The Rights of Men

[Farm Boy]

Did I miss it or did we just kinda roll with: men and adoptive mothers require parenting leave less because pregnancy is hard? Even though, barring medical complication, that logic almost certainly doesn't justify even the 3 months unpaid that women get in the USA under FMLA? That's just odd. Or shall we lean of cult of the boob logic and ignore milk banks and shame for those who must use formula? That'd be weird too, though I suppose we could do it.

 

[jackelgull]

Did I miss it or did we just kinda roll with: men and adoptive mothers require parenting leave less because pregnancy is hard? Even though, barring medical complication, that logic almost certainly doesn't justify even the 3 months unpaid that women get in the USA under FMLA? That's just odd. Or shall we lean of cult of the boob logic and ignore milk banks and shame for those who must use formula? That'd be weird too, though I suppose we could do it.

Yay, the other big name I really wanted on this thread!

And what I thought was established is, pregnancy is hard, so pregnant woman should get time off while pregnant, as well as time off after the baby is born. Since men and adoptive parents skip the pregnancy stage, this won't apply to them, but they should get equal time off after the baby is theirs. Or is there something you find objectionable in that logic?

 

[brennan]

Probably relevant: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_bond

"The maternal bond between a human female and her biological child usually begins to develop during pregnancy. The pregnant female adapts her lifestyle to suit the needs of the developing infant. At around 18 to 25 weeks into pregnancy, the mother begins to feel the fetus moving. Similar to seeing her child for the first time in an ultrasound scan, this experience usually leads the mother to feel more attached to her child.

Some believe that the developing fetus can hear the mother's heartbeat and voice and has the ability to respond to touch or movement. By the seventh month of pregnancy, two-thirds of women report a strong maternal bond with their unborn child.[2]

Mothers who did not want the pregnancy typically do not have a close relationship with the child. They are also more likely to suffer from post-partum depression or other mental health problems and less likely to breast-feed the infant.[3]

ChildbirthEdit

The process of childbirth is an experience that can contribute immensely to the mother and child bond. As every birth is unique, this may not always be the case. Factors such as experiencing a traumatic birth, the mother's childhood, medical stress, lack of support, and the influence of a spouse or partner can worsen rather than strengthen the bond.

The emotional bonding theory first appeared in the mid-1970s, and by the 1980s, bonding had become an accepted maternity term. Soon, the process became analyzed and scrutinized to the point of creating another term –poor bonding.[citation needed][4]

Breastfeeding

Production of oxytocin during childbirth and lactation increases parasympathetic activity. Thus, anxiety is theoretically reduced. Generally, it is understood that maternal oxytocin circulation can predispose women to form bonds and show bonding behavior.[citation needed]

Breastfeeding is also strongly believed to foster the early post-partum maternal bond, via touch, response, and mutual gazing."

 

[Farm Boy]

And what I thought was established is, pregnancy is hard, so pregnant woman should get time off while pregnant, as well as time off after the baby is born. Since men and adoptive parents skip the pregnancy stage, this won't apply to them, but they should get equal time off after the baby is theirs. Or is there something you find objectionable in that logic?

Not exactly, no. Which is nice. I was hoping I had missed it!

Though I suppose then we need to deal with what we think the upper limits of leave are going to be. You'll start running into women who want, and do, have 2-4 children in rapid succession. If you mandate a lot of benefit/rights from employers they'll start taking note. Some of them will work around hiring people they think are risky to hire while making sure it definitely definitely wasn't because of that person's age/sex.

 

[Akka]

Ah yeah, the Holy Market is such a nice thing...

 

[Farm Boy]

It's not holy. And it's not an argument for what we should do. It's an argument about incentives and what happens when you do things. If you burden an employer with substantial legal obligations regarding some hirees and not others, barring stringent enforcement, you disincentivize the hiring of those persons. You wind up with the state providing a fear incentive to hire people that employers should want to hire instead of being scared into hiring. One way around this conundrum, perhaps, is to extend those burdens to all employees, thus equalizing the incentives.

 

[jackelgull]

It's not holy. And it's not an argument for what we should do. It's an argument about incentives and what happens when you do things. If you burden an employer with substantial legal obligations regarding some hirees and not others, barring stringent enforcement, you disincentivize the hiring of those persons. You wind up with the state providing a fear incentive to hire people that employers should want to hire instead of being scared into hiring. One way around this conundrum, perhaps, is to extend those burdens to all employees, thus equalizing the incentives.

That doesn't make sense to me in the context of pregnant mothers getting time off during pregnancy though. When a woman is pregnant, her physical capabilities are reduced during the later stages. Therefore working is difficult, and a society that cares about the health of its workers should allow the pregnant woman time off during the most painful stages. A man does not go through these symptoms. He is physically capable of working while his wife/partner is pregnant. And adoptive parents don't go through the pains of pregnancy for their child. Their is no physical reason stopping them from working before the baby is born. After the baby is born though, the woman who gave birth, the father, and the adoptive parents should receive equal time to take care of their infant while it is the most vulnerable, and needs them the most.

Yes, this will mandate that the women gets longer, but there is no physical reason why the other categories should get that time off.

 

[Narz]

there are plenty of mothers who have and want nothing to do with their own children.

Unfortunately this is very true.

 

[madviking]

So you've made bins for {meninism} and {actual men's issues}. What now?

have people talk about the latter instead of the poppycock that is the former.

 

[brennan]

Well then feel free to join the conversation...

 

[madviking]

i don't actually really have much to say about men's issues. ¯\_(&#12484_/¯

 

[brennan]

Well now there's a shocker.

 

[Farm Boy]

That doesn't make sense to me in the context of pregnant mothers getting time off during pregnancy though. When a woman is pregnant, her physical capabilities are reduced during the later stages. Therefore working is difficult, and a society that cares about the health of its workers should allow the pregnant woman time off during the most painful stages. A man does not go through these symptoms. He is physically capable of working while his wife/partner is pregnant. And adoptive parents don't go through the pains of pregnancy for their child. Their is no physical reason stopping them from working before the baby is born. After the baby is born though, the woman who gave birth, the father, and the adoptive parents should receive equal time to take care of their infant while it is the most vulnerable, and needs them the most.

Yes, this will mandate that the women gets longer, but there is no physical reason why the other categories should get that time off.

You are talking about caring as a society. Obviously we do some. Yet we're talking about regulating businesses. Businesses have one central concern, and that is money. If we're going to progress with the notion that businesses is altruistic we might as well go ahead and save a lot of expense when it comes to regulation enforcement, since we don't really need it.

You can cover medical disability with medical leave. Or, if you're going to provide prep time for expectant parents you can provide it for all parenting units. We already stipulate that marriage partners receive default rights and obligations to parenting because married, we could do that here too.

 

[warpus]

i don't actually really have much to say about men's issues. ¯\_(&#12484_/¯

So why post in this thread?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Basically you want to have your cake and eat it Brennan, you want to discuss gender issues without having any alternative views well here's the thing brennan, this is a discussion forum where opposing views meet.

While I understand some of the reactions to this comment, I personally would have to say this is a perfectly legitimate comment to make. Opposing views shouldn't be silenced or banned, but should be challenged fairly on their own merits.

I get the annoyance being expressed in light of the fact that this is somewhat of a double standard as any such courtesy and fairness is rarely shown when the situation is reversed, but as I've said before "well you started it!" is not a helpful attitude to have and isn't going to move anything forward.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

au contraire, if the concept of "men's issues" wants to gain legitimacy, it should stop being associated with meninists.

But it is people like you* who are making that association (to a non-existent group I might add). There's very little any individual men's rights advocates/activists can do to turn the tide if the very label "MRA" is officially a synonym for "bigoted scum" is there? It should be fairly apparent that the opposite side frequently lump all such people into one category, and assign that category the characterstics of the worst members, without bothering to even scratch the surface. That kind of willful ignorance is pretty much impossible to overcome from the outside.

The fact is that if you are motivated to talk about men's rights issues, and do your best to do so in a fair and even-handed way, then the onus isn't really on you to convince biased observers that you don't match up to their largely inaccurate stereotypes, or that you don't hold views that you have never professed to hold, or to adopt some other label that doesn't have "men's rights" in it in order to not be automatically dismissed.

 

[brennan]

It's entirely possible to discuss mens issues without attracting the ire of feminists, see Ally Fogg's pieces for the Guardian for example. In order to not be a misogynist you have to blame men's issues on the Patriarchy. Breathe a single word that suggests you don't buy into the feminist worldview and it's troll, flame, dogpile, banhammer... all in short order.

MRA's don't on the whole accept feminist descriptors of society, that makes them dangerous in the eyes of feminists, hence the abuse and hate campaigns. I've been reading with some amusement about the woman doing the red pill film and how she seems to be being targeted by mudslinging and hit pieces since she decided to actually be even-handed over the lot at AVFM. Getting the full on propaganda barrage.

 

[useless]

I too can create strawmen but i won't.

In regards to AVFM (a designated hate site by the SPLC), writers for that site have engaged in death threats, bullying, harassment, doxing, etc.

I'd love to see why you think Jack Barnes' constant attacks on anyone he percieves as being a feminist is acceptable, especially when it so often veers into death threats and harassment.

Let's hear from the man himself:

 

[Ryika]

The word "harassment" is probably put into quotation marks for good reasons, given that femfreq recently said that even disagreeing with her is harassment. (; That sort of harassment will hopefully increase by a lot.

 

[useless]

The word "harassment" is probably put into quotation marks for good reasons, given that femfreq recently said that even disagreeing with her is harassment. (; That sort of harassment will hopefully increase by a lot.

I'm sure you will provide evidence of that then, right? Also, Sarkeesian has actually had harassment, people threatening her life and such, not sure why you want to make a joke about that though, given it's seriousness.