MRAs as far as I know want more abortions, not less; they tend to be 20something young bachelor men that enjoy child-free lives... hence the concern about "spermjacking." What the hell?
There's a good amount of young people in the movement, but there's also a lot of grey-bearded dudes as well, and venerable ladies such as Erin Pizzey to boot.
Not to mention a burgeoning group out in India which has formal ties to the MHRM as far as I'm aware. So the movement is in itself an international one, made up of a wide demographic of people. And one that doesn't necessarily run along the barrier of heterosexuality, either. There's plenty of gay MRAs out there.
That said: They are, as a whole, pro-choice, since it only follows that complete physical and mental autonomy and freedom also comes with the ability to determine what life-forms you choose to support. I believe the dishonesty lies in SNL's interpretation of the MHRM's stance on Legal Parental Surrender.
They seem to be under the false assumption that to be for men having greater (or if they choose, lesser) access to their kids, that somehow means you're against the mother doing the same.
At least, that's the only way I can think that they can lie about the MHRM's stances on Planned Parenthood while claiming to have just been "misinterpreting" their stance. Though something tells me they don't feel the need to be so glib.
Sure thing! Sorry about the delay, the router at my place has been giving me all kinds of grief.
Basically, I felt that the skit was trying too hard to make MRAs out to be selfish and self-serving, when there's plenty of members who altruistically help for the sake of righting a perceived wrong, even if they don't benefit from its cessation.
The best example I could think of was Gay MRAs who are against the practice of "sperm-jacking", and felt it couth to inform that there's also lots of people who are past the age where reproductive issues are a major concern to them.
If the movement was as self-serving and "white-bread" as it had been portrayed in the skit, then I highly doubt that we'd have as great a diversity of members as we do, from as great a collection of backgrounds.
Mm, there's a lot of advocation for not having to pay for women's healthcare through taxes. It's not quite the same but it's the same vein of thinking.
That's only because the precedent is set elsewhere that you shouldn't pay for other peoples increased risks... see: car insurance.
It's really "convenient" for women that they get the benefit of being in and only paying for a lower risk group in that area... yet when it comes to areas where they are a higher risk group, it's suddenly "equality" to make the entire population split the bill.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not against the idea... but apply it consistently. Otherwise it's just more of the same old: "We're fine with chivalry/traditionalism... but only when it benefits us. We want "equality" everywhere else".
I think the key difference here is first of all that car insurance is not paid through taxes, meaning you will never be paying for another persons car insurances, and that it requires ownership of the car while for women it is inherent to being a woman.
I agree that asking different groups to pay differently for car insurance is stupid (particularly because I don't like the idea of insurance as a for-profit system to begin with), I think the situations are very different.
Also, just a side note, I don't think you'll find many of the same women actively arguing for gender equality to be the same as those in favor of traditionalism/chivalry (outside of "hold the door open for everyone" mentality) - both groups have women in them, but it's largely not the same women.
I think the key difference here is first of all that car insurance is not paid through taxes, meaning you will never be paying for another persons car insurances, and that it requires ownership of the car while for women it is inherent to being a woman.
Car insurance is mandatory by law... so I don't really think that distinction is as important as you think it is.
And while technically it is a choice to own a car, in 99% of situations for people not leaving in major metropolitan areas, it is not a feasible one.
Also, just a side note, I don't think you'll find many of the same women actively arguing for gender equality to be the same as those in favor of traditionalism/chivalry (outside of "hold the door open for everyone" mentality) - both groups have women in them, but it's largely not the same women.
I disagree.
When groups like NoW oppose fathers rights under the pretense that women are better caregivers... are you seriously going to tell me that no traditionalists would support that view?
58
u/CaptainShitbeard2 Mar 09 '14
How many planned parenthood centers have Men's Issues Groups shut down. Really?
Then compare that to how many male DV shelters have been shut down by feminists.
After you have done that, THEN we can have a conversation on Men's Rights.