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

[Fojos]

There was a representative that wanted to begin mandatory dna checks for every birth in the United States.

Not surprisingly, the feminists got really upset over it including the ones in mmoc forum.

There was a birth prevention pill for men made by a scientist, very few side effects. Reason it didn't really go through? Feminist raging because they'd lose their power over men.

---------- Post added 2013-01-22 at 10:18 PM ----------

.. which is lying. how many men lie about cheating as well?

Because cheating is as life-altering.

[FusedMass]

Less then 10 pages ago you said a kid costs 20 000 dollars to reaise till 18...



The mother made the choice to keep the child. Why should the man take responsibility for her choices?

The cost of raising a child from birth to age 18 for a middle-income, two-parent family averaged $226,920 last year (not including college), according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That's up nearly 40% -- or more than $60,000 -- from 10 years ago. Just one year of spending on a child can cost up to $13,830 in 2010, compared to $9,860 a decade ago.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/21/pf/c...hild/index.htm

[Ebildays]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1204123302.htm

Basically supports my long ass post from 4 pages ago where i explained why women actually have been regarder as more important then men for the last 20 000 years. Neanderthal women and juvenile girls helped the men hunt and they are now extinct.

That does not say they women were more important but that the "female" gender role helped to fill in the gaps where the "male" gender role did not. It is summed up with this statement "cooperation and complementary subsistence" that is the relationship that males and females had then. What has changed is that we no longer need to rely on those roles which while has given women more freedom has left me with a feeling of being unneeded or wanted. Also it does not go into detail about is why "subsistence and skill-intensive craft" became something that females did. Males could have very easily

as long as the government agrees to pick up the tab.
the ironic part is that very few people would use or sign such a contract, since doing so is telling your partner how little you care for them or your children. and someone who would wouldnt have tried to "trap" men in the first place.

i have a hard time believing all these guys are having that many one night stands with total strangers.

mandatory paternity tests is an easy way to solve this "rampant" problem.

I don't get what you are getting at. If a man saids I don't want children or want to be legally responsible for one in the case of pregnancy how does that equal he cares little for his partner? And there are no children involved at that point so there are no children to care little about. I would think people would want their partners to be up front and honest with them on these issue and not drop the bomb when a pregnancy happens. And I would not take being asked to sign a contract personally, it would see it just like I see someone asking me to get tested for STDs. It is a way they can protect themselves from the unknown where is the harm or problem with that?

Say what you will but there is a problem, sticking your head in the sand is not going to make the fact that this happens a lot more then it should go away.

[starlord]

That does not say they women were more important but that the "female" gender role helped to fill in the gaps where the "male" gender role did not. It is summed up with this statement "cooperation and complementary subsistence" that is the relationship that males and females had then. What has changed is that we no longer need to rely on those roles which while has given women more freedom has left me with a feeling of being unneeded or wanted. Also it does not go into detail about is why "subsistence and skill-intensive craft" became something that females did. Males could have very easily

I don't get what you are getting at. If a man saids I don't want children or want to be legally responsible for one in the case of pregnancy how does that equal he cares little for his partner? And there are no children involved at that point so there are no children to care little about. I would think people would want their partners to be up front and honest with them on these issue and not drop the bomb when a pregnancy happens. And I would not take being asked to sign a contract personally, it would see it just like I see someone asking me to get tested for STDs. It is a way they can protect themselves from the unknown where is the harm or problem with that?

i don't know. I guess I'm just weird for thinking "sign this legal contact stating that I refuse to ever support you or my child in the event of an accident" is not really a good foundation for a relationship. but if people want it, go for it.
im just saying it would likely be a double edged sword.

Say what you will but there is a problem, sticking your head in the sand is not going to make the fact that this happens a lot more then it should go away.

i didnt suggest sticking ones head in the sand.

[Ebildays]

i don't know. I guess I'm just weird for thinking "sign this legal contact stating that I refuse to ever support you or my child in the event of an accident" is not really a good foundation for a relationship. but if people want it, go for it.
im just saying it would likely be a double edged sword.

i didnt suggest sticking ones head in the sand.

I would like the contract better than what we have now which is "Oh God Please Don't Get Pregnant". I see it as starting off on a really honest note and if I know were a guy stands on that issue I will not be blindsided. I can think of nothing worst then to be pregnant, scared and to turn around have my guy say "Abort it, I don't want it." As a woman I would know right from finding out "This guy here is not going to help me so these are my options". Oh, it is a double edged sword for sure but that is good. Women know what is going on and men have a red flag if the woman is not willing to sign it.

And you are not weird you will just have to find someone that shares your same values and thinking when it would come to something like a contract like that.

[FusedMass]

I would like the contract better than what we have now which is "Oh God Please Don't Get Pregnant". I see it as starting off on a really honest note and if I know were a guy stands on that issue I will not be blindsided. I can think of nothing worst then to be pregnant, scared and to turn around have my guy say "Abort it, I don't want it." As a woman I would know right from finding out "This guy here is not going to help me so these are my options". Oh, it is a double edged sword for sure but that is good. Women know what is going on and men have a red flag if the woman is not willing to sign it.

And you are not weird you will just have to find someone that shares your same values and thinking when it would come to something like a contract like that.

I understand what you are saying. Though no clause exists unless you formally write up a contract before having sex..that might be a little awkward. I have yet to meet the man who has the people he has sex with to sign some sort of wavier if she does get knocked up she will not sue for Child Support. Most of the time people get knocked up on pure accident.

Even after she is deciding what to do with the child. Isn't it just a tiny bit insensitive if she decides to have to kid to try to get her to sign some sort of wavier saying she will not go for Child Support. As far as I'm aware its a huge emotional impact to have a child then to have the Father say he wants you sign off on getting finances for him later.

Who's to say even if she did go along with it. He might want be in their life later. Then all that child support he never paid. Should be allowed to see his child. If he signed off on the rights. Child Support there to support the child. Both people did the deed. So why not both pay equal amount to the child.

[DeeEss]

There was a birth prevention pill for men made by a scientist, very few side effects. Reason it didn't really go through? Feminist raging because they'd lose their power over men.

Do you have a source for that?

I've heard many times in the past 25 years that there was supposed to be some form of male birth control pill, but it never came about for some reason. The excuse I was always given was that there was no way a man would ever take it. I actually had one gf say that if it did happen, I shouldn't take it due to a lack of testing in comparison to women's birth control pills.

[starlord]

Do you have a source for that?

I've heard many times in the past 25 years that there was supposed to be some form of male birth control pill, but it never came about for some reason. The excuse I was always given was that there was no way a man would ever take it. I actually had one gf say that if it did happen, I shouldn't take it due to a lack of testing in comparison to women's birth control pills.

it was a giant feminist conspiracy:

Since testosterone provides that signal that sperm production is complete, giving a man extra testosterone can serve the same purpose. But if there are always high doses of testosterone in the male bloodstream, they continually tell the brain that the testes are producing enough sperm, which turns off the release of GnRH indefinitely. Male birth control researchers discovered that this testosterone-pumping, GnRH-thwarting approach also comes with a host of physical side effects, including acne, weight gain, prostate-gland growth and abnormal liver function.
To solve the testosterone problem, researchers in the mid-2000s introduced progestogen, another synthetic sex hormone also found in female birth control, into the mix. The resulting male birth control method combined testosterone implants to inhibit sperm production and regular progestogen injections to counteract the unwanted side effects in 80 to 90 percent of male trial participants [source: Amory, Page and Bremner]. But since pharmaceutical companies doubted men would go to such lengths for birth control, they pulled the plug on funding [source: Goodman].

http://science.howstuffworks.com/male-bc-pill.htm

every other method involves some kind of surgery.

[Cybran]

http://science.howstuffworks.com/male-bc-pill.htm

every other method involves some kind of surgery.

Men are damaged goods at the mercy of the smart and beautiful women, we get it.

[starlord]

Men are damaged goods at the mercy of the smart and beautiful women, we get it.

thats a rather offensive thing to say about men.

[Ebildays]

I understand what you are saying. Though no clause exists unless you formally write up a contract before having sex..that might be a little awkward. I have yet to meet the man who has the people he has sex with to sign some sort of wavier if she does get knocked up she will not sue for Child Support. Most of the time people get knocked up on pure accident.

Even after she is deciding what to do with the child. Isn't it just a tiny bit insensitive if she decides to have to kid to try to get her to sign some sort of wavier saying she will not go for Child Support. As far as I'm aware its a huge emotional impact to have a child then to have the Father say he wants you sign off on getting finances for him later.

Who's to say even if she did go along with it. He might want be in their life later. Then all that child support he never paid. Should be allowed to see his child. If he signed off on the rights. Child Support there to support the child. Both people did the deed. So why not both pay equal amount to the child.

The type of contract I would propose would be something you would have to go to a doctor's office or clinic to get and it would have to be signed there were people can witness it. It would not be awkward unless someone makes it awkward, people would treat it no different than asking someone to be tested for STDs before having unprotected sex. The point of the contract is for the pure accidents mostly because before people have sex they need to be on the same page as on what they will do in a "Oh shit" moment. The up side is it will raise a red flag to men for women who do not want to sign it and for women they get the knowledge ahead of time that them man will not be a financial or emotional support for her in case she does become pregnant. The down side is that you may loose a person you really like depending on their choice.

The contract would have to be signed before and only before the woman became pregnant. If as a man you did not do all that you could do to protect yourself that is on you.

Now, I am willing to let men "opt back in" into having their rights back to their child because you never know how you will feel. But there will be a limit on that of maybe six months. After that just like giving up a child for adoption the man will be out of luck or if he is really lucky the woman will want him to be a part of the child's life. Men will have to choose it will not be a case of having your cake and eating it too.

Yes both people did the deed and in a perfect world both would equally share in the responsibility of caring for the child but we do not live in a perfect world. As a compromise I don't think what I would propose is too bad.

[Spectral]

There was a birth prevention pill for men made by a scientist, very few side effects. Reason it didn't really go through? Feminist raging because they'd lose their power over men.

Complete and total fiction. Where do people get this shit from?

[Wells]

Complete and total fiction. Where do people get this shit from?

Reddit mostly.

[whathump]

The type of contract I would propose would be something you would have to go to a doctor's office or clinic to get and it would have to be signed there were people can witness it. It would not be awkward unless someone makes it awkward, people would treat it no different than asking someone to be tested for STDs before having unprotected sex. The point of the contract is for the pure accidents mostly because before people have sex they need to be on the same page as on what they will do in a "Oh shit" moment. The up side is it will raise a red flag to men for women who do not want to sign it and for women they get the knowledge ahead of time that them man will not be a financial or emotional support for her in case she does become pregnant. The down side is that you may loose a person you really like depending on their choice.

The contract would have to be signed before and only before the woman became pregnant. If as a man you did not do all that you could do to protect yourself that is on you.

Now, I am willing to let men "opt back in" into having their rights back to their child because you never know how you will feel. But there will be a limit on that of maybe six months. After that just like giving up a child for adoption the man will be out of luck or if he is really lucky the woman will want him to be a part of the child's life. Men will have to choose it will not be a case of having your cake and eating it too.

Yes both people did the deed and in a perfect world both would equally share in the responsibility of caring for the child but we do not live in a perfect world. As a compromise I don't think what I would propose is too bad.

I think this sounds fairly reasonable.

If you do end up missing out on a relationship with someone you really like because of them wanting children and you not wanting children, it's for the best in any case because it likely would not have worked out in the end.

[DisposableHero]

yes, those are made by the MRM.

Seeing as how the prevalence of these myths is supremely damaging to obtaining any sort of political will in the favor of the MRM you wouldn't post such a blindly absurd statement as this if you were the slightest bit rational about the subject. The MRM is not a woman hating organization. Men's rights do not by default come at the expense of women's rights, and the vast majority of the people arguing for men's rights believe firmly they are not arguing against women's rights.

Men in power are not feminists, but they will cater to them with little or no resistance because to not cater to them, or appear to oppose them in any way will lead one to be labeled a misogynist out to get all women. Or have you forgotten how well that worked out for the republican party in this past election?

[starlord]

Seeing as how the prevalence of these myths is supremely damaging to obtaining any sort of political will in the favor of the MRM you wouldn't post such a blindly absurd statement as this if you were the slightest bit rational about the subject. The MRM is not a woman hating organization. Men's rights do not by default come at the expense of women's rights, and the vast majority of the people arguing for men's rights believe firmly they are not arguing against women's rights.

what do i judge a movement by if not its "members" words? have you noted the sheer amount of misogyny in this thread?
maybe you can make the argument that the "silent majority" don't. but don't tell me theres not a lot of blather about teh evil feminists going on.

Men in power are not feminists, but they will cater to them with little or no resistance because to not cater to them, or appear to oppose them in any way will lead one to be labeled a misogynist out to get all women. Or have you forgotten how well that worked out for the republican party in this past election?

what is this i dont even


so denying the fact that rape can result in pregnancy, and wanting to enact legislation based on that is "opposing/refusing to cater to teh evil feminists and being unfairly labeled"?

[DisposableHero]

what do i judge a movement by if not its "members" words? have you noted the sheer amount of misogyny in this thread?

Maybe if you read and understood them your opinion would change. And no, I haven't noted very much categorical hatred of women going on, I'm sure you can find a quote or two that can be taken out of context to demonstrate your point, just like you've done with your signature, however, for the majority, it is not misogyny. I've seen a lot of people say they don't like being forced to pay for things against their will. I've seen a lot of people say the current laws don't protect men from what is essentially fraud. I have seen a lot of people say women are not being forced to accept the consequences of their decisions while men are. None of that however, is misogyny, and the use of that term, to apply to absolutely anything and everything that opposes the feminist agenda (usually portrayed inaccurately as either "what's best for women" or "the agenda of women as a whole") is one of the cornerstones of the psychosis our society collectively displays when it comes to dealing honestly and logically with gender issues.

I believe the MRM is not out to get women, and are not a woman hating organization. You are welcome to not believe that. I don't believe my participation in this discussion reflects a hatred towards women. You are welcome to not believe that too.

so denying the fact that rape can result in pregnancy, and wanting to enact legislation based on that is "opposing/refusing to cater to teh evil feminists and being unfairly labeled"?

Now its my turn to say "what is this? I don't even...".

Where in any of this discussion did I bring up rape?
Where in any of this discussion did I say I felt feminists were evil?
What is this? I don't even...

[starlord]

Maybe if you read and understood them your opinion would change. And no, I haven't noted very much categorical hatred of women going on, I'm sure you can find a quote or two that can be taken out of context to demonstrate your point, just like you've done with your signature, however, for the majority, it is not misogyny. I've seen a lot of people say they don't like being forced to pay for things against their will. I've seen a lot of people say the current laws don't protect men from what is essentially fraud. I have seen a lot of people say women are not being forced to accept the consequences of their decisions while men are. None of that however, is misogyny, and the use of that term, to apply to absolutely anything and everything that opposes the feminist agenda (usually portrayed inaccurately as either "what's best for women" or "the agenda of women as a whole") is one of the cornerstones of the psychosis our society collectively displays when it comes to dealing honestly and logically with gender issues.

ive seen a lot of posts and a rather unscientific survey saying that "49% of women want to oppress men."
and a lot of posts saying "the feminist agenda is to oppress men and use them as slot machines for money." Not being property was just the first step in their plan i guess.

I believe the MRM is not out to get women, and are not a woman hating organization. You are welcome to not believe that. I don't believe my participation in this discussion reflects a hatred towards women. You are welcome to not believe that too.

of course its not, just a good vocal portion of its members. kind of like how "white rights" isnt a racist concept, it just attracts a lot of white supremacists.

Now its my turn to say "what is this? I don't even...".

Where in any of this discussion did I bring up rape?
Where in any of this discussion did I say I felt feminists were evil?
What is this? I don't even...

oh sorry. why dont you clarify what you were referring to when you said "refusing to cater to feminists cost republicans the election"? clearly it wasnt the huge scandal in regards to a few of their members expressing their opinions about rape.

and tell us more about "the feminist agenda", im afraid i havent got my pamphlet yet.

[Austilias]

Wow, this is still going on.

What started out as a reasonable conversation has long since degenerated into a rather two-sided argument; the have-your-cake-and-eat-it side, and the side that seeks for men to have an opt-out where women have at least two. 101 pages and going strong, may the comedy continue.

[starlord]

Wow, this is still going on.

What started out as a reasonable conversation has long since degenerated into a rather two-sided argument; the have-your-cake-and-eat-it side, and the side that seeks for men to have an opt-out where women have at least two. 101 pages and going strong, may the comedy continue.

i dont know, i think it gives a lot of much needed exposure to a movement that sorely needs it.