this post was submitted on
136 points (69% like it)
239 up votes 103 down votes

MensRights

unsubscribe45,887 readers

150 users here now

Advocacy isn't just about what is popular - stay informed, keep up with r/MensRights by sorting by NEW.


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.

On the differences between the Feminist Movement and the Men's Rights Movement.


New to r/MensRights? Check out these links first!

Frequently Asked Questions

Moderation Policy


Overview of Mod Policy:

  • No memes or rage comics.

  • No linking to SRS or affiliated subs.

  • Young accounts are given no tolerance.

  • Spam/Off-Topic posts will be removed.

  • Advocating for violence/illegal acts may be removed (this is not the same as advocating for changes to the laws governing these acts)


The r/MensRights Sphere

These subreddits are officially supported by the r/MensRights moderation team.

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

Message the Moderators!


Related Subreddits

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

Reddit Shout-outs:

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

Interesting Discussions to Consider:

These threads include significant research/collection by the authors and warrant consideration. Please feel free to join in on the discussions.


External Links:

Blogs:

Organizations:

Other:


Need help?

Domestic violence links

Divorce links

False accusation links

Do not trust legal advice given by Redditors. If you are in need of legal help, seek a qualified lawyer.


History of r/MensRights

r/MensRights was created on March 19, 2008 by pn6/kloo2yoo.

a community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

all 136 comments

[–]tuktu 109 points110 points ago

I think you guys are missing the part where she put this bill forth as a reaction to the extremely sexist restrictions on women's sexual health/freedom that are being put forth in the states. It was meant to show how completely ridiculous it is that these bills are being taken seriously, when they are telling a woman what she can or can't do with her body.

[–]redjedi182 37 points38 points ago

Thank you. The tip off was bit obvious. (D) Female making a timely statement about the legislation over a body she does not have. I don't know how people are missing this!

[–]tuktu 30 points31 points ago

Sometimes it seems like people are so blinded by their own agenda, they'll find any reason to decry anything they perceive as remotely different from it. Just because y'all want men's rights doesn't mean this woman, fighting a very real battle against extremely misogynistic lawmaking, is just trying to "be a comedian" or "score points." Why do you guys use such dismissive language when this shit is really, truly happening in the states? Pregnant women are really being forced to have unwanted penetration with an ultrasound wand, completely unnecessarily. Men's rights and feminism -- the parts of each that are logical and truly striving for egalitarian treatment, not the extremists -- should be complementary movements, not enemies.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points ago

Part of the clashing between feminism and MR, is how feminism highly prescribes to the "patriarchy" theory, which MR does not agree with. Along with talking about "male privilege" while ignoring most female privileges as well.

But as for this law, the reason I dislike it so strongly is because it comes off as childish. It's as if Congress is a bunch of children on the play ground arguing.

[–]tuktu 1 point2 points 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 points ago

I don't know about the other MR people, but I am fine with some forms of feminism, and am completely accepting of them trying to help women. The problem I have with it, is when it blames men for everything, making it out that women are the victims, men are the oppressors 100% of the time, or women are morally superior to men, and things like that. I am completely accepting of women wanting their rights, but I want mine too. There are many more egalitarian type feminists, but many of the radical ones can change laws, etc.

But do consider this, isn't what you're saying about the MRM the same thing feminism is doing to us? I mean, it's not like feminism is 100% accepting, but MR is against that.

[–]tuktu 3 points4 points 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 points 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 points 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 points ago

Just because y'all want men's rights doesn't mean this woman, fighting a very real battle against extremely misogynistic lawmaking, is just trying to "be a comedian" or "score points." Why do you guys use such dismissive language when this shit is really, truly happening in the states?

How about fighting your battle in a way that is not childish and risk antagonizing people who may agree with you. You need a reality check if you can't see how this proposal, even if it is not serious, is fucking offensive. If MRA try to do the same accusations like "zero-sum game", "Us vs Them mentality", "circle jerking" etc. will be thrown at us.

[–]tuktu 7 points8 points ago

It's offensive because it's echoing the real legislation against women that is offensive. It is supposed to be a wake up call. "Hey, it offends me and pisses me off when women suggest x and I know that this is wrong, they don't even have sperm so they shouldn't control mine. Maybe they get offended and pissed off when I suggest y because it is wrong and I don't even have a uterus."

[–]sixofthebest 2 points3 points ago

It's offensive because it's echoing the real legislation against women that is offensive.

You still don't get it. The bill is offensive to people who actually agree with you. I have seen MRA tried similar tactics and they were always seen as petty and "proof that /mr is a circle jerk".

[–]Chamoflage 1 point2 points ago

I sincerely hope this sort of thing doesn't dominate the movement, but it almost certainly will, just like it did to feminism. If men can be taught to stand up for their own rights, however, then there will at least be some sort of equality as the result of the political battlefield.

[–]oneiorosgrip 12 points13 points 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 points 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 points ago

I think that the method you describe is barbaric and should not be allowed. Treating human life like garbage is wrong.

[–]mattgruff 1 point2 points ago

Fair enough.

[–]DBi 1 point2 points ago

(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.)

Source please

[–]oneiorosgrip 5 points6 points 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.

[–]tuktu -2 points-1 points ago

Agreed. I was going to actually refute that comment as I have learned otherwise in my university embryology class, but I don't have a source right now myself. I need to actually do some work today so I'm not going to do it, but if I remember on Monday I'll try to find it. A few studies tracked pregnancy nearly from conception and found that something like 60% of fertilized eggs actually don't make it to full term.

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point ago

Would be interested to see this. When last I checked, a couple years ago, we didn't have any good numbers on miscarriage rates-- they varied from less than 20% all the way up to 90%. The biggest issue is that we can't detect pregnancy for sure until well past conception (at least two weeks, for most women). So if a blastocyst washes out in that period, AFAIK, we have no way of knowing if it was fertilized or just a regular period.

[–]tuktu 0 points1 point ago

I should really try to find the info and source you guys, if I can. Unfortunately I didn't save the class slides so I don't know any of the key info about the study to make my search easier, but if I have free time during my work day I'll try to look it up and show you. I'm curious how they measured it as well.

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

What 'more genuine' comparison would you suggest?

She should propose a bill in which men no longer have the right to consent to parenthood separate from consenting to sex.

Wait...

[–]exaliftin 2 points3 points 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 ago

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.

Some people try, much to my horror!

But as for the rest of your comment, I'm actually in full agreement. This is something overlooked that needs to be dealt with. Maybe hypothetically the man should have to sign, with witnesses, that he consents to parenthood sometime before or during the pregnancy (just an idea), otherwise he has full rights to walk away without any obligations or child support.

[–]oneiorosgrip 2 points3 points ago

I think the fact that there is no genuine comparison clearly demonstrates the fallacy of the "my body my choice" argument, by showing that it is based on a lie. Abortion is not about only the mother's body. There are two bodies involved, and that argument denies that reality. As such, it's a disingenuous argument at its base.

[–]tuktu 0 points1 point ago

I think that that absolutely does not follow at all. The fact there is no male comparison does nothing to support the idea that a fetus should have a greater right to its body than the woman carrying it.

[–]oneiorosgrip 3 points4 points 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 points 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 points 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 points 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 points 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.

[–]ay_ch 0 points1 point 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 point ago

I think you guys are missing the part where she put this bill forth as a reaction to the extremely sexist restrictions on women's sexual health/freedom that are being put forth in the states.

We're still missing it. Nobody is compelling women to do anything, they're complaining that other groups aren't being forced (at the barrel of a gun) to provide forms of contraception their religion is opposed to.

Nobody is disallowing them from anything, they're simply declining to pay for it. I'm amazed at the brainwashing that let's people think these two things are comparable

[–]yerafukinpsycho 1 point2 points ago

Right there. That is the crux of it. Having other people pay for your choices is not a right.

[–]tuktu -1 points0 points ago

I don't know if she is responding to one particular bill, but there is also the anti-abortion legislation and the forced vaginal ultrasound legislation going on.

[–]exaliftin 0 points1 point 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 points 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 point 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 points ago

The only example I can think of is the vaginal ultrasound stuff, which I'm pretty sure did pass. But, I am not American, and I only really keep up with the American stuff semi-accidentally via reddit.

Justification? I think it's wrong that there is a bias. But what I'm saying is that I don't see that as a good reason to dismiss that this particular reproductive warfare in the states is decidedly anti-woman and decidedly wrong.

You could argue that, but you would be wrong, as nobody has expressed that whatsoever.

[–]exaliftin 1 point2 points ago

But what I'm saying is that I don't see that as a good reason to dismiss that this particular reproductive warfare in the states is decidedly anti-woman and decidedly wrong.

I'm not denying that women should have the right to an abortion, what I'm dismissing is the tactic being used to purportedly point out hypocrisy because its petty and unproductive. I'm sure you feel the same way about politicians playing games with your body, so don't act like it's only acceptable when its done with men.

You could argue that, but you would be wrong, as nobody has expressed that whatsoever.

I expressed it just now. Can I prove that was the intent? No. But I haven't seen anyone prove the intent of Constance Johnson's bill so far by citing a direct quote from her either.

[–]BiggerBenFranklin -1 points0 points ago

What's disgusting about this whole situation is how it was an actual bill. If by some snafu it passed it would have been a law! Rhetorical self-righteous posturing is one thing but trying to make a point via actual legislation is an insult to their position as representatives of the people.

[–]DarthPuppy 50 points51 points ago

I think you missed the irony just like the republican politician quoted. The original r/atheism post has the fuller backstory and many there didn't get the irony either. In case people are confused it was never meant to be a real amendment and the democrat politician voted against her amendment. It was intended to point out the hypocrisy of a healthcare law that forced body education and invasive medical exams for women.

[–]SenorSpicyBeans 5 points6 points ago

Apparently you didn't see the "Comedy Central" logo in the corner.

[–]thatoneguy42 17 points18 points ago

Okie here. Rep Johnson's amendment was created in reaction to the "Personhood Bill" that was recently introduced in our state house. She was basically trying to show her colleagues how ridiculous the bill was, by introducing an equally ridiculous amendment. This was never an issue that was seriously considered.

[–]valdin450 4 points5 points ago

Sometimes I feel so much shame for living in OK. Between the Personhood Bill and the one outlawing the use of fetuses in food, all I can do is lower my head in shame.

[–]TheUsualChaos 10 points11 points ago

Why was this in r/atheism to begin with?

[–]fluffy402 2 points3 points ago

Because abortion is something all atheists agree on.

sarcastic voice

[–]iparga 1 point2 points ago

Exacly

[–]tuktu 1 point2 points ago

Everyone in r/atheism asked that too

[–]Cigil 2 points3 points ago

There's always the question of whether your rights impede on others. For example, splooging onto a woman that doesn't want to be splooged on isn't a right that you have, just because it's your body, just as much as hitting someone with your hands isn't a right that you have.

[–]typhonblue 0 points1 point ago

This is really funny, because we're still getting rid of laws from a time when it was illegal for men to deposit semen anywhere but a woman's vagina.

[–]Rockytriton 3 points4 points ago

What does this have to do with Men's Rights? It's about women's rights, the lady is not trying to stop men from doing whatever they want with their bodies, she is trying to make sure the bill doesn't pass so women can't be told what to do with their bodies.

[–]lespurdolespardefun 1 point2 points ago

Threads like these are the reason why no one takes men's rights seriously or ever will.

[–]ay_ch -3 points-2 points ago

I saw this pic when it went up.

I didn't see too many people in the comments note that this kind of proposal would also criminalize a great deal of gay sex.

Were this image not being deployed to score points in support of feminist priorities (abortion rights), it would be condemned as being heterocentric and homophobic by the same crew who find it brilliant.

[–]tuktu 11 points12 points ago

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

  1. 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.

  2. 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 points ago

There is very real legislation being put forward and going through that limits women's reproductive choices and accessibility to reproductive health.

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

defunding of planned parenthood which has affordable STD and cancer screening, etc.

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

[–]tuktu 2 points3 points 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 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 points 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 points 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 points ago

Gee, it's almost like context matters...

[–]TheIronFistOfDeath -1 points0 points ago

That is fantastic! I would never have thought of that criticism.

[–]Patrick5555 -1 points0 points ago

'I dont care about taxpayers'

[–]TheDarkHorse83 -4 points-3 points ago

I would love to see the wording of the Ammendment. Does this mean that oral and anal sex are outlawed? What about the use of a condom? Masturbation? Are we going back to saying that sex is only for reproduction again?

Also, if you could link back to the original, I'd love to read the comments.

[–]ay_ch -4 points-3 points ago

All I can say in response to this bill is: "Good luck with enforcement."

I understand the individual who proposed it is only doing it to score points. But she wasn't elected to be a comedienne.

[–]tuktu 5 points6 points ago

It's not about being funny or scoring points, it's about showing people that it's absolutely ridiculous the way the US is trying to legislate women's sexual health or behaviour -- just like this bill is ridiculous for trying to legislate men's.

[–]fondueguy -5 points-4 points ago

It's a very poor analogy.

[–]tuktu 3 points4 points ago

Why?

[–]typhonblue 1 point2 points ago

Because the more appropriate analogy would be to propose a bill that says men consent to parenthood every time they have sex.

But you don't need to propose such a bill because the courts already assume men already consent to parenthood every time they have sex.

[–]tuktu 1 point2 points ago

A couple of you have made this point and it's a pretty good one. I think for her purposes it obviously falls flat because people, like you say, assume his consent to parenthood anyway, so it wouldn't have the necessary impact. Nonetheless it is pretty ridiculous that consent to sex is equated to consent to fatherhood.

[–]typhonblue 4 points5 points 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 points ago

real politics

Heh.