What About Men's Rights?

[TedTheAtheist]

I see one of your checkboxes is for "women's rights".
What about men's rights?
Shouldn't you have said: "We support equal rights between genders"?

Men lack some serious rights in this country. For more info on that, please see http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/i-need-the-mens-rights-movement-because/.

But one of the most disgusting lack of rights for men that I'm sensitive to is the lack of reproductive rights, of which you can get more info at http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/fathers/male-reproductive-rights/.

This "atheism+" thing you've dreamed up will not fly so long as it appears unfairly biased to cater to the women in this regard.
You may have some positive aspects, but you need to think real hard about paying attention to equality a bit more.

Men need equality, too. And that means just as much attention.

[SallyStrange]

Sigh. Well, I guess this is what the education is for.

The Mens Rights Movement, or MRM, has been designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate movement. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/i ... bout-women

"A Voice for Men" is one of the sites listed as a hate site. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/i ... -the-sites

Why has SPLC done this?

First, because MRAs (Mens Rights Activists) spread false information in order to bolster their case that men are just as oppressed as women on account of their gender, if not more. They claim that false rape accusations are far more widespread than is commonly accepted, and that women perpetrate domestic violence against men just as much as men do against women. These claims are false (see the first link) and they support dangerously misogynist ideas about women.

Second, the MRM lionizes violence when it's done by men who are perceived to be lashing out at "female privilege." http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/i ... r-on-women

Third, they treat children as if they are pawns and possessions rather than people with human rights that must be respected. Of all the claims MRAs make, the claim that men are unfairly disadvantaged in court battles for custody of children is the one that gets the most sympathy. However, their analysis of the issue neglects several important factors: first, they do not control for the times that men do not bother to contest custody. Second, they do not recognize that although it's rough to not be able to see your kids as much as you like, it's also rough to be stuck with the unpaid work of being the primary child-carer, and thus be deprived of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in lifetime earnings, which is what happens to women who take time off to care for their children.

In the end, the MRM fails because it misdiagnoses the problem and the solution. Rather than identifying the problem as rigidly enforced patriarchal gender roles that limit both men and women, they too often lay the blame at the feet of feminists. Rather than identifying the solution as tearing down those rigid gender roles and fighting for greater recognition of male rape victims and male victims of domestic violence, they too often denigrate women and men who depart from those gender roles (the word "mangina" has great currency on a lot of MRM sites, it refers to a man who is insufficiently masculine, too soft, and too solicitous of women's concerns) and fight against any expansion of resources and rights for female rape and DV victims.

I hope that's enough to get you started down the path to understanding why the MRM has NO PLACE WHATSOEVER IN ATHEISM PLUS.

[marinerachel]

When people use A Voice for Men as source material is it because they think others won't recognise it as a completely unreliable source or because they themselves don't realise just how erroneous it is?

As much as it's true that men are socially disadvantaged in some respects and it's unacceptable, pointing fingers at those persuing equality in other regards and diminishing the matters they want to put a stop to is not the way to go about it. This is basically the cornerstone of A Voice for Men, not legitimate activism to empower men with regards to the social issues in which they are disadvantaged. A Voice for Men and sources like it portray the men's rights movement as concerned with demonising, silencing and disenfranchising women first and perhaps further empowering men somewhere down the line.

[Xanthë]

A distressing and incredibly common misconception about main-stream feminism is that attention to women’s rights is a zero-sum-game that inevitably means reducing men’s rights by the same quantity that societal changes benefit women; or in short, that feminist women just don’t care about men’s rights. Simply not true. So, I would assert it is quite possible to be in support of men’s rights and be a feminist — which however entails highlighting misogynist hate websites such as A Voice for Men as what they are, which is anti-feminist male supremacism, and a disservice to human beings of all genders. Anyone who doubts whether AVfM is a trustworthy site after the SPLC’s analysis cited by SallyStrange above should have a look at David Futrelle’s site ManBoobz, which is dedicated to mocking the abhorrent male supremacism in the Men’s Rights Movement. (I’ve helpfully linked to the category which will collate all of the topics related to AVfM, of which there are sadly many.)

[TedTheAtheist]

Sigh. Well, I guess this is what the education is for.

The Mens Rights Movement, or MRM, has been designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate movement. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/i ... bout-women

"A Voice for Men" is one of the sites listed as a hate site. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/i ... -the-sites

Why has SPLC done this?

First, because MRAs (Mens Rights Activists) spread false information in order to bolster their case that men are just as oppressed as women on account of their gender, if not more. They claim that false rape accusations are far more widespread than is commonly accepted, and that women perpetrate domestic violence against men just as much as men do against women. These claims are false (see the first link) and they support dangerously misogynist ideas about women.

However you want to see that specific site, the info I linked, insofar as at least the reproductive rights issue, is spot-on and very accurate.
I *WAS* commenting on the need for men's rights, and more specifically, reproductive rights, for which we have none.
Again, regardless of how you view the site itself as a whole, or what you feel they said is wrong (which can be debated), my point still stands, and attempting a red herring to get away from it might be interpreted.

So to outline again: Men need rights too, and my point was that this lame "atheist plus" movement shouldn't have fixated on "women's rights" without acknowledging the need for the other gender, as well.

Second, they do not recognize that although it's rough to not be able to see your kids as much as you like, it's also rough to be stuck with the unpaid work of being the primary child-carer, and thus be deprived of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in lifetime earnings, which is what happens to women who take time off to care for their children.

How did such a woman, in your scenario, get "stuck"? She wanted the child, correct? She decided to get pregnant and go through gestation, correct?
Are you talking about women who WERE married, and/or their men wanted kids too, and then those men specifically left without offering any further support? I'm not quite sure.
Surely you don't mean that every woman that gets pregnant and gives birth therefore is "stuck" if the man never wanted the child to begin with, right? Hopefully you're not saying that.

I hope that's enough to get you started down the path to understanding why the MRM has NO PLACE WHATSOEVER IN ATHEISM PLUS.

That's fine. You can ignore that I quoted that specific site, if it gets you upset, but you can still look at that one page they wrote about men's reproductive rights, of which we men lack.
That *IS* the point that I made in forming this post. It DOES contain good content that gets my point across.
Just because I refer to one or two links that I feel have good info on them from that specific site, doesn't mean I therefore support EVERYTHING that they assert on their site. I'm also not saying that I do not support anything specific on their site, since I have not read enough of it, nor do I need to read more of it, other than the info I did read, of which I did paste a link to, of which I do support and use it to convey my position and outline the fact that men do NOT have rights that they should have, thus prompting me to dislike the fact that this so-called "atheism plus" group only refers to women's rights, and disregard's mens, as if men's rights don't seem to need any attention, when in fact they do.

[Mr.cookie]

I totally get where you coming from Ted.

The bias against men is widespread. Its so biased that women can and do manipulate the system to their ends.

There are hundreds of ways men get cheated, I will list a few of the ones I really disagree with & come to mind.

1. Anchor Babies- Anchor babies is a horrible problem in our 21st century Society. Many women see Children as free money that they can extract from men. They tell men several things like "I'm on the pill" or here use my condom (which they have poked holes into). It happens more then you think.

2. Lying that the child is someone's child that is isnt. There are countless cases where only after several years.. they man realizes that the child is not his and is some other persons child.

The main point I want to make with these two examples is being a women is not a get out of free card to the responsibilities of raising a child. They are to blame just as much as men.

[TedTheAtheist]

When people use A Voice for Men as source material is it because they think others won't recognise it as a completely unreliable source or because they themselves don't realise just how erroneous it is?

Just because you don't agree with some assertions they make, doesn't mean that all assertions they make are therefore invalid.

As much as it's true that men are socially disadvantaged in some respects and it's unacceptable, pointing fingers at those persuing equality in other regards and diminishing the matters they want to put a stop to is not the way to go about it.

I don't have a problem with that at all.
However, I do have a problem with a group that attempts to be "all inclusive" within the atheistic community, but then unreasonably only asserts the need to give attention to women's rights.

This is basically the cornerstone of A Voice for Men, not legitimate activism to empower men with regards to the social issues in which they are disadvantaged. A Voice for Men and sources like it portray the men's rights movement as concerned with demonising, silencing and disenfranchising women first and perhaps further empowering men somewhere down the line.

I've been reading it, and I'll read a bit more.
So far, the only real complaint I've heard is that the other person before you said that their "numbers are off".
Other than that, simply saying that they hate women won't do. I will need examples - and maybe I'll come upon some as I read more on the site.
However, so far I haven't seen any, but would love the data if you have it.

However, in the meantime, my concern is still standing and the link I gave to that site is still a valid representation, and cannot be invalidated simply because you don't like the site itself.

[urbanespaceman]

Hmm .. I probably shouldn't dive straight into such a touchy subject, but it is an interesting one.

Sally: I understand completely what you are saying. Many (I wrote most to start with, but I have by no means investigated them all, so I will change this to many) men's rights movements probably do verge on hate groups. They are full of misogynists blaming women (and especially feminists) for all the worlds ills. I have read some very nasty sites, which quite frankly made me despair for humanity!

That does not mean that everybody that advocates men's rights is somehow affiliated with a hate group, or is a de facto misogynist.

Let me give you an example: I live in Sweden, which is pretty progressive in these matters. We get a year's worth of state-funded parental leave to be split between the parents (with men taking a minimum of use-it-or-lose it 60 days). As it happens the split is generally much more towards the women. Most likely because of "old-fashioned" gender perceptions that take some time (read: generations) to die out properly. It is perfectly normal though to see groups of men pushing prams around, or walking around with baby-björns slung across their chests.

In the event of a split, custody is awarded 50% to each parent if there are no exceptional circumstances. And you had better be prepared to prove them if there are.

Now this is a far cry from the UK (where I am from), where custody is awarded to women by default, and in the event that the woman wants the child's father gone it is simply to make an unfounded accusation of vague child abuse - no proof necessary. This is not a fantasy, and there are many men in this position that cannot even see their children because of this. There seems to be no burden of proof for this type of accusation, which is almost always made by the mother against the father.

@Mr Cookies: I have a friend who has just escaped an "anchor baby" at the age of 47 (his 2 children are adults now, and a baby was _not_ in his plans). It was quite clear that was exactly what it was, but at the same time I would say he bears responsibility here as well. It's not a one way street. He knew what she wanted, and he didn't - you seem to be implying that contraception is only the responsibility of one party, and this is certainly not the case.

On point 2 - does anybody have any reliable stats about how many men raise "cuckoo" children? It would be interesting to read something. I've read that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 20 men are playing father to somebody else's child, but no real research to back it up. It seems more like a media-concocted statistic to me. Something controversial to put in a headline.

[TedTheAtheist]

Hmm .. I probably shouldn't dive straight into such a touchy subject, but it is an interesting one.

Sally: I understand completely what you are saying. Many (I wrote most to start with, but I have by no means investigated them all, so I will change this to many) men's rights movements probably do verge on hate groups. They are full of misogynists blaming women (and especially feminists) for all the worlds ills. I have read some very nasty sites, which quite frankly made me despair for humanity!

That does not mean that everybody that advocates men's rights is somehow affiliated with a hate group, or is a de facto misogynist.

Let me give you an example: I live in Sweden, which is pretty progressive in these matters. We get a year's worth of state-funded parental leave to be split between the parents (with men taking a minimum of use-it-or-lose it 60 days). As it happens the split is generally much more towards the women. Most likely because of "old-fashioned" gender perceptions that take some time (read: generations) to die out properly. It is perfectly normal though to see groups of men pushing prams around, or walking around with baby-björns slung across their chests.

In the event of a split, custody is awarded 50% to each parent if there are no exceptional circumstances. And you had better be prepared to prove them if there are.

Now this is a far cry from the UK (where I am from), where custody is awarded to women by default, and in the event that the woman wants the child's father gone it is simply to make an unfounded accusation of vague child abuse - no proof necessary. This is not a fantasy, and there are many men in this position that cannot even see their children because of this. There seems to be no burden of proof for this type of accusation, which is almost always made by the mother against the father.

Very good information, sir. I appreciate it. Glad to get some info on how other countries handle this!

@Mr Cookies: I have a friend who has just escaped an "anchor baby" at the age of 47 (his 2 children are adults now, and a baby was _not_ in his plans). It was quite clear that was exactly what it was, but at the same time I would say he bears responsibility here as well. It's not a one way street. He knew what she wanted, and he didn't - you seem to be implying that contraception is only the responsibility of one party, and this is certainly not the case.

This is where I'll have to completely disagree with you, and for good reason.
First, I'd like to state that pregnancy and gestation are choices made by the woman, because they are conditions of the woman: It is of her body that such happens.
Second, we all know the old saying how we are all responsible for our own person. If you go off and do something to yourself that causes you or someone else harm, then you are responsible for what you did; nobody else.
Thus, since pregnancy is a condition of the woman, and it is of her body only, then contraception is completely her sole responsibility.
What a man CAN do, however, is ASSIST with that responsibility. That's what you're referring to when you refer to condoms or maybe male sexual mutilation too, perhaps. Men aren't by default responsible for a woman's body in any way. They can only assist with it. Also, I'd like to mention that men wearing a condom to have sex can be enforced by the woman, or no sex. However, this is probably a poor choice for a woman to take as her only avoidance in responsibility to avoid being pregnant, in my opinion. There are plenty of other avenues a woman can take.. and maybe condoms can be an extra step in addition.

[Mr.cookie]

The whole reason why its a anchor baby is because the woman is playing a sham on the male. Where they said they weren't ready for kids then she by some means tricks the male into sleeping with her... then keeps the child.

Now that I think about it, Ted is really spot on this issue.

Women have the final say really because they get to choose to take the baby to term.

Men should have a say in whether she should be able to have the child because its going to be a 18 years of monthly payment. Especially if fraud can be shown in court!

[TedTheAtheist]

The whole reason why its a anchor baby is because the woman is playing a sham on the male. Where they said they weren't ready for kids then she by some means tricks the male into sleeping with her... then keeps the child.

Now that I think about it, Ted is really spot on this issue.

Women have the final say really because they get to choose to take the baby to term.

Men should have a say in whether she should be able to have the child because its going to be a 18 years of monthly payment. Especially if fraud can be shown in court!

I think an easy solution to this all would be where the man would need to opt-in in order for child support to be requested.
If he never opts-in, then he can never be sought for payments.

This would stop those women from extorting men that never wanted children with them, and also it would cause women to be more appropriately responsible for their bodies/actions, in my opinion.
I'm not saying all women aren't responsible, not in the least - I know quite a few women that agree with my position.

[urbanespaceman]

Very good information, sir. I appreciate it. Glad to get some info on how other countries handle this!

Welcome

This is where I'll have to completely disagree with you, and for good reason.

Disagreement is good

First, I'd like to state that pregnancy and gestation are choices made by the woman, because they are conditions of the woman: It is of her body that such happens.

That's an incredibly general statement. I understand you almost certainly don't mean it to, but you're almost agreeing with Akin on "legitimate rape". You may want to rephrase a little

More to the point: you seem to be implying that men should have no say in whether a woman gets pregnant or not? Obviously accidents happen, but most couples that want a baby will in fact sit down and discuss it first. This seems like the reasonable course of action to me. It is something that affects both lives - not just that of the woman!

Second, we all know the old saying how we are all responsible for our own person. If you go off and do something to yourself that causes you or someone else harm, then you are responsible for what you did; nobody else.
Thus, since pregnancy is a condition of the woman, and it is of her body only, then contraception is completely her sole responsibility.

And in this case, the man slept with the woman, knowing she wanted a child and he didn't, and choosing to take the risk of not using a condom. Therefore, by your own reasoning, it is his responsibility too.

What a man CAN do, however, is ASSIST with that responsibility. That's what you're referring to when you refer to condoms or maybe male sexual mutilation too, perhaps. Men aren't by default responsible for a woman's body in any way. They can only assist with it. Also, I'd like to mention that men wearing a condom to have sex can be enforced by the woman, or no sex. However, this is probably a poor choice for a woman to take as her only avoidance in responsibility to avoid being pregnant, in my opinion. There are plenty of other avenues a woman can take.. and maybe condoms can be an extra step in addition.

Male sexual mutilation? Do you mean MGM (aka. circumcision)? That's an entirely different issue, and one I'm hugely against when it's performed on children. But a topic for another thread perhaps

No, men are not responsible for a woman's body, but they are responsible for their own carelessness/lack of responsibility. Men could also enforce the "no condom, no sex" rule you know. In the case I gave I suspect alcohol played a part in the carelessness, but again - it's his responsibility, and a responsibility he'd have to live with long term. So I absolutely believe there is a responsibility there.

(Addendum: In the end, she announced a miscarriage after 9/10 weeks ... was it real? A "phantom" pregnancy? Not a clue. Speculation is rife amongst his colleagues, but it wouldn't surprise me if he gets himself into the same situation again after a few pints at the weekend! And yes, though I will feel for him, I will still believe a large part of the responsibility is his!)

[TedTheAtheist]

First, I'd like to state that pregnancy and gestation are choices made by the woman, because they are conditions of the woman: It is of her body that such happens.

That's an incredibly general statement. I understand you almost certainly don't mean it to, but you're almost agreeing with Akin on "legitimate rape". You may want to rephrase a little

I'm, of course, talking about consensual sex. In no way was I talking about rape in any way. I find it quite a low debate tactic to even bring that up.

More to the point: you seem to be implying that men should have no say in whether a woman gets pregnant or not?

If a woman wants to get pregnant, that's her decision. Who am I to stop her?

Obviously accidents happen, but most couples that want a baby will in fact sit down and discuss it first. This seems like the reasonable course of action to me. It is something that affects both lives - not just that of the woman!

Of course, when you're in a relationship, you should discuss these things.
However, not everything happens like that. Life isn't a beautiful box of chocolates like you attempted to imply with your above scenario.

Second, we all know the old saying how we are all responsible for our own person. If you go off and do something to yourself that causes you or someone else harm, then you are responsible for what you did; nobody else.
Thus, since pregnancy is a condition of the woman, and it is of her body only, then contraception is completely her sole responsibility.

And in this case, the man slept with the woman, knowing she wanted a child and he didn't, and choosing to take the risk of not using a condom. Therefore, by your own reasoning, it is his responsibility too.

How is he taking a risk? He can't get pregnant. Men don't get pregnant, dude. I don't get why...


Wait, waaaaait ..hold on a second.. are you saying that he has responsibility over HER body, and what SHE does with HIS sperm?
How can he control that?
What if he DOES use a condom, and she still gets pregnant? Is he absolved of the need to become a slave for 18 years (pay child support)?
Hrm.. I'm guessing you'll say no.

Sex doesn't create children, dude. Pregnancy and gestation do.
Why should men worry about creating children and have sex be their only action, and women can have all the sex they want, and not worry about having children?
So make men sweat balls, and women decide their fate?
You do realize that this is where we can easily point out that men do NOT have reproductive rights?
Why is maternity more important than paternity?

Male sexual mutilation? Do you mean MGM (aka. circumcision)? That's an entirely different issue, and one I'm hugely against when it's performed on children. But a topic for another thread perhaps

No, I think it was quite obvious (at least to the reasonable person) that I was speaking of men getting a vasectomy (sexual mutilation).
But yes, circumcision is some evil shit.

No, men are not responsible for a woman's body, but they are responsible for their own carelessness/lack of responsibility.

Since men aren't responsible for a woman's body, then they aren't responsible for that lack of responsibility, there, homie.

Men could also enforce the "no condom, no sex" rule you know.

Then women can decide not to have sex, there, Slick.

Addendum: In the end, she announced a miscarriage after 9/10 weeks

I had a girl get pregnant and threaten me with child support once.
She got into a car accident and had a miscarriage.
Let's just say I'm sorry she got into an accident, but I'm glad she had a license.

[piegasm]

Wait, waaaaait ..hold on a second.. are you saying that he has responsibility over HER body, and what SHE does with HIS sperm?

Are you implying that men have no control over where they put their sperm? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm pretty certain no woman can do anything at all with your sperm if you don't first provide her with it.

[urbanespaceman]

I'm, of course, talking about consensual sex. In no way was I talking about rape in any way. I find it quite a low debate tactic to even bring that up.

It wasn't a debate tactic. I was pointing out how general your statement was. I even said that I understood that wasn't what you meant ...

If a woman wants to get pregnant, that's her decision. Who am I to stop her?

You shouldn't, but if you don't want a child, you should make sure she doesn't get pregnant by you ...

Of course, when you're in a relationship, you should discuss these things.
However, not everything happens like that. Life isn't a beautiful box of chocolates like you attempted to imply with your above scenario.

Hence the need to take precautions!

How is he taking a risk? He can't get pregnant. Men don't get pregnant, dude. I don't get why...

You don't believe that the man would have any responsibilities towards his progeny?

Wait, waaaaait ..hold on a second.. are you saying that he has responsibility over HER body, and what SHE does with HIS sperm?
How can he control that?
What if he DOES use a condom, and she still gets pregnant? Is he absolved of the need to become a slave for 18 years (pay child support)?
Hrm.. I'm guessing you'll say no.

Of course, no. Why should he? If she uses contraception and gets pregnant anyway, is she absolved of the need to become a slave? Should the state take the child?

Sex doesn't create children, dude. Pregnancy and gestation do.
Why should men worry about creating children and have sex be their only action, and women can have all the sex they want, and not worry about having children?

Huh? Pretty sure women worry about having children ...

So make men sweat balls, and women decide their fate?
You do realize that this is where we can easily point out that men do NOT have reproductive rights?
Why is maternity more important than paternity?

That's exactly the point I am trying to make. Paternity is equally important, therefore the man has as many responsibilities as the woman towards their child.

No, I think it was quite obvious (at least to the reasonable person) that I was speaking of men getting a vasectomy (sexual mutilation).
But yes, circumcision is some evil shit.

It wasn't obvious, but that is a man's choice. I know several guys that have done it. I also know women that have undergone the equivalent procedure. It's nothing that's forced on anybody, so calling it "mutilation" in that context seems to be a little disingenuous.

Since men aren't responsible for a woman's body, then they aren't responsible for that lack of responsibility, there, homie.

They are responsible for the child. As you say, paternity is as important as maternity.

Then women can decide not to have sex, there, Slick.

They can indeed, that is their right. Why is that a problem?

I had a girl get pregnant and threaten me with child support once.
She got into a car accident and had a miscarriage.
Let's just say I'm sorry she got into an accident, but I'm glad she had a license.

I'm not commenting on this one.

It seems to me you are taking this a little personally. It comes across when you call me "slick" and "homie". I suggest we both bow out gracefully. I believe your viewpoint is somewhat old-fashioned, and not a little selfish. You obviously think I'm a little funny in the head to be suggesting a man take some responsibility for a child if he doesn't want one.

Let's agree to disagree and keep it civil

Cheers

Mike

[TedTheAtheist]

Are you implying that men have no control over where they put their sperm?

Men have little to no control over where their sperm goes once it leaves their penis, save the trust they put in the condom, yes.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm pretty certain no woman can do anything at all with your sperm if you don't first provide her with it.

So you acknowledge that women ARE capable of doing something with the sperm once they DO have it.
And these choices refer to birth control and start BEFORE they have sex, and carry on AFTER sex, choices that men don't have the equivalent of.

Hence why I mentioned the need for men's reproductive rights.

[piegasm]

Code: Select all

Men have little to no control over where their sperm goes once it leaves their penis, save the trust they put in the condom, yes.

That's not what I asked.

And these choices refer to birth control and start BEFORE they have sex, and carry on AFTER sex, choices that men don't have the equivalent of.

So now men have no control over where they put their penises or whether they use condoms? You seem to have a pretty dismal opinion of the ability of men to make wise choices.

[TedTheAtheist]

If a woman wants to get pregnant, that's her decision. Who am I to stop her?

You shouldn't, but if you don't want a child, you should make sure she doesn't get pregnant by you ...

How can I "make sure" of that? Should I gut her with a knife, clean out her insides?
What are you asking me to do, bro?
It's not my body, bro. I can't get inside there. I can't make her take the morning after pill, go for an abortion, get on birth control. I can't do these things.
Do you *hear* yourself? (or read yourself?)

Of course, when you're in a relationship, you should discuss these things.
However, not everything happens like that. Life isn't a beautiful box of chocolates like you attempted to imply with your above scenario.

Hence the need to take precautions!

Yes, the woman needs to take precautions to make sure she cannot get pregnant.
I agree.

You don't believe that the man would have any responsibilities towards his progeny?

If he didn't want any kids with someone, he should NOT be held financially responsible by the government, no.
That's why we should make it so men should opt-in for having kids.

Wait, waaaaait ..hold on a second.. are you saying that he has responsibility over HER body, and what SHE does with HIS sperm?
How can he control that?
What if he DOES use a condom, and she still gets pregnant? Is he absolved of the need to become a slave for 18 years (pay child support)?
Hrm.. I'm guessing you'll say no.

Of course, no. Why should he? If she uses contraception and gets pregnant anyway, is she absolved of the need to become a slave? Should the state take the child?

She can take the 486 or have an abortion. She hasn't given birth in your scenario yet.

Sex doesn't create children, dude. Pregnancy and gestation do.
Why should men worry about creating children and have sex be their only action, and women can have all the sex they want, and not worry about having children?

Huh? Pretty sure women worry about having children ...

Which is why they should make sure they cannot get pregnant/have kids... to care for their responsibility, yes?

That's exactly the point I am trying to make. Paternity is equally important, therefore the man has as many responsibilities as the woman towards their child.

You can't have responsibility without choice.
If science comes along and gives the woman choices, and the law doesn't update to offer men equal reproductive rights, then he doesn't bare responsibility for something he did not choose to create.
It's simple.

No, I think it was quite obvious (at least to the reasonable person) that I was speaking of men getting a vasectomy (sexual mutilation).
But yes, circumcision is some evil shit.

It wasn't obvious, but that is a man's choice. I know several guys that have done it. I also know women that have undergone the equivalent procedure. It's nothing that's forced on anybody, so calling it "mutilation" in that context seems to be a little disingenuous.

Nope, it's sexual mutilation. How is it not? Do you know what "sexual mutilation" is?
When you MUTILATE (Inflict serious damage) on a sexual organ, ...uh.. pretty sure that's called sexual mutilation.
Men shouldn't have to do that in order to not be responsible for kids they don't want, although it appears to be a way out in today's unfair laws.
It doesn't have to be "forced" to be sexual mutilation, bro.

Since men aren't responsible for a woman's body, then they aren't responsible for that lack of responsibility, there, homie.

They are responsible for the child. As you say, paternity is as important as maternity.

If they didn't want the child, and had no choice in the matter when the woman did, then they are NOT responsible for the child. They are FORCED, by today's laws, to pay for something they didn't want for 18 years of their lives. It's called slavery. An involuntary workforce.
Men can ASSUME responsibility for children, but in all understanding of the word "responsible", it doesn't fit in the scenario by default, as you'd like to paint it as.

You can't say: "Oh, hey, she has the kid, so your argument is moot now". No, doesn't work that way. The points are still valid.

Then women can decide not to have sex, there, Slick.

They can indeed, that is their right. Why is that a problem?[/quote][/quote]

The problem is that you came back with something ridiculous. You said "Men can play the no sex rule too, and ask for no condoms!"... which, of course, made no sense in your argument.

It seems to me you are taking this a little personally. It comes across when you call me "slick" and "homie".

People take things personally all the time. I don't see how there can be a degree of "too personally" here.
The use of those words when addressing you is to point out the obvious lack of logic in your statements that you should have caught before you posted them.

I believe your viewpoint is somewhat old-fashioned, and not a little selfish.

Old-fashioned? Call it whatever ridiculous phrase you want, it's actually a demand for men's rights, of which we are due.

You obviously think I'm a little funny in the head to be suggesting a man take some responsibility for a child if he doesn't want one.

You're right, I do think you're more than "a little funny" for that.

[hyperdeath]

Men's Rights definitively should be an element of Atheism Plus. However, by Men's Rights, I mean Men's Rights, and not the barely-disguised misogyny that has largely appropriated the name.

Greta Christina has written some excellent articles about real anti-male discrimination:
5 Stupid, Unfair and Sexist Things Expected of Men
5 (more) Things Society Unfairly Expects of Men
plus several more.

[TedTheAtheist]

Code: Select all

Men have little to no control over where their sperm goes once it leaves their penis, save the trust they put in the condom, yes.

That's not what I asked.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but men can't direct their sperm around like an orchestra.
Once it leaves the penis, it pretty much goes where it wants, save my comment above.

And these choices refer to birth control and start BEFORE they have sex, and carry on AFTER sex, choices that men don't have the equivalent of.

So now men have no control over where they put their penises or whether they use condoms?

Ok, now you're talking about "where they put their penis". First you talked about "where they put their sperm". Which is it?
And when did I ever say that men have no control over wearing condoms? I'm pretty sure I addressed condom use.
In fact, if a woman wants a man to wear condoms, she can deny sex if he doesn't! But like I said before, I think only using condoms is poor birth control.

I will repeat myself again, since you seem confused.
Yes, men can use condoms (and women can make them).

You seem to have a pretty dismal opinion of the ability of men to make wise choices.

Citation please?

Men's Rights definitively should be an element of Atheism Plus. However, by Men's Rights, I mean Men's Rights, and not the barely-disguised misogyny that has largely appropriated the name.

Greta Christina has written some excellent articles about real anti-male discrimination:
5 Stupid, Unfair and Sexist Things Expected of Men
5 (more) Things Society Unfairly Expects of Men
plus several more.

I'm all for men's rights that I feel you may be referring to.
However, there are some people whom listen to my position and feel that I'm all about misogyny. Not in the least.
I love women, and want them to have their rights over their own bodies and lives... I just want equal choice.
I will read your links - thank you.

[piegasm]

Ok, now you're talking about "where they put their penis". First you talked about "where they put their sperm". Which is it?

Seriously? Where you put your sperm is dependent upon where you put your penis. Or are you laboring under the delusion that women have the ability to siphon it out of you via telekinesis?

Citation please?

See your repeated, patently false assertion, that men have no choice regarding the conception of children.

[urbanespaceman]

As I said, I'm bowing out of this one. I've stated my case and I don't feel I can add more to it.

I would just like to post a friendly reminder that we are in the "Educational forum", where the following rule applies: "This is the only subforum where general tone will be moderated. Please assume good intentions, be nice, and minimize snark."

We're all friends here

[TedTheAtheist]

Seriously? Where you put your sperm is dependent upon where you put your penis.

Are you so sure about that? Because sperm can go places where your penis cannot.

Or are you laboring under the delusion that women have the ability to siphon it out of you via telekinesis?

What is your point?

See your repeated, patently false assertion, that men have no choice regarding the conception of children.

I've actually defended my assertion quite well.
Until you can show it's "false", then merely asserting it as such isn't going to work. :/

I would just like to post a friendly reminder that we are in the "Educational forum", where the following rule applies: "This is the only subforum where general tone will be moderated. Please assume good intentions, be nice, and minimize snark."

Understood.

We're all friends here

Not exactly, but message understood.

[ElGatoCello]

Nope, it's sexual mutilation. How is it not? Do you know what "sexual mutilation" is?
When you MUTILATE (Inflict serious damage) on a sexual organ, ...uh.. pretty sure that's called sexual mutilation.
Men shouldn't have to do that in order to not be responsible for kids they don't want, although it appears to be a way out in today's unfair laws.
It doesn't have to be "forced" to be sexual mutilation, bro.

Mutilation has a few bad connotations that I'm pretty sure specifically don't apply in the situation of willingly choosing to get a vasectomy. It's a regulated medical procedure that men go through when they don't want kids any more.

As for concerns about how is babby formed, if you're really that concerned about women sperm-jacking you to force you to have children, abstaining from penis/vaginal sex is the only form of birth control that is 100% effective. Otherwise, you're going to have to take the risk, buddy.

[neamhspleachas]

As for concerns about how is babby formed, if you're really that concerned about women sperm-jacking you to force you to have children, abstaining from penis/vaginal sex is the only form of birth control that is 100% effective. Otherwise, you're going to have to take the risk, buddy.

I'd also suggest developing healthy relationships with women and honestly communicating your desire to not have children. I find this trick to be unbelievably useful.