Feminism: Destroying the Male and Female Relationship

reply to post by Dark Ghost


My post:

Originally posted by Jenna
As far as abortion goes, and I really don't want to get too deep into this discussion, when I can force you to do something with your body that you don't want to do then you'll have the right to force me to do something I don't want to do with mine. Until then, I honestly don't believe men should get the final say in whether or not an abortion happens. They should get to voice their opinion when it's their girlfriend/wife/whatever, and their opinion should be considered, but they shouldn't be the ones making the final decision about it. It doesn't affect men the same way it does women.

Your post:

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
More double speak from Feminism. "Yes, fathers are important. But the decision is with the woman. The man can comment but it is her choice that counts. What she chooses is all that matters because it is her body. When men can go through 9-months of labour then they can comment. Up until then, they are sperm banks that need to keep their snakes in their cages." (and so on continues the same old recycled garbage).

Now, tell me how that's not a paraphrased and twisted version of what I said. You may not have meant to do it, but you did. Since this response of yours was directed to someone who was responding to my quote it sure does make it look like it was intentional. And as I said, this isn't a tactic I would expect from you.

reply to post by rusethorcain


I have scaled back how much i post on ATS but i have enjoyed these threads simply because there are some people, both men and women who have made excellent points and conducted themselves with dignity, honesty and fairness, then there are people like yourself. I won't be reporting anyone and btw if your previous posts were removed then it was done for a good reason. I find it strange that you are still so annoyed about posts being deleted, as if it's been playing on your mind. This is an internet forum, don't get so worked up.

But anyway lets be clear, men can be scumbags, women can be scumbags and posting a story of a man who admits to being a moron in the past is hardly adding to the debate because all it does is state the obvious, that some people are idiots. If you have anything new and pertinent to bring to the table that would be great.

Peace.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


OK. OK.
No fair being nice!!!!
You are just trying to make me look bad!
I should not presume things. It is an open forum. We all post.
All ideas are welcome. (and this should include "Confessions of a Misogynist" btw)
I am just going to have to stop stalking here myself.

Maybe I AM obsessing about posts removed. Never thought about it.
Will consider it under advisement, ok? You might have something there.

And this I can't argue with either...

men can be scumbags, women can be scumbags

True enough.
As for labeling the person, woman, human I am as without dignity, honesty and fairness...well.... I respectfully disagree.

reply to post by Jenna


Most of the information in that post of yours echoes the arguments already stated by others, many times so far in this thread. Once again, I was not attacking you directly or paraphrasing YOUR words. I was making a sarcastic statement that summarised the common slogans of many people in this thread. Those common slogans include "men need to man up", "women are oppressed by men", "men need to take responsibility", "men think they can control a women's body", "men who complain about mistreatment at the hands of women are weak" and others.

You have chosen to take what I said personally - that is your choice. This is a LONG thread. Many of the things you said in that post are ideas already brought up and mirrored by other members. And now you seem to be taking part in the behaviour you accused me of doing by quoting my whole post and associating it with a single paragraph of your own post, when I was not even directing that reply at you.

In regards to abortion, I agree that women should have the final say about what is passed through their vulvae.

HOWEVER, if women have the opportunity to deny motherhood, men should also have the opportunity to deny fatherhood, by not agreeing to pay child support if their idea was to have an abortion in the first place. A woman should not be given the financial upper hand in the event of unplanned conception; it's completely unconstitutional. When it comes to this issue people tend to just side with whatever gender role they play in their relationship and I think it's pretty silly. Sorry, not silly -- typical American behavior.

Originally posted by Brood
HOWEVER, if women have the opportunity to deny motherhood, men should also have the opportunity to deny fatherhood, by not agreeing to pay child support if their idea was to have an abortion in the first place.

It's a long thread so you probably missed it. Here in the US men have the ability to sign away their parental rights at any time, thereby giving them the opportunity to avoid paying child support while also removing their other rights, privileges and responsibilities as far as their offspring are concerned.

Originally posted by Jenna
It's a long thread so you probably missed it. Here in the US men have the ability to sign away their parental rights at any time, thereby giving them the opportunity to avoid paying child support while also removing their other rights, privileges and responsibilities as far as their offspring are concerned.

Hey Jenna, as i discussed with you earlier i am utterly astounded that america has taken this step, and it's a good and fair step but does this apply to all states? I've had a little trouble checking state laws on this one so please forgive my inability to google efficiently. I know some states seem to have these laws but it appears you still have the CPS and they can (will) doc the parents pay to give to the mother. Most notably the government can ask employers to hold back funds to pay directly to the mother.

But as i say you are in the USA and i'm maybe a little limited in my research.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
I know some states seem to have these laws but it appears you still have the CPS and they can (will) doc the parents pay to give to the mother. Most notably the government can ask employers to hold back funds to pay directly to the mother.

As far as I'm aware all states have a law that allows parents to voluntarily sign over their rights. As for CPS and child support, again all states are different. Some just defer whatever payments are already coming in so that they go to the care of the child and away from the custodial parent since they're no longer taking care of the child. Others will ask the court to order the custodial parent to pay child support while the child is in foster care. It's difficult to find even when knowing what you're looking for because every state calls foster care something different.

Washington (the state not DC) has a pamphlet explaining why parents still pay child support. And here is Texas law on child support for kids in foster care.

When it comes to employers withholding pay, sometimes it's done by court order and sometimes it's done voluntarily. I personally know some men who've asked their employer to withhold child support so there would be no chance of it not making it to the child support office. There was also a federal law passed in 1996 that created a centralized child support registry/payment center:

In addition to requiring states to enact UIFSA, the new law makes it much more difficult for any parent to avoid a support order. State and Federal agencies will be established. Employers will be required to report new employees to a State Registry which will in turn pass on the information to the Federal Registry. All Registries will cross-check individuals against outstanding Child Support Enforcement Orders for appropriate action.

In other words, the computer age has finally caught up with dead-beat dads and moms. Over the next few years it will essentially be impossible to escape a Child Support Enforcement Order by "fading into the woodwork".

Source

It's meant to prevent dead-beat parents from just not paying child support.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
they can (will) doc the parents pay to give to the mother. Most notably the government can ask employers to hold back funds to pay directly to the mother.

...here in the usofa, fathers often are chosen to be the custodial parent and the mother's pay is garnished for child support... sometimes that means she also has to secure health insurance for the children... some people like to pretend that never happens but it does and it happens frequently...

...in the last three years, i've been privy to several cases that went that way, even though the mother had never been allowed to work outside of the home and, therefore, couldnt get a job that paid much more than minimum wage - and - the husband made over $100,000.00 / year...

...doesnt seem fair - but - it is fair when you look through the lense labeled "justice is decided by who can afford the better lawyer(s)"...

reply to post by Jenna

Sorry just saw the response, But have you ever heard of selective service?Like it or not its a draft, yes they do not make you serve right away but if they need your gone. What happens if you do not sign up? Well if your female nothing, because you do not have to. If you are male, you are commiting a crime, lose eligibility for student loans, and other nasty effects. Whether or not you can see why men have to doesn't matter men do and females don't BY :LAW.

As far as your who does most of the caregiving, so a man who has to work "to be a man" has to put in his time at work to feed the familt automatically should lose his right to have time with his children because he is being responsible for his family. Really.

I love how you say what men should do. Would you like to risk being arrested and get a restraining order slapped on you for being beaten? Fact of the matter is when the police get a call for DV they look at the man first. If you would like I can provide links to articles, studies, and actual police training manuals that show this.

reply to post by Jenna


And while that may be true in the history books is that true in today's societies? The gender feminist movement quite successfully grabbed up the market on women only being victims and men only being the perps. You may not like it but that is the way it is. And once again if you would like I will be more than happy to provide some sources.

reply to post by Jenna


I am sorry would you please cite this with a source. Yes a petion can be made, which is denied unless the child is to be adopted. if there is no adoption pending for the child it doesn't happen.

Originally posted by mayertuck
reply to post by Jenna

 

I am sorry would you please cite this with a source. Yes a petion can be made, which is denied unless the child is to be adopted. if there is no adoption pending for the child it doesn't happen.

Correct, unless someone else has agreed to take over responsibility for a child you cannot sign away your parental rights and responsibilities.

Originally posted by riley
I made no such claim and resent the implication. Women are responsible for their own actions.. yet so are men. Once a baby is born it is it's own being and has two parents like it or not. It is not "more her responsibilty" just because she did not choose to kill it during gestestion.

What on earth are you talking about? If a choice is my unilateral choice how can someone else be equally responsible for the results?

If you sell me a gun and I choose to shoot someone with it, I guess you're equally responsible for the death. And I guess if a Woman decides to abort my child, with me begging her not to, I'm equally responsible for the abortion too.

What you SHOULD resent is the fact that the government thinks Women require the help of Men to pay for the results of their own unilateral choices.

Originally posted by riley
How is it sexist? Only MEN can father a child so "manning up" is the correct term. Also (aside from school teachers taking advantage of teenage boys) how is a man "forced" to have child he does not want? Are you claiming all these men who cause unplanned pregnancies are raped?

edit on 3-11-2010 by riley because: (no reason given)

Conception DOES NOT EQUAL child. Conception EQUALS worthless lump of tissue that a Woman can unilaterally throw in the garbage for absolutely any reason.

P.S. It doesn't matter if a Man is raped, he still has to pay child support.

Originally posted by riley
If he does not like the fact that sex can make a baby he should take precautions to make sure it doesn't and so should she.

A Man could impregnate a Women every single day, and never end up with a baby.

Sex does not make a baby, only the unilateral choice of a Woman makes a baby.

reply to post by SevenBeans

You do realize that penises do not end up in coitus all by themselves right? There is actually a man with a brain attached to them capable of making his own choices.

Originally posted by riley
reply to post by SevenBeans

 

You do realize that penises do not end up in coitus all by themselves right? There is actually a man with a brain attached to them capable of making his own choices.

Are you really this dense? Sex and conception DO NOT EQUAL BABY!

My body, my choice, our responsibility. PATHETIC!

reply to post by mayertuck


I really wish people would read the entire thread... I posted two of the laws allowing for parents to sign away their rights here, which is just a few pages back.

Originally posted by mayertuck
Sorry just saw the response, But have you ever heard of selective service?

Thought I mentioned that in this thread too, but it may have been in the other one. Yes I've heard of the selective service and no I don't see why men should still have to register for it. We haven't needed it in decades and likely won't ever have a draft again. It's a pointless requirement that men shouldn't have to comply with anymore.

As far as your who does most of the caregiving, so a man who has to work "to be a man" has to put in his time at work to feed the familt automatically should lose his right to have time with his children because he is being responsible for his family.

That wasn't even close to what I said. What I said was that whoever does the most caregiving should continue being the caregiver and get custody when the parents divorce. Nowhere in that does it say that fathers shouldn't get time with their children. What it does say is that if dad's giving most of the care, dad should get them. If it's mom, then she should. It's about stability for the children, not about whether or not one parent feels slighted. Contrary to today's "me, me, me" society, it's not always about what the parent wants. Sometimes it should be about what's best for the children.

Would you like to risk being arrested and get a restraining order slapped on you for being beaten? Fact of the matter is when the police get a call for DV they look at the man first.

For being beaten? No. For being the beater? I'd expect it. Men are statistically more likely to be the abuser, thus the reason they are looked at first. I'd also like to point out that most cops are men. Unless all those cops are sexist against themselves, it's not sexism to look at the larger and stronger of the two first when called out for DV. Where I live they'll take women to jail just as easily as men.

The gender feminist movement quite successfully grabbed up the market on women only being victims and men only being the perps.

And as I've said several times, it is entirely possible for women to be the perpetrators of abuse and rape against men. They can and do get arrested and convicted for it when it's reported and proven.

Originally posted by Jenna
I really wish people would read the entire thread... I posted two of the laws allowing for parents to sign away their rights here, which is just a few pages back.

I did and I'm perfectly aware of those laws.

You present it as if it's an option for anyone who doesn't want to be a parent and that simply isn't the case, there is a very long list of conditions that must be met and they are subject to interpertation (best interest of the child = someone else has volunteered to raise it and/or pay support). Most people who don't want a child cannot simply sign a paper and have no further obligation.

The safe haven laws are generally only available when the Mother wants to give the child up, if she doesn't want to, Dad can't just drop it off at the hospital and have no further obligation. Doesn't work that way.

reply to post by SevenBeans


And yet my personal experience tells me otherwise considering a literally see people willingly sign away their parental rights frequently. Obviously you can't just walk away and leave a child completely alone with no one to take care of them. (Well, you could but not legally.) Obviously someone else will be required to take care of the child. That's just common sense. It does not negate my point, my post, or the laws existing that allow parents to sign away their rights.