>Feminists: Lizard-brained sperm-hunters

>“If you are truly about equality.”Elizabeth has already openly stated that she is only about equality so long as it only has positive effects for women.“Yes yes Richard, men are always the victims never the perpetrators.”You keep doing this. Equating an argument to being the entirety of the situation. At no point did Richard say women aren’t victims and men aren’t perpetrators. In fact, he acknowledged that fact by acknowledging you wouldn’t ever say women who are forced into motherhood aren’t a big deal and is acceptable. But your response actually suggests that you believe only women are victims and men are perpetrators, because merely acknowledging men’s issues (in the exact same way feminism acknowledges women’s issues, IE, as it relates to the gender being discussed.) gets you angry and irrational.“Did you see that 8.6% being outweighed by 14.1%?”And does this somehow prove that it doesn’t happen to men now? Does it negate the fact that, despite these alleged claims of being forced into pregnancy, they had a choice men do not have… they choose not to abort, not to abandon and not to adopt. They choose not to seek aid from an abuse shelter or police… and yet, still had enough choice to answer a survey about it. Seems odd to me, and makes me question how “unwanted” was determined in the survey.“men have options to prevent pregnancy.”So do women… but only women have options to prevent pregnancy from becoming parenthood. And not a one of them gives a man a say in the issue.“We've also presented the option of signing away all rights and responsibilities while the woman is still pregnant”When and where have you done this? Because this is very much what male reproductive rights activists are seeking.“in fact they have a contraception option in the works right now that is actually looking promising.”That’s not feminists that have it in the works. Furthermore, it has been in the works since the early 90’s, always being promised “5 more years”… Except nobody is willing to fund the research.The rest of the paragraph seems to be equating reproductive rights as being solely birth control…, which would mean you consider abortion, abandonment and adoption as forms of birth control as well? Or are they just privileges for women?“we need to fight the problem from both sides, not just one”I agree, but given woman already have options in the cases of birth control tampering (IE, Abortion Abandonment Adoption and Reporting of domestic abuse) regardless of whether they use it or not, and men have nothing, I think most of the solutions (short of making any kind of reproductive fraud a crime) are very different. I also feel this demonstrates yet another bias against men, not only do women have choices men don’t have, those choices are enforced and supported by domestic abuse laws and family courts. And men are left to suffer.As an aside, perhaps one of you can ask a lawyer friend and get an answer for me (I have no lawyer friends to ask)… If a woman signs away her child in an adoption, and the biological father successfully gets custody from the adopted parents (an incredibly difficult task, but this is hypothetical), is the mother responsible for child support, or has she successfully signed away her responsibilities?

>"If by that you mean that they should have the option of formally relinquishing any responsibilities/rights they have to the child (in the cases where the foetus is brought to term), then basically yes, mainly for those cases where the pregnancy was absolutely unintended, but not in cases where, for example, he originally opts to take responsibility and then changes his mind further down the road. "that is precisely what is being asked for. the suggestion often comes with a time limit from the time he is first informed of the pregnancy/child, a limit that is actually shorter then the period in which a woman can safely abort (ranges from 30-90 days upon notification).No one has ever suggested a man be allowed the ability to abandon a child that he has been raising, or even agreed to pre-conseption. Correction, there may be some of the idiot grim on the bottom of the MRA who suggest it, and many feminists claim MRA's always suggest this, but it's not what is being sought for in male reproductive rights."And although you did not broach that particular topic, I have read on some MRA sites that they believe women (especially feminists) are angry when men opt to have vasectomies"two of my friends have gone to get a vasectomy. Both of them were asked if their wives were OK with it. that's a problem. It is none of the doctors business if the wives are OK with it or not, it is the man's reproductive rights, not his wife's.One of the two men was married. They had two children and agreed that was enough. The other friend had just started dating (a few weeks). he had informed her he had no intention of having children, but she claimed that was OK and continued dating. Immediately upon finding out he got a vasectomy, she became angry that he didn't talk to her about it first and broke up with him…I myself want to have children, but want to be very careful about who I have them with. That makes things difficult for me in dating life, as I am not willing to rely on just 1 form of birth control in which I have no control over (IE, the pill), and this has caused problems." there is NOTHING that points to it being a feminist conspiracy"Feminists come up, not as the cause of the male reproductive rights problem, but as the primary obstacle to a solution. You are truly the first feminist I have seen who has said men should have a method of opting out of a pregnancy they had no intention of producing, and have no desire to be involved in, rather then the more traditional "if you don't want to take responsibility for your actions, don't have sex… PS, MGTOW are stupid and paranoid"

>"So you're angry with feminists because they personally are not researching or funding a male contraceptive pill?"Feminism has nothing to do with the male pill. they are not to blame, they are not expected to produce a solution. I never suggested they were. but reproductive rights aren't limited to pre-conception birth control, and feminist do routinely oppose any form of male reproductive rights, I have been involved in many debates right at this very site. The opposition to the male pill is pretty weak ("a man can't be trusted to take the pill", and so I often ignore it as being hateful. But other male reproductive rights issues are routinely opposed, such as a man's right to decline parenthood, and a man's right to be a father to a child, Including after divorce, or when the mother has abandoned or put the child up for adoption (both of which are incredibly difficult for a man to get, and typically must be started before the transaction is complete))

>" never ever said that I do not want to work on men's reproductive rights. I said that I shall not focus on their rights to the exclusion of women's rights. Get it right. "I never said you didn't. I said you are not about equality unless it has a positive impact on women. the two happen to be the same in this case (as male reproductive rights does not have a positive effect one women), but thats a coincidence. just for clarity, here is what you did say…"as a feminist I believe in helping women obtain things that they need not ignore their needs in favor of men."Seems to be exactly what I said it was, only being about equality if it is obtaining things women need.As you said this while actively opposing reproductive rights, you ether feel that child support is something a woman "needs", or else this comment wasn't relevant to our discussion and shouldn't have been made. because giving men reproductive rights should not impact a woman's needs in any way (and thus, if you were truly about equality, would not oppose male reproductive rights), unless you feel that a woman is not only entitled to, but "needs" a man's money when SHE chooses to have a baby."IF this is not a zero sum game as you claim, then why the fuck do I have to ignore women's rights in favor of men's rights?"You repeatedly make this accusation. you did it to Richard above, to me here, and have done it repeatedly in the past. That anybody speaking up for men's rights are demanding we ignore women. Please, quote me saying that women should be ignoring women's rights. Just once. I have said I will show no sympathy for the loss of funding for abortion clinics so long as feminists continue to oppose male reproductive rights, but that's something else entirely.I will repeat this so you can read it again…One does not need to stop helping women in order to help men too. Just because there are suggestions for male reproductive rights does not mean taking away women's rights is part of that. You seem to be so against men's rights (regardless of the MRM, MRA's MGTOW, etc) that you can not separate helping men from hurting women. You believe the two are synonymous, and that is not a good place to be at for one who claims to be about equality. For those interested in the original debate;http://www.manboobz.com/2011/02/family-planning-not-dude-issue.html?showComment=1298948597257#c8597857021027097098

>Also, Kratch, doctors often refuse to perform tubal ligations without the husband's permission.

>David. I'm going to reply to you by quoting my last post in response to you, because I have already addressed your point"…reproductive rights aren't limited to pre-conception birth control, and feminist do routinely oppose any form of male reproductive rights, I have been involved in many debates right at this very site. The opposition to the male pill is pretty weak ("a man can't be trusted to take the pill", and so I often ignore it as being hateful). But other male reproductive rights issues are routinely opposed"just for clarification, when I say opposition is weak, I am not limiting to just the strength of the argument (which is indeed weak), but also the strength of the opposition (as in not as many oppose it, but some have). That said, I have read an article (that I've spent the last hour and a half looking for but can't find) talking about how the male pill will reduce women's ability to trap a man in a relationship, and therefore is against women's rights. (I'm sure I even posted a link to it on this board before). it's crazy, and thats why I chalk it up as hateful, but it is out there."Also, Kratch, doctors often refuse to perform tubal ligations without the husband's permission."That is also a problem. Reproductive rights to close shop (so to speak) should not be dependent on someone else's consent. But right now, post conception, it is, for men. and pre-conception, the options are limited and sometimes impractical or fallible.

>Found it…http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1251868/Of-course-women-dont-want-male-pill–end-happy-little-accidents.html#ixzz0fufaUmIS

>David, I have no idea if she's a feminist or not, but it's irrelevant as I didn't say she was (I simply said I've read an article opposing the pill). I assume she is, being a writer in the "femail" section, but I can't claim she's a feminist. She is, however, opposition to the male pill, and may very well be a feminist. Also, I know she is just a single writer, plus her single editor, plus the other staff who have approved to keep it up. The point is that I have seen (weak) opposition to the male pill, opposition I am confident I have seen even here, as well as strong opposition to any other form of male reproductive rights, as evidenced by the very conversation the rest of us are having, despite your fixation on the pill alone. But do you understand what I mean when is say;"reproductive rights aren't limited to pre-conception birth control, and feminist do routinely oppose any form of male reproductive rights"Do you deny that reproductive rights, such as the option to "opt out", are being opposed by feminists, when it is evident ON THIS VERY PAGE!!!? Are you seriously prepared to argue that feminists don't oppose male reproductive rights?You seem to have picked up some idea about what I said that doesn't relate to what I've actually said. Starting with accusing me of being angry at feminists for not funding the pill. Let us look back and try to figure out where you went horribly wrong…"That’s not feminists that have it in the works. Furthermore, it has been in the works since the early 90’s, always being promised “5 more years”… Except nobody is willing to fund the research."This is likely where it started, but lets see where this response comes from;Bridget said "Yes, feminists would love for there to be more bc options for men, in fact they have a contraception option in the works right now that is actually looking promising"To which, I responded "that's not feminists." Feminists aren't the ones who have a male birth control in the works, as implied by Bridget. I was noting that error.I then move on to question her use of "that is actually looking promising" by noting that it has been in the works (and just 5 years away)for decades, and that funding is difficult to get, at best.You seem to have turned this into some kind of "blame feminists" tactic by me. And even after my stating openly feminism has nothing to do with it (the pill's delays), you still hold onto this like a pitbull. My problem is with feminist opposition to male reproductive rights, and yet again, that is not limited to pre-conception birth control. More specifically, it is the choice of when to become a father, or not, and the ability to be a father to a child, rather then a visitor. And both of these (male "opting out", which is usually what I refer to as reproductive rights, and shared parenting in divorce) are both efforts that have feminist opposition.

>She is, however, opposition to the male pill, and may very well be a feminist.Based on virtually everything she says in that column, I'm going to have to conclude that she is not even close to being a feminist.

>More specifically, it is the choice of when to become a father, or not, and the ability to be a father to a child, rather then a visitor. And both of these (male "opting out", which is usually what I refer to as reproductive rights, and shared parenting in divorce) are both efforts that have feminist opposition. So far, I've seen no evidence that feminists want men to have a lesser, rather than a greater, role in raising children, even in divorced families. Quite the contrary. Individual women may wish to prevent their ex-spouses from having a meaningful role in parenting (for either good or bad reasons), but I've never been aware of the feminist movement as a whole pushing the idea that fathers should be excluded from child rearing. I am aware of the quite pervasive attitude that women are always better, more important parents than men (especially with regard to young children), but this attitude is widespread and predates feminism. It is also, I believe, wrong. Indeed, it is often feminists who are the ones challenging this attitude; whereas traditional women (and men) are often the ones promoting it. The degree to which courts award custody based on this attitude suggests that traditional values die hard.

>“The fact of the matter is, most non-feminist men don't want to have to worry about birth control. They'd rather shove the responsibility, not to mention the side effects, off on women. “You have any evidence to prove this, or do you just assume feminist males are more enlightened then everyone else? Pretty misandric to claim most non-feminist males have that opinion.“my name is spelled briget not bridget, please spell it right.”My apologies. I have a friend named bridget (my best friend finance in fact), so it is habit to spell it that way. I will make a concerted effort to correct that.“what I do not support is women being forced to:1) carry a pregnancy to term because the father didn't want her to have an abortion only to be told the day of the kids birth that he isn't going to support the child”I virtually never see this come up as an MRA argument, other then to point out how unfair it would be to do to a woman, so why is it not only acceptable, but legally enforced to do to a man?“2) have an abortion to make his life easier. “I’ve never seen this suggested except by feminists who claim that is what MRA’s seek.“Far too many men feel like they have the right to do these things.” rebut tableCan you support that assertion? I think some men (abusive men) feel they can do these things, but I know of very few instances where these kinds of arguments occur. What I do see most often is what you have actually agreed upon. What is described under “reproductive rights” under the men’s rights page at wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_rights#Reproductive_rightsAnd what you will find under virtually every result of a “male abortion” search on google. Your points 1 and 2 are not things men argue for, they are strawmen made by feminist opposition to make the men’s rights sound extreme and unreasonable. And you will see it very clearly if you are willing to, in any future debate on the subject (or even going back to past discussions)."Individual women may wish to prevent their ex-spouses from having a meaningful role in parenting (for either good or bad reasons), but I've never been aware of the feminist movement as a whole pushing the idea that fathers should be excluded from child rearing."NOW, the National Organization for Women, as well as the Woman's Bar Association, both actively oppose efforts to establish shared parenting as a rebuttable presumption in divorce… I repeat, a rebuttable presumption (this is an important part of the proposed bills. if you don't understand it, look it up before replying). NOW also have made active attempts to actually ban the term “parental alienation” from courtrooms, as well as efforts to deny it even happens, as well as opposes efforts for family court reform that would result in more court enforcement against custodial interference. Note that these problems are suffered by woman as well as men, so there should be no reason for NOW to oppose these, except that men suffer more, and therefore the solution is more beneficial to men (and children) due to their current lower rate of primary custody.

>The problem with Kratch's scenario is that he wants men to have all rights and no responsibilities. If a fetus and child is solely the responsibility of a woman for all points after conception, why should she not have the right to deny any access if the child is born if he has the right to deny any responsibility? Why should a woman have to take all of the responsibilty but loose partial rights when the man wants them? If allowing one's body to be used to gestate a fetus automatically means sole and total responsibility, it should mean sole and total rights. Let me say this again, responsibilities are the flip side of rights.You are upset because you cannot get pregnant and hence cannot get an abortion? Well, suck it up and get over your womb envy. You don't have control over a fetus while it grows in another's uterus? Cry me a river.

>Briget and/or Elizabeth, if truly agree with what's been suggested, perhaps you can answer DarkSidecat's concerns?