Mens Rights Thread

Zulu

efb wrote: »

He can walk away, many do.

Can he? Can I? Really? Just like that?

In the real world some people choose to shirk their responsibilities. That is something that is not gender specific; mothers can walk away just the same as fathers. But in the real world it's not that simple. For one there are legal obligations (maintenance). For two there's a parental bond (again this isn't gender specific regardless of what you've heard); I could no more "walk away" from my children than I could pull my eyes from my head.

Zulu

efb wrote: »

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

Let's not forget the deadbeat mothers! Sadly there's enough bad parents to suit everyone's argument

efb

Zulu wrote: »

Let's not forget the deadbeat mothers! Sadly there's enough bad parents to suit everyone's argument

yes, but this is in the concept of "opting out"

efb

Zulu wrote: »

Can he? Can I? Really? Just like that?

In the real world some people choose to shirk their responsibilities. That is something that is not gender specific; mothers can walk away just the same as fathers. But in the real world it's not that simple. For one there are legal obligations (maintenance). For two there's a parental bond (again this isn't gender specific regardless of what you've heard); I could no more "walk away" from my children than I could pull my eyes from my head.

I was discussing the ability to "opt out" I was not inferring it was only fathers

efb

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What has this got to do with AIDS?



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.

AIDS is an unwanted outcome of sexual congress, as can be pregnancy- its an analogy

ancapailldorcha

efb wrote: »

AIDS is an unwanted outcome of sexual congress, as can be pregnancy- its an analogy

But what's the point of said analogy? AIDS isn't a men's rights issue. How does this pertain to what's being discussed?

Zulu

efb wrote: »

I was discussing the ability to "opt out" I was not inferring it was only fathers

OK, so explain to me how I "opt out"? (your point is that I can opt out, right)

efb

Zulu wrote: »

OK, so explain to me how I "opt out"? (your point is that I can opt out, right)

Ask Ireland's deadbeat dads.

efb

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

But what's the point of said analogy? AIDS isn't a men's rights issue. How does this pertain to what's being discussed?

actions and (unwanted) consequences- and avoidance of same. I didn't think it was that difficult to see the analogy.

ancapailldorcha

efb wrote: »

actions and (unwanted) consequences- and avoidance of same.

I'll say it again. AIDS is not a men's rights issue. It is a disease which affects people indiscriminately. Can we get back on topic please?

ancapailldorcha

efb wrote: »

Ask Ireland's deadbeat dads.

Yes, because it's that simple.

Zulu

efb wrote: »

Ask Ireland's deadbeat dads.

So you don't have an answer, just a soundbite?

ancapailldorcha

Zulu wrote: »

So you don't have an answer, just a soundbite?

I'm starting to see a trend...

efb

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'll say it again. AIDS is not a men's rights issue. It is a disease which affects people indiscriminately. Can we get back on topic please?

Its an analogy, why is that concept so difficult to grasp.

efb

Zulu wrote: »

So you don't have an answer, just a soundbite?

Look at the millions paid out in single parent SW payments - for deserted mothers (not the others in scope) and you see how many men- opt out with 0 contribution to the upkeep of their child. Taxpayers footing the bill.

ancapailldorcha

efb wrote: »

Its an analogy, why is that concept so difficult to grasp.

It's irrelevant because it's not a men's rights issue.

efb

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's irrelevant because it's not a men's rights issue.

its an analogy to do with the unintended consequences of sex. Its quite simple.

ancapailldorcha

How does the analogy relate to men's rights? A child needs to be provided for until it reaches 18. AIDS is a disease caused by a virus.

efb

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

How does the analogy relate to men's rights? A child needs to be provided for until it reaches 18. AIDS is a disease caused by a virus.

the analogy of preventing unwanted outcomes of sex. If you don't want kids, take responsibility.

ancapailldorcha

efb wrote: »

the analogy of preventing unwanted outcomes of sex. If you don't want kids, take responsibility.

Why is it only the men who have to take responsibility?

efb

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why is it only the men who have to take responsibility?

if they don't want the child, they need to take personal responsibility. Thats the point. Same goes for the female. I thought she was on the pill, or "she tricked me" isn't taking personal responsibility.

Pawwed Rig

Mod note - efb your posts are way below the standard of a normal debate. If you want to discuss then discuss but your use of 1 line 'sound bites' is irritating and unhelpful and does not add to the discussion.

efb

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 explained this already dark horse

Piliger

efb wrote: »

Look at the millions paid out in single parent SW payments - for deserted mothers (not the others in scope) and you see how many men- opt out with 0 contribution to the upkeep of their child. Taxpayers footing the bill.

And yet you have no evidence whatsoever of these mothers being deserted.

efb

Piliger wrote: »

And yet you have no evidence whatsoever of these mothers being deserted.

the father does not contribute.

Piliger

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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...

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why is it only the men who have to take responsibility?

You appear to be obsessed with 'fairness'. There is no fairness in life. The law has nothing to do with fairness. It has to do with rights and responsibilities and with equality.

Is it fair that only men have dicks ? Is it fair that only women can have babies ? Are you demanding that the law must fix these unfairnesses ?

No. Your supposed unfairness is not relevant to men's rights. Women have a baby inside their body and have a right to their own body. Men do not have a right to a woman's body. Is it fair ? whatever. It is how it is and the law should not interfere.

ancapailldorcha

Piliger wrote: »

You appear to be obsessed with 'fairness'. There is no fairness in life. The law has nothing to do with fairness. It has to do with rights and responsibilities and with equality.

So we shouldn't attempt to tackle inequality then? Just because we live in an unfair society doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to fix it.

Piliger wrote: »

Is it fair that only men have dicks ? Is it fair that only women can have babies ? Are you demanding that the law must fix these unfairnesses ?

I don't get your point here. How would the law fix any of this. It's biology.

Piliger wrote: »

No. Your supposed unfairness is not relevant to men's rights. Women have a baby inside their body and have a right to their own body. Men do not have a right to a woman's body. Is it fair ? whatever. It is how it is and the law should not interfere.

My supposed unfairness? What?

Anyway, of course women have dominion over their own bodies. I've never stated otherwise. I've also never said that the law should interfere. I find it barbaric that abortion is still not available in Ireland excepting extenuating circumstances.

The "male abortion" I've been advocating would be only available during the weeks of the pregnancy when a woman can legally have an abortion (pretending Ireland has abortion of course). The father would be able to absolve himself of all rights and responsibilities to the child. The process would be as comparable to an abortion as possible, ie it would be irreversible and only available while the mother is carrying the child. Forcing a woman to undergo an abortion against her will is unspeakable barbaric. I thought that was obvious from my posts but evidently not. No law should ever come to pass giving anyone any rights over anyone else's body. I've never stated otherwise.

Zulu

efb wrote: »

Look at the millions paid out in single parent SW payments - for deserted mothers... . Taxpayers footing the bill.

I'd be very careful about using that bill as a benchmark for anything. Unfortunately whether a mother is single or not, she is incentivised to claim she is single to increase her SW payments.
We have a problem in Ireland where fathers are deliberately omitted from the birth certificate for this very reason.

efb

Zulu wrote: »

I'd be very careful about using that bill as a benchmark for anything. Unfortunately whether a mother is single or not, she is incentivised to claim she is single to increase her SW payments.
We have a problem in Ireland where fathers are deliberately omitted from the birth certificate for this very reason.

I am aware of the issue of deliberate exclusion, I did say those that were deserted and receive no contribution from the father

Zulu

efb wrote: »

I am aware of the issue of deliberate exclusion, I did say those that were deserted and receive no contribution from the father

So if you aware of that problem can can you justify your claim that "millions" are paid to "deserted" mothers?

How do you determine if a mother is "deserted"?

efb

Zulu wrote: »

So if you aware of that problem can can you justify your claim that "millions" are paid to "deserted" mothers?

How do you determine if a mother is "deserted"?

If she's not receiving maintance

Potatoeman

efb wrote: »

I am aware of the issue of deliberate exclusion, I did say those that were deserted and receive no contribution from the father

You would have to agree to stay in the first place to desert someone. The issue seems to be that the father does not want the child and would prefer it was adopted rather than be financially liable for a child he did not want. If the mother chose adoption he would not be financially liable. So his liability is dependant on her choice.

efb

Potatoeman wrote: »

You would have to agree to stay in the first place to desert someone. The issue seems to be that the father does not want the child and would prefer it was adopted rather than be financially liable for a child he did not want. If the mother chose adoption he would not be financially liable. So his liability is dependant on her choice.

To get someone pregnant and bare no responsibility for the child is desertion in my book

Potatoeman

efb wrote: »

To get someone pregnant and bare no responsibility for the child is desertion in my book

So you dont believe adoption should be an option for mothers?

Zulu

efb wrote: »

If she's not receiving maintance

You're talking in circles.

1) Who's not receiving maintenance?
You calculate this via "millions spent on SW single mothers"

2) But there's a flaw in SW where mothers (often not single) claim this benefit falsely.
You are "aware of the issue of deliberate exclusion, I did say those that were deserted"

3) So how do you determine if anyone was "deserted"?
According to you "If she's not receiving maintance".

4) And how do you determine that?
presumable by looking at 1) "millions spent on SW single mothers" again, completing the circle.


In short you are talking though your ar$e. Soundbites, but no content.

Piliger

efb wrote: »

the father does not contribute.

What you mean is the woman rejected the father.

Potatoeman

Piliger wrote: »

What you mean is the woman rejected the father.

That's not necessarily the case.

Zulu

Piliger wrote: »

What you mean is the woman rejected the father.

That is a significant leap you are taking there Piliger.

Piliger

Zulu wrote: »

That is a significant leap you are taking there Piliger.

Not if you refer to the post I was responding to which assumed 100% that the man had deserted. How does he know ? How do I know ?

efb

Piliger wrote: »

Not if you refer to the post I was responding to which assumed 100% that the man had deserted. How does he know ? How do I know ?

If he doesn't pay any maintainer he has deserted his child. You don't need to be in good terms with the mother to provide for your child.

Piliger

efb wrote: »

If he doesn't pay any maintainer he has deserted his child. You don't need to be in good terms with the mother to provide for your child.

Total BS. She has abandoned him.

iptba

December 14 article

The “misogyny” myth

By Jasmin Newman —118 Comments

There is a great urban myth abounding in conversations about men that needs clarifying.

continues at:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/the-misogyny-myth/

efb

Piliger wrote: »

Total BS. She has abandoned him.

how do you reach that conclusion?

Pawwed Rig

efb wrote: »

If he doesn't pay any maintainer he has deserted his child. You don't need to be in good terms with the mother to provide for your child.

Not necessarily. There are many couples who claim they are separated to get the extra benefits a single parent would get rather than a couple. These children are not abandoned.

efb wrote: »

If she's not receiving maintance

There is more to life than money

iptba

(December 19 article)

New Fathers 4 Justice group in Birmingham statue sit-in

By David Stubbings

Martin Matthews, from Great Bookham, was one of five people who chained themselves to the 'Real Birmingham Family' statue

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/new-fathers-4-justice-group-8314605

iptba

Thought I'd post this somewhere:

BETTENDORF, Iowa —A woman has pleaded guilty to federal charges in Davenport after faking a birth to collect child support payments from a man who thought he was the nonexistent child's father.

continues at: http://www.kcci.com/news/iowa-woman-pleads-guilty-to-faking-birth/30315004

KomradeBishop

iptba wrote: »

December 14 article

The myths in that article themselves seem 'mythical'; seems far more likely that the reason many people get labelled misogynist, while also claiming to promote mens rights, is that - like the founder of that website, Paul Elam - a lot of them can reasonably be judged as using mens rights as a either a front or secondary-objective, for promoting misogynist or borderline misogynist views.

Not surprising, that an article on that website, will ignore the actual misogyny or borderline-misogyny, that exists as part of the more-vocal extremists in the mens rights movement (which I'd judge that website as being a part of) - and just pretend that the reason the label is applied, is because they claim to support mens rights.

Not all who identify as mens rights supporters fit this though, and certainly I would judge that the majority of people who support mens rights (whether claiming to or implicitly), do not fit that.

ancapailldorcha

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The myths in that article themselves seem 'mythical'; seems far more likely that the reason many people get labelled misogynist, while also claiming to promote mens rights, is that - like the founder of that website, Paul Elam - a lot of them can reasonably be judged as using mens rights as a either a front or secondary-objective, for promoting misogynist or borderline misogynist views.

Not surprising, that an article on that website, will ignore the actual misogyny or borderline-misogyny, that exists as part of the more-vocal extremists in the mens rights movement (which I'd judge that website as being a part of) - and just pretend that the reason the label is applied, is because they claim to support mens rights.

Not all who identify as mens rights supporters fit this though, and certainly I would judge that the majority of people who support mens rights (whether claiming to or implicitly), do not fit that.

The thing is that this is becoming an increasingly common way to dismiss anyone who even mentions men's rights. AVFM might be populated by a fair amount of misogynists but that doesn't mean that you don't see a legitimate article on it from time to time. I've come very close to being labelled as a misogynist for even mentioning sexism against men.

KomradeBishop

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The thing is that this is becoming an increasingly common way to dismiss anyone who even mentions men's rights. AVFM might be populated by a fair amount of misogynists but that doesn't mean that you don't see a legitimate article on it from time to time. I've come very close to being labelled as a misogynist for even mentioning sexism against men.

Ya but why do people even associate with a site filled with misogynists? (and arguably run by one)

You'd think the first thing to do, if you want to prevent people who are against mens rights, from using accusations of misogyny against mens rights supporters, is to disassociate from the actual misogynists and borderline misogynists.

iptba

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The thing is that this is becoming an increasingly common way to dismiss anyone who even mentions men's rights. AVFM might be populated by a fair amount of misogynists but that doesn't mean that you don't see a legitimate article on it from time to time. I've come very close to being labelled as a misogynist for even mentioning sexism against men.

And just to point out that the article I posted was written by a woman.