What's funny is that male rights groups always focus on why males are oppressed, yet female rights groups such as feminism target males for hatred.
Males rights aren't taken seriously, regardless of the fact they are trying to help their gender. yet feminism is allowed regardless of the fact that most of them are more so for attacking men than helping women.
I think it's important to note that feminism isn't a group, but rather a wide-ranging movement with many different sects, similar to any movement. I think it's unfair to classify male empowerment groups as "always" focused on equality and female empowerment groups as "always" focused on hatred. That said, I think it's a good point - empowerment on either side should be an attempt to reach equilibrium. People in all movements sometimes forget that.
If a less aggressive discussion is what you're trying to reach though, I think there's a better way to do it than what you've been doing in your polls/comments. I don't mean that in an insulting way, but I think there's a way that you tend to present your arguments that can get people very defensive. You might get better results with people if you adopt a different tone - but again, I'm not trying to criticize you.
Personally, I try to stay away from accusations, stay away from loose metaphors and vague generalizations, and (I think most importantly) I always try to cite my information with credible sources and statistics.
You have a point. Although, I don't link women for equality in with feminists, just like I don't link chuavinists with men's rghts groups.
I myself think women should have equality, but by me saying women should also get the negatives of men, and that men should get the benefits women have aswell, I get called a sexist. For example, women get the choice of abortion, and in some states, they don't even need the father's concent to put their child up for adoption. I simply introduced the idea of financial abortion, that men can be rid of parental responsibility like a woman would be able to by abortion, and I explained it all so it would have to be at a time the woman can have an abortion aswell, etc. The responses I got were horrific. It showed me that a lot of women would prefer having the good sides of being a man, but they will call you sexist if you dare expect them top have the negatives or that males get their positives of equality.
No problem about the second paragraph. I accept criticism, but I don't appreciate it when they are giving me criticism in hopes to aggrivate me instead of help me learn. I agree, the way I portray my points could help me show my opinions without any hostile reactions, but a lot of the time people misunderstand what it is I'm saying. For example, the removal of women and men that disrespect males as a whole post I made. I never said that I think women should respect males, just that they shouldn't disrespect them, and somehow they think I meant women should respect every individual man, even when I myself don't agree with that. So I get irritated when I have to explain things again and again when there really is no need. Thanks for the criticism.
In what state can women give up a child for adoption without father's consent? Cite please.
Answer: NO state.
But you go ahead and prove me wrong. No state allows it, and if the father is unknown or un-findable then an EXHAUSTIVE search and process must be completed. No adoptive parent, or adoption agency, will want to touch a baby with a ten foot pole if there's no consent, because there's always that possibility that the bio father will show up and take the baby back.
He was talking about abortion, which is a hotly debated issue in terms of paternal consent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_rights_and_abortion). I think the adoption part was a typo.
To rebut him though, there is a huge physiological difference between carrying a baby in your stomach and fathering a baby (especially considering that there are plenty of terrible fathers/mothers out there).
But either way, I'd prefer it if debates were kept calm, so if it devolves to throwing insults I'll probably just delete them.
No, it wasn't a typo, this is what he said exactly: "For example, women get the choice of abortion, and in some states, they don't even need the father's concent to put their child up for adoption."
He's been told numerous times that that's not true yet keeps on saying it. Anyway, it's not true, you can't give up a baby without consent and if you DID manage to somehow, it's illegal and the father would have NO problem getting the child back.
Thanks you. Yes, I think there is, but many men are being forced in to fatherhood at times they don't want to or at times they aren't capable of being a father. Some men can't even start another family when they are ready due to them having to pay for the child they never wanted, which isn't fair. It traps males in to parenthood, where as females can just be rid of it. And about Wigsplitz, I would keep an eye on her. I was debating with her before. I used to debate with her a lot, but I stopped for a while due to people telling me that there is no getting through to her, so there's no point trying, plus the whole "Insult first, stay on topic later" thing she has going often.
She's known to try insult rather than stay on point, so if you want a no insult area, just keep an eye on that one.
Males rights aren't taken seriously, regardless of the fact they are trying to help their gender. yet feminism is allowed regardless of the fact that most of them are more so for attacking men than helping women.
If a less aggressive discussion is what you're trying to reach though, I think there's a better way to do it than what you've been doing in your polls/comments. I don't mean that in an insulting way, but I think there's a way that you tend to present your arguments that can get people very defensive. You might get better results with people if you adopt a different tone - but again, I'm not trying to criticize you.
Personally, I try to stay away from accusations, stay away from loose metaphors and vague generalizations, and (I think most importantly) I always try to cite my information with credible sources and statistics.
I myself think women should have equality, but by me saying women should also get the negatives of men, and that men should get the benefits women have aswell, I get called a sexist. For example, women get the choice of abortion, and in some states, they don't even need the father's concent to put their child up for adoption. I simply introduced the idea of financial abortion, that men can be rid of parental responsibility like a woman would be able to by abortion, and I explained it all so it would have to be at a time the woman can have an abortion aswell, etc. The responses I got were horrific. It showed me that a lot of women would prefer having the good sides of being a man, but they will call you sexist if you dare expect them top have the negatives or that males get their positives of equality.
No problem about the second paragraph. I accept criticism, but I don't appreciate it when they are giving me criticism in hopes to aggrivate me instead of help me learn. I agree, the way I portray my points could help me show my opinions without any hostile reactions, but a lot of the time people misunderstand what it is I'm saying. For example, the removal of women and men that disrespect males as a whole post I made. I never said that I think women should respect males, just that they shouldn't disrespect them, and somehow they think I meant women should respect every individual man, even when I myself don't agree with that. So I get irritated when I have to explain things again and again when there really is no need.
Thanks for the criticism.
Answer: NO state.
But you go ahead and prove me wrong. No state allows it, and if the father is unknown or un-findable then an EXHAUSTIVE search and process must be completed. No adoptive parent, or adoption agency, will want to touch a baby with a ten foot pole if there's no consent, because there's always that possibility that the bio father will show up and take the baby back.
You idiot.
I think the adoption part was a typo.
To rebut him though, there is a huge physiological difference between carrying a baby in your stomach and fathering a baby (especially considering that there are plenty of terrible fathers/mothers out there).
But either way, I'd prefer it if debates were kept calm, so if it devolves to throwing insults I'll probably just delete them.
He's been told numerous times that that's not true yet keeps on saying it. Anyway, it's not true, you can't give up a baby without consent and if you DID manage to somehow, it's illegal and the father would have NO problem getting the child back.
Yes, I think there is, but many men are being forced in to fatherhood at times they don't want to or at times they aren't capable of being a father. Some men can't even start another family when they are ready due to them having to pay for the child they never wanted, which isn't fair. It traps males in to parenthood, where as females can just be rid of it.
And about Wigsplitz, I would keep an eye on her. I was debating with her before. I used to debate with her a lot, but I stopped for a while due to people telling me that there is no getting through to her, so there's no point trying, plus the whole "Insult first, stay on topic later" thing she has going often.
She's known to try insult rather than stay on point, so if you want a no insult area, just keep an eye on that one.