Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Analogies for Male Reproductive Choice

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Analogies for Male Reproductive Choice

    First thing I want to get out of the way is that I think the best solution to male reproductive choice is an opt-in solution. The problem I have with the opt-out solution is that there are cases where the father doesn't even know that he is a father. Opt-in just fixes so many complications that arise from opt-out, and while nature is no place to look for moral authority, animal species uses opt-in to determine fatherly responsibility. Basically, you won't see any chimps in white armor taking bananas from fathers and giving them to the mothers.

    Regardless, I believe the assignment of parental responsibility to a reluctant father to be an unjust given the circumstances. The response to this is almost unanimously that men shouldn't have sex if they don't want to forced into parenthood.

    First of all, I'm on the fence when it comes to the principle that sex is justification for forcing anyone, male or female, into parenthood. Setting that aside, what makes it especially unjust to me is the fact that the mother has the options of abortion and adoption, while the father does not. The fact that the mother has complete control over the reproductive decision from conception onward and yet the father is still held largely accountable is absurd to me. Many people will dismiss these circumstances without even considering them so I wanted to create an analogy that will put things into perspective.

    Before I come up with with analogy, I always analyze the principle and generalize it as much as I can. Here is my generalization:
    1. Some activity X leads to consequence Y.
    2. Agent W and agent M willfully engage in act X.
    3. There is a period where agent W is perfectly capable of preventing consequence Y, while agent M has no control.
    4. Consequence Y happens and agent W and agent M are held equally responsible for the situation.

    Can you think of situations where this is true? Can you think of counter examples? For the people that aren't fond of abstract thinking, I'll complete the analogy by painting another picture that fits this abstraction.

    Let X be the activity of entering a motor vehicle. Let Y be the consequence of hitting an innocent pedestrian. Let agent W be the driver and agent M be a passenger.

    Both a driver and a passenger entered a motor vehicle. They end up hitting a law abiding pedestrian. We should require both the driver and the passenger to pay for damages to the pedestrian. You might thing this is unfair to the passenger since they couldn't put their foot on the break, but remember that the passenger agreed to enter the vehicle. If you are a passenger and are worried about this happening to you, then you shouldn't get into a vehicle with a driver you don't trust. Don't get into a car with crazy. Consider not using motor vehicles as a means of transit.

    I think this analogy really puts the injustice into perspective. There are flaws some flaws, but there are also many interesting corollaries. It's interesting when you look at more specific situations and try to find the corresponding situation.

    One important thing is the strength of correlation and causality between X and Y. In this case the analogy is flawed, because there is a stronger causality between sex and reproduction than between entering a vehicle and negligently hitting someone. Factoring in birth control closes this gap quite a bit. The difference between protected and unprotected sex is like the difference between sober and drunk driving.

    Another important thing is the willingness of agents to engage in X. In this case the analogy is flawed, because people put a lot less thought into entering a car than they do into engaging in sex. This depends a lot on context. One night stands are a lot like hitch hiking, and sex inside a relationship is like carpooling with a friend.

    It's interesting also to consider the pedestrian, which corresponds to the child to be supported. Suppose as a society we agree that someone has to pay the medical bill, just as someone has to pay the bills of child rearing. In the last resort, the tax payers foot the bill. Without a doubt, we know the driver should pay for the damage to the extent they are able. The philosophical question here is, should the passenger pay? The passenger knew getting into a vehicle ran the risk of this situation.

    Ultimately when I look at this topic, I see it as government officials trying to pass the buck to the passenger, and grasping at whatever justification they can to do so. "He was in the car, so he should pay." There is less concern about making sure the father spends time with the child than there is about making sure the father writes out a check. If you are going to diminish fatherhood to writing out checks as we clearly have, then the government would be a much more suitable agent for that role.

    Anyway, I really like this car analogy because I think there is a lot of merit to it. It gets interesting the more you explore it (e.g. what if someone is forced into the car). I would really have liked to have made it into an article, but I just don't have good enough writing skills and so I'm posting it here. I want to see other people's thoughts.

  • #2
    Well I don't think your analogy is logical, with respect to the responsibility of the passenger in the car. I get that the driver and passenger are riding to someplace that they mutually agree to go, however, the passenger has absolutely NO control over the drivers ability. Now, if said car had a steering wheel on the left, and the gas pedal and brake on the right, both would be accountable for striking the pedestrian.

    Your trying to absolve the male from any responsibility of his participation.

    I get that a man has NO pre-birth parental rights, and he should. But there is a greater victim here, that's the unwanted child, whom had no choice whatsoever.

    Bottom line is all about risk management. You know the rules of the game (fair or not), and if you choose to engage in an activity, you are defacto playing the game. And may be subject to losing.

    Work to change pre-birth men's voice or keep your pencil in your pocket.
    Ephesians 5 "Husbands, Love your wives like Christ loved the Church". (Wives, give your husbands something to love).
    "Wives, RESPECT your husbands". (Husbands, give your wives something to respect.)

    For a man does not truly feel loved unless his wife, mother, and children display respect to him.

    "From each MAN according to his abilty, to each WOMAN according to her need"... Allison Tienemann

    "Feminism is a HATE group... Feminists are HATEFUL people"... Mr. e

    "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."... Ronald Reagan

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by theplummer View Post
      Now, if said car had a steering wheel on the left, and the gas pedal and brake on the right, both would be accountable for striking the pedestrian.
      In this analogy, driving corresponds to post-sex choices. You can't put controls on the passenger side if men don't have post-sex options.

      I'm sorry if my analogy was not very clear on this point.

      Originally posted by theplummer View Post
      I get that a man has NO pre-birth parental rights, and he should. But there is a greater victim here, that's the unwanted child, whom had no choice whatsoever.
      This is a lie, though. Men do have pre-birth options. They have abstinence, condoms, and vasectomies. These things correspond to the passengers discretion about what vehicle he enters and who he lets drive him around.

      Men lack post-sex options. Giving him more pre-birth options on top of the ones he already is nice, but it isn't addressing the issue.

      Originally posted by theplummer View Post
      Bottom line is all about risk management. You know the rules of the game (fair or not), and if you choose to engage in an activity, you are defacto playing the game. And may be subject to losing.
      There is no mutual exclusivity between playing by the rules and trying to change the rules. You can do both. Just because I want men to be treated fairly doesn't mean I advocate men pretend that they are being treated fairly and throw all caution to the wind.
      Last edited by Wio; 01-25-2014, 11:33 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by theplummer View Post
        the passenger has absolutely NO control over the drivers ability. .
        mostly true but not always
        A good example being that most driving instructor's have a brake on the passenger side of the car also
        Interested in men rights activism in the Sydney area ?
        Go to mensrightssydney.com

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Wio View Post
          In this analogy, driving corresponds to post-sex choices. You can't put controls on the passenger side if men don't have post-sex options.

          I'm sorry if my analogy was not very clear on this point.




          OK, I thought riding in the car was the act of having sex.


          This is a lie, though. Men do have pre-birth options. They have abstinence, condoms, and vasectomies. These things correspond to the passengers discretion about what vehicle he enters and who he lets drive him around.




          The only one that's 100% is abstinence, all others including vasectomy carry risk ( there not always 100% effective).

          Men lack post-sex options. Giving him more pre-birth options on top of the ones he already is nice, but it isn't addressing the issue.


          To confusing for me to understand. I believe pre-birth and post sex is saying exactly the same thing, and to that we agree.


          There is no mutual exclusivity between playing by the rules and trying to change the rules. You can do both. Just because I want men to be treated fairly doesn't mean I advocate men pretend that they are being treated fairly and throw all caution to the wind.
          I never said, nor do I pretend men are being treated fairly, in fact they are not.

          The problem is unclear definitions. Words like "rape" and pro-choice and even pro-life are not clear cut. Everyone has an opinion on what words mean with respect to the law.

          Due to the fact that men are so marganized in having the authority to make decisions about their life and future, is exactly why I take the stand I do. My assessment of risk management has led me to never engage in an activity that lasts for what, an hour tops, to be subject to servitude to an irrational human and their enforcers for the next 18 years or so. I'll never engage in marriage, as even if I trust that my partner may have the agency to not take advantage of the unfair divorce laws, one cannot trust that she will change her mind in the future and decide to take advantage.

          If enough men take this attitude and just stop giving femmes any attention, they will be the ones screaming to the law makers to even it up so they will get sex and a relationship. But I realize it won't work, as men are like sheep to slaughter when it comes to thinking with their small brains.
          Ephesians 5 "Husbands, Love your wives like Christ loved the Church". (Wives, give your husbands something to love).
          "Wives, RESPECT your husbands". (Husbands, give your wives something to respect.)

          For a man does not truly feel loved unless his wife, mother, and children display respect to him.

          "From each MAN according to his abilty, to each WOMAN according to her need"... Allison Tienemann

          "Feminism is a HATE group... Feminists are HATEFUL people"... Mr. e

          "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."... Ronald Reagan

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by theplummer View Post
            If enough men take this attitude and just stop giving femmes any attention, they will be the ones screaming to the law makers to even it up so they will get sex and a relationship. But I realize it won't work, as men are like sheep to slaughter when it comes to thinking with their small brains.
            How many men is enough men? Give me a percentage. Divide that percentage by 5. If the resulting percentage of men actually put pressure on public officials we would see a change twice as drastically happen twice as fast.

            I understand that there needs to be a critical mass before activism because seriously effective. I think we can reach that critical mass though. This is why I think MGTOW and MRA can complement each other. MGTOW is the shield that protects men from the current injustices, and the MRM is the sword that chips away at those injustices.

            Comment


            • #7
              I like it. In fact I like it enough to steal it (though I won't take credit). Hope that's cool.
              Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

              Comment


              • #8
                As long as there is a warning label on a product that it contains nuts, its the person with the allergies who is mainly responsible for not getting his or her face to swell up.

                And considering everybody knows what the risks of sex are, its a womans responsibility as long as things are consensual.

                Comment


                • #9
                  There is no analogy that does the injustice...justice.

                  There is no OTHER choice that one individual can make ALONE, that another individual is so profoundly effected by. What other choice is there that one person makes alone, that can potentially cost another person half of everything they earn for the next 18 years?

                  Or look at it another way...if you own HALF of something...no one else has the right to destroy thier half AND yours without even consulting you first do they? Imagine share-holders behaving in this manner? Selling off an entire company without consulting someone that owns 50% of it for example?

                  If you and another person co-create something of 'value' does the other person have the right deny the creation has taken place? Or keep news of that creation and evidence of the creation from the co-creator or go ahead and destroy it without consulting the co creator, because destroying the creation happens to 'suit' them?
                  Last edited by Maxx; 01-25-2014, 10:05 PM.
                  "Being a cunt doesn't make you wrong." ComradePrescott

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Only in our modern wealthy society is this allowed. Otherwise, before, when we were poorer, it was the responsibility of a woman to make a man marry her before she slept with him. Men would sometimes refuse to take responsibility for children born out of wedlock, and that may have been a shitty thing to do, but they did it. At the same time as this was the case, society had a lot of CULTURAL PROTECTIONS for women in place, which are totally different from feminist legal system protections, but which generally were responsible for steering both men and women in the right direction so that all sorts of problems wouldn't happen in the first place.

                    Feminism now wants the legal system to protect women -- but only after the fact only after there has been a problem or something bad has happened. Meanwhile, the legal system develops a self-interest of its own and then wants to destroy all prior cultural protections of men and women that used to be in place to prevent certain problems from happening in the first place, all so they can get more business.

                    In one way or another, both men and women get screwed over. But, each time, the legal system can pretend to be perfect and above it all -- it's the bad behavior of individual men or women that's at fault for their victimization. And as long as we blame either men, or women, but at all costs not the system, feminists and their related cliques in government will be happy.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      We need a His and Hers birth control system. An equal system that both parties can decide to take protection to avoid conception on the occasion at hand. Knowledge of the other's decision becomes irrelevant when you have your own protection and have solo responsibility.
                      Respect is earned by giving respect

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X