Isn't it about time the Mens' Rights Movement stopped being treated like a joke?

[Wells]

On a personal level I absolutely agree, but in large-scale... who cares? It's just one more kid when there's already hundreds of millions of us in the country and several billion on the planet.

You're suggesting that one parent be forced to sacrifice their future - who, let's face it, is currently WAY more relevant than that might-be-a-baby is - because the other parent refuses to reach a compromise.

The whole point to society is to propagate itself. The first and foremost goal for every society must be the quality with which it's children are raised.

[PizzaSHARK]

The whole point to society is to propagate itself. The first and foremost goal for every society must be the quality with which it's children are raised.

If our society actually gave a shit about our children, we wouldn't have "whoever wants to make babies can make babies!" We'd have breeding limited to only certain groups of people, that way the resources our society have access to can be better used to ensure every single kid gets the very best, rather than only some of the kids getting the very best and the rest growing up neglected and half-starved in abusive homes.

[Laize]

All the assumptions it makes. It doesn't say "SOME TIMES MEN ARE CALLED CHEAP IF THEY DON'T PAY FOR THE DATE".

It just assumes that always true in all instances.

Or that women are always applauded for hitting men.

Or that women never face legal consequences for sexual harassment.

And then there's way its presented. When women don't get in trouble for sexual harassment that's a problem with the legal system, but your web cartoon acts like its a problem with women.

I didn't ask if it was always right. In most cases it is.

---------- Post added 2012-11-30 at 09:02 AM ----------

Itisamuh, that's still not an equal choice. If the woman doesn't not want the child both parties are off the hook after the abortion both parties are off the hook.

If the father does not want the child the mother is either forced to give up the child or pay for it entirely herself. The woman's choice does not change the man's, it nullifies the situation. The man's choice changes the woman's options.

Just because the man has no way to let them both off the hook is not an excuse to remove his choice in the matter.

[Sunseeker]

If our society actually gave a shit about our children, we wouldn't have "whoever wants to make babies can make babies!" We'd have breeding limited to only certain groups of people, that way the resources our society have access to can be better used to ensure every single kid gets the very best, rather than only some of the kids getting the very best and the rest growing up neglected and half-starved in abusive homes.

I don't know if we'd necessarily go that far, but I agree that if we were pro-active about child welfare instead of reactive, we'd certainly be doing a lot more than we are.

[Deleted]

If the father does not want the child the mother is either forced to give up the child or pay for it entirely herself. The woman's choice does not change the man's, it nullifies the situation. The man's choice changes the woman's options.

The woman still has the final say about her body, she can choose to abort the child even if the man want's it. She can also keep it even if the man doesn't want it to be born. It's only the financial responsibility that is at question here. And to make the financial responsibility fair, the man needs to be able to walk out, just like the woman can, as long as he pays half the abortion bill.

It is still "unfair" towards the man in that he has much fewer choices, but that's before you account for the fact that the child is inside the woman.

---------- Post added 2012-11-30 at 10:33 AM ----------

If our society actually gave a shit about our children, we wouldn't have "whoever wants to make babies can make babies!" We'd have breeding limited to only certain groups of people, that way the resources our society have access to can be better used to ensure every single kid gets the very best, rather than only some of the kids getting the very best and the rest growing up neglected and half-starved in abusive homes.

That's absolutely ridiculous. When government starts to determine who can give birth to live babies, you know you live in some fucked up fascist state. We even allow people with dangerous hereditary diseases to have children, because it's such an important part of the human experience.

You also saying that we should give "every child the very best", does this mean that all children from age 0 to X would be in some institution until they're released into the real world to avoid different parents from raising the children in different ways?

[PizzaSHARK]

That's absolutely ridiculous. When government starts to determine who can give birth to live babies, you know you live in some fucked up fascist state. We even allow people with dangerous hereditary diseases to have children, because it's such an important part of the human experience.

And yet in virtually every other example of higher-functioning animals that live in social groups, breeding is largely confined to the dominant males and females.

You also saying that we should give "every child the very best", does this mean that all children from age 0 to X would be in some institution until they're released into the real world to avoid different parents from raising the children in different ways?

Possibly, although you could also just shunt the resources saved by preventing the idiots from breeding into ensuring the kids your society does have receive everything they need to become strong, educated, and successful.

[Deleted]

And yet in virtually every other example of higher-functioning animals that live in social groups, breeding is largely confined to the dominant males and females.

How does this have anything to do with us? We're thousands of years past that as a species. The dominant male and females can do whatever the fuck they want to in those societies, do you want the same here as well?

Possibly, although you could also just shunt the resources saved by preventing the idiots from breeding into ensuring the kids your society does have receive everything they need to become strong, educated, and successful.

Kids raised by "idiots" do not necessarily become idiots themselves. Just like kids raised by people who are successful may not be successful themselves. This sort of eugenics would take way too long. Aditionally, I don't think there's any person or group of people who could be capable of deciding who can give birth to children and who can't. No one should have such powers.

[Ebildays]

Can we not just compromise?

While I don't agree with men being able to just walk away after the fact.
I do agree with the fact that men should have their wishes respected. If a men has told a woman that he does not want children to to be asked to pay child support before pregnancy or a child comes into the picture his wishes should be respected. In the case of a woman that has the same wishes she can choose an abortion (if that is an option) or adoption without any reguards for the mans wishes.

If we at look the problem at its base it is about men having their wishes disreguarded as not valid. And if we can say that a man's wishes about when and who he has a child with has no baring on if he becomes a father are we not taking away a part of his reproductive rights?

As of now there is no way for a man's wishes to be legally up held so they still are on the hook for child support even thought the woman knew he did not want children. Yes, the man agreed to sex but the woman had the option to walk away knowing that if an unwanted pregnancy happen she would be the one solely responsible for it.

A compromise would be some type of legal form that would allow a man to have his wishes legally known, up held and acknowledged by the women. It would also cover the man being given to take the child and get child support in the case that the mother wishes not to keep the child. Even an agreement to be responsible for child support if a pregnancy happens. This would be completed by both parties before a pregnancy would happen. I say before sex but things happen. Now if one party does not agree to signing the form that should be a flag to the other person and they should really rethink the option of having sex with that party.

[Jon]

How does it still remain a shitload worse for women?

If you have to ask, it's pretty clear you're a part of the problem.

[Nadev]

And yet in virtually every other example of higher-functioning animals that live in social groups, breeding is largely confined to the dominant males and females.

Except most animals don't shower, throw on a suit and go to work for 8 or more hours a day.

[Grizzly Willy]

If you have to ask, it's pretty clear you're a part of the problem.

Being oblivious to an issue doesn't mean you have a hand in the issue.

[Rukentuts]

While I don't agree with men being able to just walk away after the fact.
I do agree with the fact that men should have their wishes respected. If a men has told a woman that he does not want children to to be asked to pay child support before pregnancy or a child comes into the picture his wishes should be respected. In the case of a woman that has the same wishes she can choose an abortion (if that is an option) or adoption without any reguards for the mans wishes.

Well if the man wants the kid and the woman wants adoption, she would just give him the kid without any legal ties. I assume you would infer this as well. I will agree with this.

[FathomFear]

While I don't agree with men being able to just walk away after the fact.
I do agree with the fact that men should have their wishes respected. If a men has told a woman that he does not want children to to be asked to pay child support before pregnancy or a child comes into the picture his wishes should be respected.

To be blunt, if a guy doesn't want to pay child support than he should be more careful where he's sticking his penis. That is where the choice lies for the guy. If he does not want to risk having a child with a particular woman, he should choose not to have sex with her.

Part of being an adult is managing risk. Sex, even protected sex, has some element of risk associated with it, whether in the form of STIs or unplanned pregnancies. If a person isn't willing to take on these risks, then they shouldn't be having sex.

[Ebildays]

Well if the man wants the kid and the woman wants adoption, she would just give him the kid without any legal ties. I assume you would infer this as well. I will agree with this.

Yes, that would work as well.

And from reading this thread the reaons I think the Men's Rights Movement is seen as a joke has to do more with how it is represented than the goals they are aiming for.

Take the whole child support arguement, it is not that men don't want to pay child support for a child they willingly wanted. It is more that they have had their wishes (reproductive rights) deemed to be unimportant by another party after they have clearly stated them. Women should understand that feeling because for centuries this as been them case for them. Women felt that it was not right or fair that another person could dictate when they became mothers and with who, therefore also limiting their sexual freedom in the process. Some how the tables have been turned in favor of women doing the same thing to men, being that the wishes of the woman and the wishes for the greater good of the child are more important than that of the man's.

It is all in the wording. When you say "I don't want to be on the hook for child support for a kid a never wanted" or "I don't care about kids" you sound like an asshole and no one wants to help you but other assholes. But when you say I want to have better control over my reprodutive rights to decide when and with who I child a with people will listen without going on the defensive so much.

FathomFear I have already made that arguement, many times in this thread but there needs to be a compromise. Part of being an adult is also managing your relationships and if a person's wishes have been made and in a lot of cases agreed with should they not be up held?

[Rukentuts]

Take the whole child support arguement, it is not that men don't want to pay child support for a child they willingly wanted. It is more that they have had their wishes (reproductive rights) deemed to be unimportant by another party after they have clearly stated them. Women should understand that feeling because for centuries this as been them case for them. Women felt that it was not right or fair that another person could dictate when they became mothers and with who, therefore also limiting their sexual freedom in the process. Some how the tables have been turned in favor of women doing the same thing to men, being that the wishes of the woman and the wishes for the greater good of the child are more important than that of the man's.

This is precisely what many different posters have been arguing in support for many pages now

[Ebildays]

This is precisely what many different posters have been arguing in support for many pages now

Great now my membership in the Women's World Order will be revoked now.

[Rukentuts]

Great now my membership in the Women's World Order will be revoked now.

Don't worry. They revoked by Bro Card for arguing that alcohol inhibits informed consent.

[Vanyali]

Don't worry. They revoked by Bro Card for arguing that alcohol inhibits informed consent.

No way, you can still keep that!

And I never argued that it didn't inhibit it, just that it shouldn't be taken into consideration without proof of force (on the level of drunk driving - you have no informed decision to drive, yet you're responsible if you do)

[Ebildays]

No way, you can still keep that!

What about my card. *cries over loss of 40% discount on getting brakes changed*

[Vanyali]

What about my card. *cries over loss of 40% discount on getting brakes changed*

Hmmm... 40% discount on brake changes... I'll keep that one