RE: Anita Sarkeesians dirty little secret!

RE: Anita Sarkeesians dirty little secret! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Anita Sarkeesians dirty little secret! (3/20/2016 5:28:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic If you're not telling/maniplating,forcing her to get rid of it, or walking out because you cant handle it, or you arent ready, or If you can be found FOR financial support. BTW being a good father is so much more than just money. When you take the risks, you can bitch. I am talking about men (co potential parents) who are fully engaged, emotionally, financially, logistically, and every other way. Such a man has absolutely zero rights to even know that a fetus even exists, let alone the whereabouts of that fetus, or its mother. (Or if that fetus's development is continuing, or has been aborted.) Oh BTW: This applies, even if a man is MARRIED to the potential mother. And no my post is NOT about bashing women at all. mnottertail asked about a mens rights issue, and this is clearly one.

Lucylastic -> RE: Anita Sarkeesians dirty little secret! (3/20/2016 6:22:32 AM)
I didnt respond to you. I responded to brentc for his ignorant comment about missing child support Im not bashing men either.just some. Im sorry, but yeah, you can neither force her to do either. you dont own anything esp not a fetus. Property of the incubator. It might have your dna, but its not residing anywhere but in a person who has separate rights of freedom . Until born. Btw.... im all for good fathers taking responsibility for their fertilized sperm. And that women can be unfair by not telling you where your offspring is, might be horrendous, but to give all men control over their pregnant partners decisions isnt the answer.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Anita Sarkeesians dirty little secret! (3/20/2016 6:31:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I didnt respond to you. I responded to brentc for his ignorant comment about missing child support Im not bashing men either.just some. Im sorry, but yeah, you can neither force her to do either. you dont own anything esp not a fetus. Property of the incubator. It might have your dna, but its not residing anywhere but in a person who has separate rights of freedom . Until born. Btw.... im all for good fathers taking responsibility for their fertilized sperm. And that women can be unfair by not telling you where your offspring is, might be horrendous, but to give all men control over their pregnant partners decisions isnt the answer. :) I didn't say I had an answer. I was just stating the problem. It is a huge, very legitimate mens rights issue, which no politician would touch with a ten foot pole, because of its political incorrectness (yikes, I sound like Trump and Carson. but in this case, I am 100% correct).

Lucylastic -> RE: Anita Sarkeesians dirty little secret! (3/20/2016 6:57:57 AM)
its not political correctness, at all. having a child or not is NOT political correctness.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Anita Sarkeesians dirty little secret! (3/20/2016 10:57:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic its not political correctness, at all. having a child or not is NOT political correctness. I am sure that I do not understand your post at all, or its relevance to mine. What I am saying is that, in general, modern politicians won't publicly advocate for any mens rights issues, because it is political suicide to do so. That is the very definition of political correctness/incorrectness.

thompsonx -> RE: Anita Sarkeesians dirty little secret! (3/20/2016 12:31:02 PM)
ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 What I am saying is that, in general, modern politicians won't publicly advocate for any mens rights issues, because it is political suicide to do so. That is the very definition of political correctness/incorrectness. Not modern politicians...all politicians at all times will not champinon a cause that will bring less votes than it alienates. Consider the size of the subset of men you are supporting vs. the size of the set of men who could give a phoque less about the bastard child for whom they have been the sperm donor. As for your claim I am talking about men (co potential parents) who are fully engaged, emotionally, financially, logistically, and every other way. Such a man has absolutely zero rights to even know that a fetus even exists, let alone the whereabouts of that fetus, or its mother. (Or if that fetus's development is continuing, or has been aborted.) Oh BTW: This applies, even if a man is MARRIED to the potential mother. Unless there is a restraining order or some other such mitigating document a husband/wife most certainly has a right to know where his wife/husband is and if she is pregnant/ill and the status of that pregnancy/illness. Now rather than demand that I show proof of this I would suggest that doubters show proof of the contrary.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Anita Sarkeesians dirty little secret! (3/20/2016 2:39:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Not modern politicians...all politicians at all times will not champinon a cause that will bring less votes than it alienates. Consider the size of the subset of men you are supporting vs. the size of the set of men who could give a phoque less about the bastard child for whom they have been the sperm donor. True, but wholly irrelevant to my point. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx As for your claim Unless there is a restraining order or some other such mitigating document a husband/wife most certainly has a right to know where his wife/husband is and if she is pregnant/ill and the status of that pregnancy/illness. Now rather than demand that I show proof of this I would suggest that doubters show proof of the contrary. This is so untrue and absurd, that it is not worth a response. But.. One time... Except, indirectly in the context of child care, or some type of restraining order. (And even then, indirectly)... No adult has a legal right to know the exact whereabouts of any other adult. Period. Now if someone runs off with the kids, that's a different story. Other than that, the assertion is pure nonsense. (Another exception would be law enforcement, or a parolee)

thompsonx -> RE: Anita Sarkeesians dirty little secret! (3/20/2016 5:24:35 PM)
ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 ORIGINAL: thompsonx As for your claim Unless there is a restraining order or some other such mitigating document a husband/wife most certainly has a right to know where his wife/husband is and if she is pregnant/ill and the status of that pregnancy/illness. Now rather than demand that I show proof of this I would suggest that doubters show proof of the contrary. This is so untrue and absurd, that it is not worth a response. Anytime you feel intellectually incapable of answering one of my questions please feel free to absent yourself. But.. One time... Take your condescension and stick it up your ass. Except, indirectly in the context of child care, or some type of restraining order. (And even then, indirectly)... No adult has a legal right to know the exact whereabouts of any other adult. We are not speaking of any adult we are speaking of husband/wife. Marriage gives the individuals in that marriage certain rights. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html Period. Now if someone runs off with the kids, that's a different story. Other than that, the assertion is pure nonsense. Consider wife/husband in hospital, wife/husband goes to hospital and demands access to wife/husband, hospital says they are in room # 103. Until you provide some validation for your opinion it remains pure nonsense.

respectmen -> RE: Anita Sarkeesians dirty little secret! (3/21/2016 1:33:53 AM)
What people were just discussing in this thread, I have some mixed opinions on this. I do believe in the "it's her body her choice" opinion. That said, if a woman get's to opt out of parenthood, so should men. If the woman want's to go ahead with birth and have the child while the man doesn't, a man should have the choice to not be involved as for not be a parent and choose not to be held responsible in child support payments. In them terms, he shouldn't have rights to see the child or any rights at all to do with the child. So all that explained, why should he be held accountable for her choice? A choice that is made out of his control? On the other hand, if the woman want's an abortion regardless if the man wants an abortion or not, the man should be forced to pay half for it. If the man doesn't want an abortion and the woman is also fine to go ahead with the birth but not a relationship with the man, yes, the man should still be forced to pay child support. There should be some kind of contract signed by both parties before birth takes place.

crazyml -> RE: Anita Sarkeesians dirty little secret! (3/21/2016 1:45:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: respectmen Here's some more yummy juicy anti feminist material for the feminists to blow a gasket over with personal attacks lol. Feminism, A Victim Mentality Disorder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ohyaZrEucM Feminism these days is like a mental illness. Hmm... Well obviously you can attempt to take a bit of the high ground, but whining about personal attacks from feminists, then posting a nonsense video that describes feminism as a mental illness has a circularity to it.

crazyml -> RE: Anita Sarkeesians dirty little secret! (3/21/2016 1:50:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: respectmen What people were just discussing in this thread, I have some mixed opinions on this. I do believe in the "it's her body her choice" opinion. That said, if a woman get's to opt out of parenthood, so should men. I know your MRA sites like to make it stickle brick simple, but it isn't as simple as that. The main complexity being that the woman carries the fetus inside her body. quote: If the woman want's to go ahead with birth and have the child while the man doesn't, a man should have the choice to not be involved as for not be a parent and choose not to be held responsible in child support payments. Men do have the choice not to be involved, when they decide to stick their penis inside the women, they're involved. quote: In them terms, he shouldn't have rights to see the child or any rights at all to do with the child. So all that explained, why should he be held accountable for her choice? A choice that is made out of his control? Unless she roofied him and impregnated herself on his unconscious wood, he made a choice. quote: On the other hand, if the woman want's an abortion regardless if the man wants an abortion or not, the man should be forced to pay half for it. If the man doesn't want an abortion and the woman is also fine to go ahead with the birth but not a relationship with the man, yes, the man should still be forced to pay child support. The man helped cause the issue, he should take responsibility for it. quote: There should be some kind of contract signed by both parties before birth takes place. Yeah, I'm ok with this. Done properly this could make sense to me.

respectmen -> RE: Anita Sarkeesians dirty little secret! (3/21/2016 2:35:20 AM)
quote: Hmm... Well obviously you can attempt to take a bit of the high ground, but whining about personal attacks from feminists, then posting a nonsense video that describes feminism as a mental illness has a circularity to it. Last time I checked, a personal attack means an attack made on the individual, not his/her opinions. In this case, the video is attacking an ideology, not people personally as in, you can't get laid, you're a loser etc etc. quote: Men do have the choice not to be involved, when they decide to stick their penis inside the women, they're involved. Your argument is so dumb that it's so easy to flip it around to women who want an abortion while the man doesn't. Sarcasm switched on It was her choice to get involved so now suck it up! What I just said is just as validated as what you just said. Take your own words, it's NOT as "stickle brick simple" as you make it out to be. quote: Unless she roofied him and impregnated herself on his unconscious wood, he made a choice. So did she, she made a choice too. If she wants an abortion and the man doesn't, suck it up. quote: The man helped cause the issue, he should take responsibility for it. The woman helped cause the issue, she should take responsibility if he wants to choose to go ahead with birth. Sarcasm switched off Can you see how insanely hypocritical your stance is?

thompsonx -> RE: Anita Sarkeesians dirty little secret! (3/21/2016 7:09:01 AM)
ORIGINAL: respectmen What people were just discussing in this thread, I have some mixed opinions on this. I do believe in the "it's her body her choice" opinion. That said, if a woman get's to opt out of parenthood, so should men. If the woman want's to go ahead with birth and have the child while the man doesn't, a man should have the choice to not be involved as for not be a parent and choose not to be held responsible in child support payments. Why? If I invite you to a party at my house and you break some piece of furniture in my house you are responsible to replace it even though I invited you to the party. If I choose not to charge you that is my perogative not yours. There should be some kind of contract signed by both parties before birth takes place. If there is to be a contract signed by both parties it needs to be done before the sex takes place not after.

Lucylastic -> RE: Anita Sarkeesians dirty little secret! (3/21/2016 8:27:32 AM)
Yanno its funny, When you stick your dick in a vag, You are either covering up, or you arent. If you arent and you havent had the snip, you are opening yourself to the possibility of pregnancy not to mention STDs, this is not a case of just dont have sex, this is a case of protecting your future. We all know birth control isnt 100% reliable, so....cover yourself. Its only money. For women its a bit different. It changes their bodies permanently, not to mention mentally. You guys balk at wearing a bit of latex on your dick, complain no could mean yes, you wouldnt sign a piece of paper, for every sexual contact, every relationship....You want to be confined to a relationship contract????every time you want sex with another person. Maybe lawyers should open offices in bars and clubs, so you can get your paperwork before you hump your possible incubator. LMAO Yeah I doubt it. {sarcasm on}Oh absolutely lets bring in a contract covering the possibility of pregnancy/birth in a relationship. As long as he didnt just get away with just financial responsibility. Half the responsibility for feeding, changing, being up all night, weaning, potty training, taking kids for their shots, being involved every day in the childs experience, and helping the spouse.....{Sarcasm off} Contracts, hah.

respectmen -> RE: Anita Sarkeesians dirty little secret! (3/22/2016 12:59:08 AM)
There should also be a contract to be a feminist. The first instance you are an offender of inequality, your arse gets revoked. Heh, most feminists wouldn't even last 5 minutes. Lucy definitely wouldn't last long, especially with her opinion with this matter. I get your stance Lucy, you want men to have no rights and more obligations than women while women have all the rights and less obligations than men. I wouldn't expect better from a feminist.

Lucylastic -> RE: Anita Sarkeesians dirty little secret! (3/22/2016 1:17:49 AM)
Not just opinion, experience, professionally, personal and life. You want a contract? You cant handle facts. Let alone responsibility.

respectmen -> RE: Anita Sarkeesians dirty little secret! (3/22/2016 1:49:05 AM)
You see little Lucy, you actually believe your own bigoted shit. You enjoy polishing your turds. My stance has a higher moral standing ground than yours as I am the one asking for equality when it comes to the choice of opting out of parenthood while you are the one asking for inequality, or in other words, female privilege. Any reasonable person would think the one who has the better argument is the one asking for equality compared to the one asking for gender privileges...which is going backward, not forward. quote: You cant handle facts. That's really ironic coming from a person who is a part of a movement that has a reputation of disrupting any conference about gender issues that don't fit the feminist narrative.

Lucylastic -> RE: Anita Sarkeesians dirty little secret! (3/22/2016 2:18:45 AM)
that you dont understand the difference in biology and your responsibility, than you have zero moral ground. My dog has more moral ground than you do.

longwayhome -> RE: Anita Sarkeesians dirty little secret! (3/22/2016 5:52:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: respectmen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0Tsh3KaBgo It's amazing how much funding and acceptance feminists get for whinging while a men's rights activist could only dream to get such a privilege. When men complain about male issues, they are misogynists, end of story. When women complain about women's issues, the UN and big money corporations listen to them. I wonder who is privileged here? These corporations even support such claims of petty issues like explained in the video while there are male issues far bigger than those petty issues that are totally off the radar. The dirty secret of any feminist who is a leader of the feminist movement is that they are in this for their own greed. While they depend on the never ending supply of insecure and gullible women who sucker in to this fear mongering that keeps the cancer spreading. There are of course a couple of facts get in the way of most of your arguments. Despite what you say men still earn more than women and own most of the wealth in the world. Men also hold most elected political offices and most appointed senior government posts, except in a tiny number of countries. There have been many advances but men are still firmly in control of most of the wealth and political power in the world. So much for feminism having gone too far. For my part I would prefer to live in a world without set gender roles, where life chances were equal for all, the vulnerable were protected by those most fortunate and achievement was on the basis of ability. Feminism in seeking to subvert stereotypical roles and fighting for equal rights is therefore important to me as a man, as it is to many women. Feminism means many different things to different people and there are certainly some feminists who appear to be more concerned with demonising men than promoting women. Contrary to the beliefs of some paranoid men however, these people do not have some huge hidden influence over governments or public life. They do not silently rule men's lives. There is no conspiracy. Of course there are *some* areas of life where men have a disadvantage. In some countries, family law and custody of children when relationships break down is very skewed. Surprisingly this is mostly but not always in favour of women. There are also individual situations where men are disadvantaged in certain work-places or organisations, but this is far from being the norm. Whilst I would not agree with every feminist and recognise that there are situations where men have a hard time, the overwhelming evidence is that the people in powerful positions are overwhelmingly men, despite years of feminism. This of course does not make every man an oppressor. Nor does it mean that every man has more power, independence or freedom than every woman. What it does mean however is that we are far from having a level playing field, and at the moment, on average, the deck is still stacked in favour of men. Your statements appear to be of the woman-hating variety, where you are demonising women, on the basis that you don't agree with the arguments of some feminists. You just don't seem to acknowledge that if you want to split people into men and women, it's still men who on average have the most. There will always be people with views that you don't like, but sweeping women together into a single category based on that or any other judgement just comes across as either misogynistic, bitter and/or prejudiced.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Anita Sarkeesians dirty little secret! (3/22/2016 7:09:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 ORIGINAL: thompsonx As for your claim Unless there is a restraining order or some other such mitigating document a husband/wife most certainly has a right to know where his wife/husband is and if she is pregnant/ill and the status of that pregnancy/illness. Now rather than demand that I show proof of this I would suggest that doubters show proof of the contrary. This is so untrue and absurd, that it is not worth a response. Anytime you feel intellectually incapable of answering one of my questions please feel free to absent yourself. But.. One time... Take your condescension and stick it up your ass. Except, indirectly in the context of child care, or some type of restraining order. (And even then, indirectly)... No adult has a legal right to know the exact whereabouts of any other adult. We are not speaking of any adult we are speaking of husband/wife. Marriage gives the individuals in that marriage certain rights. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html Period. Now if someone runs off with the kids, that's a different story. Other than that, the assertion is pure nonsense. Consider wife/husband in hospital, wife/husband goes to hospital and demands access to wife/husband, hospital says they are in room # 103. Until you provide some validation for your opinion it remains pure nonsense. Your link is meaningless to this conversation. Vis-a-vis your last scenario: If: 1) A spouse KNOWS that his/her spouse is at a certain hospital (he/she has NO legal obligation to tell him/her) AND 2) His/her spouse Does NOT instruct the hospital to NOT (sorry for the double negative) divulge that information The hospital will say he/she is in room #103. You are asserting a legal right that just does not exist.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875