The Misandry Bubble

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

A child should be welcomed in the earth with love not force. Sure it's the woman's right to give birth but the financial obligation must be symmetrical in the end. Once it is decided that if she wishes to have the child and he doesn't then that final decision is up to her. Keep it alone or abort or adoption.

Also some feminists do say that they too can pee standing up... Good for them!

No real man would FAIL to support a child he helped bring into the world.

Is it fair? Probably not but life isn't fair.

There is something called "doing the right thing". Suck it up buttercup.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

In both of the above cases, the child wasn't part of the agreement. You can't make an agreement to deny a child rights any more than myself and Rubecube could sign a contract denying rights to GGG.

I have a few issues with your arguement, firts there is no child only a fetus who will become a child so you aren't denying any child rights when the agreement is made.

So if you go back to the surgacy contracts the genetic parents make a contract with the birth mother for the brith mother to give up the parental rights of the child. This all occurs prior to the birth of the child and without the childs consent. And after the child is born the surrogate has no parental rights.

In an adoption both genetic parents give up their parental rights to the child (with a window to take them back).

Really the only case where parental rights can't be abdicated is if after a child is born and the two parties disagree on how to handle the situation then neither party can abdicate parental responsibilty.

So to your above statement the child is not party to any of the above contracts and the above contracts don't consider what is in the best interests of the child.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

No real man would FAIL to support a child he helped bring into the world.

Agreed. I hate to sound like a guest on Maury Povich, but you aren't a "man" if you know you have a kid out there and you refuse to even send a check.

Kind of ironic how this ridiculous thread on how poorly men are treated in this society has devolved (evolved?) into a discussion on how men have the "right" to be a deadbeat.

[GP_Matt]

In both of your examples the child was properly taken care of. With an adoption there are standards that must be met before the adoptive parents can be approved. In the surrogacy case I am not sure what there is for control but again it is an costly procedure so I would imagine that the child is being placed in a situation where they have financial support.

In both cases the child is going into an environment where it is wanted and I would argue that both are going to be in the best interests of the child.
In your third example the child is not wanted by the father and he doesn't want to support it. Having a child brought into the world accidentally isn't a bad thing by itself, but the child should be given every opportunity to succeed. Society has allowed fathers to avoid having contact with children that they created but don't want, but you can't abdicate financial responsibility for your children.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by GGG

I have a few issues with your arguement, firts there is no child only a fetus who will become a child so you aren't denying any child rights when the agreement is made.

So if you go back to the surgacy contracts the genetic parents make a contract with the birth mother for the brith mother to give up the parental rights of the child. This all occurs prior to the birth of the child and without the childs consent. And after the child is born the surrogate has no parental rights.

In an adoption both genetic parents give up their parental rights to the child (with a window to take them back).

Really the only case where parental rights can't be abdicated is if after a child is born and the two parties disagree on how to handle the situation then neither party can abdicate parental responsibilty.

So to your above statement the child is not party to any of the above contracts and the above contracts don't consider what is in the best interests of the child.

Except that once that fetus is born it is a child with rights, and as such needs to be taken care of. It is not society's responsibility to provide for a child that has been conceived by two consenting adults. Whether the mother is making a poor decision is irrelevant to the welfare of the child. Is it fair to the father? Probably not, but it's not like the father is without his fair share of poor decison-making during the conception process.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

No real man would FAIL to support a child he helped bring into the world.

Is it fair? Probably not but life isn't fair.

There is something called "doing the right thing". Suck it up buttercup.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

Come to a debate with something better than "no real man" please. Try a double dog dare, that might work better!

No real woman/man should force someone into an unwanted pregnancy to begin with.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Agreed. I hate to sound like a guest on Maury Povich, but you aren't a "man" if you know you have a kid out there and you refuse to even send a check.

Kind of ironic how this ridiculous thread on how poorly men are treated in this society has devolved (evolved?) into a discussion on how men have the "right" to be a deadbeat.

A "deadbeat" is a man or woman who has agreed to have children and refused later to support them in any way they possibly can.

A "deadbeat" parent is also one who refuses the other parent proper child visitation.

Lets make sure the term "deadbeat" is used correctly here.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Kind of ironic how this ridiculous thread on how poorly men are treated in this society has devolved (evolved?) into a discussion on how men have the "right" to be a deadbeat.

While I haven't really been following the last bit about abortions, it still bothers me that you continue to call the entire thread ridiculous. You haven't experienced any misandry in your life and therefore presume that your experience is the same for the rest of men? I just don't understand how belittling something like this is constantly needed. In every single one of your posts you've made sure to point out that you think it is ridiculous.

Is it on the same level of misogyny? No. Does that mean it doesn't exist or isn't worthy of looking into? No.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

A "deadbeat" is a man or woman who has agreed to have children and refused later to support them in any way they possibly can.

A "deadbeat" parent is also one who refuses the other parent proper child visitation.

Lets make sure the term "deadbeat" is used correctly here.

Thanks, Dr. Webster.

How about the word "loser" then? That better?

A guy who knows he has a kid and refuses to even send a check is a "loser".

If I meet a woman today, tell her I don't want kids, get her pregnant, and then claim no responsibility for that kid, I'm a loser.

If I tell her to get an abortion and that I want no responsibility and follow up on that promise, I'm still a loser.

Maybe you didn't want the kid, you hate his mom, you turned Coke to Pepsi... it's your kid and he/she is out there. If you don't make even the minimum contribution to raising your own children, you are a loser.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by Cain

While I haven't really been following the last bit about abortions, it still bothers me that you continue to call the entire thread ridiculous. You haven't experienced any misandry in your life and therefore presume that your experience is the same for the rest of men? I just don't understand how belittling something like this is constantly needed. In every single one of your posts you've made sure to point out that you think it is ridiculous.

Is it on the same level of misogyny? No. Does that mean it doesn't exist or isn't worthy of looking into? No.

I'm just going to ignore the ridiculous posts from now on myself. He doesn't really have any good input and is basically a troll.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Cain

While I haven't really been following the last bit about abortions, it still bothers me that you continue to call the entire thread ridiculous. You haven't experienced any misandry in your life and therefore presume that your experience is the same for the rest of men? I just don't understand how belittling something like this is constantly needed. In every single one of your posts you've made sure to point out that you think it is ridiculous.

Is it on the same level of misogyny? No. Does that mean it doesn't exist or isn't worthy of looking into? No.

As a white, straight man in Canada, I find the idea that men are the victims of institutionalized discrimination, that we are at some sort of disadvantage, ridiculous.

That's why I call it ridiculous. It is ridiculous.

Do some guys get burned in divorces? In custody battles? In some other ways? I'm sure they do. That sucks.

It doesn't represent an ominous anti-male bias in this society though.

[Cain]

Last I checked, this wasn't only about white, straight men. Might be a problem if you are associating only them.

While there might not be an overwhelming atmosphere of "anti-male" thought, why downplay the fact that it may happen in smaller doses? If it happens at all, it is wrong. If it happens once.

For what its worth, I am on the side of take care of your kid whether or not it was agreed/planned/whatever. Simply because the right to proper care of the child overrides any other in my opinion.

[HPLovecraft]

The thread topic and OP is about misandry being a major problem in society. Not a minor one.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

The thread topic and OP is about misandry being a major problem in society. Not a minor one.

I guess in my mind any amount of misandry or misogyny is a major problem given how...ridiculous...those two things are.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Thanks, Dr. Webster.

How about the word "loser" then? That better?

A guy who knows he has a kid and refuses to even send a check is a "loser".

If I meet a woman today, tell her I don't want kids, get her pregnant, and then claim no responsibility for that kid, I'm a loser.

If I tell her to get an abortion and that I want no responsibility and follow up on that promise, I'm still a loser.

Maybe you didn't want the kid, you hate his mom, you turned Coke to Pepsi... it's your kid and he/she is out there. If you don't make even the minimum contribution to raising your own children, you are a loser.

The thing that blows me away is the whole concept of making the woman raise her kid without financial assistance to "teach her some responsibility." Children aren't sex education tools, they're human beings. They don't subsist on "I told you so's" and comeuppances.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Cain

Last I checked, this wasn't only about white, straight men. Might be a problem if you are associating only them.

It's definitely about straight men. And there's this:

"The Western World has quietly become a civilization that undervalues men and overvalues women, where the state forcibly transfers resources from men to women creating various perverse incentives for otherwise good women to conduct great evil against men and children, and where male nature is vilified but female nature is celebrated."

He then goes on to decry the loss of Randy "Macho Man" Savage.

Now oddly enough, the author isn't named, but my guess is that a white guy wrote that.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Cain

I guess in my mind any amount of misandry or misogyny is a major problem given how...ridiculous...those two things are.

This is kind of splitting hairs at this point, and I do agree with you that any amount of misandry or misogyny is a bad thing, but while misandry or misogyny might be a major problem for an individual, I wouldn't say that necessarily means it's a major problem for society.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Now oddly enough, the author isn't named, but my guess is that a white guy wrote that.

White guys only write things for/about white guys?

Truly I'm not arguing in favor of the original post or his links, rather what the thread evolved into after that (barring most recently). I haven't read the original links in their entirety and honestly barely skimmed. Even if the guy writing is a total nutjob and deserving of much criticism I just disliked seeing that criticism take over every other insight that entered the thread afterwards. I thought there were a few good points where there would be some interesting conversation...but it didn't quite turn out that way.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Agreed. I hate to sound like a guest on Maury Povich, but you aren't a "man" if you know you have a kid out there and you refuse to even send a check.

Kind of ironic how this ridiculous thread on how poorly men are treated in this society has devolved (evolved?) into a discussion on how men have the "right" to be a deadbeat.

Are you willing to argue the corollary that you aren't a real women if you get an abortion? Because its the same concept. This is probably why I keep arguing the point. A women getting an abortion is okay a man abdicating parental responsibility is not. I don't see the difference between the two (barring high risk pregancies and ones resulting from rape/incest)

Where this thread headed was probably my fault but I find the topic interesting. If you are talking about inequality towards men there really are very few areas to talk about. Reproductive rights, lack of support for violence against men and child custody (which is inproving) other than that we got it pretty good an shouldn't be complaining.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

This is kind of splitting hairs at this point, and I do agree with you that any amount of misandry or misogyny is a bad thing, but while misandry or misogyny might be a major problem for an individual, I wouldn't say that necessarily means it's a major problem for society.

Yea, I agree that it probably isn't the biggest issue society faces. I just like to hang out in an idealistic state of mind sometimes (before reality crushes me again) where society would try to fix its small problems as well as large.

Would you say that racism is more of a problem for an individual vs a society though? One issue might be more pervasive than another, I just feel it is a bit unfair to leave one problem at the individual level and elevate another.

I do think we are kind of splitting hairs though, for sure. We should stop, I don't have as many as I'd like left.