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

[PizzaSHARK]

Here's another good anecdote regarding why Men's Rights need to be taken seriously.

That pisses me off in ways I can't express with words.

[Felya]

So you think that because biology puts gestation on the woman, men have no right to complain about her decision? That's a bullshit stance and you know it. Men aren't to blame for biology any more than women are. This is about legal obligations. It's her choice whether to bring a child to term. A man doesn't (and shouldn't) have a say in that. He SHOULD have a say in his obligations to said child.

A woman is forced to do something with the child and suffer the consequences. The fact that you have to pay to support her deciscion, should have come up when you made the choice to get the risks involved with sex.

How about we go to the point where biology is equal? Where you have absolute control who you sleep with.

Abortion is a medical procedure, but all that means is there's a process to her choice to make the baby disappear. That doesn't mean the man shouldn't have a choice to make his obligation go away if he never wanted said obligation.

The baby does not disappear. You have got to be kidding me... Depending on the time, it can involve a lot of blood, which results from tearing flesh. Abortion making babies disappear...

Men's choice was taking on the risks involved in sex.

I'm getting the sense that because women have it physically harder when it comes to pregnancy that men should have no say in the legal obligations to the child... as sort of... a retribution for biology? I'm really not fully grasping what you're putting forward.

No, it's not just because they have it harder. It's because she has no choice but to deal with it, while the choice to take the risk was mutual. Financial support is the only obligation a man has. An obligation that is shared with the woman, when the pain and being forced to do something about the child is an obligation all on her own.

[Laize]

A woman is forced to do something with the child and suffer the consequences. The fact that you have to pay to support her deciscion, should have come up when you made the choice to get the risks involved with sex.

How about we go to the point where biology is equal? Where you have absolute control who you sleep with.



The baby does not disappear. You have got to be kidding me... Depending on the time, it can involve a lot of blood, which results from tearing flesh. Abortion making babies disappear...

Men's choice was taking on the risks involved in sex.



No, it's not just because they have it harder. It's because she has no choice but to deal with it, while the choice to take the risk was mutual. Financial support is the only obligation a man has. An obligation that is shared with the woman, when the pain and being forced to do something about the child is an obligation all on her own.

She has the choice to deal with it because of biology. That's not a reason to keep men from having a choice to deal with it from a legal standpoint. All you're doing is binding men to a woman's decision because a woman has the short-straw from a biological standpoint. You're, in effect, taking the short biological straw from her and turning it into a short legal straw for him.

There's nothing we can do about biology. There is something we can do about legalities. But you're saying that since there's nothing we can do about biology we should continue doing nothing about the legality because that would, somehow, be unfair to women despite the fact that no one is taking anything from her.

TL;DR - You're saying we shouldn't do anything about legal obligations because we can't do anything about biology. That's wrong.

[Felya]

She has the choice to deal with it because of biology.

She has NO choice but to deal with it. Unlike a man, she cannot choose to deny the fetus is hers, move away from the fetus or ignore the fetus exists.

That's not a reason to keep men from having a choice to deal with it from a legal standpoint.

If you count abortion or birth as a choice, men's acceptance of the legal binding is also a choice. Men claiming the child is not theirs, is another choice a woman does not have. Moving away to disappear from the fetus, is not a choice a woman has. The woman has no choice but to incur financial and physical damage as a result.

The legal stand point for financial support is there because both men and women share the financial responsobility, but only the man can absolutely absolve him self of the responsobility that a woman cannot. A woman cannot deny a baby that came out if her, like the choice a man has to deny it. A woman is responsible for what is inside her and does not have the choice to run away, which is why there is law. Without law, men can simply not do anything, while the woman is attached. We cannot pass a law that would hold a woman responsible for having the child, like the cord that's attached to it.

All you're doing is binding men to a woman's decision because a woman has the short-straw from a biological standpoint. You're, in effect, taking the short biological straw from her and turning it into a short legal straw for him.

Yeah, I'm binding the woman's responsobility of a child to a mans. Absolutely I am. The result of the short straw, is that a woman is forced to pay for the child already, while a man can just do nothing. The law would be in place for women, but nature does what law would have. A woman pays via biological law and because we are rational beings, we have law in place to equate responsobility where natural law has not. It's like not having wings, but flying to NY from WA taking 5 hours.

There's nothing we can do about biology. There is something we can do about legalities. But you're saying that since there's nothing we can do about biology we should continue doing nothing about the legality because that would, somehow, be unfair to women despite the fact that no one is taking anything from her.

I am agreeing with you that law is in place to cover what nature could not and share the responsobility. You are asking to ignore nature and pretend that a woman saying she wants nothing to do with an unborn child has the same results as men doing the same. The law is in place to account for the woman not being able to deny the baby that comes out of her, thus being forced to pay by natural law.

You're saying we shouldn't do anything about legal obligations because we can't do anything about biology. That's wrong.

No, I am saying what is in place right now is the result of legal obligation, covering for the one sided natural obligation. You are the one that does not like the obligations that are already set by law to do something about the natural obligation of an unborn child forcing the woman to pay by being attached.

Just a reminder, you are the one arguing that us doing something about legal obligations is taking your rights, while I'm the one who is arguing that current legal attempt at equality is just. You are acting as if a woman's choice to abort or give birth is an unfair choice a woman has, while I think running away and denying the child is an unfair choice a man has. The law is in place to be the umbilical cord for men, because without it, a woman is simply sol.

---------- Post added 2012-12-01 at 06:37 PM ----------

I thought of another male inequality. Women can play with their boobs all the time, but men have no boobs to play with. Laws that are in place to punish men for grabbing boobs are unfair. Just because there is a biological inequality, does not mean women should have the only choice when it comes to their boobs. Men should have a choice to not incure responsobility as a result of women having boobs, when there is an option for the boobs to be completely bound and hidden.

A woman can choose to have her breasts on display or cover them, but a man cannot choose to fundle them. 'You can cover them, but we can't fundle them' should be a slogan for male rights movement.

[Raphtheone]

Here's another good anecdote regarding why Men's Rights need to be taken seriously.

Assuming the quote is true, it reflects well how equal the sexes are in this regard. Even if it's a hypothetical scenario (lets face it, it's the internet after all), it STILL reflects how equal the sexes are in this regard.

It's a shame really. Women Rights-fighters often neglect the privileges they have when fighting for equal rights in areas they don't. On the other hand, I suppose the same is true for men. People in general have a habit to see the world through their own eyes, and completely miss the overall picture.

[Laize]

She has NO choice but to deal with it. Unlike a man, she cannot choose to deny the fetus is hers, move away from the fetus or ignore the fetus exists.



If you count abortion or birth as a choice, men's acceptance of the legal binding is also a choice. Men claiming the child is not theirs, is another choice a woman does not have. Moving away to disappear from the fetus, is not a choice a woman has. The woman has no choice but to incur financial and physical damage as a result.

The legal stand point for financial support is there because both men and women share the financial responsobility, but only the man can absolutely absolve him self of the responsobility that a woman cannot. A woman cannot deny a baby that came out if her, like the choice a man has to deny it. A woman is responsible for what is inside her and does not have the choice to run away, which is why there is law. Without law, men can simply not do anything, while the woman is attached. We cannot pass a law that would hold a woman responsible for having the child, like the cord that's attached to it.



Yeah, I'm binding the woman's responsobility of a child to a mans. Absolutely I am. The result of the short straw, is that a woman is forced to pay for the child already, while a man can just do nothing. The law would be in place for women, but nature does what law would have. A woman pays via biological law and because we are rational beings, we have law in place to equate responsobility where natural law has not. It's like not having wings, but flying to NY from WA taking 5 hours.



I am agreeing with you that law is in place to cover what nature could not and share the responsobility. You are asking to ignore nature and pretend that a woman saying she wants nothing to do with an unborn child has the same results as men doing the same. The law is in place to account for the woman not being able to deny the baby that comes out of her, thus being forced to pay by natural law.



No, I am saying what is in place right now is the result of legal obligation, covering for the one sided natural obligation. You are the one that does not like the obligations that are already set by law to do something about the natural obligation of an unborn child forcing the woman to pay by being attached.

Just a reminder, you are the one arguing that us doing something about legal obligations is taking your rights, while I'm the one who is arguing that current legal attempt at equality is just. You are acting as if a woman's choice to abort or give birth is an unfair choice a woman has, while I think running away and denying the child is an unfair choice a man has. The law is in place to be the umbilical cord for men, because without it, a woman is simply sol.

---------- Post added 2012-12-01 at 06:37 PM ----------

I thought of another male inequality. Women can play with their boobs all the time, but men have no boobs to play with. Laws that are in place to punish men for grabbing boobs are unfair. Just because there is a biological inequality, does not mean women should have the only choice when it comes to their boobs. Men should have a choice to not incure responsobility as a result of women having boobs, when there is an option for the boobs to be completely bound and hidden.

A woman can choose to have her breasts on display or cover them, but a man cannot choose to fundle them. 'You can cover them, but we can't fundle them' should be a slogan for male rights movement.

I refuse to even attempt to follow your line of thought. It's so far warped I don't even know where to begin.

[Felya]

I refuse to even attempt to follow your line of thought. It's so far warped I don't even know where to begin.

If you didn't refuse to follow, you wouldn't think it's warped. I think your view is warped, because I do follow. Perhaps you would feel the same way if you didn't use terms like ignore or refuse to even attempt to follow a line of thought that disagrees with you. What a joke... Warped indeed...

[Laize]

If you didn't refuse to follow, you wouldn't think it's warped. I think your view is warped, because I do follow. Perhaps you would feel the same way if you didn't use terms like ignore or refuse to even attempt to follow a line of thought that disagrees with you. What a joke... Warped indeed...

Dude, you're saying that women are forced to deal with a pregnancy somehow which is a giant fucking duh. Because of that fact you want to give them rights. Then you don't want to give similar rights to men because biology doesn't force us to deal with a pregnancy. Nevermind that the law isn't supposed to discriminate based on biology.

[Yautjalv426]

woman trade a few cents pay less every hour for having joint custody where she gets the kids 90% of the time then 90% of all the mans stuff in a divorce, way less jailtime for whatever reason, etc etc. being a woman has more perks then being a man.

[Wells]

Dude, you're saying that women are forced to deal with a pregnancy somehow which is a giant fucking duh. Because of that fact you want to give them rights. Then you don't want to give similar rights to men because biology doesn't force us to deal with a pregnancy. Nevermind that the law isn't supposed to discriminate based on biology.

Yes, we've already been over this. The law doesn't have to treat people in unequal situations like pregnancy equally. Equal protection only applies when there is no rational basis for discrimination.

[Felya]

Dude, you're saying that women are forced to deal with a pregnancy somehow which is a giant fucking duh. Because of that fact you want to give them rights. Then you don't want to give similar rights to men because biology doesn't force us to deal with a pregnancy. Nevermind that the law isn't supposed to discriminate based on biology.

What rights do I want to give women? Spell it out, because I do not see my self suggesting any rights being given To women that they do not have. For a men to have the same rights as a woman, it's for him to incure the same damage as you just called 'giant fucking duh'. What you call her right to choose between abortion and birth, takes away her right to deny she is having the baby. Biology takes away a woman's right to not deal with the results of her having sex. You are pretending that being forced to choose abortion over birth is a right. When in fact a right to ignore the results of sex is gone and she is forced to make a boolean choice.

Let's look at rights a man has over a woman as a result of a biological denial of choice. Who takes care of the child when a man seeks proof of paternity? Who takes care of the child when the man denies responsobility? A woman cannot deny custody of something that is inside her. Just like a men who suffers penalty for running off on the child, a woman incure far more severe child abandonment charges if she runs out of the hospital after birth. If you want it fair, put child abandonment charges on every father who does not visit their kid, but shares the financial responsobility. Treat every mother that abandons her child, just like a man who does. How about that for fair?

[Yautjalv426]

Once I got out I would not murder her but I would basically turn her into a vegetable. Can not do ANYTHING on her own. 100% Crippled. How's it feel?


Infracted.

[Grizzly Willy]

Once I got out I would not murder her but I would basically turn her into a vegetable. Can not do ANYTHING on her own. 100% Crippled. How's it feel?

You would become a monster and thrown back in jail? How noble.

[Felya]

A father seeking custody can devote 100% of his time and resources to accomplish said task. A woman cannot deny custody at birth, so can spend 100% of her time and resources, minus the time and resources it takes to take care of a child.

---------- Post added 2012-12-01 at 10:33 PM ----------

You would become a monster and thrown back in jail? How noble.

Quickly, find a redit post about women crippling men!

---------- Post added 2012-12-01 at 10:36 PM ----------

woman trade a few cents pay less every hour for having joint custody where she gets the kids 90% of the time then 90% of all the mans stuff in a divorce, way less jailtime for whatever reason, etc etc. being a woman has more perks then being a man.

As a man, I find your more perks comment to be absolutely crazy. I cannot think of a single disadvantage of being a man. At no time in my life did I look at a woman and think to my self... Damn, if I could only be a woman... Ludicrous... Absolutely ludicrous...

[Laize]

Yes, we've already been over this. The law doesn't have to treat people in unequal situations like pregnancy equally. Equal protection only applies when there is no rational basis for discrimination.

There is no rational basis for not allowing men to forfeit rights and obligations to a child. We've been over this 100 times. He doesn't want a kid. She forces him to take care of the kid. It's bullshit.

[Wells]

There is no rational basis for not allowing men to forfeit rights and obligations to a child. We've been over this 100 times. He doesn't want a kid. She forces him to take care of the kid. It's bullshit.

There is no rational reason men should have the power to abort when that power derives from something they do not share in.

I love how you are acting like women are the Nega-Stork or something and showing up with a baby wrapped in a cloth and forcing some hapless man to care for it.

[Laize]

There is no rational reason men should have the power to abort when that power derives from something they do not share in.

I love how you are acting like women are the Nega-Stork or something and showing up with a baby wrapped in a cloth and forcing some hapless man to care for it.

There's no rational reason to deny men the ability to walk away from a pregnancy/child they never wanted to begin with.

Regardless of where women derive the ability from, that doesn't mean men shouldn't have an analogous ability.

[Wells]

There's no rational reason to deny men the ability to walk away from a pregnancy/child they never wanted to begin with.

Except children that are raised with two parents supporting them are going to be raised better.

[purebalance]

Bringing the military back into it, eh? The fun thing about the US military is that it isn't a bunch of meatheads smashing swords against each other. The US army is immensely technologically advanced, and employs people of all kinds of career paths. Tell me... how fit does an engineer have to be to perform his or her role? Fit enough to fight neck to neck with Marines? Or fit enough that physical assertion is not a barrier while they perform their professional duty?

Except in the army when you're going for e-5 and e-6 you need to essentially max your APFT to get promoted. Females need to do less work to get promoted for those ranks. There is a point system where there is that only 1 gender bias and females get to do less push ups and have more time to max their run to get the full point value for promotion. So yes you DO need to be physically fit to get promoted.

---------- Post added 2012-12-01 at 10:56 PM ----------

While I'm generally much closer to agreeing with you than him on this, I'm still not clear why there are different requirements for men and women. If running a certain time is sufficient to show that an individual is sufficiently capable to do a job, I'm not clear why it's not good enough for both genders.

Really though, the times are so laughably easy to hit for running that any man that can't hit them really shouldn't be there.

It's not the passing, it's the maxing. Men in my age group have to run essentially a 13 minute 2 mile to max while a female has to run a 16 minute 2 mile to max. The even funnier thing is that many units award a 3 day/4 day pass which is essentially free leave in conjunction with a weekend for getting 100 in all events(60 is passing) and the females who max yet did the same as a borderline male in terms of raw score are looked on as "such a good fit person" while the male is seen as a dirtbag. It's hillarious.

Also it appears that some people don't understand that there is currently still only 1 test in most branches of the military and that includes the following:

Push ups
Sit ups
Cardio event which is by default a run unless you're permanently injured to where you cannot do it which there are alternate events

If you cannot do the 60 percent requirement in each event, you can be kicked out after 2 failures in a row which once you fail you have 90 days to pass.

For the Army at least, for promotion to e-5 and e-6 there are rankings based on points as to who gets promoted. The point areas are military eduction, military training, awards, and civilian eduction totaling up to 800 pts.

For Military training it includes your APFT, weapons qualification and deployment time(2 pts per month deployed). The APFT gives 160 pts for maxing for e5 and 100 pts for e6. It gives 40 pts for passing on the mark for e5 and 15 for e6.

What does that say? Well the funny thing is in each age bracket a female can max by doing what a male did to barely pass for push ups and sit ups. So what would have gotten a male 15 pts for e6 and 40 pts for e5 gets a femal 100 or 160. This is completely unfair as it's a direct part of promotion.

[Kasierith]

Except in the army when you're going for e-5 and e-6 you need to essentially max your APFT to get promoted. Females need to do less work to get promoted for those ranks. There is a point system where there is that only 1 gender bias and females get to do less push ups and have more time to max their run to get the full point value for promotion. So yes you DO need to be physically fit to get promoted.

Does being promoted to e-5 or e-6 put you in a position where you're in front line combat duty? There is a difference between relative fitness and absolute fitness.