Feminists destroy posters advocating human rights for men

B0jangles

Zulu wrote: »

To which I responded:

So long story short, you'd favor tyranny or an elite class to democracy (for fear of "tyranny of the majority"). Interesting position but it's pretty far from what I'd deem acceptable. I'd rather the masses have a say over their own destiny.

Actually I said you were a bigot. And my issue isn't that men are an oppressed minority, but rather there are people out there that are happy to dismiss the views of other based on their gender. My issue is that there are people out there that are happy to sideline other simply because they have a penis. My issue is with sexism - plain and simple.

Sure why would you heed my point, I'm only a man right? Besides it's far easier to live in ignorance isn't it?

Ignorance breeds bigotry.

When there is a specific situation, like pregnancy, where one gender undergoes the actual long-running and physically dangerous process and the other is forced by biologial reality to sit on the sideline, then I think the opinion of the gender directly and physically affected should have more weight.

If that makes me a bigot then I am happy to be called so.

Also to be called ignorant by you makes me truly happy; as far as I can see to be well-informed under your terms is to accept your views and those are so profoundly, intentionally and stubbornly delusional that they form so nearly perfect a synonym for true ignorance that they could stand as an dictionary definition for the word.

iptba

B0jangles wrote: »

When there is a specific situation, like pregnancy, where one gender undergoes the actual long-running and physically dangerous process and the other is forced by biologial reality to sit on the sideline, then I think the opinion of the gender directly and physically affected should have more weight.

Are there any perks/rights you'd give/allow men that you wouldn't give women? (to counterbalance this extra right you believe women should get).

Also, if abortion was made available on demand for women, as it effectively is in many other countries, should men be allowed say (at an early stage during the pregnancy) that they will accept no financial responsibilities for the child?

B0jangles

iptba wrote: »

Are there any perks/rights you'd give/allow men that you wouldn't give women? (to counterbalance this extra right you believe women should get).

Also, if abortion was made available on demand for women, as it effectively is in many other countries, should men be allowed say (at an early stage during the pregnancy) that they will accept no financial responsibilities for the child?

Show me a biologically dermined process that only men can undergo and I will happily concede their right to control of it.


Once a child is actually born it is the responsibility of both parents to take care of the child's welfare. It is no longer a question of the man or the woman's rights; the child's now exist.

iptba

B0jangles wrote: »

Once a child is actually born it is the responsibility of both parents to take care of the child's welfare. It is no longer a question of the man or the woman's rights; the child's now exist.

So you're saying a woman can decide if she wants to keep the child during the pregnancy (and hence after it is born), but the father should have no say as to whether he wants to accept any responsibility after the child is born.

B0jangles

iptba wrote: »

So you're saying a woman can decide if she wants to keep the child during the pregnancy, but the father should have no say as to whether he wants to accept any responsibility when the child comes in to the world.

Until the father can carry the developing fetus within his own body then the responsibility AND choice about whether to proceed with a pregnancy has to lie with the woman in question.

What exactly is the alternative?

Up 'til very recently ( i.e. the advent of D.N.A testing) , men were able to disclaim all reponsibility for their children and the mother's of said children had the unenviable choice of either seeking a (probably illegal and dangerous abortion), having them seized by organizations like the catholic church and then being stuffed into laundries, or raising their children as single mothers,, to be derided by all of society.

What a lovely choice they had.

Compare this to the terrible, horrifying idea that men who father children should be required to provide for them to some extent.

Really makes you think.

iptba

B0jangles wrote: »

Until the father can carry the developing fetus within his own body then the responsibility AND choice about whether to proceed with a pregnancy has to lie with the woman in question.

I wasn't suggesting that a man would get the final say or indeed any say on the abortion, simply that if one has a system where a woman has abortion on demand, one could potentially allow men disavow financial responsibility. The woman could still decide to have the child or not.
The world is different from 50 years ago: women generally work outside the home.

Of course, men don't even get a much more minor right: the results of a paternity test before being asked to financially provide for a child.

B0jangles

iptba wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting that a man would get the final say or indeed any say on the abortion, simply that if one has a system where a woman has abortion on demand, one could potentially allow men disavow financial responsibility. The woman could still decide to have the child or not.
The world is different from 50 years ago: women generally work outside the home.

Of course, men don't even get a much more minor right: the results of a paternity test before being asked to financially provide for a child.

But do you not recognise that in many cases a poorer woman would be forced to abort an otherwise wanted child for purely financial reasons because she knew that the father of said child was determined to disavow all responsibility for it?

In such cases the father would be effectively forcing her to have an abortion by making it clear that there would simply not be enough money to support the baby?

The alternative to this would be a truly effective governmentally provided support network - this would solve both sides of the issue. The man could disavow all responsibility without placing an intolerable financial burden on the woman, and the woman would feel able to have her baby without having to fear for her ability to provide for its welfare.

That's something I could definitely get behind .

iptba

B0jangles wrote: »

But do you not recognise that in many cases a poorer woman would be forced to abort an otherwise wanted child for purely financial reasons because she knew that the father of said child was determined to disavow all responsibility for it?

In such cases the father would be effectively forcing her to have an abortion by making it clear that there would simply not be enough money to support the baby?

But you have no problem with abortion on demand i.e. a foetus isn't a child, a woman can decide to have an abortion for all sorts of reasons, good or bad. So not sure why you would see an extra reason as a particular problem.

B0jangles wrote: »

The man could disavow all responsibility without placing an intolerable financial burden on the woman, and the woman would feel able to have her baby without having to fear for her ability to provide for its welfare.

That's something I could definitely get behind .

Of course, what effectively happens in that situation is lots of other people are having to pay for the child.

B0jangles

iptba wrote: »

Of course, what effectively happens in that situation is lots of other people are having to pay for the child.

Again, the alternative is abortion forced by financial circumstances which I think most would agree is a tragic thing to happen.

Would you be able to abort your dearly loved and wanted future child because its mother left you and you could no longer afford to raise it alone? (presuming an alernate reality where a man is carrying the fetus)

Edit: Again, until every human being can carry a pregnancy through to term, then the absolute decision on whether to proceed with a pregnancy has to reside with the person who is carrying it. Currently this is 100% women. They carry the (considerable) physical burden, they surely should have 100% of the decision-making capacity?

iptba

B0jangles wrote: »

Again, the alternative is abortion forced by financial circumstances which I think most would agree is a tragic thing to happen.

But as I added, you want abortion on the demand so any sort of reason would be ok to have an abortion, it would seem.

B0jangles wrote: »

Edit: Again, until every human being can carry a pregnancy through to term, then the absolute decision on whether to proceed with a pregnancy has to reside with the person who is carrying it. Currently this is 100% women. They carry the (considerable) physical burden, they surely should have 100% of the decision-making capacity?

It depends if one thinks a foetus is a person or not. If one thinks the foetus is a person, one normally doesn't let people kill other people. So letting everyone in society vote on such issues, seems fair.

If one's position is that the foetus isn't a person, allowing men to say that they wish to disavow financial responsibility during the pregnancy may be reasonable.

I'm just thinking aloud here - I don't have strong opinions on abortion one way or another.

B0jangles

iptba wrote: »

But as I added, you want abortion on the demand so any sort of reason would be ok to have an abortion, it would seem.

ETA: I don't know what your last sentence means.

You would like the fathers to be able to disclaim all financial responsibility of the children they have a 50% share in creating. To be able to legally do so would force some women to have abortions who would otherwise have chosen not to, and for purely financial reasons.

Effectively that is forced abortion, either that or it is condemning some children to be born into a life of greater poverty because their fathers don't want to help provide for them.

And I thought my last line is self-explanatory; currently only women can become pregnant; therefore only the woman involved should be able to decide whether to remain pregnant or to have an abortion. The alternative is for other people ( men OR women) to have the right to choose what happens to her body - that seems profoundly wrong to me.

iptba

B0jangles wrote: »

And I thought my last line is self-explanatory

You had a different (shorter) last line when I replied.

B0jangles

iptba wrote: »

You had a different (shorter) last line when I replied.

Apologies, I read it over just after writing it and it was unclear so I rewrote it.

iptba

BOjangles wrote:

You would like the fathers to be able to disclaim all financial responsibility of the children they have a 50% share in creating.

You want them to have no say if they want to keep the child. A child they have had a 50% share in creating.

It seems abortion is only suddenly "bad" for this one reason: a woman can have any sort of reason to have an abortion, that's ok, presumably a foetus isn't a child, but suddenly when a man has this say, which isn't forcing anyone to do anything, suddenly abortion is now a bad thing.

Anyway, this isn't a position I feel strongly about, I'm just following the logic.

B0jangles

iptba wrote: »

You want them to have no say if they want to keep the child. A child they have had a 50% share in creating.

It seems abortion is only suddenly "bad" for this one reason: a woman can have any sort of reason to have an abortion, that's ok, presumably a foetus isn't a child, but suddenly when a man has this say, which isn't forcing anyone to do anything, suddenly abortion is now a bad thing.

Anyway, this isn't a position I feel strongly about, I'm just following the logic.

But by absolutely declaring that there will be no financial support for the impending baby, that is effectively forcing abortion on poorer women, either that or for them and the child to live in poverty.

You have to face this one biological reality; women carry pregnancies, men don't. Up until D.N.A testing, women who became pregnant out of wedlock were absolutely at the mercy of the men who were the fathers of their children who could just disown them so very easily.

I suppose you could wish to have been born 50 years ago.

iptba

I think I'll only be repeating myself by replying so think I'll give it a rest for the moment.

K-9

donfers wrote: »

would you state that only homosexuals should have a vote on a referdum to legalize gay marriage?

I would listen more to a homosexuals experience of discrimination as they are far more likedly to know and have experienced homosexual discrimination personally.

A woman is more likely to have had first hand experience of abortion as well, they undergo abortions. Male partners involved in the process, I'd also value their opinion.

Men who have felt discriminated because of their experience of domestic violence and many seeing it as a female issue, I'd listen intently to what a male victim says.

Experience does add value. A woman could never truely explain what a male victim of domestic violence goes through, a man cannot explain how a physical abortion feels.

So on abortion, I've my beliefs, I'd be quite conservative but listening to women who've undergone abortions would make me consider my beliefs. I've also listened to men who believe they should be able to adopt the baby and force a woman to give birth. While I think that is noble and commendably idealistic, the pragmatist in me wonders how that is practical.

Anyway, men are perfectly entitled to an equal vote on abortion matters, we create the child too, the vast majority of us support the mother and the child, we've what we perceive as their best interests at heart.

TL:DR When it comes to voting, every vote is equal, regardless of sex, colour, religion or income (the last 2 counted as factors on this Island 50 years ago).

The right to vote is a basic human right, how somebody arrives at that decision, how much we disagree with it, is a basic human right.

Zulu

B0jangles wrote: »

to be well-informed under your terms is to accept your views and those are so profoundly, intentionally and stubbornly delusional

Are you able to provide any instance of a "stubbornly delusional" view?

I only ask as I've pointed out any comment of yours that displays bigotry, and I've pointed out why it's bigotry. Unless you can do the same, you doing nothing more than childish name calling. Which is a little pathetic, and contrary to the forum rules.

What I've established is your credibility, or lack there of. Your position was that women are discriminated more than men in our society, and the extension of that was that men's rights didn't matter as much. (Apparently your authority on this matter stems from your own experience of discrimination as a woman)
However, when presented with opposing views you quickly dismissed them, and when presented with a scenario (abortion), you willfully accepted a situation where one persons vote should be more important than another's based on gender.

Ergo, you are a bigot: "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".

B0jangles

Zulu wrote: »

Are you able to provide any instance of a "stubbornly delusional" view?

I only ask as I've pointed out any comment of yours that displays bigotry, and I've pointed out why it's bigotry. Unless you can do the same, you doing nothing more than childish name calling. Which is a little pathetic, and contrary to the forum rules.

What I've established is your credibility, or lack there of. Your position was that women are discriminated more than men in our society, and the extension of that was that men's rights didn't matter as much. (Apparently your authority on this matter stems from your own experience of discrimination as a woman)
However, when presented with opposing views you quickly dismissed them, and when presented with a scenario (abortion), you willfully accepted a situation where one persons vote should be more important than another's based on gender.

Ergo, you are a bigot: "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".

Please show me specific posts I have made where I expressed "hatred and intolerance" towards men. I have only argued that for the relatively few instances where men are a a disadvantage in our society, there are a myriad instances where woman are disadvantaged. Also that because ONLY women can become pregnant then their opinions on issues like abortion should be given greater weight.

If it were illegal to have a vasectomy, for example, I would 100% agree that the opinion of men should have greater weight in any discussion on the topic since they are the only ones who can undergo this procedure.

In fact by calling me a bigot I think you might be projecting just a little bit.

Zulu

B0jangles wrote: »

Please show me specific posts I have made where I expressed "hatred and intolerance" towards men.

Wut?
You have clearly stated your intolerance towards men; you are intolerant to mens views on abortion.

I have only argued that for the relatively few instances where men are a a disadvantage in our society, there are a myriad instances where woman are disadvantaged.

So you are intolerant to mens issues in the face of womens.

In fact by calling me a bigot I think you might be projecting just a little bit.

And yet, other than name calling you have yet to provide any example of my ignorance, or any example of me being intolerant.

On the other hand, your posts are littered with the same, and I've provided examples & evidence.

I note you've avoided answering the question I put to you:

Zulu wrote:

Are you able to provide any instance of a "stubbornly delusional" view?

B0jangles

Zulu wrote: »

Wut?
You have clearly stated your intolerance towards men; you are intolerant to mens views on abortion.

I am not intolerant to men's views on abortion, I simply hold that women's views on abortion are more relevant since only they can actually become pregnant and thus possibly need to have one for a variety of reasons. As I said, I would think that men's opinion on vasectomy, for example are more relevant than women's because only men would ever personally undergo one.

Zulu wrote: »

Wut?

So you are intolerant to mens issues in the face of womens.

No. I recognise that there are serious issues for men, particularly around family law and suicide that need to be recognised generally and addressed. I was just pointing out that claiming that overall men now have it worse is inaccurate.

Zulu wrote: »

And yet, other than name calling you have yet to provide any example of my ignorance, or any example of me being intolerant.

On the other hand, your posts are littered with the same, and I've provided examples & evidence.

I note you've avoided answering the question I put to you:

This argument itself.

You appear have decided that I am a man-hating bigot and thus an enemy, and nothing I say seems to be able to shift this notion even a tiny bit. You seem to be trying to strawman me into some kind of hardline misandrist to confirm your preconcieved notion that men as a group are now marginalized and powerless in Irish society.

Edit: I see no purpose to continuing this conversation; you are clearly very committed to your opinions as I am to mine. I doubt anything I could say would impinge on your views and you've certainly said nothing to convince me to change mine.

Zulu

BOjangles, I'm not interested in inventing a position for you. You have stated that you hold men's opinions in a lower regard vis abortion. You yourself have demonstrated a willingness & ability to marginalise people based on gender.

I'm not "strawmaning" you into anything, what I am trying to do is cast a light on your personal beliefs - for clarity. What other conclusion can we reach, when you are prepared to disregard the opinions of members of a society based on their gender?

Why can a man not educate himself, formulate an opinion, & have that opinion regarded? Why should a womans opinion of society weight more than a mans? In short, my position is: it shouldn't, yet I'm ignorant? I'm intolerant? Pffft, catch a hold of yourself.

B0jangles

Zulu wrote: »

BOjangles, I'm not interested in inventing a position for you. You have stated that you hold men's opinions in a lower regard vis abortion. You yourself have demonstrated a willingness & ability to marginalise people based on gender.

I'm not "strawmaning" you into anything, what I am trying to do is cast a light on your personal beliefs - for clarity. What other conclusion can we reach, when you are prepared to disregard the opinions of members of a society based on their gender?

Why can a man not educate himself, formulate an opinion, & have that opinion regarded? Why should a womans opinion of society weight more than a mans? In short, my position is: it shouldn't, yet I'm ignorant? I'm intolerant? Pffft, catch a hold of yourself.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that I am 100% in favour of men's opinions being more important when it comes to issuses, like vasectomy, that only affect them directly?

My basic position is that where there is an issue like abortion, like vasectomy, like gay rights, that the opinions of the members of the group which is directly affected by the issue are of greater importance than the opinions of people outside the group directly affected.

source

B0jangles wrote: »

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that I am 100% in favour of men's opinions being more important when it comes to issuses, like vasectomy, that only affect them directly?

My basic position is that where there is an issue like abortion, like vasectomy, like gay rights, that the opinions of the members of the group which is directly affected by the issue are of greater importance than the opinions of people outside the group directly affected.

I think the issue is, there are no issues that only affect one gender. Every issue thats worth debating will affect both genders, sometimes negatively sometimes positively.

Also comparing a vasectomy (medical castration) the choice of 1 person, to abortion, a decision which should be made by both parents. ie both males and females, is a ridiculous stance. The opinion of the father should of course be considered in the termination of a pregnancy. While the woman carries the baby, it's not just hers. The old line, it takes two to tango comes to mind.

Reku

In a two party system where the view is that each party is 50% responsible for a creation I find it rather odd that one party should have more say than the other in whether the creation is allowed to exist.

So, since we're talking biology lets inject some realism and accept that it is not a 50:50 split and that the female is largely responsible for the creation => women should have a greater say on the issue of abortion, but that being the case then why should the male be held ransom on an issue into which he has little say? In other words, unless the male has equal say in whether or not the child be born why should he be expected to foot the bill? It's not even as if paying gets him equal rights/say in terms of rearing the child (legally the mother is still held higher), so what exactly is he paying for? This is precisely why people have suggested that she be allowed to have the baby but against the man's will, thereby absolving him of any responsibility (financial or otherwise) to the child.

It is interesting (to me at least:)) that you, B0jangles, are so eager to embrace exactly the stance another poster complained about with feminists: women are equal but need a man's help to do X (in this case that she can't have the baby and raise it alone). If the woman is not in a position to have the child and care for it alone then, just as with the man, she should not have sex without taking the necessary precautions. 9 months is plenty of time for the potential father to die in after-all, so even if you assume him a willing potential parent there's no guarantee he'll be around. Also what about adoption, if she can't raise the child that doesn't mean she HAS to get an abortion?

And one interesting aspect of genetic testing that you might want to keep in mind is that while it made it hard for men to deny paternity it also showed that a lot of men had been tricked into paying for kids that were not theirs (the various studies seem to go from 5% to 30%) so, just like men, women are far from pillars of piety and virtue in this matter.

Zulu

B0jangles wrote: »

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that I am 100% in favour of men's opinions being more important when it comes to issuses, like vasectomy, that only affect them directly?

Aside from the fact that a vasectomy is completely different to an abortion in that there's a child involved, I'm not ignoring it.

It makes no difference, other than to make you feel better about your bigotry.

If society determines a need to vote on vasectomys, then every member of that society should have an equal say. EQUALITY, not gender discrimination.

py2006

Women don't impregnate themselves.

Until the day comes that they can, then the fathers should have some sort of say/input into the major decisions regarding his childs life.

eviltwin

Men where possible should be consulted and their views taken into account but I don't see how in a he wants x/she wants y situation you can resolve that. I would be very sympathetic to any man who wants to keep the child but I wouldn't want to force a woman to continue with a pregnancy she doesn't want. I'm not sure how you could even do that unless you lock her up until the birth.

py2006

eviltwin wrote: »

Men where possible should be consulted and their views taken into account but I don't see how in a he wants x/she wants y situation you can resolve that. I would be very sympathetic to any man who wants to keep the child but I wouldn't want to force a woman to continue with a pregnancy she doesn't want. I'm not sure how you could even do that unless you lock her up until the birth.

It is hard to argue against the 'my body, my decision' argument. Indeed, as you say it is an impossible situation. It is just the attitude that the men in this situation are irrelevant that bothers me.

Piliger

py2006 wrote: »

It is hard to argue against the 'my body, my decision' argument. Indeed, as you say it is an impossible situation. It is just the attitude that the men in this situation are irrelevant that bothers me.

People are getting confused between what the Law should do and what people should be doing privately imho.

The Law should neither tell a women what she can or cannot do about her pregnancy. It is HER body. Only SHE should decide.

Whereas in a relationship it is surely self evident that any women with an unplanned or unwanted should be consulting and discussing the subject with her partner so that they can, if at all possible, make a joint decision. However the final decision has to remain hers ... it is her body. There is no avoiding that fact of nature.