>


go on dates and reject girls because they don’t want kids, I feel that’s just something so patriarchal and demanding. 

Wh... Wh...
No there's nothing demanding about making life choices and looking for a partner who would share them. If you in particular do not want N kids and cannot be convinced, it's perfectly fine, you should both stop wasting each other's time. As long as there are women who genuinely want N kids, how come you get a say in whether the man should be looking for one?
It is entirely a women’s choice whether they want to have kids or not.
It is entirely a man's choice to date a woman who doesn't want kids or not.
Everything's good. >


They literally don’t do anything

You and I seem to have very different definitions of not doing anything.  Could you define what it means to not do anything according to you?

but demand that

I'm pretty sure that the normal way about doing these types of things is to get mutual consent after talking about it and weighing all the ups and downs.

When men say I want a lot of kids irrespective of their partners or go on dates and reject girls because they don’t want kids

Is your topic about all men as your title implies or about the types of men you describe in this sentence?  Because that's 2 entirely different conversations.

I feel that’s just something so patriarchal and demanding

For someone who appears to be concerned about how actions and opinions of one sex affect the other you don't really seem to care much about the phrasing you use.

It should be their partner’s choice what they wanna do with their bodies

Yes, mutual informed consent, that's the standard already isn't it?

the responsibilities fall on to the women more than the men

Didn't you say something about the patriarchy earlier?  And aren't you now just enforcing it?  

It should be entirely a women’s choice whether they want to have kids or not

Women already have a veto right in the decision to have kids.  (Obviously assuming we're talking about a normal consensual relationship.)

the world has progressed so much and men should also change with the world

Just so I'm understanding you correctly, you say that men used to have the only say in wanting to have kids and that's sexist.  You are also saying that now women should be the only ones to have a say in wanting kids and, presumably, are saying that's not sexist.  Or did I misunderstand you? >


Is your topic about all men as your title implies or about the types of men you describe in this sentence? Because that's 2 entirely different conversations.

Also is it really unreasonable to reject someone who doesn't want kids when you do? That's pretty major life decision and something that absolutely warrants rejecting someone if you both disagree. >

Shouldn't it be mutually agreed on if they both intend to be parents? >

This seems like a no brainer to me, right? >

It's not "patriarchal" to want children. A significant majority of the population, both men and women, want children and end up having them at some point in their lives. 
Having kids is a major life decision and affects both parents. If you're looking for a potential life partner, its only sensible that you would want to be with someone who's life goals aligns with yours. Having kids is one of those things where you need to be on the same page because there isn't a compromise. So if you want kids, why would you enter a long term relationship with someone who doesn't want them? >


men should not have a say in wanting kids or not.

By your logic, a single man or two married men cannot adopt a child.
This position is so odd to me since you're complaining about the world not being progressive enough.
​

It should be entirely a women’s choice whether they want to have kids or not.

It already is (within the context of a relationship).  Now if you want to talk about how we've fucked with abortion access, that's a different conversation.
Why on earth is it "patriarchal" or "demanding" to decide not to date someone because clearly they do not want the same things in life as you do? The primary purpose of dating (for most people who want to have a family) is to find out if that person is compatible with you or not.
​

(Men) literally don't do anything in the whole process

My beloved dad is terminally ill and this statement kind of just broke me. I'm not even going to try to explain how wrong you are. >

Is this a troll post? >

i was wondering the sam thing , low-key laughed while reading. >

So I’m a man and I don’t want kids. But let’s say I did, and I really wanted the experience of raising children. But I find out that the woman I’m dating doesn’t want children. You’re saying I need to give up my desire for children because it’s wrong of me to leave a partner who wants different things out of life? Rather than be with someone who also wants children? I don’t see how that’s logical. And both men and women are meant to be involved in raising their children >

It is their choice. Those goys don't go on to forced marry the girls that don't want kids and force them to have kids against their will. Those women are entirely free to not have kids. 
But anyone, men AND women are allowed to want a long term partner who agrees with them on major life goals. You don't have to, but anyone is absolutely entitled to want that. >

So rejecting incompatible people on dates is demanding? Of course it is, that's precisely when you should be demanding, later might be too late when you get into a relationship with the wrong person.
You have no right to a particular relationship, you can say yes to the demands or you can say no. And you can try to find different men that don't want children. 
If your values are so unpopular that you stay single, that's on you. 
This is a you problem, not a them problem. >

Valuing women for just providing kids is a problem. It reduces them to a baby making machine and nothing more. >

Who said it's "just" providing kids?
It's one of many factors. A partner has to fulfill many factors to be compatible, and if one of those factors doesn't work out, the relationship doesn't work out.
Do you have no criteria that would rule out someone for a relationship? Nothing at all that you demand on dates? >

A couple should be on the same page about wanting kids, before they even get married. >

So the woman can lie about the pill and then say, “gotcha, I’m pregnant and keeping it “ >

Men shouldn't demand their partners have babies, but they should absolutely date someone who has the same desires. That's what dating is for, it's for finding someone who you want to start a life with and rule out people who you may have initial attraction to, but wouldn't be happy with. >


When men say I want a lot of kids irrespective of their partners or go on dates and reject girls because they don’t want kids, I feel that’s just something so patriarchal and demanding.  

Could you help me understand the world you want here? Men can’t express a preference for having or not having kids? Man can’t seek out a partner with a similar preference to them? 

It just feels unfair that they feel entitled to ask for something that’s so painful and there are so many sacrifices involved. It should be entirely a women’s choice whether they want to have kids or not. 

It’s currently the woman’s choice whether to have kids or not, at least in western countries. In what way is it not? >

I hear everywhere that guys who were okay with the idea of not having kids in their twenties later on realize that now suddenly they want kids and they breakup their 10-15 year relationships. It’s such a big demand for men to put out there and leave someone over it. It makes women feel like their worth is all about whether they can give men kids or not. It’s like women demanding that if you don’t give them a million dollar house or something then they’ll leave you, wouldn’t you feel like your partner only used you to for that particular thing and if you can’t provide it to them then you have no value in Their life. >

Are you saying that men shouldn’t be allowed to have a desire for children? Is that genuinely a view you hold?
I understand if you’ve had a frustrating or disappointing personal experience this may cause you to be - well - frustrated or disappointed. But you can’t genuinely believe this is any kind of rule you’d really like to exist. >

Yes that’s how I feel, not because my own personal experience but talking to a lot of women who are in the same boat. Women aren’t baby making machines, they are more than that and men choosing their partners based on just that reduces women to just one thing. From my example men are a lot more than in current society than just financial providers and someone loving them for them and not for what they can provide is more respectful to everyone. >

Ok, let’s imagine that this rule becomes law. 
A man is in a relationship. He decides he wants children. His partner does not. 
What next? Is he legally prevented from leaving the relationship? How would that work? Why would his partner want that? >

So with a pair of gay men, who gets a choice on having kids? Or are they just straight up prohibited from raising kids? >

This isn't the 1950s. Men have a much larger role in raising children than they did in the past. It's really offensive and short sighted to say that men do nothing. >

Everybody should have a say in choices which have an enormous impact on their lives. Even if you believe that in every case men have almost no involvement, then that still some involvement. And that's enough, though it's also worth pointing out that having a child impacts men vastly more than you realise.
Accepting your argument would be tantamount to accepting institutionalised sexual assault. You assume the right to override the decision a man wants to make, about sex and a relationship, because you don't like the reason he's relying upon to make that decision. In your case, it sounds like you don't want to have children, so you want to tell a man that he's not allowed to seek a relationship with somebody who does, and must have one with you instead. To put it bluntly, that's completely batshit insane.
Would you extend the same logic to things women are less involved with? A woman's decisions about who she does or doesn't have sex or a relationship with are invalid when she is influenced by things that women are normally less involved in? A man can force a woman to be in a relationship with him, because her reluctance that he's being drafted for military service soon isn't a valid reason? Same principle, but once again completely batshit insane.
Total non-starter idea. Totally illiberal. >

I think you're conflating other people's policies on who they'll date with a demand on you and selling yourself short as an agent with your own free will in the process. A man can't make you do anything; he can only tell you what kinds of relationships he is and isn't willing to be part of. It's important in a relationship to find someone with the same goals. People who want kids should form relationships with other people who want kids and vice versa. >

When [women] say I want a lot of [money] irrespective of their partners or go on dates and reject [guys] because they don’t want [to make a lot of money], I feel that’s just something so [entitled] and demanding. It should be their partner’s choice what they wanna do with their [lives]. Even if we take the [education] part away, after [getting the job], the responsibilities fall on to the [man] more than the [woman]. It just feels unfair that they feel entitled to ask for something that’s so painful and there are so many sacrifices involved. It should be entirely a [man's] choice whether they want to [get a high-paying job] or not. With more [men] not wanting to have [stressful jobs] now because it’s not forced upon us and we are seeing how it doesn’t really makes sense for us if we are not one those people who always wanted to have [a high-intensity job], it’s becoming difficult to have romantic partners understanding that. The [progressive women] keep expecting [men] to just do things in the same way but the world has progressed so much and [women] should also change with the world.
Speaking in very broad strokes, men are asked to give up a lot of their lives to their job and providing for a family, and women are asked to give up a lot of their lives to give birth and raise a family. Do you believe it is consistent for women to reject men for not making enough money? Even if it's not exactly comparable, it's still relatively similar, enough that I would expect you to be consistent on when it is wrong to reject someone. 
Also, do you believe that is equally wrong for a woman who wants kids to reject a man who has had a vasectomy or doesn't want kids, purely for that reason? If it's different, what makes it different? >

Are two men allowed to have kids together? >

Where do I even start with this?
It seems like you're out there looking for a man who doesn't want kids and upset that you can't find one. That's hard, but telling a man he should have to date / marry you even though you're not compatible with a significant life goal isn't going to help you.
Next, even if a man expects a woman to carry the baby and do all the child rearing, it's still a financial commitment to have a baby. Even if he totally checks out and doesn't stick around after the kid is born, he's going to have child support obligations, so even in the most extreme sense the man does something.
I also think most men are far more involved than you give them credit for - especially the ones who are evaluating relationships based on whether or not the woman wants to have kids. Personally I'm a father and very involved with my kids. I feed them breakfast and get them to school in the morning. I cook dinner most nights. I get them to and from after school activities (some of which I volunteer at), help them with homework, and when they have free time after dinner and on weekends I spend most of my time playing with them or helping them with projects, then read to them before they go to bed. A huge chunk of my life is spent being a father and I love it.
Lastly, how would this even work? Relationships are a two way street and people can choose not to be in a relationship with someone for literally any reason. You can decline to date someone because they're too short, too fat, smell funny, have bad handwriting, you don't like their sense of humor, you don't like their political ideology, or literally anything else. But if someone doesn't want to date you because they want kids and you don't, they still have to date you? Is the government going to come in and just force a man to date a woman anyway despite a major incompatibility in life goals? That's absurd. >

... what??
Let's say you have a husband and wife. The wife doesn't want a child but the husband does. If he forced her, that would be rape.
Now let's say we have a husband and wife, but the wife wants a child but the husband doesn't. If we go by your logic and say the wife forced the husband without his consent, then that would be rape, but totally okay according to this logic...
You need consent from both people. Otherwise it's literally rape. Unless you do artificial insemination or something. 
Forcing someone to take care of a child they don't want is also messed up regardless of gender.
Also, isn't the idea of making women the sole person raising the child and the husband to work and provide income like... classic patriarchy? This opinion isn't progressive in the slightest. >

I mean regarding the whole “reject girls because they don’t want kids”…. You realize that goes both ways right?  If becoming a parent for a man or a woman is an important life goal for them, why would they not consider whether their partner wanted to have kids?  I know plenty of women who wanted kids and would reject a guy not enthusiastic enough about being a father.  I know multiple guys who know they never want to have kids (one even got a vasectomy to make sure there are never any accidents).
But they don’t do anything in the whole process?  I mean no men don’t give birth or go through the physical changes related to it, but men still usually assume the bulk of financial responsibilities for children.  They certainly participate in raising kids.  No men don’t breast feed and are generally less “nurturing”.  But fathers are very important to raising of children.  Despite more single mothers than we used to have. Certainly there is tons of evidence that kids do better in a 2 parent household. >


Even if we take the pregnancy part away, after having the kid, the responsibilities fall on to the women more than the men. 

As a dad who does the majority of the stuff with our three kids, this is an inaccurate generalization. Especially as millennial and Gen Z fathers are significantly more involved in raising children than any other generation. >

So, like, your view is "we should continue with the status quo"?  Because, the view you express is the way it already is (at least in the USA).  Men have no say in whether they have kids (much less whether they raise those kids).  It is entirely within the women's prerogative.


Women choose who to have sex with.  If they don't want children, they can simply avoid having sex.  If no woman wants to have sex with a man, he has no say.  (Of course, this ignores rape, but the further points alleviate that issue).


Women who choose to have sex (or not) and find themselves pregnant, can get an abortion with the man having no say about it.


Women who find themselves pregnant and choose to not get an abortion, can still avoid parenthood by simply keeping the pregnancy private from the father, claiming they don't know who the father is, and putting the child up for adoption.


The end result, is that no woman in the United States in 2023 has children unless she has made the conscious choice to have children of her own free will.  She might feel like she was influenced (or more) by a man, but at the end of the day, it was still her choice.  She could have chosen to ignore that man's influence and there is absolutely nothing he could have done about it. >

If I didn't know better I would say that the OP was some kind of a reverse incel..... >

So a single man should never be able to adopt?
A gay couple (two men) should never be able to adopt?
If my wife dies, someone else should decide whether I can keep our kids because I'm a man and shouldn't have a say? >

What of the males that don't do that because they don't want children?
Surely a male who does not want children does not put any burden on anyone else for that? There are also males that don't even interact much with females to begin with and have almost no social interaction with them so what does all that have to do with them?
Perhaps you make an argument for the males that want children, but I don't see how that argument flies for the males that do not.