Irrefutable proof of male oppression and female privilege in the USA (unemployed, education)

[geekigurl]

Use a condom, every time.



No child, no cry.

[dysgenic]

Originally Posted by geekigurl

Use a condom, every time.



No child, no cry.

How is it that you are ok with hundreds of thousands of parents having no legal rights to their own children?

Why is it that you think that it's only parents that have had this happen to them should be concerned?

Why would you classify parents being upset about having no rights to their children as 'crying'?

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Originally Posted by PilgrimsProgress

If men don't want to be trapped into marriage or paying child support they should have a vasectomy and then, if they are not sure if they might want kids later, pay a sperm bank to hold their deposit. If they decide later they never want kid they can donate their sperm to infertile couples.

Helluva lot cheaper than paying for a kid for 18 years.

Exactly, or at least never, ever, bang without protection. Women are not to be held accountable for birth control-even if they lie about using the pill or a IUD. ASSUME she is lying and after an unwilling sugar daddy.

[moneill]

Originally Posted by dysgenic

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt; maybe you are just misinformed. Because what you are trying to portray here is so wildly inaccurate that the way things work in real life is pretty much the opposite of what you are selling. Do you have any idea what the standard amount of parenting time that most courts in the USA actually order for infants of unmarried Dads? It usually starts at a couple of hours/week only to graduate to every other weekend. In other words, what you are selling as 'rights' is really just effectively being barred from a child's life- forever. And you say this 'allows' each family to work out what is best for the child? That statement is completely out of touch with reality. Unless, of course, you also support the biased, discriminatory, and sexist position that Moms are better than Dads and women are better than men.

Links to your claims please.

[latimeria]

Curiosity has set in..what made you revive this thread? The last post was almost a year and a half ago.

[dysgenic]

Originally Posted by latimeria

Curiosity has set in..what made you revive this thread? The last post was almost a year and a half ago.

I should have never stopped posting. You know something? It's discouraging.

Read this thread very carefully. You will see many clearly discriminatory statements - and no one cares. It's a microcosm of modern day society. It's considered fair game to attack an entire gender of people with cruel, mean spirited, derogatory, often untrue sweeping generalizations. Meanwhile my posts are censored left and right, it's ridiculous, really.
Here are some examples-

Impregnating a woman is no accomplishment; a man who wants to be a real father should put up or shut up: declare his commitment before the law and the world or get out of the away and let the mother do her job.

Here most men don't even WANT to care of their chidren, more than 40% don't even see their children after 5 years.

If a father can't be bothered to do simple tasks to prove he's a father, then maybe he's better off without rights.

When it is possible for an unwed father to push the baby out his ***, then they won't be discriminated against. Unless the man is named on the birth certificate, he pretty much doesn't factor into the issue.

The architects of oppression are now the oppressed.... Awwwwwww.

Do you know how plants come from a seed? Well, babies come from seeds. And eggs, too. The daddy has the seed, and the mommy has the egg. They join in mommy's body to grow a baby.

Holy *****. Are you serious? I have to explain this to you? No...no, I'm not doing this. Huh uh. Go ask your mother. or father. Or go to the library, or look it up on the Internets.

...saying men are oppressed is laughable. Like you actually have to be blind to think men are oppressed

Btw? I don't feel like, for reproductive purposes, the people you described are men. Yes, they are men in an emotional and social sense, but reproductively speaking, they are female.

A man who could not even be fussed to marry a woman before he impregnated her may have a tough time trying to get in on the parenting action.

but if a dude cannot be discriminating enough not to impregnate women who are probably not going to be good mothers, that's on the guy because you CAN just NOT HAVE SEX WITH THESE WOMEN.

And mom has to go through the legal system to get a Judges orders to get support which is often non-existent.

If this is a concern men shouldn't be having sex with someone they know/care so little about that would deny them a relationship with their child. Assuming they want one. Men arent exactly chomping at the bit for custody of their kids.

The problem you have with that is that most men dont want 50% of the parenting.

If a man wants to be involved in his child's life he has to step up.

Few fathers want 50/50 because it is too hard, it interferes with their work schedule, pay, promotions and their free time.

So, I guess the OP needs to quit complaining that men cannot have more control?

Men rarely want full custody, unless there's a woman that makes more money than them and they see an opportunity to get some child support.

So, really... is this about men wanting to see their kids or about some sort of idea of what BELONGS to them, like kids are property?

So, yeah... it's complicated, but a piece of paper establishing that your DNA appears to be a match isn't going to get you permission to snatch up a baby a woman spent 9 months growing in her body and has bonded with after birth

Nope. What language is your native tongue?

I am suggesting that if a man is worried he won't get any custodial rights he should either marry the woman or not impregnate her, even if she offers to have sex with him.

Why is this somehow illogical to you? It's completely intelligent.

With viewpoints that archaic, it's going to be a challenge to get a woman to agree to a reasonable custody agreement with you.

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by dysgenic

This right here. This post is exactly what is wrong. This individual indicates that they believe that gender privilege (in this case, female privilege) is a good thing, while simultaneously indicating that they believe that gender oppression (in this case, oppression against men) is a good thing, while simultaneously believing that its ok to make jokes about children being kept from their parents, while simultaneously indicating that they don't care about children being kept from their parents.

This is how discrimination, human rights violations, crimes against humanity, and oppression happen. It's a combination of entitlement and dehumanization. And its right here, right in front of everyone to see.

Yep, K.I.A. hit the trifecta for being a B.O.S.

[Luciano700]

There is no gender privilege

[Haakon]

Originally Posted by Luciano700

There is no gender privilege

"believe all women" and men "guilty until proven innocent" says you're wrong.

[dysgenic]

The question is simple:

If financial support for a child that approximates 25-40% of Dad's gross income is so important, why are those in authority perfectly ok with Mom providing 0 financial support to their child?