Mens Rights Thread

ancapailldorcha

Potatoeman wrote: »

I womder how many people would agree to give the father an opt out right? At present both men and womens right to chose ends at conception but if abortion becomes an option for woman shouldnt men get the right to be not financially liable for a choice made by someone else?

The constitution is in very bad need of being updated with this being one of the underpinning issues. I'm in favour of abortion for women but there should be a legal "abortion" for men whereby they can absolve themselves of their rights and responsibilities.

Unfortunately, today's excuse of a Men's Rights movement couldn't organise a nun shoot in a nunnery so I don't expect to see anything like this for a long, long time if ever.

Wibbs

Potatoeman wrote: »

I womder how many people would agree to give the father an opt out right? At present both men and womens right to chose ends at conception but if abortion becomes an option for woman shouldnt men get the right to be not financially liable for a choice made by someone else?

In an ideal world... However it would be a real minefield to navigate such opt out rights.

ancapailldorcha

Wibbs wrote: »

In an ideal world... However it would be a real minefield to navigate such opt out rights.

Are there any politicians who'd even acknowledge the concept? I was asked by a certain councillor if men can experience sexism given that most CEOs and MPs are men.

Potatoeman

Wibbs wrote: »

In an ideal world... However it would be a real minefield to navigate such opt out rights.

The state would have to pay in his absence. So we wont see it happen as there is no way they would agree to it.

It does highlight peoples double standards though as the most common answers are 'he already made his choice' or 'thats just biology'. Which is the same answers pro life people make against women having the choice.

Leeleather

Wibbs wrote: »

On this point MB has good reasons to say there is a disparity there around reproduction, particularly in Ireland. Abortion is the obvious one, but more subtle differences are also in play. EG Childless man of 30 walks into a doctors office and asks to have his "tubes tied", chances are very high he'll be accommodated. Childless 30 year old woman who wants the same? Good luck with that.

While there are clearly anti male biases going on and often with all sorts of moral panic attached in both the extreme and mainstream of modern feminism, there's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater and ignore areas where it does most certainly go the other way. Indeed it would be ironic to do so, as many of those concerned with men's rights aim that accusation at feminism, often with good reason. Just too much of a touch of pots calling kettles black for me.

If women can't have their "tubes tied" then that is a valid case of discrimination. I see no evidence of "bodily rights" being removed. A man can't walk into a clinic and demand that he has his liver removed.

ALiasEX

"bodily rights" "patriarchy"

Like how a male has the right to have his genitals mutilated against his will but a female doesn't.

iptba

Wibbs wrote: »

On this point MB has good reasons to say there is a disparity there around reproduction, particularly in Ireland. Abortion is the obvious one, but more subtle differences are also in play. EG Childless man of 30 walks into a doctors office and asks to have his "tubes tied", chances are very high he'll be accommodated. Childless 30 year old woman who wants the same? Good luck with that.

Regarding getting one's tubes tied, the procedures are not exactly the same: the operation is much simpler, and can be done as an outpatient, for a man. Indeed, with couples, I've heard it said than there can be more pressure on the man to have the procedure as it is less invasive.

PucaMama

Potatoeman wrote: »

I wonder how many people would agree to give the father an opt out right? At present both men and womens right to chose ends at conception but if abortion becomes an option for woman shouldnt men get the right to be not financially liable for a choice made by someone else?

a mans choice is made when he has unprotected sex.

Wibbs

PucaMama wrote: »

a mans choice is made when he has unprotected sex.

So is a womans, but the man has far fewer choices beyond that point. That's before we get into the realms of "forgetting" to take the pill etc.

I don't mean one night stands either. A bloke would have to be daft beyond credence to go sans rubber Jonathan on a one nighter on the say so of a complete stranger, a complete stranger who has no issue with that. Major red flag.

I mean in relationships, more long term type affairs, where condoms may be dispensed with. Sure contraception isn't foolproof by any means, though I do find it interesting that the injection/implant fails at a significantly lower rate than the pill.

Zulu

PucaMama wrote: »

a mans choice is made when he has unprotected sex.

Would you say the same of a woman? Or are you simply firing out one-liners?

DoYouEvenLift

PucaMama wrote: »

a mans choice is made when he has unprotected sex.

Even when intoxicated? If so, what would be your opinions on women who have drunken sex only to go on to regret it and accuse the man, who was also drunk, of rape? You surely also think that they made their choice?

Zulu

PucaMama wrote: »

a mans choice is made when he has unprotected sex.

Any dispensations for a split condom?

Pawwed Rig

PucaMama wrote: »

a mans choice is made when he has unprotected sex.

Surely it is the couple having unprotected sex rather than just the man?
Are we saying that the woman should have to power to make the decision about the next 20 years of the mans life?
I have heard the opt out muted before a few times. Will never happen though as it would be rife with fraud and the state wouldn't be willing to pick up the tab.

Piliger

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Usage of the word "patriarchy" should really have made this obvious to me.

In the interests of equal rights, the word patriarchy should treated the same as the fem**** word which is banned and any user is banned for using it.

Piliger

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm in favour of abortion for women but there should be a legal "abortion" for men whereby they can absolve themselves of their rights and responsibilities.

Unfortunately, today's excuse of a Men's Rights movement couldn't organise a nun shoot in a nunnery so I don't expect to see anything like this for a long, long time if ever.

Potatoeman wrote: »

I wonder how many people would agree to give the father an opt out right? At present both men and womens right to chose ends at conception but if abortion becomes an option for woman shouldnt men get the right to be not financially liable for a choice made by someone else?

Really ? Should they ? On what grounds should men get an opt out ?

Do you also believe that after buying a house by taking out a mortgage .. people should be able to throw their hands in the air and 'opt out' ? leaving their partner to pay ? Is this your view with every contract, verbal and written ? Because I find this a rather bizarre demand.

Lemming

Piliger wrote: »

In the interests of equal rights, the word patriarchy should treated the same as the fem**** word which is banned and any user is banned for using it.

Actually, that's not a bad suggestion. What say you mods? One for the charter? It would, at the very least, force users to articulate their thoughts rather then resort to banal, meaningless soundbites whilst doing the equivalent of a 'hit and run' on the forum.

iptba

Lemming wrote: »

Actually, that's not a bad suggestion. What say you mods? One for the charter? It would, at the very least, force users to articulate their thoughts rather then resort to banal, meaningless soundbites whilst doing the equivalent of a 'hit and run' on the forum.

There's a feedback thread that this could be posted to. Zulu even made some suggestions in passing: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93483597&postcount=76

Lemming

iptba wrote: »

There's a feedback thread that this could be posted to. Zulu even made some suggestions in passing: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93483597&postcount=76

Just in the process of making a post there now

ancapailldorcha

Piliger wrote: »

Really ? Should they ? On what grounds should men get an opt out ?

Do you also believe that after buying a house by taking out a mortgage .. people should be able to throw their hands in the air and 'opt out' ? leaving their partner to pay ? Is this your view with every contract, verbal and written ? Because I find this a rather bizarre demand.

Well, taking out a mortgage is a completely deliberate process. Getting someone pregnant can happen even when protection is used. I just don't like the idea that 20 years of a man's life can be dramatically affected by the whims of the mother in this situation.

Piliger

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Well, taking out a mortgage is a completely deliberate process. Getting someone pregnant can happen even when protection is used. I just don't like the idea that 20 years of a man's life can be dramatically affected by the whims of the mother in this situation.

What whims ? you haven't made any case whatsoever that women get pregnant on a whim. None. You've made no case why all a man should be able to do is ... wash his hands and walk away, leaving one or more kids stranded with no father and no financial support.

And I am a men's rights advocate.

iptba

Another letter today:

Letter #1:

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/gender-bias-and-science-1.2038586

Sir, – Prof Nancy Hopkins (December 10th) writes about “unconscious gender bias” at the top in science. I would argue that by far the most notorious example of gender bias in Irish universities is the existence of a number of women’s and gender studies centres, several of which have existed for more than 20 years and which are overwhelmingly staffed by women. According to the US writer Daphne Patai, they are more concerned with political activism than with scholarship and the pursuit of knowledge. They share a common ideology, central to which is the notion that gender is socially constructed and that biology has little or nothing to do with gender; openness to any challenge to this ideology or to criticism appears to be at a minimum. This is all the more extraordinary since science has refuted its central tenet and has shown biology plays an undoubted and perhaps a major role in gender construction.

An example of how the pretensions of gender studies can be exposed occurred in 2012 when the NIKK Nordic Gender Institute was closed. The decision was made after Norwegian state television had broadcast a documentary in which the unscientific character of the NIKK and its research was exposed. The whole enterprise was based on ideology with no basis in evidence.

Letter #2:

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/gender-bias-and-science-1.2039861

Sir, – Further to David Walsh’s letter (December 16th), I fail to see how the existence of a few gender studies centres is an example of “notorious gender bias” when the real figures that show the lack of representation and the biased promotion methods that abound in Irish universities and the rest of Irish society are somehow not notorious at all.

It is interesting how the elephant in the room can be ignored when it affects women, rather than men. – Yours, etc,

Letter #3:

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/gender-bias-and-science-1.2041152

Sir, – Gender (and women’s) studies centres may be “few” in number, as Dr Chryssa Dislis mentions (December 17th), but the viewpoints they promote imbue what is taught in a wide variety of courses in the humanities and social sciences. – Yours, etc,

ancapailldorcha

Piliger wrote: »

What whims ? you haven't made any case whatsoever that women get pregnant on a whim. None. You've made no case why all a man should be able to do is ... wash his hands and walk away, leaving one or more kids stranded with no father and no financial support.

And I am a men's rights advocate.

I'm referring to the fact that if a woman gets pregnant, a decision that essentially dictates how the father spends the next 20 years of his life is one he has no say in. It's her body so it's her choice but I see no reason why fathers can't legally absolve themselves of the child when the mother can.

Seriously?

Piliger wrote: »

leaving one or more kids stranded with no father and no financial support.

It seems reasonable that if a female decides to get pregnant and continue it without either the knowledge or approval of the future father it doesn't seem unreasonable from my perspective for them to also accept the full responsibility for it financially.

With freely available contraceptives and the 'morning-after' pill there's few reasons for a female to unwillingly become pregnant other than they want to or gross negligence.

Personally I'll always vote against abortion (except where there is a clear risk to the life of the mother) until such time as men are offered the same right to not become a parent unwillingly.

Potatoeman

PucaMama wrote: »

a mans choice is made when he has unprotected sex.

That's fine if you dont believe in abortion but if you believe women should have the right to choose then so should men. I find the hypocracy stunning in that the prochoice people use the very same arguments the prolife people use.

efb

It's a woman's autonomy over her body- which we as men already have.

Seriously?

efb wrote: »

It's a woman's autonomy over her body- which we as men already have.

Thats fine up until they decide that the male is going to become a father regardless of their wishes and that said male will be legally bound to toil for them to provide for both her and the child(ren).

Women can have all the autonomy they want once they relinquish the unwanted legal obligations enforced on the male.

PucaMama

Potatoeman wrote: »

That's fine if you dont believe in abortion but if you believe women should have the right to choose then so should men. I find the hypocracy stunning in that the prochoice people use the very same arguments the prolife people use.

I am not pro choice

Zulu

PucaMama wrote: »

I am not pro choice

You're also not really contributing anything other than soundbites.

Just saying is all.

Piliger

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm referring to the fact that if a woman gets pregnant, a decision that essentially dictates how the father spends the next 20 years of his life is one he has no say in. It's her body so it's her choice but I see no reason why fathers can't legally absolve themselves of the child when the mother can.

That's a pretty astonishing demand. So every women who gets pregnant would essentially be playing the lottery ... not knowing if the man will support and pay or walk away.

Wow.

PucaMama

Zulu wrote: »

You're also not really contributing anything other than soundbites.

Just saying is all.

they are only soundbites to you because they dont agree with you

Pawwed Rig

It would be just giving abortion rights to fathers aswell as mothers.
Assuming abortion on demand and no moral objections to abortion then it could essentially be viewed as contraception not dissimilar to the morning after pill.
In this scenario where a woman gets pregnant she decides whether to invest in the commitment to have the child or not. If not she just aborts it.
This is a choice that the man does not have. Providing him with a choice at this point the same as the woman (may I say equality) would seem logical. If he wants to to invest in the commitment to have the child then go for it, if not then he disclaims all rights and walks away (the same as the woman can).

Not claiming I necessarily agree with the above but it is an interesting point. The flaw arises of course in that if the man wants then child and the woman doesn't then he can hardly expect her to carry it for him to term

ancapailldorcha

Piliger wrote: »

That's a pretty astonishing demand. So every women who gets pregnant would essentially be playing the lottery ... not knowing if the man will support and pay or walk away.

Wow.

Purely academic but isn't the man in a very similar situation?

Pawwed Rig

PucaMama wrote: »

they are only soundbites to you because they dont agree with you

Zulu wrote: »

You're also not really contributing anything other than soundbites.

Mod note - Quit it

Piliger

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

It would be just giving abortion rights to fathers aswell as mothers.
Assuming abortion on demand and no moral objections to abortion then it could essentially be viewed as contraception not dissimilar to the morning after pill.
In this scenario where a woman gets pregnant she decides whether to invest in the commitment to have the child or not. If not she just aborts it.
This is a choice that the man does not have. Providing him with a choice at this point the same as the woman (may I say equality) would seem logical. If he wants to to invest in the commitment to have the child then go for it, if not then he disclaims all rights and walks away (the same as the woman can).

Not claiming I necessarily agree with the above but it is an interesting point. The flaw arises of course in that if the man wants then child and the woman doesn't then he can hardly expect her to carry it for him to term

No. The flaw is in mistakenly seeing procreation as a completely equal activity. It's not. Women carry the baby inside them. men don't. Nothing can compensate for that.

Putting every woman in a situation where having a child would be such a high risk activity would be so monumentally against the interests of society that it could never and should never be even considered. It would also be such a fundamental betrayal of children that no developed society would ever actively consider it.

Pawwed Rig

Piliger wrote: »

Putting every woman in a situation where having a child would be such a high risk activity would be so monumentally against the interests of society that it could never and should never be even considered. It would also be such a fundamental betrayal of children that no developed society would ever actively consider it.

I don't really see why. Again assuming no moral objection to abortion and availability on demand.
Woman sees she is pregnant. Woman and man decide if they want the baby.
1. Both do so they go ahead with the preganancy.
2. Neither do so they get abortion.
3. Woman wants baby, man doesn't. Woman has choice whether to terminate and wait for another time or keep the baby and raise on her own with no support.
4. Man wants baby woman wants to terminate. Tough titties on the guy unless another way is developed to mature an embryo

Now there are alot of assumptions in there such as assuming no moral objection and also assuming that abortion is a perfectly safe procedure but in a post religious society with safe abortion on demand I can see this being a possibility. Foer 21st century Ireland I would say not a hope.

efb

Seriously? wrote: »

Thats fine up until they decide that the male is going to become a father regardless of their wishes and that said male will be legally bound to toil for them to provide for both her and the child(ren).

Women can have all the autonomy they want once they relinquish the unwanted legal obligations enforced on the male.

It's quite simple what a guy had to do if he doesn't want to be a father

ancapailldorcha

efb wrote: »

It's quite simple what a guy had to do if he doesn't want to be a father

How condescending. What if the protection fails? I really don't see why fathers can't have the same rights as mothers once the biological aspects have been considered.

Pawwed Rig

efb wrote: »

It's quite simple what a guy had to do if he doesn't want to be a father

What exactly?

ancapailldorcha

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

What exactly?

I inferred that we're all meant to be monks or something similarly vacuous.

Lemming

efb wrote: »

It's quite simple what a guy had to do if he doesn't want to be a father

And who said equalityfemale superiority and privelege (see what I did there?) between the sexes wasn't alive & kicking? Got any more banal, purile soundbites to throw in there efb?

It takes two to tango, and whilst the guy has to shoulder responsibility for his actions, so too does the woman. Or are you going to claim that women are incapable of having independent thought & agency?

efb

Lemming wrote: »

And who said equalityfemale superiority and privelege (see what I did there?) between the sexes wasn't alive & kicking? Got any more banal, purile soundbites to throw in there efb?

It takes two to tango, and whilst the guy has to shoulder responsibility for his actions, so too does the woman. Or are you going to claim that women are incapable of having independent thought & agency?

if the woman wants the child and the man doesn't the onus is on him. and vice versa.

Men have 100% bodily integrity in law in this country. Women do not. I am a man.

efb

this country already has lots of deadbeat dads who "opt out"

ancapailldorcha

efb wrote: »

if the woman wants the child and the man doesn't the onus is on him. and vice versa.

Men have 100% bodily integrity in law in this country. Women do not. I am a man.

I keep forgetting that abortion isn't available in Ireland except for certain cases. Regardless, if a man doesn't want the baby while the mother does, he's screwed. In the opposite scenario, she can avail of an abortion in the UK. Doesn't seem fair to me...

efb

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I keep forgetting that abortion isn't available in Ireland except for certain cases. Regardless, if a man doesn't want the baby while the mother does, he's screwed. In the opposite scenario, she can avail of an abortion in the UK. Doesn't seem fair to me...

I don't want to contract AIDS, I take all necessary precautions. If you are careful you greatly minimise the chance, but the only sure way is abstention. Its your choice.

efb

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I keep forgetting that abortion isn't available in Ireland except for certain cases. Regardless, if a man doesn't want the baby while the mother does, he's screwed. In the opposite scenario, she can avail of an abortion in the UK. Doesn't seem fair to me...

He can walk away, many do.

mrolaf

Really don't see mens rights as an issue. Where are there men being suppressed? Seriously men have had it great for so long.

Pawwed Rig

mrolaf wrote: »

Where are there men being suppressed?

Did you read the thread at all or just jump straight in dismissing the whole topic?

Wibbs

Actually PR, I would say that Mrlof has unknowingly just nailed down the very reason this thread exists and should exist in the first place.

ancapailldorcha

efb wrote: »

I don't want to contract AIDS, I take all necessary precautions. If you are careful you greatly minimise the chance, but the only sure way is abstention. Its your choice.

What has this got to do with AIDS?

efb wrote: »

He can walk away, many do.

And then they get hunted down for child support. And the divorced Dads who want to see their kids often have to go through hell to do so.

Lemming

efb wrote: »

if the woman wants the child and the man doesn't the onus is on him. and vice versa.

Somehow I doubt the topic of a sexual act for most people - unless in committed relationships - starts with the woman telling the man that if she gets pregnant she's keeping it regardless and expecting him to follow suit.

Mind you .... if more folks were that honest, it'd stop a lot of unwanted pregnancies by simple dint of being a total mood killer.

Men have 100% bodily integrity in law in this country. Women do not. I am a man.

Well then, as you so glibbly put it, women "know what to do".

But to turn it on its head, men have zero rights (unless they're married in which case they have 'near zero' rights) when it comes to children in this country and all of the responsibility. But women have both absolute authority over the pregnancy (it's their bodies after all .. ) and near absolute authority over children in general. So it would seem that men are literally viewed as nothing more than walking sperm donors and cash-machines in law. Nothing in the status quo strikes me as being particularly equal.