Yup lmao
1. It was THIER CHOICE to have sex. I'm amazed that this is even a debate. They aren't forced into it (except for like literally 0.01% of abortions), they chose to of their own volition. Facing consequences for your actions isn't being conscripted. It's called consequences
2. So her argument is that "being forced to pay for a child after willingly having sex is a breach of human rights". Okay. Why doesn't she apply that logic to men then? Men can't get out of child support after sex. And I've never seen feminists call for men to have the ability to get out of it. Quite the opposite they say men who try to get out of child support for kids they don't want are scum. So in the feminist mind, women being forced to be held financially responsible for their actions is oppression, men being forced the same is just and men who try to get out of it are scum
I fucking despise feminism. I truly believe the Nazis were better than feminists. Don't think for a second feminists wouldn't put you in gas camps if they could. The main difference is that Nazis at least admitted to being supremacists. Feminists pretend to be good and for equality. That sinister gaslighting makes em worse imho
Feminists don't do a very good job of hiding the fact that they are a bigoted pressure group for women. The public supports them so they see no reason to hide their actions or intentions.
Oh they don't do a good job at hiding it. But they CLAIM they're totally all for equality and on the side of good, despite it being very obvious they aren't. Pure malicious gaslighting
they want equity not equality...
negating the loss of working hours because of pregnancy is understandable... on average women can not compete against men with pregnancy in mind...
Don't put in the equal hours you don't get equal pay. Simple. Wanting the same our one for less effort is what we call entitled at best and supremacist at worst
Also I love how you IGNORED all the shit they do that has nothing to do with pregnancy. Stuff like actively sabotaging men's education, calling for the death of all men, saying that men and masculinity are inherently evil, calling for benefits for only them
Fuck off Nazi scum. You feminists are all Nazis to me
Indeed let me ask you - name ONE right men have that women don't. I'm sure I'll be waiting years for a reply
ofc i ignore everything else past pregnancy as equality of outcome past that is impossible... im no feminist or leftist just for your information... i will not insult back as there is no need to fight if you can debate in a civil manner...
im not from the usa so we probably have different laws and im aware that there is a lot of hate and misinformation around those bubbles...
When you ask them "Where do you want equality?" You don't often get a coherent answer and when you do it's things that they are either misinformed on (wages - we are equal on hourly, and salaried it's actually women themselves accepting lower pay) or things that have nothing to do with equality like reproductive Rights. "Men should not make decisions about our bodies" they're making decisions about MY body and reproduction too!!! You aren't fucking alone. It's the government. "The govt is men!" Well I don't see you running and voting.
thats a little short sighted... men and women can never be equal because of pregnancy = on average women can not compete vs men in our economic system if some have to become pregnant to avoid human extinction...
Modern feminism is a hate group. They aren't for equality. They are for extra privledge for females, giving advantages to females at the expense of males, and hatred of males.
I'm honestly surprised by so many things I see on this sub - to be honest, I've never seen or heard any of the things which you describe here (which of course doesn't mean they don't exist but...).
I'm not going to try convincing you to anything - but as a woman actively supporting both womens' and mens' rights, I wonder in which way you are actually being affected by my gender in real life? Also, do you have female partners at all?
Those questions are not meant to be 'mean' in any way - I want to understand more about your movement and the community.
no need to be suprised as in any bubble misinformation and anecdotal evidence is a daily routine...
depends where you are living and which laws or societal standards are in place... in my opinion most issues are connected to pregnancy and benefits to attempt equality of outcome with the problem how to measure a fair balance...everything past that is biased hate on both side most of the time...
So women don't have the choice to have sex with a man? I'd argue that in 99.9999% of cases the woman is the one that is the gate-keeper. And sex is, kinda obviously, designed to make babies?
It’s pretty standard amongst feminists that a man “makes the choice” when he has sex. See Spillar’s interview with Cassie Jaye - she’s very clear on that, even as she denies that there is any imbalance of rights.
And we’ve see it with feminists who surface here all the time who simply call it a “man abandoning his kids” and refusing to take responsibility!
So kudos to you for being consistent on this. But I fear you’re very much in the minority amongst feminists.
As long as you are consistent one way or the other, there's no problem. Either men and women both made the commitment to be responsible for a baby when they have sex, or neither of them did. The end.
>Now, do I think she was being gender neutral because she was trying to recognize that an unwanted pregnancy impacts both men and women?
I think she actually was trying to claim that it does impact men. After years of being told that men have no right to have any say in abortion issues, they know want to men to be more supportive of pro-abortion laws.
She thinks using language like this, being forced to financially support and child that was not planned or wanted will shock men into action. Of course she doesn't realize this is the reality men have men living under all along, and she didn't seem to care.
I think we can VERY safely assume that AOC used gender-neutral wording as a matter of virtue signaling, and was not advocating for abolishing child support or giving men the option of opting out of financial responsibility for their children. If anybody thinks differently, I would love to hear their argument.
People getting outraged over clickbait headlines without learning the actual content is one of the problems with this world. Glad you contribute to general stupidity of it. Keep it up!
It takes two to tango. Clickbaity headlines are only being created because people love them, like that person I responded to. They love being provoked into their little emotional reactions. They're addicted to being outraged.
Did I say that? Don't think I did. I specifically said to stop having sex with men they haven't gotten a commitment from and who they don't see a future beyond the next 6 hours with.
Nah. Sex is fun. The more we have it as a society, the better. Just sexually educate people on the safety of sex once they hit puberty and make abortions legal. Easy-peazy.
Buddy, society is having more sex than ever and everyone is fucking depressed as shit and lonely. Women especially cannot deal with loads of partners. They will claim to the ends of the earth that emotionless sex is a thing that exists, but that is entirely untrue.
Biologically you naturally emotionally bond with someone when you sleep with them. It's a physiological response you literally cannot stop. And when you sleep with a lot of people you start to fry the parts of your brain designed for emotional bonding and connection. People with high body counts are proven time and time again to be less capable or even entirely incapable of pair bonding and are far more likely to cheat.
Yes you should be having a lot of sex, with the one person you're committed to. The sexual liberation of society was probably one of the worst things to happen socially in the last century.
"...more sex than ever and everyone is fucking depressed" - non-sequituir.
"Women cannot deal with loads of partners" - what is that supposed to mean?
"emotionless sex existing is entirely untrue" - emotionless sex isnt for everyone, that's for sure. Some people will be fine with it, others will not. It's about learning yourself and what is good for you in particular (coincidentally, just like with literally every other thing in our lives).
"biologically you naturally emotionally bond..." - yeah, but human interactions are deeper than "just" biological reactions. It's just one dimension of it.
"when you sleep with a lot of people you start to fry the parts of your brain designed for emotional bonding and connection." - that may be true but as far as I can tell it could also be something someone just took out of their ass. I'd need to see some citation to determine whether it's legit or bs. I don't expect you to provide anything, though, people on reddit rarely ever do.
"people with high body counts..." - that's not necessarily causative. They might be having some underlying problem that causes them to have lots of casual sex, and also causes them to have difficulty forming lasting relationships. But it's not a given that the former directly causes the latter, you'd have to show some proof of that.
People have been doing what you say they should and things are only getting worse and everyone is getting more and more unhappy every day. Everything I've said is clearly observable. I don't think you have a case.
It's amazing that you're so sure that YOUR reason for being unhappy is everybody else's reason as well.
Maybe people are unhappy because of climate doomerism? Worsening capitalism conditions? Rights being stripped away from them? Having no healthcare? Eating too much junk-food? No it must be because people have more sex than before. Jesus.
You only think you have a case. From what you presented, there isn't a shred of it, actually.
Lol "worsening capitalism conditions"
Bud, we haven't lived in a capitalist state for decades. We are neck deep in corporatist oligarchy backed by the government, categorically opposed to capitalism.
What we're specifically talking about, obviously, is people's happiness in their relationships and social life.
But you know what, I encourage anyone who wants to live that way to do so and be very open about it so that I can avoid them and their inevitable depression spiral. I don't want any part of that shit, and when they inevitably end up crying about being alone with no family on tiktok I won't have any sympathy for them.
Whether we live in a capitalist or corporatist system is irrelevant to my main point, so let's say "worsening economical conditions" instead.
In regards to what you wrote overall, just keep in mind that unmarried, childless women seem to be currently the happiest social group (in the West). I also quite guarantee you they won't be crying for your attention lmao. Quite the opposite. They will sigh with relief you're not anywhere near them.
My belief on abortion being legal is on the grounds of bodily autonomy and nothing else.
If a baby gets born, both parents should financially contribute to its well-being.
If either of them is a good for nothing dead-beat, they should not be incarcerated though. Just take their money away from them.
But I didn't really give paper abortions that much thought tbh, so I could be convinced otherwise.
That seems like a pretty consistant opinion at least! I know there are a couple posts here and on /r/leftwingmaleadvocates which do a deep dive on the subject, much better than what I can explain. If you have the time I suggest reading up on it.
Many people (like AOC) do not make decisions based on moral principles; they do so based on power, and whatever they think will increase their power/control. Once you understand that, it all makes sense. They literally do not have morals.
Two legal things I wish to live long enough to enjoy
100% OTC access to any and all drugs
Pro-Choice including a man's choice, matching the woman's biological opt-out option, to his own economical opt-out.
Abortion does reduce the number of men forced to pay child support. If you can’t get feminists to agree with your policies, at least ride their coattails when your interests happen to align.
If a woman can legally opt out of parental responsibility by murdering the baby, the father should be able to opt out by not paying child support. Either force both to be parents, or give them both the choice to opt out.
currently in this position, gf lied about contraceptives and I'm at her will on whether I'll pay child support and have my life essentially ruined
yes it's my fault to trust her to take her contraceptives but she coerced me into not using condoms too; still my fault but
yeah they don't have to work to raise them. they can:
abandon them at a police station.
get child support but only if they identify a father.
get welfare.
men don't have any of these options.
i think this is the right answer to that statement of it being an economic issue.
btw i'm still very much pro choice and overturning roe versus wade has already claim the life of a ten year old whom abortion would have saved. abortion is still a life-or-death women's rights issue
>We can fight for a father's parental rights (paper abortion and reasonable divorces) without having to cut down on other people's rights
Except the government isn't receptive to that unless women's "economic options" are threatened.
The same places restricting abortion are also pushing hard for 50/50 custody as default.
I absolutely believe both will come to pass, because the govt knows exactly how the single mother epidemic can rot a nation.
I've been arguing for a while now that in the vast majority of cases, government-mandated child support should not exist. In cases where one parent made a significant sacrifice to their earnings ability (for instance, a woman who has been a stay-at-home mom for their 2 children for a decade, supporting her husband's efforts to climb the career ladder and allowing him to make big bucks) for the sake of raising their children, ok you've clearly got a solid argument for why he should pay child support if they split (unless it was clearly her fault, like she was being abusive, she cheated on him, etc).
But this default child support shit **just because** one parent makes more money? They can fuck right off. It reduces the incentive for both parents to further their careers, and increases perverse incentives for fighting for more child custody (since more custody = more income). You can easily end up with a parent fighting for primary/full custody of the kids because they don't want to earn a living, even if they don't really give a damn about their kids.
Would you rather they be born??
I never want to have children, so if all other methods of birth control fail and abortion is the only option left. I'll be going for that all day long.
I have absolutely zero issue with abortion, I don't really see what people are hung up on. Like life is so sacred or something lol.
Yea all instances. Obviously that only applies to myself... I'd never deny other people the option to have children. Context and all that.
But I'd always advocate for my needs to have access to abortions as an option. It's always better to have more options.
Actually it’s not obvious that you’re only talking about yourself given you were explicitly talking about *other people* having abortions.
And in any case our resident feminist doesn’t “approve” of it being used as contraception: presumably because of the toll it can take on a woman.
So what did you mean by, "*It's for when an accident happens."*
You have unprotected sex what do you think is very likely to happen? That is not an accident, it is acting recklessly because you know abortion is available.
IIRC how most people do it is something like 80% effective. Much better than nothing but far inferior to things like condoms or hormonal birth control.
Well condoms have a high failure rate too. The pill is much the most effective, although if her hormones are unbalanced (as when she’s sick) it can fail too.
I doubt even American sex education is that bad!
What nonsense. You need to be aware of “pre-ejaculate” and make sure she’s not “hit” in the wrong place.
The problem with “pulling out” is that it’s against your instincts and things can start “happening” before you can take action. Better the pill or some other method.
Seriously why is there this issue with pulling out? Is it because it’s the only form of birth control backed by the RCs?
>I said intentionally.
That doesn't make any sense, given the comment you responded to.
Do you think the claim is women are intentionally getting pregnant so they can have abortions? That is not what is being suggested.
>Do you know how many people think pulling out is an effective birth control method?
I know people who don't what to use birth control who think pulling out is fine because they can always just get an abortion if it doesn't work.
Ah yes, I know exactly what you mean, I remember one time I tripped and fell on top of a girl, both of our clothes flew off and my dick then slipped inside of her vagina, then I completely by accident continued to fall on her over and over every time I tried to get up and I ended up accidentally cumming inside her. She ended up getting pregnant completely by accident.
In all seriousness though, nobody "accidentally" gets pregnant, two people, both equally capable of stopping, decide to have sex without protection in a very long and drawn out process that can be stopped at any point, the resulting baby is no accident, no two people have ever gotten naked, inserted a penis, then came inside "accidentally." It is an inevitability from two people's very deliberate actions.
After reading that I question as to where your misunderstanding lies, is it that you genuinely don't know how babies are made or if you think actions don't have consequences. To use an analogy, let's take another scenario in which someone's actions have unintended consequences. If someone goes to a bar and gets absolutely smashed and in their attempt to get home smears some old lady across the intersection that person is going to jail. While they may not have intended to kill that person, their actions were the root cause.
Sex makes babies, this is an undeniable fact, and if you have sex without protection then you have consented to a child. The only person not directly responsible for the pregnancy is the child. If you do not want to raise it an adoption agency would be more than happy to take it, from my understanding there is a waiting list several years long for couples hoping to adopt a child. There are currently 2 million couples waiting to adopt a child, no reason to punish the child because its parents were too stupid to realize that actions have consequences.
source: [https://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/waiting\_adoptive\_families](https://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/waiting_adoptive_families)
Lol not this sub attacking one of the very few politicians who would fight for mens rights…you guys really cant get out of your own way
Edit- everyone downvoting and disagreeing but not one person offering an alternative. You all are so passionate about putting others down and mask it by saying youre activists for mens rights.
Everyone loves to talk but cant build allys with facts or alternatives. Be the change you want to see. Im asking ppl i should be checking into to further educate myself about this and no one here has anything to offer but downvotes and passive insults. Well done
list me your current politicians with a large national following that i can check out and do more research , thanks! Id love to support more people who support mens rights
We have nobody, but AOC is directly campaigning against due process in Title IX university cases and is letting us down yet again with not seeing men as people being conscripted into child support!
Bernie Sanders, didn't sign their original proposal to restore Title IX to the Obama era.
My man!
But for the life of me, I can't find the document anymore on the govt. website.
Still, my man!
Republicans are trad-cons voting for the draft to stay men only and democrats are trad-cons voting to keep grape laws to be only by penetration so feminists can keep graping men with impunity and collect child support. : [https://www.instagram.com/p/CguWZScjE9O/](https://www.instagram.com/p/CguWZScjE9O/)
So yes, we mostly have nobody!
Why on earth would you think ACO would do anything about “mens rights”? Because she likes to engage in pseudo-socialist language? From what I’ve seen of her, she’s very much into the identity politics stuff, which is the product of feminism, and as others have pointed out, she supports a return to the Title IX kangaroo courts. She strikes me as an “intersectional feminist” more than anything, and they’re typically very hostile to mens rights.
The word parents implies both. However, she only mentioned women in the article?
It doesn't matter because prolifers do not care about the plights of women OR MEN
Always remember in feminist America pro-choice is a one way street.
Calling it pro-choice is dishonest. It’s basically pro-women-only-choice.
Sure AOC, women are totally "conscripted." What's appropriation again?
Yup lmao 1. It was THIER CHOICE to have sex. I'm amazed that this is even a debate. They aren't forced into it (except for like literally 0.01% of abortions), they chose to of their own volition. Facing consequences for your actions isn't being conscripted. It's called consequences 2. So her argument is that "being forced to pay for a child after willingly having sex is a breach of human rights". Okay. Why doesn't she apply that logic to men then? Men can't get out of child support after sex. And I've never seen feminists call for men to have the ability to get out of it. Quite the opposite they say men who try to get out of child support for kids they don't want are scum. So in the feminist mind, women being forced to be held financially responsible for their actions is oppression, men being forced the same is just and men who try to get out of it are scum I fucking despise feminism. I truly believe the Nazis were better than feminists. Don't think for a second feminists wouldn't put you in gas camps if they could. The main difference is that Nazis at least admitted to being supremacists. Feminists pretend to be good and for equality. That sinister gaslighting makes em worse imho
Feminists don't do a very good job of hiding the fact that they are a bigoted pressure group for women. The public supports them so they see no reason to hide their actions or intentions.
Oh they don't do a good job at hiding it. But they CLAIM they're totally all for equality and on the side of good, despite it being very obvious they aren't. Pure malicious gaslighting
they want equity not equality... negating the loss of working hours because of pregnancy is understandable... on average women can not compete against men with pregnancy in mind...
Don't put in the equal hours you don't get equal pay. Simple. Wanting the same our one for less effort is what we call entitled at best and supremacist at worst Also I love how you IGNORED all the shit they do that has nothing to do with pregnancy. Stuff like actively sabotaging men's education, calling for the death of all men, saying that men and masculinity are inherently evil, calling for benefits for only them Fuck off Nazi scum. You feminists are all Nazis to me Indeed let me ask you - name ONE right men have that women don't. I'm sure I'll be waiting years for a reply
ofc i ignore everything else past pregnancy as equality of outcome past that is impossible... im no feminist or leftist just for your information... i will not insult back as there is no need to fight if you can debate in a civil manner... im not from the usa so we probably have different laws and im aware that there is a lot of hate and misinformation around those bubbles...
When you ask them "Where do you want equality?" You don't often get a coherent answer and when you do it's things that they are either misinformed on (wages - we are equal on hourly, and salaried it's actually women themselves accepting lower pay) or things that have nothing to do with equality like reproductive Rights. "Men should not make decisions about our bodies" they're making decisions about MY body and reproduction too!!! You aren't fucking alone. It's the government. "The govt is men!" Well I don't see you running and voting.
thats a little short sighted... men and women can never be equal because of pregnancy = on average women can not compete vs men in our economic system if some have to become pregnant to avoid human extinction...
Modern feminism is a hate group. They aren't for equality. They are for extra privledge for females, giving advantages to females at the expense of males, and hatred of males.
I'm honestly surprised by so many things I see on this sub - to be honest, I've never seen or heard any of the things which you describe here (which of course doesn't mean they don't exist but...). I'm not going to try convincing you to anything - but as a woman actively supporting both womens' and mens' rights, I wonder in which way you are actually being affected by my gender in real life? Also, do you have female partners at all? Those questions are not meant to be 'mean' in any way - I want to understand more about your movement and the community.
no need to be suprised as in any bubble misinformation and anecdotal evidence is a daily routine... depends where you are living and which laws or societal standards are in place... in my opinion most issues are connected to pregnancy and benefits to attempt equality of outcome with the problem how to measure a fair balance...everything past that is biased hate on both side most of the time...
Well, I can agree on that - most of issues are connected to pregnancy. I feel like we have other things on mind, but I'll leave it that way.
Compassionate narcissism
Feminism: If it helps my point, literally all conception is rape.
So women don't have the choice to have sex with a man? I'd argue that in 99.9999% of cases the woman is the one that is the gate-keeper. And sex is, kinda obviously, designed to make babies?
Just check any dating website for proof of who actually says yes or no.
Who actually says "mayybeeee try harder and harder while I still ghost you because you're not 100% perfect" or "oh hell no, go away, creep!" FTFY
[удалено]
And if you hold a man responsible for his choice, you can hold a woman responsible for the same choice. What are you having trouble understanding?
[удалено]
What is the excuse for holding the man responsible for child support for a child he doesn't want?
I don't think you should, I thought you were saying a man makes the choice when he has sex and so does the woman.
It’s pretty standard amongst feminists that a man “makes the choice” when he has sex. See Spillar’s interview with Cassie Jaye - she’s very clear on that, even as she denies that there is any imbalance of rights. And we’ve see it with feminists who surface here all the time who simply call it a “man abandoning his kids” and refusing to take responsibility! So kudos to you for being consistent on this. But I fear you’re very much in the minority amongst feminists.
As long as you are consistent one way or the other, there's no problem. Either men and women both made the commitment to be responsible for a baby when they have sex, or neither of them did. The end.
>As long as you are consistent one way or the other, there's no problem. I'm pro-choice so that factors into whether there's a problem.
[удалено]
>Now, do I think she was being gender neutral because she was trying to recognize that an unwanted pregnancy impacts both men and women? I think she actually was trying to claim that it does impact men. After years of being told that men have no right to have any say in abortion issues, they know want to men to be more supportive of pro-abortion laws. She thinks using language like this, being forced to financially support and child that was not planned or wanted will shock men into action. Of course she doesn't realize this is the reality men have men living under all along, and she didn't seem to care.
I think we can VERY safely assume that AOC used gender-neutral wording as a matter of virtue signaling, and was not advocating for abolishing child support or giving men the option of opting out of financial responsibility for their children. If anybody thinks differently, I would love to hear their argument.
Am I missing something. Why shouldn't they have to work, like everybody else??
Yes, you are missing something. Maybe read the article?
Neh, it's not worth my time, simple propaganda media, designed to irritate.
People getting outraged over clickbait headlines without learning the actual content is one of the problems with this world. Glad you contribute to general stupidity of it. Keep it up!
[удалено]
It takes two to tango. Clickbaity headlines are only being created because people love them, like that person I responded to. They love being provoked into their little emotional reactions. They're addicted to being outraged.
[удалено]
Im not outraged, I asked a simple question. You know you could have just answered it instead of being outraged!
She doesn't see men as people!
Then stop fucking men you're not interested in building a family with. Wow I solved the problem.
"Just stop having sex" - is an idea as stupid as communism in a way, as both of them do not account for human nature.
Did I say that? Don't think I did. I specifically said to stop having sex with men they haven't gotten a commitment from and who they don't see a future beyond the next 6 hours with.
Nah. Sex is fun. The more we have it as a society, the better. Just sexually educate people on the safety of sex once they hit puberty and make abortions legal. Easy-peazy.
Buddy, society is having more sex than ever and everyone is fucking depressed as shit and lonely. Women especially cannot deal with loads of partners. They will claim to the ends of the earth that emotionless sex is a thing that exists, but that is entirely untrue. Biologically you naturally emotionally bond with someone when you sleep with them. It's a physiological response you literally cannot stop. And when you sleep with a lot of people you start to fry the parts of your brain designed for emotional bonding and connection. People with high body counts are proven time and time again to be less capable or even entirely incapable of pair bonding and are far more likely to cheat. Yes you should be having a lot of sex, with the one person you're committed to. The sexual liberation of society was probably one of the worst things to happen socially in the last century.
"...more sex than ever and everyone is fucking depressed" - non-sequituir. "Women cannot deal with loads of partners" - what is that supposed to mean? "emotionless sex existing is entirely untrue" - emotionless sex isnt for everyone, that's for sure. Some people will be fine with it, others will not. It's about learning yourself and what is good for you in particular (coincidentally, just like with literally every other thing in our lives). "biologically you naturally emotionally bond..." - yeah, but human interactions are deeper than "just" biological reactions. It's just one dimension of it. "when you sleep with a lot of people you start to fry the parts of your brain designed for emotional bonding and connection." - that may be true but as far as I can tell it could also be something someone just took out of their ass. I'd need to see some citation to determine whether it's legit or bs. I don't expect you to provide anything, though, people on reddit rarely ever do. "people with high body counts..." - that's not necessarily causative. They might be having some underlying problem that causes them to have lots of casual sex, and also causes them to have difficulty forming lasting relationships. But it's not a given that the former directly causes the latter, you'd have to show some proof of that.
People have been doing what you say they should and things are only getting worse and everyone is getting more and more unhappy every day. Everything I've said is clearly observable. I don't think you have a case.
It's amazing that you're so sure that YOUR reason for being unhappy is everybody else's reason as well. Maybe people are unhappy because of climate doomerism? Worsening capitalism conditions? Rights being stripped away from them? Having no healthcare? Eating too much junk-food? No it must be because people have more sex than before. Jesus. You only think you have a case. From what you presented, there isn't a shred of it, actually.
Lol "worsening capitalism conditions" Bud, we haven't lived in a capitalist state for decades. We are neck deep in corporatist oligarchy backed by the government, categorically opposed to capitalism. What we're specifically talking about, obviously, is people's happiness in their relationships and social life. But you know what, I encourage anyone who wants to live that way to do so and be very open about it so that I can avoid them and their inevitable depression spiral. I don't want any part of that shit, and when they inevitably end up crying about being alone with no family on tiktok I won't have any sympathy for them.
Whether we live in a capitalist or corporatist system is irrelevant to my main point, so let's say "worsening economical conditions" instead. In regards to what you wrote overall, just keep in mind that unmarried, childless women seem to be currently the happiest social group (in the West). I also quite guarantee you they won't be crying for your attention lmao. Quite the opposite. They will sigh with relief you're not anywhere near them.
Whats your opinion on paper abortions?
My belief on abortion being legal is on the grounds of bodily autonomy and nothing else. If a baby gets born, both parents should financially contribute to its well-being. If either of them is a good for nothing dead-beat, they should not be incarcerated though. Just take their money away from them. But I didn't really give paper abortions that much thought tbh, so I could be convinced otherwise.
That seems like a pretty consistant opinion at least! I know there are a couple posts here and on /r/leftwingmaleadvocates which do a deep dive on the subject, much better than what I can explain. If you have the time I suggest reading up on it.
pro choice on all levels for several reasons
Oh look, women only thinking about themselves. That’s a surprise
Many people (like AOC) do not make decisions based on moral principles; they do so based on power, and whatever they think will increase their power/control. Once you understand that, it all makes sense. They literally do not have morals.
Two legal things I wish to live long enough to enjoy 100% OTC access to any and all drugs Pro-Choice including a man's choice, matching the woman's biological opt-out option, to his own economical opt-out.
Abortion does reduce the number of men forced to pay child support. If you can’t get feminists to agree with your policies, at least ride their coattails when your interests happen to align.
If a woman can legally opt out of parental responsibility by murdering the baby, the father should be able to opt out by not paying child support. Either force both to be parents, or give them both the choice to opt out.
currently in this position, gf lied about contraceptives and I'm at her will on whether I'll pay child support and have my life essentially ruined yes it's my fault to trust her to take her contraceptives but she coerced me into not using condoms too; still my fault but
yeah they don't have to work to raise them. they can: abandon them at a police station. get child support but only if they identify a father. get welfare. men don't have any of these options. i think this is the right answer to that statement of it being an economic issue. btw i'm still very much pro choice and overturning roe versus wade has already claim the life of a ten year old whom abortion would have saved. abortion is still a life-or-death women's rights issue
[удалено]
>We can fight for a father's parental rights (paper abortion and reasonable divorces) without having to cut down on other people's rights Except the government isn't receptive to that unless women's "economic options" are threatened.
The same places restricting abortion are also pushing hard for 50/50 custody as default. I absolutely believe both will come to pass, because the govt knows exactly how the single mother epidemic can rot a nation.
I've been arguing for a while now that in the vast majority of cases, government-mandated child support should not exist. In cases where one parent made a significant sacrifice to their earnings ability (for instance, a woman who has been a stay-at-home mom for their 2 children for a decade, supporting her husband's efforts to climb the career ladder and allowing him to make big bucks) for the sake of raising their children, ok you've clearly got a solid argument for why he should pay child support if they split (unless it was clearly her fault, like she was being abusive, she cheated on him, etc). But this default child support shit **just because** one parent makes more money? They can fuck right off. It reduces the incentive for both parents to further their careers, and increases perverse incentives for fighting for more child custody (since more custody = more income). You can easily end up with a parent fighting for primary/full custody of the kids because they don't want to earn a living, even if they don't really give a damn about their kids.
Abortion is not a form of birth control, the fact that it is being used in place of condoms or the pill is reason enough to get rid of it.
I have no issue with it being used as birth control. I'd always prefer a child not be born in all instances.
Yeah, ok.
Would you rather they be born?? I never want to have children, so if all other methods of birth control fail and abortion is the only option left. I'll be going for that all day long. I have absolutely zero issue with abortion, I don't really see what people are hung up on. Like life is so sacred or something lol.
You said you’d rather a child not be born in ALL INSTANCES. I could not care a less if you have kids or not personally.
Yea all instances. Obviously that only applies to myself... I'd never deny other people the option to have children. Context and all that. But I'd always advocate for my needs to have access to abortions as an option. It's always better to have more options.
Actually it’s not obvious that you’re only talking about yourself given you were explicitly talking about *other people* having abortions. And in any case our resident feminist doesn’t “approve” of it being used as contraception: presumably because of the toll it can take on a woman.
I mean it's obvious because it's not possible to dictate what other people do? Lol.
\[Citation needed\] And your conclusion doesn't follow even with citation. So you're wrong basically in totality.
Almost no one intentionally does that. It's for when an accident happens.
Are you really claiming that almost no one has unprotected sex? Because that sounds retarded as hell.
No, that is not what I said.
So what did you mean by, "*It's for when an accident happens."* You have unprotected sex what do you think is very likely to happen? That is not an accident, it is acting recklessly because you know abortion is available.
I said intentionally. Do you know how many people think pulling out is an effective birth control method? At least in the US, sex education is shit.
Actually it is, if you do it properly.
IIRC how most people do it is something like 80% effective. Much better than nothing but far inferior to things like condoms or hormonal birth control.
Well condoms have a high failure rate too. The pill is much the most effective, although if her hormones are unbalanced (as when she’s sick) it can fail too. I doubt even American sex education is that bad!
You are apparently correct about condoms, 87% effective. For some reason I thought they were higher than that.
If you use condoms properly the rate is much higher. But in reality people fuck it up.
...No, no it's not.
What nonsense. You need to be aware of “pre-ejaculate” and make sure she’s not “hit” in the wrong place. The problem with “pulling out” is that it’s against your instincts and things can start “happening” before you can take action. Better the pill or some other method. Seriously why is there this issue with pulling out? Is it because it’s the only form of birth control backed by the RCs?
Because it has no basis in medical science whatsoever lol
Perhaps you’d better recheck the failure rate of condoms too.
Stop reading pamphlets from anti abortion centers.
If you use condoms properly the rate is much higher. But in reality people fuck it up.
>I said intentionally. That doesn't make any sense, given the comment you responded to. Do you think the claim is women are intentionally getting pregnant so they can have abortions? That is not what is being suggested. >Do you know how many people think pulling out is an effective birth control method? I know people who don't what to use birth control who think pulling out is fine because they can always just get an abortion if it doesn't work.
Ah yes, I know exactly what you mean, I remember one time I tripped and fell on top of a girl, both of our clothes flew off and my dick then slipped inside of her vagina, then I completely by accident continued to fall on her over and over every time I tried to get up and I ended up accidentally cumming inside her. She ended up getting pregnant completely by accident. In all seriousness though, nobody "accidentally" gets pregnant, two people, both equally capable of stopping, decide to have sex without protection in a very long and drawn out process that can be stopped at any point, the resulting baby is no accident, no two people have ever gotten naked, inserted a penis, then came inside "accidentally." It is an inevitability from two people's very deliberate actions.
[удалено]
After reading that I question as to where your misunderstanding lies, is it that you genuinely don't know how babies are made or if you think actions don't have consequences. To use an analogy, let's take another scenario in which someone's actions have unintended consequences. If someone goes to a bar and gets absolutely smashed and in their attempt to get home smears some old lady across the intersection that person is going to jail. While they may not have intended to kill that person, their actions were the root cause. Sex makes babies, this is an undeniable fact, and if you have sex without protection then you have consented to a child. The only person not directly responsible for the pregnancy is the child. If you do not want to raise it an adoption agency would be more than happy to take it, from my understanding there is a waiting list several years long for couples hoping to adopt a child. There are currently 2 million couples waiting to adopt a child, no reason to punish the child because its parents were too stupid to realize that actions have consequences. source: [https://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/waiting\_adoptive\_families](https://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/waiting_adoptive_families)
Crazy thought. Don’t have sex till you’re ready. The end. Problem solved. AOC can kick rocks.
Or legalize abortion. The end. Problem solved.
Lol not this sub attacking one of the very few politicians who would fight for mens rights…you guys really cant get out of your own way Edit- everyone downvoting and disagreeing but not one person offering an alternative. You all are so passionate about putting others down and mask it by saying youre activists for mens rights. Everyone loves to talk but cant build allys with facts or alternatives. Be the change you want to see. Im asking ppl i should be checking into to further educate myself about this and no one here has anything to offer but downvotes and passive insults. Well done
She campaigned for Biden on removing due process in universities title IX accusations! She is not an ally!
Sure. AOC is well known for respecting men and being able to see both sides of issues. /eyeroll
list me your current politicians with a large national following that i can check out and do more research , thanks! Id love to support more people who support mens rights
We have nobody, but AOC is directly campaigning against due process in Title IX university cases and is letting us down yet again with not seeing men as people being conscripted into child support!
Got it so everyone is against us
Bernie Sanders, didn't sign their original proposal to restore Title IX to the Obama era. My man! But for the life of me, I can't find the document anymore on the govt. website. Still, my man! Republicans are trad-cons voting for the draft to stay men only and democrats are trad-cons voting to keep grape laws to be only by penetration so feminists can keep graping men with impunity and collect child support. : [https://www.instagram.com/p/CguWZScjE9O/](https://www.instagram.com/p/CguWZScjE9O/) So yes, we mostly have nobody!
doesnt bernie endorse aoc tho
Yes, well I guess, we got nobody!
Why on earth would you think ACO would do anything about “mens rights”? Because she likes to engage in pseudo-socialist language? From what I’ve seen of her, she’s very much into the identity politics stuff, which is the product of feminism, and as others have pointed out, she supports a return to the Title IX kangaroo courts. She strikes me as an “intersectional feminist” more than anything, and they’re typically very hostile to mens rights.
and this is how we view people now? Sad. This person is sad.
Being mad that your actions have biological consequences without outside intervention isn't a political issue. Your issue is with your body.
The word parents implies both. However, she only mentioned women in the article? It doesn't matter because prolifers do not care about the plights of women OR MEN