• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Why can't we hate men?"

theprestige said:
Most of the worst tyrannies in human history have been perpetrated by an extremely vocal minority that happened to seize power.
Click to expand...


Care to provide some examples, since the worst tyrannies I can think of in recent history were implemented with popular support. The Nazis, the Soviet and Chinese communists, pretty much every major fascist and communist regime in the 20th and 21st centuries were enabled by a good deal of popular and/or military support. Orders of magnitude more than the minuscule fringe of misandrist radical feminists that is being discussed here.
 
Fudbucker said:
Looking at the groups as a whole, women have lagged far behind men in securing basic human rights. It was only fairly recently women finally secured the right of bodily autonomy, which has been ceaselessly under attack since Roe vs Wade. On the other hand, only men are drafted, and almost all U.S. war deaths have been men. Of course, there's also the fact that men themselves created the policy that women shouldn't be drafted and shouldn't serve in combat, so the gender-disparity of war deaths is a self-inflicted wound on our part.
Click to expand...

Well men have never had the right to bodily autonomy. Anywhere. My genitals were mutilated when I was a child. Men don't have bodily autonomy in many countries (most?) which have a draft system, which is usually male-only.

I'd also argue that although women have lacked behind for rights compared to men (though often not by much, like with the vote) they also routinely lack behind in the responsibility side (draft, child support...)
 
luchog said:
Care to provide some examples, since the worst tyrannies I can think of in recent history were implemented with popular support. The Nazis [...]
Click to expand...
The Nazis came to power as a minority faction, through a combination of violent voter suppression and unconstitutional political maneuvering. They kept power through intimidation, propaganda, and a Hobson's choice for most Germans - go along to get along. I think it's debatable whether they had majority support for their policies after they seized power, but they were certainly not a representative majority when they seized power. So there's one example.

Don't mistake submission to the tyrrany for popular support for the tyranny.
 
Last edited:
A woman can disavow the obligations of maternity any time before the third trimester, but a man cannot disavow the obligations of paternity ever.

It should be possible for a woman to keep a child the father does not want, without having any legal claim on the father.
 
Sabrina said:
You are aware, I trust, that so-called "radical feminists" are a(n extremely vocal) minority to overall feminism?
Click to expand...

THe worst I've heard from a self-styled feminist in real life is an exasperated rant or two, in the "men are trash" line of venting. Which I've done myself as a guy, so I'm not concerned.

Compare to Dolt 45's open misogyny.
 
theprestige said:
It should be possible for a woman to keep a child the father does not want, without having any legal claim on the father.
Click to expand...

Too true, but even then we would be stuck with sexual inequality. Just switch out mother for father, and vice-versa.
 
d4m10n said:
Too true, but even then we would be stuck with sexual inequality. Just switch out mother for father, and vice-versa.
Click to expand...

Given the profound biological difference between men and women, some amount of gender inequality is not only unavoidable, but also perfectly reasonable.

A father should not be able to compel a woman to carry his child to term if she does not want to, even if he accepts the legal burden of total responsibility for the child after birth.
 
theprestige said:
The Nazis came to power as a minority faction, through a combination of violent voter suppression and unconstitutional political maneuvering.
Click to expand...


They came to power as a minority party in a larger, majority conservative coalition for the purpose of opposing the growing communist presence in the German government. Hindenburg courted the Nazis into forming a majority coalition with his and other conservative/nationalist factions, and having achieved that and made himself president, he appointed Hitler chancellor in order to keep Nazi support, and dissolved the Reichstag.

They may not have had a majority themselves, but they had plenty of collaborators assisting them in forming a majority voting bloc, which they took full advantage of.

They kept power through intimidation, propaganda, and a Hobson's choice for most Germans - go along to get along.
Click to expand...


Actually, a huge percentage of politically-active Germans supported the Nazi-led government due to Hitler and the Nazis appealing to growing anti-communist sentiment, and perennial antisemitism, providing a convenient scapegoat for the socio-economic problems resulting from the Great War, and a strong-man rhetoric regarding advancing German interests on the world stage, a tactic that has always been effective in times of financial turmoil and social chaos. The rest of German society was comfortable enough with what the Nazis represented to tacitly support them, or at least not care enough to oppose them. (Much like Trump and the current GOP, and their appeal to anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiment, and the recent financial crises.)

The Nazis had a good deal of popular support amongst a growing population of nationalist Germans, millions strong. The SA alone was about 2 million strong, and it alone was 20 times the size of the German army, and had increased to over 3 million by the Night of the Long Knives. They also had the support of the majority of the Freikorps veterans, another strongly nationalist and anti-communist group. Their popularity rose dramatically as financial conditions worsened, and had been the largest single party in the Reichstag for nearly three years by the time Hitler was appointed chancellor, even through they never achieved a majority on their own.

By the time the militants had fully taken over and the Gestapo were rounding up Jews and other "undesirables" wholesale, the Nazis had consolidated control and usurped any opposition.

So no, not an example of a minuscule minority seizing power; and not remotely analogous to the "misandrist radfem" boogeyman bandied about in this thread, who are a splinter of a splinter of a splinter.

So there's one example.
Click to expand...


Try again.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
A woman can disavow the obligations of maternity any time before the third trimester, but a man cannot disavow the obligations of paternity ever.

It should be possible for a woman to keep a child the father does not want, without having any legal claim on the father.
Click to expand...

I believe that is usually built into most legal documents where the father signs away all parental rights to the child; yes the woman gains full custody and control of said child (at least until said child is a legal adult), but conversely, the woman is not able to sue the father for any child support as a result. Signing away parental rights absolves the father (or mother, in some cases) of all future responsibility for said child. It's an extreme method, perhaps, but one that's already built into the legal system, so it's already possible. It's just not exercised as often as you might think in those types of circumstances, perhaps due to lack of education in this regard on the part of the parent who does not wish to be a parent. All the father has to do is file the appropriate paperwork with the court system and the mother has no recourse to sue the father for support later, as the paperwork would end the legal parent-child relationship.
 
Sabrina said:
I believe that is usually built into most legal documents where the father signs away all parental rights to the child; yes the woman gains full custody and control of said child (at least until said child is a legal adult), but conversely, the woman is not able to sue the father for any child support as a result. Signing away parental rights absolves the father (or mother, in some cases) of all future responsibility for said child. It's an extreme method, perhaps, but one that's already built into the legal system, so it's already possible. It's just not exercised as often as you might think in those types of circumstances, perhaps due to lack of education in this regard on the part of the parent who does not wish to be a parent. All the father has to do is file the appropriate paperwork with the court system and the mother has no recourse to sue the father for support later, as the paperwork would end the legal parent-child relationship.
Click to expand...

I'd like a citation for that. I don't think that's the case anywhere in the US. Child support is for the benefit of the child and the mother can't sign it away unless there is some other figure willing to assume that responsibility (adoption). Plenty of single mothers do not follow up on making the fathers pay, but state governments are usually diligent about hunting them down if the mother or child start receiving government aid.
 
Nope. Parents have the right to voluntarily surrender their parental rights according to this website. It may vary from state to state, I suppose, but the reading I get of that (and IANAL, obviously) is that a parent is always allowed to voluntarily surrender their parental rights, and it doesn't state that this is different from state to state, which may be an oversight on their part, I'll admit, but it does put a different spin on the matter.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I'd like a citation for that. I don't think that's the case anywhere in the US. Child support is for the benefit of the child and the mother can't sign it away unless there is some other figure willing to assume that responsibility (adoption). Plenty of single mothers do not follow up on making the fathers pay, but state governments are usually diligent about hunting them down if the mother or child start receiving government aid.
Click to expand...

See my post right below yours. IANAL, but the reading I get from the very first paragraph is that parents have the right to voluntarily surrender all parental rights, which absolves them of any legal obligation to the child. I would assume that the state governments who hunt down the fathers are aware that said fathers have not filed paperwork terminating parental rights, which is likely often the case. I doubt many people are truly aware of the right to absolve themselves of legal obligation to a child; after all, if a one night stand resulted in a child and the mother never told the father he was a father, how would he know to file paperwork absolving him of parental rights?

ETA: This website has conflicting opinions on the matter; I think it's a murky area in family law that hasn't had a lot of precedents to allow them to work out the full details. However, it seems I could be wrong on the child support issue, at least. My mistake.

ETA 2: This website offers a better explanation; yes, voluntarily surrendering parental rights absolves someone of the need to support the child, but apparently it's granted only rarely and in certain circumstances, such as the custodial parent plans to marry and the stepparent will assume all financial and parental rights for the child, for instance; just surrendering your rights because you don't want to pay child support is not a sufficient reason for the court to grant it. Involuntary termination is more common, but again only granted in certain circumstances (i.e. the parent in question is abusive or neglectful or has abandoned the child outright).
 
Last edited:
Sabrina said:
Nope. Parents have the right to voluntarily surrender their parental rights according to this website. It may vary from state to state, I suppose, but the reading I get of that (and IANAL, obviously) is that a parent is always allowed to voluntarily surrender their parental rights, and it doesn't state that this is different from state to state, which may be an oversight on their part, I'll admit, but it does put a different spin on the matter.
Click to expand...
I'd be surprised if you can find any state where a father can get out of his child support obligations by unilaterally giving up parental rights without an adoption in the offing.
 
d4m10n said:
I'd be surprised if you can find any state where a father can get out of his child support obligations by unilaterally giving up parental rights without an adoption in the offing.
Click to expand...

You are correct, as my further research has determined; it can happen, but there have to be certain circumstances to allow it. That is my mistake; I'll own that one. :)
 
Ziggurat said:
Some radfems have advocated reducing the male population to a mere 10% of the total population. Supposedly this can happen through selective breeding (ie, choosing to have predominantly female childred) rather than actually killing men. But that's just the pipe dream.

As for what would actually happen, I suspect that like when communists take over, they would discover that their fellow feminists will purge and oppress them worse than men ever did as they ruthlessly claw for power.
Click to expand...

Whaaaaat? With whom are all the straight women supposed to have sex? I'll be damned if I'm going to support an even more competitive market than the one that already exists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom