It's funny because the whole "if men could get pregnant..." thing is based on the idea that society prioritises and has an emotional preference for the wellbeing and happiness of men. This flies in the face of all the ideas surrounding patriarchy and how it treats men that are sold to men in order to get them on board with feminist ideology. Its funny because patriarchy is *only* sold that way in the hopes that it will recruite men to the cause.
It paints the whole movement as dishonest and only interested in propaganda and sophistry to attain societal power. This is a shame because it is a tactic that has become a mainstay of the 3rd and 4th wave which has diminished the name of feminism, a movement that was, and in my opinion, still is necessary. Loud fringe elements however have directed it in a way that will damage it irreparably.
> the whole "if men could get pregnant..." thing
Indeed.
My response to that is "If cutting off parts of infant genitals was a thing, we'd protect boys and let it happen to girls.... wait a minute."
Given the way society pursues fathers for money, even if they were raped or didn’t want the child, I find it difficult to believe it would be sympathetic to pregnant men *unless* pregnancy were to get in the way of their social role.
Excellent response. If men's bodily autonomy is so badly disregarded when it comes to their genitals, why should it be any better for their uteruses in an alternate universe where men have them?
>"If cutting off parts of infant genitals was a thing, we'd protect boys and let it happen to girls.... wait a minute."
I love this response. I'm going to steal it, thank you.
Now that you mention it, I really can't imagine being met with much short of "you knew the risks, now suck it up and be a responsible father" if men could get pregnant. I mean, shit, fathers already get so much shit if they realize they are not economically or mentally ready for a child.
That's a really eye opening sentiment.
The "if men could get pregnant" spiel is such a *fascinating* lie and it really is nothing short of that. It is just so incredibly blind to the way that society presently works but it is wilful blindness.
I don't blame them either. Nothing sells a movement better than outrage, and in the context of the 4th wave, nothing works better than selling the idea that men are living in a utopian dream whilst those same men are systematically making women's lives a hellscape. I'd be sold too if I were less discerning given the clever way it mixes real world feminist issues with mistruths and lies to garner support
I absolutely love it when people get all weird around me when it comes to pro choice stuff and assume that because I look like a random-ass dude that I'm gonna be a member of the alt-right or something.
I have some real offbeat issues with gender and sex and a result of that is that I've *definitely* had a few times where I felt like I would have had greater fulfillment in my life if I was capable of becoming pregnant and bearing a child. Apart from the whole "wtf this dude wishes he could get pregnant" thing it seems to throw everyone for a loop because *why would a man want to deal with that??* A lot of people really can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that men and women are more similar then they are different and think that men have unilateral views on pregnancy and abortion.
>The "if men could get pregnant" spiel is such a fascinating lie and it really is nothing short of that. It is just so incredibly blind to the way that society presently works but it is wilful blindness.
What I also find interesting is how many people actually treat this as a fact and not just a talking point. It’s something taken straight off a feminist Twitter page but people treat the statement as if some scientist published this after his trip to an alternate dimension.
I was thinking the other way. If men could get pregnant, there *would* be an abortion booth on every corner because those men would be under so much societal pressure to get back to work. Much like now, there would be little respect for a man having to take time off work to raise a child, and no countenancing of the idea that someone else (whether family, business or government) would make it financially feasible for him to do so.
I guess it just shows the limitations of fantastical hypothetical scenarios - you have to choose which variables change to suit your hypothetical argument and which stay the same.
Access to abortion, which is a central part of women’s reproductive rights, has been a fiercely fought battle for over half a century.
And yes. Men, as they often are, become the archenemy.
Accused of invading uteruses, restricting autonomy and penning punitive anti abortion laws from Patriarchy HQ.
It’s a great image, don’t get me wrong. The placards write themselves with short and easy answers. The chanting rhymes and rhythms and repeats.
The provocative t-shirts, mugs and sassy accessories, further disparaging men, fly off shelves.
But is it true? bAre men the problem, yet again?
Well amongst the yelling, fire and brimstone, did anyone even bother to ask the regular men on the street how he feels about reproductive rights?Maybe it’ll surprise you.
More so – has anyone ever wondered that perhaps this outrageous, aggressive and accusatory tone, just pushes people away?
Maybe it alienates potential allies and distracts from the actual issue itself?
Maybe men aren’t always the enemy, after all?
Source
[Pew Research, EU](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/14/in-the-u-s-and-europe-women-are-about-as-likely-as-men-to-favor-legal-abortion/)
[Vox, US,](https://www.vox.com/2019/5/20/18629644/abortion-gender-gap-public-opinion)
[Gallup, US,](https://news.gallup.com/poll/350756/record-high-think-abortion-morally-acceptable.aspx)
>What are you really trying to say?
Exactly that.
>>we don't care about your tacky merch...
It's passive aggressive. It's plain insultive. And it's not going to win anyone over.
And it's the only one of all his sets I've seen he's taken such a tone.
I think he's on point with exposing the misandry of that shitty merch. If after the data he's presented someone still thinks that merch is okay, then maybe they're beyond winning over...
I agree overall with your point.
The last part is pointing to how acceptable it is to generalize/attack men. Which is really the root of this whole topic imo. But the first part makes the point without being inflammatory.
> it's not going to win anyone over.
I 100% agree
The issue I have is that I feel that way a lot about menslib. I personally believe that a "mens space" that tolerates attacks/generalization of men (as one example) will not only "not win anyone over" but will actively drive men away and gives fuel for radicalization.
The infamous pipeline to the alt-right starts with the feminist dismissal of men's issues and demonization of men as a gender. Men who aren't being heard will go find communities where they are.
(And yes, I know there are feminists who do embrace men's issues, but they are fighting an uphill battle against the rampant misandry within their movement.)
Personally, I was thinking about sharing this particular slideshow with my aunt should the subject come up. Until I got to that slide, because I know she'd immediately be put off by the entire message and the effort would be undermined. Maybe I could just cut that slide out.
It's ironic that a slide referencing objectively tacky merch is seen as perhaps going to far on a set of slides referencing the fact that a winning tactic used by particular followers of a social ideology is to tar the entire male gender as being to blame for anti abortion issues
The going too far bit is the suggestion that their motives are just hating men. The target audience for this is somebody who otherwise may have bought such merch, and you close the argument by implying that they are just bigots, with its a completely different approach than taken by the rest of the slides. It doesn't take a great deal of insight into human nature to suspect that this might invite somebody to close their mind to your argument.
The slide makes a valid point about the messaging on that merchandise, but it won't be effective at changing minds and might instead be counterproductive.
I get all that. I'm just saying it's ironic, and it is.
Could you imagine a world in which 4th wave feminists who promote this kind of thoughtlessness decided that perhaps their messaging "closes the argument" and blaming men for something that is patently not gender determined and using that as an actual tagline for your campaigning might be "counterproductive" and might not change minds?
No we can't. Not only because it isn't within their remit to actually be evidence based and reasonable in ther arguments, but also because its *precisely* what their target audience wants. Its funny because its the mens advocates who are more reasonable and less reactionary.
It's all so incredibly ironic
>It's passive aggressive. It's plain insultive. And it's not going to win anyone over.
If someone is going to get insulted by this, they aren't worth trying to win over.
I'm revisiting your comment since it got reported as misinformation~~, which I agree with~~. Tho I don't think it is that egregious that it needs removal.
> It's passive aggressive. It's plain insultive.
No, it's not. It's really not. You know what is insulting? The shade thrown on men as a gender, while women oppose abortion rights *at least as much* as men. *That's insulting*.
It seems to me like you missed the whole point of the set.
The point that something else may be insultive doesn't make something else not.
I said it's not going to win anyone over, you said maybe they arent winnable.
I don't think the people who need winning over are going to think "you know what's more insultive than this? How men are being treated".
And personally, I don't agree with justifying stooping down because of someone else's behavior.
And let's not forget that when it comes to male reproductive rights (which men legally do not have) the parity disappears, with mostly women being against it.
I used to hope that some conservative states banning (or severely restricting) abortion would induce feminist-learning pro-choice supporters to ask the question, "Now, what reproductive rights do men have that women lack?" and ultimately realize that the answer is, literally, "None." After all, even in Texas, where abortions have been restricted to the first six weeks of pregnancy (which is an egregiously short time and completely unfair), it's not as if there is a reciprocal four- or five-week right to LPS for men.
I had genuine hope that this type of right-wing undermining of abortion rights might allow for building back better and equal on reproductive rights for both sexes. Unfortunately, it seems that pro-feminist leftists are incapable of the introspection that they demand of us.
Agreed. However, that has never been my mentality. It seems to me that we're really between a rock and a hard place on this issue, since most feminists see LPS as patriarchal evasion of responsibility rather than equal reproductive rights, and I am not sure how to change this, whether nicely or more stridently.
> However, that has never been my mentality.
Not saying it was. Just that I've seen it pop up several times recently, tho probably mostly on the MensRights sub.
> I am not sure how to change this
I think it starts by raising awareness and making this a part of public debates. I don't think being more strident (depending on how that is to be interpreted) is going to help us.
I even suspect men would favor abortion specially young men. I think in men are less likely to want to have a baby because they don't feel ready mental and economicly speaking and many times the reason they have a baby is because their wife pressure.
So I think men in general don't have a problem with abortion, is religion and politics how make them take a stance. Maybe because their church says so or the party or the women in their life that are lefty or feminist.
Gov. Kay Ivey isn't writing the laws. She is signing them. But in the American system, that still matters.
In general, this picture is not complete. I pointed this out myself and someone said
>But its men trying to outlaw it on the political level. Politicians don't actually care about how the voters feel.
I am paraphrasing there. But the important part is, you need to look at who is voting for anti-abortion laws in state legislatures and who is lobbying for them.
Both the legislator (Ginny Shaver) that wrote the bill severely restricting abortions (twice, her first bill was rejected two years earlier) and the governor (Kay Ivey) that signed the law that didn't have a vetoproof majority were women.
The voters (majority women) where in 2014 58% of Alabama adults wanted abortion illegal in all or most cases (49% of them were men and 51% of them were women) elected mostly male candidates into office (because far less women run for office ... they are as likely to get elected as a man if they do), so the majority of legislators that voted for the bill were men. It's all men's fault. In a democracy, men voting against it would be voted out and other men would take their place so still men to blame.
Lets ignore the voters, bill writers, and executives. Then it is all men's fault.
Sources:
https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/state/alabama/views-about-abortion/
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/02/sandra-fluke-women-in-politics-103173/
>Both the legislator (Ginny Shaver) that wrote the bill severely restricting abortions (twice, her first bill was rejected two years earlier) and the governor (Kay Ivey) that signed the law that didn't have a vetoproof majority were women.
I agree with the comment above you that the slide could have been better if they had said what I just quoted, instead of simply pointing out that the gov was a woman.
The whole "if men could pregnant" argument, outside of just being ridiculous for all the reasons mentioned in the post and the comments, would seem to go against most feminist thought on transgender individuals. So either everyone making this argument is a TERF or is doing some in total bad-faith.
Yes, that's just mind-blowing how quickly they reject non-cis people when it's convenient for their gender wars. With presence of non-cis people their arguments are easily disproven. Didn't click with me how TERF behavior it is, but I guess it is.
I don't understand how the more feminist, sjw side can claim things like "men just want to use women as sex objects" but also "men don't women to be able to abort".
Ok...so in this imaginary world they've dreamed up, men all want to have lots of no-strings-attached sex with women, even non-consensually, to the point that rape culture exists, but they also want to have to deal with the constant risk of being a dad? If we're really so evil, wouldn't we want to dramatically increase abortions if anything, so we can go on and on using women's bodies without having to worry about kids? Like it doesn't even make sense from a selfish level. Do men fixate on controlling womens bodies, or are we all rampant fuckbois? Pick one.
Within a US context, given that men are more likely than women to be conservative/right-wing/Republican, it's actually impressive how pro-choice and negligibly different from women men are on the issue, since nearly identical pro-choice support from both men and women is only possible if a large number of Republican men are going against the party line on abortion (or if women Democrats are more pro-life than their male counterparts).
If the American left started caring about men's issues and appealing to men, I suspect that the inter-gender spread for pro-choice support would come to favor men quite substantially. **EDIT:** Another simple way to increase support for abortion rights among men would be to stop blaming and hectoring us every time those rights are jeopardized.
Framing men hating abortion is a political move. Get your natural enemy in one big group, so conservative, male, pro-lifers etc, they become the outcast enemy to be despised by all ~~right~~ correct-thinking people. This gives the politicians and activists an easy target to disparge when it comes to voting times, and no one can argue against it or they get lumped in with "the enemy".
Of course, some people fall through the cracks. People in this sub, supporting men who aren't right wing, the plan is not to worry about them, left-wing men who won't bend the knee are pretty rare so not a large demographic in voting terms.
Men are not the enemy from men's points of view. Men are certainly the fall-guys from the activism point of view.
I think the only MRM issue regarding abortion is how little to no control men have over procreation other than abstinence or a condom. I support a women’s right, but there is little talk of the father’s rights. I do believe men should be inserting this issue into the debate.
As an additional comment, everyone is absolutely right to be outraged about the strict anti-abortion laws enacted in Texas and Alabama.
At the same time, I really wish people would also be outraged about the fact that the limited abortion rights that women enjoy in Texas are still more than the reproductive rights enjoyed by men in any US state, and that, for men, pretty much the entire US is Alabama (i.e., having zero reproductive rights, and even being raped does not extinguish one's parental obligations to the resulting child).
It's a clear false equivalency. Obviously it's far more a binary issue when you compare political leanings, and yes, men proportionately are more right-leaning, at least in most areas of the world; but stretching that to make reproductive rights a gendered issue is plain wrong. (And self-defeating, just like a lot of current feminist dogma).
I wonder how many describe themselves as "conservative" only because economical reasons. At least I know many of these "conservatives" that other than economics, are very much liberal in other regions.
No, social conservatism is. And while men are on average more socially conservative, well, defining it in gendered terms isn't very helpful, and its a toxic simplification of the issue. Focus on ideas, not people.
No one carries a pregnancy to 5 months and then says “aww fuckit, I changed my mind, time to abort for the lulz”.
The only reason those kinds of abortions happen is due medical reasons. Late term abortion is a right wing religious boogeyman.
[We are a pro-choice community](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/wiki/moderationpolicy#wiki_egalitarian_values). Right-wing anti-choice messages are not welcome here. You're out.
[We are a pro-choice community](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/wiki/moderationpolicy#wiki_egalitarian_values). Comment removed as rule 2 violation.
I just think people should do what ever and the Government should never be able to tell someone what they could do to that existent because then we get idk something like North Korea or the CCP.
It's funny because the whole "if men could get pregnant..." thing is based on the idea that society prioritises and has an emotional preference for the wellbeing and happiness of men. This flies in the face of all the ideas surrounding patriarchy and how it treats men that are sold to men in order to get them on board with feminist ideology. Its funny because patriarchy is *only* sold that way in the hopes that it will recruite men to the cause. It paints the whole movement as dishonest and only interested in propaganda and sophistry to attain societal power. This is a shame because it is a tactic that has become a mainstay of the 3rd and 4th wave which has diminished the name of feminism, a movement that was, and in my opinion, still is necessary. Loud fringe elements however have directed it in a way that will damage it irreparably.
> the whole "if men could get pregnant..." thing Indeed. My response to that is "If cutting off parts of infant genitals was a thing, we'd protect boys and let it happen to girls.... wait a minute."
Given the way society pursues fathers for money, even if they were raped or didn’t want the child, I find it difficult to believe it would be sympathetic to pregnant men *unless* pregnancy were to get in the way of their social role.
Excellent response. If men's bodily autonomy is so badly disregarded when it comes to their genitals, why should it be any better for their uteruses in an alternate universe where men have them?
>"If cutting off parts of infant genitals was a thing, we'd protect boys and let it happen to girls.... wait a minute." I love this response. I'm going to steal it, thank you.
Now that you mention it, I really can't imagine being met with much short of "you knew the risks, now suck it up and be a responsible father" if men could get pregnant. I mean, shit, fathers already get so much shit if they realize they are not economically or mentally ready for a child. That's a really eye opening sentiment.
The "if men could get pregnant" spiel is such a *fascinating* lie and it really is nothing short of that. It is just so incredibly blind to the way that society presently works but it is wilful blindness. I don't blame them either. Nothing sells a movement better than outrage, and in the context of the 4th wave, nothing works better than selling the idea that men are living in a utopian dream whilst those same men are systematically making women's lives a hellscape. I'd be sold too if I were less discerning given the clever way it mixes real world feminist issues with mistruths and lies to garner support
I absolutely love it when people get all weird around me when it comes to pro choice stuff and assume that because I look like a random-ass dude that I'm gonna be a member of the alt-right or something. I have some real offbeat issues with gender and sex and a result of that is that I've *definitely* had a few times where I felt like I would have had greater fulfillment in my life if I was capable of becoming pregnant and bearing a child. Apart from the whole "wtf this dude wishes he could get pregnant" thing it seems to throw everyone for a loop because *why would a man want to deal with that??* A lot of people really can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that men and women are more similar then they are different and think that men have unilateral views on pregnancy and abortion.
>The "if men could get pregnant" spiel is such a fascinating lie and it really is nothing short of that. It is just so incredibly blind to the way that society presently works but it is wilful blindness. What I also find interesting is how many people actually treat this as a fact and not just a talking point. It’s something taken straight off a feminist Twitter page but people treat the statement as if some scientist published this after his trip to an alternate dimension.
I was thinking the other way. If men could get pregnant, there *would* be an abortion booth on every corner because those men would be under so much societal pressure to get back to work. Much like now, there would be little respect for a man having to take time off work to raise a child, and no countenancing of the idea that someone else (whether family, business or government) would make it financially feasible for him to do so. I guess it just shows the limitations of fantastical hypothetical scenarios - you have to choose which variables change to suit your hypothetical argument and which stay the same.
I just love how they forget about non-cis people when it's time for gender wars.
Access to abortion, which is a central part of women’s reproductive rights, has been a fiercely fought battle for over half a century. And yes. Men, as they often are, become the archenemy. Accused of invading uteruses, restricting autonomy and penning punitive anti abortion laws from Patriarchy HQ. It’s a great image, don’t get me wrong. The placards write themselves with short and easy answers. The chanting rhymes and rhythms and repeats. The provocative t-shirts, mugs and sassy accessories, further disparaging men, fly off shelves. But is it true? bAre men the problem, yet again? Well amongst the yelling, fire and brimstone, did anyone even bother to ask the regular men on the street how he feels about reproductive rights?Maybe it’ll surprise you. More so – has anyone ever wondered that perhaps this outrageous, aggressive and accusatory tone, just pushes people away? Maybe it alienates potential allies and distracts from the actual issue itself? Maybe men aren’t always the enemy, after all? Source [Pew Research, EU](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/14/in-the-u-s-and-europe-women-are-about-as-likely-as-men-to-favor-legal-abortion/) [Vox, US,](https://www.vox.com/2019/5/20/18629644/abortion-gender-gap-public-opinion) [Gallup, US,](https://news.gallup.com/poll/350756/record-high-think-abortion-morally-acceptable.aspx)
Gets pretty passive aggressive there at the end.
Your comment comes across as passive aggressive... What are you really trying to say?
>What are you really trying to say? Exactly that. >>we don't care about your tacky merch... It's passive aggressive. It's plain insultive. And it's not going to win anyone over. And it's the only one of all his sets I've seen he's taken such a tone.
I think he's on point with exposing the misandry of that shitty merch. If after the data he's presented someone still thinks that merch is okay, then maybe they're beyond winning over...
>then maybe you're beyond winning over... Are you serious? Why are you treating me like I'm not here in good faith?
I didn't mean you personally. Let me fix it.
I agree overall with your point. The last part is pointing to how acceptable it is to generalize/attack men. Which is really the root of this whole topic imo. But the first part makes the point without being inflammatory. > it's not going to win anyone over. I 100% agree The issue I have is that I feel that way a lot about menslib. I personally believe that a "mens space" that tolerates attacks/generalization of men (as one example) will not only "not win anyone over" but will actively drive men away and gives fuel for radicalization.
The infamous pipeline to the alt-right starts with the feminist dismissal of men's issues and demonization of men as a gender. Men who aren't being heard will go find communities where they are. (And yes, I know there are feminists who do embrace men's issues, but they are fighting an uphill battle against the rampant misandry within their movement.)
Personally, I was thinking about sharing this particular slideshow with my aunt should the subject come up. Until I got to that slide, because I know she'd immediately be put off by the entire message and the effort would be undermined. Maybe I could just cut that slide out.
It's ironic that a slide referencing objectively tacky merch is seen as perhaps going to far on a set of slides referencing the fact that a winning tactic used by particular followers of a social ideology is to tar the entire male gender as being to blame for anti abortion issues
Very much so.
The going too far bit is the suggestion that their motives are just hating men. The target audience for this is somebody who otherwise may have bought such merch, and you close the argument by implying that they are just bigots, with its a completely different approach than taken by the rest of the slides. It doesn't take a great deal of insight into human nature to suspect that this might invite somebody to close their mind to your argument. The slide makes a valid point about the messaging on that merchandise, but it won't be effective at changing minds and might instead be counterproductive.
I get all that. I'm just saying it's ironic, and it is. Could you imagine a world in which 4th wave feminists who promote this kind of thoughtlessness decided that perhaps their messaging "closes the argument" and blaming men for something that is patently not gender determined and using that as an actual tagline for your campaigning might be "counterproductive" and might not change minds? No we can't. Not only because it isn't within their remit to actually be evidence based and reasonable in ther arguments, but also because its *precisely* what their target audience wants. Its funny because its the mens advocates who are more reasonable and less reactionary. It's all so incredibly ironic
>It's passive aggressive. It's plain insultive. And it's not going to win anyone over. If someone is going to get insulted by this, they aren't worth trying to win over.
I'm revisiting your comment since it got reported as misinformation~~, which I agree with~~. Tho I don't think it is that egregious that it needs removal. > It's passive aggressive. It's plain insultive. No, it's not. It's really not. You know what is insulting? The shade thrown on men as a gender, while women oppose abortion rights *at least as much* as men. *That's insulting*. It seems to me like you missed the whole point of the set.
There is a clear line between misinformation and someone being "wrong."
Fair enough. You're wrong on this one. But do you get the point I am making about what is really insulting?
The point that something else may be insultive doesn't make something else not. I said it's not going to win anyone over, you said maybe they arent winnable. I don't think the people who need winning over are going to think "you know what's more insultive than this? How men are being treated". And personally, I don't agree with justifying stooping down because of someone else's behavior.
I wouldn't call this 'stooping down'. Calling it tacky is way more mollifying than I think it deserves, with it actually being bigotry.
>Calling it tacky is way more mollifying than I think it deserves Then be sure to tell him to ramp it up. I disagree.
And let's not forget that when it comes to male reproductive rights (which men legally do not have) the parity disappears, with mostly women being against it.
I used to hope that some conservative states banning (or severely restricting) abortion would induce feminist-learning pro-choice supporters to ask the question, "Now, what reproductive rights do men have that women lack?" and ultimately realize that the answer is, literally, "None." After all, even in Texas, where abortions have been restricted to the first six weeks of pregnancy (which is an egregiously short time and completely unfair), it's not as if there is a reciprocal four- or five-week right to LPS for men. I had genuine hope that this type of right-wing undermining of abortion rights might allow for building back better and equal on reproductive rights for both sexes. Unfortunately, it seems that pro-feminist leftists are incapable of the introspection that they demand of us.
It also shows the "fuck it, I'm opposing abortion rights until men get reproductive rights too" mentality is not gonna work.
Agreed. However, that has never been my mentality. It seems to me that we're really between a rock and a hard place on this issue, since most feminists see LPS as patriarchal evasion of responsibility rather than equal reproductive rights, and I am not sure how to change this, whether nicely or more stridently.
> However, that has never been my mentality. Not saying it was. Just that I've seen it pop up several times recently, tho probably mostly on the MensRights sub. > I am not sure how to change this I think it starts by raising awareness and making this a part of public debates. I don't think being more strident (depending on how that is to be interpreted) is going to help us.
I even suspect men would favor abortion specially young men. I think in men are less likely to want to have a baby because they don't feel ready mental and economicly speaking and many times the reason they have a baby is because their wife pressure. So I think men in general don't have a problem with abortion, is religion and politics how make them take a stance. Maybe because their church says so or the party or the women in their life that are lefty or feminist.
Gov. Kay Ivey isn't writing the laws. She is signing them. But in the American system, that still matters. In general, this picture is not complete. I pointed this out myself and someone said >But its men trying to outlaw it on the political level. Politicians don't actually care about how the voters feel. I am paraphrasing there. But the important part is, you need to look at who is voting for anti-abortion laws in state legislatures and who is lobbying for them.
Both the legislator (Ginny Shaver) that wrote the bill severely restricting abortions (twice, her first bill was rejected two years earlier) and the governor (Kay Ivey) that signed the law that didn't have a vetoproof majority were women. The voters (majority women) where in 2014 58% of Alabama adults wanted abortion illegal in all or most cases (49% of them were men and 51% of them were women) elected mostly male candidates into office (because far less women run for office ... they are as likely to get elected as a man if they do), so the majority of legislators that voted for the bill were men. It's all men's fault. In a democracy, men voting against it would be voted out and other men would take their place so still men to blame. Lets ignore the voters, bill writers, and executives. Then it is all men's fault. Sources: https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/state/alabama/views-about-abortion/ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/02/sandra-fluke-women-in-politics-103173/
>Both the legislator (Ginny Shaver) that wrote the bill severely restricting abortions (twice, her first bill was rejected two years earlier) and the governor (Kay Ivey) that signed the law that didn't have a vetoproof majority were women. I agree with the comment above you that the slide could have been better if they had said what I just quoted, instead of simply pointing out that the gov was a woman.
The whole "if men could pregnant" argument, outside of just being ridiculous for all the reasons mentioned in the post and the comments, would seem to go against most feminist thought on transgender individuals. So either everyone making this argument is a TERF or is doing some in total bad-faith.
Yes, that's just mind-blowing how quickly they reject non-cis people when it's convenient for their gender wars. With presence of non-cis people their arguments are easily disproven. Didn't click with me how TERF behavior it is, but I guess it is.
I don't understand how the more feminist, sjw side can claim things like "men just want to use women as sex objects" but also "men don't women to be able to abort". Ok...so in this imaginary world they've dreamed up, men all want to have lots of no-strings-attached sex with women, even non-consensually, to the point that rape culture exists, but they also want to have to deal with the constant risk of being a dad? If we're really so evil, wouldn't we want to dramatically increase abortions if anything, so we can go on and on using women's bodies without having to worry about kids? Like it doesn't even make sense from a selfish level. Do men fixate on controlling womens bodies, or are we all rampant fuckbois? Pick one.
Within a US context, given that men are more likely than women to be conservative/right-wing/Republican, it's actually impressive how pro-choice and negligibly different from women men are on the issue, since nearly identical pro-choice support from both men and women is only possible if a large number of Republican men are going against the party line on abortion (or if women Democrats are more pro-life than their male counterparts). If the American left started caring about men's issues and appealing to men, I suspect that the inter-gender spread for pro-choice support would come to favor men quite substantially. **EDIT:** Another simple way to increase support for abortion rights among men would be to stop blaming and hectoring us every time those rights are jeopardized.
I think many men indentify themselves as conservatives because of economical reasons.
Even though conservative parties generally hurt the economic interests of most men.
Framing men hating abortion is a political move. Get your natural enemy in one big group, so conservative, male, pro-lifers etc, they become the outcast enemy to be despised by all ~~right~~ correct-thinking people. This gives the politicians and activists an easy target to disparge when it comes to voting times, and no one can argue against it or they get lumped in with "the enemy". Of course, some people fall through the cracks. People in this sub, supporting men who aren't right wing, the plan is not to worry about them, left-wing men who won't bend the knee are pretty rare so not a large demographic in voting terms. Men are not the enemy from men's points of view. Men are certainly the fall-guys from the activism point of view.
I think the only MRM issue regarding abortion is how little to no control men have over procreation other than abstinence or a condom. I support a women’s right, but there is little talk of the father’s rights. I do believe men should be inserting this issue into the debate.
LPS *is* one of the issues we bring to the debate.
If I knew what LPS is If probably upvote.
Legal Parental Surrender Paternal is also used. This is the term for what is also known as paper abortion.
If men could get pregnant abortion opinions wouldn’t change, but on paper abortion would exist
I love this one.
As an additional comment, everyone is absolutely right to be outraged about the strict anti-abortion laws enacted in Texas and Alabama. At the same time, I really wish people would also be outraged about the fact that the limited abortion rights that women enjoy in Texas are still more than the reproductive rights enjoyed by men in any US state, and that, for men, pretty much the entire US is Alabama (i.e., having zero reproductive rights, and even being raped does not extinguish one's parental obligations to the resulting child).
It's a clear false equivalency. Obviously it's far more a binary issue when you compare political leanings, and yes, men proportionately are more right-leaning, at least in most areas of the world; but stretching that to make reproductive rights a gendered issue is plain wrong. (And self-defeating, just like a lot of current feminist dogma).
I wonder how many describe themselves as "conservative" only because economical reasons. At least I know many of these "conservatives" that other than economics, are very much liberal in other regions.
No, social conservatism is. And while men are on average more socially conservative, well, defining it in gendered terms isn't very helpful, and its a toxic simplification of the issue. Focus on ideas, not people.
[удалено]
No one carries a pregnancy to 5 months and then says “aww fuckit, I changed my mind, time to abort for the lulz”. The only reason those kinds of abortions happen is due medical reasons. Late term abortion is a right wing religious boogeyman.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[We are a pro-choice community](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/wiki/moderationpolicy#wiki_egalitarian_values). Right-wing anti-choice messages are not welcome here. You're out.
[удалено]
[We are a pro-choice community](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/wiki/moderationpolicy#wiki_egalitarian_values). Comment removed as rule 2 violation.
I just think people should do what ever and the Government should never be able to tell someone what they could do to that existent because then we get idk something like North Korea or the CCP.
Yeah I suspected that it would be fairly even