The Misandry Bubble

[GGG]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Ethics and morality have very little bearing in the process. Knowing a couple women who have gone through abortions, neither thought it was an ethically preferable option; more that it's a necessary action, regardless of the ethics. I'm all for couples talking through their opinions, viewpoints, and all options available to them. But when a decision needs to be made, it has to be the woman's.

I'm curious to know whether for you, this is really about equality, or about pro-life. Would you say that if a woman wants to carry it to full term, a man should be able to appeal this decision and demand an abortion? If not, then why should a man have the right in the opposite instance?

From an individual rights standpoint after conception both parties should have the right to become parents. Both parties should also have the ability to not become parents. Although this likely isn't in the best interests of society.

However given the women is carrying the fetus her choice of aborting the fetus probably should be left to her (though I am anti-abortion I acknowledge that it does prevent harm overall because it isn't underground). So really the Man's choice to become a parent will likely never happen.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by GGG

Between the time of conception and birth a women can decide not to have the responsibilities of being a parent. A man cannot. This is in the best interests of society but it is fundementally unequal

And as stated before the correlary is that if the man wished to be a parent he does not have that choice. (this time in the best interests of the indvidual rather than of society)

So reproductive law from the time the time of conception until the time of birth is unequal. A man cannnot opt out of financial responsibilities of being a birth father a women can.

IMO, there are the following three distinct rights involved in this difficult equation:
1. The right of a woman to control what goes on in her own body.
2. The right of the fetus to life.
3. The right of both parents to protect their own genetic material.

It's important to remember that #1 and #3 are different rights, even in the case of the mother. I think a really useful example to look at is surrogacy, where you have four parties involved: the surrogate mother, the biological mother, the biological father, and the fetus. The rights of the fetus are really for the pro-life/pro-choice debate, and so don't belong in this discussion, IMO.

My understanding is that if either the parents or the surrogate wish to abort, this voids the surrogacy contract. But the decision to abort still ultimately lies with the surrogate; the biological parents cannot force her to abort against her will, but they can remove themselves from the contract. The rights of the woman to control what happens in her body outweighs the rights of the parents to protect/destroy their genetic material, regardless of whether the parent is the mother or father.

So, that said, do you think that parental rights are more important than the right of a woman to dictate what goes on in her body? Do you think that in surrogacy cases, the parents should be allowed to force a surrogate to abort?

What it all comes down to is that it's not a case of a woman has parental rights and a man does not. They both have equal parental rights, but the woman has distinct additional rights unrelated to the parental rights, simply by these activities going on in her body.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

"Second hand but true" no doubt. Sounds like a scene from Planet of the Apes.

Luckily "The Man" was there to stop it in time.

I don't want to use his name. I don't have permission to use it and I will respect that.

Your comments lack any respect.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

The dark underlying sexism is probably the ugliest part of the CP community.

Where is the sexism?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by octothorp

IMO, there are the following three distinct rights involved in this difficult equation:
1. The right of a woman to control what goes on in her own body.
2. The right of the fetus to life.
3. The right of both parents to protect their own genetic material.

It's important to remember that #1 and #3 are different rights, even in the case of the mother. I think a really useful example to look at is surrogacy, where you have four parties involved: the surrogate mother, the biological mother, the biological father, and the fetus. The rights of the fetus are really for the pro-life/pro-choice debate, and so don't belong in this discussion, IMO.

My understanding is that if either the parents or the surrogate wish to abort, this voids the surrogacy contract. But the decision to abort still ultimately lies with the surrogate; the biological parents cannot force her to abort against her will, but they can remove themselves from the contract. The rights of the woman to control what happens in her body outweighs the rights of the parents to protect/destroy their genetic material, regardless of whether the parent is the mother or father.

So, that said, do you think that parental rights are more important than the right of a woman to dictate what goes on in her body? Do you think that in surrogacy cases, the parents should be allowed to force a surrogate to abort?

What it all comes down to is that it's not a case of a woman has parental rights and a man does not. They both have equal parental rights, but the woman has distinct additional rights unrelated to the parental rights, simply by these activities going on in her body.

One correction on surrogacy, if the genetic parents wish to abort and the surrogate decides to keep the child it can depending on the contract trigger child support payments to the surrogate to raise the child.

I agree that the womens right to do what she wants needs to be maintained in order to ensure their health as much as i disagree with abortion and this supercedes the mans right to be a parent as unfortunate as these situations are i dont see a better way of handling it

I disagree that they have the same parental rights. Aborting a fetus excercises both a parental right ( the choice to be a parent) and a personal right ( the right to choose ones own health outcomes ). The law could easily accomodate equal rights on a mans choice to become a parent with a short opt out period after being notified of the pregnancy. This way a women woukd be able to make her parental choice as well with all relavant information. This would provide equal rights but likely is not in the best interests of society

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Men's shelters will never get equal funding in Canada, and nor should they, so long as women get murdered in domestic disputes at three times the rate men do.

I think it's wrong men's shelters get no funding (apparently women's shelters are supposed to handle some of the burden, though I doubt they do much in practice), but I also wonder if the type of treatment women get in these situations is the same as what men need. How many men actually go to these shelters? Are there statistics on this? Perhaps a different type of treatment would be more effective?

The statistics and studies done on this are so rudimentary that it's ridiculous that you've already concluded men's shelters deserve the exact same funding as women's. The fact that you don't take into account the severity of different types of domestic violence, and only look at the rate of domestic violence unqualified, betrays an oversimplified way of looking at this.

Wow... Men get zero funding. No funding. No place to go for there kids or themselves if she is abusive. It happens just as often.

How can there be statistics if there are no shelters? There is only one shelter for men and that has never received funding. There is no money to inform others that there is a shelter. I've been working to get the information out there over the last three months. The only society in Calgary that is trying to get funding to help Men with or without children was excluded in the discussion at the "Calgary Domestic Violence Collective".

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by TheGrimm

Sorry to pick at your comment again Witty, but I disagree here. I get that a woman has risks and undergoes stresses and changes carrying a baby to term, however I disagree that this entitles you to have the sole decision on whether to terminate a pregnancy.

A woman has a choice whether to have sex, she, just like the man, should understand that one potential "side effect" of that little act is pregnancy. Once conception occurs, I don't see how the guys opinion should have zero weight. Regardless of whether he can carry the fetus to term, he has as much invested into the process from an ethics an morality standpoint as the woman does.

It's a touchy subject though, as each case is very different, I don't believe the current system is flexible enough for this type of situation, but I do believe there should be an avenue for a man to "appeal" an abortion.

Here's the thing, if the woman is in a committed relationship, and there is an unwanted pregnancy, I would imagine most women would discuss this with their partner. If the pregnancy comes from a sexual encounter of a casual nature, how often does the guy want to raise that child? Honestly? If he's having casual sex with a girl, he's probably as unlikely to want to raise that child as she is. I just feel like this argument is a very, very rare occurrence used only for the sake of argument. How often is this honestly an issue?

Originally Posted by woob

Haha, I was going to call her out on that too but you beat me to it.

Also, to provide an opposing view to your 8/10 wife example, witty: How many times in a movie where some shy girl pines after a guy, is he an average joe skinny dude? Typically, he's some jocky football player stud or what not. The angle goes both ways in Hollywood.

I'll take back the reference to Ross, it was a poor way to say things, and I apologize. I see your point on that, but also, that "shy" girl, the "unattractive/nerdy" girl that they use in those movies, is she ever actually unattractive? In general, they're very attractive girls who get put in ill-fitting clothes with bad hair and glasses to make them look less attractive than they actually are. Are they ever honestly average looking girls? And what do they have to do to get the guy? Get a makeover so they're acceptably "hot," and then the jock looks at them differently.

Show me five examples of movies/tv shows where a girl who was bigger than a size 6 or less than an 8 on the hot scale who nabbed the "hot" guy?

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Purity? A woman is considered a tease if she leads a man on and indicates she will sleep with him, but does not follow through. A tease is not when a woman simply says no.
If said woman sleeps with the man shortly after meeting him at a bar (is not a challenge) than he will most likely put her into the short term category, and rightly so. It's a trust thing.

The pay gap is a myth. Women get paid less because they choose certain professions and work less hours. In the 20-30 age range, women are actually starting to make more money than the men.

-Who has no reproductive rights?
-Who is constantly told to "get over it" when someone offends them? - this can apply to both sexes
-Who experiences more workplace fatalities/injuries? That's not equal!
-Who gets favourable treatment in the divorce court/custody arrangements?

But if a man sleeps with multiple partners, does that affect his "long term" prospects from women? Men are not in any way held up to the same ridiculous "purity" standards as are women.

Originally Posted by Cain

Just wanted to take a little issue with both statements. I don't disagree with everything you said, but I think these two points deserve a bit.

Men are used as visual stimulation a fair amount. Most actors have quite a bit of sex appeal just like their actress counterparts. I agree that this happens more with women for sure, but let's not pretend it only goes one way.

As for you only have the right to say that sexism doesn't exist if you have a vagina...I hope you were just getting a little worked up with the end bit because that doesn't make sense at all. Sexism clearly goes both ways. Women are victimized by parts of it, and men are victimized by others. It isn't a perfect 50-50 split, very few things are in this world. But it also isn't a game of who has more instances and examples to prove that they are more hard done by either....it should be a collaborative effort on both parts to show where things need to change and work together to change them. It shouldn't be women vs men, or men vs women....This is the part that drives me nuts.

Sexism debates and topics always devolve into a competition to show which sex has the tougher time when really...who cares? Instead of arguing endlessly about poor me, why not take issues from both sides as they come up and try to fix them? The pissing contest solves nothing, and those people who dismiss one side because one side has it "worse" are just as bad.

I would just love to know, as a count, how many people in this topic are men, and how many are women. My point with that is that if you are not a woman, you do not know what women deal with. Of course men have some issues to deal with as well, but it's not nearly as widespread as what women deal with. Men claiming misandry is basically as ridiculous to me as a white person claiming reverse racism.

Men are just in recent times being objectified the way that women have been objectified for centuries. Is it right? No, but now men are realizing what women have dealt with for ages, and realizing how much it sucks.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Here's the thing, if the woman is in a committed relationship, and there is an unwanted pregnancy, I would imagine most women would discuss this with their partner. If the pregnancy comes from a sexual encounter of a casual nature, how often does the guy want to raise that child? Honestly? If he's having casual sex with a girl, he's probably as unlikely to want to raise that child as she is. I just feel like this argument is a very, very rare occurrence used only for the sake of argument. How often is this honestly

A case i am aware of was during a divorce the women got pregnant and aborted the child when the father wanted the baby. Likely a rare occurance but disgusting when it happens.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

I don't want to use his name. I don't have permission to use it and I will respect that.

I don't care what his name is, if he even exists, and that's beside the point.

Your anecdotes, including the silly one I quoted, don't prove anything. Neither do your repeated use of unverified (and actually proven wrong in at least one instance) statistics.

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Your comments lack any respect.

True.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't care what his name is, if he even exists, and that's beside the point.

Your anecdotes, including the silly one I quoted, don't prove anything. Neither do your repeated use of unverified (and actually proven wrong in at least one instance) statistics.



True.

No I'm waiting for confirmation of the information I posted. I thought this was clear, but I guess some people can't read or choose to post/comment on just what they want.

The ignorance and bullying/belittling that you feel you need to do is pathetic.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by GGG

One correction on surrogacy, if the genetic parents wish to abort and the surrogate decides to keep the child it can depending on the contract trigger child support payments to the surrogate to raise the child.

I agree that the womens right to do what she wants needs to be maintained in order to ensure their health as much as i disagree with abortion and this supercedes the mans right to be a parent as unfortunate as these situations are i dont see a better way of handling it

I disagree that they have the same parental rights. Aborting a fetus excercises both a parental right ( the choice to be a parent) and a personal right ( the right to choose ones own health outcomes ). The law could easily accomodate equal rights on a mans choice to become a parent with a short opt out period after being notified of the pregnancy. This way a women woukd be able to make her parental choice as well with all relavant information. This would provide equal rights but likely is not in the best interests of society

Good point about the child payments for surrogacy... it does depend on the individual contracts though. I think we're in agreement that these rights form a complex and difficult situation. We're unlikely to reach agreement on how all rights can be effectively balanced, but I can understand your perspective here. I do appreciate you debating it though in a thorough and upfront manner, though.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by GGG

A case i am aware of was during a divorce the women got pregnant and aborted the child when the father wanted the baby. Likely a rare occurance but disgusting when it happens.

An awful case, yes, and likely motivated at least somewhat by revenge, but a rare case. Far more often the father will want nothing to do with a child unless it was planned in a committed relationship.

And for those who questioned ways that men and women are not equal--I'm not sure how things are in Canada, obviously, but the gap in the US is evident and harmful. Have some stats and graphs with real hard facts.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu..._poverty.html/

Women are paid less than men, even when they have the same qualifications and work the same hours. Women who work full time earn only 77 percent of what men make—a 22 percent gap in average annual wages. Discrimination, not lack of training or education, is largely the cause of the wage gap. Even with the same qualifications, women earn less than men. In 2007, full time, year round female workers aged 25 to 32 with a bachelor's degree were paid 14 percent less than men.

A bit dated, to be sure, but these problems haven't been solved in 4 short years.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

And for those who questioned ways that men and women are not equal--I'm not sure how things are in Canada, obviously, but the gap in the US is evident and harmful. Have some stats and graphs with real hard facts.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu..._poverty.html/

A bit dated, to be sure, but these problems haven't been solved in 4 short years.

One thing I have found is that a lot of these stats/studies don't account for is maternity leave.

Example: Male employee X and Female employee Y start at a job at the same time, same degree, same experience, same wage. They work for 5 years, and then Y goes on maternity leave for 2 years. X continues to work. When Y returns, X is making more, because X now has 7 years experience, Y only has 5, and while she is guaranteed her position, she is not entitled to be spotted experience and raises that she didnt put in time for. However, its all too often reported as both X and Y have been employed for 7 years, and X makes more.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by GGG

A case i am aware of was during a divorce the women got pregnant and aborted the child when the father wanted the baby. Likely a rare occurance but disgusting when it happens.

What possible practical way would there be for a man to have an equal say in this matter? Are you really suggesting that women be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against their will?

Biology dictates that the woman has the final say in this matter and there's really nothing anyone can do about it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

An awful case, yes, and likely motivated at least somewhat by revenge, but a rare case. Far more often the father will want nothing to do with a child unless it was planned in a committed relationship.

And for those who questioned ways that men and women are not equal--I'm not sure how things are in Canada, obviously, but the gap in the US is evident and harmful. Have some stats and graphs with real hard facts.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu..._poverty.html/

A bit dated, to be sure, but these problems haven't been solved in 4 short years.

The Canadian data i have close at hand is the APEGA salary survey for Engineers in alberta, a male dominated field

http://www.apega.ca/pdf/SalarySurvey/VPS2011.pdf

Starting at page 50 you can look at Gender Pay Disparity. There conclusion is as follows:

A more comprehensive analysis by professional designation and level of responsibility can be found in figures 8 through 10, as it reveals a general overall parity in salaries. The disparity in salaries becomes apparent at responsibility level E and there is a greater discrepancy between male and female salaries in both Engineering and Geology within the F and F+ levels. Figures 8 through 10 display(s) this information graphically, while Table 20 does so in tabular form.

E level is senior management 20 plus years experience and covers a wide range of roles and pay levels. I would argue that the disparity in the senior positions is due to discrimination over the past 20 years as women were past over for promotions early in their career and so that has carried through to now.

The positive part of these statistics is that up to the senior engineering level pay is statiscally equal. This has been more or less true since apegga stared posting gender data in 2004. As more boomers retire the number of women in senior positions should start better reflecting the totals in the industry

[GGG]

Originally Posted by opendoor

What possible practical way would there be for a man to have an equal say in this matter? Are you really suggesting that women be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against their will?

Biology dictates that the woman has the final say in this matter and there's really nothing anyone can do about it.

No i havent suggested that, in fact if you have read my posts you would see that despite being anti abortion i understand that in order to protect womens health they need to have control. However this thread is about inequality and in terms of reproductive rights men do not have the rights that women do. And that because of this inequality some men go through a great deal of suffering as a result. I dont think their is a good way to fix other than expecting people to behave with empathy to one another which unfortuately doesnt alway happen

[Cain]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

I would just love to know, as a count, how many people in this topic are men, and how many are women. My point with that is that if you are not a woman, you do not know what women deal with. Of course men have some issues to deal with as well, but it's not nearly as widespread as what women deal with. Men claiming misandry is basically as ridiculous to me as a white person claiming reverse racism.

Men are just in recent times being objectified the way that women have been objectified for centuries. Is it right? No, but now men are realizing what women have dealt with for ages, and realizing how much it sucks.

Well then, with respect, you don't have a penis so you have no idea how widespread male issues are. It works both ways. I don't think it is a productive aim to go about tallying every little thing and putting it into our respective "victim" jar either when we can always team up and tackle one issue at a time.

And just because you don't see misandry doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Racism against whites happens as well. You think it is ridiculous...thats fine, Still happens, and even if it is not as abundant as other forms it is no less wrong and should be corrected.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

That is a fair metric to use and it makes sense.

The same metric should be used for prostate cancer and breast cancer research funding too but prostate cancer gets less than half. This is our fault as men for being silent.

"Prostate cancer will be diagnosed in more than 22 000 Canadian men this year. Breast cancer will be diagnosed in more than 22 000 Canadian women this year. Currently, 1 in 8 Canadian men is expected to be diagnosed with prostate cancer during his lifetime; 1 in 27 will die from the disease. 1 One in 9 Canadian women is expected to be diagnosed with breast cancer during her lifetime; 1 in 27 will die of it."

Excellent Point! I'm sorry I missed it!

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Wow... Men get zero funding. No funding. No place to go for there kids or themselves if she is abusive. It happens just as often.

How can there be statistics if there are no shelters? There is only one shelter for men and that has never received funding. There is no money to inform others that there is a shelter. I've been working to get the information out there over the last three months. The only society in Calgary that is trying to get funding to help Men with or without children was excluded in the discussion at the "Calgary Domestic Violence Collective".

Wow what? What did I say that is outrageous? If you read the rest of what I posted I said there should be government funding for men's shelters (or at least temporary funding for a few while studies are made to determine if this is even the proper means of help for men, which I'm not entirely convinced it is). You seem to just want "equal funding" because the girls get it, but that's not how it works. When women are far more likely to suffer serious physical violence from domestic abuse -- including three times as likely to die as a result -- they should and will get more funding.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Wow what? What did I say that is outrageous? If you read the rest of what I posted I said there should be government funding for men's shelters (or at least temporary funding for a few while studies are made to determine if this is even the proper means of help for men, which I'm not entirely convinced it is). You seem to just want "equal funding" because the girls get it, but that's not how it works. When women are far more likely to suffer serious physical violence from domestic abuse -- including three times as likely to die as a result -- they should and will get more funding.

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm


Mercy, J. A., & Saltzman, L. E. (1989). Fatal violence among spouses in the United States, 1975-85. American Journal of Public Health, 79, 595-599. (Examined FBI figures regarding spousal homicides. During the 10 year period from 1975 to 1985 found higher murder rates of wives than husbands <43.4% vs 56.6%>. Black husbands were at the greatest risk of victimization. Spousal homicide among blacks was 8.4 times higher than that of whites. Spouse homicide rates were 7.7 times higher in interracial marriages and the risk of victimization for both whites and blacks increased as age differences between spouses increased. Wives and husbands were equally likely to be killed by firearms <approximately 72% of the time> while husbands were more likely to be stabbed and wives more likely to bludgeoned to death. Arguments apparently escalated to murder in 67% of spouse homicides.)

Wilson, M. I. & Daley, M. (1992). Who kills whom in spouse killings? On the exceptional sex ratio of spousal homicides in the United States. Criminology, 30, 189-215. (Authors summarize research which indicates that between 1976 and 1985, for every 100 men who killed their wives, about 75 women killed their husbands. Authors report original data from a number of cities, e.g., Chicago, Detroit, Houston, where the ratio of wives as perpetrators exceeds that of husbands.)

Most recent study.

Davis. R. L. (2010). Domestic Violence-related deaths. Journal of Aggression, Conflict, and Peace Research, 2 (2), 44-52. (A review article which examines domestic violence-related suicides. Author concludes that "when domestic violence-related suicides are combined with domestic homicides, the total numbers of domestic violence-related deaths are higher for males than females.")

This is what I have found myself. I'm still waiting to hear back from my requests yesterday morning. These, while they are in the USA certainly describe a distinct need for aid for men where it currently does not exist. I havn't been able to find a domestic violence shelter for men in the USA as well.