This should be an SNL skit, not real politics. (x-post from /r/atheism) : MensRights

/r/MensRights
/r/MensRightsMeta
/r/MRSelfPostCopies

/r/MensRightsLinks	/r/MRRef
/r/MensRightsLaw	/r/MRActivism
/r/LadyMRAs	/r/FeMRA

/r/egalitarianism	/r/Masculism
/r/Daddit	/r/intactivists
/r/SuicideWatch	/r/NOMAAM

[–]tuktu 109 points110 points111 points 2 months ago

permalink

[–]redjedi182 37 points38 points39 points 2 months ago

[–]tuktu 30 points31 points32 points 2 months ago

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 2 months ago*

[–]tuktu 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago

Yes, it's fair if people disagree in terms of what they believe is the root or whatever of different disadvantages unfairly given to men and women. I get that MRAs don't think it's specifically patriarchy and misogyny, whereas feminists do. But they are still all going for the same thing. I get that each group will have some push and shove that the other group doesn't agree with, because of such different perspectives. But the way MRAs completely demonize anything that remotely has to do with feminist goals -- even just by virtue of defending against real misogyny without any other reference to feminist principals that you might disagree with -- is really disheartening. Are you so concerned with your rights that you don't give a hoot about mine? Isn't the whole criticism that feminists are too focused on their own issues and ignore men's, ignore their own privileges? So why do that too?

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 2 months ago

[–]tuktu 3 points4 points5 points 2 months ago*

I am completely accepting of women wanting their rights, but I want mine too.

Okay, so what I'm saying here is that this post is an example of MRAs completely dismissing an issue simply because it specifically has to do with women's rights. They degrade the person involved by using dismissive language and complain that health is a men's right issue too. Yes, it is! But the horrifically misogynistic legislation in the states is still a problem, so what's their point?

but many of the radical ones can change laws, etc

I don't see the truth in that, please expand if you feel like it.

But do consider this, isn't what you're saying about the MRM the same thing feminism is doing to us?

Yes, and they should both stop it. Just because some mean feminists dismiss men's problems doesn't suddenly make it okay that men want to just sweep misogynistic legislation under the rug and roll their eyes at the "feminist agenda." Women are still heavily discriminated against, evidently. That doesn't mean men aren't, but there is absolutely no sense in just saying "but men have problems too!" and dismissing an actual, bona fide women's issue.

EDIT: As an addendum, most feminists only have any experience with MRAs in the context of trying to discuss an issue where they think there is male privilege / misogyny at work, and an MRA bursts in and tells them that their opinions are wrong, calls them feminazis and just dismisses all of their issues. As people who already feel dismissed and belittled, they do not take it well, and get defensive. Until I came to /r/mensrights I literally had no idea that any MRAs were actually anything other than guys who think that there is no misogyny in the western world and that feminists are "feminazis" who need to shut up. I still see those people here, but imagine my surprise when many of the posts are actually logical discussions of issues that hurt men. I can't speak for everybody, but many feminists do not know you guys are capable of that because they are never shown it. I came here only reluctantly at first, expecting to feel hurt, degraded and dismissed. If someone calmly explains why they don't think the wage gap is truly a women's rights issue, I am not hurt, degraded or dismissed. If people actually calmly explained and also showed they were listening, when they try to barge into discussions between people who have all experienced the same persecutions or whatever, I think it would go a lot better for all of you.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago

But the horrifically misogynistic legislation in the states is still a problem, so what's their point?

Actually, most MR people are completely for abortion. Those that aren't having nothing against women, but rather want to save babies. It's how they see it, and despite what many people say, it isn't they want to control women, but rather want to save a baby, as to them, it is alive. I don't agree at all, but that's their view of abortion.

But the part that bothers us is that this form of politics is completely childish. I don't think things like this belong in Congress, even for the "comparison" factor. We understand it is a problem, and support women/are against these ridiculous bills, but making things like this one isn't the right way to approach it.

I don't see the truth in that, please expand if you feel like it.

I'll just be honest, I really don't feel like it right now.

Yes, and they should both stop it. Just because some mean feminists dismiss men's problems doesn't suddenly make it okay that men want to just sweep misogynistic legislation under the rug and roll their eyes at the "feminist agenda."

We don't. We don't like bills like this being passed though, because it is completely childish. We are for abortion/against these bills just like you are. But making bills "If women can't have this, then men can't have that!" is not something that belongs in Congress. In fact, men actually have no rights when it comes to abortion, and I want to also see women supporting things like a financial abortion if the man doesn't want to become a father (gives up all rights to the child, but doesn't have to pay child support. It takes place in the time frame a woman can abort.) Both should have rights, and the majority of MRAs feel that.

Women are still heavily discriminated against, evidently. That doesn't mean men aren't, but there is absolutely no sense in just saying "but men have problems too!" and dismissing an actual, bona fide women's issue.

We understand women are discriminated against, but just want it to be acknowledged here too. But this case isn't that they are pushing this women's issue under the rug. It is that we feel "reaction" laws have no place in congress. We are against these invasive bills, but that doesn't mean we have to support invasive bills against us to "give some perspective." We aren't for these bills, so we don't want ones to be made that invade our rights too. We show our opposition to these bills, and do not just brush them by the side. They are wrong, but making a reaction bill like the one in the picture is wrong too.

[–]tuktu 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago

Thank you for your reply. It's cool if you don't feel like expanding, I'm actually feeling guilty for slacking off at work to have this discussion, myself.

I can understand why it would seem childish. I guess it doesn't seem particularly childish to me because, being from outside the US, the whole political game seems a bit like a cartoon, so this seems to fit right in. But I can understand.

In fact, men actually have no rights when it comes to abortion, and I want to also see women supporting things like a financial abortion if the man doesn't want to become a father (gives up all rights to the child, but doesn't have to pay child support. It takes place in the time frame a woman can abort.)

I agree here. I think maybe a man should be able to make a choice whether to sign (with witnesses) a consent to parenthood form either just before or during the pregnancy, or something -- this is totally just speculation, but an idea on how there could be a consent paper-trail. If he doesn't sign it for whatever reason (doesn't know she's preg, doesn't want to, whatever) he then has the right to deny any/all obligations to the child.

You are free to reply to me further and I might reply back after a couple of days, but for now I need to get some work done.

[–]sixofthebest -2 points-1 points0 points 2 months ago

[–]tuktu 7 points8 points9 points 2 months ago

[–]sixofthebest 2 points3 points4 points 2 months ago

[–]Chamoflage 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago

[–]oneiorosgrip 12 points13 points14 points 2 months ago

The fallacy of Sen. Johnson's intended point is that she is equating semen, a biological product which is not genetically unique from its producer, and which is routinely "wasted" by the body's natural processes (as by design the vast majority of created sperm do not ever complete their functional process even under ideal conditions, but simply die) to a genetically unique living human organism possessing all of the characteristics of life, which is not routinely "wasted" by the body's natural processes (as by design, the vast majority of zygotes grow and develop through the entire human life cycle under even poor conditions, more so under good or ideal conditions.)

She really needs to make a more genuine comparison if she wants to use parody as an illustration of her intended point.

[–]mattgruff 2 points3 points4 points 2 months ago

Not really here to argue with you. I don't care about changing a persons mind on any subject let alone this particular one. My view on abortion is not nearly as well thought out as yours. I simply just don't care about the issue and weather someone does it or not.
I would like to know your view on in vitro fertilization though. As you seem to take the concept that this life form is uniquely human and will never be anything but human as reason to safeguard it. As you probably know multiple eggs are cultivated and inseminated during the procedure. Those eggs are then cultured well into the blastocyst stage. Therefore they are something uniquely human and will never be anything but. Still, these embryo are judged based on various criteria and the best ones then transferred while the others are (in some cases) destroyed. How do you feel about this practice? Should these then be safe guarded? Should embryo donation be compulsory?

[–]oneiorosgrip 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago

[–]mattgruff 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago

[–]DBi 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago

[–]oneiorosgrip 5 points6 points7 points 2 months ago

I concede to you a partial point. Use of "the vast majority" retracted. However, the physical goal of the manufacture of sperm is not concluded within the male body. Zero sperm cells don't develop into zygotes and beyond inside a man's body. The physical purpose of the sperm cannot be achieved without the genetic contribution of another individual, while the zygote has all ready been through that process and is genetically complete.

Further, sperm does not pass 100% of the conditions laid out in this essay on the fully fertilized zygote being a unique, individual living human organism. Unlike a baby from the zygote stage on, sperm actually is "just cells." So, while I concede the nitpick point, I maintain that the comparison is invalid because it relies on placing equal value on unequal factors. Further, there is not an equal factor on which to base such a comparison. The Senator's facetious assertion is of no merit and does not have a point worth noting in abortion debate.

*edit - lost a word.

[+]DBi comment score below threshold (61 children)

[–]oneiorosgrip 3 points4 points5 points 2 months ago*

Your argument presumes to justify killing on the basis of dependence. That argument, taken to its literal and logical end, can also be applied to babies, small children, and the disabled, as was done prior to what is thought of as the beginning of the Holocaust in Germany. (I consider that time period to be part of the holocaust due to that fact.) Aside from that, your argument is an example of a type of faulty logic called the Anchoring Effect. By making the factors upon which you judge the value of an item arbitrary, you are able to alter your perception of the value of that item independently of its actual value.

You are actually employing this twice. First, for the choice to equate a complete human organism with a sperm cell, you are changing the factor from the basic, tangible factors which define the zygote (the state of being a living thing, the state of being of the species homo sapiens, and the state of being an independent organism rather than a part or production of a single body) versus the sperm, to the subjective factor of "potential." In doing so, you have not proved that a zygote and a sperm are the same. You have merely demonstrated a willingness to move your anchor so as to enable you to ignore differences between the two (selective thinking,) thereby excusing your choice to perceive them as such.

Second, you are choosing to judge the value of a concept (human life) based on a subjective basis (level of dependence.) This allows you, instead of determining in your mind whether killing is justified, to arbitrarily move your standard of acceptance to change whether you view the act of destroying a unique, individual living human organism as killing. Basically, in order to support your views on abortion, you have argued that it is acceptable for humans to kill the weak and the helpless. Instead of logically proving that human life has less value due to the state of being helpless, you merely demonstrate how you rationalized and compromised in order to convince yourself.

[–]DBi -2 points-1 points0 points 2 months ago*

When did I make an argument for abortion? I am simply trying to point out that your distinctions are pointless, a zygote should not be imposed on anyone and you have given no reason for me to think otherwise, that is the sum of my arguments. Being unique is not by nature a desirable value so I fail to see how that supports your stance.

Also by what reasoning do you call a zygote a living thing but not sperm/eggs? And I did not equate sperm with a complete human I just don't think the differences between sperm/eggs and zygotes merit special moral consideration.

The only part of the post I initially objected to was your claim that zygotes are by design meant to live, this statement clearly had no objective basis in fact, and it was also a heavily biased claim to make in the first place.

And it is not simply level of dependence I am using to judge, it is biological dependence. A zygote cannot go without it's host(currently) anyways and while I'm sure someone could find find a new host for it eventually, why should an individual be forced to wait with the zygote remaining in it's place?

EDIT: A baby can be moved to a new host with some guarantee that a new host will be found. Sperm/eggs/zygotes these have not usually been seen valuable enough on there own to merit that kind of consideration, at most you can say it is the donors of these things that have value with some of that value being impressed illogically on these small very dependent things.

[–]oneiorosgrip 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago

[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago

[–]oneiorosgrip -1 points0 points1 point 2 months ago

continue this thread

[–]DBi -2 points-1 points0 points 2 months ago

Biological dependence survives of the use of a hosts own body, other forms of dependence do this as well but they cannot be tied to someone the way a zygote(or an embryo) can. What I am saying is taking a family member into your home can usually be quickly reversed, letting a zygote remain can however be harder to reverse. If you honestly cannot understand the distinctions I am making then there is little we can do for one another.

A zygote implanting is not a conscious choice therefore if it where grow then implant and there was no way to remove it, it would be forced upon it's host. And I have not once moved my anchor. I have been very clear and consistent in my distinctions your continued insistence that I have is coming off as petty to me.

You've said this multiple times but on what basis do you call my distinction of biological dependence arbitrary? It's has clear differences in concept, and consequence when compared to normal human dependency.

Further, sperm does not pass 100% of the conditions laid out in this essay on the fully fertilized zygote being a unique, individual living human organism. Unlike a baby from the zygote stage on, sperm actually is "just cells." So, while I concede the nitpick point, I maintain that the comparison is invalid because it relies on placing equal value on unequal factors. Further, there is not an equal factor on which to base such a comparison. The Senator's facetious assertion is of no merit and does not have a point worth noting in abortion debate.

[–]oneiorosgrip -1 points0 points1 point 2 months ago

You are confusing understanding with acceptance.

I understand what you are saying. I do not accept it as a valid excuse for killing.

Your suggestion that a cell formed inside the body is forced upon the body if the individual is not allowed to remove it is a misuse of the word forced. By the time you get to permission, it's all ready there. That is not an act of force. That argument is the use of hyperbole instead of an actual point to appeal on an emotional basis, also not an acceptable excuse to kill.

Your distinction of biological dependence is an arbitrary point because it argues in favor of killing on the basis of a characteristic which can be applied to multiple circumstances - dependence. It sets your personal anchor at a lower standard of protection for human life than is used in determining the choice to kill under other circumstances. If accepted, it sets the precedent for continuing to slide that anchor along that path (such as deciding to kill dialysis and/or transplant patients, who also possess the characteristic of biological dependence for survival,) as it really provides nothing to stop it. There is no reason why biological dependence should be any more of a determining factor that financial, emotional, or psychological dependence.

You're not presenting an argument that reduces the value of the life of an unborn baby at any stage. All you are doing is explaining how you have convinced yourself to value that life less.

On a side note, as I was reminded today, a zygote does not implant. By the time the baby implants it is at a multcellular stage (blastocyst.)

continue this thread

[–][deleted] 2 months ago

[–]oneiorosgrip 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago*

[–][deleted] 2 months ago

[–]oneiorosgrip 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago

[+]DBi comment score below threshold (18 children)

[–]tuktu -2 points-1 points0 points 2 months ago

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago

[–]tuktu 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago

[–]tuktu -3 points-2 points-1 points 2 months ago

I think the point is fair, because she's demonstrating a (faux) want to control men's sexual habits and reproductive choices. I get that sperm is a little less "valuable" than a zygote or fetus but as men cannot be pregnant there can be no direct comparison. What 'more genuine' comparison would you suggest? Does the fact there is no genuine comparison mean that you think legal abortion is giving a sexist privilege towards women because there is no male equivalent, and therefore it should be illegal in a truly egalitarian society? Males and females should be treated equally as much as possible, but the bottom line is that our bodies do different things. There is no male equivalent to carrying a developing fetus for 9 months and suffering the consequences of what your body goes through, followed by childbirth.

[–]typhonblue 5 points6 points7 points 2 months ago

[–]exaliftin 2 points3 points4 points 2 months ago

The sexist part isn't just that the man has no say about what happens to the baby. I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that a man should get to make the decision on whether or not the baby gets to be carried to full term.

The sexism comes when people demand responsibility from men for a choice they didn't make by enforcing child support. To that you would probably respond with something like, "well he made the choice to have sex." That's true, but remember that consent to sex is not consent to parenthood for women, so it shouldn't be different for men.

The term "male abortion" encompasses the termination of the father's rights and responsibilities to the child and has been coined over a decade ago. That is a much more fair comparison, but women don't often use it because they don't want to know that this could even be an option and give up their privilege of being able to trap men into servitude.

[–]tuktu -3 points-2 points-1 points 2 months ago

[–]oneiorosgrip 2 points3 points4 points 2 months ago

[–]tuktu 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago

[–]oneiorosgrip 3 points4 points5 points 2 months ago

First, I must point out that we have jumped topics here. The original argument - that Sen. Johnson's comparison is illegitimate - stands unchallenged, as it has not been successfully contradicted.

To address your most recent statement: Pro-life assertions are not the argument that the baby has greater rights. They are the assertion that the mother does not have greater rights. The mother's right to the pursuit of happiness - the base reason behind the majority of abortions done for birth control purposes - is not greater than the baby's right to life. In order to assert that the mother's rights justify abortion, you must prove that her rights outweigh the rights of the baby.

Circumventing or ignoring that requirement would necessitate mislabeling the refusal allow action to be taken to affect change upon a naturally occurring condition (pregnancy) as an act of inflicting that condition upon the body in which it all ready exists, while simultaneously denying that the choice to impose a change - ending another naturally occurring condition (being alive) would be an act of inflicting a condition (death) upon the body in which the change would take place. As such, assertions which do not assign greater rights to the mother than are assigned to the baby are invalid arguments.

[–]tuktu -1 points0 points1 point 2 months ago

Yeah we have jumped topics. What comparison would you suggest that is legitimate? My argument is that the fact there is no legitimate comparison -- because men cannot get pregnant -- does absolutely nothing to further a pro-life (NOR pro choice) agenda. It's almost irrelevant. The situation only occurs in women.

It isn't just happiness, though. Pregnancy is a difficult and risky situation that lasts 9 months, followed by the most painful natural process known to humankind (besides perhaps kidney stones and cluster headaches but those are not 'intentional'). To force a woman to go through that is not just to make her feel a little sad and pissed, it is 9 months of torture. I think the right for a woman to not endure 9 months of torture and also the risks associated with pregnancy does trump the 'rights' of something that has not even been born and is not viable outside the womb of the woman hosting it.

I'm sorry, the meaning of your second paragraph is escaping me. I don't know if I've just been redditing too long or if the wording really is very confusing.

[–]oneiorosgrip 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago

There is not and cannot be a legitimate comparison for the simple reason that the unborn baby is a unique (from the host) living human organism.

To address your latter argument, despite the emotional appeal of your argument, you still do not demonstrate an equality of status - you are still weighing the condition of life-over-death against conditions which exist within life as an excuse to kill a living human being.

Breaking your argument down to its basic nature, it is the assertion that it is okay for one human organism to kill another if the organism doing the killing finds organism being killed to be a source of unhappiness. You are still arguing that the right to something not as basic as life outweighs the right to life.

Your last argument, broken down to its basic nature, asserts that the rights of victims who are helpless may be marginalized or dismissed.

None of what you have said here validates or justifies the choice to kill, and by ignoring the last paragraph of my comment simply because you can't comprehend it, you demonstrate that your pro-abortion stance is emotion based, rather than logical. Emotion is not an appropriate basis upon which to make life-or-death decisions.

[–]tuktu -1 points0 points1 point 2 months ago

None of what you have said here validates or justifies the choice to kill, and by ignoring the last paragraph of my comment simply because you can't comprehend it, you demonstrate that your pro-abortion stance is emotion based, rather than logical.

Excuse me, I didn't ignore it. I told you I don't understand what you're saying. If you don't feel like clarifying so I can properly respond to you in full, then there's no reason for us to keep communicating at all. Obviously I am not going to reply to what you're asserting if I "simply" don't comprehend what you're trying to get at. This is not at all evidence that I do not make logic-based decisions. You are making some fantastic leaps of logic here yourself.

You have decided that abortion is life and death for an unborn baby. I agree in a purely scientific way, in the way that one's skin cells are alive. But I do not attribute any value to that life, not any more than I attribute value to the life of skin cells. No person has the right to use somebody else's body against their will, so why should a fetus?

I also do not regard my comparison of forced pregnancy and childbirth to torture as "an appeal to emotion." I think it's fair to say that it is objectively wrong to force someone to undergo torture.

You are putting these two human organisms on equal playing fields. I get that you are trying to reduce the argument to its basic components, but I simply disagree that they are equal. I do not see the "death" of a fetus as on par with the death of a born individual. Different DNA does not grant personhood.

[–]oneiorosgrip 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago

Your comment here actually demonstrates what I said in the paragraph you claim not to understand.

It is stated as concisely as I can state it. There is no further simplification which would not compromise the meaning of the statement. I'm not even sure what it is about the statement that is not clear to you. It's a pretty basic assertion.

The claim that your emotional appeal is not an emotional appeal is laughable at best, and your argument in support of that is also negated by the paragraph you chose to ignore.

Additionally, you are choosing to ignore logic and reason in favor of subjective terms and emotion in order to marginalize and dismiss the victim in the your advocacy of offering the option to kill unborn babies.

You have decided that characteristics of life which when applied to other organisms, constitute life, do not constitute life for the organism you want to justify killing.

You have decided that characteristics of uniqueness which, when applied other organisms, constitute uniqueness, do not constitute uniqueness for the organism you want to justify killing.

You have decided to apply subjective terms like personhood rather than address the facts of life and existence, an argument which can be applied to any individual, born or not which any other individual wishes to justify killing.

None of those are reasonable decisions, and arguments based on them do not justify giving permission to kill.

To quote the link in my original comment

As human beings, we do not have the right to split hairs and make excuses when deciding whether or not to set and maintain a standard by which we can measure the right of any living human organism to take the life of another, and we certainly cannot apply standards to some living human organisms while denying them to others without first supporting that decision with unarguable certainty.

Your appeals and parsing do not provide that unarguable certainty.

continue this thread

[–]ay_ch 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago*

No, I don't think we ARE missing that part. But I think you rather like insisting that we are.

Over the past few minutes, I've been reading the comments you'd made while I was asleep last night and you freely acknowledge elsewhere that her bill is both a poor analogy and not intended to be something that was meant to pass... but merely done to demonstrate the sexism in curtailing women's reproductive rights.

So... we understand her point. No, really, we comprehend it. You don't need to keep schooling us on this.

Why was I dismissive? Well, you acknowledged yourself that hers was a poor analogy. Maybe she'd have made a point if men actually had a reproductive right that could be infringed upon. She can't take-away something that doesn't exist, so I find it hard to take this woman's clumsy non-sequitur seriously. And, on top of that, this point she was making would have the unintended consequence of criminalizing gay sex, while a restriction on abortion would not have this consequence. And this makes it look even more clumsy and worthy of dismissal.

[–]MartialWay 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago

[–]yerafukinpsycho 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago

[–]tuktu -1 points0 points1 point 2 months ago

[–]exaliftin 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago*

Claiming that restrictions on women's birth control are sexist sort of implies that women are being put at a disadvantage in that area in comparison to men, does it not? But that isn't really the case because men cannot terminate their rights and responsibilities to a child post conception the way women can, and they don't even have any contraceptives available to them yet aside from condoms.

Is the analogue between abortion and male masturbation really a fair comparison or was it made to conveniently avoid acknowledging men's relative lack of reproductive choices?

I also want to point out the way most people are praising this woman for proposing a bill that is clearly unfair to men actually helps point out a different sort of irony. If anyone were to ever propose legislation that clearly harms women in an effort to draw attention to male suffering or injustice, I'm pretty sure most people would disapprove and use it as yet another example that men are just trying to oppress women.

[–]tuktu 4 points5 points6 points 2 months ago

If anyone were to ever propose legislation that clearly harms women in an effort to draw attention to male suffering or injustice, I'm pretty sure most people would disapprove and use it as yet another example that men are just trying to oppress women.

This is because this kind of legislation actually gets passed, for real.

But that isn't really the case because men cannot terminate their rights and responsibilities to a child post conception the way women can I agree that this is wrong. A man should be able to terminate his rights and responsibilities. I was under the impression a man can sign away his right to fatherhood but it must vary depending on country or even state, I don't know. Thankfully there are male birth control pills I think in Asia, I hope that these do become available to men in the rest of the world.

I fail to see how the fact that men also have limited options (which is unfortunate) takes away from the fact that people are actively passing legislation against women's options. It's still wrong. It still needs to be talked about.

[–]exaliftin 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago

This is because this kind of legislation actually gets passed, for real.

Examples? The anti abortion and birth control legislation hasn't passed.

I fail to see how the fact that men also have limited options (which is unfortunate) takes away from the fact that people are actively passing legislation against women's options. It's still wrong. It still needs to be talked about.

I agree that it's wrong, I don't agree with the way the debate is being framed. You even admit yourself that there is a double standard for men's and women's issues but didn't provide any legitimate justification.

You know, I could just as easily argue that the true intent of these people on anti abortion crusades are just an attempt to help people realize men's lack of reproductive choices in comparison to women, so does that make what they're doing acceptable to you all of a sudden? Didn't think so.

[–]tuktu -1 points0 points1 point 2 months ago

[–]exaliftin 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago

[–]BiggerBenFranklin -1 points0 points1 point 2 months ago

[–]DarthPuppy 50 points51 points52 points 2 months ago

permalink

[+]Quazz comment score below threshold (2 children)

[–]SenorSpicyBeans 5 points6 points7 points 2 months ago

permalink

[–]thatoneguy42 17 points18 points19 points 2 months ago

permalink

[–]valdin450 4 points5 points6 points 2 months ago

[–]TheUsualChaos 10 points11 points12 points 2 months ago

permalink

[–]fluffy402 2 points3 points4 points 2 months ago

[–]iparga 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago

[–]tuktu 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago

[–]Cigil 2 points3 points4 points 2 months ago

permalink

[–]typhonblue 0 points1 point2 points 2 months ago

permalink

[–]Rockytriton 3 points4 points5 points 2 months ago

permalink

[–]lespurdolespardefun 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago

permalink

[–]ay_ch -3 points-2 points-1 points 2 months ago*

permalink

[–]tuktu 11 points12 points13 points 2 months ago

Were this image not being deployed to score points in support of feminist priorities (abortion rights)

Why do you use such dismissive language, like "scoring points" and "feminist priorities"? There is very real legislation being put forward and going through that limits women's reproductive choices and accessibility to reproductive health. More than just abortion, there's forced vaginal ultrasounds that are completely unnecessary, defunding of planned parenthood which has affordable STD and cancer screening, etc. I get that abortion rights are not your priority but why be so dismissive about it? Her fighting for these things is not attacking you as a man or taking away your sexual health choices. Men's rights and women's rights should be complementary movements because they both ideally want gender-based discrimination to stop, they are just focusing on different issues. I don't understand why you make feminist issues out to be the enemy.
It isn't a bill she seriously wants enacted, so your statement about it being heterocentric and homophobic is highly irrelevant. In fact those things could even be said to be part of the point. The point is that it's absolutely ridiculous for the law to try to exert such control over men's sexuality and sexual choices -- just like it is for the law to exert that control over women's.

[–]fondueguy 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago

[–]tuktu 2 points3 points4 points 2 months ago

Again you pick and choose little things to nitpick without addressing my greater points whatsoever. It's amazing how you completely dismiss everything that is misogynistic because you are so wrapped up in your own agenda. Both women's rights and men's rights have fights they need to fight.

Expecting women to pay for their own reproductive choices is not limiting women's reproductive choices.

Outlawing abortion is, defunding planned parenthood is, forcing unwanted penetration via vaginal ultrasound and saying that women already consented to penetration if they have sex is, etc. I am not just talking about whether birth control should be paid for by someone other than the woman taking it. As someone who believes in socialized health care I have my own stance on that, but that isn't a sexism issue in either direction the way I look at it.

So this is about health. Then why would the issue be framed as a women's issue?

Because it is specifically women's health issues that the government is trying to regulate right now, which this politician is reacting to.

[–]fondueguy -5 points-4 points-3 points 2 months ago

Outlawing abortion is,

That is completely different issue from "no masturbation", which is yet I said the analogy us poor.

forcing unwanted penetration via vaginal ultrasound

It's not rape if that's what your edging for. But I do agree that the legislation is ridiculous and meant to control women. The reason I criticized your statements is because you grouped all the legislation/changes under women's reproductive choices.

There is a very big difference between a right and a responsibility that women's advocates are missing. I don't gave to pay for women's sexual choices like they don't have to pay for mine (condoms, vasectamies, viagra, etc...)

Because it is specifically women's health issues that the government is trying to regulate right now

Cancer screening and std's are not women's issues; they are men's issues too. If the legislation is effecting women's health more than men it is because previous legislation has given privilege to women. Therefore the health issue is very much a men's issue and an equality issue.

[–]tuktu 3 points4 points5 points 2 months ago

Cancer screening and std's are not women's issues; they are men's issues too.

You're right, but they're defunding planned parenthood because it offers abortion services. It is a punishment aimed towards women. So, borne out of the desire to remove female reproductive choice, it affects both men and women. It is a health issue for anybody who relies on planned parenthood.

It's not rape if that's what your edging for.

I purposely didn't use that word, but it is still unwanted penetration. Just because it's "not rape" doesn't mean it's not all that bad.

The reason I criticized your statements is because you grouped all the legislation/changes under women's reproductive choices.

In this context, the politician is highlighting how the government is trying to control women. So... yes, that's what I'm talking about. The ways the government is controlling women specifically. Yes some of it effects men. I don't see the point in splitting hairs over what % effects men vs women when the point is to control women. The politician's assertions also serve to highlight that the government does not stand for the same control over men's sexual choices.

previous legislation has given privilege to women.

In what way? I am Canadian so my health care system is obviously different. But tax dollars do not fund abortions and, as far as I know, women's birth control and so on is not socialized in the US, just like condoms and so on aren't. I know there was an argument over whether employers should be able to choose not to cover birth control for their employees or something like that. I don't know the details of the argument. The fact is that birth control (hormonal) is not just for preventing pregnancy, it is a very real treatment for hormone-related conditions like endometriosis.

Therefore the health issue is very much a men's issue and an equality issue.

What is your point? You admitted the legislation is ridiculous and meant to control women, or at least some of it is. Why do you have to frame everything as a men's issue for you to care about it? How is that relevant when the context here is that this politician introduced a ridiculous bill limiting men's sexual choices as a way to highlight the hypocrisy of a bunch of male politicians passing all these ridiculous bills about women's sexual choices?

[–]fondueguy 2 points3 points4 points 2 months ago

Why do you have to frame everything as a men's issue for you to care about it?

Because the women's group find one change that is controlling (forced ultrasound) then group all other changes as controlling when they are not (not funding women's abortions, not paying for women's birth control, not paying for women only cancer screening).

The effect of things being framed this way is that women get to keep their privileges under the guise of rights.

How is that relevant when the context here is that this politician introduced a ridiculous bill limiting men's sexual choices as a way to highlight the hypocrisy of a bunch of male politicians passing all these ridiculous bills about women's sexual choices?

That's the thing, there are already ways in which men are disadvantaged. Many doctors requires the wives permission before the husband can get a vasectamy, which is far more controlling than forcing an ultra sound. Men already recieve far less public support for their bc needs along with receiving less health services from planned parenthood on very issues that effect both genders.

When the above politician made this ridiculous legislation, she was saying that men don't already face similar issues. In other words, she was shutting out men's problems and women's privileges entirely.

[–]geodebug 2 points3 points4 points 2 months ago

[–]TheIronFistOfDeath -1 points0 points1 point 2 months ago

[–]Patrick5555 -1 points0 points1 point 2 months ago

permalink

[–]TheDarkHorse83 -4 points-3 points-2 points 2 months ago

permalink

[–]ay_ch -4 points-3 points-2 points 2 months ago

[–]tuktu 5 points6 points7 points 2 months ago

[–]fondueguy -5 points-4 points-3 points 2 months ago

[–]tuktu 3 points4 points5 points 2 months ago

[–]typhonblue 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago

[–]tuktu 1 point2 points3 points 2 months ago

[–]typhonblue 4 points5 points6 points 2 months ago

It falls flat because she's trying to say that society protects men's bodily rights more then women's but she has to use an analogy to something far more invasive because her premise is incorrect. Society does not protect men's bodily rights more then women's. Society, in fact, protects men's bodily rights considerably less then women's.

It'd be like a white person saying that a new bill requiring white people to take a test before voting(during Jim Crow when black people did have to take a test before voting) is racist against whites and proposing a bill revoking black people's right to vote as a 'protest bill' and when that protest bill is protested saying 'see! people respect blacks' rights to vote more then whites'!'.

She's using a protest bill that actually highlights the fact that men don't have the same protections as women. But... hardly anyone is recognizing this.

When you understand this, you understand how misandrous this entire affair was.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman -2 points-1 points0 points 2 months ago

permalink

[+]brokendimension comment score below threshold (0 children)

MensRights

The Men's Rights subreddit is a place for those who wish to discuss men's rights and the ways said rights are infringed upon.

MODERATORS

MensRights

The Men's Rights subreddit is a place for those who wish to discuss men's rights and the ways said rights are infringed upon.

MODERATORS

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login