that our culture is positively permeated by a religion that explicitly preaches the superiority of men over women). To what degree do those effects continue to inform each gender's perception and treatment of the other? And is that really such a bad thing if, indeed, as you put it, each has its own unique privileges and anti-privileges that basically balance out? Those are questions worthy of debate. But whether or not we live in a patriarchy is not. We do.

[–]Kinbaku_enthusiast 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cptjmshook 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

For my thoughts on the first sentence of your comment, see my response to Lance_lake's comment above.

As for the rest, in a strict patriarchy women are denied positions of power and treated as children. From a certain perspective, couldn't being freed of the burdens of power and responsibility and being indulged and protected and provided for the way children are be viewed as benefits? Not only is the claim that in order for a society to qualify as a patriarchy it must be structured in such a way that it exclusively benefits men incredibly simplistic, but to structure a society in such a way would be downright impossible, as what constitutes a benefit and what does not is so often so irreconcilably subjective.

For the record, I agree that the assumption so many feminists seem to be operating under--namely, that the fact that we live in a patriarchy means nothing but advantages for men and disadvantages for women--is equally if not more simplistic and counterproductive.

[–]bougabouga 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

Here's the thing most people don't understand about patriarchies: they don't exclusively benefit men, nor are they exclusively to the detriment of women.

The definition of patriarchy appears to be different with every feminist and keeps evolving every year. Is there a single feminist out there that actually knows exactly what the patriarchy is?

Being allowed/expected to wield power and accept responsibility comes with certain advantages and certain disadvantages, just as being expected/allowed to forsake power and eschew responsibility comes with certain advantages and certain disadvantages.

Also known as being an adult.

So yes, we do live in a patriarchy. It would be foolish to deny it.But it would be equally foolish, not to mention callous, not to recognize and work to remedy the ways in which that fact hurts men.

That's not evidence for the existence of a patriarchy, it's just evidence that with power comes responsibility. Which is a universal truth. What hurts men are laws, which can be re written. You don't need to come up with some elaborate conspiracy with a ever changing definition is order to explain it.

Here's another thing about patriarchies: just because the system places men in positions of power

also known as democracy.

and gives them certain privileges while denying those same privileges to women doesn't mean that only men are to blame. there are many female non-feminists who are just as complicit as their male counterparts in perpetuating it.

Ah yes, the internalized misogyny thing, the term used to describe women who have committed the sacrilege of not believing in feminist conspiracies. Also known as critical thinking.

And it is exceedingly foolish, not to mention hypocritical and self-serving, of feminists to assert that women, simply by virtue of the fact that they are women, can only be victims and must never be criticized or held accountable in that regard.

You cannot be serious, you cannot actually believe that feminism isn't the main group pushing that idea.

I want you to provide undeniable evidence for this patriarchy, I don't want some feminist literature as evidence, that's like using the bible to prove the existence of the devil. The source can't be written by a feminist, again for the same reasons. I want you to prove without any doubt that the sex of an individual is the ONLY POSSIBLE FACTOR why they are leaders.

I want a clear and detailed definition is the patriarchy and I want you to explain why the definition changes from one feminist to another and why it changes with time.

Because from where I stand, the patriarchy is to feminism what the devil is to Christianity.

I'll wait for your answer while I read why air conditioning is sexist towards women and keeping them down.

[–]cptjmshook 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

The definition of patriarchy appears to be different with every feminist and keeps evolving every year. Is there a single feminist out there that actually knows exactly what the patriarchy is?

I wasn't offering a definition of patriarchy. I was merely pointing out a misconception about its implications. For the record, the definition is:

a society in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.
a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.

Also known as being an adult.

With that, I assume you are referring to only the first part of the sentence you quoted: "Being allowed/expected to wield power and accept responsibility comes with certain advantages and certain disadvantages". So yes, fine, we can call that "being an adult", although I don't see how whether or not that constitutes being an adult has anything to do with the point I'm trying to make about patriarchy. As long as we're trying to connect the two topics, however, I will make this observation, with which I am sure you'll agree: our society seems to expect men to act like adults, and to ridicule and penalize them when they don't, much more than it does women. Incidentally, I would consider that characteristic of a patriarchy.

That's not evidence for the existence of a patriarchy, it's just evidence that with power comes responsibility. Which is a universal truth. What hurts men are laws, which can be re written. You don't need to come up with some elaborate conspiracy with a ever changing definition is order to explain it.

Here you've lost me. Nothing I said was meant to be evidence of our living in a patriarchy, nor do I consider it to be evidence that with power comes responsibility. Indeed, it was not my intention to prove either one of those claims. I agree that there are many laws that hurt men, and that they should be rewritten. I don't, however, agree that anything I said constitutes a conspiracy theory, elaborate or otherwise--nor, again, was I attempting to define anything.

also known as democracy

Yes, we elect our leaders, and yes, women now have the right to vote in those elections. But the effects of patriarchy extend beyond written policy. The tropes and traditions of the strict patriarchy that once prohibited women from voting or holding public office will take a longer time to completely die out than any law.

Ah yes, the internalized misogyny thing, the term used to describe women who have committed the sacrilege of not believing in feminist conspiracies. Also known as critical thinking.

I actually did not have the phrase "internalized misogyny", nor the phenomenon it describes, in mind when I wrote the bit you were responding to, but in this case I can see how you'd make that connection. I don't believe it's sacrilege for a woman not to subscribe to every feminist claim or narrative (although I don't think your word, "conspiracy", is any more appropriate in this context than it was the last time you used it). Indeed, I consider many of those claims and narratives to be sensationalized, politicized, disingenuous, paranoid, hypocritical bullshit myself. But let's remember that there is feminism, and there is third wave feminism. Most of the aforementioned bullshit is produced by the latter. The former simply asserts that men and women should be considered and treated as equals, which is patently impossible in a patriarchy. Frankly, I'm surprised you took issue with this point. I was criticizing feminists! I'd have thought you'd be pleased! Also, I too am a fan of critical thinking. Hence my offering a more thoughtful and nuanced response to the claim that we live in a patriarchy than either "Yeah! Fuck the patriarchy!" or "The patriarchy is a myth! Fuck feminism!"

You cannot be serious, you cannot actually believe that feminism isn't the main group pushing that idea.

You'll be happy to know that I do not, in fact, believe that feminism isn't the main group pushing that idea. In fact I said just the opposite: "And it is exceedingly foolish ... of feminists to assert that women ... can only be victims and must never be criticized or held accountable in that regard." I can see how you got confused, though. My sentences tend to be overlong and broken up into many clauses. My bad.

I want you to provide undeniable evidence for this patriarchy

Once again, it was never my aim to prove the patriarchy, so no. If you want evidence so badly, it should be easy enough for you to find it on your own, expert critical thinker that you are.

I don't want some feminist literature as evidence

I also tend to find most feminist literature tiresome, but to be fair, what document arguing the existence of the patriarchy could not fairly be called feminist literature?

that's like using the bible to prove the existence of the devil.

Ridiculous and fallacious, I agree.

I want you to prove without any doubt that the sex of an individual is the ONLY POSSIBLE FACTOR why they are leaders.

Again, no. But you should know that a leader's sex does not need to be the ONLY POSSIBLE FACTOR as to why they were elected for their having been elected to be evidence, or a manifestation, of the patriarchy. It merely has to have been a factor. Life lesson: things are never so simple that they can be attributed to just one factor.

I want a clear and detailed definition is the patriarchy

See item 1.

and I want you to explain why the definition changes from one feminist to another

Sorry, I cannot speak for all feminists. I am not a psychic.

and why it changes with time.

Language! ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Because from where I stand, the patriarchy is to feminism what the devil is to Christianity.

Kind of a faulty analogy. I mean, patriarchies actually exist.

I'll wait for your answer while I read why air conditioning is sexist towards women and keeping them down.

You seem to be implying that I must be one of those hysterical morons who agrees with that story. I assure you I am not. Another life lesson: the world is not divided into black and white. Accordingly, everyone you meet is not either an air conditioner-vilifying third wave feminist or a patriarchy-denying MRA. There are shades of gray.

[–]bougabouga 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

a society in which the father or eldest male is head of the family

So wait, when I was raised by my mother, I was the one actually in charge?

descent is traced through the male line.

TIL family trees are tools of the patriarchy.

a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.

Well we have democracy now so I am happy that you and I both agree that this patriarchy thing no longer exists, and therefore anyone bringing it up to describe modern western society is failing to understand both democracy and patriarchy.

As long as we're trying to connect the two topics, however, I will make this observation, with which I am sure you'll agree: our society seems to expect men to act like adults, and to ridicule and penalize them when they don't, much more than it does women. Incidentally, I would consider that characteristic of a patriarchy.

You don't see men starting campaigns to have fat men represented in modeling, you don't see men asking for safe spaces from different opinions, you don't see men being offended at stupid protein supplement ads. You see feminists do that, who claim to represent women. How can a movement claim at the very same time, that women are capable leaders and also claim that women are oppressed by other women in bikinis.

If the patriarchy is a system claiming that women can't be leaders, then feminism is by far the most efficient patriarchal tool.

Yes, we elect our leaders, and yes, women now have the right to vote in those elections. But the effects of patriarchy extend beyond written policy. The tropes and traditions of the strict patriarchy that once prohibited women from voting or holding public office will take a longer time to completely die out than any law.

No it won't.

But let's remember that there is feminism, and there is third wave feminism.

third wave feminism = feminism.

Most of the aforementioned bullshit is produced by the latter

By feminism.

The former simply asserts that men and women should be considered and treated as equals, which is patently impossible in a patriarchy.

Well considering the definition you have given, modern western nations don't live in it anymore so hurray! No longer will the patriarchy be used to explain person failures!

Frankly, I'm surprised you took issue with this point. I was criticizing feminists! I'd have thought you'd be pleased!

You are not critical of feminism, you are critical of third wave feminism which you described as not being feminism. The whole "well they aren't REAL feminists like me!" is used by every feminists to describe other feminists.

Once again, it was never my aim to prove the patriarchy, so no. If you want evidence so badly, it should be easy enough for you to find it on your own, expert critical thinker that you are.

"If you want evidence of the devil so badly, it should be easy enough for you to find it on your own"

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

what document arguing the existence of the patriarchy could not fairly be called feminist literature?

the same kind of documents that argue for the existence of the devil. Literature attempting to explain the real world using fiction and calling it science.

a leader's sex does not need to be the ONLY POSSIBLE FACTOR as to why they were elected for their having been elected to be evidence, or a manifestation, of the patriarchy. It merely has to have been a factor.

Again, I want solid evidence that this system exists, no fairy tales, no baseless opinions/arguments. Hard science.

Life lesson: things are never so simple that they can be attributed to just one factor.

The former simply asserts that men and women should be considered and treated as equals, which is patently impossible in a patriarchy.

.

Kind of a faulty analogy. I mean, patriarchies actually exist.

a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.

Nobody who lives in a western nation can claim they live in a patriarchy. I used that analogy to compare how Christians have created this thing to blame for all the evils in the world, and when asked for evidence, fail miserably to deliver. This mighty evil thing that apparently is all around us and controls everything is just nowhere to be found.

You seem to be implying that I must be one of those hysterical morons who agrees with that story.

Claiming something exists when it doesn't will leave that impression on others.

patriarchy-denying MRA

All I ever wanted was undeniable evidence that western nations live in a patriarchal system. That's all you ever need to do to end this conversation, I don't know why you are refusing to do this.

Your movement claims that they live in a system that denies them leadership because of their gender and then refuses to provide evidence, the burden of proof is on your side.

Can you really blame all the men and women who refuse to blindly believe in your faith?

[–]cptjmshook -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bougabouga 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]cptjmshook 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Meaning positions of power, not the accumulative power of the vote.

But those positions of power answer to women's suffrage. That's why the US government has grown 2000% relative to GDP since women's suffrage.

Look at how many more men there are and have always been in public office than women.

Of course there will be. Of those qualified, there are more men than women. Simply put, males are more diverse than females. When you are looking for the best at anything, you will find more men than women.

The tropes and traditions of the strict patriarchy that once prohibited women from voting or holding public office will take a longer time to completely die out than any law.

Bullshit. It didn't take long at all. It started changing within 2 election cycles.

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf

The facts do not support your claims.

[–]ChimneyMonkey 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ChimneyMonkey1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I do not have time to find supporting references, but one question based off logic - how might the untold years of increased access to higher education, positions of authority, and finances (and therefore likely healthcare) impacted men's "dominance" over women in certain categories? One quote from your own referenced article supports my position: "In early hominid societies women gathered and men hunted. The division of labor exerted distinctly different adaptive pressures on men and women, leaving them with different cognitive strengths." (I only had time to skim the article, so I may have missed larger points)

Adaptive pressures (i.e. social context) creating various strengths and deficits... Maybe I misinterpreted your statement, but does this not argue against men being innately superior to women and support generational and contextual catalysts? So when you say that "of course there will be [more men that women in public office]," what other reasons might there be than your simple statement that "men are more diverse than females and the best at anything?" What happens when we look deeper?

[–]Demonspawn1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I do not have time to find supporting references, but one question based off logic - how might the untold years of increased access to higher education, positions of authority, and finances (and therefore likely healthcare) impacted men's "dominance" over women in certain categories?

Did that also happen in the animal kingdom? Did male horses get more authority and money?

Adaptive pressures (i.e. social context) creating various strengths and deficits...

It's not an adaptive question, it's a biological one. Science no longer debates the difference, they are trying to figure out the cause (as a tip, the current leading theory is X Checksum theory).

does this not argue against men being innately superior to women

That's not a claim I made. Men are not innately superior. They are simply more diverse. It's because of that diversity that the majority of the best (and of the worst) are going to be predominantly men.

what other reasons might there be than your simple statement that "men are more diverse than females and the best at anything?" What happens when we look deeper?

The problem is, to "look deeper" you first have to propose that there is something more than the biological diversity going on. Are men overrepresented? To say that "well there's more than 50% male so they must be" is not an argument because, again, males vary more than females.

[–]cptjmshook -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

But those positions of power answer to women's suffrage. That's why the US government has grown 2000% relative to GDP since women's suffrage.

The men and women who vote--and indeed, who run--have all nevertheless been raised in, and conditioned by, a society that is still foundationally patriarchal. Therefore, whether or not they vote, and how they vote, and whether or not they run, and how they run, and how they are perceived when they run, and how they perform once in office, and how they are perceived while in office, and so on and so forth, are all still, to admittedly varying degrees, subject to the lingering effects of that foundation.

Of course there will be. Of those qualified, there are more men than women. Simply put, males are more diverse than females. When you are looking for the best at anything, you will find more men than women.

The reason there are more men than women who are qualified for public office, as well as certain other jobs (although I disagree with your assertion that men will always be the best at anything), is that, again, we are still experiencing the lingering effects of our foundation as a strictly patriarchal society. When feminists rail against the patriarchy, it is not merely the basic power structure at its foundation they object to, it is also the myriad ways that basic power structure has informed our social rituals, our language, our perceptions of beauty, our perceptions of emotional displays, etc. To say that because women now hold positions of public office means we live in a post-patriarchal society is as naive and simplistic as saying that because a black man currently occupies the office of the presidency we live in a post-racial society.

Bullshit. It didn't take long at all. It started changing within 2 election cycles.

I didn't say it took a long time for the effects to begin to die out. I said it will take a long time for the effects to die out completely. So your evaluation of my claim as "bullshit" may be a bit harsh.

The facts do not support your claims.

Before making such statements, first make sure you fully and correctly understand the claims you are attempting to disprove.

[–]Demonspawn0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The men and women who vote--and indeed, who run--have all nevertheless been raised in, and conditioned by, a society that is still foundationally patriarchal.

And yet government changed wildly once women got the vote. That would be counter to your argument.

The reason there are more men than women who are qualified for public office, as well as certain other jobs (although I disagree with your assertion that men will always be the best at anything), is that, again, we are still experiencing the lingering effects of our foundation as a strictly patriarchal society.

Nope. It's biology. Male standard deviations are larger than female standard deviations. This is true of all mammalian species. So unless you propose that all animals have the same "patriarchy" you are not making a supported argument.

Before making such statements, first make sure you fully and correctly understand the claims you are attempting to disprove.

I do understand it... it's bullshit. The exact same things happen in the animal kingdom that you are blaming on "patriarchy".

[–]cptjmshook0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Masamune_ 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mochacola 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]perverted_alt 19 points20 points21 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]jul14nn 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]perverted_alt 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]jul14nn -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[+]angrynewyawka 10 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

He could slip her an abortion pill into her morning OJ. Sure, it would be a little traumatizing but it would be declared murder, not assault. The irony is comedic.

[–]jul14nn 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]angrynewyawka 10 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Off to /r/feminism you go, troll.

[–]jul14nn 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TwistedPerson 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]benzinow 215 points216 points217 points 10 years ago* (26 children) | Copy Link

[+]ApexRedditr 10 years ago* [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

Likewise, for a devil's advocate view, if a woman gives up custody to the father and isn't part of their lives, she's viewed as bad, if not worse than a father does the same. Though this wasn't really the point of the op image.

[–]Fgame 12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]i_like_honeydew 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rex9 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Fgame 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]AkaTujh 10 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Are you sure? I've met enough women who left their children with fathers and i don't recall any shaming

[–]carolnuts 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]tomsix 69 points70 points71 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Thibbledorf_Pwent 75 points76 points77 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]angrynewyawka 10 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

My ex was a whore. Like, straight up ho. She cheated on me with like 5 guys. Before meeting me she had given up a child for adoption, after I got her pregnant she got an abortion.

You're overestimating the emotional depth a lot of women who are willing to have an abortion have. For every woman that is devastated because of that decision, there's 20 out there smoking a cigarette, having drinks and fucking their new FWB giving zero fucks and happy that they live in the land of the free (abortion).

You know how many male friends I have whose lives have been ruined because a girl wanted to play mommy and wanted that sweet, sweet child support money so they could hang out for 2 years? Too many.

[–]Thibbledorf_Pwent3 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LooneyDubs -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tgunner192 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 21 points22 points23 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]PurpleViolettron 18 points19 points20 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]Grasshopper21 -12 points-11 points-10 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]koji8123 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bayerrc 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]1forthethumb 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

Imagine, just fucking imagine the can of worms that would be opened if the gov't could tell you what you can and can't do with your own body.

Devil's advocate - they do. But I'm not going to get into that, because this isn't a pissing contest.

No one is arguing that the right to an abortion isn't about bodily autonomy - it is. However, the right to choose when one becomes a parent is delegated only to women. Yes, men can abstain from sex, and yes men can use condoms, but barring the prevention of pregnancy there are no rights. Let's say a guy is taken advantage of when he's in a drunken stupor, let's say the condom breaks, let's say whatever unfortunate event happens and despite taking every precaution available to him - he becomes involved in a pregnancy. At this point in time, he is legally obligated to be responsible for that child. And should he fail to uphold those responsibilities, he is treated as a criminal.

Honestly, you don't see why that might not seem fair? Can you imagine if every time you had sex, the guy you had sex with had a chance of developing a medical condition, one that would legally obligate you to pay him money for the next eighteen years? And you had no chance for recourse? That wouldn't seem a little messed up to you?

I'm not going to argue that I have all the answers to a better setup for this system, because I don't. It's complicated and it's going to take a lot of intelligent people a lot of research and a lot of testing to come up with a better solution. But the system as it stands is simply unequal, and certainly there must be some way to fix that.

That's why this is posted here. Not because anyone wants to take any rights away from women, because they want some of those same rights to be extended to men.

[–]jgzman 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ContHund 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So if sovereignty over your own body is so important, then why is it acceptable for a man who doesn't want to be a parent to be forced to pay child support for a child he didn't want with money earned via hours of labor with his body.

It's less direct but directly applicable.

If women are afforded abortions because forcing them to carry a child for 9 months and give birth in a day or two with their bodies violates their bodily autonomy, then why aren't men given the option to forgo working for 18 years to have a significant chunk of their money, earned with their bodies, paid to someone else?

Forcing an abortion on a woman would be a violation of her bodily autonomy based on the choices of others.

Child support is a violation of a person's autonomy based directly on the choices of others.

How did you miss that this isn't about forcing abortions, it's about giving men more options? Nowhere in the history of the MRM have forced abortions been part of the agenda, and it's only mentioned in the form of rhetorical questions.

[–]Stackman23 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dewse 65 points66 points67 points 10 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

[–]flyafar 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I definitely don't have all the answers. this is a stream of consciousness:

I don't think a man should have any (legal) say in whether a woman has an abortion or not. Obviously they should talk about it in ideal circumstances, but there is no compromise to be had between abortion or carrying the baby to term. It is always the woman's sole right to abort or not, since she alone has to carry the pregnancy to term.

On the flip side, the woman should have no say legally on the father's "financial abortion". This should only be allowed before the birth of the child. The father waves all parental rights, if he so chooses. Once he does, there is absolutely no going back, unless the child wishes to contact the father later in life, and the father will have no legal responsibility, unless he adopts the child, with the consent of both the mother and the child, or solely the child if over 18.

Both of these situations are shitty if you are an unwilling party. For instance a couple decides to have a child but the man or woman decides later to change their mind... it can be devastating, but it is their right, imo.

No easy answers, unfortunately, and I see a ton of ways the financial abortion situation could be abused by both sides. The mother keeping the pregnancy a secret, which can only be solved by ensuring the father is aware of the child before it's born, which is unenforceable, which means, what, allowing financial abortions after birth? Then the father holds all the cards, so to speak... So fucking messy.

[–]tylamarre -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kingnorm 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]perverted_alt 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]kingnorm -8 points-7 points-6 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]perverted_alt 12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]HazMat68W 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kingnorm -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]perverted_alt 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]kingnorm -7 points-6 points-5 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]perverted_alt 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lhxtx3 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]RelevantAnecdotes -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]JackBond1234 -13 points-12 points-11 points 10 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]dewse 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]jeepdave 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]BoxOfNothing 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]jeepdave 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]BoxOfNothing 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

I struggle to understand that position. At what point do you believe they become conscious? Because you can only have an abortion up to 24 weeks and according to Scientific American

Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester.

I feel like people confuse potential for conscious and living, for conscious and living.

[–]JackBond1234 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]BoxOfNothing 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]JackBond1234 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]BoxOfNothing0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JackBond12341 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BoxOfNothing1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JackBond12341 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BoxOfNothing1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JackBond12340 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You can just quit the semantics about "legality" in murder right now. Abortion is "legal". That doesn't mean it's unjust and immoral killing any less. So call it what you want, my point isn't swayed by such a weak argument.

So you don't value human lives if you can define them as not sentient. What if I don't value human lives at all? Is moral relativism going to make it okay if I go on a killing spree? If we're just going to take the average age we all start valuing human life as the legal definition of murder, then why stop at pre-birth? Let's start a murder movement and get rid of all those silly morally arbitrary human rights. Let's all become the Middle East because hey, you're just a non-living clump of cells. Nobody in the world is alive, and making you "stop moving" (because the term "killing" implies it's a bad thing to stab, harm, or otherwise take the false notion of "life" from someone) is my right as someone who defines his own morals and reality.

[–]jeepdave 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]BoxOfNothing 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]jeepdave 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]BoxOfNothing1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jeepdave1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BoxOfNothing1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jeepdave1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dewse -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]jeepdave 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]dewse 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]jeepdave 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]dewse 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]TranceIsLove -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]jeepdave 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TranceIsLove -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]jeepdave 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]realsbeforefeels 54 points55 points56 points 10 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

I always find it funny when people who are pro-choice use pro-life rhetoric as soon as the conversation is about male reproductive rights e.g. "if you don't want kids get it snipped", "men do get a choice, it's called a condom", "consent to sex is consent to fatherhood". It's a really bizarre standard that society holds men to, where your options are: a potentially non-reversible surgery (chance gets worse with time) that you may have difficulty in getting a doctor to agree to if you're young/childless, hoping that you don't succumb to the 2% chance of pregnancy per year from using condoms perfectly (for reference the typical failure rate per year is 18%), or celibacy.

But men already have all the rights, right?

Failure rates source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods

[–]VarsityPhysicist 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]realsbeforefeels 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Two potential pitfalls here:

1) Having the same views on children and an understanding as to how an unplanned pregnancy would be handled is ideal, sure, and there are plenty of guys who are in a similar boat to you. However, should an unplanned pregnancy occur, there is nothing stopping someone from changing their mind with regard to having an abortion. Whether or not a guy becomes a father in these situations is 100% down to the decision made by their partner. Now I'm not suggesting that women in long-term relationships who have agreed to abort unplanned pregnancies, and then go back on their word, is a common occurrence. But it absolutely does happen.

2) You don't address single men who are having one-night stands/casual relationships. There is obviously less trust and commitment involved here. Would you agree that men in this camp get shafted due to the reasons I've outlined in my OP? Do you think they should build a decent level of trust and understanding with someone before they have sex, even if they're not looking for something serious? I'm just curious to hear your thoughts.

[–]JimBobDwayne 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]VarsityPhysicist -6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]JimBobDwayne 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]VarsityPhysicist -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JimBobDwayne 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mochacola 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]realsbeforefeels 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]milkypsych 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Put simply the 'copper coil' often causes heavy, painful periods and sometimes can't be fitted in women that haven't already have children. Some people won't want to take the hormonal coil because they don't want hormonal birth control. With the pill you can try different ones to see which hormone level works best for you, whereas with the IUD you're pretty stuck. Another reason is that people might still be scared from cases where IUDs have caused miscarriage, birth defects and infertility (Dalkon shield). Finally, there's research being carried out at the minute following on from evidence that some IUDs make work as 'abortive'. This hasn't been confirmed but I know that some doctors in the UK are holding off from recommending IUDs at the minute until this becomes more clear.

I think that IUDs can be a very effective method of birth control, but I can see why some people choose to avoid them.

[–]RelevantAnecdotes 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]invinciblenow -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]notmyusualreddit 10 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

If you use a condom 'perfectly' as you say, the pregnancy rate is not 2%.

That rate includes those not using it correctly.

[–]realsbeforefeels 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TwistedPerson -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Damadawf 25 points26 points27 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

And as shitty as this double standard is, this is exactly why guys who do not want children should be extremely careful in making sure that they don't accidentally impregnate anyone. "Accidents happen" isn't a good enough excuse because this is an inequality that will probably never go away due to the biological differences between men and women. The baby is inside the woman's body, so ultimately she is given the final say over whether or not she goes through with the pregnancy, and men are forced to pay child support so that the child isn't "disadvantaged" in life.

It's just an all around shitty situation, and that's why you need to seriously think twice about what you're doing when you have sex with a woman because it only takes a split second of letting your guard down for her to get pregnant, and then there's nothing more you can do.

[–]55mph_knuckleball 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]__PETTYOFFICER117__ 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]55mph_knuckleball 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]whitemanrunning 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Anon3mous1 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]whitemanrunning 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]55mph_knuckleball 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Xemnas81 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]copper_chicken -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]cy1999aek_maik 10 years ago* [recovered] (45 children) | Copy Link

The man should be able to choose abortion and if the woman doesn't agree then he should be free of child support because it wasn't his choice.And don't give me this bullshit of using protection,both genders should responsible for that

[–]Lowkeypeepee 20 points21 points22 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]reagan2024 20 points21 points22 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nick12506 14 points15 points16 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lowkeypeepee 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grasshopper21 -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]PurpleViolettron 19 points20 points21 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]muchlygrand 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]PurpleViolettron 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]muchlygrand 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Fgame -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PurpleViolettron -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]cy1999aek_maik 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Xemnas81 -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RelevantAnecdotes 55 points56 points57 points 10 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]toomanynumbrrrs 20 points21 points22 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]MrTucker3 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]HalfysReddit 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BSexclusionzone 32 points33 points34 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sharkman1231 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]masonvd 10 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Does being trapped in a prison cell not deter ones autonomy?

[–]Sharkman1231 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]midwesternliberal12 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RiPing 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]neverXmiss 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]perverted_alt 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PerniciousOne 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]RaptorFalcon -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jeepdave -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]99639 -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

And don't give me this bullshit of using protection,both genders should responsible for that

And they are. If you don't want child, use protection. If you trust your partner enough, you can trust if he/she says he/she's protected. But you are still responsible for having that trust.

But ultimately, it's up to you to use protection. Why would you fuck someone barebacked that you don't trust?

STDs are more of the male's responsibility, because woman can't use condom (there are some contraptions, but nothing as easy as condom). And they are putting a lot faith on the man to not slip the condom off unnoticed because "it feels better".

Accidents happen and it sucks if you can't get in to an agreement about abortion/adoption and child support. But it's for the good of the kid if you have to pay child support.

[–]cy1999aek_maik 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Assupoika -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

Well, that settles it. You've never talked with women about sex. No, vagina doesn't have that defined feel that they'd be able to tell if the penis inside her has a condom or not. The condom tends to get the same temperature as penis very fast.

You also have no clue how the contraception pill works, do you?

It's not like a fucking aspirin, you don't take it couple of hours before sex. You got to take it every day in certain order for it to be effective. Miss one day and it might not be effective for days. And when you start using the pill, it's not immediately effective. It takes couple of weeks for them to start to have effect. Could've been even 4 weeks. I don't remember, it's been a long time since my SO started taking them.

And day after pill shouldn't be used as a contraception. It's something you use IF you notice that you don goofed up, or if you notice the condom fail/pessary fail (not that Pessary is very common contraception). It's like a hormone nuclear bomb. It can mess up your menstrual cycle for a while. And it's not fool proof either.

[–]cy1999aek_maik 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Assupoika -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]cy1999aek_maik 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Assupoika 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't know what else we have left to discuss.

I agree on you that both parties are responsible of using a contraception.

But that means both parties, you and her. If you are willing to risk having a child, you can leave out the contraception and agree that the other party uses it. It's ultimately about the trust. If you don't know the other one well enough and you can't trust her/him, use protection of your own.

Also, I still want to point out that:

You can hear a condom come off,you can see a condom come off and you can feel the penis in other areas of the body without getting too graphic.

You can slide it off without pretty much any sound. And I'd wager that you wouldn't be able to feel the difference of hot slimy penis poking your inner thigh, with a hot slimy penis with a condom on poking your inner thigh. Vagina, inner thigh, and that general idea don't have the fine texture feel that fingertips have.

And if you are fucking doggie style, she doesn't see everything that's going on around back there. Or in missionary either necessarily.

Condom isn't 100%, neither is pill. If you want to be sure, both use contraception. If the contraception fails and she wants to keep the child and you don't, that sucks and I agree that there should be some kind of arrangement here. But it's a juridical hell and a lot of she said he said.

What about if the pregnancy is consensual, the woman gets pregnant and suddenly on week 9 the man decides that he doesn't want to be a father after all? Now should the woman lose child support if she wants to keep the baby but the man wants to get abortion? That wouldn't be fair. Should you make a signed document before the pregnancy that "we are now trying to get pregnant consensually"?

[–]cy1999aek_maik 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]angrynewyawka 10 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Dont waste your time and energy on an idiot.

[–]Assupoika 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cy1999aek_maik 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Applejack244 27 points28 points29 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]gravity013 -11 points-10 points-9 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]donthassleme-imlocal 15 points16 points17 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Applejack244 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]gravity013 -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BlackBoxGamers 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]VarsityPhysicist 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_FART_OUT_MY_BUTT69 -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]saintmikel 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ProudGinger 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FromTheFarSouth 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]geniice -11 points-10 points-9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ultramegasaurus 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]xmrsmoothx 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ultramegasaurus -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]kingnorm -8 points-7 points-6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SEND_ME_YOUR_ASSPICS 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ILoveToph4Eva 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]danpilon 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cra4efqwfe45 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WeRtheBork 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EFIW1560 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PerniciousOne 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EFIW1560 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]yoshi570 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]yoshi570 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ILoveToph4Eva -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]yoshi570 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The artist behind the comic is not even defending men's rights. He's anti-aborption. The rethorics aren't the same, at all. And it's not even fair for women either !

You got pregnant accidently and have the child ? How dare you raise a kid you were not prepared for, did not have the wealth for ?

You got pregnant accidently and have an abortion ? How dare you end the precious life ?

If you wanted to make the comic one for men's right, the second panel should be:

This is a woman who got pregnant and decided to raise the kid without telling the father. She's a parangon of virtue, an example of motherhood.

Because yes, it is as bad for a father to refuse to raise a kid than it is for a mother to have childs in secrets. Having a children is a decision that should only happen when the two parents are okay for it. It only needs one of them not to be up for it to be enough to go for an aborption.

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

[–]st0ffe1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]seymorezipcode -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]dzamir -7 points-6 points-5 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]atred -17 points-16 points-15 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]con_nguoi 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[permanently deleted]

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

[+]atred -20 points-19 points-18 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]atred -19 points-18 points-17 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]atred 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]atred 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xmrsmoothx -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]atred -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AloysiusC 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blizz360-20 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]IalreadybangedOP -24 points-23 points-22 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Canileaveyet 15 points16 points17 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-Canonical- 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]x7Hogan7x -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]episode11 -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kasperkakoala 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]thegeekprophet -38 points-37 points-36 points 10 years ago* (65 children) | Copy Link

[+]-Canonical- 10 years ago [recovered] (61 children) | Copy Link

The point of the image is to illustrate the blatant double standard of reproductive rights. All parents should have the right to abandon parenthood - not just half of them

[–]adamsfan42 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]diphiminaids -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]zer0t3ch 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]gravity013 -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]derpylord143 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]zer0t3ch -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dredd_AttorneyAtLaw-1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kihadat -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (53 children) | Copy Link

[–]Onithyr 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]kihadat 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Onithyr 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]kihadat -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Onithyr 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]kihadat 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]JupeJupeSound 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kihadat1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]k9centipede -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Onithyr 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]k9centipede 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]derpylord143 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]JimBobDwayne 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]k9centipede0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JimBobDwayne0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TearShitDown -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]RelevantAnecdotes 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]xmrsmoothx 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jubbergun -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]RelevantAnecdotes 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]jubbergun 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]flyafar 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]kihadat 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[+]TearShitDown -8 points-7 points-6 points 10 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]kihadat -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]SomeOrdinaryCanadian 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]kihadat 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SomeOrdinaryCanadian 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]kihadat1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SomeOrdinaryCanadian0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kihadat2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TearShitDown 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]kihadat 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]TearShitDown 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]kihadat1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TearShitDown2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's this simple. Rape is an awful thing. Incest is an awful thing. But that isn't even the bulk of the argument. Honestly its not even a very good one considering the statistics of it. Rape is an incredibly miniscule part of abortions and is only used to try and combat the fact that a child is a result of decisions made.

But it isn't about accountability one way or the other. I could give a damn what people do with themselves on their free times. The stipulation is always in those situations, how does it affect other people? Some people drink and drive and make it home safe. Some people don't. That some is enough that we made it illegal.

Abortion hurts someone who exists. They have their own special set of DNA and are less than 5-6 months away from viability outside of the womb by the time they are detected. Even earlier than that they have heart beats and brain activity.

But the specifics of fetal development are also unimportant, as this is not a twisted race to the finish line of killing life before it has a vague attribute that makes it valuable enough not to kill.

Woman have a right to choose what to do with their body. Pregnancy from rape is incredibly awful, but that emotional talking piece does very little to address the moral decision of taking a life away for convenience. Abortion doesn't unrape somebody, and the value of an entire life can hardly be weighed against emotional comfort.

The talking piece is only used to make people look heartless for believing in life. Which I find even more ridiculous considering how few abortions it applies too.

[–]kihadat1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TearShitDown1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Furah 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]con_nguoi 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]_kartoffel_salat_ -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A man has different ways to prevent a pregnancy: condom, vasectomy, pulling out, ect. If he doesn't use one of these, and even if he does but it fails and a baby is born, he should be responsible for that baby. A woman has different ways to prevent a pregnancy: the pill, female condoms, the patch, the ring, hormone shots/implants, abortion, ect. If she doesn't use one of these, and even if she does but it fails and a baby is born, she should be responsible for that baby. Basically if a child is born, whether you like it or not, you're responsible. Yes, a woman can take more steps than a man can, but a man can take steps that are a shit ton easier (like pulling out). If he really didn't want to be responsible for a kid, he could have done something as simple as that. If he doesn't take those measures, than whether or not the woman has an abortion or not is irrelevant, because he took the risk, and he's responsible for his actions, just as a woman is responsible for her actions if she gets an abortion or not. Could the actions of the women affect the man? Most definitely. But could the actions of the man affect the woman and make it so none of that would ever happen? Yes.

[–]Scaarr -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HaryTheLizard -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jasonhoblin -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]SmoothMooves -6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	This really resonated with me
Author	-Canonical-
Upvotes	2510
Comments	324
Date	March 7, 2016 1:17 AM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/49a6o8/this_really_resonated_with_me/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/this-really-resonated-with-me.954595 https://theredarchive.com/post/954595

Comments