In the US and other western countries, women clearly have de-facto more rights than men. They are much more leniently punished for the same crimes, they are much more rarely homeless, they do get more attention (and money) from social services. In divorce cases they more or less automatically get the children and half of the husband's money. They commit suicide much less often, way fewer workplace deaths. They are allowed to vote but not subject to the draft.

Still they make less money, bear the cost/burden of child birth, are more likely to care for children, are more likely to be physically abused by their partners, more likely to be killed by their partner, and the list probably goes on...

   Still they make less money,

Wrong, they make more money for the same work.

    bear the cost/burden of child birth,

With modern contraception tech, children is a lifestyle choice, like playing golf, a lifestyle choice they mostly volunteer for.

   are more likely to care for children,

That's a lifestyle choice that they mostly enjoy. Child rearing is best seen as a long-term paid for holiday.

   are more likely to be physically abused by their partners,

Men are are more likely to be emotionally abused by their partners, and emotional abuse is worse than physical abuse. Moreover, men don't complain so much physical abuse of men is not reported.

   more likely to be killed by their partner,

The majority of all murder victims are men.

Long story short: feminists won't consider men and women equal until women are not worse off than men in any area, and will accuse anyone who tries to fix the areas where men are worse off of misogyny. This will never lead to equality, no matter who has more rights now. All the arguing about whether "women have more rights than men" is part of the problem, and that applies to both sides.

    All the arguing about whether "women have more rights than men" is part of the problem

Why?

Long story short: no.

In the United States women are born with extra rights such as:

1. Intact genitalia - males don't have this right

2. The right to vote and receive financial aid - males only receive these benefits if they sign up for Selective Service

3. The right to choose parenthood - males have to pay for a child even if they don't want to. Women can choose to give up their child for adoption. A male can not choose not to be a parent.

> A male can not choose not to be a parent.

How about getting a vasectomy? That'd probably do the trick.

Vasectomy is not 100% reliable. Even after a successful vasectomy about 1 in 2,000 men will become fertile again at some point in the future.

Moreover, having to engage in genital mutilation so as to avoid being tricked/lied/forced into fatherhood is hardly progressive.

A biological difference leads to different options for different genders. (The delineation isn’t even strictly along gender lines, though, since this only applies to people who can become pregnant. Most of those are women, sure, but many women cannot become pregnant, for example.)

If you value bodily autonomy (which I really hope you do – otherwise this discussion is kind of pointless) the only person who can decide what happens with their own body is the actual pregnant person – and no one else. This consequently means that we can only put this decision into their hands. It’s a function of the biological difference.

I mean, misogynist assholes like to bang on and on and on about biological differences (most often referring to things we don’t even really know are biological differences) and how those make it imperative to treat genders differently – but here we have a crystal clear example of a biological difference leading to different options for different people – and suddenly that’s no ok?

You are not addressing the issue.

We are discussing whether men or women have more rights. The ability that women have to force men into parenthood is a clearcut example of women having more rights than men, regardless of whether one agrees with the the existence of this right or not. Moreover, the critical cases here have nothing to do with "bodily autonomy", that's a smoke screen. They have to do with alimony. A woman can rape a man, get pregnant that way and the biological father has to pay alimony [1]. A woman can steal a man's sperm, get pregnant and the biological father has to pay alimony [2]. That's outrageous! What are you doing to redress this injustice?

As an aside, referring to "misogynist assholes" is rarely helpful.

[1] http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/5...

[2] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7024930/ns/health-sexual_health/t/...

This is about kids. If the kid exists both parents are responsible for it, no exceptions. That’s the overriding doctrine in the law. This is the basic doctrine I very much do support. Both parents are supposed to be equally responsible for their offspring once it is in the world, no ifs and buts.

That the mother has the ability to not make the kid exist in the first place is a function of where the baby grows up, nothing more, and basically completely unrelated to that.

Can we please talk about this basic doctrine and not weird edge cases?

    If the kid exists both parents are responsible for it, no exceptions. 

I strongly disagree with this doctrine, because it disadvantages men in practise. If the child was conceived against the explicit will of one the involved parties, that party should not be coerced to pay for, or look after the child. Women absolutely need to acquire written conception consent prior to conception. No written consent, no alimony. No means no. It's shocking that one needs to spell this out in 2015!

Your doctrine would in practice massively disadvantage both women and kids because it asymmetrically sets up hurdles.

The current way of dealing with things is kid-centered. Once a kid is there it needs to be taken care of and both parents share that responsibility. Wanting to wriggle out of this responsibility is, frankly, highly immoral.

Also, conception doesn’t impact bodily autonomy (of the person who is no pregnant). I find it shocking that you would jump to rape rhetorics for your political aims.

    Your doctrine would in practice massively disadvantage both women and kids

Your doctrine does in practice massively disadvantage both men and kids! Why do you insist that women need to be better off than men?

    The current way of dealing with things is kid-centered. 

No, it's not. It is female-centered. What the woman wants is the law. It's easy to see. If in a divorce case, the child wants to stay with dad, that will be ignored, and the child will be given to the mother. Please familiarise yourself with the facts.

    Once a kid is there

You keep trying to reframe the discussion so that you don't have to admit to the truth, which is that women have more rights than men. Please stop this! So let's start again:

        Once a kid is there

Women should not force, brutalise or rape men into fatherhood. And where they do, the biological father has absolutely no obligation whatsoever to look after the child, and even less to fund the lifestyle of the criminal party. It is shocking, shocking that you defend these sorts of crimes.

    conception doesn’t impact bodily autonomy 

So what? Stealing your money also doesn't impact bodily autonomy, should it therefore be legal?

OK, so what happens if the child is born and the woman drops it off at a "safe haven" without the father's knowledge? It's well out of her body, but a woman is never forced to be a mother if she doesn't want to be. On the other hand, a woman can have a child and force the man into fatherhood.

Safe havens are about saving babies’ lives, not their parents.

Also, no one can force anyone into parenthood since, you know, it’s necessary to at least have sex for that. All the rest is a function of where the baby is actually growing.

    Safe havens are about saving babies’ lives, not their parents.

No, they are about women's convenience.

    Also, no one can force anyone into parenthood 

You are kidding, right. Sperm theft and rape of the father are counterexamples that have been discussed upthread.

"Sperm theft" and "rape of father" are so rare that this argument is utterly ridiculous in the face of persisting sexual violence against women.

"The father is 15 years old" happens frequently, and it doesn't even matter if the woman is an adult. He still has to pay child support.

OK, let's assume a child exists.

A woman can make a man pay. A man can't make a woman pay, she can just give the child up because she HAS MORE RIGHTS to the child.

De facto he can. Pretty much more than women, actually. Men can choose to not have sex, and that choice is more rarely violated. There are contraceptives galore for men.

Of course he can't violate a woman's right to her own body and terminate a pregnancy at her risk, or prevent a termination (how would that work actually?).

There is no male contraceptive pill. Men can also get taken advantage of, like in the case of a 15 year old boy who was seduced by his teacher. That boy has to pay child support now.

It's hard to argue he was forced, though. And child support mainly takes into account who's the parent of whom, and well, he is the father of the child.

Seduction of teenage boys by adult women is both ridiculously easy and quite rare at the same time... One of the few crimes were the victim thinks he got lucky...

    And child support mainly takes into account who's the parent of whom

Actually it mainly takes into account the woman's wishes. If the woman states that X is the father and for some reason the X doesn't contest, he's in dock for child support even if he is not the father. This is a despicable law, along the lines of "black people are property" and needs to change pronto. Why do you keep defending the indefensible? Why do you hate making the world a better place?

    One of the few crimes 

It's not a crime in the first place. Sexual activity should be encouraged. What is a crime in the first place in the example is that the woman coerced a man into fatherhood without prior written impregnation consent.

Getting it undone may be a problem in the future if you want to be a parent. Maybe the operation is a success, but your body develops antibodies to sperm leading to being unable to conceive. There is no male contraceptive pill like the female one.

Ever gone through a divorce?

So you promised to take care of your wife and children, and now you are held accountable to that promise? Buhu.

I know a woman whose husband divorced her because she had a totally senseless affair with her best friend's husband.

It is not well understood that women are often the aggressors in domestic violence.

If you dont believe me consider that such abuse is most common among lesbians.

    you promised to take care of your wife

It's not an unconditional promise. The promise assumes that the partner does the same. Yet only men are being punished (via taking their children, houses, monies), a clearcut violation of their human rights that bayesianhorse is defending.

The usual wedding vows do not contain these conditions. Seems unfair, but then again, you don't need to marry, and not without a marriage contract...

Yes they do.

   I take you, ..., to be my husband and I promise before God and all who are present here to be your loving and faithful wife, as long as our lives shall last. I will serve you with tenderness and respect, and  ...

In other words, where the love stops, the tenderness, where she is unfaithful, she has broken the 'contract'. In that case there is no reason for the other side to uphold his part. No reason other than the near certainty that he will loose his house, his money and his children, ...

Actually, cheating is not really breaking the contract. The unconditional promise includes "bad times". It's not really "his house" and "his money" anyway, because without a marriage contract, these where already partly hers in any case.

It's a sexist standpoint to assume that all the wealth belongs to the husband, or that he earned it alone, even when the wife never got a paycheck.

Adultery is a reason for divorve. The "bad times" refers to calamities beyond the partner's control like illness, accidents. The marriage contract is only valid as long as both parties stick to it. Adultery is a voluntary choice and automatically invalidates the (conventinal) marriage contract.

Nobody says that house etc should automatically go to the husband. It should go to those who put the work in to build/buy the property. There are cases, alas rare as of 2015, where this is the wife. In this case, the house should go to the wife. However, as you know well, in the vast majority of cases, this is the husband. Staying at home is not really work. So de facto the contemporary practise of US divorce courts massively violates husbands' rights. As simple fix would be to institute (1) no fault = no alimony, and (2) shared 50/50 custody as norm. Anything else is sexism and cannot legitimately be defended.

That's not what the parent was saying at all. Would you be so kind as to explain how you came to this interpretation?