Is the Western World anti-man?

frostyjacks · 20-08-2015 08:16PM

Cold War Kid wrote: »

I'd completely agree if she was giving vague blather about how the world is so dangerous for women and we could be raped any minute (and radfems do do that, and try to make women feel like victims and afraid of our lives) but the woman in that article does talk about actual incidents, which aren't nice. Not rape, but still not pleasant and not behaviour anyone is entitled to engage in. Of course the vast vast majority of men don't do that crap though.
But I don't think she's saying that; she's just objecting to the minority who do.

She equated a man asking what book a woman was reading to sexual harassment. I can't take these people seriously. I just hope it doesn't encourage more women to live in fear.

Carlos Orange · 20-08-2015 08:51PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/20/sexual-harassment-women-curfew

I gave up after a couple of sentences but for comparison sake a while back I came across an interesting blog about women not being considered sex objects.

http://www.vagabondish.com/female-foreign-japan/

overall she didn't seem to like it

Carlos Orange · 20-08-2015 09:00PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Indeed, but that doesn't help any argument that unmarried fathers should be automatically granted guardianship based on the fact that they managed to reproduce.

So you think men don't deserve equal rights to parenthood. Practicality is just a shield to hide your bigotry behind.

Carlos Orange · 20-08-2015 09:05PM

B_Wayne wrote: »

I face no fear walking at night as the threat is simply not there for me.

Men are more likely to be assaulted at night. Women fearing something isn't a rational measure of risk.

One eyed Jack · 20-08-2015 09:06PM

psinno wrote: »

So you think men don't deserve equal rights to parenthood.

I'd love to understand the thought processes that led you to extrapolate that conclusion from the piece of my post you quoted.

Practicality is just a shield to hide your bigotry behind.

My... what? Same again, love to understand how you came up with that one.

Carlos Orange · 20-08-2015 09:12PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'd love to understand the thought processes that led you to extrapolate that conclusion from the piece of my post you quoted.

Biological parenthood is either a qualifier for guardianship or it isn't. A parents genitalia aren't relevant.

One eyed Jack · 20-08-2015 09:21PM

psinno wrote: »

Biological parenthood is either a qualifier for guardianship or it isn't. A parents genitalia aren't relevant.

Feel free to argue that with The Corinthian -

The Corinthian wrote: »

The biological capacity to reproduce does not a parent make.

Good luck with that...

(you're going to need it :pac:)

zeffabelli · 20-08-2015 09:23PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

K-9's entire argument is based around the assumption that from the moment a child is born, it will bond more with the mother than with the father and be closer to the mother, and that the mother by default will decide where the child lives etc.

It's an assumption as sexist as any other assumption made on the basis of gender, but it's so culturally ingrained that I suspect K-9 doesn't realise that either of us is suggesting changing it.

No I don't think it is.

You can't have rights over a child that is not legally yours...it becomes legally yours once paternity is established. Until then it could be anyone's.

This is all sci fi anyway because if a woman is that determined on adoption, he wont even know when and where the child is born in the first place.

Adoption can be anonymous. The father taking custody is not anonymous. The father will know her identity and be able to find her one day. She may not want this.

The arguments using who is the better parent is ridiculous because parenting is a learning process and everyone isi better at some things than at others. The criteria for assessment is what exactly? I don't know about you but I don't necessarily trust the judiciary on this. Also this best interest of the child crap.... it should be best interest of the family as a whole. ALl that sounds like to me is adult projection.

I don't know if I agree with this part of k-9...

"Ah right. I suppose that is there to stop men who haven't been involved in the childs life putting a spanner in the works, agsin perfectly reasonable and understandable."

It's understandable, but understandable from one side of the coin. The other has a side most can't see. It really does shut the door on possibility.

20-08-2015 09:33PM

psinno wrote: »

Biological parenthood is either a qualifier for guardianship or it isn't. A parents genitalia aren't relevant.

Applications for guardianship can be refused. It's not common, but it happens in extreme circumstances. If their behaviour indicates that they will be in no position to make decisions about the child's health, welfare, education, where they have not shown any concern for the child. I don't see why it should be automatic at all.

zeffabelli · 20-08-2015 09:36PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Applications for guardianship can be refused. It's not common, but it happens in extreme circumstances. If their behaviour indicates that they will be in no position to make decisions about the child's health, welfare, education, where they have not shown any concern for the child. I don't see why it should be automatic at all.

There are some real practical problems with family court, like the entire country has to travel to Dolphin house now for stupid things like passport forms, plus they are closed for the summer.

It's an insane system to keep piling on rights and this BS when the courts are anorexic and closed far far too much.

K-9 · 20-08-2015 09:38PM

tempotaschen wrote: »

Where is the debate then so? Where is the middle? Personally, I think this debate and the questions it raises are beyond the grasp of the people commenting on this thread.

Dodgy superfluous rhetorical comments, avoiding the main issue, seems to be all this thread is capable of!

Well I've been accused twice of positions I never came close to stating, that hints at dishonest debate and zealotry tbh as normal debate doesn't require strawmen debating technique or logical fallacies.

Carlos Orange · 20-08-2015 09:42PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Feel free to argue that with The Corinthian

I suspect it isn't necessary. The minimum rights guaranteed to a parent a birth (or conception) , the minimum rights guaranteed to a parent during childhood and a childs relationship with its parent during childhood and latter adulthood are 4 different things. Thus far (as far as I have read) this thread only concerns itself with the first of them.

zeffabelli · 20-08-2015 09:43PM

psinno wrote: »

I suspect it isn't necessary. The minimum rights guaranteed to a parent a birth (or conception) , the minimum rights guaranteed to a parent during childhood and a childs relationship with its parent during childhood and latter adulthood are 4 different things. Thus far (as far as I have read) this thread only concerns itself with the first of them.

Are you kidding me....in this country when your pregnant and giving birth...if its between the mother and the baby...I think we have enough proof now the mother is always secondary.

K-9 · 20-08-2015 09:44PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

I don't know if I agree with this part of k-9...

"Ah right. I suppose that is there to stop men who haven't been involved in the childs life putting a spanner in the works, agsin perfectly reasonable and understandable."

It's understandable, but understandable from one side of the coin. The other has a side most can't see. It really does shut the door on possibility.

Bear in mind understandable doesn't mean correct! The more hardline types have difficulty with understanding that.

Deleted User wrote: »

Applications for guardianship can be refused. It's not common, but it happens in extreme circumstances. If their behaviour indicates that they will be in no position to make decisions about the child's health, welfare, education, where they have not shown any concern for the child. I don't see why it should be automatic at all.

Yep, but that's exactly why it is preferable to make it automatic. Leave the small minority of cases for courts to determine and leave the vast majority of men to just get on with their lives without bothering a court.

Carlos Orange · 20-08-2015 09:45PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Applications for guardianship can be refused. It's not common, but it happens in extreme circumstances. If their behaviour indicates that they will be in no position to make decisions about the child's health, welfare, education, where they have not shown any concern for the child. I don't see why it should be automatic at all.

Automatic or not a parents genitalia should not be a qualifier. Children having no guardians at birth doesn't seem terribly practical with our current model of society.

20-08-2015 09:51PM

psinno wrote: »

Automatic or not a parents genitalia should not be a qualifier. Children having no guardians at birth doesn't seem terribly practical with our current model of society.

It is only right and sensible that the mother who gives birth be a guardian, after all who would make a decision involving, say, an operation on a new born child.

After that, it is sensible that anyone else applying should show their ability to be a Guardian. But of course there is a bias in favour of the natural father, it is very rare that their applications are refused.

Carlos Orange · 20-08-2015 09:54PM

Deleted User wrote: »

It is only right and sensible that the mother who gives birth be a guardian, after all who would make a decision involving, say, an operation on a new born child.

After that, it is sensible that anyone else applying should show their ability to be a Guardian. But of course there is a bias in favour of the natural father, it is very rare that their applications are refused.

So fathers are not equal parents.

zeffabelli · 20-08-2015 09:56PM

Deleted User wrote: »

It is only right and sensible that the mother who gives birth be a guardian, after all who would make a decision involving, say, an operation on a new born child.

After that, it is sensible that anyone else applying should show their ability to be a Guardian. But of course there is a bias in favour of the natural father, it is very rare that their applications are refused.

Seriously is this not clogging up already over burdened court rooms, when people have to make applications....

It's very immature law....catch up already!!!!

20-08-2015 09:59PM

psinno wrote: »

So fathers are not equal parents.

It seems that you are confusing parenthood and guardianship.

Of course one can be a parent and not a guardian, just as one can be a guardian and not a parent.

And of course fathers and mothers are not the same. But both remain parents, even if the former has had an application for guardianship refused.

Why would someone who has shown no ability to be a guardian be appointed as one by the Courts?

One eyed Jack · 20-08-2015 10:01PM

psinno wrote: »

I suspect it isn't necessary.

I suspect you don't want to, because you're aware your argument would be shot to shìte.

The minimum rights guaranteed to a parent a birth (or conception)

Conception, implantation, and birth, are three very different things. Only when a child is actually born does anyone become a parent.

No child born, nobody's a parent.

the minimum rights guaranteed to a parent during childhood and a childs relationship with its parent during childhood and latter adulthood are 4 different things.

They're only one thing as far as I can see? Other than that, I can't see what point you're trying to make. I'm still waiting to hear how you leapt to bigotry from the piece of my post you quoted which was a reply to The Corinthian's post which you seem unwilling to address.

Thus far (as far as I have read) this thread only concerns itself with the first of them.

Put those goalposts back where you got them and start again, see if you can explain what you mean by accusing me of bigotry the first time.

Carlos Orange · 20-08-2015 10:04PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Why would someone who has shown no ability to be a guardian be appointed as one by the Courts?

It is pretty simple both biological parents should be treated equally irrespective of gender. Being female isn't an ability to be a guardian. Some women don't even want to be parents (crazy aint it).

20-08-2015 10:04PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

Seriously is this not clogging up already over burdened court rooms, when people have to make applications....

It's very immature law....catch up already!!!!

Not at all. The application can be done on consent so the mother does not have to even be present. They are usually very quick, they take up a fraction of the time of the family courts.

It's an important role, it shouldn't be short circuited because that might save the couple of minutes it takes to consider.

20-08-2015 10:06PM

psinno wrote: »

It is pretty simple both biological parents should be treated equally irrespective of gender. Being female isn't an ability to be a guardian.

That is more an argument for saying neither should be a guardian, with the obvious problems that would cause, again in the case of new born children, than saying even those who are patently not fit to be guardians should get the role.

Carlos Orange · 20-08-2015 10:07PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Put those goalposts back where you got them and start again, see if you can explain what you mean by accusing me of bigotry the first time.

It isn't complicated. If you don't think parents should be treated equally irrespective of gender I consider you bigoted.

One eyed Jack · 20-08-2015 10:11PM

psinno wrote: »

Automatic or not a parents genitalia should not be a qualifier. Children having no guardians at birth doesn't seem terribly practical with our current model of society.

That's what you were getting at?

Automatic guardianship isn't based on a parent's genitalia, it's based upon who gives birth to the child.

K-9 · 20-08-2015 10:14PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Not at all. The application can be done on consent so the mother does not have to even be present. They are usually very quick, they take up a fraction of the time of the family courts.

It's an important role, it shouldn't be short circuited because that might save the couple of minutes it takes to consider.

Unless the family courts got some stream lining and more funds, I doubt it is that quick.

With backlogs and adjournments it can take months. Family law sittings here are one day a month.

One eyed Jack · 20-08-2015 10:15PM

psinno wrote: »

It isn't complicated. If you don't think parents should be treated equally irrespective of gender I consider you bigoted.

Ahh, you consider me bigoted.

I'll take your opinion of me with the pinch of salt it's worth then.

zeffabelli · 20-08-2015 10:15PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's what you were getting at?

Automatic guardianship isn't based on a parent's genitalia, it's based upon who gives birth to the child.

YEs but once paternity is established then why not?

It does not sit well with me that legislators think of rights as a gift....they are not they are inherent.

They have been tinkering around with them now...and everyone has let them. So any asshole can be a guardian, but the bio parents are the only ones who have any responsibility to the child...

of yeah children's rights.... what are those....best interest of the child....best interest of the child is a Harvard education....but who is going to pay for that...the judge? Seriously....it should be the best interest of the family and how is a judge going to decide that when faced with a life they don't know an a family they don't know.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo · 20-08-2015 10:16PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not at all. The application can be done on consent so the mother does not have to even be present. They are usually very quick, they take up a fraction of the time of the family courts.

It's an important role, it shouldn't be short circuited because that might save the couple of minutes it takes to consider.

You make it sound like going to court is a quick, easy and straight forward thing to do. It is anything but I'll have you know.

Not being married shouldn't bar a person from having automatic rights over their own child. To say others is wrong.

Carlos Orange · 20-08-2015 10:17PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's what you were getting at?

Automatic guardianship isn't based on a parent's genitalia, it's based upon who gives birth to the child.

For simplicity sake how about we restrict the discussion to the 99% of cases where this distinction doesn't matter.

Is the Western World anti-man?

Comments