Justice part 2.(233 Posts)
Vardak's laws will be...
1. That women have to make men sign a legal form saying that they will pay for any children born of a sexual liaison and that compulsory paternity testing must be introduced for all children.
2. That children must spend alternate weeks with each parent, that men will finally have to pay 50% of the 'running costs' of a child they have fathered, and that in the event that one parent moves away, they lose all contact with the child, thereby denying most people in the Armed Forces lifelong contact with their children. This will also reduce the economic mobility of both parents and will allow an abusive partner to have continued control and opportunities to further abuse their partner.
3. Women who are abandoned by their partners when they are pregnant should have no recourse to public funds if they can't afford to raise the child alone, whereas men can go about being forced to remove condoms at will and without consequence, as long as they haven't signed the document mentioned in point 1.
While I can't be certain that I am correct, he has stated that he thinks Mike B is on the right track, and these points have been taken from Mike B's consultation document. However, what would I know? I'm aphasic or stupid.
Seeker, I think vadsrk'd laws would go something like this:
1. Women lie.
2. Women trick men into fathering their children, so don't pay child maintenance to them.
3. Get a paternity test.
Bam! All men's problems solved.
<peers out from behind curtain>
Has he gone, then?
No chance of my questions being answered then? Oh well. Anyone care to speculate about the 3 laws Vardak would implement if he was, by some bizarre twist of fate, catapulted into power?
hey it happens! At any big gig you have loads of women invading our sacred poo-ing and wee-ing spaces. It's an outrage!
there are just not sufficient loos for women..difficult one to work out.
I don't actually blame you running.
seeker - they were no doubt escaping the marauding masses of women in the men's toilets.
Anyway, I'm not actually going to spend yet another evening with vadarks rather twisted view of women - I'll maybe look in over the weekend.
vadark said last night: If he wants to terminate because he's not ready to be Dad, people just say "well, you should have kept your pants on". They won't even consider the circumstances of Phase 1.
I just wanted to address this sentence as this seems to be the only 'answer' to seeker's question we're going to get.
He doesn't get to choose to terminate the pregnancy because the pregnancy is happening to someone else's body. He had the same choice to use a condom in phase 1 as any other person. Any time a person has sex, with or without a condom, there is a risk of pregnancy (albeit a much higher risk for the latter) - and boys are taught this in SRE at school.
The reason he is still expected to pay maintenance for a resulting child of an accidental pregnancy is for that ^ ^ same reason. Whether planned or not, he willingly provided half the dna to create the pregnancy.
This is not due to a 'feminised society' - it is equality for women. Men have an equal part in the conception of a child, therefore they have an equal responsibility to provide for the child. Women, due to biology, already have to bear the physical brunt of childbearing - believe me we do not have it easy.
No man can really be genuinely tricked - as he has the ability to wear a condom or walk away. IME it's the man that often tries not to use a condom - because it can (apparently) impair his enjoyment of sex and he has fewer consequences to deal with in the event of a pregnancy.
I think if we boil this down to the basics, vadark is just pissed off that men are now legally obliged to pay maintenance for children they helped to bring into the world. (Although not all do. )
seeker and Canterbury's such a nice place.
I'm currently waiting in my car in Canterbury City centre- and I've already and I've already seen two peeing willies! Bizarre, isn't it? I wonder in what way I forced them to do it?
YY Blistory: men do seem to have extraordinarily weak bladders. But I guess that's our fault too.
It'll be feminism's fault, blistory. Everything is ;)
Well, to be fair, I'm from Glasgow and given the amount of men peeing in the streets, I may have to accept that it's because of the sheer amount of women taking up space in the men's toilets.
Or I could start a thread on why the hell some men think it acceptable to whip it out and urinate in a city centre. If anything I suspect that the men who do it would argue that 'it's gay' to use the lovely facilities provided by our Victorian ancestors or that they are in danger of being assualted if they use them (I suspect this argument may have substance), in which case, it's other men that cause it, not women.
<cries at being reduced to discussing men's WC facilities on a beautiful Friday afternoon>
I'm finding it very baffling that Vardak's main issues seem to be a) women can somehow stop a man using a condom and force him into having unprotected sex b) there are occasionally pictures of men without shirts on in the media and (and this is very bizarre) c) women are always using men's public lavatories and changing rooms. Really????? on which planet?
Youre never going to achieve consensus on this thread, for one reason and one reason alone. You are attacking and blaming women for the injustices that you perceive men to face.
Where on this thread have any women blamed men ? Where have men been vilified the way that you do to women ? We have all accepted that some men get a rough lot in life. We have explained that were not happy with that. We have explained that we believe that feminism, by improving the lives of women, will also improve the life of men. You dont appear to accept that.
Feminism wants to drag women up to achieve equality with men it does not want to drag men down to achieve inequality all round. Feminism does not want nor does it seem women as being superior to men it wants equality and once that is achieved, people will then be judged on their individual merits. We will no doubt still have men who are idiots, vile and evil and we will no doubt still have women who are idiots, vile and evil.
There is no conspiracy against men nor do I believe that there is a conspiracy against women. The patriarchal society in which we currently live tends to favour men over women. It does not mean that men never suffer injustice, simply that most of the injustice is experienced by women.
All over MN, you will see threads infantilising men, mocking them and demonstrating low expectations of mens behaviour. What you will also see if feminists calling it out and arguing against it until they are blue in the face. Maybe if you saw the support that feminists provide to men then you would appreciate the movement and theory a bit more.
And for what its worth, women infantilise men not because men are incapable but because it suited a patriarchal society for this belief to form. In order to keep women in their place, they had to be given a role that they could own this ended up being the home and the raising of children. Women were so excluded from everything else that they now guard this role fiercely and dont accept that its not necessarily in their interests.
Interestingly, when you look at who benefits from this mocking of men, its men. If you tell a man hes useless at the housework, a woman gets to feel that she has control over the home but guess what, the man gets excused from the housework and it becomes beneath him. So who is really playing who for a fool ?
There is no reason on earth why men could not campaign for issues that affect men without attacking feminism. The two causes dont have to be enemies and shouldnt be given the vast areas of common ground. It doesnt help your cause to attack us, it simply detracts from the issues at hand and we end up going round in circles feeling attacked.
Can you really not see it?
It' so funny to be labelled a pervert just for being a man.
Who labelled you a pervert? Show me the quote.
But then I guess you'd never know because you're not sitting on the shitty end of the stick.
You have no idea. Your male privilege is blinkering you to reality - and you don't want to lose that privilege.
Women can do all sorts of things and get away with them like walking into boys toilets without so much as a thought. Imagine if a man did that. But some women just go right ahead and do it. And then get away with it without being called a pervert. WTF. I wouldn't even dream of going into a female toilet. I am far too decent. And women walk intomale changing rooms just like they have the rights to do so etc. etc.
I don't really know what you're talking about, in an every day sense. I have heard of women going into men's toilets in old buildings, where there are a load of men's loos with no queue and 2 women's loos and a massive queue (usually because the buildings were designed in the times of women being chained to the kitchen sink, and said buildings having many more male visitors than female) as a protest for the lack of women's conveniences. But really - this is really a major problem for you and Mike? Why don't YOU campaign for more women's loos then? Is this in Mike's manifesto?
They support it by example.
vadark's world is a scary place, that's for sure. Good job it has relation to reality at all.
Use. a. condom.
Know. that. no. form. of. contraception. is. 100%.
Know that the man is equally responsible for an unwanted pregnancy as a woman. And that her 'choices' in the event of this are more life-changing.
vadark's whole attitude that everything is some grand feminist conspiracy is mystifying. He must be a deeply unhappy and frustrated individual.
The link was the NSPCC. Home Office statistics were used, and are reliable.
"I haven't seen many feminists support women going into men's changing rooms. Anyone else?"
They support it by example.
I haven't seen many feminists support women going into men's changing rooms. Anyone else?
No, that link (or the wording at least) came from the Home Office.
I'm off to bed....
Join the discussion
Please login first.