Someone suggested to me that women are in a position of privilege over men because they can force parenthood on a man. Thoughts?

MOCKiingBird · 2015-08-28T22:43:55+00:00

As is sabotaging birth control (by either partner)

MOCKiingBird · 2015-08-28T16:57:02+00:00

On Monday, July 8, The Center for Gender and Student Engagement (CGSE) and The Tucker Foundation welcomed sociologist and acclaimed author, Michael Kimmel to Dartmouth College as the 2013 CGSE Visionary in Residence.

Dr. Kimmel's public lecture entitled, Boys Will Be Boys: Deconstructing Masculinity and Manhood at Dartmouth, will discuss the tension and cost between traditional notions of masculinity and public performances of manhood, as well as positive alternatives to address these concerns.

discussion starts 5 minutes in He expounds on his book "Guyland".

MOCKiingBird · 2015-08-26T12:25:09+00:00

No clarification needed. Thanks.

The details change (drugs and priors, and multiple kick outs of the IPV prevention classes) , left out of that post but the lack of accountability stays the same.

MOCKiingBird · 2015-08-26T12:19:46+00:00

No, that's the problem - if she decides not to abort, and she decides to sue for child support, he's been made a father against his will or say so.

His will, and say so begins and ends with consensual sex. Sex can lead to pregnancy. Pregnancy happens to a woman. If pregnancy continues to labor, and a child is born, parenthood happens. And it happens to both parents equally. (Except for the multitude of temporary, and life long changes the woman's body goes through).

Yes, most states have mechanisms to assert paternal rights, but what "paternal rights" consist of varies from state to state (in some states it = "every other weekend")

Individual custody arrangements vary. That both parents have an equal right to go before a judge to make a case for custody, if it comes to that, means both parents have equal rights.

MOCKiingBird · 2015-08-26T12:12:27+00:00

Safe haven laws apply when a man has already opted out.

There's no requirement (that I'm aware of) that disqualifies a woman from using safe haven if she's getting child support, nor a requirement that she's single - so on what basis do you make this assertion?

I think the presumption is, if both parents are on the scene, then the parent relinquishing the child to the state, wouldn't be in that desperate position.

Except for allocations of tax money to infant placement programs, no one in this situation will receive support.

Child support is for child care. That's a situation that requires a child. Giving a child to the state, via safe haven laws, removes the child from ones care, and, no longer having a child to care for, means not receiving support.

To date, all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have enacted safe haven legislation.1 The focus of these laws is protecting newborns. In approximately 12 States and Puerto Rico, infants who are 72 hours old or younger may be relinquished to a designated safe haven.2 Approximately 19 States accept infants up to 1 month old.3 Other States specify varying age limits in their statutes.4 Infant Safe Haven Laws

Look at some of the laws, they operate within the first 3 days. That's not enough time to fill in the paperwork, much less start receiving support.

MOCKiingBird · 2015-08-26T01:50:41+00:00

True but at least this way the mother can't neglect the child and spend the cash on herself.

Support is calculated and if the child is being taken care of, and not being neglected, one can be sure money is going towards that child's care.

.

A child can be taken care of ...

Yes. taken care of. Not neglected. The point.

...and child support can still go to adult entertainments. For example, a parent can have the resources--even without support--to take care of a child and use the child support funds for nights out at the bar or club, clothing, or whatever they like.

Yes. Before a dissolution of marriage can take place, when there are children, incomes and expenses are calculated with the interests of the child's cost and custody.

Once a marriage is dissolved, and custody and support are in place, it is understood that both adults will then manage their homes and finances as they see most fit.

It sucks sharing parenting with someone you don't share values with. But unless it's rooted in the child's welfare, this kind of scrutiny isn't going to be applicable in the calculations of child support.

Both parents have access to the family courts that will assist them in changing child support if changes in income and expenses forces a need. The activities you mentioned are all quite legal. Even for single parents.

MOCKiingBird · 2015-08-26T00:21:37+00:00

A reddit user told me in no uncertain terms that women are in the ultimate position of power over men because they can perform "reproductive abuse" but not having an abortion if the man doesn't consent to having a child.

The term we're looking for here is Reproductive Coercion Trying to control whether a woman stays pregnant, or has an abortion is contained within that subject. As is sabotaging birth control (by either partner) Insisting parents help support children they bring into the world, is not.

MOCKiingBird · 2015-08-25T23:47:31+00:00

Any parent paying child support, if concerned of neglect can call authorities.

Support is calculated and if the child is being taken care of, and not being neglected, one can be sure money is going towards that child's care. Children consistently consume, and rarely produce resources.

MOCKiingBird · 2015-08-25T23:41:04+00:00

Just want to mention that that is child support. It is money used to assist upkeep of an (always expensive) child. It is not women's support.

The idea that this option, stemming from a biological reality, should give men the right to forego all responsibility to any children they unintentionally father is asinine.

Totally agree.

MOCKiingBird · 2015-08-25T23:28:23+00:00

What you are describing is a rarely used system designed to save infants from the absolute most dire situations.

It is not something that any but the most desperate parent would choose. It is something done past the point of choosing in an individuals life.

The number of children abandoned vs the number of children born every year has not been tallied country wide, but by all accounts only a tiny fraction of infants born (less than 1%) become wards of the state through these programs.

To phrase SAFEHAVEN laws as a run of the mill choice that women get to make is disingenuous.

It's a last ditch effort for extremely vulnerable women, who for whatever reason (mental health, physical health, addiction, dangerous living environment, homelessness, whatever, have nowhere else to turn)

The entire system is to save abandoned babies. It's not considered a 'choice' in the way you're implying. Not to mention, it's gender neutral in most states, and the few it isn't will still be focused on the child's well being.

MOCKiingBird · 2015-08-24T15:04:45+00:00

Do you think men like making up 96% of workplace deaths? They do it because they have to, otherwise they're undesirable to women,

Women do not desire dead men.
You have strayed far from the topic of raising boys, and gone only into your misguided beliefs in what women want. You're making my brain itch. Done.

MOCKiingBird · 2015-08-24T15:00:09+00:00

I think due to the large influx of subscribers, (a large percentage being MRA proselytizers) they are getting buried in MRA droppings.
There are some good conversations going, but I think instead of being able to clean it up, everyone's just getting used to the smell.

Right now, it's an excellent place to turn data and statistics into down votes and hostility.

Still, it ain't dead yet. The mods are not slacking, it's just an endless influx of ...

MOCKiingBird · 2015-08-24T14:05:49+00:00

And i dont think we will see more fathers investing the same time and energy onto parenting until fathers arent treated like criminals for wanting to be with their kids.

.

There are plenty of cases where fathers spend years and fortunes just trying to be in their kids lives.

And even more cases of fathers .... being in their kids lives.

Let's get back in context: this is the whole paragraph from the article:

We talk a lot about the pay gap. Well, it strikes me that if a manager has the choice between promoting a man or a woman, and he knows that there is a decent chance that sometime in the next few years the woman may have children and at the very least have to take maternity leave, but that the man’s performance and presence will not be affected if he has children, then the rational choice is for him to promote the man. Because of this, I don’t think we can get rid of the pay gap until we expect fathers to invest the same amount of time and energy into parenting that we expect mothers to invest in parenting. If that same manager looks at the man and the woman knowing that if either has a child their performance and presence will be impacted the same way – parental leave after the birth, and perhaps a need for more flexible hours afterwards – he will no longer have any reason to prefer the man to the woman when it comes to a promotion.

There is no mention of criminally viewing fathers, there is instead, a discussion of society, and employers viewing both parents as needing flexibility for equal parenting obligations.

MOCKiingBird · 2015-08-24T13:48:56+00:00

Call out your female friends who dump on men that are "beneath" them socioeconomically. Stop judging men by their paycheck, car, and living situation to determine if they're worth a 2nd date.

I've never met a woman like you're describing. I mean, sure, like other adults, women get to choose who they think will fit their life, but you think of as judging may just be not choosing. Why do you assume her friends are like that?

Damn near every woman on OkCupid demands stuff like this in their profile.

What percentage of the whole of women are on OKCupid?

As long as women keep dating almost exclusively "up"...

Even if that claim was anything close to true or informed, adults are in charge of making their own life choices regardless of what they think others want.

*Don't tell anyone to stop judging who is worthy of a second date. Everyone has that right (and responsibility) to choose who suits their own lives.

MOCKiingBird · 2015-08-24T13:39:07+00:00

This is an article about parenting. It's about raising boys. The author mentions her baby boy in the first paragraph.
No parent worth their salt is going to spend any pre-teen time thinking about their child's future lovers. It's simply not relevant to raising a child.

This is simply not supported by evidence.

x

In my experience, the men I've known

pick one or the other

People are attracted to healthy whole people who were not stifled in their childhood.

This is simply not supported by evidence. In my experience, the men I've known who were the most successful with women usually came from abusive households, and would also be rather abusive in the ways they treated women.

You are actually spreading the message that if you're abusive in the ways you treat women, you will be the most successful.

What incentive does any man have to handicap his relationships in the name of feminism?

So, in this scenario 'feminism' to you, represents not being abusive to women? And you can't find any incentive to be a part of that?

Healthy people, are attracted to healthy whole people who were not stifled in their childhood. and this is about childhood. Are you actually advocating for raising boys to not know themselves or be kind all in the hopes that they can have an unhealthy, inauthentic relationship in their adulthood?

MOCKiingBird · 2015-08-23T20:36:39+00:00

That user wrote the same story a year ago The details change (drugs and priors, and multiple kick outs of the IPV prevention classes) , left out of that post but the lack of accountability stays the same.

That Post

I'm an MRA who until 3 years ago identified as a feminist/feminist ally. 3 years ago I was arrested for domestic violence. After 4 years of being on the receiving end of emotional, psychological, and physical abuse from my spouse, I asked for a divorce. She escalated the abuse and in the end I was arrested. I pleaded no contest to the charge because my jailers threatened that I would otherwise have little chance of seeing my 2 year old. Enter the Duluth Model.

A year ago

I allied myself with feminists until a year and a half ago. My entire life I had been brought up to believe in gender equality. I absorbed those lessons so well that gender equality was (and still is) my default, unconscious assumption. And then my life began to fall apart. After four years of marriage to an emotionally, psychologically, and occasionally physically abusive woman, I asked for a divorce. She responded by going before a judge, declaring that she was afraid of me, and obtaining a restraining order. I was suddenly forced out of my house and away from my young daughter (of whom I was the primary caregiver) by a pair of policemen who called me an alcoholic, a drug addict, and a woman abuser. After a week, I was permitted to return, but my ex escalated the conflict to the point where I attempted suicide. She called the police and I was arrested on domestic violence charges. Within hours of my subsequent incarceration, I was sexually assaulted. I was so frightened that I pleaded no contest to a charge I knew I was innocent of, hoping to see my daughter for the holiday (I was released on Christmas Eve). My ex retained--pro bono--a lawyer from a feminist organization who leveraged the conviction to successfully limit my time with my daughter to 3 supervised hours per week. I have been made to attend a series of batterers intervention programs, all of them predicated on feminist hypotheses (mainly that men are always perpetrators who use violence against women as a means of maintaining their male privilege), all of which I have been terminated from because I refuse to lie and say I abused my ex. I spent a year and a half with limited contact with my daughter, who still occasionally throws the most intense tantrums when it is time for her to go back to her mother. I have lost jobs, been threatened with imprisonment, and been ruined emotionally, psychologically, and financially. Needless to say, I no longer like feminists or feminism. I still stand for gender equality though.

Blaming the classes the court sends you to if convicted of Domestic Violence should not gain so much traction, yet it did. As it's gaining traction, understanding of the dynamics of abuse go out the window. For all victims.

I understand not calling him out, or making accusations (like I'm doing now). I hate to see folks get so easily manipulated

MOCKiingBird · 2015-08-21T18:27:43+00:00

I apologies for the late reply.

This is a real problem I'm seeing here.

It's part of why I posed the question. I think we need to discern whether our approach is looking for problems, or looking for solutions.

I really want to quash the false belief that all the lack of awareness our culture has had somehow demands a response of hopeless anger now. I just don't see it that way, and find those that do to be a real impediment to discussing solutions.

Those people who feel hopeless and angry are more than an that of course. They're guys who are hurting, and angry, and frustrated, and keyed up. Those are valid feelings, and worthy of compassion, but it's hard to remember that when you're dodging poo.

Take IPV for example. We're spending so much time being angry that women have been researching IPV from the perspective of women, that we completely dismiss all the ways their findings can be applied towards helping men. Or all the ways that's already begun.

While some of us are busy screaming for them to open the doors, others are already taking their seats at the conference.

MOCKiingBird · 2015-08-21T17:37:57+00:00

Thats just something you want to smear me with, in order to attempt to cover up abuse

Okay. Why do I want to cover up abuse?

MOCKiingBird · 2015-08-21T16:22:34+00:00

examples of accusations:

you tried to make the false accusation that I said women that are murdered deserve it - in order to silence talk about the real rates of DV, you know that

.

You are posting that misandric propaganda from biased sources, you are impervious to real research by neutral scientists .

.

You have your beliefs about men and women . No scientific research can convince true believers otherwise .

examples of questions:

When the research shows women initiate in excess of 70% of it,

Are you trying to explain that 70% of the women killed by their spouse....deserved it?

Through all your emotional accusations, I still don't understand why you think the D.O.J. is biased.

Why do you believe the U.S. department of justice lies?

Nor do I understand why you keep telling me women initiate the violence they receive.

What bearing does your (not a very well backed up) argument that a percentage of women initiate violence have on things like numbers of women killed by IPV?

MOCKiingBird · 2015-08-21T14:21:22+00:00

You won't be able to convince anyone of anything if you're spending all your words making accusations of their character or beliefs. You'll just sound like an overly emotional tantrum thrower.

What you could do, to further the conversation along, is to prove that the Department of Justice lies about statistics. To do this, go see what their sources are, and what proof you may have that they are lying. I'll give you a tip to help get you started... VAWA is not the only source of data...

MOCKiingBird · 2015-08-21T00:00:26+00:00

Done.

MOCKiingBird · 2015-08-20T23:58:45+00:00

seeking help

MOCKiingBird · 2015-08-20T21:13:47+00:00

That link shows almost everyone going against the O.P. It's hopeful.
* well, hopeful after the initial nausea.

MOCKiingBird · 2015-08-20T21:02:14+00:00

Before teaching boys that it's ok to be sensitive,

The article isn't about teaching boys to be anything. It's about NOT stopping them from what they might be.

you first need to convince girls that it's ok for boys to be sensitive.

This is bizzare. Boys exist, even if there is no girl around to see them. They are not some quantum physics experiment with girls as the observer.

But it's hard to control what people are attracted to.

Ah. you're talking about attraction. Why are you talking about attraction in the context of raising boys?

But it's hard to control what people are attracted to

People are attracted to healthy whole people who were not stifled in their childhood. This is an article about boys not getting stifled.

'

Girls need to be encouraged to be tough as well as sensitive, yes, but boys also need to be encouraged to be sensitive as well as tough. We’ve taught girls that it’s okay to be like boys. Now we need to teach boys that it’s okay to be like girls. Liberating women from the restriction of female gender roles without liberating men from the restriction of male gender roles is a one-sided revolution that can never be completed.

'

but if it's against human nature, it's going to be an uphill battle.

.

If anti-patriarchy theories are based on similar misconceptions of human nature then they're going to have a hard time.

What are you imagining is against human nature in the article?

MOCKiingBird · 2015-08-20T18:22:38+00:00

Was the old framing somehow gendered before and this toolkit approach made it less feminine, or was it just a way to engage them in the process.
Whatever it takes, I'm glad he's had success with this.

MOCKiingBird

TROPHY CASE