Why is it that women can opt out of taking care of a child but men can't?

[Cthulhu 2020]

http://www.cracked.com/article_19785..._ibsrc=fanpage

Why the MRA is pretty much off their rocker.

[Deleted]

Doubtful given your previous posts in this thread. I had a big reply written refuting each of your points but the level of discourse displayed in your post was fairly embarrassing, the post was getting to a ridiculous size and all in all seemed like a waste of time given your inability to comprehend nuance. I mean when you say things like "We need to rewrite all laws because they're universally biased against men" it's pretty clear you're not interested in rationality.

Also a grammar lesson? Really? That's a bit ironic and not particularly mature.

at what point did i suggest its the lawS that are the problem? i meant Law, as in the judicial branch, i thought that was obvious in terms of sentencing, because if there would have just been laws saying women get 2 years for this act and men get 4, i would have just linked the law text.
Feel free to refute the first paragraph only that should cut it down in size, read the link and you will see the systemic bias against men, There really is no nuance to comprehend.
or just answer any of the questions in my post instead of making a nonsense posts like:

And you expect to be taken seriously with comments like this?

So just pick one from this post:'

In case you missed my numbers, They make the first quote true.
SNIPPETY SNIPP
so could you please clarify what you thought was so weird or wrong?, some sort of context would be nice.

and argue why that one is wrong? or answer the questions posed in one of them.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the biggest hurdle that needs to be overcome on the path to treating people as equals is figuring out that no, it's really not impossible.

it is debatable whether feminist are the best vehicle for that change (in the context of being capable of reaching said point, as well as whether or not a 100% equal society would, Necessarily, be the best outcome for society. (this is a in the grand scheme of things question, not lets remove women's voting rights type of thing)

[Shadowmelded]

at what point did i suggest its the lawS that are the problem?

as for law we should start fucking with?, All of it, Its pretty much universally biased against men.

we need to make family law understand that what they are doing is against The law.
and as i said, There is a systemic bias in the entire system against men.

Like I tried to explain earlier regarding your use of misandry; words have meaning, you don't just throw them around for impact. When you say things like "there is a systemic bias in the entire system against men" then base your argument around human bias in the application of the law which is entirely human error and not mandated by law it really makes me start to wonder if you understand what you're saying. The bias has nothing to do with the system, the people who apply the law may be biased but as I previously explained before you decided it wasn't relevant inbetween rambling; that can be explained by current preconceived notions of gender such as "women need to be protected all the time" "women are the fairer sex" etc... which affects everyone, not just men.

There really is no nuance to comprehend.
or just answer any of the questions in my post instead of making a nonsense posts like:

See this is where I feel like you're not keeping up and I'm wasting my time entirely; no one mentioned nuance regarding bias, it was referring to the similar yet different circumstances of statutory rape and "regular" rape which you were trying to compare directly to muddy the waters further. and my post was nonsense

and argue why that one is wrong? or answer the questions posed in one of them.

My issue with your post; http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

Also some of the highlighted parts were supposed to point out hypocrisy/petty behavior like when you said "I use the word misandry because I get called a misogynist" not because there's actually any evidence of misandry but, yet again, another attempt to "get even" with feminists which is just really a poor goal. Hope I cleared things up, doubt I'll keep replying since this seems to no longer be on topic anymore and is just me and you arguing semantics.

[Deleted]

Like I tried to explain earlier regarding your use of misandry; words have meaning, you don't just throw them around for impact. When you say things like "there is a systemic bias in the entire system against men" then base your argument around human bias in the application of the law which is entirely human error and not mandated by law it really makes me start to wonder if you understand what you're saying. The bias has nothing to do with the system, the people who apply the law may be biased but as I previously explained before you decided it wasn't relevant inbetween rambling; that can be explained by current preconceived notions of gender such as "women need to be protected all the time" "women are the fairer sex" etc... which affects everyone, not just men.

misandry (usually uncountable, plural misandries)

The hatred of, pathological aversion to, or prejudice against men.

Noun

prejudice (countable and uncountable, plural prejudices)

(countable) An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge of the facts.

The systemic appliance of Longer sentencing.
I think it fits, and your argument that its because philogyny (lovely word) well then everything misogynistic is really philandry (if nothing else this thread has taught me two words i barely knew before).
As for the second quotation i should have phrased myself clearer, i was speaking of the justice system, particularly criminal law and family law two areas stacked against men, i shouldn't have lumped in estate law and industrial law (and others), who while not being an expert, doesn't have any sexual bias as far as i know.
as for the third quotation, what family law does flies in the face of criminal law (The law from that quote), and in this sentence the system being referred to is family law, and area of a lot of bias against men.

The bias has nothing to do with the system, the people who apply the law may be biased

Drop the may, IT IS, and the people in the system is a part of the system.

See this is where I feel like you're not keeping up and I'm wasting my time entirely; no one mentioned nuance regarding bias, it was referring to the similar yet different circumstances of statutory rape and "regular" rape which you were trying to compare directly to muddy the waters further. and my post was nonsense

Your post implied a distinction in terms of consent, Where there is no nuance. None.
Your post said nothing, it was literal nonsense.

Also some of the highlighted parts were supposed to point out hypocrisy/petty behavior like when you said "I use the word misandry because I get called a misogynist" not because there's actually any evidence of misandry but, yet again, another attempt to "get even" with feminists which is just really a poor goal. Hope I cleared things up, doubt I'll keep replying since this seems to no longer be on topic anymore and is just me and you arguing semantics.

It wasn't trying to get even, it was using the vernacular of the topic, and as i showed, it wasn't a terrible reach to call it that, And I Have Established Facts Detailing The Bias Against Men, feel free to have a semantic argument about whether or not the word is appropriate, but the Bias is undisputed.

[Cthulhu 2020]

For someone who's enshrined me in his signature for providing statistical evidence about rape numbers, you sure have done a lot of asserting about systemic corruption against men in our legal system without actually providing much in the way of proof other than anecdotal evidence.

I see a lot of asserting it's there, it must be, but not anything in the way of links or figures. Just a lot of "it must be so!"

[AeneasBK]

If you said that, he's right to say you lack basic education.

Be fair Nixx, the erectile function of the penis during rape is hardly "basic" education ;p

[Leon Nagant]

The way I see it the boogie monster of "The Patriarchy" has scared everyone into worrying that we might oppress women if we expect them to raise the children they popped out.
Source: My mom abandoned me

[Deleted]

Consistency demands it.

take the safe haven thing, it is currently, somewhat, sexist, but isn't it better for society to accept this inequality, than the alternative with dead babies?
is equality worth more than a better society?, that question is generally pondered over in regards to economics but its a valid (if very limited) point in terms of gender equality too.

[Deleted]

For someone who's enshrined me in his signature for providing statistical evidence about rape numbers, you sure have done a lot of asserting about systemic corruption against men in our legal system without actually providing much in the way of proof other than anecdotal evidence.

I see a lot of asserting it's there, it must be, but not anything in the way of links or figures. Just a lot of "it must be so!"

the numbers you quoted require the Perpetrator, to Penetrate the Victim.
If you seriously don't get how that immeasurably Skews the numbers, i don't think i can ever change your mind.
But just to try one more time, if the legal definition, require the offender to Penetrate the victim, and the offender does not, the offender does not commit said crime.
Much in the same way i am not speeding if i am not driving faster than the regulated speed limit.

try this post since you didn't like the one where i quoted another's assessment of his link a page, One page back.

or read for yourself:
http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/27008_4.pdf

and a new link to the one you ignored or missed:
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...js-2011-v2.pdf

look at them for about five minutes and you see the bias i have been talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure what this has to do with the idea that it's simply impossible for people to stop being sexist.

Oh no this has nothing to do with something like that, i just mean that maybe in a few areas, total equality might not be the best thing, sexism thou that's Bad.

[Deleted]

http://www.thelocal.se/20140227/swed...ite-lying-wife

A Malmö court has ruled that a man is the legal father of twins, conceived "against his wishes" when his wife lied to the fertility clinic abroad.

An older Swedish couple with one child decided to seek help conceiving another, but were forced abroad as embryo donations - where both the egg and the sperm come from third parties - are not legal in Sweden. The man, however, claimed he was clear about wanting just one child, partly because he and his wife are both in their fifties, and the couple ticked a box stating so on the consent form.

So, people gonna be outraged about that as well?