This is topic Article on Forced Fatherhood in the NYT in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=059452

Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
 
At last, this injustice is getting recognition.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
It will be decades before there's that kind of parity. Our society just doesn't view men and fathers the way it views women and mothers.

And men and fathers simple don't have the lobby that women and mothers do.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
It's a step in the right direction, IMO. A friend of mine pays child support every month for a child he did not want to father. His ex (who wanted the child) assured him she was taking birth control when she wasn't and asked him to stop using condoms because they "felt uncomfortable." She deliberately lied to him in order to get pregnant, and now she gets $700 of his money every month because of it.

These scenarios are becoming more and more common. I think it's a huge double standard, that a woman has the right to stop supporting a child whenever she wants (via abortion or adoption), but a man is forced to support a child against his will.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
The problem is that it really is a circle that's impossible to square.

If you give men the power to absolve themselves of child support duties, then men who start off wanting a child and then leave when the kid turns one can get off. At some point there's a line where kids will suffer for their parents bad choices. Right now the system is designed to protect kids by default. Men get screwed in the deal, but the hope is that kids get protected.

The flip side is that women can effectively ruin a man's life by tricking or trapping him.

But how do you design a system that protects the rights of both parents and doesn't disadvantage the child?
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
Fairness is a few steps behind other concerns. If those other concerns get fixed, then...fine, let's talk about whether men are treated fairly. Until then, I get kind of impatient with this stuff.
 
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:


But how do you design a system that protects the rights of both parents and doesn't disadvantage the child?

Given the size of this society, plus the often poor quality of the relationship between the genders in this society, I seriously doubt it's possible. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
I understand the frustration, but it's really more of a case by case problem than an institutional one.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
quote:
A friend of mine pays child support every month for a child he did not want to father. His ex (who wanted the child) assured him she was taking birth control when she wasn't and asked him to stop using condoms because they "felt uncomfortable." She deliberately lied to him in order to get pregnant, and now she gets $700 of his money every month because of it.
What's her version of events? The problem with this kind of thing is that it's just as likely to be a fake excuse as to be an example of a girl tricking the guy into not being careful.

I think this is a good example of why you should always be careful and take full responsibility not to cause pregnancy if you're not okay with getting someone pregnant.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Lyrhawn: I think the very latest a father could disavow support would be at birth.

Scifibum: While I never talked to her about the details of her sex life, I know she was well aware of his desire not to have children, as he expressed it in front of both of us. He had a job. She did not (still doesn't). He paid for her birth control, she took it for a while, then stopped and let him believe she was still taking it.

Your whole "just be more careful" argument seems similar to arguments of why abortion should never be legal, but aside from that, it's a little absurd. If you're in a long term sexual relationshipare you going to make your wife take a birth control pill in front of you every morning? Are you going to keep using condoms when she assures you that she's taking birth control? That level of distrust would cause a very unhealthy relationship, at best. Your advice would make more sense in the case of one night stands, but would you tell a girl who got pregnant from a one night stand and takes the morning after pill or has an abortion "hey, tough luck, you should have made sure you had your own protection"?

I guess I dislike the fact that women always have a legal recourse to terminate responsibility for a pregnancy, and men almost never do.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
Yep, it's unfair.

Yes, I'm advocating that you should not trust someone else with the responsibility to prevent a pregnancy if you're not okay with the possibility of conceiving a child with that person. By relying on condoms or birth control in the first place, you are already accepting that possibility, you are just reducing the size of it.

"That level of distrust would cause a very unhealthy relationship, at best."

Nah. Just say "I am *really* not ready for kids, and I need to keep the odds as low as possible. A one to five percent chance of pregnancy is too high for me." Or, alternatively, accept and take responsibility for the increased chances of a pregnancy.

None of this "she tricked me" nonsense. What if she forgets a pill? If you're taking the chance, you're taking the chance.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
So if you think it's unfair, why do you advocate it?
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
Note: I have no doubt men have been tricked, by scheming ungood women, into impregnating them. That is a possibility. The impact this can have on their lives is unfair.

That being said, there is no remedy for the unfairness. The only remedy is prophylactic. Yes, I realize this sounds prudish. But if you think you can have entirely safe sex, you're fooling yourself. Even vasectomies sometimes spontaneously heal. So when you have sex, there's a chance somebody gets pregnant and what the other person does next is not something you can control.

It's best to minimize those chances and maximize your acceptance of the possibility and plan accordingly. You can take whatever gamble you want. I'm not going to tell you not to trust your girlfriend if that what seems best to you. However, if you later complain that you were tricked and it was unfair, because she could have had an abortion but you had no such option, I'm going to remind you that you decided it was a good gamble and that the child support payments for 18 years are the cost of a bad bet.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Again, why do you think it's acceptable or good to give women the option to terminate responsibility for a child at any time and yet not give men that same option? Why? I know damn well what the consequences are, I'm asking you why you think it's good that women are allowed to avoid those consequences and men are not. Why?
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
For that matter, if a man poked holes in his condoms with a pin needle and had sex with a girl who fully believed they were functional condoms, would you seriously advocate forcing her to carry the baby to term and then spend the next 18 years paying $700 a month, regardless of whether or not she even sees the baby? Even the most staunch pro lifers advocate adoption at birth, yet men are stuck with the bill for 18 years, regardless of whether or not they even see the child? Again, how is that good? How is that fair? How do you justify that?
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
 
quote:
By relying on condoms or birth control in the first place, you are already accepting that possibility, you are just reducing the size of it.
I think this confuses the descriptive and the normative; errors of judgment with deliberate crimes.

If I leave a door unlocked, you may feel free to call me an idiot, but any burglar that comes in will still be a burglar and committing a crime. It may be my fault descriptively that I was burglared, but the moral fault is the burglar's.

quote:
That being said, there is no remedy for the unfairness.
There's no easy remedy for the unfairness of deceitful pregnancy, because it can't be easily proven it was deceitful rather than just "accidental" (if the deceit can be proven, just punish the fraudster same as you would any other fraud) -- but there's an easy remedy for the unfairness of mandating child-support on top of that.

Simply give unmarried biological fathers a one-time choice between providing child-support on the one hand and completely rejecting parental rights over the child on the other. (For purposes of stability this could be made a one-time choice and irrevocable, same as with giving up a child for adoption)
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Again, why do you think it's acceptable or good to give women the option to terminate responsibility for a child at any time and yet not give men that same option? Why? I know damn well what the consequences are, I'm asking you why you think it's good that women are allowed to avoid those consequences and men are not. Why?
There is a substantial nugget of unfairness here, it's true. That said, though, do the problems posed by different biology have no relevance either? And before we get entirely swept away by male unfairness, shouldn't we remember that while women do (sometimes) have a substantial edge in this (one) set of issues over men...there's still things like pay differences, domestic violence, sexual assault, political representation, and that perhaps us dudes ought to remember that as well to say nothing of some historical context?

This isn't to say 'forced' fatherhood isn't a problem. It's a tricky scenario with lots of bad resolutions, no doubt. Like scifibum, I'm skeptical that there is a good solution out of it.

Oh, and one other thing-for basically all of human history up to the present, it's generally men who are telling women what they may and may not do with their bodies...and what particular men may do to those bodies, in fact. It's an incredibly recent, incomplete (gender disparity in politics) trend that women have had much broad, cultural say in matter at all. Sorry, Lyrhawn, it's just that the whole 'stronger lobby' bit rubbed me a bit wrong.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
Simply give unmarried biological fathers a one-time choice between providing child-support on the one hand and completely rejecting parental rights over the child on the other. (For purposes of stability this could be made a one-time choice and irrevocable, same as with giving up a child for adoption)
So, wait, the solution to 'fraudulent' pregnancy is to completely reverse the trend and yields every iota of power back to the men in the situation? That doesn't have, you know, very serious, bad implications for all of those scenarios in which the pregnancy isn't at all deceptive, and the dad is a deadbeat? A not-inconsiderable problem already?

This is the sort of thing that frustrates me and I think perhaps scifibum as well. God forbid a man somewhere doesn't have 100% choosing power at all times in all places, and if they don't we need to make sure they do.
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
 
quote:
So, wait, the solution to 'fraudulent' pregnancy is to completely reverse the trend and yields every iota of power back to the men in the situation?
How does it "yield every iota of power" back to the men? The woman is still free to give up both rights and control by putting up the child for adoption. The men aren't given the right to take away the child against the mother's wish. They aren't given the right to have the child aborted against the mother's wish. They aren't even given the right to change their minds (and thus threaten or blackmail the woman over a long period of time), since I explicitly specified it to be a one-time decision.

So what the **** "power" is exactly given back? Just the right to NOT be involved with their biological offspring, financially or otherwise? And you call that "every iota"? It's the same right a woman has when she puts up a child for adoption, for chrissakes!

So, YEAH, if they've not made a contract (like e.g. marriage) to be so involved, I don't see why sperm donors should be forced to be involved.

quote:
That doesn't have, you know, very serious, bad implications for all of those scenarios in which the pregnancy isn't at all deceptive, and the dad is a deadbeat?
Name three.

I imagine its major implication would be a positive one: it would encourage women to seek out non-deadbeat males which might coincidentally also provide a better role model as father, NOT just some money.

And if a father doesn't *want* to pay for his child, then I think it's better all around that he be completely cut out of his child's life altogether, rather than be forced to just pay a check under penalty of the law.

Have the state provide the equal amount of money, and give the deadbeat dad a restraining order against even approaching the family. And in that manner fathers who do pay, and fathers who stay involved, will be fathers that are known to have indeed cared.

quote:
God forbid a man somewhere doesn't have 100% choosing power at all times in all places, and if they don't we need to make sure they do.
You can misrepresent my words as something that they're obviously not, but it's not very charitable of you and it doesn't make me think well of you when you insult me in this manner.
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
 
And btw, I don't mean it as just a solution to fraudulent pregnancy. I think it might well be the correct policy (to not treat sexual activity as obliging you to parenting obligations) even if no incidents of fraudulent pregnancy existed at all.

[ June 17, 2013, 06:44 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
I feel forfeiting one's parental rights should be an irreversible decision, and one that must be made prior to the birth of the child. It would remove any legal connection between you as a father and the child - including visitation rights, any say in it's upbringing, etc. It'd basically be the male version of adoption. If a man changed his mind and wanted to become involved afterall, it'd have to be with the written consent of the mother (and be entirely her decision), and at that point he'd have to begin child support payments if the child remains in her custody. At that point, since the child is already born, he could never again forfeit parental rights except via adoption.

I don't feel like this would become ubiquitous - much like how women with unwanted pregnancies will often carry the baby to term anyway, many men will either be unwilling to give up being involved in the child's life or be too cowed by social pressure/ his own morals to give the child up. I love children, and if (God forbid) I knocked a girl up I would gladly offer to support and raise the child as much as possible. It would simply provide an option for men who do not want to be fathers, especially in the case of one night stands or being tricked, where they have no relationship with the mother or where that relationship is toxic. It means they can make a mistake and choose not to spend 18 years paying for it, much like women can choose to do so.

Unless explicitly otherwise specified in a prenup, marraige would automatically be treated as a commitment to help raise one's partner's children, and there would be no legal way out of that.

From the feminist/sexist angle: forced fathership is a relic of an era before women were allowed to choose to terminate their own pregnancies. I feel the current system, much like chivalry and other misguided ideals which are supposedly "good for women" have extremely negative implications: that men are somehow mote responsible (or ought to be more responsible) for their actions than woman, and deserve to be punished for having sex, while women are not held to the same standard. As long as that inequality exists, it will have a negative impact on both men and women, and I view it to be no more justified than any other well meaning form of discrimination. It's still wrong.
 
Posted by Olivet 2.0 (Member # 12719) on :
 
In the statistical studies of these things, the other way around is actually about twice as common, percentage-wise:

quote:
Surveying 641 women who received routine ob-gyn care at Providence’s Women and Infants Hospital, Clark found that 16 percent had received unwelcome pressure to get pregnant. Their boyfriends and partners made it hard for them to use birth control — poking holes in condoms or hiding their pills — or threatened to leave or harm them if they didn’t get pregnant.
Reproductive coersion

It's all about power and control for the men who do this. Although it's just beginning to be studied, the first figures put it at about 16% of women coerced into pregnancy, and about 8% of men coerced into fatherhood.

The moral of this story is, male or female, if you don't want kids, it's your responsibility to protect yourself. (Also, I would suggest that if your partner has a problem with your birth control choices, GTFO.)

Making a baby should be a shared choice, but the law should always (and I hope always will) err on the side of a child in need of financial support.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Olivet: thanks for the article! I agree with you whole heartedly that coerced pregnancy is a very real and terrible problem.

I suppose my main issue with all of this is that women who are coerced into pregnancy have legal options: they can have an abortion, they can put the child up for adoption. And while people recognize impregnating a woman against her will to be a huge problem, forced fatherhood is often dismissed with a shrug and a "sucks for him", and the father is forced to pay well over $100,000 in child support for being "dumb enough to fall for it." Again, this is a huge double standard because it assumes men are somehow more culpable than women when it comes to responsibility for their sexuality. It also implies that a woman who is tricked by a man is a victim, whereas a man who is tricked by a woman is merely stupid, and should pay for that stupidity. Again, the subtext is that men are smarter and more responsible than women, and should be held to a higher standard. I think it's abhorrent.

I should note that this is a *huge* problem in military towns. You have a lot of ignorant young men with steady paychecks, and an employer who will literally force them to pay child support. It's bad enough to the point where our 1stSgt gives a speech every Friday about why you should use protection no matter what she says, and medical gives out free condoms. There are still dozens of new fathers every year.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
The difference is one of biology. There is a bright line difference between having to support a child with money and having to carry one in your actual body. The question is not whether the child is owed support by both parents (it is); it is one of whether a woman has a right to her own body or not. The answer to this has been (and mostly remains) "not" for a large part of the world - and pro-life advocates. I have no problem forcing men and women to give up part of their paycheck. I do have a problem forcing a human being to grow something in their body.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Ok, let's remove abortion from the picture for a second.

Women have the right to relinquish financial responsibility for their child by putting it up for adoption. Men have no such right - at most, they're allowed to claim custody of the child if the mother puts it up for adoption (after which she pays no child support in most states) but the father is not allowed to relinquish financial responsibility *until* he has sole custody and can put the child up for adoption himself. If the mother retains custody, he has no legal means of relinquishing responsibility. She always does.

So you can either A) force the mother to pay child support for 18 years to the adoptive parents or B) give men the same right to relinquish financial responsibility. (by, say, signing away his rights as a parent or simply having the same right as the mother to put the child up for adoption without her consent - leaving her the option of either keeping the child without child support or letting it get adopted)
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
Again, why do you think it's acceptable or good to give women the option to terminate responsibility for a child at any time and yet not give men that same option? Why? I know damn well what the consequences are, I'm asking you why you think it's good that women are allowed to avoid those consequences and men are not. Why?

quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
Ok, let's remove abortion from the picture for a second.

Women have the right to relinquish financial responsibility for their child by putting it up for adoption. Men have no such right - at most, they're allowed to claim custody of the child if the mother puts it up for adoption (after which she pays no child support in most states) but the father is not allowed to relinquish financial responsibility *until* he has sole custody and can put the child up for adoption himself. If the mother retains custody, he has no legal means of relinquishing responsibility. She always does.

So you can either A) force the mother to pay child support for 18 years to the adoptive parents or B) give men the same right to relinquish financial responsibility. (by, say, signing away his rights as a parent or simply having the same right as the mother to put the child up for adoption without her consent - leaving her the option of either keeping the child without child support or letting it get adopted)

Dogbreath,

I think the biological father normally has rights that can't be unilaterally given away by the mother. Adoption would have to be agreed on by both parents, although some adoptions proceed without the father's involvement, but not normally when the father can be identified and located.

The father has essentially the same right to give up the baby for adoption as the mother...I'm not sure what disparity you're talking about. If the baby can be adopted then the father won't be held liable for child support.

I think the mother normally has the same child support obligations as the father. Unless the child is adopted, both parents would be liable for support.

Once you remove abortion from the debate, there's not such a huge difference. And as kmbboots notes, there's a very straightforward reason why women have the option to abort and men don't have an equivalent option.

I realize that in some states there are laws that permit a newborn baby to be given away (I think these are called infant safe haven laws). I am pretty sure that option is available to both parents, though. Is there a state where the mother can unilaterally give away a newborn baby with no further obligation, but the father is still held liable for child support?

---

I think there is probably more real, addressable unfairness in the general presumption that kids are better off in the custody of their mother than their father.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
Aris, the problem with your solution is that it doesn't seem to penalize wantonly spawning children with no intent to provide for them. Without any penalty, the burden on the rest of society to care for unsupported children would increase. I don't think that's acceptable.
 
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
The difference is one of biology. There is a bright line difference between having to support a child with money and having to carry one in your actual body. The question is not whether the child is owed support by both parents (it is); it is one of whether a woman has a right to her own body or not. The answer to this has been (and mostly remains) "not" for a large part of the world - and pro-life advocates. I have no problem forcing men and women to give up part of their paycheck. I do have a problem forcing a human being to grow something in their body.

That's why abortion was invented.

So that's pretty much a non-issue in this discussion.

It would be an issue if abortion would be illegal. But it's not.

I haven't really ever before even considered the main issue of this thread, but I have to say that those supporting the father's rights are making a lot more consistent and logical arguments.
 
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Aris, the problem with your solution is that it doesn't seem to penalize wantonly spawning children with no intent to provide for them. Without any penalty, the burden on the rest of society to care for unsupported children would increase. I don't think that's acceptable.

Women are not penalized for wantonly spawning children with no intent to provide for them.

So there is no reason to penalize men for it, either.

As for excess burden this could potentially give to society: If a woman knows she won't get any support money from a potential father, she is less likely to have the child. She has to more seriously consider her economic situation. Does she want to have a child, that the father explicitly doesn't want?

Yes, this would most likely lead to more abortions. But since abortions are legal, this is not a problem. It would mean less women having children, more women working actively, and paying more taxes. The excess money that fathers would have from *not* paying child support would be money they would spend elsewhere. It's VERY hard to determine how all this would impact economy, but we can't say with certainty that this would all become an extra-burden for the society.

This all this would also lead to less single-parent families.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
scifibum:

quote:
The father has essentially the same right to give up the baby for adoption as the mother...I'm not sure what disparity you're talking about. If the baby can be adopted then the father won't be held liable for child support.

I don't think it always works out that way.

Fortunately in this instance there was a just ending, but two years?!
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
I guess I should say what my beliefs on the matter are if it helps you understand my arguments better:

Morally speaking, I believe both parents should take responsibility for and care for their child. Children with two supportive parents are much better equipped and are far more likely to succeed than single-parent children. If I ever fathered a child, I would do whatever possible to be a good father to it.

That being said, there are cases where it's mutually benefitial for both the birth parents and the child for the child *not* to be the responsibility of the birth parents. A classic example would be an 18 year old girl who puts her baby up for adoption, because she wants to go to college and persue a career, and because she isn't well equipped to raise a child, and because doing so would cripple her financially. I fully support this, for her sake as well as the baby's.

What I dislike is that this option (to not support the child) is neverprovided to the father. And I have seen many 18, 19, 20 year old boyd who made no more mistakes or bad choices than said girl and are no more or less culpable for the child, who have been financially destroyed by child support, and will continue to have their lives quite negatively impacted until they're nearly 40 because of it. They have no way out, no possibility of adoption (so long as the mother keeps the child), no way to choose not to be fathers.

I think this quite frankly does more damage to our society than good. I know guys back home who still work at Jiffy Lube or McDonalds because they had to work so much to pay for their children they never got the chance to go to college and better themselves. And they'll probably be stuck doing menial labor for the rest of their lives. (Man, this would make a great condom ad...)

Overall, I think the current system is sexist, destructive, and promotes mysogyny and inequality.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tuukka:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Aris, the problem with your solution is that it doesn't seem to penalize wantonly spawning children with no intent to provide for them. Without any penalty, the burden on the rest of society to care for unsupported children would increase. I don't think that's acceptable.

Women are not penalized for wantonly spawning children with no intent to provide for them.

So there is no reason to penalize men for it, either.

You're ignoring that aside from safe haven laws (which appear to let the fathers off the hook just as much as the mothers) there's not really a way for a mother to have children and not be liable for their support in the same way as the father. If the kid is adopted, then neither one has to pay support.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Scifibum: it really depends on the state. I unfortunately lived in one that was pretty backwards in those regards - it took a friend of mine 2 years to get custody of his son from his abusive mother (after which she paid *no* child support, despite him asking the court to order her to do so and her making more money than him), and another is fighting a custody battle for his daughter inTexas. Child support is ordered on a case by case basis, and more often than not women are not ordered to pay when they don't have custody.

Adoption laws are even more rediculous. Typically, if the mother files without the father's consent, the father can take custody, butthe mother is almost never ordered to pay child support afterwards. Sometimes, the father isn't even allowed to take custody, or has to spend years fighting for it. (if the mother made arrangements with adoptive parents without his consent, for example)
 
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
Originally posted by Tuukka:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Aris, the problem with your solution is that it doesn't seem to penalize wantonly spawning children with no intent to provide for them. Without any penalty, the burden on the rest of society to care for unsupported children would increase. I don't think that's acceptable.

Women are not penalized for wantonly spawning children with no intent to provide for them.

So there is no reason to penalize men for it, either.

You're ignoring that aside from safe haven laws (which appear to let the fathers off the hook just as much as the mothers) there's not really a way for a mother to have children and not be liable for their support in the same way as the father. If the kid is adopted, then neither one has to pay support.
It would be the same thing for men: There would be no way for a father to have children, without being liable for their support. Others already gave good examples of how this would work. If you want to have rights as a father, you pay.

So both would be in identical situation.

If it were the father who would raise the child alone (With mother's consent and official agreement), then the mother would have to pay child support for the father, to retain her rights as a mother.

BTW, I added some more text to my previous post while you were quoting it. Not that it would be relevant to this particular point you gave, but regardless, I answered to your statement about the extra burden on society.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
And if the father decides not to agree to adoption, there is no way out for the mother. The same option and the same veto power is, in theory*, given to both parents, except for abortion.

Sadly, not always in practice but we could improve on that. Women should be held more accountable when it comes to informing men that they are potentially fathers and men should be more pro-active about knowing and asserting their rights (to veto adoption, not abortion) and aware of who they might have knocked up.
 
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
And if the father decides not to agree to adoption, there is no way out for the mother. The same option and the same veto power is, in theory*, given to both parents, except for abortion.

Sadly, not always in practice but we could improve on that. Women should be held more accountable when it comes to informing men that they are potentially fathers and men should be more pro-active about knowing and asserting their rights (to veto adoption, not abortion) and aware of who they might have knocked up.

I don't how the law goes currently, but logically speaking:

The right to give to adoption should be on the mother who is alone raising the child. If the father disagrees with adoption, then *he* should take the child and raise it. He doesn't want the adoption, so he must carry the responsibility for that decision, not the mother.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Logically speaking, that is the way it should be with the addition that, if the father decides to raise the child, the mother should pay child support just as he would have had to should the mother decide to raise the child.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
What I dislike is that this option (to not support the child) is neverprovided to the father. And I have seen many 18, 19, 20 year old boyd who made no more mistakes or bad choices than said girl and are no more or less culpable for the child, who have been financially destroyed by child support, and will continue to have their lives quite negatively impacted until they're nearly 40 because of it. They have no way out, no possibility of adoption (so long as the mother keeps the child), no way to choose not to be fathers.

I think this quite frankly does more damage to our society than good. I know guys back home who still work at Jiffy Lube or McDonalds because they had to work so much to pay for their children they never got the chance to go to college and better themselves. And they'll probably be stuck doing menial labor for the rest of their lives. (Man, this would make a great condom ad...)

Overall, I think the current system is sexist, destructive, and promotes mysogyny and inequality.

I think a real flaw in your perspective here is that you seem to give absolutely no thought to the idea that child support is primarily about supporting a child.

With adoption, the child is being transferred into the care of people who are now liable for his support. With abortion, there is no need for support.

With your option, the child still needs this support, he just doesn't get it. Without (as you seem to be) completely ignoring the child, I don't see how you can talk about this being the fair solution.

Also, (in most cases and certainly in the ideal one) if the biological father chooses to raise the child, the mother is liable for child support. I don't see a disparity here. I think it may rise from some people's perspective that no man would willingly choose to do this; that raising a child is women's work.
 
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Logically speaking, that is the way it should be with the addition that, if the father decides to raise the child, the mother should pay child support just as he would have had to should the mother decide to raise the child.

If she wants to retain her rights as a mother, absolutely.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
No, she pays child support because the child needs that support. It's not about the parent, either father or mother. It's about the child.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
No, she pays child support because the child needs that support. It's not about the parent, either father or mother. It's about the child.

Exactly.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
And if the father decides not to agree to adoption, there is no way out for the mother. The same option and the same veto power is, in theory*, given to both parents, except for abortion.

Sadly, not always in practice but we could improve on that. Women should be held more accountable when it comes to informing men that they are potentially fathers and men should be more pro-active about knowing and asserting their rights (to veto adoption, not abortion) and aware of who they might have knocked up.

Not even in theory, in many places sadly. If the father vetos, the result is he recieves custody of the child, but the mother is almost never ordered to pay child support. OTOH, if the mother doesn't want an adoption, it's not even a possibility, and it never gets the father out of paying.

*There are obvious exceptions re: mothers who are mentally incompetant or abusive.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
As I noted, the mother should be required to pay child support. I realize that all is not as it should be.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
If the father vetos, the result is he recieves custody of the child, but the mother is almost never ordered to pay child support.
I'd need more proof than you just saying this to accept it.

And if so, that's the thing to get up in arms about.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
MrSquicky: Either you haven't read anything I've written, or you're being incredibly dishonest with your "woman's work" comment. I know plenty of single dads (my sister dated one for a while). None of them got a dime of child support.
 
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:
What I dislike is that this option (to not support the child) is neverprovided to the father. And I have seen many 18, 19, 20 year old boyd who made no more mistakes or bad choices than said girl and are no more or less culpable for the child, who have been financially destroyed by child support, and will continue to have their lives quite negatively impacted until they're nearly 40 because of it. They have no way out, no possibility of adoption (so long as the mother keeps the child), no way to choose not to be fathers.

I think this quite frankly does more damage to our society than good. I know guys back home who still work at Jiffy Lube or McDonalds because they had to work so much to pay for their children they never got the chance to go to college and better themselves. And they'll probably be stuck doing menial labor for the rest of their lives. (Man, this would make a great condom ad...)

Overall, I think the current system is sexist, destructive, and promotes mysogyny and inequality.

I think a real flaw in your perspective here is that you seem to give absolutely no thought to the idea that child support is primarily about supporting a child.

With adoption, the child is being transferred into the care of people who are now liable for his support. With abortion, there is no need for support.

With your option, the child still needs this support, he just doesn't get it. Without (as you seem to be) completely ignoring the child, I don't see how you can talk about this being the fair solution.

Also, (in most cases and certainly in the ideal one) if the biological father chooses to raise the child, the mother is liable for child support. I don't see a disparity here. I think it may rise from some people's perspective that no man would willingly choose to do this; that raising a child is women's work.

This is a good point.

It could be said that maybe the root argument is:

If two people have sex, they have both willingly accepted the chance, that they *might* have a child, no matter how small that chance is.

When the child is born, is society in any way responsible for the choice they made?

If not, and there is no mandatory child support from the father, then the child might not have the economic resources to have a proper upbringing. A single mother who has no *time* to have a job - At least before the daycare and school years - will struggle to provide.

So yes, this is about protecting the financial security of the child.

An easy solution is that mothers (or fathers) who get no child support from the other parent, will automatically receive a set amount from the government, to raise the child. Everyone gets the exact same amount. Maybe more, when there is a special needs child who is more expensive to maintain.

Is everyone who doesn't want mandatory child support from the parent, agreeing that government should pay the bill?

Personally I have no problem with this. It simply means I pay a little bit more taxes (Not much), and my own ass is covered if I ever get a child I don't want to pay child support to (Personally I would do it, thought).
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
http://singleparents.about.com/od/statebystateresources/p/child_support_statistics.htm
 
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
 
From that link:

54.9% of custodial single mothers were awarded child support in 2010.

30.4% of custodial single fathers were awarded child support during the same year.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:


I think this quite frankly does more damage to our society than good. I know guys back home who still work at Jiffy Lube or McDonalds because they had to work so much to pay for their children they never got the chance to go to college and better themselves. And they'll probably be stuck doing menial labor for the rest of their lives. (Man, this would make a great condom ad...)


Do you honestly think single mothers have the time, energy or money to better themselves if they have a kid and get child support?

I'm never going to find the link, but there was a European country (I think it was Sweden) that tracked life outcomes of nearly the entire country after teen pregnancy. The short answer, is very very few women completed their education.

This is a good time as any to remind folks that many states have only one abortion provider IN THE ENTIRE STATE.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
^54.9% vs 30.4% ordered is a pretty huge difference, and that's not taking into consideration the amount ordered, amount paid, and differences in enforcement methods.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
This problem is clearly ripe for a technological, not legal, fix. Male oral contraceptive, done.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:


I think this quite frankly does more damage to our society than good. I know guys back home who still work at Jiffy Lube or McDonalds because they had to work so much to pay for their children they never got the chance to go to college and better themselves. And they'll probably be stuck doing menial labor for the rest of their lives. (Man, this would make a great condom ad...)


Do you honestly think single mothers have the time, energy or money to better themselves if they have a kid and get child support?

I'm never going to find the link, but there was a European country (I think it was Sweden) that tracked life outcomes of nearly the entire country after teen pregnancy. The short answer, is very very few women completed their education.

No, of course not. That's why I mentioned adoption. The thing is, women have the option to relinquish responsibility. But if the mom decides to keep the kid, the dad is screwed no matter what his choice is.
 
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:


I think this quite frankly does more damage to our society than good. I know guys back home who still work at Jiffy Lube or McDonalds because they had to work so much to pay for their children they never got the chance to go to college and better themselves. And they'll probably be stuck doing menial labor for the rest of their lives. (Man, this would make a great condom ad...)


Do you honestly think single mothers have the time, energy or money to better themselves if they have a kid and get child support?

I'm never going to find the link, but there was a European country (I think it was Sweden) that tracked life outcomes of nearly the entire country after teen pregnancy. The short answer, is very very few women completed their education.

I have no doubt in my mind, that getting a child as a teen makes it more unlikely to have a high level of education.

But there is always a question of causality with those kind of studies.

For example. If a women gets a child as a teen, it's likely that she comes from a social background (social class, family background, friend circles, etc), where even people who don't have a child as a teen, tend to not get high-level education.

I don't know any American statistics, but it feels reasonable to assume that teen pregnancies are most common among areas where there is high level of poverty, and low level of education. So if a woman from such area gets a child as a teen, fails to get a high level of education, and ends up in poverty, we could assume that there are several factors that attributed to this. And the teen pregnancy might not even have been one of the main factors.

I know a lot of women who got children when they were around 20, and got high level education and good jobs later on. But that's anecdotal evidence, and due to my own upbringing I tend to make friends with certain kind of people, from certain kinds of social backgrounds.

[ June 17, 2013, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: Tuukka ]
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
^54.9% vs 30.4% ordered is a pretty huge difference, and that's not taking into consideration the amount ordered, amount paid, and differences in enforcement methods.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
^54.9% vs 30.4% ordered is a pretty huge difference, and that's not taking into consideration the amount ordered, amount paid, and differences in enforcement methods.

I'd want to see data on why they were single parents. I think single fathers are more often single due to circumstances that would preclude maternal child support payments, than single mothers for reasons that preclude paternal child support.

That being said, I agree with this:

quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
As I noted, the mother should be required to pay child support. I realize that all is not as it should be.


 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:


I think this quite frankly does more damage to our society than good. I know guys back home who still work at Jiffy Lube or McDonalds because they had to work so much to pay for their children they never got the chance to go to college and better themselves. And they'll probably be stuck doing menial labor for the rest of their lives. (Man, this would make a great condom ad...)


Do you honestly think single mothers have the time, energy or money to better themselves if they have a kid and get child support?

I'm never going to find the link, but there was a European country (I think it was Sweden) that tracked life outcomes of nearly the entire country after teen pregnancy. The short answer, is very very few women completed their education.

No, of course not. That's why I mentioned adoption. The thing is, women have the option to relinquish responsibility. But if the mom decides to keep the kid, the dad is screwed no matter what his choice is.
And if the father decides to keep the kid, the mother should be similarly "screwed". That she isn't (often) is a reflection of the notion that raising a child is, by default, something the women do and that women, in general, don't make as much money as men do.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Boots: I wouldn't object to that, as it would remove the inequality aspect. Still sucks for both parties, though.
 
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
quote:
Still sucks for both parties, though.
There are three parties. It seems to me that we're having a conversation where one side is saying that the child's interests are of paramount importance and the other side refuses to acknowledge they exist.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Dogbreath, you are looking at this cockeyed. Look at it from the point of view of the child...you know, the innocent party, the one who made no choice in the matter (to have sex and make children). Having sex leads to children, or at least the risk of children. If a person isn't mature enough to deal with the possible ramifications of sex, then they bloody well shouldn't have sex!.

My female cousin lied to her boyfriend about her birth control for the purpose of forcing him to stay with her. It does happen, and it is despicable.

But if their relationship doesn't work out, he still made that child and should help him (boy baby) in this world.

As to the rest: Yes, it can seem unfair to men that a woman has more choices, and he must abide by her decisions, but that inequality is a simple outcome of a very unfair biological situation. Women carry 100% of the baby, men 0%, women suffer 100% of the risks of pregnancy and birth, men 0%. In the end we are giving the "fair" choices to the correct party. And as a result the party with the least on the line has the least control. Perfectly fair.

Now, if the courts are not enforcing child support for single fathers, or adoption agencies are not doing their fair share of work to attempt to contact the father, that is another bag of cats all together.
 
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
The point is that women get the choice as to whether or not they are parents, from a legal standpoint. Men do not. This is, definitionally, not a fair system. Now, I agree with squicky that the child's needs are paramount, but I also agree with others here who've laid out a few ways that would allow for more fairness for the voluntary paternal rights while still providing for the child.
 
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
 
We need to make sure of 3 things.

1) The needs of the child come first. The $700 your friend is paying is not designed to go into the pocket or wardrobe of the mother. It is for the support of the child. If you can support a child for less than $700 a month, including rent/mortgage, food, insurance, educational materials, etc--I would be worried about that child.

2) It should not be about Guilt or Revenge.
I know two males (I refuse to call them Men) who purposefully renege an their child-support payments. Both blame their wives. One went so far as to work under an assumed name and SS# in order to stop his ex from getting any of his money. The fact that the child was not getting the money wasn't his problem. He was all about Revenge on the wife's lawyer for getting a settlement. The other wanted revenge on the wife for embarrassing him with proof of his infidelity. The money is there for the child, not for the wife to beat up the husband for his sins, or for the husband to hold against the wife for hers.

3) Men do have social advantages over women. They historically have taken more advantage of defenseless women than women have taken advantage of men. I worked with a woman who was paying child support to her Ex. Her Ex lived with a wealthy woman, but refuses to marry her--because that would stop the child support. His lawyer--whom he knew from his office--took advantage of her when her lawyer did not show up at a meeting. She ended up being pressured by her ex and their lawyer into signing what she thought was a basis for negotiations, which turned out to be a terrible agreement with hidden costs dropped in her lap. She was a housewife who was working as a secretary--and lost the child and had to pay support for the child--even though the husband made 2+ times her salary.

The thing is that yes, injustice happens in our courts.

Yes, it happens against men and against women.

But I have to ask, if a man and woman make a child, the man can say, "ooops. Sure I seduced you, but I don't want to pay. Bye."? There are historically way, way more times thoughtless men have done such things and gotten away with being leches.

Don't want to pay child support? Don't have sex. Have sex with just men. Get a vasectomy.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Yep, children can't be loved and cared for in a society that treats their parents as equals. And me focusing on paternal rights means I'm just not thinking about the children and think of rearing kids as woman's work...

Jeez, you guys ever think that maybe I'm not just whining and complaining about how unfair it is to be a dad, but that I think society as a whole and children in particular might benefit if we changed how we went about supporting single parent families? Just because you don't take the child support money from impoverished, often times menial labor working males doesn't mean I don't think there should be any support for the children. I just think it's a backwards, destructive, demoralizing and broken way of doing things, and often teaches children really terrible things about gender roles and sexuality in general.
 
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
 
Personally I think I already rather clearly answered the point about "the needs of the child are most important": When the absent parent refuses to provide parental support, he will officially lose his parental rights to the child, and Instead government takes care of the child support.

Problem solved. Unless people who don't want mandatory child support from the absent parent, also oppose government child support.

Even thought I'm a person who is "sexually responsible" and who would most definitely pay support to my own child, I'm willing to compromise for greater good. I will happily pay more taxes, so that the more "sexually irresponsible" people in my country will get child support. I think this is fair, to get rid of the current problems.

Most people would still keep on playing parental support, because they would like to retain their rights as a father, or a mother.

I don't think my taxes would get considerably higher. I think we would be talking about a rather miniscule change.

If Dogbreath, etc, agree to pay more taxes for universal government-based support system, when one of the parents gives up all his parental rights, then this should be a non-issue. If they disagree with paying more taxes, and allowing government support in such cases, then I'm also curious of what they think about the child's right to fiscal stability.

[ June 17, 2013, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: Tuukka ]
 
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
 
And if you think that a lot of people would try to trick that system, by saying that they (the parents) are living separately, when they are in fact not... Yeah, that would happen, obviously.

But the father (or mother) would legally not be the father anymore. He would officially have no parental rights *at all*. Which can be really difficult in a lot of situations.

Also they would need to continuously try to cheat the system, for years and years. Which can be tricky. And there is always the danger that when the government finds out, you have committed a fraud worthy of dozens of thousands of dollars.

I think merely the danger of a prison sentence would effectively make people less likely to cheat the system.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
The newest pick up line:

"Wanna have sex? There is a government stipend in it for you."
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
This issue is such a non-priority it hurts. I think we need to really get people up in arms about how men, a class which nominally holds pretty much any and all social and socioeconomic advantage, have a specific part where they might have a disadvantage that conveniences women at their expense, and literally for the benefit of children in broken homes.

"Bigger fish to fry" doesn't even really cut it.

quote:
The point is that women get the choice as to whether or not they are parents, from a legal standpoint. Men do not. This is, definitionally, not a fair system.
It is not coming from a position of biological parity. Pregnancy is not, as a biological reality, provided in a way which allows for any sense of meaningful 'fairness' or 'equality' in this. You can't create a situation in which both biological father and biological mother have to sign off on a pregnancy in order for it to be permitted to come to term.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
Again, why do you think it's acceptable or good to give women the option to terminate responsibility for a child at any time and yet not give men that same option? Why? I know damn well what the consequences are, I'm asking you why you think it's good that women are allowed to avoid those consequences and men are not. Why?
There is a substantial nugget of unfairness here, it's true. That said, though, do the problems posed by different biology have no relevance either? And before we get entirely swept away by male unfairness, shouldn't we remember that while women do (sometimes) have a substantial edge in this (one) set of issues over men...there's still things like pay differences, domestic violence, sexual assault, political representation, and that perhaps us dudes ought to remember that as well to say nothing of some historical context?

This isn't to say 'forced' fatherhood isn't a problem. It's a tricky scenario with lots of bad resolutions, no doubt. Like scifibum, I'm skeptical that there is a good solution out of it.

Oh, and one other thing-for basically all of human history up to the present, it's generally men who are telling women what they may and may not do with their bodies...and what particular men may do to those bodies, in fact. It's an incredibly recent, incomplete (gender disparity in politics) trend that women have had much broad, cultural say in matter at all. Sorry, Lyrhawn, it's just that the whole 'stronger lobby' bit rubbed me a bit wrong.

I wasn't saying anything at all about the wider disparity in gender issues in our society, which is wide, vast, and much in need of revision.

But that disparity also cuts both ways on a number of issues that don't get talked about, and strange, in ways that actually harm women and children in many cases. Women have a literal lobby, they have the National Organization of Women and other groups that exist specifically to lobby Congress on women's issues. Men do not. Do men have nearly as many issues that need to be solved? Of course not. Is everything perfect for men as is? Of course not.

And for that matter, are you going to make the argument that our society views fathers and mothers the same way? Of course we don't. Look at how we treat Father's Day vs. Mother's Day. What about paternal leave issues?

Now a lot of people come back and say that fathers need to step up before they can earn all that, but that ignores the millions of fathers out there who are fantastic role models for a new generation of dads, or the dads who have been doing it for years with no recognition. Fathers are simply not respected in America the way mothers are. And with the number of fathers as primary care givers on the rise, it'll only get worse, and they have no one to speak for them. Their conversation isn't being heard in America.

So yes, women and mothers have a lobby. On issues of parenting, men do not.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
quote:
Look at how we treat Father's Day vs. Mother's Day.
Can you clarify? Because from my perspective we treat them kind of the same way.

quote:
What about paternal leave issues?
FMLA is available for fathers to care for newborn infants. Can you clarify what else is needed (particularly as it pertains to gender disparity)?

As a father, I'm not really feeling a lot of the concerns you are bringing up.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
From my earlier link,

A quarter of all children grow up in single parent homes.

Half of all African American children grow up in single parent homes.

Only about half of ordered child support ever gets paid.

I feel it's a pretty significant issue, and that the use of an outmoded, broken system based on a 1950s conception of a nuclear family isn't helping. Either we keep taking money from sexually active males for children they did not want to father, or we realize that a quarter of all these homes are effectively fatherless (or sometimes, motherless) and realize there might be a better solution to the problem than trying to force (frequently uncooperative) men who are more or less sperm donors to give large amounts of money to a child they don't know and have no relationship with. It's a very big issue that actually impacts a sizable percentage of our population.

As far as paying more in taxes to support the health and education of these children: yes, absolutely.
 
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
This issue is such a non-priority it hurts. I think we need to really get people up in arms about how men, a class which nominally holds pretty much any and all social and socioeconomic advantage, have a specific part where they might have a disadvantage that conveniences women at their expense, and literally for the benefit of children in broken homes.

"Bigger fish to fry" doesn't even really cut it.

There are bigger problems in the world, than whether Man Of Steel is any good or not. And yet we are talking about it.

I always find that a poor excuse. As if we shouldn't try to fix smaller problems, because there are always bigger problems.

An attitude like that literally leads to situation where *nothing is ever fixed*.
 
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:

As far as paying more in taxes to support the health and education of these children: yes, absolutely.

Well, that settles it, I think.

Now we can all agree that everyone is equally thinking of the fiscal well-being of the children, regardless on their stand of whether the absent fathers (or mothers) should provide the support.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
Dogbreath: That's a bit of a false dichotomy. We should absolutely keep trying to get fathers to support their children. We should also do more to make sure that children are adequately supported.
 
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
 
BTW, a lot of people in this thread seem to think that pregnancy and giving birth are some awful things to endure.

I know they are for some. I don't know how good research there is on this subject (probably a great deal), but simple based on anecdotal evidence:

The great majority of women I know, who have gone through pregnancy and giving birth, cheer those things as some of the greatest moments in their life.

So maybe we shouldn't think of it as some abhorrent thing that the poor women must go through.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Your point that children suffer due to nonpayment of child support is a good one. Your answer to the problem is horrible.

Instead we pay child support out of government fund, which is supported by noncaregiver parents. That way the kids get the money they need and furrher not paying child support is defrauding the government (as is using child support for nonchild raising).

What you are not getting here is, men have been able to wslk
 
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Dogbreath: That's a bit of a false dichotomy. We should absolutely keep trying to get fathers to support their children. We should also do more to make sure that children are adequately supported.

From what I understood, Dogbreath basically supported the thought of increased taxes and increased government support, instead of trying to (unsuccessfully) force absent parents to pay child support, when they want nothing to do with the child.

What's your solution?
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tuukka:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Dogbreath: That's a bit of a false dichotomy. We should absolutely keep trying to get fathers to support their children. We should also do more to make sure that children are adequately supported.

From what I understood, Dogbreath basically supported the thought of increased taxes and increased government support, instead of trying to (unsuccessfully) force absent parents to pay child support.

What's your solution?

I think we should keep attaching financial responsibility to procreation. Gaps have to be met with some other source of funds, and I'm fine with that. That's largely the status quo. We should probably do a better job for a lot of children, which would probably cost more. But DB seemed to be implying that we should stop trying to get money from the fathers, and that's a bad idea, because the last thing we need is MORE unwanted, unsupported children because now you don't even have to worry about the hassles of dodging child support collectors.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
Can you clarify? Because from my perspective we treat them kind of the same way.
Not even close. Mother's Day is a day to treat mom's like queens and lavish them with gifts. Father's Day is a day to buy dad a new tie and let him choose what food he BBQs for the family.

Father's Day vs. Mother's day around the world

Gap between FD and MD spending widening

Mother's Day is the second biggest holiday in America after Christmas.

Men rarely take paternity leave for fear of occupational retribution

There's a stigma against men taking leave that doesn't exist for women. Both genders suffer at work for taking leave, but we're talking about short term leave, not huge gaps. And since more men than women are primary earners in homes, they are less able to take the FMLA time available because the family often can't afford for them to take unpaid leave. And I'll add to this that both maternity and paternity leave in America need serious, serious changes. Both of them need more leave time. But men, for various reasons, are unable to take as much as women. Studies show that the time new fathers spend with their babies in the first few months are crucial for longterm bonding and the level of involvement the father has going forward. This isn't just a men's issue, it's in the child's best interest as well.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
...walk away after having a bit of fun, scott free and stick the woman with a lifelong, huge obligation.

Alo those poor guys who can't better themseles are supportingthe children they made . Society at large should not be on the hook because these guys can't keep it in their pants. They made their bed...and get to sleep in it. Had they been sleeping in the first place in their beds, they wouldn't have that problem.

And if you think going through a full term pregnancy or an abortion for that matter is scott free, it just shows how little you know about either.
 
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
Originally posted by Tuukka:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Dogbreath: That's a bit of a false dichotomy. We should absolutely keep trying to get fathers to support their children. We should also do more to make sure that children are adequately supported.

From what I understood, Dogbreath basically supported the thought of increased taxes and increased government support, instead of trying to (unsuccessfully) force absent parents to pay child support.

What's your solution?

I think we should keep attaching financial responsibility to procreation. Gaps have to be met with some other source of funds, and I'm fine with that. That's largely the status quo. We should probably do a better job for a lot of children, which would probably cost more. But DB seemed to be implying that we should stop trying to get money from the fathers, and that's a bad idea, because the last thing we need is MORE unwanted, unsupported children because now you don't even have to worry about the hassles of dodging child support collectors.
Since you are talking about what you *assume* Dogbreath was "implying", maybe I should be commenting on this, but...

Dogbreath also supported Aris' idea about taking away parental rights, if you refuse child support.

Most fathers *do* want to have rights for their children, and they do want to be officially recognized as the fathers. Which means that most men would pay child support.

Probably the exact same men who pay child support now.

Those who wouldn't pay it, would most likely be the exact same fathers who don't pay child support now. But losing their official rights for their children would probably be a good incentive for many fathers to start paying child support, if it they haven't so far.

This could lead to *better* child support.

When men want to give up on child support and their right to their child, the increased taxes would allow for the government to step in, and again actually make the child support *better* than what it is now. Currently the mothers don't get the money from fathers who don't want to pay, and who want nothing to do with the children.

...So what we are talking about are actually potentially good ways to increase the benefits for the children.

The thing is, your solution of "we should keep attaching financial responsibility to procreation" doesn't work. The numbers prove it.

You add more financial responsibility? You will just have more men who can't, or don't want to pay.

The only effective method to *force* them to pay would be to threaten them with prison. Which eventually in America would lead just to even bigger black populations in prison, who ended up there for victimless crimes.

[ June 17, 2013, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: Tuukka ]
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tuukka:
BTW, a lot of people in this thread seem to think that pregnancy and giving birth are some awful things to endure.

I know they are for some. I don't know how good research there is on this subject (probably a great deal), but simple based on anecdotal evidence:

The great majority of women I know, who have gone through pregnancy and giving birth, cheer those things as some of the greatest moments in their life.

So maybe we shouldn't think of it as some abhorrent thing that the poor women must go through.

That has so little to do with anything that I hesitate to respond, but here goes.

The concept to which you seem to be responding is that it's wrong to compel women to carry pregnancies to term - an argument for why abortion should be legal. (This of course is a controversial topic, but I think that's the gist of one side of the issue, and the one that might have prompted your response.)

The *reason* that such a thing is argued to be wrong is not that it's a bad experience for the woman (although it *can* be extremely risky and generally has permanent effects on her body which might be unwanted). It's because compulsion over a person's use of their own body is wrong. It would also be wrong to force the woman to accept a very safe surgery that would increase the pleasure she gets from eating broccoli.

So it doesn't matter how awful or not-awful pregnancy is likely to be, for purposes of whether she should be forced to go through it. It matters whether she has the right to decide how to operate her own body, or not.
 
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Your point that children suffer due to nonpayment of child support is a good one. Your answer to the problem is horrible.

Instead we pay child support out of government fund, which is supported by noncaregiver parents. That way the kids get the money they need and furrher not paying child support is defrauding the government (as is using child support for nonchild raising).

What you are not getting here is, men have been able to wslk

Just to point out, I think you posted this unfinished, or something.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Yea, my phone keyboard crashed...I did finish it.
 
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
Originally posted by Tuukka:
BTW, a lot of people in this thread seem to think that pregnancy and giving birth are some awful things to endure.

I know they are for some. I don't know how good research there is on this subject (probably a great deal), but simple based on anecdotal evidence:

The great majority of women I know, who have gone through pregnancy and giving birth, cheer those things as some of the greatest moments in their life.

So maybe we shouldn't think of it as some abhorrent thing that the poor women must go through.

That has so little to do with anything that I hesitate to respond, but here goes.

The concept to which you seem to be responding is that it's wrong to compel women to carry pregnancies to term - an argument for why abortion should be legal. (This of course is a controversial topic, but I think that's the gist of one side of the issue, and the one that might have prompted your response.)

The *reason* that such a thing is argued to be wrong is not that it's a bad experience for the woman (although it *can* be extremely risky and generally has permanent effects on her body which might be unwanted). It's because compulsion over a person's use of their own body is wrong. It would also be wrong to force the woman to accept a very safe surgery that would increase the pleasure she gets from eating broccoli.

So it doesn't matter how awful or not-awful pregnancy is likely to be, for purposes of whether she should be forced to go through it. It matters whether she has the right to decide how to operate her own body, or not.

I don't think my post was really related to anything you are saying right now. At least I don't see any connection.

But since you are wondering what I was commenting on, here is Stonewolf's post from earlier on, where he talks about how "unfair" pregnancy is - An opinion which I don't think is commonly shared by women. I don't think they see it as "unfair" that they are able to be pregnant, and give birth. I don't think they assume that they should be compensated for something that they rather commonly consider a great thing.

(Except for government support for the time they are unable to work - Another thing I will proudly support with my taxes).

quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:

Yes, it can seem unfair to men that a woman has more choices, and he must abide by her decisions, but that inequality is a simple outcome of a very unfair biological situation. Women carry 100% of the baby, men 0%, women suffer 100% of the risks of pregnancy and birth, men 0%. In the end we are giving the "fair" choices to the correct party. And as a result the party with the least on the line has the least control. Perfectly fair.


 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
quote:
You can't create a situation in which both biological father and biological mother have to sign off on a pregnancy in order for it to be permitted to come to term.
I think such a thing is possible with current medical science. Well, perhaps not "permitting it to come to term" but more preventing the pregnancy in the first place.

I could fairly easily envision a society where all pre-teens are given a government mandated and (nearly) foolproof method of birth control prior to puberty. Then a couple would both get there implant (or whatever) removed temporarily when they are both ready for parenthood. In such a society, there would be no unplanned pregnancies, which changes the dynamic quite a bit.

(No current birth control method is 100%, of course, but the extraordinary few that would result can easily be supported by the state.)

Obviously this has no bearing on the current arguments going on here, but I do think there's some value in reevaluating what is possible. Even if that possibility is not necessarily desirable.

(I wouldn't expect or desire anything like the above to be implemented in my lifetime, but who knows what the future will bring.)
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:
Can you clarify? Because from my perspective we treat them kind of the same way.
Not even close. Mother's Day is a day to treat mom's like queens and lavish them with gifts. Father's Day is a day to buy dad a new tie and let him choose what food he BBQs for the family.

Father's Day vs. Mother's day around the world

Gap between FD and MD spending widening

Mother's Day is the second biggest holiday in America after Christmas.

Men rarely take paternity leave for fear of occupational retribution

There's a stigma against men taking leave that doesn't exist for women. Both genders suffer at work for taking leave, but we're talking about short term leave, not huge gaps. And since more men than women are primary earners in homes, they are less able to take the FMLA time available because the family often can't afford for them to take unpaid leave. And I'll add to this that both maternity and paternity leave in America need serious, serious changes. Both of them need more leave time. But men, for various reasons, are unable to take as much as women. Studies show that the time new fathers spend with their babies in the first few months are crucial for longterm bonding and the level of involvement the father has going forward. This isn't just a men's issue, it's in the child's best interest as well.

Thanks for clarifying.

I would guess the outsized attention to Mother's Day (which as you might guess from my confusion I haven't really *witnessed*, but I'm not going to argue with the numbers) might be in compensation for the way women tend to carry more of the domestic workload even when they are also earning money outside the home. I actually think that the way mothers are mythologized can be part of a patriarchal, condescending effort to preserve exactly that aspect of the status quo. ("Thank goodness for our irreplaceable mothers, because who else would do all the thankless and menial tasks?!")

As for the stigma of men taking leave, well... I would argue that it's not that women don't have to make the same trade off, it's just that they largely already DO, and it's accepted that they probably will. And it's not that men are "unable" to take leave for the various reasons you listed, it's that they often prefer not to make the trade-offs.

In other words I'm not sure that this is some sort of problem for males that society needs to help males with, it's more like the flipside of certain aspects of their privilege. They at least feel like they have the *option* to stay at work, and would generally prefer to maintain whatever advantages they derive from not being the ones to take family leave.

I'm for trying to level that playing field - I'm with you on the idea that it's probably better for families to do so - but I don't think that it's realistic to portray it as a disadvantage that men face compared to women.
 
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
...walk away after having a bit of fun, scott free and stick the woman with a lifelong, huge obligation.

Alo those poor guys who can't better themseles are supportingthe children they made . Society at large should not be on the hook because these guys can't keep it in their pants. They made their bed...and get to sleep in it. Had they been sleeping in the first place in their beds, they wouldn't have that problem..

What if they don't pay? Like they commonly don't?

Do you think government should not provide support? Should we let the children simply survive with the bad cards they were given?

It makes sense from a Darwinian point of view, I guess, but you would be the first person in this thread to hold that position.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tuukka:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
This issue is such a non-priority it hurts. I think we need to really get people up in arms about how men, a class which nominally holds pretty much any and all social and socioeconomic advantage, have a specific part where they might have a disadvantage that conveniences women at their expense, and literally for the benefit of children in broken homes.

"Bigger fish to fry" doesn't even really cut it.

There are bigger problems in the world, than whether Man Of Steel is any good or not. And yet we are talking about it.

I always find that a poor excuse. As if we shouldn't try to fix smaller problems, because there are always bigger problems.

An attitude like that literally leads to situation where *nothing is ever fixed*.

It's not about whether or not we should try to fix smaller problems, it's about whether or not, given the current state of gender power imbalance and all the concerns related to broken homes and unintended children, there are meaningfully productive opportunities to address this issue positively, and not just ultimately increase the crapload piled on single parents — mothers, especially — who already don't get enough support from the state.

Even this thread is acting as a perfect example of where actuarial support for biological fathers will go in terms of what is done for the children of single mothers. To draw off of what squicky said, it is extremely telling that we're having a conversation where one side is saying that the child's interests are of paramount importance and the other side oopsideoodle forgets in a repeatedly patternable fashion that the child's interests are part of the equation at all.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
...walk away after having a bit of fun, scott free and stick the woman with a lifelong, huge obligation.

Alo those poor guys who can't better themseles are supportingthe children they made . Society at large should not be on the hook because these guys can't keep it in their pants. They made their bed...and get to sleep in it. Had they been sleeping in the first place in their beds, they wouldn't have that problem.

And if you think going through a full term pregnancy or an abortion for that matter is scott free, it just shows how little you know about either.

First, fellow phone poster here, I ****ing hate trying to type posts on this forum. I feel your pain.

Second, I think you're completely missing the sexism inherent inyour posts. Women aren't helpless victims that men just go around impregnating. They're just as complicit in having unprotected sex as the men are (outside of rape, obviously). I've never had sex outside of a committed relationship - mostly to avoid exactly that scenario - but I imagine when you go home with a girl you met at a club, you aren't agreeing to marry her. Or riase her children. You're merely consenting to engaging in sexual intercourse with her - if she chooses not to use protection (or make you use protection) and decides not to terminate the pregnancy, then that's wonderful for her! But you shouldn't have to spend 18 years paying for her child if you don't want to be a father. You're not using her and leaving her - she took just as much pleasure from the act (I hope) and was just as aware of the consequences as you were. And she has the choice to become a parent or not - you should have that choice too.
 
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by Tuukka:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
This issue is such a non-priority it hurts. I think we need to really get people up in arms about how men, a class which nominally holds pretty much any and all social and socioeconomic advantage, have a specific part where they might have a disadvantage that conveniences women at their expense, and literally for the benefit of children in broken homes.

"Bigger fish to fry" doesn't even really cut it.

There are bigger problems in the world, than whether Man Of Steel is any good or not. And yet we are talking about it.

I always find that a poor excuse. As if we shouldn't try to fix smaller problems, because there are always bigger problems.

An attitude like that literally leads to situation where *nothing is ever fixed*.

It's not about whether or not we should try to fix smaller problems, it's about whether or not, given the current state of gender power imbalance and all the concerns related to broken homes and unintended children, there are meaningfully productive opportunities to address this issue positively, and not just ultimately increase the crapload piled on single parents — mothers, especially — who already don't get enough support from the state.

Even this thread is acting as a perfect example of where actuarial support for biological fathers will go in terms of what is done for the children of single mothers. To draw off of what squicky said, it is extremely telling that we're having a conversation where one side is saying that the child's interests are of paramount importance and the other side oopsideoodle forgets in a repeatedly patternable fashion that the child's interests are part of the equation at all.

That's patently false.

The child's interests have been addressed several times, and solutions have been offered, that could even make their situation better when compared to the current system. And these solutions have mostly arrived from the side who thinks it might be a good idea to remove the mandatory parental support.

It has also been addressed several times, that the current system is broken, and not beneficial to children.

Either you haven't read all the posts in this thread, or you are lying on purpose. If you are lying on purpose, don't do it again, thanks.

The problems with gender equality should be solved by creating laws that create *equality*. Not laws that create inequality, and increase gender friction due to their inequality.

Yes, woman have traditionally been the side to receive more abuse in gender issues. The solution is not to increase the abuse received by men. The solution is to remove the abuse altogether.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Same thing when people don't pay their taxes...Uncle Sam puts on his ass stomping boots.
 
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Same thing when people don't pay their taxes...Uncle Sam puts on his ass stomping boots.

This is not what you have said explicitly, but this is the real world result - This is what would happen if things got done the way you want them to be done:

You pay less taxes, because you don't want to participate in the overall well-being of American children. Because you think someone else is responsible.

More poor (often black) people go to prison, due to their inability to pay the child support money. The children will have their fathers in prison, for crimes that happened because of the children (I'm sure the kids will thank you for that). The mothers still aren't getting any money, because from prison it's particularly hard to pay child support fees.

Of course, you do pay more taxes in the end, because someone has to pay for the increasing prison population. It's crazy how expensive prisoners are. Everybody loses. Including you. The children lose the most.

As a solution, this sounds extremely ineffective and counter-productive to me.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Either you haven't read all the posts in this thread, or you are lying on purpose. If you are lying on purpose, don't do it again, thanks.
I am not lying and I have read the entire thread, thanks.

quote:
The problems with gender equality should be solved by creating laws that create *equality*.
Laws that create (or, to put it in a much more sensible way, "move us towards equality") do not do so by treating all sides equally in a situation in which there is no parity to begin with. Between single moms and single dads, we aren't talking about an egalitarian situation to begin with between the two groups. There, in fact, can never be an equal situation. Thinking that there is a "double standard" because the law might favor women in this situation won't help.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Jailing people for smoking weed has had such a great impact on young men in our society, why not start jailing them for not having enough money to pay child support! I'm sure that will solve all our problems, I mean, nobody smokes weed anymore...
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
quote:
But you shouldn't have to spend 18 years paying for her child if you don't want to be a father. You're not using her and leaving her - she took just as much pleasure from the act (I hope) and was just as aware of the consequences as you were. And she has the choice to become a parent or not - you should have that choice too.
This is what people are pointing out as leaving the child's interests out of the conversation. Men shouldn't have to pay because women can opt out if they want to.

The best that's been offered to support this argument is that all children are basically on welfare by default. So because there's some imbalance in what kinds of choices are available to each gender at certain time, nobody has to worry about supporting their offspring at all.

This is silly.
 
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Either you haven't read all the posts in this thread, or you are lying on purpose. If you are lying on purpose, don't do it again, thanks.
I am not lying and I have read the entire thread, thanks.

quote:
The problems with gender equality should be solved by creating laws that create *equality*.
Laws that create (or, to put it in a much more sensible way, "move us towards equality") do not do so by treating all sides equally in a situation in which there is no parity to begin with. Between single moms and single dads, we aren't talking about an egalitarian situation to begin with between the two groups. There, in fact, can never be an equal situation. Thinking that there is a "double standard" because the law might favor women in this situation won't help.

Well, maybe you weren't lying. You just said things that are *obviously untrue*, which can be easily verified by anyone reading this thread. Could be that you just have a really bad memory.

Thriving for equality is a good thing. It seems you don't disagree with that on principle? So hopefully you won't anymore repeat how pointless this discussion is in your opinion. Personally I have no ideological interests on what law favors who. I'm interested in practical, useful, beneficial laws. If something doesn't work, it's good to fix it. If there is a law that will bring out better results, let's use it.

The next time you might want to re-read post to keep your memory fresher. So that there is no need to accuse you of lying again.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
The only reason you are running your mouth about my lying/poor memory is because you read my post and you assumed that I am saying something that I am not, like that nobody in this thread has addressed the needs of children in these situations.

That's fine. I'm happy having people pointlessly demolishing some position that is taking place in their own head.

Alternatively, instead of jumping straight to being a dick about it, you could be an adult and ask me adult questions like "It seems like you are saying this .. is this the point or statement that is intended?" before deciding that I am a liar with really bad memory or something.

Or, I guess, you could drag discourse down and not accomplish anything.

But I guess I'll ask you! What are the things I have said which are obviously untrue! Please provide quotes!
 
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
But you shouldn't have to spend 18 years paying for her child if you don't want to be a father. You're not using her and leaving her - she took just as much pleasure from the act (I hope) and was just as aware of the consequences as you were. And she has the choice to become a parent or not - you should have that choice too.
This is what people are pointing out as leaving the child's interests out of the conversation. Men shouldn't have to pay because women can opt out if they want to.

The best that's been offered to support this argument is that all children are basically on welfare by default. So because there's some imbalance in what kinds of choices are available to each gender at certain time, nobody has to worry about supporting their offspring at all.

This is silly.

I don't think anyone has suggested that children should be on welfare by default. Can you quote that, I can't find it?

It has been suggested that if a parent resigns from his rights as a parent, he can quit giving child support, and government will provide the support.

But that's an *entirely* different thing.

How did you come to the conclusion that nobody has to worry about supporting their offspring at all? I find it hard to relate to anything that's been said in this thread.
 
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
The only reason you are running your mouth about my lying/poor memory is because you read my post and you assumed that I am saying something that I am not, like that nobody in this thread has addressed the needs of children in these situations.

That's fine. I'm happy having people pointlessly demolishing some position that is taking place in their own head.

Alternatively, instead of jumping straight to being a dick about it, you could be an adult and ask me adult questions like "It seems like you are saying this .. is this the point or statement that is intended?" before deciding that I am a liar with really bad memory or something.

Or, I guess, you could drag discourse down and not accomplish anything.

But I guess I'll ask you! What are the things I have said which are obviously untrue! Please provide quotes!

I already quoted you. I already did this.

You were demolishing a position that you invented in your own head. I pointed that out.

You know very well what I'm talking about.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Either man up and stick up for your own arguments, or get out of the way. You are saying I am saying things which are "Obviously untrue." Quote them and tell me what your interpretation is so that I can address them.

Or weasel away. I'm fine with that too. I'll just call it out for what it is.
 
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Either man up and stick up for your own arguments, or get out of the way. You are saying I am saying things which are "Obviously untrue." Quote them and tell me what your interpretation is so that I can address them.

Or weasel away. I'm fine with that too. I'll just call it out for what it is.

Here:

"To draw off of what squicky said, it is extremely telling that we're having a conversation where one side is saying that the child's interests are of paramount importance and the other side oopsideoodle forgets in a repeatedly patternable fashion that the child's interests are part of the equation at all."

This didn't happen. You could argue that it *seemed* to happen at first, but the issue was quickly addressed - A long time ago. Not only by me, but by Dogbreath as well. And we two are the two people who have done the great majority of the debating on the "other side".

Aris unfortunately hasn't been around to comment since his first posts, and thus hasn't been able to respond how important he thinks the rights of the child are (That particular issue was raised after he had left the discussion).

That's all the three people that have done the substantial debating on the "other side".

So maybe you can now explain to me, which of us three does this:

"oopsideoodle forgets in a repeatedly patternable fashion that the child's interests are part of the equation at all."

I don't think you can answer that. Because our posts do not support that position. The position exists only in your own mind.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
What I'm suggesting is we pay single parents from a gov. fund reguardless of the other parent's payment status. Remove the relationship all together.
 
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
What I'm suggesting is we pay single parents from a gov. fund reguardless of the other parent's payment status. Remove the relationship all together.

You just said in response to how to handle the current system, where so many absent parents don't pay their parental support fees:

quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Same thing when people don't pay their taxes...Uncle Sam puts on his ass stomping boots.

And while that post didn't have a quote, it most certainly seemed to be a response to my question directed at you.

I'm not following your line of thought... it seems that you just switched your position a great deal? Which of course is perfectly fine, but I'm not sure what the position is anymore, and why it changed.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tuukka:
"To draw off of what squicky said, it is extremely telling that we're having a conversation where one side is saying that the child's interests are of paramount importance and the other side oopsideoodle forgets in a repeatedly patternable fashion that the child's interests are part of the equation at all."

This didn't happen. You could argue that it *seemed* to happen at first, but the issue was quickly addressed - A long time ago. Not only by me, but by Dogbreath as well. And we two are the two people who have done the great majority of the debating on the "other side".

That a side forgets in a repeatedly patternable fashion that the child's interests are part of the equation doesn't mean that they always forget it. It also doesn't mean that it can't be brought up to them and subsequently addressed. It just means that there's a pattern in how often it is not addressed. You even see shades of it here. I was both not surprised and glad to see the issue brought up.

and This Thread does not encompass the entirety of a side. We are not the sum total of the experience of this argument. I've had a lot more of the sum total of the experience of this argument, especially considering what work I have done for single mothers and survivors of abuse. Now, a bit of those oopsiedoodle tendencies did leak through, enough for me to look at this thread and remain pretty clearly on the side of extreme skepticism for the approach to reform that originates from the outrage of men's rights groups over one of the instances in which men are on the wrong side of a social privilege disparity.

Anyway, so basically I guess you thought I was saying that nobody in the thread addressed the issue of the children. Or even if you didn't think that, you inexplicably forged a position predicated on the idea that I had. Calling me a liar with bad memory then followed. Should I counterfire with snark about reading comprehension, or can we skip that part and just instead maybe say "Okay maybe being a dick with my language right off the bat was not exactly productive."
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
My opinion on this subject was mostly formed when talking to kids who consider "dad" as "that asshole mom is always yelling at on the phone about the child support", the person who took the brunt of the blame for their family's financial situation, in many cases, a man who lived in another state *who they never met.* Even the ones with financially supportive fathers still viewed him as a jerk, or resented him. I remembee a group leadee starting a prayer by saying "Heavenly Father..." and watching these kids stiffen at the mention of the word "father." It causes all sorts of confidence and maturity problems, and diffifulty relating to and forming healthy relationships with men in general. (boys and girls, sexual and nonsexual) I found children with dead fathers or no fathers to have far less of these problems than children with absent fathers - which is why I believe single parent households are far better off being just that - exclusively single parent. If the biological father is unwilling to have any part in the raising of the child, forcing him to pay for that child (and forcing that child to be dependant on his payments) causes an incredibly hostile home environment. I would have no problem paying the equivilent child support via taxes.

I find it rather bitterly ironic that if every single argument I make isn't exclusively about "the children" but is instead about, say, equality and reproductive rights, I am somehow ignoring the needs of the children. I've talked about my work with at risk children enough in other threads that I thought wouldn't be automatically accused of ignoring their needs.
 
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by Tuukka:
"To draw off of what squicky said, it is extremely telling that we're having a conversation where one side is saying that the child's interests are of paramount importance and the other side oopsideoodle forgets in a repeatedly patternable fashion that the child's interests are part of the equation at all."

This didn't happen. You could argue that it *seemed* to happen at first, but the issue was quickly addressed - A long time ago. Not only by me, but by Dogbreath as well. And we two are the two people who have done the great majority of the debating on the "other side".

That a side forgets in a repeatedly patternable fashion that the child's interests are part of the equation doesn't mean that they always forget it. It also doesn't mean that it can't be brought up to them and subsequently addressed. It just means that there's a pattern in how often it is not addressed. You even see shades of it here. I was both not surprised and glad to see the issue brought up.

and This Thread does not encompass the entirety of a side. We are not the sum total of the experience of this argument. I've had a lot more of the sum total of the experience of this argument, especially considering what work I have done for single mothers and survivors of abuse. Now, a bit of those oopsiedoodle tendencies did leak through, enough for me to look at this thread and remain pretty clearly on the side of extreme skepticism for the approach to reform that originates from the outrage of men's rights groups over one of the instances in which men are on the wrong side of a social privilege disparity.

Anyway, so basically I guess you thought I was saying that nobody in the thread addressed the issue of the children. Or even if you didn't think that, you inexplicably forged a position predicated on the idea that I had. Calling me a liar with bad memory then followed. Should I counterfire with snark about reading comprehension, or can we skip that part and just instead maybe say "Okay maybe being a dick with my language right off the bat was not exactly productive."

The issue of the rights of children has been addressed repeatedly.

The insulting behavior you committed was that after the "other side" provided many, very long and throughout arguments to support their position, you decided to sweep it away by giving them a false position, which demanded that they are either lying, or intentionally deceitful (Which is the same thing as lying).

No, you didn't call the "other side" liars. Except you did exactly that in every possible way except for using that specific word. Which is the exact same thing as calling someone a liar.

So trying to get on a high horse is not going to work that well here.

Regardless, I don't really care what you have talked with other people elsewhere and how it affects your subjective interpretations. I don't care what you think you can read between the lines. That is all just assumptions in your head. If you re-read the post you just wrote, you are all but admitting that you are imagining stuff that nobody has actually said. You are feeding your own pre-conceived notions about what you think someone must think, even if in actuality they are not thinking it at all.

None of that should enter this kind of debate.

Anyway, ultimately the point is, that everyone can read this thread, or re-read if they want. The few hundred people who eventually read this discussion know what has been said. It's irrelevant what I say, or you say, because they will ultimately be the judge, if there is a judge.

So let's continue the real discussion.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Okay, I hopped on my laptop because obviously trying to post on my phone wasn't working too well.

Here is what I was trying to say (no changes, just clarification).

If you are a single parent, you receive monthly moneys (based on the cost of living in area you live) towards costs associated with child rearing (i.e. rent, food, power, gas, car payment, etc) directly from the government. This would be available also to widows and widowers. These moneys would be in no way, shape or form reliant upon the other, none care giver parent paying into said fund.

Now, if you are the non care giver parent, you must pay into the fund, subject to penalty of law, just like taxes. Whatever lack in funds there is between the paying parent and receiving parent would be made up with taxes. In no way shape or form would a single mother have to contact, speak with, yell at or demand money directly from a dead beat dad. She gets her money from the U.S. government, on time, every time. But if dad doesn't pay into the fund, he is on the hook with Uncle Sam and his ass stomping boots.

Thus children never have to suffer from a lack of money, and yet the system is designed to be funded mostly by the non care giver parent.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
I think that's not a bad way to handle it, Stone_Wolf_. Some states have a middle ground where the state tries to collect and relay payments, but I think I'd prefer payments to be guaranteed by the state and collections to be a separate matter.

Tuukka, I think I missed the part where only parents who renounce parental rights would thereby put their children on the government's time. I admit that's not as bad as what I thought was being proposed. I still think that makes it too easy for irresponsible men to foist a bunch of kids on the state, though. This is already a problem, of course, in cases where the father isn't known or has no wages to garnish. I think it would make that problem somewhat worse by making it *very easy* to escape the responsibility, whereas now it's kind of hard (you have to move around a lot or avoid having a normal job etc., if you don't want the state taking part of your pay).
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
 
quote:
Dogbreath, you are looking at this cockeyed. Look at it from the point of view of the child...you know, the innocent party, the one who made no choice in the matter (to have sex and make children). Having sex leads to children, or at least the risk of children. If a person isn't mature enough to deal with the possible ramifications of sex, then they bloody well shouldn't have sex!.
That same argument would apply for banning BOTH abortions AND banning the right to put up a child for adoption.

Are you in favor of banning those things? If not, please justify why in those cases the point of view of the child doesn't matter.

quote:
Aris unfortunately hasn't been around to comment since his first posts, and thus hasn't been able to respond how important he thinks the rights of the child are (That particular issue was raised after he had left the discussion).
Any "rights of the child" that can be reduced to a paycheck can easily be reduced to a paycheck from the state, rather than a paycheck from the biological father.

I think the "rights of the child" claim is frankly a pretense -- though I'm not sure if it's a conscious or unconscious pretense. Either way when the issue is about *mother* rights (right to abortion, right to put up a child for adoption) the child's rights are never mentioned by the same people who mention the child's rights when the issue about father rights.

This makes sense only under an ordering of priorities which is:
(Desires of the Mother) take precedence over (Needs of the Child) which take precedence over (Desires of the Father).

In fact even the people who mention "child's rights" will in the next paragraph justify their position using the balance of rights and advantages and privileges between the genders -- for example Stone_Wolf after the paragraph about how supposedly Dogbreath was forgetting the 'innocent party' went on to say this:

quote:
Women carry 100% of the baby, men 0%, women suffer 100% of the risks of pregnancy and birth, men 0%. In the end we are giving the "fair" choices to the correct party. And as a result the party with the least on the line has the least control. Perfectly fair.
No, the party with the least control is the *child*. The *child* suffers the majority of the risks of pregnancy and birth.

That's how easily one switches from remembering all about the child-as-a-relevant-party to completely forgetting it's a party in the situation. Discuss abortion or adoption and it's about the woman's rights. Discuss father abandoning responsibility and it's about the child's rights, instead?

Anyway, there's no conflict for me, because as I said any parental check can be replaced by a government check, or better yet a direct offer of government goods and services as in Finland.

quote:
I don't think anyone has suggested that children should be on welfare by default. Can you quote that, I can't find it?
I don't know if it has been mentioned already, but I'd support it -- children should be financially supported by the government by default. See my Finland link above.

quote:
My female cousin lied to her boyfriend about her birth control for the purpose of forcing him to stay with her. It does happen, and it is despicable.

But if their relationship doesn't work out, he still made that child and should help him (boy baby) in this world.

Are you *sure* you want to argue that victims of a crime should be help morally responsible for the consequences of that crime? Replace "fraud" with "rape", and your argument could be used to argue that raped women should raise their rapists' babies.

And their relationship working out? From a moral perspective I'm sorry to say that I consider your female cousin to be indeed the moral equivalent of a rapist (or worse), same as with a man who'd deliberately inseminate a woman against her will -- yeah, even a woman who has consented to sex does not need to imply consent to reproduction.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Stone_Wolf: Oregon uses a system pretty much identical to that. It works really well and is probably the best I've seen in the US.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
If you re-read the post you just wrote, you are all but admitting that you are imagining stuff that nobody has actually said.
Wow, that doesn't actually remotely logically follow at all.

I guess that's all I need to know about how you are going to jump to interpret my words.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Back home at my computer now, and I wanted to flesh out a subject I briefly touched on earlier - that forced fatherhood is an antiquated concept that is no longer morally acceptable in modern society. (Though I believe fatherhood should be strongly encouraged)

Let's look at the time period when child support came into existence in the USA. Most states began passing comprehensive child support laws in the late 19th century, and the USA passed it's first federal child support law in 1950. Some factors:

1) Women had little to no choice in whether or not they wanted to be pregnant. Contraception was not commonly available, abortion was illegal, adoption was somewhat of a novelty, and mostly limited to orphans. Bastards were heavily stigmatized, and if she was married and the father wanted to keep the children, she had no chance in hell of getting rid of them. (legally, I mean) Leaving a marriage wasn't very economically feasible which leads me to:
2) Few women were able to earn a living wage, and that was mostly very menial labor as cooks and servants, or as teachers and librarians. To choose to not have children, by which I mean, to choose abstinence (by not marrying), meant you would live the rest of your life in near poverty and face heavy social stigma for being a "spinster" or "old maid."
3) Unmarried or divorced women with children were considered "damaged goods" and they had a very, very hard time finding (another) husband.
4) Therefore, the male in a sexual relationship had almost all the power - financially and socially.
5) A man who left his wife or a man who knocked a girl up and didn't marry her was essentially condemning her and her children to a life of poverty, since she had *no choice* but raise the children, and was extremely unlikely to earn enough money to comfortably support them, and was unlikely to marry.
6) To help create social equality, and to protect and support knocked up/divorced women and their children, the concept of paternal responsibility was enforced. Since men had vastly more money, or at least, were far more likely to be able to *make* money than women, and they knew full well the unavoidable consequences of having sex with a woman, they were expected to use that money to support her and her children, even if they (the fathers) didn't actually act as parents to said children.

The basic takeaway, though, is that child support was created to create and enforce *equality* (or some semblance thereof) between the sexes - men had the option to choose whether or not they wanted to be parents, women did not. Therefore, that option was taken away from men as well, so neither sex had the option.

Stay with me...

Now let's look at the present day.
1) Women are able to choose whether or not they want to be pregnant 100% of the time. Birth control is highly reliable and cheap, and abortion is legal. Adoption is common, and with gay marriage becoming legalized in more and more states and gay families becoming far more prevalent, it's about to get a hell of a lot more common.
2) Women can pursue any career and are, on average, capable of earning similar (though unfortunately often not equal) wages as their male counterparts.
3) When two people have consensual sex, it's done with the full volition of both parties. Women are not penalized for remaining abstinent, for not being in sexual relationships, or for choosing not to marry, or for choosing not to have children. On the contrary, women who don't marry often have far more successful careers and earn far more money than women who do.
4) Paternal responsibility is still enforced in exactly the same way as it was in the early 1900s. *Everything* else regarding sexuality, sexism, and reproductive rights has changed. Forced fatherhood has *not* changed at all.

So now we've seen a paradigm shift. Where once women had no choice in whether or not to be a parent, they now have a guaranteed choice. It would seem only logical, then, that in order to create an equal society once more that men would likewise be returned to the state of also being guaranteed that choice. It seems perfectly logical, and yet this archaic, now immoral tradition of forced fatherhood is so deeply engrained in our social conscience that the mere mention of abolishing it creates an irrational outrage from many people, even after being told why it's immoral. Often these people, despite being fiercely pro-choice, will say things that are almost identical to what pro-lifers say about abortion. "If he didn't want the responsibility, he shouldn't have had sex!" "it's for the good of the child" "it's his own damn fault for not being safe, and now he has to live with the consequences." Somehow, some way, men are still assigned the bulk of the responsibility for a pregnancy and are not allowed to relinquish that responsibility, despite in many cases (especially one night stands) being more or less sperm donors.

Some caveats:

I consider marriage (unless otherwise specified in a prenup) to be, among other things, a contract to care for your children. I don't think a man should be allowed to disavow responsibility for his wife's children. And I don't think, if he divorces his wife after the child is born, that he should have the right to disavow responsibility. The reason is simple: she bore that child under the contractual agreement that you would play an equal part in caring for it - you shouldn't be allowed to break that contract.

I think single mothers and fathers who cannot make enough money to adequately support their children should receive child support from the state.

I think if a man disavows responsibility, he must do so before the child is born - or if he didn't know about the pregnancy, do so as soon as he finds out. (say within 30 days) It should be notarized and be legally binding. If a man accepts that responsibility, he should *never* be allowed to later relinquish it. Like with marriage, he chose to accept that responsibility.

I think females should have the exact same rights to disavow responsibility as men, if for moral or other reasons they choose not to have an abortion. They should do so before giving birth (or within 30 days after giving birth), and it should likewise be notarized and legally binding. Should she do so, the state should first offer custody to the father. If he denies responsibility, the child should be taken is as a ward of the state until it's adopted.

I firmly believe that this concept of voluntary parenthood will have a positive impact on our society. I also believe it will not cause a significant rise in abandoned children or single parent households. People who choose to marry and raise children don't do it merely because they're legally forced to do so. Many, many, many people who *can't* have children wait years to adopt children for the privilege of raising them. Heck, I'm too young to really afford children, but I desperately want to have them, and would in a heartbeat if I thought I could take care of them. Just playing with my little nieces and nephews makes me long to have children of my own to love and care for, and I can't wait until I'm ready to do so. But my own preferences shouldn't be shoved down other people's throats.
 
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
 
You know I've never really given this any sort of thought, mainly because I don't know a single father who even pays their child support, but now that I do, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't have to.

They chose to have sex, and are no longer the primary care giver. Why should they not have to own up to their actions? Everytime I have sex, both me and my girlfriend face the possibility that the pill doesn't work, again there is no reason every person who chooses to have sex should not have to face the same possibility.

And facing that possibility means facing the reality thŕt if a child is born both parents will have some level of financial commitment.

I like the idea that the state could pick up the slack left behind by deadbeat dads/moms, but I don't like the idea that the fathers could have only as much financial commitment as any other tax-payer. Why should every tax-payer have to pick up the slack because you wanted to get your dick wet?
 
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:

5) A man who left his wife or a man who knocked a girl up and didn't marry her was essentially condemning her and her children to a life of poverty, since she had *no choice* but raise the children, and was extremely unlikely to earn enough money to comfortably support them, and was unlikely to marry.

I don't see how this isn't still pretty much true for a huge segment of society.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Women have access to ubiquitous and cheap contraception, as well as abortion and adoption. If they give birth, it's entirely their choice to do so.

As far as the "left his wife" part, see the appropriate caveat. I think child support should always be paid in case of divorce by whichever party doesn't care for the children, since they were already taking care of the kids at that point.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
In anticipation of the next argument - "men have access to ubiquitous and cheap contraception too!" - yes, this is absolutely correct. It's entirely their choice to knock a girl up, just like it's entirely said girl's choice to get knocked up. It's the equal responsibility of both parties, and both parties should logically have the same ability to relinquish that responsibility.

Please don't take this offensively - I'm not making assumptions about what you are or aren't going to say, it's merely a response I thought of as soon as I posted, so I figured I should address it.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
At the end of the day, it's all about what's best for the child.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
No, what's best for the child is simply the most important thing to consider. See post 102, for example, on why I think my proposed arrangement would be better for the child. The simple fact that the child's interests are most important and should come first isn't a valid reason for supporting an immoral or discriminatory system, especially when changing said system would have no negative impact on the child, and probably have at least some positive impact.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
The simple fact that the child's interests are most important and should come first isn't a valid reason for supporting an immoral or discriminatory system, especially when changing said system would have no negative impact on the child, and probably have at least some positive impact.
Any plan that could reasonably guarantee me a better outcome, via legislation, for kids in single parent families, I'm automatically down for. And yeah, this is an ideal case.

People are just really skeptical that said ideal case would actually happen through this layer of concern. I'm welcome to seeing some or any real proposed legislation that doesn't just stop at benefiting the biological fathers.
 
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
 
quote:
Why should every tax-payer have to pick up the slack because you wanted to get your dick wet?
Are you against public education and universal healthcare? I'm in favor of those things (the latter, even more so than the former). Which means that a tax-payer *does* pay for every new child born, an investment towards a better society.

Again I ask (something that NOBODY has yet answered) if you object to new mothers having the right to put up children for adoption.

The adoption system already means that someone else will pay for the child that the sex of two strangers conceived (or if you only understand it only when put in your own crude terms, a man wanted to get his dick wet, a woman wanted to get her pussy wet, they decided to cooperate in getting their dicks and pussies wet at the same time.)
 
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
 
Dog--Would you agree that if a man and woman have sex, and the woman gets pregnant, the man should cover half the cost of the medical care to give birth to the child, even if he relinquishes his rights to that child. After all, if the mother relinquishes her rights to the child at adoption, she still has costs and responsibilities to make sure the child is born as healthy as possible.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:

...I imagine when you go home with a girl you met at a club, you aren't agreeing to marry her. Or riase her children. You're merely consenting to engaging in sexual intercourse with her - if she chooses not to use protection (or make you use protection) and decides not to terminate the pregnancy, then that's wonderful for her! But you shouldn't have to spend 18 years paying for her child if you don't want to be a father. You're not using her and leaving her - she took just as much pleasure from the act (I hope) and was just as aware of the consequences as you were. And she has the choice to become a parent or not - you should have that choice too.

Not her children. Every bit as much his children as hers.
 
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
The point is that women get the choice as to whether or not they are parents, from a legal standpoint. Men do not. This is, definitionally, not a fair system.

It is not coming from a position of biological parity. Pregnancy is not, as a biological reality, provided in a way which allows for any sense of meaningful 'fairness' or 'equality' in this. You can't create a situation in which both biological father and biological mother have to sign off on a pregnancy in order for it to be permitted to come to term.
So? Who said we need to do that? We're not talking about awarding men rights to determine whether a woman gives birth to a child. Repeat: not a single person has advocated that. We're talking about a man's right to accept the legal responsibility of parenthood once the child is born. There are mechanisms in place that allow the mother to choose whether they accept the rights of legal parenthood. They do not exist for men.

This is (a) an inequality, and (b) a problem with several (I think) fair solutions. You don't think it's our biggest problem? BFD. Who's saying otherwise? That's a moronic reason to not discuss it.
 
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
The simple fact that the child's interests are most important and should come first isn't a valid reason for supporting an immoral or discriminatory system, especially when changing said system would have no negative impact on the child, and probably have at least some positive impact.
Any plan that could reasonably guarantee me a better outcome, via legislation, for kids in single parent families, I'm automatically down for. And yeah, this is an ideal case.

People are just really skeptical that said ideal case would actually happen through this layer of concern. I'm welcome to seeing some or any real proposed legislation that doesn't just stop at benefiting the biological fathers.

Agree 100%. I would loathe any solution that benefits the biological fathers at the expense of the child.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Just pointing out...

Birth control is not 100% effective. No birth control is. Birth control that one party is sabotaging or actively refusing to use (as in the previous examples) is 100% ineffective.

Abortion is legal, but it's not as easy to get anymore and getting tougher all the time as laws get passed restricting access, setting early deadlines, creating more hoops to jump through and more fees to pay, defunding Planned parenthood and regulating clinics completely out of business. In several states now if you can't afford to travel, you won't be getting an abortion.

Adoption is available and easier than it was, but it's still biased toward healthy white babies. Putting your child up for adoption is no guarantee it will result in what's best for the child.

This is not to comment on the ongoing argument, just to point out that three flat assumptions that have been made are not as clear cut as presented.

[ June 18, 2013, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
Dog--Would you agree that if a man and woman have sex, and the woman gets pregnant, the man should cover half the cost of the medical care to give birth to the child, even if he relinquishes his rights to that child. After all, if the mother relinquishes her rights to the child at adoption, she still has costs and responsibilities to make sure the child is born as healthy as possible.

Yes, absolutely. Mostly because many women who don't want to keep their children are not be comfortable with abortion for moral or other reasons. As others have said this is an inherently unequal situation - women carry the baby, men do not. So enforcing financial equality in this aspect is perfectly ok, IMO.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
The point is that women get the choice as to whether or not they are parents, from a legal standpoint. Men do not. This is, definitionally, not a fair system.

It is not coming from a position of biological parity. Pregnancy is not, as a biological reality, provided in a way which allows for any sense of meaningful 'fairness' or 'equality' in this. You can't create a situation in which both biological father and biological mother have to sign off on a pregnancy in order for it to be permitted to come to term.
So? Who said we need to do that? We're not talking about awarding men rights to determine whether a woman gives birth to a child. Repeat: not a single person has advocated that. We're talking about a man's right to accept the legal responsibility of parenthood once the child is born. There are mechanisms in place that allow the mother to choose whether they accept the rights of legal parenthood. They do not exist for men.

This is (a) an inequality, and (b) a problem with several (I think) fair solutions. You don't think it's our biggest problem? BFD. Who's saying otherwise? That's a moronic reason to not discuss it.

Everything about this post confuses me. I think you're missing the point of most of what I am saying here but more important, I think, is to note that there's no sense to be made of the statement "mechanisms in place that allow the mother to choose whether they accept the rights of legal parenthood" — wellllllll okay? isn't really the issue.

It's that a bunch of men feel that it is an injustice that they are forced to accept a burden of legal parenthood. It's not they are allowed to choose to 'accept the rights of legal parenthood,' it's that they feel it is unjust that they are 'forced to accept the burden of legal parenthood' — that women get to decide this for them.

If we're talking about the right to accept rights of fatherhood as a man, yeah, there are mechanisms for that. You can fight for custody, for instance.

as for the rest of my words, the point is that since men and women have biologically different and fundamentally unequal stakes in pregnancy, you can't force parity by demanding that men and women be considered and treated equally by the law. There are a lot of positions which rely on this terrible line of thought, even unintentionally. If anyone wants to disagree with the position itself, plainly stated, that'll be QUITE A THING.
 
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:

as for the rest of my words, the point is that since men and women have biologically different and fundamentally unequal stakes in pregnancy, you can't force parity by demanding that men and women be considered and treated equally by the law. There are a lot of positions which rely on this terrible line of thought, even unintentionally. If anyone wants to disagree with the position itself, plainly stated, that'll be QUITE A THING.

You are not taking away anything from women by giving men the right to deny legal paternity. How do people go from "men and women have biologically different and unequal stakes in pregnancy" to "men should have no legal way out of having fatherhood decided for them?"

It's even wrong to say that a man is 50% responsible for the child, because his contribution is merely fertilization. Every day that follows the woman is making a decision to keep the child. She can get morning after pills...or an abortion as soon she realizes she's pregnant. Or give the child up for adoption, in which case it might be fair to ask the man to, at the most, contribute to her during the pregnancy. Differences in biological roles should not mean granting one gender the right to decide for the other gender a major, life altering unasked for burden.

At the very the least, the fact that a man cannot force a woman to give birth to his child should have a corresponding right for men: They cannot be forced to become fathers.
 
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
 
It's an interesting topic to think about, but it's not going to go anywhere, because this issue does not affect the well off and the elites. It's only working and middle class men most affected by this.

In the 60s, many elite women wanted the right of legal abortion for themselves and for their daughters, so their agitation for it actually had an effect. Elite men on the other hand just don't care about Forced Fatherhood, so it isn't going to go anywhere.

[ June 18, 2013, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: Sa'eed ]
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
sa'eed is proving my point something powerful

I'm not happy i get to rub that in anyone's face, but here we go!
 
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:


It's that a bunch of men feel that it is an injustice that they are forced to accept a burden of legal parenthood. It's not they are allowed to choose to 'accept the rights of legal parenthood,' it's that they feel it is unjust that they are 'forced to accept the burden of legal parenthood' — that women get to decide this for them.


Oh, they don't have a problem with it being decided for them. They have a problem with women deciding for them, because these bunch of men are patriarchy supporting sexists.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Whelp, there goes the thread.
 
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
 
I expected it to happen on page 1 to be honest.
 
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
The answer for both men and women is like Louis C.K. says "... (to) decide whether to have sex with their *brains*" Contrary to his assumption, both men and women can and should do this from their earliest sexual experiences. The powers of creation are enormous and life changing. That's why one should use them very carefully. Children are 100% dependent on their parents to make wise choices about when to bring them into the world by having sex. Nobody is guaranteed responsibility-free sex in this life, but babies really should be able to trust their parents to give them a stable life in a strong family where they're wanted and loved. Life can happen to anyone, but at least you can start out with that expectation. You have the power to truly screw up the life of the new person you could bring into existence by choosing to have sex with the wrong person, (or by being the wrong person yourself).

Birth control works except when it doesn't. I know of dozens of unplanned pregnancies among my acquaintances. Birth control can't really work as well in real life as they claim from studies. I think Nature conspires with our hindbrains, or something, to get people pregnant. After all, all your ancestors going back billions of years are the ones who *did* get pregnant. Think about that.

So, are you prepared to provide for this possible new person you may create by having sex? If yes, then proceed. If no, then masturbate instead. This is called life. It doesn't revolve around you, and you're responsible for your actions.

Nobody is guaranteed responsibility-free sex. Choose whether or not to have sex using your *brain*. Do you understand this? If yes, you're old enough and responsible enough to have sex. If no, you're still a kid and not old enough to have sex. I should draw a flowchart. This is all very, very simple.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Wow, that's not condescending or arrogant at all. One question, though, how do you propose going about telling people whether or not they are allowed to have sex? How do you suggest we enforce this idea - castration, maybe? Because that sounds like a *great* idea to the overwhelming problem of absent fathers - just think more!
 
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
Natural consequences are all the enforcement the idea needs. Education about all this should happen in multiple formats and locations, by parents, schools, churches, the internet, posters, books, scouts, tv, etc. so that kids have the least chance of ignorance causing them to make mistakes that mess up their own lives and their kids' lives. The decision is up to them, then they live with the consequences, which are still generally much more significant for mothers than fathers, despite gains made in the last century.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
ak said one must ask themselves if they are ready for sex. One can not "enforce" common sense.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
My "think harder" stick says otherwise.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Use it too much it becomes a "think slower" stick...use it more than that and it becomes a "murder weapon".
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:
Dogbreath, you are looking at this cockeyed. Look at it from the point of view of the child...you know, the innocent party, the one who made no choice in the matter (to have sex and make children). Having sex leads to children, or at least the risk of children. If a person isn't mature enough to deal with the possible ramifications of sex, then they bloody well shouldn't have sex!.
That same argument would apply for banning BOTH abortions AND banning the right to put up a child for adoption.

Are you in favor of banning those things? If not, please justify why in those cases the point of view of the child doesn't matter.

quote:
Aris unfortunately hasn't been around to comment since his first posts, and thus hasn't been able to respond how important he thinks the rights of the child are (That particular issue was raised after he had left the discussion).
Any "rights of the child" that can be reduced to a paycheck can easily be reduced to a paycheck from the state, rather than a paycheck from the biological father.

I think the "rights of the child" claim is frankly a pretense -- though I'm not sure if it's a conscious or unconscious pretense. Either way when the issue is about *mother* rights (right to abortion, right to put up a child for adoption) the child's rights are never mentioned by the same people who mention the child's rights when the issue about father rights.

This makes sense only under an ordering of priorities which is:
(Desires of the Mother) take precedence over (Needs of the Child) which take precedence over (Desires of the Father).

In fact even the people who mention "child's rights" will in the next paragraph justify their position using the balance of rights and advantages and privileges between the genders -- for example Stone_Wolf after the paragraph about how supposedly Dogbreath was forgetting the 'innocent party' went on to say this:

quote:
Women carry 100% of the baby, men 0%, women suffer 100% of the risks of pregnancy and birth, men 0%. In the end we are giving the "fair" choices to the correct party. And as a result the party with the least on the line has the least control. Perfectly fair.
No, the party with the least control is the *child*. The *child* suffers the majority of the risks of pregnancy and birth.

That's how easily one switches from remembering all about the child-as-a-relevant-party to completely forgetting it's a party in the situation. Discuss abortion or adoption and it's about the woman's rights. Discuss father abandoning responsibility and it's about the child's rights, instead?

Anyway, there's no conflict for me, because as I said any parental check can be replaced by a government check, or better yet a direct offer of government goods and services as in Finland.

quote:
I don't think anyone has suggested that children should be on welfare by default. Can you quote that, I can't find it?
I don't know if it has been mentioned already, but I'd support it -- children should be financially supported by the government by default. See my Finland link above.

quote:
My female cousin lied to her boyfriend about her birth control for the purpose of forcing him to stay with her. It does happen, and it is despicable.

But if their relationship doesn't work out, he still made that child and should help him (boy baby) in this world.

Are you *sure* you want to argue that victims of a crime should be help morally responsible for the consequences of that crime? Replace "fraud" with "rape", and your argument could be used to argue that raped women should raise their rapists' babies.

And their relationship working out? From a moral perspective I'm sorry to say that I consider your female cousin to be indeed the moral equivalent of a rapist (or worse), same as with a man who'd deliberately inseminate a woman against her will -- yeah, even a woman who has consented to sex does not need to imply consent to reproduction.

I just wanted to say that I'll be addressing this when I get some free time on the 'puter...can't possibly do it on my phone.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ak:
Natural consequences are all the enforcement the idea needs. Education about all this should happen in multiple formats and locations, by parents, schools, churches, the internet, posters, books, scouts, tv, etc. so that kids have the least chance of ignorance causing them to make mistakes that mess up their own lives and their kids' lives.

Yeah I don't think I want my kids' sex education to have anything to do with the internet or churches, both of which have a supremely reliable habit of mucking the problem up worse for kids and generally being terrible at it.

I want whatever sex education they have that doesn't come from us to come from comprehensive non-shamey health and sexuality curriculum at school.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:

I want whatever sex education they have that doesn't come from us to come from comprehensive non-shamey health and sexuality curriculum at school.

+1

I remember talking to a girl who forgot her pill for two days, so (she told me) "I just took 3 the following day." I can't count the number of guys who don't know preseminal ejaculation contains some sperm. I'd guess lack of education is probably the biggest cause of unwanted pregnancy amoung young people, it's a pretty huge problem in the US.

*EDIT* I realize my post may be a little unclear. I'm referring to how schools in the U.S. are usually actively sabotaged in their attempts to teach adolescents how to have sex safely and responsibly. Instead they receive abstinence only education - basically, they get told "this is how it works, don't do it until you're married." So when these young adults become sexually active (in high school, or as adults) they usually are not well equipped to have safe sex - any education they have on the matter is second hand at best. This isn't even going into all the more complex consequences, like shaming and making kids think sex is "dirty" making teens less likely to have a healthy attitude towards sexuality or practice safe sex, and so forth.

[ June 20, 2013, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
 
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
Abortion and forced fatherhood are both necessary evils.

Some days I look around and realize how much humanity sucks, right down to our crappy genes.

And some days I notice how well we do for ourselves despite that fact. I'm surprised at how little animosity there is in this thread, despite the complications of arguing principle vs. reality.
 
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
 
I think you all are overestimating the difficulty of getting a new ID and social security number.

Come on down to a border state sometime. Two thousand dollars will buy you a new identity so genuine that your own mother won't recognize you. If you're strapped for cash and need a temporary bridge, a lot less then that will get you documents sufficient for employment.

You might have difficulties down the road when it comes to retirement, but some guys when faced with a woman who insists on dumping a kid he doesn't want on him, with all the ruination that implies, aren't going to be thinking long term.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
quote:
I can't count the number of guys who don't know preseminal ejaculation contains some sperm. I'd guess lack of education is probably the biggest cause of unwanted pregnancy amoung young people, it's a pretty huge problem in the US.
It's a minor miracle I survived high school without becoming a parent.

Sex ed at my high school was sorely lacking. And at 17, I wasn't particularly interesting in any research that wasn't hands on.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:
Dogbreath, you are looking at this cockeyed. Look at it from the point of view of the child...you know, the innocent party, the one who made no choice in the matter (to have sex and make children). Having sex leads to children, or at least the risk of children. If a person isn't mature enough to deal with the possible ramifications of sex, then they bloody well shouldn't have sex!.
That same argument would apply for banning BOTH abortions AND banning the right to put up a child for adoption.

Are you in favor of banning those things? If not, please justify why in those cases the point of view of the child doesn't matter.

For abortion, yes a potential child does have a stake in being born, which should be taken into account. Unfortunately that stake is less then the stake the mother has of body sovereignty. It is by far a greater evil to have the government force women to have a child against her will then to end a potential life before it ever was. And here is one of the main reasons why:

quote:
Every minute, at least one woman dies from complications related to pregnancy or childbirth – that means 529 000 women a year. In addition, for every woman who dies in childbirth, around 20 more suffer injury, infection or disease – approximately 10 million women each year.
As for adoption, well, I just don't see the argument.

quote:
I think the "rights of the child" claim is frankly a pretense -- though I'm not sure if it's a conscious or unconscious pretense. Either way when the issue is about *mother* rights (right to abortion, right to put up a child for adoption) the child's rights are never mentioned by the same people who mention the child's rights when the issue about father rights.
I explained the "right" to abortion. As to the "right" to putting a child up for adoption, how is it even a little bit in favor of the child to force them to be with parents who do not want them vs. adoptive parents who -do- want them? Would it be more fair if someone gave up a child for adoption to have to pay a special tax until such time as they are adopted? So if a woman gave up a child then both parties still have to pay? I'd be fine with that.

quote:
No, the party with the least control is the *child*. The *child* suffers the majority of the risks of pregnancy and birth.
Not even remotely. A woman who risks her life and health in pregnancy and birth is risking her established life, not a potential life. Does a potential life deserve consideration? Absolutely. More then an established life? Not a chance.

quote:
Anyway, there's no conflict for me, because as I said any parental check can be replaced by a government check, or better yet a direct offer of government goods and services as in [URL=http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/finlands-baby-boxes-a-nations-156825]Finland.
I'm not a socialist. But if that blows up your skirt, fine. I still disagree.

quote:
]Are you *sure* you want to argue that victims of a crime should be help morally responsible for the consequences of that crime? Replace "fraud" with "rape", and your argument could be used to argue that raped women should raise their rapists' babies.
Not legitimately. Birth control is not 100%, so in having sex with my cousin, he knowingly put himself at risk of being a father. That she lied to him and vastly increased that risk -is- dishonest and deplorable, but that's about as far as it goes.

quote:
And their relationship working out? From a moral perspective I'm sorry to say that I consider your female cousin to be indeed the moral equivalent of a rapist (or worse), same as with a man who'd deliberately inseminate a woman against her will -- yeah, even a woman who has consented to sex does not need to imply consent to reproduction.
This is utter nonsense. As I just said, any sex has a risk of pregnancy, and when both parties accept that risk and consent to sex they have made their bed. Rape victims do not consent to any risk, they are victims of rape Or are you really suggesting otherwise? If I were you I would strongly recommend reexamining my moral stance if you really believe that of those two things that sabotaging/lying about birth control is worse then rape.
 
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
 
Oh baloney. Any time you eat meat or spinach or dairy at a restaurant, you run the risk of getting food poisoning. And the owner certainly isn't forcing the food down your throat. It sure as hell doesn't mean you're consenting to be poisoned, though. Consenting to sex is *not* the same as consenting to having, birthing, or raising a child.
 
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
 
It's a shame that you're against this kind of socialism. I would have thought most people could get behind the idea of making sure all children are properly taken care of, regardless of who is at fault for the child not being taken care of in the first place.

I'm going to be honest here. If I were to knock up a one night stand, I'd look her straight in the eye and tell her that I would help pay for an abortion, but that if she makes the choice to have a child then she'll be entirely by herself. I'd tell her this nice and early, so she had plenty of time to make her choice. If a fake identity is required, so be it - I'm not about to allow some random woman to ruin my life because she wants to have a child.

If it were to happen in a long term relationship, then I would probably act differently. Having to pay for two homes instead of one, and having a partner you can trust to work with you instead of against you, mean a lot.
 
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
 
quote:
Every minute, at least one woman dies from complications related to pregnancy or childbirth – that means 529 000 women a year. In addition, for every woman who dies in childbirth, around 20 more suffer injury, infection or disease – approximately 10 million women each year.
Hold on. Let's keep the stats within the context of the discussion. In the US:

Maternal mortality: 650 deaths per year on average
Approximate number of births: 4 million*

It's an unfortunate possibility but an incredibly unlikely one, and the weight it carries in an argument should be proportional.

*2010 data
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
Consenting to sex is *not* the same as consenting to having, birthing, or raising a child.

Sure, but consenting to sex comes with the risk of conceiving a child. And since that risk is always present one must accept that consenting to sex is consenting to the possibility of creating offspring. Maybe you wish it wasn't so, but nature doesn't care about your wishes, and neither do I.

quote:
Originally posted by Obama:
It's a shame that you're against this kind of socialism. I would have thought most people could get behind the idea of making sure all children are properly taken care of, regardless of who is at fault for the child not being taken care of in the first place.

The idea I proposed had all children taken care of, but with people who caused these children to be made and in need in the first place to foot the bill (or most of it). So, it isn't that I'm not down for providing for children, it's that I don't think it's okay for people to create children in the world and then just waltz off Scott free. Yes, the children should be taken care of, but it just doesn't matter what your intentions are, if you had consensual sex then you should be on the hook for the outcome.

quote:
If I were to knock up a one night stand, I'd look her straight in the eye and tell her that I would help pay for an abortion, but that if she makes the choice to have a child then she'll be entirely by herself.
This is immoral and wrong and I feel you are not honorable or principled. Not that you necessarily care what I think.

quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
Hold on. Let's keep the stats within the context of the discussion. In the US:

Maternal mortality: 650 deaths per year on average
Approximate number of births: 4 million*

It's an unfortunate possibility but an incredibly unlikely one, and the weight it carries in an argument should be proportional.

*2010 data

Fair enough. While that does change the frequency it sure doesn't change the stakes.
 
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
 
Yeah, sorry. I have both honor and principles. One of them is not allowing other people to make life changing decisions on my behalf.

Having sex is not giving consent to have children. It is consenting to have sexual intercourse. Birth control and abortion mean that a child never has to be an inevitability. It is a choice.

You might as well say that jumping out of a plane is giving consent to splatter on the ground and die. But it's not, because we have parachutes. Just like we have birth control and abortion.
 
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
 
And consent to the possibility of fertilizing an egg is not the same as consent to raising what comes of it if the woman chooses to bear the child.
 
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
 
I'd hold off actually dropping things and taking off until the paternity results came back, though. After all, if a woman sleeps with YOU the first night you meet, you can't be sure you're really the father.
 
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
You really are a shining example of moral fiber.
 
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
 
Well thanks, Stone Wolf. Not surprisingly, I agree with you that my moral system is a fine one.
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2