women get more rights in relation tto kids (1 Viewer)

[ur_inner_child]

I believe that women's rights and men's rights are the one and the same thing, since they both relate to human rights. Women nor men should have more rights over the other, as human rights are universal.

pity it's not like that

 

[shazzam]

the word "masculist" is still a dirty word

No it's not.

Primarily because it's not a word.

 

[Phanatical]

It most certainly is a word, though not used often since the idea of defending male rights is a new one. It is used extensively within the Men's Rights movement, and Masculists are sometimes also referred to as MRA's (Men's Rights Activists) or (incorrectly) Masculinists.

Nevertheless, it is a word, and feminists curse us every day.

 

[ur_inner_child]

i'm sorry but I cringe when you say anything about a mens rights "movement".

I guess you can call it whatever you want. But I just want to kindly remind you that the women's movement was about freedom of choice as a right. This world is still, and vastly, patriarchal. It's definatley more "equal" between the sexes than it use to, especially in western cultures, but when you say mens rights "movement" i tend to disagree, and find it just reversing equality between the sexes.

May I also remind you that "feminists" is broadly disgustingly used here. You may think of lesbians and men-haters, but feminism originally was, and still should be, regarded as the belief that women are equal to men. Not superior to men. So don't be too frightened!

Besides, the fact that women get pregnant exists (hence the glass ceiling still exists), there are still misogynistic men, and with the amount of semi-naked women dancing against mainstream rap artists, a mens rights movement will give the wrong idea.

But I totally agree that a man's opinion is valuable.

 

[neo o]

Women aren't the equal of men.

1 != 2
Woman != Man

 

[Phanatical]

i'm sorry but I cringe when you say anything about a mens rights "movement".

I guess you can call it whatever you want. But I just want to kindly remind you that the women's movement was about freedom of choice as a right. This world is still, and vastly, patriarchal. It's definatley more "equal" between the sexes than it use to, especially in western cultures, but when you say mens rights "movement" i tend to disagree, and find it just reversing equality between the sexes.

May I also remind you that "feminists" is broadly disgustingly used here. You may think of lesbians and men-haters, but feminism originally was, and still should be, regarded as the belief that women are equal to men. Not superior to men. So don't be too frightened!

Besides, the fact that women get pregnant exists (hence the glass ceiling still exists), there are still misogynistic men, and with the amount of semi-naked women dancing against mainstream rap artists, a mens rights movement will give the wrong idea.

But I totally agree that a man's opinion is valuable.

There is a definite need for a Men's Rights Movement throughout the world. This movement is small, but it's growing at an incredibly fast rate. It is important for this Movement to exist, as men's rights are disappearing extremely quickly. There was a protest just a few days ago run by a group called F4J (Fathers for Justice), who protested outside the Family Courts throughout Australia for the rights of fathers to have equal access to their children. Next year, there will be a university-based Men's Collective where both men and women will be invited to increase awareness of men's issues. Surely there is a need for a Men's Movement in areas such as these (and many others).

The problem is that only First wave feminism was about equal rights for men and women. Second wave feminism was about equal rights for women without the concern of men's problems.

And now we have Third wave feminism. The prevalent form among feminists today is all about gaining More rights for women at the expense of men, whom they broadly term "The Patriarchy" (if we have a Y chromosome, we're evil!)

Until third wave feminism, there was no need for Men's advocacy. But now that society is turning towards the women's cause AT THE EXPENSE OF MEN, the Masculist Movement is necessary to maintain equal rights for both genders.

I prefer to distinguish between "Feminists" (who actually make up quite a percentage of the Men's Rights Movement), and the "Feminazis" who dominate the Feminist circles. These are women who believe that men should be subservient to women, and are dangerous people. And they're the ones who are at the forefront of the Feminist movement, destroying the cause for the feminists for equal rights.

There are misogynistic men, but there are just as many women who are willing to discriminate against men for no other reason than the fact that we have the Y chromosome. And while we have dancing girls in rap videos, why does nobody take offense at the fact that men are generally portrayed in the media as stupid, arrogant, aloof, dimwitted?

 

[ur_inner_child]

There is a definite need for a Men's Rights Movement throughout the world.

Wrong. You're thinking of western countries. Other countries have women supressed the bitter core and you KNOW that.

This movement is small, but it's growing at an incredibly fast rate. It is important for this Movement to exist, as men's rights are disappearing extremely quickly.

I need statistics. I do believe that certain parenting rights favour the women much more than the men, but that's generally because women are still seen as the parenting, mothering role, which is just traditional and old fashioned, not anything new, like the "third wave" of feminists.

There was a protest just a few days ago run by a group called F4J (Fathers for Justice), who protested outside the Family Courts throughout Australia for the rights of fathers to have equal access to their children. Next year, there will be a university-based Men's Collective where both men and women will be invited to increase awareness of men's issues. Surely there is a need for a Men's Movement in areas such as these (and many others).

Well I agree with that. You just need to remember that women have more rights in parenting because of traditional values.

The problem is that only First wave feminism was about equal rights for men and women.

True.

Second wave feminism was about equal rights for women without the concern of men's problems.

What, the right to vote? Please be more specific. I suppose you mean the choice for abortion, right? I'd rather steer clear from an moral-abortion topic, since I know that you don't stand the same ground as I do, and we'll go off topic. Yet the main concern was about mens rights over an abortion.

I suppose if a man wanted to keep the child and the woman didn't, what do you propose she do? Carry on for the next 9 months for him? Okay fine, suppose she agrees, thinking that man's decision is valuable, and rightly so.

But she becomes disadvantaged in the workforce (or in schooling) for an extended period of time, simply because she's getting fatter. The father can still work without prejudice, simply because he doesn't exactly have a enlarged tummy. She can't. If something like this happened, where women are forced to give birth to a child for a father's choice, then things like compensation (for the 9 months at least) for the woman will be raised. I wonder if you agree with that sort of thing. Would you see this as merely benefits for women over men again?

As well as this, there are complications of the father backing out on his decision, and forcing her to go with late-abortions. It just simply opens doors to more complex issues. And you may argue that a man who is dedicated to be a father will stay dedicated to his decision, sadly, this is not the case.

Maybe there could be a beautiful system where both father and mother receive equal rights. But so far I cannot see any. A "men's movement" sounds highly weird personally, since the issue is much more complicated than merely the treatment of men in parenting.

And now we have Third wave feminism. The prevalent form among feminists today is all about gaining More rights for women at the expense of men, whom they broadly term "The Patriarchy" (if we have a Y chromosome, we're evil!)

Patriarchy is a system or a belief that men are superior to women. It is very real. It's all over the highest positions in the workforce and if you cannot see this, well, then we should stop there before I stop talking calmly.

Until third wave feminism, there was no need for Men's advocacy. But now that society is turning towards the women's cause AT THE EXPENSE OF MEN, the Masculist Movement is necessary to maintain equal rights for both genders.

I agree that there are some women who hate men etc, and I assume that you mean "at the expense of men" by those women who are in power to make men pay. Then again, women in such power is incredibly rare. It exists, but in a ratio compared to men in power, it's rare. How many Australian female prime ministers did we have? I think you're blowing the "third wave" out of proportion.

I'm merely pointing out that a movement would give an incredibly wrong idea, especially in a patriarchal society. Do you think Australia is equal to men and women, out of curiousity? Because it sounds like you think it is equal, if not in favour to women. I still see society as a very patriarchal one, even though there are some things that favour women better than men, for example parenting. I'll reinforce that it's because of TRADITIONAL values, not something new.

I prefer to distinguish between "Feminists" (who actually make up quite a percentage of the Men's Rights Movement), and the "Feminazis" who dominate the Feminist circles.

Well I may support the fact that men have a valuable role in parenting but I definatley don't fit in either of the catergories.

These are women who believe that men should be subservient to women, and are dangerous people. And they're the ones who are at the forefront of the Feminist movement, destroying the cause for the feminists for equal rights.

There are misogynistic men, but there are just as many women who are willing to discriminate against men for no other reason than the fact that we have the Y chromosome. And while we have dancing girls in rap videos, why does nobody take offense at the fact that men are generally portrayed in the media as stupid, arrogant, aloof, dimwitted?

Because the men who are generally portrayed in the media as stupid etc is reacted as "that's a stupid person" not "all men are stupid" because generally, Australia is still patriarchal. For rap videos, lyrics and explicit suggestion say "all women are sex objects" repeatedly.

Generally, IMO I think you're blowing it out of proportion and going off topic. Going back to the topic, I agree that a man's opinion is incredibly valuable. The men's movement is ridiculous, especially in a patriarchal society.

 

[Xayma]

Patriarchy is a system or a belief that men are superior to women. It is very real. It's all over the highest positions in the workforce and if you cannot see this, well, then we should stop there before I stop talking calmly.

For the vast majority of men, it is just as hard as for a woman to advance into the upper strata of the work force. You need connections, things that are often given by birth rather then obtained because they are male.

Also this could be seen as girls encouraged to party while males are pushed into the work force at a younger age in this upper strata, for example Paris Hilton, I highly doubt she would get away with so much as a male.

Daddy's daughter, and a fathers son, have completly different positions due to the traditional roles.

 

[Phanatical]

Wrong. You're thinking of western countries. Other countries have women supressed the bitter core and you KNOW that.

Some would argue that in certain societies (like Muslim society) "suppression of women" in fact means "protection of women". Gender roles assigned by society, making men the protector of women. Same in Chinese society, both men and women had certain responsibilities which to the Feminist meant that women were oppressed. The men and women of the period wouldn't have agreed though.

The fact is that the women's movement is growing Throughout The World, and not just in the Western world, but the Muslim world, and even the Asian world. It just happens to be most pronounced in a country like Australia.

I need statistics. I do believe that certain parenting rights favour the women much more than the men, but that's generally because women are still seen as the parenting, mothering role, which is just traditional and old fashioned, not anything new, like the "third wave" of feminists.

And I'm saying that these old fashioned ideals need to be phased out, in favour of equal rights for men. Over 90% of family court cases contested between a mother and father are won by the mother, to the detriment of both the Child and the Father.

What, the right to vote? Please be more specific. I suppose you mean the choice for abortion, right? I'd rather steer clear from an moral-abortion topic, since I know that you don't stand the same ground as I do, and we'll go off topic. Yet the main concern was about mens rights over an abortion.

Second wave feminism was moderate in comparison to third wave feminism, but introduced the idea of polarising the genders against each other (Men's Rights versus Women's Rights), instead of the view taken by sensible people (like Masculists) that Men's Rights = Women's Rights = Human Rights, and by defending men's rights, you defend women's rights (and by extension if you deny men's rights, you deny women's rights).

I suppose if a man wanted to keep the child and the woman didn't, what do you propose she do? Carry on for the next 9 months for him? Okay fine, suppose she agrees, thinking that man's decision is valuable, and rightly so.

I'm not saying somebody should be forced to remain pregnant. I'm just saying that if the father wants the child, then the mother shouldn't be protected from the moral consequences of her actions - if the father thinks the mother is a murderer for killing the unborn foetus, he should be able to tell her so in plain language (to a limit) without being put in jail for abuse, or whatever. Some masculists have even suggested that a woman be put in jail for the remainder of the time that the pregnancy would have taken, and to be honest, it's not an idea I would immediately dismiss.

Likewise, if the father Doesn't want the child, he should be able to trade in any legal right to contact or whatever in exchange for freedom from child support payments (though maybe HE should face a few months in jail for abandonment).

Whatever rights the father has should be based upon what rights the mother has. We cannot in good conscience take the decision completely out of the hands of the father in relation to abortion, but a lot of third wave feminists have suggested that we not only take the decision out of the hands of fathers, but that we completely eradicate the male gender from the reproductive cycle (The Feminist Manifesto).

But she becomes disadvantaged in the workforce (or in schooling) for an extended period of time, simply because she's getting fatter. The father can still work without prejudice, simply because he doesn't exactly have a enlarged tummy. She can't. If something like this happened, where women are forced to give birth to a child for a father's choice, then things like compensation (for the 9 months at least) for the woman will be raised. I wonder if you agree with that sort of thing. Would you see this as merely benefits for women over men again?

According to traditional gender roles, the father is the breadwinner, and the mother rules the house. I certainly believe that if one partner in the creation of a life is incapacitated, then the other should do what he or she can for the both of them. I completely support Government support for mothers-to-be, in terms of job security and maternity leave, but I also recognise that small businesses may not be able to Afford to give paid maternity leave (putting the responsibility of support on the Government), and that paid paternity leave should also be given to a new father.

As well as this, there are complications of the father backing out on his decision, and forcing her to go with late-abortions. It just simply opens doors to more complex issues. And you may argue that a man who is dedicated to be a father will stay dedicated to his decision, sadly, this is not the case.

If either a mother or a father takes actions to ensure a late term abortion without good reason (like the life of the mother), they should go to jail for murder.

Maybe there could be a beautiful system where both father and mother receive equal rights. But so far I cannot see any. A "men's movement" sounds highly weird personally, since the issue is much more complicated than merely the treatment of men in parenting.

It's called "Identity Politics". Feminists have pioneered this idea that every single woman out there should vote for the woman candidate because they're the same gender. In the election I contested earlier this year, my opponent used lines like "Rose is the only woman candidate running, so support your sisters by voting for Rose". Imagine the uproar if I contested an election saying that "Andrew is the only Chinese candidate running, so support ethnic minorities by voting for Andrew". Did the fact that Rose is a woman make her a better candidate than myself (a male) for the position of SRC President? No! Just like the fact that I'm Chinese also didn't make me a better candidate.

The fact is that the Men's movement is full of people with many Different beliefs. There are communists, socialists, capitalists, feminists, Asians, Klansmen, Catholics, Agnostics and Atheists (among others) who can be considered all of the masculist persuasion, because unlike Feminism, Masculism merely suggests "equal rights for men", and this may come in the form of "equal rights for men by working for women's rights", or "equal rights for men by repealing affirmative action", or "equal rights for men by instilling Christian values in society", or "equal rights for men by banning Christian activities in society".

The Men's Rights Movement is important for all men, because the fact is that men ARE losing their rights especially in this country. We're disadvantaged from the day we enter schools designed for learning methods proven to be less effective with males than with females. We come out with a less effective education to be pushed into industries like certain types of trade. Men make up an overwhelming majority of waste disposal technicians (garbage men). Men make up an overwhelming majority of coal miners. Men make up an overwhelming majority of long-haul truckers. Men make up pretty much the entire explosives demolition industry. Who is it that spends freezing nights fixing power lines? Who clears muck from sewage pipelines, drains septic tanks? Men do the dirty, thankless work.

Hell, even in nursing - Women make up a large percentage of nurses, and are highly recognised for their work (and rightfully so). Less likely to be noticed (except as the butt of a joke) are the Orderlies, who are overwhelmingly male.

Here's an interesting point of view: How can we have equal rights if our society imposes upon us the mentality that men are "beasts of burden", while at the same time implementing affirmative action to ensure that at least 40% (and most certainly more, the way society is turning) of leadership positions are filled by women? If this is the mentality that children are raised under, is this not disadvantaging males?

Patriarchy is a system or a belief that men are superior to women. It is very real. It's all over the highest positions in the workforce and if you cannot see this, well, then we should stop there before I stop talking calmly.

In the 1800's, an anthropologist by the name of Lewis Morgan spent some time studying the Iroquois people in America. He suggested that this primitive society was a sexual free-for-all where, with no discernable leadership, men and women were equal. Feminists suggested that the moral of his work was that once "Patriarchy" took over, women became the slaves of men and endured unrelenting abuse. This is what is known by both masculists and feminists as the Great Lie.

Wendy McElroy justifies this lie: "Victims of men, of the class structure, technology, government, the free market, the family, the church, Western values…everywhere and always women are painted as victims.”

Let's look at some of the reasons why men Aren't advantaged in society. Men live shorter lives than women on average. If women were victims, why do they live longer lives? Why has the suicide rate for men Always been much higher than for women? Even in 1890, the suicide rate for men in the United Kingdom was 2.9 times that of women.

Fact is, "The Patriarchy" is nothing more than a ploy of the feminists. Once upon a time, we were rational enough to differentiate truth and lie. Truth is based on verifiable facts and rational logic. a Lie is the opposite.

Of course, many feminists aren't rational people. The feminist philosopher Joyce Triebilcot once ridiculed the "apparatuses of 'truth', 'knowledge', 'science'".

Feminist theorist Elizabeth Fee: "Knowledge was caused as an act of aggression".

Feminist author Linda Gardiner: "We might begin to question the import of Descartes’ stress on logic and mathematics as the ideal types of rationality"

By ignoring common sense, basic reason, followers of feminism open themselves to indoctrination of the Patriarchical Mythology. And it all begins with the biggie: that there is a cabal of men (the "Patriarchy") who have been scheming from generation to generation to keep women subservient to men - and that all the ills in the world are the cause of this Patriarchy. From this Myth, we derive further myths:

- Men have all the power (being male, I can assure you all from personal experience that it's wonderful to have the world at my beck and call).

- "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" (Gloria Steinem)

- The Moral Superiority of Women.

- That feminism seeks gender equality (despite the fact that men have shorter lives, come out of school with less education, make up over 90% of workplace deaths etc.)

So why is it that more executives are male? Not because of a patriarchy. There probably is a few vestiges of an old boys club left, and certainly families will hand down power from a father to a son. But in the overwhelming cases, the answer is simple - because males make up the best candidates. Women may rate as better managers, but men are, on average, willing to donate more time to their careers. A study by the Business Roundtable found that the average CEO will work 58 hours a week, and the most powerful CEO's probably work even more than that. They'll exercise while doing professional reading. They'll spend their time at home getting dressed, showering, thinking of ways to improve their work - every minute is an opportunity.

Fact is, women are more likely to yearn for a part-time, pleasant job so they can have time for home, friends, family, and are less likely to work 60 hours a week, as well as take work home. Not saying that women aren't willing to put in the hours, or that men aren't yearning for family, but that it's just more likely that a man would be willing to dedicate his life to success, while a woman would be willing to dedicate her life to her family and friends.

Dr. Marty Nemko writes:

Imagine you were the CEO of a company and were considering two employees for a senior position. Candidate A had—over her or his 20-year career--worked 50 to 60 hours a week, and in spare time, made great efforts to keep upgrading skills. Meanwhile, Candidate B worked 40 hours a week, and in spare time, focused on family, home, friends, and recreation, and had taken years off to raise children—thereby losing professional contacts and currency with the latest information and technology. You’d almost certainly hire Candidate A. Fact is, more men than women are like Candidate A. That, and not a sexist glass ceiling, is the main reason why women represent only 11% of senior executives in Fortune 500 companies.

I agree that there are some women who hate men etc, and I assume that you mean "at the expense of men" by those women who are in power to make men pay. Then again, women in such power is incredibly rare. It exists, but in a ratio compared to men in power, it's rare. How many Australian female prime ministers did we have? I think you're blowing the "third wave" out of proportion.

I would argue that while it is mostly men who are determined to actually sit in the seats of power, many rely on feminists to get them there. Don't forget, it was men who brought about gender equality, and through lobby groups et al feminists can control the policies of our leaders.

I'm merely pointing out that a movement would give an incredibly wrong idea, especially in a patriarchal society. Do you think Australia is equal to men and women, out of curiousity? Because it sounds like you think it is equal, if not in favour to women. I still see society as a very patriarchal one, even though there are some things that favour women better than men, for example parenting. I'll reinforce that it's because of TRADITIONAL values, not something new.

I think that women face disadvantage in many areas, and men face disadvantage in many different areas also. These disadvantages don't manifest themselves in the same way, but they're there for both genders. It is in the best interests of both Feminists and Masculists to work on All of these problems, because we must protect our universal human rights. I do believe that men, especially young men, are becoming More disadvantaged though because even in School they face disadvantage. Without a good education, they lose their rights in essentially everything else, and I think we must address gender inequality in teaching methods as soon as possible.

Because the men who are generally portrayed in the media as stupid etc is reacted as "that's a stupid person" not "all men are stupid" because generally, Australia is still patriarchal. For rap videos, lyrics and explicit suggestion say "all women are sex objects" repeatedly.

Generally, IMO I think you're blowing it out of proportion and going off topic. Going back to the topic, I agree that a man's opinion is incredibly valuable. The men's movement is ridiculous, especially in a patriarchal society.

I think I've addressed this point through my rather verbose rebuttal.

 

[townie]

Phanatical, far be it from be to deconstruct ur entire post, i'll leave that 2 ur_inner_child, however i do take particular issue with one of ur points. where u say "...
But in the overwhelming cases, the answer is simple - because males make up the best candidates. " and in part the quote from Dr. Nemko, which i realise u didnt write, but used it to support ur argument "...and in spare time, focused on family, home, friends, and recreation, and had taken years off to raise children—"

i myself think that anybody, male or female, who can raise children to maturity, is far better qualified to handle many jobs. stock market, bank accounts, legal cases can throw up their challanges, but by and large, are quite predictable. anybody who can sucesfully battle the challenges of raising and shaping a HUMAN LIFE with it's own thoughts and feelings, can surely handle a lot of shit. education for educations sake is useless, it needs to be worthwhile, u required life experience. walking out of uni with a law degree doesnt make u a lawyer.

the fact is, men should be more prepared to start raising families, thus giving women greater oppertunities to persue a career. if both men and women persue careers, without taking time out to raise a family, then everybody loses.

my 2 cents.

 

[Xayma]

Men should be more prepared, true. But it is a choice made between the two partners. The woman having just went through pregnancy is more likely to continue to stay at home, at least during the leave period then the father is, as she regains her strength.

This effectively necessary period after the pregnancy means it is more likely that the mother then the father will take time off for parental leave. The mothers career already been disrupted by the child.

Phanatical I have said this before but be wary of using the term masculist. It has different meanings, the first masculists were opposed to the femenist movement in that they said that due to natural differences men and women are suited for different roles.

New Masculists of which you are, are for equal rights and often are inline with feminists.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Some would argue that in certain societies (like Muslim society) "suppression of women" in fact means "protection of women". Gender roles assigned by society, making men the protector of women. Same in Chinese society, both men and women had certain responsibilities which to the Feminist meant that women were oppressed. The men and women of the period wouldn't have agreed though.

The fact is that the women's movement is growing Throughout The World, and not just in the Western world, but the Muslim world, and even the Asian world. It just happens to be most pronounced in a country like Australia.

you went off topic. I was arguing that a mens movement is ridiculous in other parts of the world since men are protectors of women didn't you say? So why the mens movement?

"YAY WE PROTECT WOMEN BUT LETS HAVE A MOVEMENT FOR MENS RIGHTS!"

Don't throw facts around connecting it to the argument.

And I'm saying that these old fashioned ideals need to be phased out, in favour of equal rights for men. Over 90% of family court cases contested between a mother and father are won by the mother, to the detriment of both the Child and the Father.

Which old fashioned ordeals? You were just talking about men protecting women just a second ago? Okay, I assume you meant how the woman parents, and the man doesn't, whatever that means. I agree with this. Men should have more rights over the custody of children. Equal; to see each parent equally etc. Yeah, I agree. That's about parenting rights. Maybe you should refine your movement as "The Mens Movement concerning Parenting" instead of giving people like me the wrong idea when you say that it should spread around the world......

Second wave feminism was moderate in comparison to third wave feminism, but introduced the idea of polarising the genders against each other (Men's Rights versus Women's Rights), instead of the view taken by sensible people (like Masculists) that Men's Rights = Women's Rights = Human Rights, and by defending men's rights, you defend women's rights (and by extension if you deny men's rights, you deny women's rights).

Off topic. We're talking about parenting rights.

I'm not saying somebody should be forced to remain pregnant. I'm just saying that if the father wants the child, then the mother shouldn't be protected from the moral consequences of her actions - if the father thinks the mother is a murderer for killing the unborn foetus, he should be able to tell her so in plain language (to a limit) without being put in jail for abuse, or whatever. Some masculists have even suggested that a woman be put in jail for the remainder of the time that the pregnancy would have taken, and to be honest, it's not an idea I would immediately dismiss.

Yeah but then again, (I'll do what you did - throw around facts) there's the pro-life, and the pro-abortion violence. Where's that thread tattooguy made about how he can kick the woman in the stomach because he has the right to murder the kid too?

http://www.abortionviolence.com/VIOL-05.HTM

Yeah I'm going off topic. Just to show you how much you pissed me off when you did.

Anyways back onto intellectual debating, I agree that if the woman decided to prance off to have an abortion and the man has no say in it, it's pretty shitty, not to mention a shitty relationship. I believe the reason why most women believe its their decision mostly, is because there is little reassurance that this man will stay with her to help, and that it is her sacrafice to be out of work for a year etc. I'm not saying I agree with this, but pretend to be a woman for a moment, and it's not too hard to understand why they turn their back on the man's say. I'm sure, although, most women will listen to the father of their child and take their opinion into account. At least I hope so.

Anyways that jail sentence you suggested. I won't respond to it, because you know and I know I won't be calm. We both stand and different sides to the abortion debate, so don't go off topic for god's sake. I know it's a fine line, but please recognise what sentences can open doors to the moralities of an abortion, rather than who's opinion is more valuable over the future of a child/feotus.

Likewise, if the father Doesn't want the child, he should be able to trade in any legal right to contact or whatever in exchange for freedom from child support payments (though maybe HE should face a few months in jail for abandonment).

Jail's not that fun you know. You want everyone to go to jail. It's actually pretty traumatising, people say. I kinda believe them. But thank you for going back on topic. No I don't agree. I personally think it's harsh. Yet abandonment sucks major ass and it's a complicated issue that I don't think I have the grounds to argue about.

Whatever rights the father has should be based upon what rights the mother has. We cannot in good conscience take the decision completely out of the hands of the father in relation to abortion, but a lot of third wave feminists have suggested that we not only take the decision out of the hands of fathers, but that we completely eradicate the male gender from the reproductive cycle (The Feminist Manifesto).

Shut up with the third wave crap will you? They're not the mainstream, so there's no need to worry about your penis and the male population just yet. You must feel threatened. Well so do I. I love men. We agree. Drop it.

Seems like we agree on MOST things, now that we're back on topic. But I stand for your off topic shit about having a mens movement all over the world.

According to traditional gender roles, the father is the breadwinner, and the mother rules the house. I certainly believe that if one partner in the creation of a life is incapacitated, then the other should do what he or she can for the both of them. I completely support Government support for mothers-to-be, in terms of job security and maternity leave, but I also recognise that small businesses may not be able to Afford to give paid maternity leave (putting the responsibility of support on the Government), and that paid paternity leave should also be given to a new father.

Uh huh. I agree.

If either a mother or a father takes actions to ensure a late term abortion without good reason (like the life of the mother), they should go to jail for murder.

yeah, late term abortion is fucked up

It's called "Identity Politics". Feminists have pioneered this idea that every single woman out there should vote for the woman candidate because they're the same gender. In the election I contested earlier this year, my opponent used lines like "Rose is the only woman candidate running, so support your sisters by voting for Rose". Imagine the uproar if I contested an election saying that "Andrew is the only Chinese candidate running, so support ethnic minorities by voting for Andrew". Did the fact that Rose is a woman make her a better candidate than myself (a male) for the position of SRC President? No! Just like the fact that I'm Chinese also didn't make me a better candidate.

Hahaha, do you find that as a personal offence when women vote for female candidates? It's because they want to tip the mainstream. The reason why some women vote for female candidates is because MOST people in power are NOT women, but men. And quite frankly, no woman in power would have put a GST on tampons and pads. It's the principle, NOT "YAY SHE'S FEMALE YAY!". It's the same in america. African americans say they can't wait to see a black president of america, not because they love being black, but of the principal, showing that racism is clear wiped, or in majority, wiped. It does not mean they want black people to be superior over the white or whatever, that's just reading into it too much.

It's the principle.

The fact is that the Men's movement is full of people with many Different beliefs. There are communists, socialists, capitalists, feminists, Asians, Klansmen, Catholics, Agnostics and Atheists (among others) who can be considered all of the masculist persuasion, because unlike Feminism, Masculism merely suggests "equal rights for men", and this may come in the form of "equal rights for men by working for women's rights", or "equal rights for men by repealing affirmative action", or "equal rights for men by instilling Christian values in society", or "equal rights for men by banning Christian activities in society".

The Men's Rights Movement is important for all men, because the fact is that men ARE losing their rights especially in this country. We're disadvantaged from the day we enter schools designed for learning methods proven to be less effective with males than with females. We come out with a less effective education to be pushed into industries like certain types of trade. Men make up an overwhelming majority of waste disposal technicians (garbage men). Men make up an overwhelming majority of coal miners. Men make up an overwhelming majority of long-haul truckers. Men make up pretty much the entire explosives demolition industry. Who is it that spends freezing nights fixing power lines? Who clears muck from sewage pipelines, drains septic tanks? Men do the dirty, thankless work.

Hell, even in nursing - Women make up a large percentage of nurses, and are highly recognised for their work (and rightfully so). Less likely to be noticed (except as the butt of a joke) are the Orderlies, who are overwhelmingly male.

It's just traditional thought. And perhaps some male sexual fanatasies too lol. Can I not say the same for the top job in the corporate ladder which is vice versa? It's usually seen as a man, not a woman? Same with doctors, builders, etc. It's just mainstream or tradition. Good for them to break the mainstream and tradition. I don't know why it has anything to do with parenting. It's the mens movement again ay. Well, considering my boyfriend applied for nursing and was looked highly by the recruiters simply because of his gender, and the fact that "we need more male teachers" may have been the reason why the guy up the road from me got a scholarship in B Education, then I think you're blowing it out of proportion again.

Here's an interesting point of view: How can we have equal rights if our society imposes upon us the mentality that men are "beasts of burden",

My society has never said that shit before. Am I that naive?

while at the same time implementing affirmative action to ensure that at least 40% (and most certainly more, the way society is turning) of leadership positions are filled by women? If this is the mentality that children are raised under, is this not disadvantaging males?

OH NO FORTY PERCENT!!! That's nearly equal 50%!!!

You know, 40% isn't a positive thing when you say "while at the same time" to say that it will be a weird mentality for children to be raised under. Men are beasts and burden, while women only ONLY get 40%, a child will conclude that:

Men are beasts and burden
But they hold the majority of leadership positions
*meanwhile in a capitalist society*
"Women are just whining little shits"

Although I'm just seeing it in a different view, what I'm saying is that a child can conclude many things. FORTY PERCENT can be interpreted in a different way. Don't make too many assumptions.

In the 1800's, an anthropologist by the name of Lewis Morgan spent some time studying the Iroquois people in America. He suggested that this primitive society was a sexual free-for-all where, with no discernable leadership, men and women were equal. Feminists suggested that the moral of his work was that once "Patriarchy" took over, women became the slaves of men and endured unrelenting abuse. This is what is known by both masculists and feminists as the Great Lie.

Wendy McElroy justifies this lie: "Victims of men, of the class structure, technology, government, the free market, the family, the church, Western values…everywhere and always women are painted as victims.”

Let's look at some of the reasons why men Aren't advantaged in society. Men live shorter lives than women on average.

Oh no that means women can do MUCH MORE at aged 80! They can be IN POWER WOW!!!

If women were victims, why do they live longer lives?

Yeah, those stupid 80 year olds. They have it all.

Why has the suicide rate for men Always been much higher than for women?

because clearly it's the gender to blame. Is that your argument? They say that men are more successful at suicide, while women decide to do take pills which dont usually work. Too many variables. Not a good argument.

Even in 1890, the suicide rate for men in the United Kingdom was 2.9 times that of women.

OH NO!!! As above.

Fact is, "The Patriarchy" is nothing more than a ploy of the feminists. Once upon a time, we were rational enough to differentiate truth and lie. Truth is based on verifiable facts and rational logic. a Lie is the opposite.

Of course, many feminists aren't rational people. The feminist philosopher Joyce Triebilcot once ridiculed the "apparatuses of 'truth', 'knowledge', 'science'".

Feminist theorist Elizabeth Fee: "Knowledge was caused as an act of aggression".

Feminist author Linda Gardiner: "We might begin to question the import of Descartes’ stress on logic and mathematics as the ideal types of rationality"

By ignoring common sense, basic reason, followers of feminism open themselves to indoctrination of the Patriarchical Mythology. And it all begins with the biggie: that there is a cabal of men (the "Patriarchy") who have been scheming from generation to generation to keep women subservient to men - and that all the ills in the world are the cause of this Patriarchy. From this Myth, we derive further myths:

- Men have all the power (being male, I can assure you all from personal experience that it's wonderful to have the world at my beck and call).

- "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" (Gloria Steinem)

- That feminism seeks gender equality (despite the fact that men have shorter lives, come out of school with less education, make up over 90% of workplace deaths etc.)

All that was retarded. I'm feminist and I don't agree with a lot of it. Or is it the wave shit again? Then again. Say I was a third wave feminist who said

"ASIANS SHOULD DIE!"

you of course, would probably conclude "all third wave feminists think asians should die" when in fact, you were dealing with a RACIST feminist. Better yet, why don't you just DROP the feminist word and say "That's racist."

- "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" (Gloria Steinem)

You know that's probably a joke, to be taken into good humour. Like this

So why is it that more executives are male? Not because of a patriarchy. There probably is a few vestiges of an old boys club left, and certainly families will hand down power from a father to a son. But in the overwhelming cases, the answer is simple - because males make up the best candidates. Women may rate as better managers, but men are, on average, willing to donate more time to their careers. A study by the Business Roundtable found that the average CEO will work 58 hours a week, and the most powerful CEO's probably work even more than that. They'll exercise while doing professional reading. They'll spend their time at home getting dressed, showering, thinking of ways to improve their work - every minute is an opportunity.

Fact is, women are more likely to yearn for a part-time, pleasant job so they can have time for home, friends, family, and are less likely to work 60 hours a week, as well as take work home. Not saying that women aren't willing to put in the hours, or that men aren't yearning for family, but that it's just more likely that a man would be willing to dedicate his life to success, while a woman would be willing to dedicate her life to her family and friends.

You idiot. Way to go about twisting everything. Women are FORCED to do part-time so they can manage this whole home-keeping and getting career all at once because of the system. Not because they're not as dedicated as a man. That's why more women are putting career first and family or bearing kids much later in life because of these thoughts, that men are more dedicated and shit.

Dr. Marty Nemko writes:

I would argue that while it is mostly men who are determined to actually sit in the seats of power, many rely on feminists to get them there. Don't forget, it was men who brought about gender equality, and through lobby groups et al feminists can control the policies of our leaders.

What? What does this have to do with anything?

I think that women face disadvantage in many areas, and men face disadvantage in many different areas also. These disadvantages don't manifest themselves in the same way, but they're there for both genders. It is in the best interests of both Feminists and Masculists to work on All of these problems, because we must protect our universal human rights. I do believe that men, especially young men, are becoming More disadvantaged though because even in School they face disadvantage. Without a good education, they lose their rights in essentially everything else, and I think we must address gender inequality in teaching methods as soon as possible.

I agree with that, the rest of your points didn't support much though.

I think I've addressed this point through my rather verbose rebuttal.

No. You should've just stuck with that one paragraph I placed in bold. The rest had too many loose ends.

 

[Phanatical]

You:
Which old fashioned ordeals? You were just talking about men protecting women just a second ago? Okay, I assume you meant how the woman parents, and the man doesn't, whatever that means. I agree with this. Men should have more rights over the custody of children. Equal; to see each parent equally etc. Yeah, I agree. That's about parenting rights. Maybe you should refine your movement as "The Mens Movement concerning Parenting" instead of giving people like me the wrong idea when you say that it should spread around the world......

Me:
It's not just parenting rights. It's everything, from female-friendly education to affirmative action - both of which are detrimental to men.


You:
Yeah but then again, (I'll do what you did - throw around facts) there's the pro-life, and the pro-abortion violence. Where's that thread tattooguy made about how he can kick the woman in the stomach because he has the right to murder the kid too?

Me:
He's an idiot, but he's pointing out that if the father takes the "initiative" to abort the child, it's murder, but if the mother takes the initiative, it's something to be celebrated. The idea that the same intention from either parent results in two completely different responses Suggests we should at least give it some thought.

You:
Anyways back onto intellectual debating, I agree that if the woman decided to prance off to have an abortion and the man has no say in it, it's pretty shitty, not to mention a shitty relationship. I believe the reason why most women believe its their decision mostly, is because there is little reassurance that this man will stay with her to help, and that it is her sacrafice to be out of work for a year etc. I'm not saying I agree with this, but pretend to be a woman for a moment, and it's not too hard to understand why they turn their back on the man's say. I'm sure, although, most women will listen to the father of their child and take their opinion into account. At least I hope so.

Me:
I believe that if the father leaves a child, then it's abandonment - but he should have the opportunity to completely divorce himself from the child's life Long before he or she is born. This is why we need an improved welfare system.

You:
Jail's not that fun you know. You want everyone to go to jail. It's actually pretty traumatising, people say. I kinda believe them. But thank you for going back on topic. No I don't agree. I personally think it's harsh. Yet abandonment sucks major ass and it's a complicated issue that I don't think I have the grounds to argue about.

Me:
Jail is a form of punishment. People who commit certain immoral acts need to be punished, whether through jail, or public humiliation or whatever. It's also a form of rehabilitation, as it also encourages reflection upon an act taken by the convict.

You:
Shut up with the third wave crap will you? They're not the mainstream, so there's no need to worry about your penis and the male population just yet. You must feel threatened. Well so do I. I love men. We agree. Drop it.

Me:
Third wave feminism IS the mainstream. Or at least, they control women's groups, political organisations and, of course, student unions. They DO control the feminist movement.

You:
Seems like we agree on MOST things, now that we're back on topic. But I stand for your off topic shit about having a mens movement all over the world.

Me:
It's not shit. The Men's Movement could address problems faced by men, both parenting and others.

You:
Uh huh. I agree.

Me:
Of course you do, I'm always right.

You:
yeah, late term abortion is fucked up

Me:
And that's why people who commit late term abortions should be forced to consider the ramifications of their actions.

You:
Hahaha, do you find that as a personal offence when women vote for female candidates? It's because they want to tip the mainstream. The reason why some women vote for female candidates is because MOST people in power are NOT women, but men. And quite frankly, no woman in power would have put a GST on tampons and pads. It's the principle, NOT "YAY SHE'S FEMALE YAY!". It's the same in america. African americans say they can't wait to see a black president of america, not because they love being black, but of the principal, showing that racism is clear wiped, or in majority, wiped. It does not mean they want black people to be superior over the white or whatever, that's just reading into it too much.

It's the principle.

Me:
Women Don't vote for female candidates, and that's why women's advocacy doesn't work. They don't benefit women, and they damage men's rights. The Masculist movement is intended purely to push the feminist movement back onto the path of equal rights for All people (men And women), and to reverse the damage caused by the feminists to men (like affirmative action, female-friendly schools, turning funding away from men's health issues towards women's health issues etc.)

You:
It's just traditional thought. And perhaps some male sexual fanatasies too lol. Can I not say the same for the top job in the corporate ladder which is vice versa? It's usually seen as a man, not a woman? Same with doctors, builders, etc. It's just mainstream or tradition. Good for them to break the mainstream and tradition. I don't know why it has anything to do with parenting. It's the mens movement again ay. Well, considering my boyfriend applied for nursing and was looked highly by the recruiters simply because of his gender, and the fact that "we need more male teachers" may have been the reason why the guy up the road from me got a scholarship in B Education, then I think you're blowing it out of proportion again.

Me:
Read my statements again. I don't think you got the point.

You:
My society has never said that shit before. Am I that naive?

Me:
That's what it's saying when it encourages men into lower paying positions, and women into positions of power, by facilitating easier access for men than women.

You:
OH NO FORTY PERCENT!!! That's nearly equal 50%!!!

You know, 40% isn't a positive thing when you say "while at the same time" to say that it will be a weird mentality for children to be raised under. Men are beasts and burden, while women only ONLY get 40%, a child will conclude that:

Men are beasts and burden
But they hold the majority of leadership positions
*meanwhile in a capitalist society*
"Women are just whining little shits"

Although I'm just seeing it in a different view, what I'm saying is that a child can conclude many things. FORTY PERCENT can be interpreted in a different way. Don't make too many assumptions.

Me:
I'm saying that the woman of 20 years old has an advantage over a man of 20 years old in many industries. Perhaps if you considered affirmative action as "punishing the son for the sins of the father", you might understand my objection to this heinous policy.


You:
Oh no that means women can do MUCH MORE at aged 80! They can be IN POWER WOW!!!
Yeah, those stupid 80 year olds. They have it all.

Me:
Oppressed people don't live longer than the oppressors. Why are women healthier than men if they are being oppressed? This doesn't make sense.

You:
because clearly it's the gender to blame. Is that your argument? They say that men are more successful at suicide, while women decide to do take pills which dont usually work. Too many variables. Not a good argument.

Me:
Men don't make up over 85% of suicide cases because they're better at it. They make up over 85% of suicide cases because a lot more men attempt it in the first place. If they were so superior to women, why is it that more men want to take their lives? This is a health issue which should be dealt with by welfare organisations, but they're too busy helping women involved with domestic violence (and it don't matter whether they're the aggressor or the victim - statistics show that women are MORE likely to commit domestic violence than men).

You:
All that was retarded. I'm feminist and I don't agree with a lot of it. Or is it the wave shit again? Then again. Say I was a third wave feminist who said

"ASIANS SHOULD DIE!"

you of course, would probably conclude "all third wave feminists think asians should die" when in fact, you were dealing with a RACIST feminist. Better yet, why don't you just DROP the feminist word and say "That's racist."

Me:
Third wave feminism IS mainstream feminism. Third wave feminists control the feminist organisations, and political advocacy groups and even our student organisations.

You:
(Gloria Steinem) You know that's probably a joke, to be taken into good humour.

Me:
It was taken in context, as a serious statement suggesting that women have no dependence on men.

You:
You idiot. Way to go about twisting everything. Women are FORCED to do part-time so they can manage this whole home-keeping and getting career all at once because of the system. Not because they're not as dedicated as a man. That's why more women are putting career first and family or bearing kids much later in life because of these thoughts, that men are more dedicated and shit.

Me:
Dr. Nemko suggested that women are biologically more inclined to parenthood than men are. I disagree with this, but I do believe that men are generally a lot more focused on the goal than women, who prefer to spend time with friends and family. This isn't indicative of the entire gender, of course.

 

[dougthelegend]

My main complaint with society at the moment in relation to child issues is with child support.

If a woman cheats on her husband etc, and the stupid legal system gives custody of the children to the mother, explain to me why the father should be forced to pay through the teeth in child support, especially when the mother is working cash in hand.

I say this from experience, a work colleague of mine is forced to pay out nearly half of his wages in child support, when he only has one child to help her support (the others have moved out of home and are independent), and she is working nearly 4 days a week. Too me, that just isnt fair.

If a mother CHOOSES to practically end a marriage by cheating on her husband, why should the husband be forced to pay maintenance for the next however many years? Its all about choice - if the wife CHOOSES to cheat on her husband and end a marriage - then she should, to the greatest extent possible, forfeit her right to child support. Now this may not be total cut off of child support, but say, the husband only has to pay 20% of all costs related to the child...

anyhow, thats my two bobs worth

 

[Generator]

If a mother CHOOSES to practically end a marriage by cheating on her husband, why should the husband be forced to pay maintenance for the next however many years? Its all about choice - if the wife CHOOSES to cheat on her husband and end a marriage - then she should, to the greatest extent possible, forfeit her right to child support. Now this may not be total cut off of child support, but say, the husband only has to pay 20% of all costs related to the child...

Child, not ex-wife, support...

 

[Lorie]

ok, a little off topic, but a query i am still unsure about, that some one else might know. (by the way sorry for the assumptios, just makes everything easier to explain, i'm not trying to say this gender does this)

In the divorce process can the woman access the mans superannuation, before the man is able to. I've heard something like this, because it is up to the spouse to support and care for the future needs of the partner. And i guess super is reguarded as an asset.

Not quite sure about the situtation. But if the other partner is able to access the super before the actual person that the super is in, is that right?

 

[Xayma]

Afaik they can't access the super before the other one can. But I'm not to sure what would happen if the woman was older then the man.

It is counted as assests, so they get a share of the amount of superannuation earned during the period of marriage.

 

[Serius]

Phanatical where are u getting all your information from? can i have a read, i need some facts and info to back up arguements at school

 

[chelloveck]

phanatical won that. he managed to stay rational whereas ur inner child got all defensive and burred up. too much emotion blocks rational thought. anyway, regardless of that, phanatical raised so many profound, new, revisionalist kind of points. can i ask you if you do gender studies or anything similar at uni?

 

[Phanatical]

Thank you for your praise.

I'm a BMus (Comp.) student, with absolutely no gender studies on my timetable.

I just think that it's time that society acknowledges that men face disadvantage in society, just like women, and that it's important to address all gender issues instead of just women's rights or men's rights - since the fact is that we shouldn't Have women's rights or men's rights, but Universal Human Rights.