It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

This is a Sexist Thread! (Men's Rights)

page: 30
135
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by believingskeptic
 


You couldn't be more wrong, this problem is seriously out of control. Men DO fight back but they are ignored. There are countless fathers rights groups. They have members attend congress on fathers' behalf, in fact there are senators who have joined the fight and speak out against the atrocities that family law has become. When several Republican senators tried to vote against extending the VAWA of 94 it was labeled a war against women. To say that men aren't trying isn't fair to the hundreds of thousands who are. The problem is, the typical man who has been victimized through the courts has no money, they have a paralyzing fear that another accusation will occur and the title of the law alone and being opposed to it does not bring about much support. Not to mention, what sane man would want to be labeled a child molester or woman beater? Also to imply that men aren't fighting because you don't hear about it and nothing is being done because of that is also wrong. How many people stood up against Bush during the invasion of Iraq because they felt it was for devious purposes and they were completely ignored and the war went (goes) on? Please, at least Google "false accusations" and read up on some stats and even personal stories before you makeup your mind on this.




posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrDritin
reply to post by believingskeptic
 


You couldn't be more wrong, this problem is seriously out of control. Men DO fight back but they are ignored. There are countless fathers rights groups. They have members attend congress on fathers' behalf, in fact there are senators who have joined the fight and speak out against the atrocities that family law has become.






When several Republican senators tried to vote against extending the VAWA of 94 it was labeled a war against women.


That isn't exactly true, and it isn't why they opposed the VAWA. The Act's 2012 renewal was fiercely opposed by conservative Republicans, who objected to extending the Act's protections to same-sex couples and to provisions allowing battered illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas.

www.nytimes.com...



To say that men aren't trying isn't fair to the hundreds of thousands who are.


The person you quoted never made the argument that men weren't trying.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrDritin
Some of your statistics might be slightly off, but the difference between men and women is monumental indeed. You left out probably the most glaring fact, the Violence Against Women Act, which is a sick and disgusting law enacted in 1994 that strips men of their right to due process by having the courts, child welfare system, etc. treat them guilty until proven innocent. More and more women are catching on just how easily they can get custody by making any simple accusation without any proof of said accusation whatsoever. What is worse, family law attorneys are also pushing women to fabricate abuse so they can win their client custody. It doesn't really matter if the man is found guilty of any abuse or not because they spend everything they have defending themselves against bogus accusations and in the end they are too broke to fight and it also sets a precedent in your divorce case because most men are removed from the home and barred from seeing their children until the accusations are deemed "untrue". There is no perjury law against false accusers by the way.


Some points to clear up.

VAWA doesn't violate due process. I challenge you to find a ruling supporting that claim, because the Supreme Court has upheld it on multiple occasions, only striking down a portion of VAWA that targeted specific racial qualifiers.

There are Perjury laws on the books for anyone that bears false witness within the court system.

United States Code, Title 18, Part 1, Section 1621

Having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true

edit on 10-6-2012 by Furbs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by tw0330
So a man is home taking care of the kids, while the wife is working.

What does society in general think about this? How do you look at a man who says he is a stay at home dad?

What if you were a stay at home dad getting welfare because it cost to much to work?


This is what I have to say about stay dads.



OT: Double standards and all that but society evolves and adjust. Once we move past feeling guilty for past mistakes that our ancestors made, and atoning for them, instead of working on a equal system for all then things will be alll good. Though these double standards do have to be pointed out and discussed for us to consider changes to the system and all that, so S&F.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by tw0330
 


Prostate Cancer - Much easier to treat.

Right to choose - I think the man should have some say, but he doesn't have to carry it in his body so ultimately he has no legal right imo.

History - If you want to take a mens study class, then pick about any topic. It is mostly for and written by men.

Child custody - Agreed



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 





You have been conditioned well. If I were you I would be more ashamed at the fact that you are unwilling to allow men to stand up for their rights without fear of ridicule. Why is it that when women stand up and voice their concerns people like you will glorify them, but when men do it you vilify them? This is exactly the type of mindset that the OP mentioned.


What concerns?! As another poster mentioned earlier, I'm still trying to figure out exactly what we men lose by giving our women a little more. God forbid we were to ever disturb the status quo.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
I have to agree with the OP on the child bearing rights.

It takes two to tango. Yeah, women carry the baby, but it's OUR's as well. Women can't get preggers on their own, now can they? Fathers deserve prenatal rights just as much as women. At the moment of inception, that child is both of theirs, not one or the other.

This methodology also plays into child support. Whomever can provide the best for the childs safety, emotional needs, growth and development, and quality of life should be the parent (in a divorce scenario). Then the other parent provides child support. That's my opinion. And I grew up in a broken home with a bitch of a mother. I emancipated at 13 to go live with my Dad (I'm male).



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Mcupobob
 


That was really Great!!!!....Loved that video.....TY



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by kaiode1
 

Here is the thing, no human is inherently better than another one. Regardless of gender, religion, skin color, creed, background. Every person should be judge by who they are and what they have done, nothing else. By giving "our women" a little more you are in effect saying that men are worth less as human beings and not equal or be treated as equal. It was wrong in the past and will continue to be wrong in the future, no matter which way you cut it. ANYTHING that does not create TRUE equality is going to have one or more group(s) as oppressed and other as oppressor, with the roles just changing. Basically a bigger version if the "victim game". There can be no winner or solution in that game, and it is in our best interest as a species to quit playing it.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Furbs
 

So are you asserting that issuing a restraining order (kicking a person out of their home, away from their children without having a trial or them being able to defend himself is violating due process, nor their rights? Just because the supreme court makes a decision, does not mean that it is the right decision, nor that they do not set precedents that violate rights. Last I checked they were human like everyone else and subject to the same logical points of weakness as you or i.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
I agree completely.

It's a matter of balance; something humans cannot do very well.

We always tip the scales too far to one side or the other.

100 years ago women could easily claim the same kinda stuff that men can claim now.

give it another 50 years or so and we will have a 'Mens Liberation Movement'
And then 50 to 100 years after that it'll be another 'Womens Liberation movement'


As the Lion King Stated "it's the circle of life"



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by mayertuck
reply to post by Furbs
 

So are you asserting that issuing a restraining order (kicking a person out of their home, away from their children without having a trial or them being able to defend himself is violating due process, nor their rights? Just because the supreme court makes a decision, does not mean that it is the right decision, nor that they do not set precedents that violate rights. Last I checked they were human like everyone else and subject to the same logical points of weakness as you or i.



Matters like "Right" and "Wrong" do not play into whether or not something is unconstitutional. Let me break down how the courts work for you.

Congress writes laws.
The President enforces laws.
The Supreme Court decides if the laws violate the Constitution.

If the Supreme Court decides that a law doesn't break the Constitution, it doesn't break the Constitution. If a law is passed denying your right to due process, and The Supreme Court upholds that law, it is lawful. That is called Rule of Law.

If at a later date, another incarnation of the Supreme Court deems said law unconstitutional, then it is from that day forward.

Restraining orders do not violate Due Process any more than being arrested and held in a jail before court does. Think of a restraining order like an arrest warrant. A judge views evidence and decides whether action is warranted. If it is, an order of protection is written up, you are served with it, and you are then bound by it until a time in which further action is taken. You can fight a straining order. Due Process would be violated if, like an arrest, you had no recourse.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by zeeon
I have to agree with the OP on the child bearing rights.

It takes two to tango. Yeah, women carry the baby, but it's OUR's as well.



So by your logic, a woman has a right to sperm jack you right?
Completely disagree with mens "child bearing" rights, unless your willing to somehow change your body so that YOU can conceive and bring to term a life. Men do not have the biological right to have children, however, you do have the freedom to seek out a mate who will carry a child for you and bring it to term.




Women can't get preggers on their own, now can they?



Two words: Sperm bank




Fathers deserve prenatal rights just as much as women. At the moment of inception, that child is both of theirs, not one or the other.



You have no right to force another human being to carry your child. If the child is carried to term and you are the father, only then can you start talking about your rights.



This methodology also plays into child support. Whomever can provide the best for the childs safety, emotional needs, growth and development, and quality of life should be the parent (in a divorce scenario).



Both parents play a huge part in what you have listed and it would be naive to think that if both [parents were able and mature that one could provide these things better then the other. I do agree that law should disregard gender and put the child's well-being above everything else.




Then the other parent provides child support. That's my opinion. And I grew up in a broken home with a bitch of a mother. I emancipated at 13 to go live with my Dad (I'm male).



In modern times both parents should finance their child, shouldn't be left to just one of them imo.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raivan31

As the Lion King Stated "it's the circle of life"




No, it's not ...

When women go back in history, to talk about how they were abused ... they never discuss "Cleopatra", or "Elizabeth I". It's because basically, their claim is bogus ... sure, there are extreme societies where men have abused women, and there are individual cases as well. But there are also the opposite cases, of women abusing men. And, in many cases where men have abused women physically, these very same have been the example of womens mental abuse for decades. The a-typical "American psycho" comes to mind, an example of a male mentally abused by his mother throughout his childhood, comes to mind.

Women have always, thoughout history been in the chair, behind almost everything ... and even if they weren't allowed to participate in politics, that is because these politics were "war" politics. These war politics, historically, being a "mans" game ... where women, successively demanded their part in the game.

One typical example, is that historically there used to be men's clubs. Exclusively for men ... all these clubs, have been "officially" abandoned, although there are rumors about some clubs, that no one issure exists, such as the scull bearers, etc. But our current society, is full of "exclusively women" club.

When concerning child birth, women say "it's our body" and deny you any right in wether your child is born or not. Not only do they deny you this, they also uphold the exclusive right to throw away your baby ... even after birth, in the so called "baby bags".

You, a man, may consider yourself to be the "physically" stronger sex ... but you are definately, the "mentally" weaker sex. Whenever a woman makes an arguement with you, she uses your own "empathatic" emotions against you. She uses it to make you feel bad, and to abandon your arguement ... but no matter what sort of appeal you make to a woman's empathy concerning your own situation, she will always refer to "herself", and her "own" feelings.

A woman categorically lacks empathy for others.

And even though that means, that men may have some empathy for others, their empathy is "categorial", just as much as women's lack of it is. Meaning, that it is not a "universal" thing.

The entire subject is in reality absurd ... there will never be "equality" between the sexes. Because there is such a thing as sex. Women are the ideal of beauty ... their body a thing on a pedestal, where both men and women adore them. Women are made salespeople, because they have "sex appeal". Women are mad office workers, because this sex appeal makes it harder for others to complain. An example, I go to the bank to exchange a check ... the woman clerk there, is the dumbest person on the planet. She wants to take $50 as charge, for a check, that's already been charged. But, she just looks at you ... arguements have no meaning. And if you file a complaint, you'll end up complaining to her boss, who is also a woman and she no more idea of the check already being charged, than you do. You end up, paying double fee for your check .. and if you dare to raise your voice, against these women and complain about their stupidity at not even reading the check "pre-charged", you'll find yourself being handled by some muscle-monkeys who throw you out. This is a real life, example.

And if you care to go into history, and read individual cases, you will discover that even in history. From the time of the caveman ... the woman has always been the ruler of the house. Inside the house, she always ruled ... and the man has only been a face, to the outside. What has happened is, that women have just removed the remaining status a man has ever had ... and taken the leadership, both inside the house and outside. And her battle, is to "not" to need a man at all.

Eventually, the woman will do away with men ... entirely.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


The above comment was brought to you by Gender Training.

Gender Training, bringing you distorted notions of men and women for over 10,000 years.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by zeeon
 





Your "Quote"


Women can't get preggers on there own, now can they?


Really?


Well tell that to the abandoned girls/women who are left 'holding the baby!!' There are an

awful lot of them.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


I want you to print off your response here, put it in a time capsule and bury it so people of the future can see how little we truly progressed as a society in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Behind the computer is the right place for many of the men here who seem terrified of women.

Get out there and meet some of us.

You might even get on with us.
edit on 11-6-2012 by selfharmonise because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Good topic. It's just as well that delicate issues be aired out fully and gotten out of everyone's systems once and for all.
That said, I must disagree with the part about reproductive rights, because the thought of forced childbirth makes me cringe. The only way to neutralize this supposed inequality, in my reckoning, would be to make male sterilization free of charge and available to anyone over the age of 18 who wanted it, while saving sperm samples beforehand for voluntary future use.
Wow... who knows how many unwanted children this measure would prevent, too!



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
There's so many embarrassing comments here I don't know where to begin. Lots of men crying in their beer...

shut up, man up and start acting your gender you crying bunch of babies



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by selfharmonise
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


I want you to print off your response here, put it in a time capsule and bury it so people of the future can see how little we truly progressed as a society in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Behind the computer is the right place for many of the men here who seem terrified of women.

Get out there and meet some of us.

You might even get on with us.
edit on 11-6-2012 by selfharmonise because: (no reason given)


Well for his own sake keep him away from me, I'd scare ten shades of it out of him.




top topics



 
135
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join