Boy... this makes me really eager to stop advocating mens rights...

[Laize]

Your confusion might result from thinking that a woman who aborts a fetus is doing the same thing that a man is when he refuses to pay for his children.

But she is. On a fundamental level she is deciding she doesn't want to be a mother.

[Stir]

so? he can decide that it exists in the first place. he knew rubber balloons arent 100% proof.

No, but he decides to wear it because it should negate fertility. It really doesn't matter; he could have 'I don't want babies' painted on his forehead. True enough; I wouldn't have sex with someone who was sporting wet paint on their face, but that in itself is a preventative, right?

Which is just another choice down the chain of choices.

No; it is not 'just another choice down the chain.' It is the ultimate choice. The ultimate 'yes' or 'no,' the choice that decides everything. The pivotal choice.

Please understand I'm not trying to play a blame game, here. Unlike, as I perceive it at least, Laize, who seems to be playing a blame game. It's just that, causally, the ultimate choice of whether or not there is a baby is the woman's. Sure; the male can say 'no' with relative certainty early on, but he can never say 'yes.' Furthermore, the when the relative certainty doesn't hold up, his 'no' is apparently worth nothing compared to her 'yes,' just like his 'yes' is worth absolutely nothing when compared to her 'no.' What if he wants a child? If she doesn't, then that's final. What if he doesn't want a child? Well; apparently, if she does, then that seems to be final as well.
Either way, you've got to admit that, in this scenario, males are rendered virtually powerless.
From that perspective, it seems only fair to me that, if she gets the choice to opt out, then so should he. Legally and financially. Just like her.

[starlord]

But she is. On a fundamental level she is deciding she doesn't want to be a mother.

and a man who refuses to pay for his children is simply denying them support, not becoming an "un-father".

[Spectral]

So, I guess lemonpartyfan couldn't actually find any striking examples of misandry. I'm shocked.

[Stir]

and a man who refuses to pay for his children is simply denying them support, not becoming an "un-father".

A sire isn't the same as a father or mother.
A sire who refuses to support their children is just that: A sire. It's pretty much the same thing with adoption, really.

[Kasierith]

But she is. On a fundamental level she is deciding she doesn't want to be a mother.

However, in one case the result has a child still in the picture, while the other does not. Child support is not for the mother. It's for the child.

[Bryntrollian]

So, I guess lemonpartyfan couldn't actually find any striking examples of misandry. I'm shocked.

Misandry was here but just not by that particular poster.

Someone made the statement that it was perfectly fine for a woman to lie to a man about him not being the biological father of her child if it would allow them to remain in their relationship.

[starlord]

No, but he decides to wear it because it should negate fertility. It really doesn't matter; he could have 'I don't want babies' painted on his forehead. True enough; I wouldn't have sex with someone who was sporting wet paint on their face, but that in itself is a preventative, right?

he decides the gamble is worth it.

No; it is not 'just another choice down the chain.' It is the ultimate choice. The ultimate 'yes' or 'no,' the choice that decides everything. The pivotal choice.

no, sex was.

Please understand I'm not trying to play a blame game, here. Unlike, as I perceive it at least, Laize, who seems to be playing a blame game. It's just that, causally, the ultimate choice of whether or not there is a baby is the woman's. Sure; the male can say 'no' with relative certainty early on, but he can never say 'yes.' Furthermore, the when the relative certainty doesn't hold up, his 'no' is apparently worth nothing compared to her 'yes,' just like his 'yes' is worth absolutely nothing when compared to her 'no.' What if he wants a child? If she doesn't, then that's final. What if he doesn't want a child? Well; apparently, if she does, then that seems to be final as well.
Either way, you've got to admit that, in this scenario, males are rendered virtually powerless.

because they have absolutely no right to power over someone elses body.
denying children support doesnt fix anything, because its impossible to fix.

[Spectral]

Misandry was here but just not by that particular poster.

Care to quote it?

[Kasierith]

Misandry was here but just not by that particular poster.

Someone made the statement that it was perfectly fine for a woman to lie to a man about him not being the biological father of her child if it would allow them to remain in their relationship.

I do not recall seeing this, and it seems like a misinterpretation of what someone else was trying to say. Care to link the quote?

[starlord]

A sire isn't the same as a father or mother.
A sire who refuses to support their children is just that: A sire. It's pretty much the same thing with adoption, really.

he doesnt have to be a "father". just provide support. in adoption the child gets a new "father".

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

ive never claimed to be against adjustments or even a feminist. the mens rights movement is concerned with abandoning children, not equality. i think only one other poster has even brought up the bias against men in family courts.

and i'll tell you why that is: because the idea of men bearing equal responbility for children (and therefore rights) directly contradicts the argument of "its only the womans responsibility so i shouldnt have to pay."

i must have missed it then.

and since men cant undo the childs potential existence, they cant get the same choice women have.
so they want to abandon them instead because "it wasnt my choice, i had no control over any of it."
then they say "give us equal rights to children because its my kid too, i had a part."

these completely contradict each other.

idk, keep arguing that its unfair women carry babies and men dont. if we were like seahorses im sure you would complain how you have to do all the work & be at the mercy of deadbeat females.

Sorry all. Got called into a raid. Got out and started searching at 11:43PM. In my opinion, the statements expressed here by Darenyon are exclusive to men. The ridicule, mocking, patronizing, facetious tones used, again, are exclusive to men and Darenyons' views of them. Its not that men want to abandon children because we are cold heartless bastards, its that we want a system that isn't stacked against us, and to have choice in matters pertaining to our financial well being. The last quote pegs us as hypocritical. As if men only want laws and right in favor for them, as if a role reversal as far being able to hold kids would cause us to go back on our statements here that both genders, no matter who carries the child should have appropriate rights. Also, saying the whole of the mens rights movement is ANYTHING, is judging us/them all against possibly an idea (like in this thread) that Darenyon might not like. That is wrong, because I doubt all of them want to "abandon children" as far as this specific topic goes.

These views pertain only to men, and can't/don't apply to women. Its a gender biased view on things.


Sorry Wells I couldn't look for yours yet. But I will be sure to look asap.

[Stir]

he decides the gamble is worth it.

She knew he didn't want children. She could have opted out.

no, sex was.

Ehm... Sex doesn't lead to pregnancy that often, you know. Even so: The pivotal choice is: 'To allow or not to allow.' It's not 'Let's roll the dice!'

because they have absolutely no right to power over someone elses body.
denying children support doesnt fix anything, because its impossible to fix.

See, and that's the hard part... On the one hand, you're saying it's his child and he has to own up. On the other hand, you're denying it because 'someone else's body.' So which one is it; the child, or the womb? You really can't have both.

Also: I'm not saying children should be denied support. I'm saying that support should be provided by their parents. Not by some random person who tossed a marble in the ocean to see if he could hit a fish with it.
Again: A sire is not the same thing as a parent. If a woman can give her baby up for adoption, then why can't a man?

[starlord]

dont think anyones ever addressed those points, thanks for digging them up lemon.

[Stir]

Oh, to add to Lemon's post:
Most of the whole masculinist movement is actually devoted to parental rights. It got started because of the way fathers were treated after a divorce, where the woman would always get full custody of the children regardless of either party's parental prowess. That's what kicked the whole movement off.
So to say that it's merely an excuse for males to evade their duties as a parent is... Incredibly insulting.

[Spectral]

So... tone. That's it, tone that you find insufficiently pleasant in the context of argument. Not something even remotely like the shit that's been slung at women in this thread, just insufficiently polite language. Again, I point you to the quoted text in my present signature, in which one of the thread luminaries notes how spectacularly stupid the idea that women have bodily autonomy is.

[starlord]

She knew he didn't want children. She could have opted out.

which has what to do with the kids needs?

Ehm... Sex doesn't lead to pregnancy that often, you know. Even so: The pivotal choice is: 'To allow or not to allow.' It's not 'Let's roll the dice!'

"to allow or not allow" is what happens when the sex doesnt go as planned. thats why its the pivotal choice.

See, and that's the hard part... On the one hand, you're saying it's his child and he has to own up. On the other hand, you're denying it because 'someone else's body.' So which one is it; the child, or the womb? You really can't have both.

im not sure what you're trying to say.

Also: I'm not saying children should be denied support. I'm saying that support should be provided by their parents. Not by some random person who tossed a marble in the ocean to see if he could hit a fish with it.
Again: A sire is not the same thing as a parent. If a woman can give her baby up for adoption, then why can't a man?

a man can give his child up for adoption. until its put up for adoption its parents are the ones who created it.

[Stir]

So... tone. That's it, tone that you find insufficiently pleasant in the context of argument. Not something even remotely like the shit that's been slung at women in this thread, just insufficiently polite language. Again, I point you to the quoted text in my present signature, in which one of the thread luminaries notes how spectacularly stupid the idea that women have bodily autonomy is.

Trust me; I could get a few of those from the other perspective in the same topic.
Blame game is pointless. This is complete and utter gender bias, and I think we should have gone beyond that point by now.

[Stir]

which has what to do with the kids needs?

Absolutely nothing. But if she decides to keep it while he explicitly makes it clear that he wants no part of it, then it's her decision, and hers alone. Since it's her decision, and hers alone, he cannot be held responsible for it.

im not sure what you're trying to say.

Well; what I'm trying to say is that it's her decision because it happens inside her body, right? But he has to pay up for a baby he doesn't want that's growing in her body, and he can't stop it because it's in her body, and he has no right to have anything to do with the body. He can't stop her from getting the clump of cells removed, he can't stop her from using the morning after pill, and he can't stop her from letting it grow into a baby if that's what she wants. So whatever he wants be damned, and all because of the womb.
So; either the baby, or the womb. You can't have both, because that's simply not fair. Sure; you can share the baby... But not have a full say over what happens with it and who pays for it.

[starlord]

Oh, to add to Lemon's post:
Most of the whole masculinist movement is actually devoted to parental rights. It got started because of the way fathers were treated after a divorce, where the woman would always get full custody of the children regardless of either party's parental prowess. That's what kicked the whole movement off.
So to say that it's merely an excuse for males to evade their duties as a parent is... Incredibly insulting.

im the one that even brought custody up. its an insult to fathers who actually want their children that people would argue "a man has no say in creating his child and therefore no responsibilities."