Men’s Rights Posters Now Officially Sillier Than Their Parodies
It’s hard to parody Men’s Rights Activists, because no matter how ridiculous your parody is, there’s a good chance that some MRA out there has already said, or written, or sung, something even more ridiculous already.
Not that long ago, a bunch of Man Boobz regulars set out to parody the bizarre, and often inadvertently surrealistic, posters that have been popping up on MRA sites like A Voice for Men and Artistry Against Misandry. It was hard, but I think some of us managed to come up with posters that were even uglier and less coherent than the originals. I especially liked these two, from (respectively) Cliff Pervocracy and Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III.
But alas, we have been outmaneuvered by the all-too-serious poster-makers on A Voice for Men, who have managed to produce posters that make even less sense than our silliest parodies. Take a look at this one, which I believe is the work of an Australian MRA by the name of Roger O. Thornhill.
I mean, really. How can we compete with that?
This is an actual poster that some MRAs think will actually win people over to their cause. How, I’m not exactly sure. What exactly about a cupcake with a tiara is supposed to scream “men’s rights” to random pedestrians who might catch a glimpse of this poster wheatpasted to a hoarding while on their way to work?
For more of Roger’s fine work, see here and here.
Man Boobzers, can you do better?
Or, if you’re not up to that Herculean task, could you at least try to explain just what exactly you think Mr. Thornhill was trying to say with that poster of his?
EDITED TO ADD: I have been asked to contribute a poster myself. So here one is. You can find many more hilarious and incredibly ugly posters at ArtistryForFeminismAndKittens and, of course, in the comments below!
Posted on November 27, 2012, in a voice for men, antifeminism, artistry, cupcake, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, the poster revolution has begun and tagged a voice for men, anti-feminism, men's rights, misogyny, MRA. Bookmark the permalink. 703 Comments.
@Ugh – No, I’m not going to comment on your whatever.
I am not a “supporter of a movement”. I am not responsible for what Asshole A did or said. I am responsible for what I do or say.
YOU keep trying to lump me in with whothefuckever, and it has the exact same intellectual foundation (i.e. none) as claiming that e.g. a woman who identifies as feminsist and works in a DV shelter helping DV vics somehow is responsible for e.g. Valerie Solanas and the RadFem Hub.
Also, UTTER BULLSHIT re. your shared custody assertion.
@Kittehs – so you agree that old patriarchal marriage 1.0 made women subservient to men? So you can see that it’s new matriarchal marriage 2.0 is the exact same mirror image. Good. Now can you make the mental leap to see why men won’t put up with that?
Hah. While there’s a bunch of MRAs who want to go back to the bad old days of marriage 1.0, there’s loads who absolutely do NOT want that. I fall in the DO NOT WANT camp.
Did you know that under marriage 1.0 in the UK a husband was at one time legally responsible for the misdeeds of his wife? No, really, that was a thing. Fuck that.
No. Here’s what I want. I want women to have the same equal responsibilities / consequences that come with all the rights they now have. I want men to have the same equal right that come with all the responsibilities / consequences they are expected to shoulder.
Here’s a sample:
– A safe, reversable contraceptive pill for men, that does not require any cutting open or injecting stuff into the bollocks, nor any medical procedure to reverse (you just stop taking it, and your junk gets back in gear on its own).
– The legal option for “paper” / financial / legal “abortion” (actually a “disowning” would be more accurate) for any man who gets told by a woman that she is carrying his “oops” baby.
– Mandatory paternity DNA testing.
– Proportional provision of gov’t funded DV shelter facilities (that would be 60% for women, 40% for men in the UK: Home Office figures. I would not want to see shelter places for women reduced, but overall funding INCREASED to provide for men too).
– Presumed equal custody (assuming no violence issues).
None of these things are about taking any rights away from women, they’re all about giving men the same kind of freedoms / rights / protections / help that women have / acquired under feminism.
It’s a Brave New World and men want all that good stuff too.
My body, my right – not to be coerced to work a job I hate for twenty years to fund kids that I’ll never see and who turn out after all never to have been mine* in the first place. That’s not freedom. Fuck that.
Again with irony. Stop it, Joe, you are killing me.
Joe, men already have ALL THE RIGHTS, and there’s no such thing as female privilege.
Please give your fictitious bullshit a rest. Or go read some older threads on all the “rights” you want, and why it’s utter crap.
Joe, again, I don’t think you’re living in my reality. Admittedly, I don’t know that many divorced people (3 of my siblings*, and 4 others) but in all of those, a total of zero men are in ‘indentured servitude’ to their ex-wives, all but one of the guys with kids have shared custody and the one who doesn’t has full custody. Hell, one guy who was a mentally unstable stalker still gets shared custody, even after he denied his second son was his until he could no longer pretend the three year old wasn’t a clone of his older brother.
*My family are not good at marriage.
Joe, make a poster. Seriously. It’s good for your soul to create something, even if it’s just silly.
@Cloudiah – good question.
Some ideas:
For a start the UK needs a LOT more affordable housing (now families more often than not have just one live-in parent and there are way more folk living alone). To get that requires cracking the rat’s nest of red tape that restricts planning permissions and keeps house / land prices very high – pandering to the landlord class (85% of the UK is NOT built on. See: Cahill’s “Who owns the world”)
More, (rather than less) money into mental health serivices*, because: lots of homeless are also mentally ill. Now chicken vs. egg, but I suspect helping the mentally ill might reduce homeless rates. Not being able to cope with life in general, likely to lead to homelessness, IMO.
(*If possible given: banksters stole the world / are crushing the middle class).
And, rather more directly, cultivating a spirit of brotherhood between men, and popularising the idea of making the effort to look out for your friends when they suddenly drop off the face of the social scene (withdrawl from other people often being a red flag for depression, other mental illnes, sudden penury / loss of job / abode / divorce).
Joe – I back some of your suggestions. DV shelters for men! Male contraceptive pill!
So go out and DO something about it. Women’s shelters weren’t set up by the government – they were set up by charities, and women’s groups, and people with a vested interest in serving their people. It’s disingenuous for you to then turn around and go “well why didn’t you set up any for men?”
Study medicine to develop the male pill. If you can’t, fund laboratories and help with testing procedures and administrative details. Feminists aren’t hoarding a male contraceptive, this is not some big conspiracy.
Real talk, Joe, do you identify as an MRA? You keep waffling on this.
By 1990 joint physical custody was at 40% and rising in all Northern states.
http://ncfm.org/libraryfiles/Children/custody/Custody%20Policies%20and%20Divorce%20Rates.pdf
WeeBoy, Joe won’t do any of that. It’s much easier to bitch and moan at the feminists.
In stark contrast to the MRM.
Joe – fail, fail, fail. There’s no such thing as matriarchal marriage; we do not live in a matriarchy. A marriage pattern in which the man is expected by society to be the junior partner, to stay home, raise children and generally be the support system for a woman’s career, simply doesn’t exist in our society. Just the opposite: patriarchal norms do no favours for any couples who do want to live differently from the old pattern of man working, woman supporting (and that includes when the woman works outside the home: she’s still expected to be chief childraiser and home-maker). Nor is matriarchy what feminism has fought for, or is fighting for. What the MRM calls “male subservience” doesn’t exist.
You know nothing of what privilege means in this context, do you? Seriously, go read some Feminism 101 stuff before you trot out more of your nonsense.
@Pecunium – Following your exact same flawed logic:
You support feminism. All the RadFem Hubbers support feminism, which they assert means gendercide of men. Therefore you support gendercide of men. QED.
Or, wait….
I do not “support a movement”.
I am concerned with issues / problems that affect men.
I don’t have to explain / excuse what anyone else says about those issues.
@Hellkell – Whatever. Fuck off, you misandrist bigot.
Then, Joe, shut me up. Go do this stuff you’d like to see instead of calling me made up names.
@Joe
The issue is that RadFemhub are outliers. There are a lot of popular feminist sites that do not support these things. You’re on one.
If there really are MRAs other than you who don’t support rape and child abuse, it would probably be pretty easy to name one, right?
So are lots of people here. However, the Men’s Right Movement, which we mock here, is only concerned with the rights of rapists and child abusers.
Why do you even bother, Joe? Why hang around on this site where you’re convinced we’d all like to see men in general wiped out? What do you think you’re going to achieve by trolling here? You’re not going to change anyone’s opinions with your nonsense and name-calling. What’s the point, unless it’s just attention-seeking?
And because Joe has reached “eye-glazingly boring” stage, here’s a kitty!
Dingdingding, we have a winner. I know it’s wrong to feed him, but he froths so easy.
It’s marketing. That phrase that the cupcake says is likely to have women follow the link more so than something like a cupcake saying “Womyns shelters suck cause I can’t stay there because I’m a man.” Or some other brilliantly intellectual arguments that mr.A’s make.
@Weeboy – well, sounds like your male friends got lucky in court. Whereabouts are you? No need to be specific, I’m just asking about State if U.S. or country otherwise.
@Kitteh – Ha! Your definition of “junior partner” is BS. The senior partner is not the one who does the earning, the senior partner is the one who CONTROLS THE SPENDING. And women nowadays account for the vast majority off all spending (it’s something like 85% as I recall).
Yeah, whatever, I don’t give a shit about how FEMINISTS define their jargon. Hahahahaahaa!! Fuck you! I reject your rigged game!
Female privelege in the West, is OBVIOUS to anyone with the ability to observe..
http://thisisfemaleprivilege.tumblr.com/
@Ugh – Oh, you have some data from 1990? Let me rush to read that… twenty two year old data. Or not. You utter knobend.
@kitteh’s unpaid help
*tries to reach through the screen and pluck the kitten from the video in order to give it cuddles and love*
Here goes:
“A safe, reversable contraceptive pill for men, that does not require any cutting open or injecting stuff into the bollocks, nor any medical procedure to reverse (you just stop taking it, and your junk gets back in gear on its own).”
Hey, I’m in favor of that too. I even think it should be provided for free! See how easy that was?
“The legal option for “paper” / financial / legal “abortion” (actually a “disowning” would be more accurate) for any man who gets told by a woman that she is carrying his “oops” baby.”
I think I could be persuaded of this, with some limits. My main concern is the welfare of the child, so I would want to see systems in place to support that. I am not sure how realistic a goal this is, though, in the current political/financial climate.
“Mandatory paternity DNA testing.”
Nope. Anyone who wants it can already have it. I am against the government imposing it on people who don’t want it.
“Proportional provision of gov’t funded DV shelter facilities (that would be 60% for women, 40% for men in the UK: Home Office figures. I would not want to see shelter places for women reduced, but overall funding INCREASED to provide for men too).”
Hey, we (sort of) agree, at least in principle! I’m a socialist — “to each according to their need.” So lets not quibble about the actual figures, and just agree that there should be services available to help all the homeless, men and women.
“Presumed equal custody (assuming no violence issues).”
Not if it’s physical custody, because again what I am most concerned about is the welfare of the child and that can be a disruptive arrangement. (If disruption can be minimized, I agree that equalizing physical custody is a worthy goal.) Another option is shared legal custody & generous visitation schedules for the non-custodial parent, unless there is a good reason to deny that to either parent. (Most USians who divorce work out custody arrangements amicably, by the way — last figure I saw was 95%.)
I am also in favor of measures that make it easier for men to the primary custodians of children during a marriage!
Look at all of that common ground!
WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!!
Wow, you sure told us.
@Weeboy – While it’s true that the first women’s DV shelters were set up independently of gov’t (the very first one was set up by Erin Pizzey) it’s disingenous of YOU to pretend that those very same shelters do not, now, recieve mucho gov’t funding. And weird that you imply that men’s DV shelters should not recieve proportionate funding, in accordance with the best available stats on victim proportions / numbers.
Going on a tangent about suz’s supergreat son:
It’s funny how, when describing what a catch her son is, suz doesn’t say anything at all about his personality. Like nothing, nada. Lots of twenty-year-olds look hot. What’s he like as a person? Is he a jokester or a silent, brooding type? Does he like loud parties with lots of drinking and crowds, or is he more into quiet pastimes? Is he outgoing or shy? Does he like the outdoors? Does he like books? Is he curious about the world? Does he like travel? Does he like to learn? Is he independent, can he take care of himself in his day-to-day life? Or does he live at home simply because he has to have someone do his laundry and clean his room? She says literally nothing that would tell me, were I twenty and in my looking-for-relationships mode, whether this guy is worth my time. I wonder why that is. Maybe there is a hidden message there, like feminists are slutty slut sluts who only care about looks anyway. Or maybe the message is that good, virtuous virgins aren’t picky and will be happy to take a Marine (swoon), whatever his personality. Or maybe suz’s family life is such that she doesn’t know her son. After all, she’s at best a glorified domestic servant, so why would her menfolk even talk to her, except to inform her what they want for dinner and what needs to be cleaned?
And speaking of books. The fact that she doesn’t know and doesn’t care what her son is studying tells me this family isn’t only not intellectual, but one where education is not respected, and learning is seen as merely an obstacle you have to overcome before you get a high-paying job. That would have been a huge red flag to me as a husband-seeker.
As for his good looks, he’s just quit an extremely active environment and entered one that’s mostly sedentary. His eating habits probably haven’t changed, however, so good chances are he’ll put on weight. A lot of weight. Soon. Which is fine — heaven knows fat people are loved and desired the world over — but if his Adonis-like figure is his main asset, I’d be worried. And, since most Caucasian men lose their hair, and early, I wouldn’t brag about his mane neither. Only hope is that ten years from now, when he is pudgy, balding thirty-year-old, he has something more to offer a potential wife than a whiny, bitter attitude and complaints that feminists have robbed him of a chance to marry a supermodel-looking submissive virgin who likes anal and is half his age.
But of course, with a mother like that (she doesn’t hover, kids!) and a father who’s probably no better, you know where he will likely end up. Wallowing in misogyny for a few years, then going the mail-order-bride route. He’ll go to some third-world country and lie to some poor girl shamelessly, then bring her over to a life that’s NOTHING like what he described. And she’ll be a submissive wife to him and a slave to her horrible mother-in-law, who will make it her mission to make every minute of her life a living hell. Of course, this poor creature will take the first opportunity to shaft this guy something the size of a Chicago skyscraper, because when you form relationships in that manner, don’t be surprised if the tables are turned. And it will all be women’s fault, naturally.
@Joe
Census data is on a lag.
You realize that the trend has been towards more gender-equitable settlements, right? Or do you have any data that contradicts this?
Also, as cloudiah pointed out, 95% of divorces are settled amicably.
p.s. Everyone, make more posters! Or butter more hamsters, if that’s your thing… (I want this to end up on r/mr. “Feminists eat live, buttered hamsters! Hamsters need their own register-her.com!”)
Uncle Joe: @Kittehs – so you agree that old patriarchal marriage 1.0 made women subservient to men? So you can see that it’s new matriarchal marriage 2.0 is the exact same mirror image.
No.
It’s not. Because no-fault is no-fault. If there are no kids, and both partner worked, there is no, “enslavement”. No, “she gets all his stuff”.
A split of property happens. In community property states all assets which accrued after the marriage are joint. Property owned prior to the marriage may, or may not (depending on jurisdiction) be communal. Gifts, and inheritance, are (everywhere I know of) separate property.
So no, it’s not at all as you depict it.
Children… children complicate it. When a father wants joint custody, he gets it; barring some actual bar (abuse, inability to support, etc.). The non-custodial parent has to pay support. Not because it’s, “Matriarchal Marriage”, but because kids are expensive and both parents are obliged to kick in.
No. Here’s what I want. I want women to have the same equal responsibilities / consequences that come with all the rights they now have. I want men to have the same equal right that come with all the responsibilities / consequences they are expected to shoulder.
Bullshit. Your rants about, “modern marriage” give this this lie. That or you are too stupid to look the facts in the face and see the truth of them.
Stupid, or lying, those are the options; based on the words you’ve written.
- The legal option for “paper” / financial / legal “abortion” (actually a “disowning” would be more accurate) for any man who gets told by a woman that she is carrying his “oops” baby.
And there’s the part that makes it plain you are lying.
@Pecunium – Following your exact same flawed logic:
You support feminism. All the RadFem Hubbers support feminism, which they assert means gendercide of men. Therefore you support gendercide of men. QED.
More fail.
Show me the “moderate MRAs”. Show me the parts of “The Movement” which don’t support abuse and rape. Because RadFem is the minority opinion. I accept them as feminists, because they are. I don’t accept that they are the driving force of feminism.
I’ve yet to see any driving force of the MRM which isn’t abusive, and full of rape apology, at the very least.
So you lose, because there isn’t an equivalence.
I most obviously don’t support the, “gendercide” of men, or I’d commit suicide. Since I haven’t, and won’t (at least not on the grounds that men are all inherently evil and not fit to live) you are; as in so many things, wrong QED.
LOL, for reals. Assuming rent is 33% of income, that would mean that, at most, only 50% of men even pay RENT, right?
Glad to see that Ph D’s working for you.
@Cloudiah –
1) No, DNA paternity testing that is ADMISSIBLE IN COURT is NOT freely available for the purchase.
2) Also, in many jurisdictions it requires the mother to give her permission! I’m not talking about in the womb here, that’s fair enough, no-one should have any medical procedure without their consent. No, after the child is born, the mother can block the presumed possible father from checking his DNA relationship to the child. Which is, frankly, outrageous.
Rent/mortgage, I mean.
Joe – I live in New Zealand. In all but one of those cases, they didn’t even GET to court. Custody was worked out either informally between the parties, or with mediation.
And I didn’t say anything about funding for men’s shelters. I simply said that the people who set up shelters, and who fund them (most of the money for things like womens refuge and rape crisis here comes from private sponsors) have a vested interest in the safety of women. Set up a shelter, and find people to donate who have a vested interest in the safety of men.
And before you ask what I’m going, I do help out at a shelter where most of the residents are young men who have been victims of violence – and LGBT youth shelter.
an, not and
Er, define “mucho.” I think maybe what you meant to say is that now most funding (40-50%) for DV shelters (in the US, at least) comes from the government. It’s not a large sum of money as a proportion of all federal expenditures.
Principle: There should be structures in place so that anyone, of any gender, who needs to get out of an abusive relationship can do so safely. Agreed? I don’t want to focus too much on DV shelters per se, in case there are other options that work better. Employment/relocation assistance, for example.
Uncle Joe: @Weeboy – While it’s true that the first women’s DV shelters were set up independently of gov’t (the very first one was set up by Erin Pizzey) it’s disingenous of YOU to pretend that those very same shelters do not, now, recieve mucho gov’t funding
Citation needed.
As to your comment to WeeBoy: I’ve seen a lot of divorces. I’ve been the “child” in three. My father had a second. Of the… fifteen, or so, I know of which had children involved, all of two were of the sort you call “typical”, and in neither of them was money demanded. One of them was in 1972, and she just walked away; disappeared herself. Then again, that was before “matriarchal marriage” so things were different.
The other was an ugly mess, and the mediator was inept; and the father too expectant of reason and logic from someone who was inept. He also had no assets; as he’d been the stay at home parent.
The rest… amicable. Three had court mandated custody arrangements; those were worked out,and reworked, as the children aged. Three had the father getting primary custody. One of the court-ordered custodial arrangements had the custodial parent shift from the mother to the father.
So, all in all; looking at divorces in five states (Calif, Ohio, Tenn, Utah, Ohio), your stories don’t match my experience.
Why should I believe you? Esp. since you have been so often wrong before?
@cloudiah
(For people reading this two years in the future, I am sorry about my choice of hosting service but you don’t need to sign up for it.)
If you’re in favor of that, you better damn well be in favor of higher taxes or some sort of subsidies to working mothers, because kids don’t raise themselves, as much as you fools would like them to.
The father can block a DNA test too. As happened with my flatmate. She knew the kid was his, he said no, but wouldn’t offer a DNA test to prove it.
@Pecunium – Bullshit, in reality who pays is not about who is the custodial parent: look up the stats on how often non-custodial women actually PAY their child-support to a custodial father. Also the stats on % of non-paying women who get imprisoned for that non-payment.
I’ll give you a clue, both percentages are much, much lower than vice versa.
Also, you accept the gendercidal maniacs of RadFem hub as feminists? And you still call yourself a feminist? That’s fucked up. You are in no position at all to talk down to me, asshole.
Because of various horrible things blatantly said by people calling themselves MRAs I specifically avoid applying that label to myself.
When I’m talking to people about e.g. supporting http://www.mankind.org.uk I don’t talk about MRA whatever, I talk about the ISSUE and what can positively be done to DO SOMETHING about it.
That’s what I’m about.
Sir Bodsworth, my eyes! Well played.
Like posting on Facebook and calling it activism?
Citation needed for that, first. But in any case, I would imagine that even a paternity test that is not admissible in court would be grounds for someone to insist on one that is admissible in court, if there is a legal dispute.
And surprise! I agree with you that (post-birth) the mother should not be able to deny the testing.
I am sure Joe1 will agree that is not reasonable. Fair’s fair!
Bodsy! Creative Writing Student! Huzzah! Yonkers!
@Cloudiah – I agree with your “in principle” statement.
@hellkell – No, not necessarily, I don’t see why people-in-general should pay to raise Mr. or Ms. X’s kid in particular. If Mr. or Ms. X choose to have a child they should work to pay for raising that child. People-in-general should be free to choose to spend their hard-earned money on their own families, or themselves.
I AM in favour of tax-subsidised FREE contraception (cheap) plus mandatory contraceptive education in schools (also cheap) AND I do support the current UK position on abortion law and the provision of such legal abortions by free-at-point-of-use tax-subsidised professional healthcare providers (NHS clinics in the UK). And I support adoption.
I would also support a massive ad campaign when the law changed that made it clear that contraception / abortion / adoption / pay-for-raising-your-kid-yourself were the only choices available. So everyone would know what the score was.
Under those circumstances, I think you’d find the number of “oops” babies would suddenly drop.
Creative Writing Student – me first! Me first! Isn’t that kitten the most adorbs? <3
I would only be in favor of that if the man doing the “financial abortion” was subject to a legally enforceable obligation NEVER to contact the child or induce the child to contact him, EVER, even after the child reaches majority. Because here is the thing about REAL abortion: it’s forever. You don’t get to unabort. You don’t get to hang out with and pass on your wisdom to a child that would have been had you not aborted. A financial abortion must have the same effect: the child must be as good as non-existing to the man who had aborted him, forever and for all time, with absolutely no legal recourse to reverse the procedure. As an incentive, to put teeth in the law, I would say that any man who violates this obligation, at any time, even when the child is over 50 or whatever, become immediately obligated for all past child support. Plus interest over however many years have passed. Deal?
I would also require the father to leave behind a video-recorded statement to the child, informing the child that the biological father wanted him aborted and would have preferred the child did not exist. That would discourage the child from contacting him.
Thing is, whenever I tell this to people who advocate for “financial abortion”, they balk. They say it’s “cruel”. They say men should be entitled to disown their children, while still having those children imagine that they have fathers who love them. They say grown-ups have the right to contact and form relationships with whoever they want. Which exposes their advocacy for what it is: an attempt to disclaim all the hardships of being a parent without giving up any of the benefits.
@cloudiah – Yeah we agree on a few things, and yes, in those circumstances a court should be able to (actually, I think most jurisdictions can) order the bloke to give a DNA sample directly at an approved DNA paternity testing lab.
N.B.: He should still have the ability to file for a “paper abortion” post facto if it turns out he is the dad.
Not to mention that it’s also about exercising control over the woman involved – imposing their wishes on her body (abort/not abort) and her future, but not contributing in any way. It’s punishing women they’re really interested in.
Joe – So when a parent dies, or loses their job, or gets very ill, or any of the million and one other things that could make raising a child, either on your own or with a partner… Who’s going to pay for the orphanages the kids need to be put into?
Uncle Joe: Bullshit. You imply, with your state enforced paternity tests, that some large quantity of women are having children and telling men who aren’t the fathers that they are.
Your percentages of non-payment aren’t relevant because the relative numbers screw the ratios. When the Duke of Westminster and I were having supper together the “Average” wealth of those of us in the mess was incredibly high. Didn’t mean I was rich, didn’t mean any of the rest of us were, because the Duke of Westminster is insanely rich (and a decent fellow, but I digress).
So, given the much smaller number of women paying child support, it doesn’t take as many defaulters to make the appearance of an overwhelming number who aren’t holding up there end.
And what you are about is railing about how hard it is for men. About how the Feminarchy is screwing men over. That and telling tales about how studly you are, what with the boats, and the independent living, and all. Thriving in the horrid world the women have made, just to spite them.
As if they care.
Joe – You can’t abort a kid after it’s been born, WTF?
@Amused – I agree that someone chosing a “finacial abortion” must waive all visitation rights. And certainly penalties must apply if they break that, and those penalties should be pretty high and should go to finance the kids upbringing / compensate the mother & kid, if the kid is grown.
The problem you run into is if the grown-up (enough) child decides to track down the father themselves. Punishing someone else (the legally non-father) for the actions of another persopn (the legally not-son / not-daughter) is fundamentally unjust. So, that would have to be accounted for in court.
The video concept is just cruel headfuckery. Yeah, like that’ll help the kid to grow up well balanced! Salt in the wound much? Fuck that.
Do they force mothers who abandon their babies or give them up for adoption to record “why I didn’t want you” videos? Oh, they don’t? Well, it’s obviously sexist bullshit then.
At any time? Even after it is too late for the woman to have an abortion? Even after the child is born? Because then you’re leaving the woman to make a decision without knowing the score, which you said earlier was one of your goals. Clarify?
Larger point, I’m a socialist, you’re I believe some flavor of libertarian, so we will probably never agree on some financial issues.
I suspect Joe might argue they should have made provisions for that. Me, I would say, the BIG BAD SOCIALIST STATE should pay. :-D
Off to dinner! I hope to see that Joe1 has made a poster by the time I’ve come back.
You know, “fuck you, Jack, I got mine” might sound all sorts of above-it-all-libertarian cool on the internet, but as an actual social policy, it kind of fucking sucks.
Even as someone with no intention of ever having children, I realize that sometimes you just gotta pay for shit.
@Kitteh – Bullshit.
@Pecunium – you literally have no idea how percentages work do you? Moron.
@Weeboy – I am in favour of tax-funded orphanages, and tax-funded assistance to an official fostering / adoption agency, too.
No, not a literal “aborton” it’s a “paper abortion” = a waiving of all parental rights AND responsibilities (including financial).
Psst, Joe. You just showed that you have no comprehension of percentages. Oopsie.
Oh, spare me the righteous outrage. If you want the kid aborted and not existing in the first place, what the fuck do you care whether or not he will grow up well-balanced? As the aborting party, it’s none of your concern. In any event, at some point, the has to know the truth, and better he learn it from the horse’s mouth. That way, there is no possibility of a far worse headfuckery: the man who “aborted” the kid later telling him it was all the mother’s idea and her fault.,
Adoptions and abandonment are legally sealed, so the mother has no way to track down those children, at least no without breaking the law. In he case of your financial abortion, the man would always have the opportunity to track down the child, knowing the identity of the mother. Apples and oranges, then.
Oh, so you want men to have to bear no consequences of their actions, knowing that if they had sex they could father a child. Why couldn’t the sluts just keep it in their pants?
Can women do this too? Just go “hey, you know, this whole parenting thing is a tough gig, I’m just going to leave the kid on the kerb somewhere, I’m sure someone will pick him up.”
You seem weirdly invested in making sure that men never have to deal with their children for someone who complains that men never get custody in divorces.
… Really, I think the most sensible option in your little world would be to have all children raised by the state. Then fathers will never have to worry about their children!
WeeBoy: as far as I can tell, the MRM doesn’t care about children in actuality, they just like the idea of them as property to be used as pawns to control women.
@Cloudiah – Yes, the man should be able to “disown” at any time up to and including birth, BUT yeah there should be some financial kick IF HE KNEW from e.g. month 3 post conception but didn’t say “no way!” until e.g. month 8. That financial kick should get bigger if the rubicon of legal / safe abortion has been crossed / is as near as damnit about to be crossed.
If DNA paternity tests post birth* show the man is the biological father, and he suddenly decides to disown / waive his fatherhood at that point, again assuming he knew early on, then there should be some financial penalty payable directly to the mother for the care of the kid (i.e. child support) for e.g. the first five or six years or so (to the point the kid has been in school for one year, by which point the mother would have a better chance to earn, assuming she chose to keep the child rather than > adoption).
All this^ assumes the guy KNEW. If he was only told the day after the birth, that liability would be reduced, possibly to zero.
Like all laws, this would need some nuance and balance.
(*Of those men who get tested on average 30% find out the kid isn’t theirs)
:@Amused – your confusing The First Joe discussing the framing of a nuanced law with a hypothetical First Joe who apparently doesn’t give a fuck about kids. Don’t make unwarranted assumptions.
And no, fuck your apples and oranges. I refer you to my conversation with Cloudiah re. financial penalties for men trying to have it “both ways”.
Joe: who pays for all this enforcement?
@Weeboy – you should maybe read my discussion with Cloudiah.
And yes, women CAN abandon their kids, women can give their kids up for adoption and they can hand them over to state care if they feel they “cannot cope” – all those things already exist in all developed Western nations. Do pay attention, chap.
Joe, do stop being a patronizing git. Thanks ever so much.
I gave it my best, I have no regrets.
@hellkell – these are practical modifications proposed within the context of the weird semi-socialist / corporate-bankster UK state that exists right now. We have something called “police” and “courts” paid for by the tax-payer. Whatever my libertarian ideals, those things are not going away, because most people in the UK want them.
Politics = compromise.
*Grabs broom, starts poking it at Joe like he’s a possum that got into the kitchen* “Shoo! Get outta here!”
@weeboy – small lol. I liked the Jetsons riff.