1. #2261
    The problem i see with female rights, especialy in Denmark, is the law that says you need 50% i think it is, of women in then Board of Directors in big companys.

    This is simply not fair. i would not care if there was 90% women or 90% men, but having to hire someone because of gender, and not hiering the best suited for the job, is just ridiculous.

    We have gone from male dominance (witch is also wrong), to female dominance. They wanted equalty, well, so do we men.

    And saying: I want the same payment as he do, if i doesn't, you are discriminating! is absurd when it comes to heavy weight jobs. Yes, if you can do the SAME work, in the SAME amount of time, yes, you should get the SAME paycheck in the end of the month, but most women can't carry as much weight as a normal built man.


    Again, i fully support the Mens rights movement.

  2. #2262
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Xuvial View Post
    He's not talking about the stereotype, "rape" can imply many things. A woman could intoxicate/sedate a man and proceed to rape him anally. Extremely rare, but has happened. But "forcing" a man to impregnate herself is completely beyond understanding, that's what he's asking. It just can't happen unless the man is somewhat willing.
    You're channeling your inner Todd Akin here (the guy who says women's bodies shut down during legitimate rape and thus can't get pregnant from "real" rape).

    You are however correct that it's very rare.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-27 at 11:45 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Garkanh View Post
    The problem i see with female rights, especialy in Denmark, is the law that says you need 50% i think it is, of women in then Board of Directors in big companys.
    While any law that says you need X% of women at the board of directors is outright lunacy, there's no law that says you need 50% of them in Denmark. The percentage is lower than that, I can assure you.

  3. #2263
    I am Murloc! Xuvial's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    5,215
    Quote Originally Posted by Garkanh View Post
    The problem i see with female rights, especialy in Denmark, is the law that says you need 50% i think it is, of women in then Board of Directors in big companys.

    This is simply not fair. i would not care if there was 90% women or 90% men, but having to hire someone because of gender, and not hiering the best suited for the job, is just ridiculous.
    That does sound pretty ridiculous, is there really a law in Denmark which says 50% of BoD need to be women? That sounds completely pointless and is in fact even more demeaning to women because it's a case of "oh just put her in there, she's a woman".

    Quote Originally Posted by Garkanh View Post
    We have gone from male dominance (witch is also wrong), to female dominance. They wanted equalty, well, so do we men.
    Don't say it is "wrong" just for the sake of it, no kind of inequality is "wrong" unless the results can be PROVEN to be genuinely harmful to society/community.

    I welcome you to watch this, it's called the "Norwegian Gender Equality Paradox" where despite women having some of the highest representation in the workforce in Norway (compared to any other country), the jobs themselves still show an extremely high segregation depending upon gender. It's something that is completely voluntary, something that has happened on it's own and never been "forced".



    The women are extremely happy working where they are, same as the men. They are also getting paid less on average than men because - you guessed it - their choice of work is DIFFERENT, in most cases the jobs women picked aren't as high-level, complex or demanding as the jobs men picked. A Health Nurse is not going to get paid as much as a Senior Civil Engineer (apples to oranges!!), and Norwegian women understand that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Garkanh View Post
    And saying: I want the same payment as he do, if i doesn't, you are discriminating! is absurd when it comes to heavy weight jobs. Yes, if you can do the SAME work, in the SAME amount of time, yes, you should get the SAME paycheck in the end of the month, but most women can't carry as much weight as a normal built man.

    Again, i fully support the Mens rights movement.
    Again depends on the kind of work, most jobs these days aren't that labor intensive. Even a woman can learn to operate a digger, forklift or crane to lift heavy loads, but they still choose to stay out of construction.

    But you're right in saying that feminists demanding "equal pay" while completely missing the fact that women tend to pick easier jobs = stupid as hell.
    Last edited by Xuvial; 2012-11-27 at 11:59 AM.
    WoW Character: Wintel - Frostmourne (OCE)
    Gaming rig: i7 7700K, GTX 1080 Ti, 16GB DDR4, BenQ 144hz 1440p

    Signature art courtesy of Blitzkatze


  4. #2264
    Quote Originally Posted by Garkanh View Post
    And saying: I want the same payment as he do, if i doesn't, you are discriminating! is absurd when it comes to heavy weight jobs. Yes, if you can do the SAME work, in the SAME amount of time, yes, you should get the SAME paycheck in the end of the month, but most women can't carry as much weight as a normal built man.
    There are few such jobs left nowdays though, warehouses? They use trucks, heavy labour factories, a lot of automated machines help you out there, etc ... there are some jobs I can think off were you rely on physical strength, construction(literally no women works with this), fire fighters(I have never seen a female firefighter in my life), police(need to pass testing), ambulance personell(no idea, but they gotta be able to lift heavy sometimes), military, which at least here still demands women to pass the physical tests demanded for their MOS(which is why you see literally no women in infantry or physical demanding MOS).
    The nerve is called the "nerve of awareness". You cant dissect it. Its a current that runs up the center of your spine. I dont know if any of you have sat down, crossed your legs, smoked DMT, and watch what happens... but what happens to me is this big thing goes RRRRRRRRRAAAAAWWW! up my spine and flashes in my brain... well apparently thats whats going to happen if I do this stuff...

  5. #2265
    Quote Originally Posted by Aalyy View Post
    OK so after 113 pages it does indeed boil down to the claim that since women have the right to control their own bodies men's rights are being violated unless they get to walk away at will from any responsibility to a child that may result from their sexual activities. In other words, unless the man wants the child his rights are being violated if he is forced by law to step up and take responsibility. The same responsibility that a woman has to under the law.

    Oh and Safe Haven laws are a feminist conspiracy against fathers and we shouldn't think that the MRM is anything other than a total joke. Got it!
    You're either not very experienced at debate or not very mature. You don't get to put words in my mouth.

    I never said men should be able to walk away from children at will. Nor have I said safe haven laws are a conspiracy.

    Men should have a window of opportunity to reject parentage of a child as a means to family planning. Preferably before the child is born so it gives the woman time to decide what to do. There's no sound reason the unilateral decision to keep or abort a child should leave him entirely on the hook for 21 years because of a 1 night stand. If she wants to keep the kid, she can raise it on her own or if she's unable to handle it on her own she can abort. No one is taking that decision away from her. Again, there's no good reason a decision that SHE'S the only one allowed to make should be the deciding factor in the fate of the man.

    Second, Safe Haven laws weren't designed as a feminist conspiracy. They can simply be used as a way to walk away from a child that the mother is unable or unwilling to care for.

    What about men who are unable or unwilling to support a child? Where's their out?

  6. #2266
    When women have rights, and men expectations, something's wrong. When women are allowed to do stuff because of their gender that men aren't allowed, something's wrong. When women can't be prosecuted for doing things men can be prosecuted for, something's wrong.

    And when we get proposals to have 40% of board members as women (or however it went), I wonder why we don't enforce a 40% male quotient on kindergarten teachers. Since they're both equally ill-thought through.

    There are so many situations where men are just expected to be silent and take it, while women are allowed to do whatever they want (since it's their legal right). Not saying women don't face similar issues in other areas, but it doesn't justify injustice. Either way.

  7. #2267
    Quote Originally Posted by Fengore View Post
    That's treading over agreed ground though, Wells said IIRC he agreed in defence of the male in those circumstances.

    I just wondered if there was actually a precedent for rape, discussion aside.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-27 at 07:49 AM ----------



    That's not what I said, that's not what I said at all, infact how the shit did you get that from what I said?

    Being unmarried doesn't mean you're raising it single, you can have joint custody from people who are separated pre-birth.


    What I'm saying is, both genders should have the right to say "I do not want this child" and should either the mother or (in rarer cases) the father be in a position where they want the child, and are aware they're doing so without financial support, then they should raise the child alone without any connection to their paternal partner.

    However the decision to single handedly raise that child would be made in the knowledge there is no financial support. If you can't afford it, don't have it.
    in the situation you previously mentioned, it was a mutual agreement. your suggestion merely places an even greater incentive on the mother to abort, which is a risky procedure. not only that, many women have great difficulty giving up babies after they're born because of their natural instincts. whereas the man suffers absolutely nothing. you really cant just play a numbers game with "options" and pretend they all weigh equally.

  8. #2268
    Quote Originally Posted by Raphtheone View Post
    When women have rights, and men expectations, something's wrong. When women are allowed to do stuff because of their gender that men aren't allowed, something's wrong. When women can't be prosecuted for doing things men can be prosecuted for, something's wrong.

    And when we get proposals to have 40% of board members as women (or however it went), I wonder why we don't enforce a 40% male quotient on kindergarten teachers. Since they're both equally ill-thought through.

    There are so many situations where men are just expected to be silent and take it, while women are allowed to do whatever they want (since it's their legal right). Not saying women don't face similar issues in other areas, but it doesn't justify injustice. Either way.
    That 40% female board members policy is bullshit. I can't believe Sweden actually went through with it.

  9. #2269
    Quote Originally Posted by mludd View Post
    Well, there's prostate stimulation if she's just after semen.

    Viagra, drugs and physical stimulation if she wants intercourse.
    Prostate stimulation releases prostate fluids, not semen. If a woman wants semen, she has a hell of an uphill battle.

  10. #2270
    Quote Originally Posted by Lolercaust View Post
    Prostate stimulation releases prostate fluids, not semen. If a woman wants semen, she has a hell of an uphill battle.
    its not unheard of for rape victims bodies to respond in ways they dont want.

  11. #2271
    First off, thank for acknowledging that not feminists are insane extremists; that viewpoint gets thrown around far too often in the thread.

    I think the primary problem barring the progress of the Men's Right Movement, which has perfectly valid concerns such as men's health issues and cases involving child custody, is men themselves. More specifically, men who are misogynists, and see movements like this as opportunities to establish some sort of male supremacy. It muddles the efforts of others focusing on legitimate issues, and overall tarnishes the perception of the group as a whole. Feminism can survive because it is well established and overall, both historically and still in a modern sense especially in health issues, it has more needs to meet and therefore has relatively more numerical need in society.

  12. #2272
    Moderator Northern Goblin's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Cumbria, England
    Posts
    15,960
    Men can be raped in various ways, as long as it's non consensual, it's rape.

    One of the notorious cases is a guy at a party passed out drunk, and she took advantage in his sleep. He can't say no and his body reacted naturally. Male arousal is not a defence argument of "He clearly wanted it!" against rape. That's up there with "the body has means to shut itself down" in the history of utterly stupid things said.
    Ex-Mod. Technically retired, they just won't let me quit.

  13. #2273
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    That 40% female board members policy is bullshit. I can't believe Sweden actually went through with it.
    I'm not sure we have, is it finalized? Our government has been against it from the start. Our "gender equality" minister Nyamko Sabuni has said "no thanks" on several occasions. Of course if the EU voted in favour of this, we got no real option then to start to enforce it. Not sure if that has happend yet?

    The UK and Sweden have been among the harsher critics of this proposal.

    Here is an article from September
    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/65f49...#axzz2DRlMHQk1
    Last edited by Jackmoves; 2012-11-27 at 06:03 PM.
    The nerve is called the "nerve of awareness". You cant dissect it. Its a current that runs up the center of your spine. I dont know if any of you have sat down, crossed your legs, smoked DMT, and watch what happens... but what happens to me is this big thing goes RRRRRRRRRAAAAAWWW! up my spine and flashes in my brain... well apparently thats whats going to happen if I do this stuff...

  14. #2274
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    You're either not very experienced at debate or not very mature. You don't get to put words in my mouth.

    I never said men should be able to walk away from children at will. Nor have I said safe haven laws are a conspiracy.

    Men should have a window of opportunity to reject parentage of a child as a means to family planning. Preferably before the child is born so it gives the woman time to decide what to do. There's no sound reason the unilateral decision to keep or abort a child should leave him entirely on the hook for 21 years because of a 1 night stand. If she wants to keep the kid, she can raise it on her own or if she's unable to handle it on her own she can abort. No one is taking that decision away from her. Again, there's no good reason a decision that SHE'S the only one allowed to make should be the deciding factor in the fate of the man.

    Second, Safe Haven laws weren't designed as a feminist conspiracy. They can simply be used as a way to walk away from a child that the mother is unable or unwilling to care for.

    What about men who are unable or unwilling to support a child? Where's their out?
    This is why people should be more choicey in who they choose to have sex with. family planning happens before a child is conceived not after the fact. In this day and age people know what it takes to make a child so you are willing to have a one night stand you have willingly taken on the risk of becoming a father/ mother. Yes, women have two outs but it is women who also carry most the burden of caring for a child that last well beyond 21 years of child support. In fact women tend to be the primary child care provider even in marriages which is why for the most part they get custody of the children. The other part is some men ( I am willing to be a large number) do not want the responsible of the day to day caring of a child so they do not seek custody. But I have gone off topic a bit.

    Your suggestion would still not work no work to be honest because you still are leaving the decision for the women to inform the man that she is pregnant with in a certain time. A woman could choose not to tell a man until it is too late for the man to have any options. Now to fix that we could make it so that before the father of the child name could be placed on the birth certificate he must be present and agree to taking care of the child. After that he would have thirty days to change his mind about whatever choice he made. In the case the man is not present at the time of the birth a court order would be issued notifying the man that a claim has been made about him being the father of the child and he would either need to come in and sign papers of intent or request a blood test before thrity days are up. The man would still have thirty days after that to change his mind about his choice. Now for a woman who cannot give the basic information needed on who the father is she will be unable to make a child support claim until that information is provided and the man has been given a chance to make a choice. This would not count for married couples or couples who were married, if the child is that of the husbands he should pay child support. If it is found that the child is not his the woman should be made to pay back any cost the man had incurred while the woman was pregnant and he will not be made to pay child support.

    While I don't like that option much (well I think the part about the married couple is how it should be) this is the only way this type of thing would be handled fairly for both the parties involved.

  15. #2275
    Quote Originally Posted by Humungo View Post
    PS. Aalyy
    "OK so after 113 pages it does indeed boil down to the claim that since women have the right to control their own bodies men's rights are being violated unless they get to walk away at will from any responsibility to a child that may result from their sexual activities. In other words, unless the man wants the child his rights are being violated if he is forced by law to step up and take responsibility. The same responsibility that a woman has to under the law.

    Oh and Safe Haven laws are a feminist conspiracy against fathers and we shouldn't think that the MRM is anything other than a total joke. Got it! "

    Nobody, at, all, is, advocating, that.
    Stop reading into the comments.
    If I for example say an orange walks into the house, it does not mean that I said a pear did not walk into the house. Get that?
    Yes, they actually are. You should start by actually reading the comments. You can call an orange a pear. Doesn't mean it's not an orange. See? I can do it too.

  16. #2276
    Quote Originally Posted by Ebildays View Post
    This is why people should be more choicey in who they choose to have sex with. family planning happens before a child is conceived not after the fact.
    I'm sorry, but abortion falls under 'family planning'.

  17. #2277
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    You're either not very experienced at debate or not very mature. You don't get to put words in my mouth.

    I never said men should be able to walk away from children at will. Nor have I said safe haven laws are a conspiracy.

    Men should have a window of opportunity to reject parentage of a child as a means to family planning. Preferably before the child is born so it gives the woman time to decide what to do. There's no sound reason the unilateral decision to keep or abort a child should leave him entirely on the hook for 21 years because of a 1 night stand. If she wants to keep the kid, she can raise it on her own or if she's unable to handle it on her own she can abort. No one is taking that decision away from her. Again, there's no good reason a decision that SHE'S the only one allowed to make should be the deciding factor in the fate of the man.

    Second, Safe Haven laws weren't designed as a feminist conspiracy. They can simply be used as a way to walk away from a child that the mother is unable or unwilling to care for.

    What about men who are unable or unwilling to support a child? Where's their out?
    The safe haven comment was half sarcasm. Meant to be as absurd as the majority of your comments. And just because you cannot weasel your way out of the things you say, or white wash them to make them seem less like the sexist drivel they are, doesn't make me any of the things you say I am.

    You want an "opt out" option for men because women are allowed by law to decide the outcome of the pregnancy. "Preferably" before the child is born. How very generous of you. You cannot fast talk your way out of this.

  18. #2278
    Quote Originally Posted by Aalyy View Post
    The safe haven comment was half sarcasm. Meant to be as absurd as the majority of your comments. And just because you cannot weasel your way out of the things you say, or white wash them to make them seem less like the sexist drivel they are, doesn't make me any of the things you say I am.

    You want an "opt out" option for men because women are allowed by law to decide the outcome of the pregnancy. "Preferably" before the child is born. How very generous of you. You cannot fast talk your way out of this.
    No one would argue that it can't be abused, but the notion that it can be abused has helped shape rather strict laws that many in this thread find unfair when compared to the options women have. One of the ideas in this thread is to challenge the thought that men absolutely must "man up" and be "responsible" when women have a lot of outs and can be called "irresponsible" because of that.

    Keep in mind I haven't said what my own thoughts are on this since I keep finding new information in this thread that, when considered, change my views.

    And I think I have to keep saying this: Men have a good chance at getting better contraception in a few years thanks to a new male pill. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIaL5QiKbWI is an in-person explanation of it and http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-ftp081012.php is his source.
    Last edited by Jackielope; 2012-11-27 at 06:35 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Everything Nice View Post
    Noodles and chocolate milk is the breakfast of Champions.
    Super Brony Friendfinder

  19. #2279
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    I'm sorry, but abortion falls under 'family planning'.
    I am all for choice be lets be honest abortion is not "family planning". It is a reaction choice to an unwanted(unplanned for) pregnacy in non-medical cases. Am I am going to look down on women who make that choice? No, it is not my body or my child so it really is non of my business. Family planning is more along the lines of taking the proper steps to ensure that you don't have an unplanned pregnancy or getting things in order for a planned pregnancy. Now when things go bad, failed birth control, no access to Plan B, or whatever that is when abortion or adoption steps in. When you really don't want a child or just can't afford one those are your last options.

    That is what I mean by people being choicey with who they have sex with. If you are with a woman and she tells you up front, "I don't believe in having an abortion or giving up my child for adoption", you know ahead of time your options with that woman. Either you stay with her and take on that risk or you find someone with the same mind set.

  20. #2280
    Quote Originally Posted by Aalyy View Post
    Yes, they actually are. You should start by actually reading the comments. You can call an orange a pear. Doesn't mean it's not an orange. See? I can do it too.
    It's not walking away from a child if you never wanted the kid to begin with.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-27 at 06:34 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Aalyy View Post
    The safe haven comment was half sarcasm. Meant to be as absurd as the majority of your comments. And just because you cannot weasel your way out of the things you say, or white wash them to make them seem less like the sexist drivel they are, doesn't make me any of the things you say I am.

    You want an "opt out" option for men because women are allowed by law to decide the outcome of the pregnancy. "Preferably" before the child is born. How very generous of you. You cannot fast talk your way out of this.
    We have laws to smooth out bumps in biology.

    Women are allowed to abort a fetus they aren't ready for. Men should be allowed to disown a child they're not ready for if the mother decides to bring it to term. Men shouldn't be liable for women's choices.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •