Men's Rights

Post Reply New Topic

And what does it bloedig matter if some webbozo decrees a "law"?

It is the same stupidity as quoting Occam's Razor as if it is Sinai Commandment.

Yes, Occam, ceteris paribus we do not import extraneous factors to solve our problem.

But in real life Occam is no such a fool he does not know that some time the reality is more complex than the minimum.

And yes, Godwin, gratuitous Third Reich references of the sort that get thrown at passing Conservatives and Christian [NOT synonymous] can get wearing and you are free to gripe about them. Great Patham, a lot of the time I will join you.

BUT at the same time, there are things that can validly be compared with Nazi Germany, or the Stalinist USSR, or the Reign of Terror, or Woodstock, or the Gunpowder Plot, or December 5, 1776.

And using a "Law" or a "Razor" to discredit a valid point is - discreditable.

Comparing the minority of injustices faced by men to Nazi bigotry and violence is not a valid point. 91 did make some valid points, but that was not one of them.

@ Ancalgon: 10% was a generous estimate of the percentage of women in positions of law making, law interpreting, and law enforcement in the United States for the last 50-100 years.

???

Nobody said they were.


If you can't make the connection to Godwin's law without making assumptions, 'pretending' isn't the right word.

Denial is a perfectly reasonable reaction when someone says something that appears not to be so.


Declare victory all you want.

I don't see how you could think that that's what he was saying.

But since we're beating a dead horse now, I'm going to stop arguing about it.


Sigh.

If you had made it clear that you were talking about an average over the past century instead of now, I wouldn't have even taken up the argument.

I made it exceedingly clear in my first post of page 6, and you responded with the claim that 'history does not matter.' Do not claim to have missed the point now.

When I said 'I wouldn't have even taken up the argument', I meant in the first post you made about it. The post on pg 6 was after we'd already been going back and forth about it a couple of times.

There is no law preventing women from running for office as much as men do. Unless you are talking about women in a Mormon polygamist colony, your claims that women support misogynistic political agendas because they don't know anything else is tenuous at best. There are few people in the US who are not exposed to information about all kinds of lifestyles (for the purpose of this thread, I'm not talking about sexuality) and are able to make decisions for themselves. Different patterns of brain activity have frequently been observed in liberals and conservatives, and there are lots of women that put the most emphasis in their lives into their marriage and family and they wouldn't have it any other way. I once read a really good article that was well balanced about how an extreme liberal came to have some idea of what makes conservative communities (not just in the US or in the west) tick and I really wished I bookmarked it because I could really use it right now.

Probably true, I put the quote in more as an illustrative of what I was talking about in relation to it being a bad idea to talk in terms of 'others', not really as a direct comparison to the extent of the issue.

There are plenty of men out there who are taken in by the inherently misogynistic belief that women are soft and tender creatures that could never harm a living thing. Now, what fathers' rights proponents are interested in is (read carefully) [u]making sure that, if their children are being abused by their mother, there would be something they could do about it.

A large part of men's rights is based on defending men from the consequences of certain misogynistic beliefs. It's not necessarily an anti-woman or anti-feminism movement. If anything, proponents of men's rights can be as ready as anybody to acknowledge women as people who can be tough, independent and capable.

What about the fact that in the case of statutory rape of an underage boy by a female, he may be legally bound to pay child support to his rapist. However, swap the genders around and not only would an underage girl be able to have an abortion but at the same time no one would dream of giving the male rapist custody over the child. As one of the issues put forward by men's rights activists, there are certain circumstances where males should be able to give up all responsibility for child support and paternal rights, called "male abortion". This is particularly necessary if the male is an underage victim of sexual abuse by a female. That is one area males definitely have less rights than females. Sources:

http://www.supportguidelines.com/articles/art199903.html - Look at section 2

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/geolr36&div=17

You trying to tell me that in this benevolent state the rapiste would not be required to "choose"? I think that is what it is called.

No, I'm saying that an underage male victim of statutory rape by a female can be required by law to pay child support to his rapist if she gets pregnant from the act, even though he could already be psychologically harmed by the sexual abuse. At least with the law in the US as it stands now.

Also, why should she have the right to choose? So she can abuse that child as well? I think in a case like that, social services should take the child away as soon as it's born, then that should solve both problems. Both the child support and the abuse problem, I mean.

This is bogus, and the law should be changed if it has not already been.

However, the story about the a**hole who sued his former girlfriend for 'breach of contract' is just stupid. Men are known to sabbotage birth control as well in order to deliberately get their partners pregnant - should she be able to sue him for assault and battery due to the effects on her body? For that matter, the article basically describes what happened with Julian Assange, albeit with the genders swapped (he failed to use a condom after being told that the woman wouldn't have sex without a condom).

I was only referring to the statutory rape issue on that site, not the other stuff on there. You're right in this case and I think you misunderstood my intentions when I gave that link. The web page that link, links to is supposed to give general information on who is legally responsible for child support and I did not say that all the cases listed as examples in each instance were valid.

OK.

You are entirely, and improperly, focussed on the wrong people in this conundrum.

When it comes to issues of child custody and support the only rights in question are the rights of the child. Custody, access, vistitation and maintenance are all rights of the child, to be exercised by the child against its parents. For better or for worse a man who winds up siring a child in these unfortunate circumstances is, nonetheless, the father of the child.

Are you suggesting that the child's rights should be abridged because of the father's status as victim?