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.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
^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.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boots: I wouldn't object to that, as it would remove the inequality aspect. Still sucks for both parties, though.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
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*.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
...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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.)
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
