Women already have that right, but it’s not really anything to do with equality for abortion.
Everyone knows college-educated white American women are the most oppressed group on earth.
Seriously, black men are the most disadvantaged group in the West.
I’m certain I’ve never seen anyone say that. It’s not like MRAs generally have stupid ideas like Kyriarchy.
In the UK there are no male rape victims, the law specifically says rape is something that men do to women.An inequality feminists have been peculiarly lax in challenging.
That ignores the reality that most rape victims who report their victimisation to the police are women, and therefore the push for this law was by feminists who wanted to help women and not men. And no, other groups aren’t generally allowed to make accusations or testify in court with a total legal ban on the publication of their identities, the only exception other than rape claimants are people testifying under Public Interest Immunity, which is generally used for spooks testifying against muslims they claim are terrorists.
You know, there was a time when no accusers or witnesses were protected either. That was changed in the one case where it would mostly protect women, protecting alleged rape victims. So saying that’s just the way it is, that’s not a good argument. Giving anonymity to the accused would stop their reputations being permanently and irreperably smeared by false accusations.
I don’t think you have plaintiffs in criminal cases, and it’s very much not that anyway, because it does apply only in rape. If you want to accuse someone of murder, or claim you were blackmailed or threatened or extorted you don’t get anonymity.
And the last time I looked, a gay man had the same right as a straight man has to marry the consenting woman of his choice. Can I take it that you don’t believe there’s any injustice to be corrected there? After all, in these two scenarios the gay man has the huge advantage that he’s perfectly able to exercise his “equal right”.
Pregnancy from rape could be called statistically insignificant. Still happens. But every hypocritical pro-life politician wants special abortion-is-fine laws for rape victims.
That’s a nice theory. What about the morning after pill, and all the rest of it. Women have a choice, even though the child is their physical burden. Men don’t have a choice despite nature giving them one.
Most people don’t commit any crime. Again, not an argument against having laws.
Then the men have made a choice. That’s what I’m suggesting, that men be given the option, maybe given thirty days after they find out about a kid or something like that, and get a choice: in or out. Parent, with all the rights and responsibilities, or not.
Joint legal custody, maybe. In England at least it’s 70% of the time women are awarded sole physical custody, compared to 7% for the father. Half of married fathers have no contact at all with their children after three years. Hardly surprising that the vast majority of divorces are filed by women. Wikipedia also says the second highest cause of non-payment of child support is protesting lack of visitation, after inability to pay.
I just saw some statistics from Michigan in 2002, which also show sole custody for the mother, physical custody, ~60% and joint at ~20%.
And there’s the tender years doctrine, which amounts to a near-ban on father-custody of young children.
Frankly, you’re talking absolute bullshit.
Except that is socially unacceptable for a man. Women put pressure on men because the women want to keep control of the children, men are pressured by society to work and be the breadwinners. Logically they might not wish to do so if they find themselves divorced, but might feel they no longer wish to support their wife and would like the spend more time with their child. But the courts require they continue making their maximum potential income. Like the comedian Dave Foley, ordered by the courts to pay 400% of his income.
This seems to be just your prejudice.
There’s a clear distinction to be drawn with regard to the fact that the man doesn’t actually have to carry a baby to term. Women have the right to abort their pregnancies (at least in the US) because they have the right to control what happens to their own bodies, not because they have the right to control what happens to their wallets. That’s an inequity created by biology, not the law.
Isn’t this the “she shouldn’t have been wearing that dress” argument? Men place themselves in situations and therefore it’s okay they become the victim of assault?
He’s not saying it’s okay. He’s saying it’s not evidence of some anti-male conspiracy.
And when they are, do people react by blaming the men for being alone at night, dressing provocatively, not fighting back hard enough, etc.? Because that’s what happens to a woman who is a victim of a violent crime. :dubious:
The difference is that with other crimes withholding the identity of the victim is the exception not the rule but with rape it’s the rule.
To a certain extent it is.
This is actually a good example of bias.
His statement, perhaps indirectly, implies that men are responsible for situations they place themselves in and the outcomes of those decisions.
If this same logic were to be applied to women, it would be called “blaming the victim.”
Aside from the dressing provocatively part, yes, pretty much.
Unless you’re elderly and/or it was multiple assailants, most people will blame the victim: he was either brawling or wasn’t man enough.
What on earth is the basis for this claim?
Huh?
What makes you say that. I’ve met plenty of people who’ve been mugged and none of them have ever been treated like that.
Biology didn’t tether men to their children. Abortion was given by modern medical science, not biology or the law, and the obligations of men were given entirely by the law.
That’s why we have things like Presumption of Paternity, or Legitimacy, whereby the law says that the kid might not be yours biologically, but we’ll pretend it is so you can still pay for it.
But even if it was a biological difference, so what? When women are too weak to be, say, firemen, we change the entry tests so they can get in anyway. When women are less adept at fighting we make laws saying it’s a more important crime to hit women, a higher category of offence just like it is to hit a small child. But the first time men want some consideration for biology, suddenly it’s an unbreakable law of the universe that the mere laws of mortal men are unable to change.
No, that’s what happens very rarely to women who are victims of rape. Men who are victims of rape will be disbelieved, maybe laughed at or told they were lucky to be raped.
But most female, or male for that matter, victims of violent crime are not victims of rape. You’re just bringing up a red herring to distract from the fact that men are more likely to be victims of every type of violent crime.
Well, I think that camp is motivated by misogyny as well. This isn’t the thread to hash it out in, but I’m fairly certain a small percent of pro-life sentiment is about saving the precious zygotes, and a large percent is about punishing the sluts.
Men have the choice to use birth control. Men have the choice to use a back method. Birth control is equally effective for both men and women- using it prevents pregnancy with a very small failure rate. Men have the choice to sleep with women who have similar views on parenthood and abortion as them. Men have every chance in the world not to make unwanted babies, and it’s hard to believe they are fighting for their legitimate rights rather than fighting for the right to get it on without a condom and then abandon their babies afterwards.
In any case, we’ve hashed this out a million times, and the answer is that your point of view doesn’t work. I am yet to get an explanation for why this agreement has to be done after the sex, rather than before the sex. I am 100% for any couple who wants to make a pre-coital contract that any baby that comes out of the act is the full responsibility of a designated partner. But for some reason, guys are always arguing that they couldn’t possibly reveal to their partner they have no intention of raising their children before they get laid, and they absolutely need to wait to make that decision clear until after they’ve blown their wad.
No, you are talking bullshit. If you were genuine, you would mention how many of these cases are contested, and how often mothers are given custody because the fathers are not interested in having it. Without that information, your statistics are legally meaningless. You’ll also need to account for situations where custody is contested primarily for harassment rather than a genuine desire to take care of the child. In other words, how often are men who are capable and interested in having custody of their child being denied? That’s the only question and statistic that matters to your point. I’d argue that it is relatively few.
Also, for the record, who files a divorce has relatively little to do with who caused it. Plenty of cheating philanderers would be completely happy to spend years having fun with their lover while their spouse waits at home and does all the hard work in the marriage. Plenty of abusive spouses are perfectly content with their marriage and would happily go on beating their spouse until they are both old and grey.
I was just a “IME” thing, like the post I was responding to (and yours).
And it was regarding being the victim of a violent crime, which I would take to mean assault, sexual assault etc.
Uh, what?
See here, chief.
Are we just assuming now that fathers aren’t interested in caring for their children, or do YOU have some numbers to back this up?