1. #2341
    Equality and equal rights are great, unless they through logic grant more rights to men.

  2. #2342
    Deleted
    Well... I gotta say I am a fan of feminists being so clearly SEXIST yet that is considered acceptable. "Men are Misoginists" <- Used in context which basically says ALL men are Misoginists. "Men are stronger than women" <- While... Positive? That's still steriotyping and therefore sexist. Talking about domestic abuse then ignore the fact that men don't get taken seriously AT ALL when it comes to them making such claims. And - From personal experience - My little brother said he wanted to live with our Dad when my father and his ex split up. They both had solicitors. My little brother said this to the solicitor. He was completely ignored because he wasn't 16. Guess what? He hates his mother with a passion, and they've been split up for a good 8 years now. Go figure. He may have been young (still is at 13), but nothing has changed since then. He still wants to live with his dad. So yeah, I call bollocks on the child actually having a say. That system works completely for women.

    Rape is an issue, but you do realize SEVERAL rape cases get found out to be false before even going to court, and the vast majority of statistics are based around the ones that go to court. Heck, one of my friends was accused of rape at a party he wasn't even at. Simply because the woman in question didn't like him. Don't get me wrong, women do have more than a right to complain about certain aspects, but don't sit there putting all men in a single fucking cupboard because you're too ignorant to believe that not all men are the same.

  3. #2343
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    Because that's biology's fault. Just like it's biology's fault women get the choice in whether to abort or not.

    The more complicated nature of the abortion procedure doesn't get to enter into the lawmaking decision. The law is there to smooth out the bumps biology throws at us. Not enhance them.
    I'm just saying. You were up in arms over the extremely rare side effects of circumcision. Apparently the side effects of abortion are so minimal though its analogous to just letting a man walk away entirely.

  4. #2344
    Quote Originally Posted by buck008 View Post
    No, I'm acting as though the choice affects both people, and you should approach a situation that you view as broken with a compromise solution that benefits both people. Giving the man the ability to walk away takes a choice away from the mother (i.e. raise the kid with bio dad physically or financially present). It adds nothing to the situation. You haven't made anything equal, you've just rearranged things so men have it a bit easier.
    And what sort of compromise is there? I thought allowing a man to walk away without removing a woman's choices was pretty damn compromising.

    But if you have another idea, let's hear it.

  5. #2345
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    I'm all for expanding the legal system to pursue deadbeats.
    Why? Let's face it, you'll be pursuing most of them for pocket change.

    I'm sure in quite a few cases the costs of the courts time is far more than the money the man ends up paying.

  6. #2346
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Stop pretending the powers you're giving men don't effect the woman.
    And how do they affect her? Hmm? The only thing this would do is remove women's ability to take a chunk of a man's cash for 21 years without any way to fight it on his part.

  7. #2347
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    Why? Let's face it, you'll be pursuing most of them for pocket change.
    Then it doesn't matter, since child support is income dependent. You're still claiming that letting men walk away is better for women because at least they'll get to know if he's going to bail earlier, even though they'd now be out child support.

    Its frankly a little misogynistic.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-28 at 02:08 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    And how do they affect her? Hmm? The only thing this would do is remove women's ability to take a chunk of a man's cash for 21 years without any way to fight it on his part.
    I love how you do your best to ignore the fact there is a child that needs to be supported. Nope its just them crazy bitches draining your bank account.

    The decision effects her because it changes her decision from "share burden or abort" to "raise alone or abort" if he decides to walk away. His decision directly changes the outcomes of her available options.

  8. #2348
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    And what sort of compromise is there? I thought allowing a man to walk away without removing a woman's choices was pretty damn compromising.

    But if you have another idea, let's hear it.
    But you do remove a choice. As I said, one choice is to raise the kid with bio dad (person or money). You took that choice and gave it to the father. That's it. There's no compromise. You took something from one side and gave it to the other.

    To your other question, no I don't think there is a good solution. I don't think anyone will come up with a good solution. In this circumstance you can not possibly make everyone happy. But to rearrange the situation so men have an out and call that equal rights or compromise is just wrong.

  9. #2349
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post

    I love how you do your best to ignore the fact there is a child that needs to be supported. Nope its just them crazy bitches draining your bank account.
    I've said it before and I'll say it till it sinks in.

    You don't get to campaign for a mother's right to kill a child just because it's unborn and then throw a hissy fit when its quality of life is in jeopardy. Biology of the situation be damned, that's exactly what you're advocating and trying to sugarcoat it by saying "A fetus isn't alive" or "I don't support late term abortions" doesn't change that fact.

    The decision effects her because it changes her decision from "share burden or abort" to "raise alone or abort" if he decides to walk away. His decision directly changes the outcomes of her available options.
    Do you really think no men (or even a majority of men) would abandon their child? No. The decision doesn't become "raise alone or abort" unless he actually takes the option. Most men would still take care of their kid. Most guys aren't half as shitty as you seem to think. You know, just like how most women aren't out to be deceiving men. Right? Right.

    The option isn't there for guys who have no sense of responsibility. It's there for guys who legitimately are not in a place to support the child. Just like abortion is there for women in a plate to legitimately not support the child.

  10. #2350
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Its frankly a little misogynistic.
    And this is why I cannot take most "feminists" seriously, when men want equal rights and choices they're "misogynists".
    Last edited by Rukentuts; 2012-11-28 at 02:15 AM.

  11. #2351
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    It's not punishing those who take responsibility nor is it rewarding those who don't.

    It's doing nothing beneficial or harmful to people who don't accept the burden. Meanwhile the woman is left with 2 choices. The same choices she had from the beginning. She can abort/adopt or bring the child to term and raise it herself.

    Same choices. Nothing's changed except she can't depend on an unwilling father's garnished wages.
    she cant depend on his wages to help her raise the child, as opposed to having a willing partners. so those who would think "id prefer to give my child the best possible life" are left with one solution. Abort. those who dont want a kid are reaffirmed in their decision.

    making the burden greater is in fact harmful to those who wish to accept it.

  12. #2352
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,198
    So, if the man doesn't have to pay for the child, but the child needs more than what the mother can provide, who helps pay for it?

  13. #2353
    Quote Originally Posted by buck008 View Post
    But you do remove a choice. As I said, one choice is to raise the kid with bio dad (person or money). You took that choice and gave it to the father. That's it. There's no compromise. You took something from one side and gave it to the other.

    To your other question, no I don't think there is a good solution. I don't think anyone will come up with a good solution. In this circumstance you can not possibly make everyone happy. But to rearrange the situation so men have an out and call that equal rights or compromise is just wrong.
    I don't buy that. Currently the only time a man can ever be happy with the outcome of a pregnancy is if he's in lockstep with the woman.

    That seems wrong, to me.

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-28 at 02:16 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by darenyon View Post
    she cant depend on his wages to help her raise the child, as opposed to having a willing partners. so those who would think "id prefer to give my child the best possible life" are left with one solution. Abort. those who dont want a kid are reaffirmed in their decision.

    making the burden greater is in fact harmful to those who wish to accept it.
    And what about women making median or higher wages? Do you think their best possible solution to an unwanted pregnancy is to abort?

    No. Of course it isn't. Stop pretending women need a man.

  14. #2354
    Quote Originally Posted by Grokan View Post
    So, if the man doesn't have to pay for the child, but the child needs more than what the mother can provide, who helps pay for it?
    Who helps pay for it anyway?

    One guess.

  15. #2355
    Quote Originally Posted by buck008 View Post
    But you do remove a choice. As I said, one choice is to raise the kid with bio dad (person or money). You took that choice and gave it to the father. That's it. There's no compromise. You took something from one side and gave it to the other.
    How else to you compromise when one side has all the decision making power and the other has none? At least this way it's upfront and before birth, as opposed to a down the road deadbeat.

    The compromise is, telling the woman honestly what your intentions are so that she can better plan HER decision. Does she still have to make a shitty decision? Ya, but this way there is no surprise. I'd have a lot more sympathy for both parties if pregnancy wasn't so damn easy to prevent in the first place.

  16. #2356
    You don't get to campaign for a mother's right to kill a child just because it's unborn and then throw a hissy fit when its quality of life is in jeopardy. Biology of the situation be damned, that's exactly what you're advocating and trying to sugarcoat it by saying "A fetus isn't alive" or "I don't support late term abortions" doesn't change that fact.
    Don't compare a fetus and its supposed right to life (that does not legally exist) to the needs of a living human being that is unable to sustain itself. You know that's a bullshit comparison.
    Do you really think no men (or even a majority of men) would abandon their child? No. The decision doesn't become "raise alone or abort" unless he actually takes the option.
    No shit, if he doesn't take the option nothing changes. The point stands. His new choice directly effects the outcome of the mother's options. It effects her, as you have denied.
    The option isn't there for guys who have no sense of responsibility. It's there for guys who legitimately are not in a place to support the child.
    Child support is income dependent. If you think child support specifics need to be tweaked I'm all ears.

  17. #2357
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Methanar View Post
    I, for one, welcome our new female overlords.
    In Soviet Russia, women treat YOU.

    Quote Originally Posted by Henako View Post
    How about we worry less about men's and women's rights and more about people's rights. Aren't we all on the same team?
    Agreed. Who cares about gender. That should be the default modus operandi.

  18. #2358
    No. Of course it isn't. Stop pretending women need a man.
    Stop pretending the child isn't worse off with less money available to raise it.

  19. #2359
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Stop pretending the child isn't worse off with less money available to raise it.
    If you can't afford it, don't have it. That goes for couples too by the way. Because guess who pays for tons of it anyway? John Q. Taxpayer.

  20. #2360
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    I don't buy that. Currently the only time a man can ever be happy with the outcome of a pregnancy is if he's in lockstep with the woman.

    That seems wrong, to me.
    Then come up with a solution that doesn't just reorganize the problem in a more personally beneficial manner. I don't see a way around it. Currently in the situation that will cause the most strife (mom wants the kid, dad does not) the mother has four choices:
    1. Keep the kid, sue for child support. Gives dad the chance to change his mind and sue for custody later.
    2. Keep the kid, have dad sign a waiver of parental responsibility (or whatever your state calls it.) No child support (again state dependent) no custody mess later.
    3. Adoption
    4. Abortion

    Your solution just takes the first one and gives it to the dad. That's not helpful because she already knows he isn't on board. She doesn't get anything in exchange for losing that option. The man gains a huge shift in power in his favor and the woman lose it. That's not compromise in any sense of the word. Want to make it work? Come up with compensation.

Posting Permissions

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