Unless, of course, it would be problematic for children to be brought up by a single parent, and there would be evidence that having more than one person responsible is beneficial for the child. How are you supposing a single mother (or a single father, for that matter) would be able to provide for a steady and sufficient income while also having enough time to care for and educate their child?CFriis87 said:Women run that same risk, but the consequences are theirs to choose whether to accept or not. Men do not have that privilege.
"Should the father be responsible for a child he did not choose to have? Yes. Because otherwise, there is no-one responsible, and there are certain compromises we must make."
Last I checked, TWO minus ONE was not ZERO, but it's been a while since I had math in high-school, so I might be a bit rusty. Unless you believe women are not responsible for the babies they choose to carry to term, I don't see why men should be responsible for children they did not choose to have and it *isn't* a compromise we must make.
It is unfortunate for us males that we have no control over the birth of the child. However, I simply see no alternative. Having single parents is bad, and forcing anyone to undergo drastic and emotioally scarring surgery against their wishes is worse. How would we give father the same rights as mothers without hurting either the children, the mothers, or both?CFriis87 said:"the debate becomes who do we properly assign responsibility?"
I would think that giving the burden of responsibility to the one who has the power of choice would be the obvious answer to any logical and rational being, but apparently not.
I never looked at it that way, but I guess you have a point, the law does require both parents to keep being "useful" for the child.CFriis87 said:Refusing men the same reproductive rights keeps them forcefully useful... like tools that cannot choose whether to be used or not. That's a big part of male disposability.
Right. But I guess thats kind of a legal grey area? I am not familiar with the laws pertaining to this kind of behaviour, but I was under the impression we accept these kind of things because they are better than the likely alternative, i.e. a dead child. I would also think that many of these women lack support by their partner. But thats just me guessing.CFriis87 said:There are legal safe havens where mothers are allowed to leave their children anonymously. So paperwork and custody doesn't really have to factor in at all.
The one thing I most certainly do not see is the "objectifying disposable nature" of male video-game characters. In fact, I think it is the most ridiculous argument in the entire debate about sexism in games. Male video game characters are usually also the heroes of their story, and the hero is, by definition, not the disposable one.CFriis87 said:And apparently you don't think any of the evidence I put forth of male disposability in western culture is relevant to the discussion.
The evidence that male life, health and happiness is an acceptable sacrifice to offer up for supposed female safety.
I suppose I haven't focused much on male disposability in games, as I was of the impression that you already saw the problematic state of the objectifying disposable nature that male video-game characters are usually given.
Perhaps I was wrong in this regard?
Regarding the rest of the argument, I think:
Sums the discussion up quite nicely. I don't think your evidence is irrelevant, I think the pattern you are seeing is only one part of a vastly more complicated structure. Not that this would be a problem if you don't base your entire worldview on one aspect of reality.CFriis87 said:I see a pattern in how men are treated. If you see another pattern, that's fine.
Well, in order to be held responsible, you have to be somewhat in control of your actions. If you are to drunk to have any kind of control over your actions, you cannot be responsible for them. You might still be held responsible for the act of drinking itself, but that usually requires some kind of intent to commit crimes while drunk. It's a very controversial topic, though, and might well be handled differently in different countries.CFriis87 said:I was unaware that there was a point where a man can be so drunk, that it positively affects the legal ramifications of his illegal actions while under the influence? Is this really because of the level of drunkenness that he has inflicted upon himself, or in cases where he was provably, involuntarily drugged by a third party?
I was talking specifically about actual legal norms. Like a paragraph that states "Men are responsible for their actions despite their state of mind, while women can be excused if in a state of inebriation, emotional distress, or similar".CFriis87 said:Despite the amount of evidence to the contrary shown to you so far? That's quite impressive.
You are misunderstanding me. I was saying that disposability wasn't the only theme of society, and that you are not taking into account all the other factors. Examples given:CFriis87 said:Can you please tell me which of these other biological, psychological and cultural factor make it rationally acceptable to treat male human beings as more disposable (worth less) than female human beings?
Because I must have missed them in one or more of your earlier posts
- In addition to being biologically less important for the survival of the group, Men also have slightly different physical strength and react to pressure differently than women, which arguably makes them more suitable for dangerous work, while at the same time enabling them to physically dominate a society.
- There is also some evidence that Men tend to perform higher in a competitive environment, while women either perform lower, or at least choose to compete less often.
- There is a pervasive theme in our culture that Men are both phsysically and mentally more capable than women at taking the lead and being in control.
- For most of recent history, while the working world was dominated by Men, Social life also was. While Men had to provide income for their family, this could be done (not everyone had the luxury, to be sure!) as a part time job. A women's chores were full time, there is no closing time for housework. That allowed Men to engage in other activities such as science, sport, games, poetry, all of which were pretty much completely dominated by Men.
- A similar theme still exists in upbringing, in that Men are allowed to "stay children" for significantly longer, while women are supposed to be self sufficient quicker and help in the household. This is also reflected in classic toys for boys and girls.
Those are the things I can think of at the top of my head. None of these contradicts your evidence. They just make the picture a lot more nuanced, in my opinion.
Well, it was just something I think I heard in biology class some time ago. Maybe newer research has changed the picture, or the old research was never really reliable.CFriis87 said:As Anthony Corrigan has already pointed out, your assertion is not correct.
I think the society always regards perceived "natural" ways to act as stronger than cultural conditioning. After all, People used to say women are unfit for politics because it was "against their nature" for the longest time, despite this obviously being wrong.CFriis87 said:Yet this antiquated belief had already been debunked by peer-reviewed studies and reports before the last two reinstatements of VAWA.
Also, believing that the physically stronger sex is less likely to be the target of any kind of violence is like saying that women are less likely to be abused because society generally teaches men to never, ever strike a woman.
It is based neither on facts nor logic and should never be allowed to inform public policy, so why was it? If not because the safety of women was and is irrationally seen as more important than the safety of men.
I think another poster before me already adressed the VAWA, stating that, in theory, it does actually also apply to violence against men, it is just not utilized.
I was under the impression that signified that real men are not in need of protection. But this is the same as above. I see one pattern, you see another. At the end of the day, being in need of protection and being worthy of protection are basically the opposite sides of the same coin. We apparently both see the coin, but we can't agree which side it's showing.CFriis87 said:And the reason that men are not deemed worthy of protection is somehow supposed to disprove that men are not deemed worthy of protection?
I do believe they have made life better for everyone. Not with everything they do, of course. But to say that they have never addressed legitimate concerns is quite a startling claim.CFriis87 said:Oh well that's great! That'd mean that all the feminists are already working on making life better for everyone... like they have been since the sixties.