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

[FusedMass]

You could destroy the pills.

It's kind of disgusting. Even as a male. A person opens a thread saying "Men's Right" then later says its equal parents right. Yet topic of this thread is "Boy this makes me really eager to stop advocating men's right" anyone who disagrees with the OP is cussed at and called dumb. Yet openly admitting to destroying the females Birth Control Pills..

Yet that's fine according with posters. How about this it's very very simple. When the Father carry's the kid around for nine months. He can have more say. If not leave it up to a court to decide like they are supposed to do. You start thinking you can control it by dumping women's property birth control is just kinda twisted.

By the way Plan B is sold mostly over the counter. If she found out she could get more pills and think you are a creep for rest of your natural day's instead of a friends with benefits or whatever you were.

[Cybran]

Not completely true, women could be beaten and raped by their husbands at will because that was his right as her husband. Also it is not because women and children had a higher value than men but that they were seen as weaker. And the role of the male as "protector" is to protect the weak not abuse them. It is widely seen that a man should be able to protect himself and his family so when another male goes against that it is a break in the male identity and therefore is seen as atrocious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tCjzWD7qag (male elephant beating baby elephant)

Not true at all. The reason men beat their wives and children is NOT because they think of them as lesser, but because of their sexual frustration or them trying to reassert their authority. Men are hardwired to think that violence and aggression is the key to power. Hitting your child is wrong, but it has been the way to "discipline" them for so long that it still sticks. Hell, my mother has hit me far more often than my father. (In their defense I was a terrible child. Almost set our house on fire twice and my hands have scars from fire and tools. The first thing I did when I started walking was breaking stuff)

I am not saying I am right 100% but things are never black and white especially when it comes to gender roles and how males are treated. Remember now we also live in a world where in certain places babies are aborted or killed for simply being female.

Gendercide is an awful thing. The 2 places where that happens are China and India. It doesn't happen "just because they are girls". Their social norms and the "One Child" policy bring about this horrible treatment.

In the past Kings have left queens or killed them for not giving a male child. We can not say that females have more value than a male when we can look at see that at best they were well cared for property and at worst a sex/birthing doll.

This has more to do with the fact that there was no divorce. In my country however even around the 10th century the Orthodox church allowed divorce so they could just remarry without anyone being killed. Kings on the other hand needed a male heir to lead the army. Even now the UK the princes serve in the military. Female heirs just weren't acceptable for that role, from a pragmatic point of view.

I don't get this property argument. While true that marriages were arranged by the parents same was true for the boys too. Marriage was an agreement between 2 families. The family of the boy had to provide a house, boy that would work and money if they had any (the more the better). The family of the female had to provide a girl that can bear children. If there isn't a boy, the family name dies and everything the family of the boy had worked for would go to someone else. Of course this happened and many normal families just lived their lives regardless. In a normal European family what you regard as "sex/birthing doll" meant security. It meant much more than just dropping a litter. Even after her child baring days were over the woman was useful by helping take care her grandchildren, cooking, knitting and helping around the house, man on the other had lost their value when their physical strength was lost.

What made woman valuable was not just that they could have children but that they could have male children, having a male child is what gave women the most power. Males have always been more valuable because they could do more than a woman could. They had a higher value because the value was placed on what a man does over what a man is and that is what women were and still do fight for. In the past any woman off the street could have a child that is why brides came with gifts to make them more appealing to males. A female child was nothing but a burden until she could be married off but a male child was an heir. Someone that would learn things and take over for the head male when the time comes.
And women have what is basically a sell by date because our eggs get old and man can have children well past his prime and still have healthy children a woman cannot. We loose our value when we loose the ability to have children but men keep their value because they can move from workers to mentors shaping the males of the future.

The gifts were for both the bride and the groom. A male child meant more physical strength in the field or in the family business. It was nothing more than a worthwhile investment. As I already said marriage used to be an agreement between families. Marrying a daughter meant she would leave your home and stop contributing to the overall wealth of your household. She would change her name and her children would work for the other family. Women were essential, but had a lower return rate of their investment, this is the only reason you think they were “unwanted”. They have always been essential and men have worked hard their whole life to be regarded as a good husband material. This has started to change and many of us started slacking and even in our mid 20s we are still children (including myself)

Child support does not say you are not needed. Males are still needed in a child's life because they teach a child what a man is and what a man is supposed to do. Like my dad for example, I did not know what my dad did for a job but his value to me was in how he treated me. He was proud of me and when people would ask him if he wished he had sons well would tell them no he was happy with his girls. My dad took me shopping, he bought me toys and not just girl toys like dolls but things like video games, trucks and microscopes. We would watch horror movies and boxing together and he never took a vacation because he used the money to buy us Christmas. My dad was a man and dammit he had a value, he was not disposal or unneeded to me. Fathers are need to children not just for money but for who they are what they can show children about what it means to be a man. Fathers show children that it is not what a man does for a living that makes him a man but what he does for those around him that makes him a man.

It's nice to hear that you think that, but once the government steps in the life of fathers and tells them to pay or they will go to jail they start feeling useless. As i said men derives his value from the respect he gets in society. This respect was earned through accomplishment and provision for it's family. When he is told "You are nothing more then an ATM" it hurts.

The seed of men has always had a special place when seen for reproduction. It was the "seed" that created life but it was the woman's body that held it. Women were mainly seen as incubators and not something that gave a child half of it's genes. You are right about the "new" roles that men can take in society not being well respected. Stay at home dads are looked down on for choose to stay at home and "tend house". But there are some good things that are happening because you know see more things in the media about men taking care of children. People should have their value placed on them for who they are as a person not what they can do. So I can have a baby does that give me more value then say Stephen Hawking? No, Stephen Hawking has more value than me and womb combined.

Not true at all. Men is impaired when it comes to reproduction, his genes are as good as the next guy. This is why males have focused on making themselves desired by earning and providing. The only reason the male child inherits the house/money, because it will make him a more viable candidate in the eyes of the females. Boys don't get the house, because they are considered "more valuable". They get it because they need it.

And the whole dying for country thing is just that it just sounds manly when someone says "He died for this country protecting the freedoms of its people".

Men and Women equally fought and died for freedom.

[Deleted]

That article seems more "anti women" than "pro men." What are they hoping to achieve with this? How is this related to men's rights? Do they want us men to have the same rights to lie or something?

I know of women who don't trust men, so I guess they want to show that women can be just as bad as men? Even then I don't like it, because I don't think women are in a position of superiority in society. You shouldn't downgrade one end of the spectrum to give rise to the other, which is the reason why I don't like this article.

Also, where are the studies for men?

[TheBeardedOne]

Allowing a man to opt out in the first month of pregnancy or something similar would allow the woman to decide her OWN future with all the information in front of her. She isn't forced into anything and the child(if it is even born) will be born into a situation where is is loved and provided for
The possible outcomes from this would be as follows;
1-both man and woman want to keep it- both are happy
2- man wants to keep it but woman doesn't- the WOMAN decides on whether or not to carry it or have an abortion, if she carries it she has no financial responsibility
3- man doesn't want it but woman does- man has limited period to opt out, woman has all the FACTS in ample time and is able to make whatever decision she wants
4-neither want it-woman decides abortion or adoption, both are happy

Neither the woman or the man has any choices made for them in this type of deal and nothing is forced onto another person. The child is taken care of in all cases. Yes mistakes have been made by both parties, but one party should not be making a unilateral decision for both parties just because of their genitals and because they have a fetus in them. They are adults for gods sake, you do not make life changing decisions for another adults ever. Its still not equal but it never will be(you can never force a woman to give birth), at least this is close

[FusedMass]

That article seems more "anti women" than "pro men." What are they hoping to achieve with this? How is this related to men's rights? Do they want us men to have the same rights to lie or something?

I know of women who don't trust men, so I guess they want to show that women can be just as bad as men? Even then I don't like it, because I don't think women are in a position of superiority in society. You shouldn't downgrade one end of the spectrum to give rise to the other, which is the reason why I don't like this article.

Also, where are the studies for men?

It took some people nearly a hundred pages to realize this is not about "Birth Parents Rights" this is about "Men's Right" it say's so in the thread. I pointed out you cannot have your superior mens right without stripping away female rights. For example if a woman wants to keep a baby or not. She should not be forced carry a baby for 9 months of hell just to make the man happy.

Their are already Pro Choice or Pro Life and this thread is kinda masking what its about. Furthermore talking about destroying women's birth control. It's eerie how many people are open to that option if they had the choice. I sincerely doubt almost no one would notice if someone stopped advocating mens right..its a complete and double standard.

You want give men all the rights and none to female. What about a women trying escape an abusive ex boyfriend who forced her to pay child support. Should he have more way then a Judge. Of course not. Every situation is different and its not about mens rights. It's about a human basic civil rights. That is she should not be forced to having a kid she does not want.

If she wants child support well it took two people to do the deed. Its not like men should just sign a wavier if they want no part in child's life. It cost around 20k a child to raise to 18. What the Irony about this is most people posting. At least half do not have kids of their own.

[Raiju]

It took some people nearly a hundred pages to realize this is not about "Birth Parents Rights" this is about "Men's Right" it say's so in the thread. I pointed out you cannot have your superior mens right without stripping away female rights. For example if a woman wants to keep a baby or not. She should not be forced carry a baby for 9 months of hell just to make the man happy.

Read some of the posts of these "oppressive mens rights supporters" and you would change your tune. The one above you is a perfect example of what the 100 page discussion is actually about. Nothing to do with forcing you to carry a child.

We don't need to have kids to have seen first hand the damage it has done to our fathers, by the way.

[Gilian]

Lying is one thing. Then making your boyfriend/husband feel like shit by making him believe it's all his fault just to not get caught for lying is another.

People are assholes in general. I just hope I come across people who are not.

[Xanjori]

It's kind of disgusting. Even as a male. A person opens a thread saying "Men's Right" then later says its equal parents right. Yet topic of this thread is "Boy this makes me really eager to stop advocating men's right" anyone who disagrees with the OP is cussed at and called dumb. Yet openly admitting to destroying the females Birth Control Pills..

Yet that's fine according with posters. How about this it's very very simple. When the Father carry's the kid around for nine months. He can have more say. If not leave it up to a court to decide like they are supposed to do. You start thinking you can control it by dumping women's property birth control is just kinda twisted.

By the way Plan B is sold mostly over the counter. If she found out she could get more pills and think you are a creep for rest of your natural day's instead of a friends with benefits or whatever you were.

Or YOU could actually read the thread, and realise you just quoted a female.

[Gilian]

Allowing a man to opt out in the first month of pregnancy or something similar would allow the woman to decide her OWN future with all the information in front of her. She isn't forced into anything and the child(if it is even born) will be born into a situation where is is loved and provided for
The possible outcomes from this would be as follows;
1-both man and woman want to keep it- both are happy
2- man wants to keep it but woman doesn't- the WOMAN decides on whether or not to carry it or have an abortion, if she carries it she has no financial responsibility
3- man doesn't want it but woman does- man has limited period to opt out, woman has all the FACTS in ample time and is able to make whatever decision she wants
4-neither want it-woman decides abortion or adoption, both are happy

Neither the woman or the man has any choices made for them in this type of deal and nothing is forced onto another person. The child is taken care of in all cases. Yes mistakes have been made by both parties, but one party should not be making a unilateral decision for both parties just because of their genitals and because they have a fetus in them. They are adults for gods sake, you do not make life changing decisions for another adults ever. Its still not equal but it never will be(you can never force a woman to give birth), at least this is close

Best post ever. Maybe I say this because I am a man or maybe because I am rational and believe in being fair instead of old traditions, ideas and laws.

This will not happen any time soon though. Way too shocking to change.

[Snuffleupagus]

Allowing a man to opt out in the first month of pregnancy

No. Just no.

[TheBeardedOne]

No. Just no.

well this a compelling argument, its for equality not to screw a woman over

[Raiju]

No. Just no.

Well at least you know what you're disagreeing with.

[Gilian]

I can't wait until there's male contraception so we can stop having these stupid arguments about the lying women trapping men and what not (I'm sure it has happened, but equally sure it isn't as common as people like to act). And I agree women can also be choosy and more careful, but the context of this discussion is women who are out to trap a man or whatever, so I assume in that scenario the woman wouldn't be as careful?

I would trade carrying a baby any time in change for working your ass of and paying child support for years because someone made that decision for you.

Women always act like carrying a baby is some sort of punishment so that's why they should have everything to say. I would love to carry my own baby but I can't. Women should be happy.

[Deleted]

It took some people nearly a hundred pages to realize this is not about "Birth Parents Rights" this is about "Men's Right" it say's so in the thread. I pointed out you cannot have your superior mens right without stripping away female rights. For example if a woman wants to keep a baby or not. She should not be forced carry a baby for 9 months of hell just to make the man happy.

Their are already Pro Choice or Pro Life and this thread is kinda masking what its about. Furthermore talking about destroying women's birth control. It's eerie how many people are open to that option if they had the choice. I sincerely doubt almost no one would notice if someone stopped advocating mens right..its a complete and double standard.

You want give men all the rights and none to female. What about a women trying escape an abusive ex boyfriend who forced her to pay child support. Should he have more way then a Judge. Of course not. Every situation is different and its not about mens rights. It's about a human basic civil rights. That is she should not be forced to having a kid she does not want.

If she wants child support well it took two people to do the deed. Its not like men should just sign a wavier if they want no part in child's life. It cost around 20k a child to raise to 18. What the Irony about this is most people posting. At least half do not have kids of their own.

Wait do you agree or disagree with me? Because I agree with what you wrote. Well, maybe not this:

I pointed out you cannot have your superior mens right without stripping away female rights.

I agree with your example, but what if a man don't want the child, but the woman do?

[whathump]

If she wants child support well it took two people to do the deed. Its not like men should just sign a wavier if they want no part in child's life. It cost around 20k a child to raise to 18. What the Irony about this is most people posting. At least half do not have kids of their own.

I'm pretty sure your 20k number is quite a bit off. It equates to less than $100 a month, and I'm pretty sure raising a child costs more than that.

[obdigore]

I'm pretty sure your 20k number is quite a bit off. It equates to less than $100 a month, and I'm pretty sure raising a child costs more than that.

Wiki has it at 157k for a family making less than 60k a year pre-tax for a single parent household. It only goes up from there.

Edit -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_raising_a_child

[Raiju]

I'm pretty sure your 20k number is quite a bit off. It equates to less than $100 a month, and I'm pretty sure raising a child costs more than that.

The recommended amount my parents were given was £380 a month in child support, based on income. That's probably $500+? Now while I'm sure you can raise a child for less, this is what you're being told to pay by law in those conditions.

[Snuffleupagus]

well this a compelling argument, its for equality not to screw a woman over

Except that it's a proposal that is retardedly easy to abuse. You're swinging the pendulum too far in the opposite direction. You had sex, she got pregnant, man up and take responsibility.

Want to avoid entrapment? Easy. Funnel money into male contraception. I've said it before in this thread, and I'll say it again: Vasalgel.

You want to take steps to equality? Well here they are:

1. Abortion is only allowable in cases of rape, incest, or medical emergency.
2. Male contraception, when properly developed, should be available to ALL males in the same way the pill is available to women.
3. Mandatory fucking paternity testing at birth. If it's not your child, THEN you get to walk away.

But no, these will be ignored because pussies will want an easy out. Because "men" these days have no concept of responsibility.

[obdigore]

I'm still not clear why you are so against abortion?

[Mayhem]

Except that it's a proposal that is retardedly easy to abuse. You're swinging the pendulum too far in the opposite direction. You had sex, she got pregnant, man up and take responsibility.

Want to avoid entrapment? Easy. Funnel money into male contraception. I've said it before in this thread, and I'll say it again: Vasalgel.

You want to take steps to equality? Well here they are:

1. Abortion is only allowable in cases of rape, incest, or medical emergency.
2. Male contraception, when properly developed, should be available to ALL males in the same way the pill is available to women.
3. Mandatory fucking paternity testing at birth. If it's not your child, THEN you get to walk away.

But no, these will be ignored because pussies will want an easy out. Because "men" these days have no concept of responsibility.

no these are fine with pretty much everyone here, except a few who will come up with "but this is not fair woman should have the option to abort or give the child up for adoption if they so wish"