Support NeoGAF

[Imm0rt4l]

Is that real?

I'm sure it is, but who cares it's supposed to be funny. Theres stupid jokes/shirts that come at the expense of each gender. Example

Getting offended at the baby shirt is like thinking that 3 men and a baby is offensive.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

I think you should be able to sign some form at the courthouse with your SO or whatever random girl you sleep with, where you both agree to an abortion if she get's pregnant, and absolving the male of parental responsibility if she changes her mind. A verbal contract should also work in this instance, but would probably be incredibly hard to prove.

Just some sort of legal framework for responsibly getting out of having a child that neither of you originally wanted.

What happens if she break the contract?
E.g, have a child, and then request money for the sake of her kid?

Kid can't exactly sign a contract to not receive monetary compensation from the daddy.

 

[Devolution]

What happens if she break the contract?
E.g, have a child, and then request money for the sake of her kid?

Kid can't exactly sign a contract to not receive monetary compensation from the daddy.

Government subsidies would have to pick up the slack. It's really the only way.

 

[lopaz]

Then those that do not need to lobby for change. Simple as that.

People who moan about alimony should hook up with people who work or write up pre-nuptials. It goes both ways. It adversely affects men more right now since they are typically the breadwinners.

OK so both of your statements here are supporting MRA

Oh come on, that's meant to be humorous, there's nothing insulting about it. Except if you actually buy it, I guess.

...

 

[Kano on the Phone]

This line of reasoning is so fucked up. Are men and women now competing against each other in a battle of civil rights?

Of course not, that's why women got the right to vote at the same time as men did.

Hey, wait a second...

Oh and shit like this:

Sometimes I turn to music when life seems hard and unjust.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

In America, a woman needs nothing but her word to prove a man has domestically assaulted her (source: http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-governance-feminism/vawa-and-the-war-on-men/)

This doesn't strike me as a fair assessment of what VAWA facilitates.

 

[TUROK]

Yes. Why do you think politicians, who are mostly white Christian males, give so much of a shit about abortion, birth control, and pre-marital sex?

Would be nice if people were honest about their intentions. "We want equal rights for all sexes!" Bullshit, you do. You just want your eye for an eye.

 

[Deified Data]

Is being thought you're a pedophile everytime you take your kids to the park just because you're a guy count as a Men's Rights issue? Cause then I might be supportive.

And oh yeah there needs to be an overhaul of family law. Lifetime alimony? Seriously?

Really the only men's issue I care much about, and definitely the one with the most grounds for discussion. The concept of lifetime or extremely long-term alimony that overwhelmingly favors women basically pisses on equality. I can understand temporary alimony that helps your partner get on their feet after the divorce, but there's absolutely no reason that period should extend more than a few years, if that.

Overall though, yeah, it's basically like a "it's hard to be white" thread. Won't garner much sympathy, and if there are any legitimate discussions to be had, they're going to be passed over in favor of dismissal and threadshitting.

 

[Simplet]

Are you sure you got my point?

People try to paint feminism as an enemy of men when we're really all in it together. Men just get defensive because we're generally idiots and can't listen.

Let me see if I got it right. You believe that feminists are not just a bunch of man haters and a good part have a good cause (so far so good). You then proceed to call men's rights a joke, and apparently the only cases when men defending their rights is not a farce is when they're fighting the harm that patriarchy itself is causing them. Is that pretty much it?

 

[Devolution]

OK so both of your statements here are supporting MRA



...

I've been an advocate for equality on here for a long time, people who want to paint me as a misandrist are always mistaken. There are issues that men face that cannot actually be solved until we also focus on women or just why these issues remain unfair. A lot of them stem from the same place that kept women down so there is no reason why feminism gets flack from the MRM other than them arguing these issues from the wrong POV.

 

[Kano on the Phone]

Would be nice if people were honest about their intentions. "We want equal rights for all sexes!" Bullshit, you do. You just want your eye for an eye.

Are you out of your mind? What right have men ever had to wait for or had taken away from them by women? Ever?

I seriously can't imagine how modern men anywhere in the world actually develop a victim complex.

 

[Christine]

I think you should be able to sign some form at the courthouse with your SO or whatever random girl you sleep with, where you both agree to an abortion if she get's pregnant, and absolving the male of parental responsibility if she changes her mind. A verbal contract should also work in this instance, but would probably be incredibly hard to prove.

Just some sort of legal framework for responsibly getting out of having a child that neither of you originally wanted.

I'm not sure I like this. Child support is an entitlement that legally belongs to the child, even though the custodial parent typically receives the payments. As the child obviously can't be a party to such a contract, it'd be hard to see it as valid.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Let me see if I got it right. You believe that feminists are not just a bunch of man haters and a good part have a good cause (so far so good). You then proceed to call men's rights a joke, and apparently the only cases when men defending their rights is not a farce is when they're fighting the harm that patriarchy itself is causing them. Is that pretty much it?

Close enough. "Men's rights" isn't a real thing.

 

[Metrotab]

I find the combination of no-fault divorce and lifetime alimony a particularly dangerous cocktail because I'd assume there are biases towards the female partner in both processes.

 

[Gaborn]

Really the only men's issue I care much about, and definitely the one with the most grounds for discussion. The concept of lifetime or extremely long-term alimony that overwhelmingly favors women basically pisses on equality. I can understand temporary alimony that helps your partner get on their feet after the divorce, but there's absolutely no reason that period should extend more than a few years, if that.

Overall though, yeah, it's basically like a "it's hard to be white" thread. Won't garner much sympathy, and if there are any legitimate discussions to be had, they're going to be passed over in favor of dismissal and threadshitting.

Would you mind speculating on the reason that spousal support has historically been favorable to the woman in a marriage rather than a man?

 

[Dude Abides]

Why is this thread so popular with Mortal Kombat characters engaged in mundane activities?

 

[Devolution]

Are you out of your mind? What right have men ever had to wait for or had taken away from them by women? Ever?

I seriously can't imagine how modern men anywhere in the world actually develop a victim complex.

There are some inequalities men face as a result of their privilege backfiring. Unfortunately they rarely get discussed like how many men become increasingly violent or suicidal due to the pressures of masculine stereotyping and bullying as boys.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Why is this thread so popular with Mortal Kombat characters engaged in mundane activities?

Mortal Kombat was a classic feminist propaganda videogame.

 

[DUFFMCWALIN]

Close enough. "Men's rights" isn't a real thing.

No but complete equality between men and women should be.

 

[Karsticles]

This line of reasoning is so fucked up. Are men and women now competing against each other in a battle of civil rights?

It's a big pie. A lot of people want a piece of it.

I think you should be able to sign some form at the courthouse with your SO or whatever random girl you sleep with, where you both agree to an abortion if she get's pregnant, and absolving the male of parental responsibility if she changes her mind. A verbal contract should also work in this instance, but would probably be incredibly hard to prove.

Just some sort of legal framework for responsibly getting out of having a child that neither of you originally wanted.

Why not skip the part about the document? In other words, absolutely, a woman has a right to her own body, and a right to decide whether to get an abortion. Why does she also have a claim to the father's paycheck if he doesn't want the baby? While it's not a position I agree with, that seems more "progressive" than what we have now, and more realistic than your suggestion.

 

[Mumei]

Would be nice if people were honest about their intentions. "We want equal rights for all sexes!" Bullshit, you do. You just want your eye for an eye.

I would suggest that you reread this topic, starting with this post you made making the exact same accusation and reread the responses that kame-sennin, myself, and maharg in particular made to you. It seems you have forgotten.

And for what it's worth, many of the feminists you are talking to in this topic (and all three you were talking to in the other topic) are male; we don't have a motivation for plucking out our own eye.

 

[JABEE]

Well you know what a great way to help this along is? Making abortions more available (there are some states without clinics and ridiculous laws) and not so demonized. Oh hark a feminist issue that also helps men who don't want children.

I think the issue is that there is no discussion of these issues, because they are always filled with antimosity and jokes about who is privileged and who is oppressed. It would be nice if there was feminism that focused not only on the rights of women but also men, but I understand why the focus is on women's issues when they appear to be more in line with the traditional view of feminism.

Being a member of privilege as others say does not mean that these issues can't be discussed. Most of the time there is argument to keep talk of men facing something out of feminism threads, but now a thread that focuses on inequalities for men becomes a thread where stereotypes parallel to "man-hating feminists" fly as if it is a normal reaction to arguments about inequality.

I think most people want to do ther best to achieve as much equality for everyone on Earth, but the mockery of all discussion of Men's rights is just as laughable as the people who shout out "white knight" every time someone defends the rights of women.

 

[Devolution]

Why not skip the part about the document? In other words, absolutely, a woman has a right to her own body, and a right to decide whether to get an abortion. Why does she also have a claim to the father's paycheck if he doesn't want the baby? While it's not a position I agree with, that seems more "progressive" than what we have now, and more realistic than your suggestion.

She doesn't have a claim to the paycheck, the child does. People seem to be forgetting it goes to the mother but is property of the child.

I think the issue is that there is no discussion of these issues, because they are always filled with antimosity and jokes about who is privileged and who is oppressed. It would be nice if there was feminism that focused not only on the rights of women but also men, but I understand why the focus is on women's issues when they appear to be more in line with the traditional view of feminism.

Being a member of privilege as others say does not mean that these issues can't be discussed. Most of the time there is argument to keep talk of men facing something out of feminism threads, but now a thread that focuses on inequalities for men becomes a thread where stereotypes parallel to "man-hating feminists" fly as if it is a normal reaction to arguments about inequality.

I think most people want to do ther best to achieve as much equality for everyone on Earth, but the mockery of all discussion of Men's rights is just as laughable as the people who shout out "white knight" every time someone defends the rights of women.

This is better aimed at the people who don't think men suffer at all under patriarchy. Feminists are well aware and they're the ones whom I've read over the course of years who actually try to address these issues fairly and without blame. I seriously suggest people read Michael Kimmel's work.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Why is this thread so popular with Mortal Kombat characters engaged in mundane activities?

Indeed.

 

[Deified Data]

Would you mind speculating on the reason that spousal support has historically been favorable to the woman in a marriage rather than a man?

Thought it was abudantly obvious, sorry.

Women are believed to have a tougher time holding down a job and making a steady living, which isn't really a valid view anymore. They're going to make less, to be sure, but they're not going to have any trouble making a living - not enough trouble to warrant being cared for like a child their entire life.

That's my speculation. Why such grumpy wording, Gaborn?

 

[TUROK]

Are you out of your mind? What right have men ever had to wait for or had taken away from them by women? Ever?

I seriously can't imagine how modern men anywhere in the world actually develop a victim complex.

When did I say or imply that men have experienced either?

Lol, victim complex. I applaud your use of carefully packaged phrases that don't really contribute much to the topic at hand.

I'm not acting victimized, nor am I seeing many men in here that are. We just want this "equality" that everyone says they are for, but that very few people actually argue in favor of.

I would suggest that you reread this topic, starting with this post you made making the exact same accusation and reread the responses that kame-sennin, myself, and maharg in particular made to you. It seems you have forgotten.

And for what it's worth, many of the feminists you are talking to in this topic (and all three you were talking to in the other topic) are male; we don't have a motivation for plucking out our own eye.

I didn't forget, my line of thinking just hasn't changed.

I'm well aware that they're men. This isn't a men vs women thing, it's an ideology vs ideology thing. The gender of the person who says it doesn't matter.

 

[Esch]

Oh shit, well that thing happened once, better start a movement.

Nah, it definitely happens. You think any of the pastors/teachers/boy scout leaders/etc out there genuinely trying to help youth like being treated like boy touchers?

 

[ronito]

Would you mind speculating on the reason that spousal support has historically been favorable to the woman in a marriage rather than a man?

I certainly get that in the past it's overwhelmingly on the side of women. But is there a real necessity for lifetime alimony anymore in this day and age? I don't know anyone in those states but I know guys who paid alimony totallying half the time they were married, hell I know guys who paid alimoney longer than they were married is that really necessary in this day and age?

Again, 60s? Sure. 70s? Yeah. 80s? Ok. 90s? you're pushing it...

 

[lopaz]

There are some inequalities men face as a result of their privilege backfiring. Unfortunately they rarely get discussed like how many men become increasingly violent or suicidal due to the pressures of masculine stereotyping and bullying as boys.

that's privilege backfiring? You have a way of twisting words

Is being thought you're a pedophile everytime you take your kids to the park just because you're a guy count as a Men's Rights issue? C

Yes, it does. The cultural landscape affects our lives just as much as the economic, political, and legal spheres.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

What happens if she break the contract?
E.g, have a child, and then request money for the sake of her kid?

Kid can't exactly sign a contract to not receive monetary compensation from the daddy.

The thing is contracts like that are explicitly void for public policy reasons, it's not her or his money, it's the child's. It can't be bargained away. Its a total non starter to even suggest.

Parents can't and shouldnt be able to wiggle their way out of it. The idea it's a legit thing to complain about is absurd. It's not some greedy person getting the money it's their damn kid

 

[pigeon]

It's always useful to try to consider how your own privilege and biases might affect your opinions, but "until I realized who agreed with me" is a textbook ad hominem fallacy.

I mean, I see what you're saying, but I think there's an important distinction between reconsidering your perspective on something because specific other people who think that have some unrelated disagreeable characteristic and reconsidering your perspective on something because your perspective appears to be correlated with other ideas you disagree with. People don't generally hold considered policy positions in a vacuum -- they derive them from their fundamental assumptions about the world. If a position you believe in is consistently associated with positions you find distasteful, it's worth reexamining it to understand exactly what assumption you're deriving it from. (People hold unconsidered policy positions for all sorts of reasons, obviously, but I'm comfortable saying those almost always need closer examination, so it doesn't really change my argument.)

 

[Simplet]

Close enough. "Men's rights" isn't a real thing.

I'm sorry but what? How are men's rights not a thing? Are you saying men don't have rights? Or that there are no rights specifically for men?

If there are rights specifically for women, how can there not be an equivalent for men? Or are you saying that those rights are there, but advocating for them is ridiculous? None of this makes any sense.

Apparently if you're a man you can only fight for your rights if other men are harming you? What kind of ridiculous bullshit is that?

 

[freenudemacusers]

Oh shit, well that thing happened once, better start a movement.

Dude relates a story (which apparently happens on airlines as a part of policy) and you decide to go full attack? Way to keep a decent conversation going.

 

[pigeon]

I think the issue is that there is no discussion of these issues, because they are always filled with antimosity and jokes about who is privileged and who is oppressed. It would be nice if there was feminism that focused not only on the rights of women but also men, but I understand why the focus is on women's issues when they appear to be more in line with the traditional view of feminism.

There really are a lot of feminist books/discussions/theories and whatnot that spend a lot of time on the ways in which the traditional social structure disadvantages men as well as women, but I don't want to get off on a side topic if this thread is supposed to specifically be about MRA. Mumei has the cites, though.

 

[squidyj]

There are some inequalities men face as a result of their privilege backfiring. Unfortunately they rarely get discussed like how many men become increasingly violent or suicidal due to the pressures of masculine stereotyping and bullying as boys.

Wait... are you suggesting that engaging in violent solutions to my problems as I learned to do on the schoolyard does not or should not in fact win me the respect of my peers and make me a manlier and better man? because that's just crazy.

The thing is contracts like that are explicitly void for public policy reasons, it's not her or his money, it's the child's. It can't be bargained away. Its a total non starter to even suggest.

Parents can't and shouldnt be able to wiggle their way out of it. The idea it's a legit thing to complain about is absurd. It's not some greedy person getting the money it's their damn kid

sure, if genetic contribution is parenthood, which has a whole other set of logistical hurdles involved when you start talking about surrogacy for gay couples etc.

 

[lopaz]

I mean, I see what you're saying, but I think there's an important distinction between reconsidering your perspective on something because specific other people who think that have some unrelated disagreeable characteristic and reconsidering your perspective on something because your perspective appears to be correlated with other ideas you disagree with. People don't generally hold considered policy positions in a vacuum -- they derive them from their fundamental assumptions about the world. If a position you believe in is consistently associated with positions you find distasteful, it's worth reexamining it to understand exactly what assumption you're deriving it from. (People hold unconsidered policy positions for all sorts of reasons, obviously, but I'm comfortable saying those almost always need closer examination, so it doesn't really change my argument.)

Another way of saying you haven't thoroughly researched your position. You simply align yourself with people you feel are of the right sort politically

 

[JABEE]

There really are a lot of feminist books/discussions/theories and whatnot that spend a lot of time on the ways in which the traditional social structure disadvantages men as well as women, but I don't want to get off on a side topic if this thread is supposed to specifically be about MRA. Mumei has the cites, though.

I understand that these studies and topics exist in circles that talk about feminism, but they never seem to be at the forefront of mainstream discussions because they aren't as imminent of a concern. That's what I think at least.

 

[ivysaur12]

I'm sorry but what? How are men's rights not a thing? Are you saying men don't have rights? Or that there are no rights specifically for men?

If there are rights specifically for women, how can there not be an equivalent for men? Or are you saying that those rights are there, but advocating for them is ridiculous? None of this makes any sense.

He's saying that the notion that men have somehow been systematically disenfranchised to the point where there needs to be a movement to support their fundamental human rights is ridiculous. We have patriarchal social structures that disenfranchise men as well, but MRA is something completely different.

 

[Timedog]

This too. How many people would go to the courthouse for the random girl, though?

Probably not many, but at least the option would be there for responsibly doing so, if one was inclined. If you do not wish to do so, you assume the same risk that any man has to assume right now. I just want to see an option available for men in this instance.

It should definitely be something that is quick and painless. I'm sure someone can think of a better/easier idea than going to the courthouse.

I agree except verbal would never work.
I think there needs to be something with the birth certificate. something like "You have been designated as the father for this child you have 30 days to contest and absolve your parental rights." blah blah blah.

Contesting it after the fact wouldn't really be fair to the female. Verbal could maybe be allowable by video or something, or with a witness?

 

[Zilch]

A question for the posters who are outing themselves as "MR" advocates (lopaz, the OP, etc.): are you anti-feminism?

 

[Gaborn]

Thought it was abudantly obvious, sorry.

Women are believed to have a tougher time holding down a job and making a steady living, which isn't really a valid view anymore. They're going to make less, to be sure, but they're not going to have any trouble making a living - not enough trouble to warrant being cared for like a child their entire life.

That's my speculation. Why such grumpy wording, Gaborn?

I'm not grumpy! i just wanted it made clear that this is not solely about beating men down with unfair lifelong commitments, this is significantly about income inequality and ability to make a living.

Remember that the state has an interest in keeping you married too, that is, married people are a lower risk to experience crime, they're more economically stable and they're more likely to produce better outcomes for children. So I view alimony as the state's way of making you live out your financial commitment if you're married (at least until your ex meets someone else). The reason it affects men more is the reasons you stated.

Now, separately I don't disagree it should be time limited in some way, for example until 3 years after all children living in the home that were a product of the marriage turn 18 OR your ex remarries.

 

[Fugu]

My favourite part is when the claim is made that men need more role models in education. Holy shit.

I agree that issues in family law exist and need to be rectified. What is silly is that this is framed as an issue of men's rights as if this is a thing that needs a distinct and opposite movement to Feminism. The issues in family law related to divorce and parental custody are borne of the sexism that Feminism strives to fight and prevent. It is important to remember that the patriarchy has negative consequences for men as well, and these are some of them.

...Of course, if you actually believe that men are undereducated and lacking in role models, you may just be ignorant and Feminism, indeed, will have nothing to provide you.

 

[Karsticles]

She doesn't have a claim to the paycheck, the child does. People seem to be forgetting it goes to the mother but is property of the child.

Ohhhh, is that why the child is deciding how the money is spent? The money goes to the mother, and she decides what to do with the money. She can spend it on herself if she wants.

 

[ronito]

He's saying that the notion that men have somehow been systematically disenfranchised to the point where there needs to be a movement to support fundamental human rights is ridiculous.

But no one's saying that, they're just pointing out some things that should be changed. No one's saying "We should have a whole movement around this!"

Aren't they?.....Aren't they?...oh god...

edit:

Now, separately I don't disagree it should be time limited in some way, for example until 3 years after all children living in the home that were a product of the marriage turn 18 OR your ex remarries

Wow dude, you'd have someone pay Alimony for 16 years if they were only married to the mother 5? Not child support that's different. Alimony? Good god.

 

[Alligatorjandro]

One thing I dont understand is why the mothers seem to get custody most of the time in divorces.

 

[Devolution]

I understand that these studies and topics exist in circles that talk about feminism, but they never seem to be at the forefront of mainstream discussions because they aren't as imminent of a concern. That's what I think at least.

Once again Kimmel's focus is on Boys and Young Men and it is of imminent concern to him and his peers. What you have to do is get more men to care about these issues in a way that actually engages the issue. What a lot of MRM sites do is blame feminism or bitterly rant against women. They offer no real solutions and only anger.

One thing I dont understand is why the mothers seem to get custody most of the time in divorces.

Patriarchal view of the traditional family unit. Woman = caretaker. Man = check. But so many people still engage in this behavior so there is no reason for it to change unless more men speak up.

 

[squidyj]

I'm not grumpy! i just wanted it made clear that this is not solely about beating men down with unfair lifelong commitments, this is significantly about income inequality and ability to make a living.

Remember that the state has an interest in keeping you married too, that is, married people are a lower risk to experience crime, they're more economically stable and they're more likely to produce better outcomes for children. So I view alimony as the state's way of making you live out your financial commitment if you're married (at least until your ex meets someone else). The reason it affects men more is the reasons you stated.

Now, separately I don't disagree it should be time limited in some way, for example until 3 years after all children living in the home that were a product of the marriage turn 18 OR your ex remarries.

isn't alimony already separated from child support? I'm not sure why you would make alimony contingent on children if you're already paying child support for the same children.

One thing I dont understand is why the mothers seem to get custody most of the time in divorces.

women are just naturally nurturing caregivers brah, us males just can't compete. (also there is a continuing tendency for them to be primary caregiver beforehand)

 

[Deified Data]

I'm not grumpy! i just wanted it made clear that this is not solely about beating men down with unfair lifelong commitments, this is significantly about income inequality and ability to make a living.

Remember that the state has an interest in keeping you married too, that is, married people are a lower risk to experience crime, they're more economically stable and they're more likely to produce better outcomes for children. So I view alimony as the state's way of making you live out your financial commitment if you're married (at least until your ex meets someone else). The reason it affects men more is the reasons you stated.

Now, separately I don't disagree it should be time limited in some way, for example until 3 years after all children living in the home that were a product of the marriage turn 18 OR your ex remarries.

Child support should cover the kids below 18, but otherwise I agree with this. Don't it make you feel all warm and fuzzy?

 

[SquiddyCracker]

My take on these issues:

Divorce

If there is such a thing as infinite alimony, it really needs to go away. This isn't really a men's issue though, it just happen to affect mostly men as they are generally earning more in these cases.

Adoption

Of course unwed men and women should have equal rights in adoption issues, this is a no-brainer.

Child custody

The idea that the mother of a child is better than the father is pretty sexist. Thing should be equal here too.

Family law and parental leave

It does make sense that women have a longer leave than men, as they undergo a really tough physical and psychological ordeal for many, many months. With that said, fathers should get more time with their children.

Paternity fraud

A simple solution would just be to make DNA-testing mandatory and just part of the process in hospitals.

Military conscription

Either women and men are to be conscripted, or neither are.

Allegations of rape

I disagree with the naming of any accused before we've determined whether or not they aer guilty, so this is again something I could get behind.

A question for the posters who are outing themselves as "MR" advocates (lopaz, the OP, etc.): are you anti-feminism?

Lol no.
I am a feminist.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

sure, if genetic contribution is parenthood, which has a whole other set of logistical hurdles involved when you start talking about surrogacy for gay couples etc.

Parenthood need not be genetic. Birth parents are the mom and dad on birth certificate even with surrogacy. It's doesn't have to be genetic lots of case law on that.