Sexism and Men's Issues

Huh? Just pointing out that arguing about who has any slice of the cake is ignoring people trying to take the whole thing away. <shrugs>

Zeal, there'll be plenty of consideration for how changing certain issues will affect both sexes. We have to compare the two. However, that doesn't mean we have to mention women every time we mention men being the victims of inequality or that we're not allowed to mention men being the victims of inequality at all.

I don't mind when people talk about women's issues without mentioning men's issues. This only becomes a problem when one drowns out the other, which isn't the case when I mention one issue that affects men without mentioning corresponding or similar issues women have. I really don't like the insinuation that I have to talk about women when I go so far as suggesting that men have issues in certain areas. Again, in a thread designated to talking about men. Of course I have to mention women at some point, but are you really that afraid they will be oh so ignored, Zeal?

&

Talking about single issues that are facing a gender is different from declaring that a gender has "almost no rights". That aside, that last post was meant to turn the conversation back to the actual issues, instead of arguing with each other about them. So I named some issues to talk about. What others?

The fact that men have almost no reproductive rights /is/ an issue by itself.

η β π

Well, it's been suggested that there be an "opt-out" for men whose female partners wish to keep their child but the man doesn't wish to be a father. Doesn't affect me, since I'd like to be a dad someday, but because abortion can be considered an "opt-out" of motherhood, some say there needs to be an equivalent for men.

I'd like to raise the moral dilemma of what to do if the father wishes to keep the child but the mother wants an abortion. The argument I've heard supporting the mother is "her body, her rules" but I think this is an unfair argument because, obviously, men can't have children. He can't suddenly take the pregnancy off his partner's hands and carry the child to term, can he? So under that argument, the father isn't allowed to make the rules but it's obviously very unfair for the child to be aborted if he wishes to keep it.

This is a series of problems ONLY technology will be able to adequately handle. Artificial wombs MUST be a thing, or else equality is literally impossible. Period. End of discussion.

Not simply "I want to opt out of being the dad." Because if the man wants to be a dad and the woman just wants out, someone's getting shafted. That said, I understand the arguments on legal matters. We need something in place until tech catches up to and solves the issue. There are legal solutions to some issues, like paternity testing, but they're either unknown or not easy enough to get.

If not for slippery slopes and resource limits, I'd ask what the problem was with mandatory DNA testing on all newborns (That should honestly also exist, not just for paternity but to catch any possible Very Bad Things early on).

A pro-life thinker would suggest that this is evidence that possession of the vagina in which the baby is growing is not sufficient justification to kill the baby in question, any more than owning a well is sufficient justification to kill somebody who has fallen down it. Of course, a pro-life thinker doesn't believe that there is such a thing a sufficient justification to kill a baby, assuming normal circumstances.

Also, what if we just came up with a standard rate at which to pay compensation for women forced to carry babies to term who they don't want?

edited 19th Apr '13 12:11:43 PM by DAStudent

I'd say I'm being refined Into the web I descend Killing those I've left behind I have been Endarkened

Regarding paternity testing, that's actually illegal in France now, in absence of the mother's consent and a court order. I've read somewhere that similar methods are discussed in German politics, although I still have to confirm that conclusively.

Edit: Of course, Pro-lifers will argue that a fetus is not, in fact, a baby.

Also, while it's regrettable for a man to not be able to be a father if he wants to, I still think the decision to make a baby or not make it should be made by two consenting adults anyway. And it should be conscious decision, having sex doesn't make you a parent.

edited 19th Apr '13 12:16:15 PM by Besserwisser

Wait, are you suggesting that men should be able to obligate women to have abortions if they don't themselves want it born?

I'd say I'm being refined Into the web I descend Killing those I've left behind I have been Endarkened

I assume he means that men should be able to surrender parental rights and responsibilities in that case.

Schild und Schwert der Partei

I have nothing against an "opt out" measure in theory.

There are two questions raised, though: (1) is this a measure to give men an option because women have one or (2) is it a measure for parenthood to be an option, period?

The reason why I ask is because if it's the former, it's going to be the proportionately difficult for parents (of both gender). Like Alabama essentially making it impossible to get one.

If it's the latter, then we need to give parents the ability to fully shirk parental responsibility even should the child be born.

I'm painting a rather idealistic version of how I think things should be. A mother aborting her child despite the wishes of the father works in this scenario because the child is not wanted by both parents in this case. The other way around is more complicated and has no easy, sufficient solution. What we really need is the male pill, so nobody will get pregnant despite one potential parent not wanting it.

I would go with Nr. 2. A woman shouldn't be obligated to a child even if she decides to carry it to term and currently she isn't.

What we really need is artificial wombs, so that adoption is an option prior to viability.

I'd say I'm being refined Into the web I descend Killing those I've left behind I have been Endarkened

Huh wha? Where do you get this from? The entire pro-life argument rests on the belief that a fetus is, in fact, a baby (i.e. human person who thus has human rights).

I do think a man ought to have at least some say in what happens to his child (parental rights), but as others have pointed out, that runs up against the issue of woman's bodily sovereignty. And that's not even getting into the issue of if or when the fetus/baby's right to life comes into play.

Going off of Zeal's questions, I fall into the (1) camp. I think parents do have a responsibility to their children, even if that responsibility only extends as far as making sure they safely make it into someone else's care (e.g. surrendering the children to the state or to adoptive parents). I'm firmly of the belief that if you choose to have sex, you're obligated to accept responsibility for any consequences of that, including pregnancy. And abortion isn't a fail-safe "opt-out", even for those who don't morally object to it; it has potential long-term physical and psychological health risks ([1]).

edited 19th Apr '13 1:35:17 PM by Nocturna

I'm pretty sure that was supposed to be "pro choice". Especially since it was contrasting the pro life and pro life positions.

We really just need better birth control. By the time there's an unwanted pregnancy (regardless of who does or doesn't want it), all the choices are bad.

The crowd that's anti-abortion and anti-birth control really bothers me. If you seriously think that life is precious, how can you justify forcing defenseless newborns onto people who don't want them? It sounds like asking for trouble no matter how I look at it.

"So... the time has come for you to meet your demise..."

Yeah, I kinda confuse the names of the two pros on a constant basis.

This. I still think we nearly have that already. 'Tis close. I'm going to assume from the silence that the answer to this question is no.

EDIT: YES THIS IS HOW YOU DO IT AND INCLUDE BOTH GENDERS.

edited 19th Apr '13 3:04:51 PM by RadicalTaoist

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Taoist, I did write out a very long response to you there ... but hovered over the "send" button for a long time before I closed the tab. I did this for two reasons: 1) because the conversation had moved onto a more productive topic and 2) ... I was refuting the points of someone who calls himself "manboobz". I cringed every time I wrote the name, he was clearly a moron if he ever thought AVFM would give in to his "apologise for everything" attitude and he's trying to make a martyr out of the same redhead woman who sang "Cry Me A River" at the recent University Of Toronto protest when an MRA brought up male suicide victims.

edited 19th Apr '13 5:10:33 PM by Guest1001

While some of those signs are fairly good, I have to criticize them for using the questionable 1 in 4 number. I would also greatly appreciate it when I would see a woman holding up the "I promise I will respect your wishes" sign. Overall, it's better than some other campaigns about this but that doesn't say much.

Better birth control AND artificial wombs. There would be instances where a woman was willing to give her egg to a man so he could have a kid, without wanting to carry that kid inside herself full term. This opens up that option.

I'd like to try some Intersectionality on that "Blame the Victim" article from before. I KIND OF agree with him, or at least see where he's coming from, and while I know a lot of people aren't going to agree with it, I think seeing things from both sides could point out how all these gender roles are broken and damaging both genders.

Permission to try?

I don't know the details or context, but mocking suicide victims isn't okay. I would not defend her actions given what I know.

But if I grant that, do you have any response to the activity of the AVFM regulars in that link? Do you deny that such happened? No ad homs, please; whether manboobz is a brilliant savant or a naive fool makes no difference to my question.

IN OTHER NEWS: Then there's this instance of self-correction in the feminist movement. I hope any fledgling MRM avoids the pitfalls of transphobia; trans men issues (including to-be male-to-female trans people) deserve the attention.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Most MRA's want to see parity between people of all genders and sexes and, whilst focusing specifically on the issues faced by transmen because they're trans isn't really part of what the MRM does, I think any transphobia in the movement would get beaten down pretty quickly.

η β π

Considering that A Vf M is actively trying to be as provocative as possible in order to get attention and that article still seems to face criticism on the site, I just don't think I have to add as much. It's not even as offensive as many feminist articles, which get less backlash usually.

Regarding trans-issues, I've seen an article on A Vf M from a transman, so I consider this a non-issue. The MRM just doesn't have this ugly history feminism has with transexuals.