https://wiki4men.com/wiki/Legal_parental_surrender
I would consider myself an MRA but I think this is a stupid idea.
A man could seduce a woman, nut in her, and fuck off. And what's her recourse supposed to be? Abortion?
Just no.
We need less death not more.
In my ideal world neither men nor women would have such "rights". And the female case (abortion) is especially wrong.
Maybe there's more to it than that but the article is pretty short.
🅰️ ®️ ✝️ U
@light I think the article is misleading because it completely disregards women's agency.
The way to fewer abortion is scientifically correct sex ed and availability of contraceptives.
What is written there implies a woman was treated as an object.
The right to sever connections would spring from the impossibility to know if someone would be fit to be a parent, regardless of sex. As long as that cannot be determined with 100% accuracy (so never), forcing people would lead to harm to children.
Clicked a few other articles, seems this wiki is meaning to be misleading and i didn't find any source links at all, so it is patently an opinion, not anything else.
Btw i think the term "MRA" is very widely regarded as meaning "wanting rights for men, but no rights for women", so if you use that term you might get feedback based on something you, as i know you, do not support.
>I think the article is misleading because it completely disregards women's agency.
>...
>What is written there implies a woman was treated as an object.
How so?
>The way to fewer abortion is scientifically correct sex ed and availability of contraceptives.
Agree.
>forcing people
I was not suggesting anything like this.
My position is that (expect in extreme cases like rape (incl. marital rape)) if one or both members of a heterosexual couple don't want children, they should, as you say, use contraceptives, or simply don't have sex.
>Clicked a few other articles, seems this wiki is meaning to be misleading and i didn't find any source links at all, so it is patently an opinion, not anything else.
Yeah, it does seem pretty crap. Which is a shame.
>Btw i think the term "MRA" is very widely regarded as meaning "wanting rights for men, but no rights for women", so if you use that term you might get feedback based on something you, as i know you, do not support.
There will always be bandwagon jumpers who believe the bias of their tribe. There's nothing really you can do about them apart from trying to reason with them and, if it comes to that, block them if they get too unreasonable.
Probably, if that idea exists at all, it comes from ingroup bias within feminism, experiences with unreasonable MRAs who are not sensitive to women's concerns, or a combination of the two.
And vice versa for MRM/feminists/men's concerns, as IIRC I have seen.
@light >What is written there implies a woman was treated as an object.
How so?
Well as you noticed, it is very short. The woman is subject to abortion laws, but nothing women could do would have any influence. That's object, not subject.