[soup]

Some recognition of manopshere in the NYTimes

"If a man accidentally conceives a child with a woman, and does not want to raise the child with her, what are his choices? Surprisingly, he has few options in the United States. He can urge her to seek an abortion, but ultimately that decision is hers to make. Should she decide to continue the pregnancy and raise the child, and should she or our government attempt to establish him as the legal father, he can be stuck with years of child support payments.

Do men now have less reproductive autonomy than women? Should men have more control over when and how they become parents, as many women now do?"

Maybe the legalized gay-married can pick up on raising the kids from forced fatherhood. If they are going to legalize that, they should be more sensitive to the men who talked about in the above article.

[lurker]

The cavalcade of missed points by the middle-class feminists commenting on that article is disgusting. Every one of them commenting that men "have the option of not impregnating her in the first place by using birth control" or "not sticking his penis in her" is either wallowing in her own hypocrisy or willfully blind to the fact that abortion has given women the option to discontinue the pregnancy process after that stage of the game. Great article, even if it's casting pearls to swine.

[cardguy]

If a guy doesn't want the child - he should be able to sign a waiver giving up all rights to the child. Along with all responsibilities.

Would never happen of course.

[Menace]

Quote:

In many states, infant safe haven laws allow a birth mother to walk away from her newborn baby if she leaves it unharmed at a designated facility.

A woman can LEAVE A BABY SHE GAVE BIRTH TO ALREADY, and not suffer any consequences. Think about that for a second. Why can't a man?

[2Wycked]

@lurker

When I took Con Law, I was called during the cases on abortion.

I said men need to be able to walk away from a pregnancy - if women have the right to abortion - women should have to reasonably try to ascertain the father, inform him of her pregnancy and then he would have to chose either to play a part in child's life or walk. If she decides to abort, that is her choice. If she decides to carry the child, then she needs to allow the father to decide what role he wants to play.

It went over horribly, with the one angry radical feminist frothing at the mouth about limiting women's autonomy. I said you can't be for full female control of the reproductive sphere if you are for equality. She coughed up some bullshit about male privilege.

I have encountered women who have used that "he could have not had sex" when talked about forced fatherhood. The easiest retort is to say the same about women, maybe they shouldn't have had sex if they didn't want to get pregnant.

Women really think they are not just above the law, but above any moral or social judgment for their actions.

[Menace]

2Wycked, I wish I had been more red pill during my Family Law course...it would have made for more interesting discussions.

[cardguy]

I had this argument at work with my boss once.

It is really difficult having a logical argument like this. It is like you have to translate your ideas from logical ones to analogies to make your argument clearer. But it is hard to find such analagoies since there are no examples of laws being put in place to priviledge men at the expense of men.

Women are more organised politically than men. And the media tries to please them since the advertisers are aimed at them. And alot of the issues they campaign for are also in the interests of the government. Who need men to be chained into indentured servitude in order to prop up the tax base.

Still - I have little sympathy for alot of these guys. Since they fucking stupid to place their future happiness in the hands of a woman.

Until the laws change you need to look out for yourself.

[Therapsid]

For all the talk about how women need more reproductive services, more sex education, free contraception, Planned Parenthood's on every street corner... the fact is that if men could waive their parental responsibilities like this you'd see much fewer unplanned pregnancies.

Suddenly all those trashy chicks who'd otherwise end up unemployed single moms living off child support would stay on the pill.

[Timoteo]

2Wycked, this is one of those discussions that men and women simply can't have. For women, the prevailing argument is that "It's my body." Sure, the default argument is always that you shouldn't have had sex, but again, the responsibility should always lie with the male. If a woman legitimately doesn't want to be pregnant, she should insist on a condom. But from the many discussions we have on this forum, we know women often don't insist. My opinion has always been that since women are the ones that get pregnant, they bear the ultimate responsibility for whether or not pregnancy results, since it's their body. They want to abdicate responsibility for the sex act, yet resume responsibility for the decision to not only keep the child if she becomes pregnant, but also force a man to support the child? I also recommend guys don't come inside women they aren't willing to be tied to for the next 18 to 22 years, but I still believe men should have the legal ability to opt-out. If she proceeds with the pregnancy, she does with the knowledge that she's on her own. And what about instances where a woman becomes pregnant, doesn't inform the biological father of her condition, has the child, and THEN he's informed by having a process server show up at his door, learning then that he's being hit up for child support? Also, in the same instance, a man that actually DOES want to be a father when learning of the birth of his biological child doesn't have a say if the woman decides to give the child up for adoption.

[cardguy]

This is an interesting quote from the article:

Quote:

Policies that punish men for accidental pregnancies also punish those children who must manage a lifelong relationship with an absent but legal father. These “fathers” are not “dead-beat dads” failing to live up to responsibilities they once took on — they are men who never voluntarily took on the responsibilities of fatherhood with respect to a particular child.

I find that a helpful way of looking at things. In a world where abotion is legal. Then it makes sense that some guys will see unwanted children as an abortion that 'went wrong' so to speak. And as such shouldn't be expected to have a relationship with them.

Sorry if that sounds harsh. Just looking at it logically. If it is legal to kill a foetus. Then it should be okay to want to have nothing to do with a child once it is born.

[Menace]

A paraphrase from Upton Sinclair is apropos: It is difficult to get a woman to understand something, when her welfare depends upon her not understanding it.

[cardguy]

One of the comments below the article made my point above more clearly than I did.

Quote:

This is the flip side of legalized abortion. If pregnancy is optional, then parenthood is too. If motherhood is optional, then so should fatherhood be.

[Tytalus]

I have mixed feelings on this subject, since in college my gf got pregnant and got an abortion against my wishes, which lead to a break up.

I am mostly in the "If you stick your penis in a woman, do not be surprised if you end up paying child support" camp. Facing the consequences for your actions of sticking it in a woman you didn't want to marry. This is just an essential part of the social contract, you sire a kid, you're responsible for paying for them. Don't want to pay? Don't sire kids. Avoid Penis in Vagina intercourse and you're mostly fine.

That said, I do think how child support works in the US is a travesty and facilities the mass impovershment of men and women in the long run. It's a 100 billion dollar industry with a large, uncaring and unsympathetic bureaucracy.

Did you guys know, back in the day, the argument against having the government support bastards was "If we support women with bastards, they will have no incentive NOT to have bastards". So precient and so true.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(06-13-2013 11:12 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  

@lurker

When I took Con Law, I was called during the cases on abortion.

I said men need to be able to walk away from a pregnancy - if women have the right to abortion - women should have to reasonably try to ascertain the father, inform him of her pregnancy and then he would have to chose either to play a part in child's life or walk. If she decides to abort, that is her choice. If she decides to carry the child, then she needs to allow the father to decide what role he wants to play.

It went over horribly, with the one angry radical feminist frothing at the mouth about limiting women's autonomy. I said you can't be for full female control of the reproductive sphere if you are for equality. She coughed up some bullshit about male privilege.

I have encountered women who have used that "he could have not had sex" when talked about forced fatherhood. The easiest retort is to say the same about women, maybe they shouldn't have had sex if they didn't want to get pregnant.

Women really think they are not just above the law, but above any moral or social judgment for their actions.

Is it possible for logical and non-discriminating thoughts like that to come back to haunt you, like it being recorded and then used against you because no employer want "someone who will cause a scandal"? Or has the USA still not gone that far?

[Wadsworth]

This woman teaches women's and gender studies. Never forget that.

There's a big difference between writing an article asking if forced fatherhood is fair (of course it isn't) and fighting to eliminate it. Feminists have written about LPS before, but none of them actually fight for it, they fight for one-way reproductive rights, and indeed many of them are prepared to fight tooth and nail against LPS.

I've known campus feminists like this before, and they'll often write throwaway articles like this one to validate the gender jargon they're indoctrinating people with as egalitarian. I'll believe it when they start fighting against court-enforced male slavery.

If you want to know where this woman is at just look at her last sentence.

Quote:

And we need to protect children and stabilize family relationships, as Murphy suggests, by broadening our definition of “father” to include men who willingly perform fatherlike roles in a child’s life, and who, with informed consent, have accepted the responsibilities of fatherhood.

Now let's think about this for a moment. She wants to broaden the definition of father to include men who come into a single mother's life and help raise the kid. If said relationship were to end, would this hamster entertain the possibility that the father should get custody? Of course she wouldn't, because he isn't a biological parent like the mother is. Yet she still wants him to be legally held as the father. Why? So that he can be exploited as a post-breakup resource and no other reason.

This woman is not our friend gentlemen. She merely recognizes that LPS is an eventuality as the men's movement gains steam and she's attempting to coopt the LPS agenda with a feminist one.

I'm deeply concerned about the men's movement turning into a bunch of simpering manginas as soon as some woman anywhere says something nice about men or starts coopting MRM issues under the umbrella of feminism.

Edit: Just want to be clear that I don't mean to say anyone here is being a mangina.

[bacon]

In all the arguments for fairness and equality between the men and women I have never understood why men cannot opt out of being a father when women can opt out even after the child is born on being a mother.

Women have an unfair advantage with respect to contraceptives since they have some 11 different forms of birth control.

Men have 2 forms; a condom and a vasectomy. One of which is a permenant option that many urologists will not perform on younger men.

If men are unable to get a male birth control pill provided to them at the very least they should have the option of meeting with a lawyer and signing away their parental rights during the course of the pregnancy.

[scorpion]

The entire argument hinges on the role of the government in forcibly extracting a man's wages in the form of child support. A woman should be able to have a child without the father's consent, she just should not be entitled to his financial support in that case. This is a very simple and equitable way to handle the situation. Women will go on at length about the injustice of not having control of their own bodies. Agreed. I would simply say that it is similarly unjust for a man to lose control of his own body, which is exactly what child support entails: a man is forced to utilize his body to engage in labor expressly to support the woman and her child. If he fails to do so, he will further lose control of his body by being thrown in jail.

If a woman is forced to have a child she does not want, or is forced to abort a child she does want, in both cases she would have no control over her body. Fortunately for women, neither of these scenarios happen anymore. Women now have complete control over their bodies.

If a man gets a woman pregnant and he does not want her to have a child, he has no control. She will have the child and he will be compelled by the state to provide financial support for 18 years. He will be forced to engage in labor to provide this money. He has lost control of his body.

The problem is quite clear: if women are able to control their bodies in regards to reproduction, men should have the same right. A woman should be free to have a child against the wishes of the father, and the father should be free to disavow the bastard child and any financial responsibility for it or the mother. The woman is free to have her cake, she just can't eat it, too.

[iknowexactly]

(06-13-2013 11:18 AM)Menace Wrote:  

2Wycked, I wish I had been more red pill during my Family Law course...it would have made for more interesting discussions.

DO NOT raise anti-feminist arguments in classes in academia. You are in a dictatorship where the professor has total power to ream you out, write you up, give you a shit grade.

You can fairly easily get thrown out of school not for a reasoned position, but for the fact that your position "makes others uncomfortable."

Of course, I don't have any personal experience with almost having this happen. Just heard about someone who did.

[Timoteo]

(06-13-2013 03:12 PM)bacon Wrote:  

In all the arguments for fairness and equality between the men and women I have never understood why men cannot opt out of being a father when women can opt out even after the child is born on being a mother.

Women have an unfair advantage with respect to contraceptives since they have some 11 different forms of birth control.

Men have 2 forms; a condom and a vasectomy. One of which is a permenant option that many urologists will not perform on younger men.

If men are unable to get a male birth control pill provided to them at the very least they should have the option of meeting with a lawyer and signing away their parental rights during the course of the pregnancy.

Very revealing. Women want to hold the hammer of reproduction over men's heads, prepared to smash him with it when they feel like it. Their main concern was that man could be on the pill, fuck them when THEY want to get pregnant, and bounce, and they wouldn't have the power to use a potential pregnancy to withdraw resources from him against HIS will. Beautiful.

[cardguy]

Men need to understand something. Women don't like you. You mean nothing to them.

You are just a means to an end.

Men love women.

Women love children.

Children love hamsters.

[The Beast1]

I'm surprised more men haven't upped and left the country when they get suckered into forced child support.

I'd save up money and move to Mexico or hell even Eastern Europe. They will happily let an American expat with skills and the like move in.

Tell woman and bastard child to go to hell.

Iknowexactly is 100%. Don't raise red pill arguments in class. You run the risk of getting bad grades (that you paid for) AND ruining your chances to game college girls.

[JimNortonFan]

(06-13-2013 03:20 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 11:18 AM)Menace Wrote:  

2Wycked, I wish I had been more red pill during my Family Law course...it would have made for more interesting discussions.

DO NOT raise anti-feminist arguments in classes in academia. You are in a dictatorship where the professor has total power to ream you out, write you up, give you a shit grade.

You can fairly easily get thrown out of school not for a reasoned position, but for the fact that your position "makes others uncomfortable."

Of course, I don't have any personal experience with almost having this happen. Just heard about someone who did.

This needs to be seconded, thirded, fourthed, etc.

In college you are in a dictatorship. Talking back is like some gulag resident quoting Ayn Rand to the guards. No one cares, it doesn't do any good, and if they want, they can destroy you.

[iknowexactly]

(06-13-2013 04:24 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

Men need to understand something. Women don't like you. You mean nothing to them.

Yes I try to remind myself of this. When womem say they love you, it's like when you say you love your reliable, beautiful car. It's something that gives you pleasure,
you admire it, you're happy because it has been dependable, but you don't FEEL anything towards it besides what you can feel for an object.

You are that car, you are the nice couch she loves. Until she gets a better one, if and when it benefits her and if she wants to bother.

(06-13-2013 04:24 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

You are just a means to an end.

Men love women.

Women love children.


Children love hamsters.

Haha, I love hamsters too, even my own!!

I try to not get pissed off at women by using this idea-- they are like children. They are just emotional creatures, so don't keep expecting them to do something they are not capable of.

Variant on Mark Twain "pig" quote:

"Never try to get a woman to think objectively. It's very frustrating and it greatly annoys the woman."

[Hades]

Yeah, leave it to the most highly privileged members of society to be utterly incapable of checking their own privilege.
I once raised the topic that if feminists or do-gooders in government actually wanted more children to have "fathers", then they would reduce the requirements to being a father from the specter of forced payments, alimony, and child support to one simple informed consent contract that required a signature in the presence of a witness and voluntary contributions from the father to the children however the father saw fit. Get rid of the financial requirements of being a father and more kids will grow up with one.

(06-13-2013 04:36 PM)JimNortonFan Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 03:20 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 11:18 AM)Menace Wrote:  

2Wycked, I wish I had been more red pill during my Family Law course...it would have made for more interesting discussions.

DO NOT raise anti-feminist arguments in classes in academia. You are in a dictatorship where the professor has total power to ream you out, write you up, give you a shit grade.

You can fairly easily get thrown out of school not for a reasoned position, but for the fact that your position "makes others uncomfortable."

Of course, I don't have any personal experience with almost having this happen. Just heard about someone who did.

This needs to be seconded, thirded, fourthed, etc.

In college you are in a dictatorship. Talking back is like some gulag resident quoting Ayn Rand to the guards. No one cares, it doesn't do any good, and if they want, they can destroy you.

I'm in the other camp on this one. They're not going to know that an opposition exists until you make yourself known. I have heard some incredibly dumb and dipshit opinions in liberal arts classes and the administration never got involved.

Just make sure to always befriend the teacher before you start disagreeing with students and always frame your questions with the object of - "pursuing the truth or facts' - rather than "providing token and slanted resistance to feminist argumentation" and whenever trouble hits, give a non-apology to the teacher like "Words were spoken, it got heated, and feelings were hurt" or "It must have been a misunderstanding because no offense was meant".

The teacher can't just nuke your grade out of nowhere if you make the other students look like middle schoolers in comparison and you can always complain to the department head or academic chair with something like,

"In the interest of spurring free thought and debate, I often applied a contrarian stance because I was curious as to why some of my fellow students had certain opinions and how they justified them, but in the process of doing this, premises that I rose during classroom debate were oftentimes misconstrued as views that I personally hold. Since the sum total of questions I rose clashed radically with the political views of the majority of the classroom, their attitudes and the general environment of the class became tense and defensive, though I did not espouse these views and meant them no offense. Surely, though some of the questions I would ask required difficult answers, it was for the purpose of discussion and analysis, not a subversive and surreptitious attempt at provoking hostilities.


As long as you avoid the topics of rape, race, and the sacred cow of the gender wage gap you should be A-OK. Literally nothing good can happen from a discussion about rape, especially.

I liked to do anarcho-libertarian arguments at times and instead of sounding like a dipshit my arguments were usually funny and more along the lines of Ron Swanson libertarianism. One of my favorite essays from school talked about how to promote civil equality between straights and gays not by legalizing gay marriage, but rather by abolishing all government contractual marriage and marriage laws.

[Timoteo]

Women love what you do for them, and will love you up to an extent as long as you continue to deliver. Hell, even while you're delivering, if they find someone they think will deliver even more, bye.