This cartoon is perfect. Go read the whole thing.
Major Trump donors who complained of immigrant ‘invasion’ used Mexican workers illegally https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/20/uline-mexican-workers-trump
-
The problem is not the “echo chamber” phenomenon. It is the fact that reactionary information sources disseminate falsehoods about the…
Also I love the chicken fat on this one (and that the text of the chicken fat is big enough…
I don't think of myself as complaining about conservative echo chambers so much as I think political echo chamber like…
But in the current political moment, conservatives are complaining a lot about liberal “echo chambers,” which makes this the right…
-
how bout firing a laser at her that magically makes her aborted? I hear that’s acceptable behaviour.
Is using fictional lasers to mess with the reproductive autonomy of other fictional people to use as a metaphor against the rules?
Mythago:
And you keep avoiding the point that, in advocating C4M contingent upon the women having post-coital choice, and I’m arguing about how I think the world should be not saying that it is so.
It should be, and would be, if I had my way.
No I am not. That you keep attributing views to me that I do not hold and have not expressed is getting tedious.
What I am advocating would give women more choices, and commensurately greater responsibilities than men. Pregnant women would have the choice to have an abortion, or not to have one, but would also have the responsibility to ensure that any child they bear is adequately supported. Ideally they would arrange this provision before the option of an abortion was no longer available.
I’m not trying to abolish the concept of parental responsibility. I am trying to make it “opt in”. If a pregnant woman cannot (or will not) provide 100% of the support the child needs, and cannot find (or will not accept) another or others (possibly the father) willing to make up the shortfall, then she should not bear the child.
Feminists want women to have post coital birth control options. I do too. Where we differ is that I want to attach responsibility to those options, the responsibility to ensure that any child a woman does bear is provided for.
I also realise that holding women responsible in this way doesn’t mean that they will always act responsibly. There will always be unwanted babies which is why the state must be the provider of last resort. But maybe we could reduce the number through an advertising campaign, similar to the “men can stop rape” ones. “Women can stop producing babies they can’t support and nobody else wants”.
Yeah, I can really see feminists going for that.
That’s probably because it’s sophistry. It is women’s choice, to have an abortion, or not to do so, which in the latter case results in another child in the world.
Men’s choice, in this context, refers to the choice to commit to supporting a (future) child, or not to do so. It has no effect whatsoever on whether there is another child in the world, unless the woman bases her choice on his, which she’s entitled to do. But it’s still her choice.
Going or not going into the army is no longer a reproductive decision.
Paying child support is an obligation to a born child. It is not a reproductive decision.
This has been explained to you, Daran. Your faux-ignorance is not amusing.
Also: Leta, you’re both rude and tedious, a combination which does not incline me to allow you to keep posting here. It’s your choice, become 1) less rude, 2) less tedious, or 3) less here.
you are intellectually dishonest but never mind if all you can think of as an argument is “think of the children!” combined with “women have rights men have responsibilities”… i give up. wont post again.
And that’s 3. Adieu, Leta.
Richard Jeffrey Newman:
So save people from hunting through the thread, here’s your comment in full:
And my reply after quoting the above from “I am just pointing out…”:
In your comment, you used the word “asymmetry” to refer to two things. You first used it to refer to the asymmetry between how the law treats pregnant women and unwilling fathers. The second time you used it to refer to the underlying biological asymmetry which the law “tr[ies] to account for”. So the instant sentence parses to me like this:
“I am not arguing that the law accounts for the underlying biological assymetry as effectively as it might”. I took that to mean that you think it perhaps insufficiently accounts for the underlying biological assymetry, and “might” account for it better by being made even more favourable to the women or disfavourable to the man.
However I agree that it could be read to mean that you think it perhaps overaccounts for the underlying biological asymmetry. If that is what you meant, then my reply was redundant.
What ignorance, faux or otherwise? I have been pointing out the difference between child support and woman’s reproductive decisions many times in this thread, included the comment which immediately preceded yours.
My point here was that the man’s obligation to support the resulting child means that her post-coital reproductive decisions involve his body.
The feminist argument against prohibiting abortions (or making them mandatory in certain circumstances) is that this denies women their bodily autonomy.
So does bodily autonomy only matter in reproduction?
Or does it only matter for women?
You can control all reproductive decisions that happen within your body. I can control all reproductive decisions that happen within my body. This is true for everyone.
Once a child is born, that child has a right under the law to be taken care of. Therefore, it requires support from both mother and father. Both mother and father must support the child. If it is a loss of bodily autonomy for the father to support the child, then it is also a loss that affects the mother since she must do likewise. They remain on equal ground.
However, it is stretching the term outside common use to say that the requirement to provide money is a loss of bodily autonomy. If that’s true, then you have lost bodily autonomy since you need to provide your own food and housing. This is not a good argument, as you are — being not stupid — well aware.
The ground is not equal if she – having access to post-coital birth control – choose instead to have a child, and he did not. You say that born children have “a right under the law to be taken care of” and we both agree that this is how it should be. Then you say “Both mother and father must support the child”. That’s correct as a statement of the law as it is, but it’s not a necessary consequence of born children’s right to be taken care of.
I am aware of it, which is why I’m not making that argument. For those who are capable of it, having to work to support themselves is not per se particularly problematic. Neither is having to work to support children you chose to have. What is at issue, is having to work to support children you didn’t choose to have.
Also having to work, even if it’s only to support yourself, becomes problematic when the only available economic choices are physically harmful or dangerous. Feminists are rightly concerned about women forced economically into prostitution or sweatshop work. For men, workplace dangers are that much greater.
The situation Leta described is where these cases intersect, and men are forced, not just economically but by law, into performing dangerous work to support children they didn’t choose to have.
And that should be addressed. Under issues like worker rights where those jobs should be made less dangerous. Yes, it’s wrong to force *anyone* to re-enlist.
However, neither of these is an argument against child support. It’s an argument against dangerous work environments.
Let’s repeat the basics again:
1) All parties get access to reproductive decisions that happen within their own bodies.
2) All parties must support born children.
That’s it. That’s all. It’s simple, and finished, and fair. You may abort any and all pregnancies that happen in your body, or you may choose to continue them, and so may I.
Mandolin,
I run into a problem with treating “bodily autonomy” as some sort of inviolable thing. Why should it be? Why IS it, in your view?
Yes, it is unpleasant to have someone violate your bodily autonomy. but of course, it’s also unpleasant to have someone, say, toss you in jail. it is unpleasant to have to take a job, or live a life, that you do not wish to do.
It is not apparent to me that the impact on a woman from having a man be able to “declare nonfatherhood” at some reasonable time post conception is necessarily worse than the the impact on a man from having a woman declare him liable for fatherhood. This would obviously be modified if there were no abortion available, but let’s hypothetically say that they would be so.
The main argument against that is, as always, bodily autonomy. So what? We all know that an abortion is safer than a pregnancy, for example, as well as cheaper. So what if EXTERNAL forces (the availability or lack thereof of the genetic father to support, care for, etc the mother/child/both) oush someone towards making a particular decisino? Why is taht a bad thing?
“The main argument against that is, as always, bodily autonomy. So what? We all know that an abortion is safer than a pregnancy, for example, as well as cheaper. So what if EXTERNAL forces (the availability or lack thereof of the genetic father to support, care for, etc the mother/child/both) oush someone towards making a particular decisino? Why is taht a bad thing?”
Seriously — go read some of the writing of women of color on the subject.
Start here and here.
It’s probably not an appropriate subject for the thread, ftr.
It is not apparent to me that the impact on a woman from having a man be able to “declare nonfatherhood” at some reasonable time post conception is necessarily worse than the the impact on a man from having a woman declare him liable for fatherhood.
1. It’s about the impact on the child, not the impact on either the man or the woman.
2. The woman does not declare the man liable for fatherhood – the law does.
[Sailorman, if I remember correctly, you’re an attorney?]
Let’s repeat the basics again, C. 1807 or thereabouts:
1) All parties can walk away from the other party.
2) All parties must support the children who emerge from their bodies.
That’s it. That’s all. It’s simple, and finished, and fair. You must support any children you birth, and so must I.
Except, of course, that it’s not fair at all. It’s highly unfair. to women and to children. Add a child support obligation for men and you make it more fair. Add a basic level of state support for inadequately supported children and it becomes fairer still. Not perfectly fair, but about as fair as it could be made, given the differences between male and female biology.
Next, develop new and safe methods of post-coital birth control, and make them make them practically available to women. Add this to the previous set of ingredients and what was previously fair become unfair to men.
Besides being unfair, your statement of your own position is inaccurate. It’s not true that “2) All parties must support [their biological children]”* There are several circumstances in which biological parents do not have to support their children. The option not to do so, is as a practical matter more available to women, because women are more likely to have physical custody of the child, and are more likely to be in a position to deny the father the knowledge of its existence he needs in order for him to be able to assert his parental rights.
*You said “the children they bear.” Of course, only women bear children, but that is not what you meant.
Let’s force drug-addicted women who won’t accept abortions into cold turkey for the duration of their pregnancy.
The women is not obliged to identify the father to the law.
1) Why “post conception?” If we were to have C4M at all, why do its advocates not favor having an “I won’t do shit for any child of mine” contract signed before sex takes place? That seems the fairest place; then both parties are forced to explicitly discuss their preferences in case of pregnancy and childbirth before pregnancy can happen.
(For at least some C4M advocates, the reason they don’t propose this is because they think they won’t get laid if they have to be honest with women about what kind of guy they are from the start. But I don’t think this is the case for all of them.)
2) Sailorman, run your comparison again, this time asking which is more harmful from a child welfare perspective: the impact on children if their fathers are allowed to say “sorry, I was just in it for the fuck, I won’t ever pay a dime to support you” versus a system where fathers and mothers are both expected to support their born children.
Daran, quoting me, wrote:
Sigh.
Will there be fewer or greater numbers of poor children if men have the legal right to refuse to support their children?
I’d also point out that C4M is being discussed here as if it’s veto power only. In its original formulation, it also involved forcing women to “compensate” the father for aborting a fetus he didn’t want aborted. And if the father wanted the mother to carry to term a fetus which she did not want, then he would be required to pay her for her “time” and “expense.”
I think the veto power argument is much more tenable, but let us not forget its much more baldly sexist/evil roots.
The women is not obliged to identify the father to the law.
And when a woman does not identify a particular man as being the probable father, then out fall arguments that she has taken away his rights as a father. Re: this thread.
Nice double bind for women, with enormous repercussions for children, all in the interests of “fairness” to men – who want either to walk away or to be the daddy.
Again, at the expense of a born (I inadvertently did not use that word before) child.
[Now y’all just stop it! I have a final tomorrow morning! ;) ]
Daran, random question:
If the father and the mother both decide that the fetus should be aborted, who pays what percentage of the cost of the procedure?
Thanks, Amp. I hope he takes it seriously.
Mandolin – that’s fair. I was simply peeved, as I’d brought it up the last time as well, with no response. I went over to his site to confirm that it was not an anomaly.
1. The mother decides whether or not to abort the foetus.
2. In a child support court action against the father, the court will determine a) if the child is his, b) whether the father has entered into a binding contract with the mother to support the child, and c) whether, as a practical matter, post-coital contraception was available to the mother. If the answer to these questions are “yes”, “no” and “yes”, then his maximum liability to her should be limited to the cost of her abortion.
3. His actual liability would be awarded proportionate to the court’s determination of his percentage responsibility for the pregnancy. Ordinarily this would be 50% but there may be exceptional circumstances in which a different percentage would apply, for example, if either had told the other than they had been sterilised, when they hadn’t been.
Edited the above, and also to add: Any man, who knows about his sexual partner’s pregnancy, and who wishes to avoid a parental support liability, should go out of his way to ensure that she has 100% of the cost of an abortion available to her. If he was not aware, he may need to argue that she could have informed him and that he would have made it available to her. She of course is free to argue that she could not have informed him, perhaps because it was not safe to, or for some other reason.
The whine “why should he have to pay for it” is nonsense when you realize that a woman, too, is financially responsible for a child whether or not she made the choice to have that child.
That’s perfectly true.
I do think there is something spectacularly dubious about all of this. Before contraception and abortion became widely avaliable unmarried women were able to give their children up for adoption, voiding their child support responsibilities, without any reference to the father. This was basically Choice 4 Women Plus. Only when contraception and abortion became legal and available, and unwanted motherhood became a very unlikely possibility, did people completely reverse their opinions and start making pious declarations about equal responsibility.
So I don’t think what we’re seeing is a principled opposition to C4M. Support for equality of obligations is pretty much contingent on that obligation being very unlikely to fall upon women. If abortion and contraception suddenly became illegal, you’d all change your positions and would find yourself on the other side of the argument.
That you keep attributing views to me that I do not hold and have not expressed is getting tedious.
The fact that you have not really thought through the implications of your views got tedious a long time ago. (Or perhaps you have, and you don’t really care because you’re perpetually angry at women, but I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt an assuming ignorance rather than petulance.)
You are, in fact, advocating a total destruction of the legal principle that absent some intervention changing that status, biological parents are financially and legally obligated to care for their children. In its place, you want to implement a cumbersome, expensive and rickety legal framework that is wholly concerned with sparing men from paying child support.
You keep casting this in terms of ‘choice’, with the cute acronym C4M. Neither parent has a choice regarding their obligations to their children. The only ‘choice’ involved is this: Under limited circumstances, the government has no right to prevent a woman from terminating her pregnancy. No pregnancy, no child and therefore no obligations. But the law does not ask “Did she have a choice and the ability to exercise it?” when determining HER obligations, including the dreaded child support.
As ahunt has pointed out elsewhere, certain MRAs don’t apparently see the flip side of their argument, which makes fathers utterly disposable. If you get rid of the notion that children are entitled to the presence of their fathers, that kicks the supports out from arguments about how Fathers Matter, and mothers who deprive children of visitation are hurting their children, and so on. You can’t (well, not believably) argue that we should strengthen the bonds between father and child, and assure men’s rights to be with their children, but only if they feel like it and the bitch didn’t change her mind about the abortion.
She may indeed be denying him his rights as a father. She may also have good reason for not so identifying him. However, the point of my observation was not to argue the rights and wrongs of this, but to point out its practical effect: that women are more likely than men to be in a position to unilaterally absolve themselves of the obligation to support their own born child.
Moreover the fact that you* (presumably) agree that women should be able to do this, undermines your argument that both parents contributions are necessary to support the child.
*You = all you who are arguing in favour of women’s choices and against men’s.
*You = all you who are arguing in favour of women’s choices and against men’s.
“Disagrees with Daran” != “against men’s choice”.
The only intellectually honest “C4M” is to simply deprive men of all rights and obligations towards their offspring. No child support, no visitation, no ability to say “Hey, don’t put our son up for adoption, I’ll raise him.” Then you don’t need endless litigation about whether she could have taken Plan B and whether he changed his mind after it was too late for her to abort. The sperm-stealing hussies of MRA nightmares would be out of business; you can’t get knocked up and take a man’s wallet because if you’re pregnant, you’re own your own, sister. Men need never worry about a surprise Father’s Day call.
As ahunt has pointed out elsewhere, certain MRAs don’t apparently see the flip side of their argument, which makes fathers utterly disposable. If you get rid of the notion that children are entitled to the presence of their fathers, that kicks the supports out from arguments about how Fathers Matter, and mothers who deprive children of visitation are hurting their children, and so on. You can’t (well, not believably) argue that we should strengthen the bonds between father and child, and assure men’s rights to be with their children, but only if they feel like it and the bitch didn’t change her mind about the abortion.
I have a question for Daran that follows from this idea.
In a situation where a heterosexual encounter results in a unplanned pregnancy and the woman has access to abortion, you propose that, should this woman bring the child to term, she is responsible for this existence of this baby. “Only one person’s choice guaranteed that a child would be born,” as you @77… So, the man involved should have the option of walking away, because his actions didn’t actually bring a child into the world — the woman’s actions did.
By the same token, does the woman have the right to say, “My choices are responsible for the existence of this baby; I choose not to invite you into this child’s life”? Assuming that she’s doing this simply because of her personal preference to be a single parent (or to raise the kid with someone else), not because the fellow is dangerous, or a criminal, or otherwise extremely unfit to be a parent (just like the man’s choice to opt out of parenthood is simply his preference).
Daran, in case you haven’t noticed, there’s a typo in your link.
You wrote:
Yes indeed! When have I, for instance, ever argued that if a mother wants to give up a child for adoption, the father should be able to take custody of the child (if he’s not an abuser or otherwise unsuitable)?
Besides, I’m not arguing that either women, or men, should have an infinite range of choices. I don’t think mothers, or fathers, should have the right to make these decisions without any regard for the well-being of their born children. It’s you [*] who are arguing “for men’s choices,” but with apparent callousness towards what happens to anyone who’s not an adult male.
The “feminist critics” and anti-feminists here are arguing as if men are perpetual children who it’s unjust to expect to take any responsibility.
[*] “You” meaning those arguing that men shouldn’t bear any unwanted responsibility for their born children.
Mythago:
.
Sure, I’m angry at feminists; I have reason to be. I have never, however, expressed anger at women. If an opponent of feminism defamed a feminist the way you have just defamed me, Ampersand would be right in, demanding that they 1) apologise, 2) substantiate, or 3) leave. I’m not asking you to leave, and I know you can’t substantiate. An apology would be appreciated.
Regardless of who I am or am not angry at, my arguments stand on their merits, your ad hom notwithstanding.
“Total destruction” is loaded language. I am indeed advocating a change from that legal principle to one in which mothers are legally obligated to ensure that their children are provided for, or else not bear them. Legal principles are not set in stone. They should and indeed do change as factual circumstances change. One such change is the fact that women now do have the ability to safely not bear the children they conceive.
The idea that women should take responsibility for their own choices, and not expect unwilling men to bail them out, I call “the radical notion that woman are adults”. It amazes me that feminists oppose this at every turn.
Nor need the system be cumbersone, expensive, or rickety. Marriage, or any other formalisation of a relationship between a man and a woman could contain a clause establishing the father’s parental responsibility for any issue. In the absence of such formalisation, pro forma child support contracts could be available for a couple of dollars from any stationers, just like pro forma wills.
I would suggest that a system in which fathers (or others) explicitly agree to support their children would be far less cumbersome, expensive and rickety than the current system, which has unwilling men dragged kicking and screaming into supporting them.
I use the acronym because it is convenient, not because it is cute. Most people in these discussions know the broad range of positions that fall under the rubric. Those that don’t can ask. Of course I am not defending every C4M position, just the one I’ve been putting forward.
This is not generally true. Both parents can agree to put the child up for adoption. Or the mother can do so unilaterally if the father doesn’t know he has a child. Or she can just abandon it in a safe harbour without making any formal arrangements for its care.
So you are simply wrong about this. As someone recently remarked, you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Note, that if I had felt entitled to my own facts, I could just say “women can get post-coital birth control”. But I recognise that sometimes they can’t, which is why the version of C4M I advocate is explicitly contingent on their ability to do so.
And here’s another reason why feminists should support my proposal: More men would support choice for women, and fewer would oppose it, if it was packaged with choice for men in this way. This is particularly significant in the US, where the current balance of support appears to be tipped away from women getting that choice.
Note also that I am not an eeeeequalist. I don’t say “If men can’t have choice, then women shouldn’t have it either”. My support for C4M is conditioned on the practical availablity of C4W. My support for C4W is unconditional. As I said before in this thread, C4W should be a human right.
I agree that the law does not ask this. But to use Ampersand’s formulation: there is no generally agreed on morality (even among feminists) that states that what the law does and does not do is right. Since no such general rule exists, you can’t cite it to prove that what the law does and doesn’t do is right.
I’m not defending certain MRA’s or their arguments. I’m only defending the argument that I have been putting forward.
The current situation, which feminists seem generally to support, makes fathers largely disposable. As has been repeatedly pointed out. Mothers do not even have to identify the father.
I would make fatherhood “opt-in” if motherhood is opt-in by means of post-coital birth control. Any man who wanted to ensure that his parental rights to any possible issue were established would be well advised to enter into a binding contract with a potential mother before having intercourse.
This is a red herring. Forcing men to pay has very little to do with providing children with a loving father figure. In fact it is more likely to foment resentment among unwilling payers toward their children.
I am concerned about the lack of a father figure in so many children’s lives. I just don’t believe that this can be remedied by squeezing blood from stones.
Daran…this is a bit OT, but I was wondering if your vision of C4M allows for the relationship of paternal grandparents to their grandchild(ren)?
Admittedly, grandparent rights are a murky area of law, one that I’m not sure I understand at all. What I gather is that visitation may be granted if it can shown that denial of the grandparent-grandchild relationship harms the child. Very iffy, but I imagine a good case might be made if the visitation rights are coupled with financial aid for an obviously deprived grandchild.
But for the sake of discussion, let us assume that with Mom’s good will, paternal grandparents are willing to step up financially on behalf of their unsupported grandchild. In your POV, C4M severs the paternal relationship, but would have no impact on the grandparent relationship, right?
By the same token, does the woman have the right to say, “My choices are responsible for the existence of this baby; I choose not to invite you into this child’s life”? Assuming that she’s doing this simply because of her personal preference to be a single parent (or to raise the kid with someone else), not because the fellow is dangerous, or a criminal, or otherwise extremely unfit to be a parent (just like the man’s choice to opt out of parenthood is simply his preference).
Gets dicey…don’t it, Daran?
Yet another fair question, Daisy…and yet another reason why Choice for Men is a non-starter.
The precise reasoning Daran uses to justify Choice for Men will also justify the denial of paternal rights and obligations outside of marriage. Whatta mess.
Ampersand (quoting me):
I don’t recall putting a link into the post you quote here, nor in any of my recent comments before you posted this. If there’s a typo in any of my links, and you can reasonably figure out what it should be, please fix it. If not then please identify the comment so that I can give the correct link.
I don’t know. It seems to be the consensus around here that:
1. Mothers should not be obliged to identify the father to the authorities.
2. Mothers should not be obliged to notify the father of the child’s existence.
3. Where there is no involvement by the father in the child’s upbringing, then the mother can unilaterally put the child up for adoption.
4. Where there is involvement by both parents in the child’s upbringing, then they can jointly put the child up for adoption.
The consequence of 1 and 2 is that mothers can exclude fathers from involvement with and knowledge of their children. The consequence of 3 is that if they do this, they can unilaterally put the child up for adoption with no way for the father to oppose. Note that I am not expressing disagreement with any of these points, merely noting that feminist support for them undermines their arguments that both parents are necessary to provide for the child.
If you or anyone else here actually disagrees with any of points 1, 2, 3, or 4, then feel free to say so. But otherwise I have no intention of searching for evidence of your agreement with them.
Neither am I. Our disagreement then, is which limited choices men and women should have.
On the contrary, it appears to be feminists who are arguing that women should be free to birth any foetus they conceive without regard to the wellbeing of the future child, or anyone else.
I’m certainly not callous toward women who fall pregnant outside of a stable relationship and who face what may be an agonizing decision. I simply do not agree that their interests should in every case trump everyone else’s, including the future child’s. I’m not arguing that any woman should be forced to abort. (Hell, I’m not even advocating that drug-addicted women who won’t abort should be forced into cold turkey. I raised that scenario to demonstrate that feminist claims to put the child first are false. Feminists put the woman first in every situation.) My argument is that women who are pregnant and who won’t abort should be responsible for ensuring that the child is provided for. And I’ve specified in considerable detail how society could enable them to discharge that responsibility.
Finally I’ve specified that, in the event that a woman bears a child without having discharged that duty, then the state should be the provider of last resort.
I don’t know that there are any other Feminist Critics here, as I define the term. Leta, who has been banned here, is a welcome and respected guest on my blog, but I don’t consider him to be an FC. Otherwise I don’t recognise any of the other participants here. In any case, I’m defending only one person’s position in these matters: mine.
Nor am I saying that it’s unjust for men to take any responsibility. I’m saying that, given that women have post-coital choice after post-coital choice after post-coital choice which enables them not to have to support children they concieve, including in some cases, post-birth choices, it’s unfair to oblige men to refrain from intercourse entirely if they wish to avoid the same responsibility.. This argument, by the way, is functionally identical to the argument that feminists make against the “pro-life” position.
This mistates my position. I’m saying that men should not bear unagreed responsibility for the results of women’s choice to bear children. It is the essence of adulthood that one takes responsibility for ones own decisions, not foist them onto other people, and that one can enter into binding agreements.
Okay. But how do you get the kid to sign it?
I don’t know, Amp. Maybe if, in addition to giving women both pre- and post-coital birth control options, we drummed it into their heads from their teenage years onward, that they are responsible for ensuring that any children they bear are provided for, there would be fewer children born without that provision in place.
Bjartmarr (quoting me):
Hell, let’s include pro forma consent to sex with optional commitment to support children in with packets of contraceptives.
If you mean the child: Ha ha. Very funny.
If you mean a youthful male partner, if it’s that important to you, don’t consent to sex until he does.
Sorry, I was unclear.
If you look at your name at the top of each of your comments, where it says “Daran writes,” there’s a typo in the link the word “Daran” leads to; it leads to “feministritics.org” rather than “feministcritics.org.” I can of course correct any individual case, but only you can correct the typo in your browser’s memory (which reproduces the error each time you post here).
I haven’t addressed that question. I do so now.
My view is that, without an agreement, if a man is forced to support his children by reason of the mother not having had practical access to post-coital birth control, then he would gain parental rights along with his responsibilities. (This of course, assumes that he hasn’t behaved abusively toward the mother, child, or other children. If he has, then he could gain responsibilities without rights.)
Otherwise, if there is no agreement, then he has neither rights nor responsibilities.
If there is an agreement, then his rights and responsibilities should be as specified in the agreement.
It’s all very clean, and very simple.
Fixed. And thanks for the heads-up. I wouldn’t ask you to fix them all by hand. You could do it en mass using mySQL or whatever database managment too you use, but I wouldn’t recommend it: the possibility of disaster if you got it wrong is too great a risk.
It allows for it, (they could contract with the mother) but doesn’t give them a right to it, same as for fathers.
I think it’s time to stop using the euphamistic phrasing of “choice for men” proposed by the pro-domestic violence set. Any suggestions for progressive reframing?
MARs – Men Avoiding Responsibility.
Done.
Daisy:
I refer you to points 1 and 2 in my comment #137 above.
Daran, having read your points in #137 and thoughts in #142: so you do in fact advocate a system where the default status of men upon the birth of their biological offspring is “sperm donor” instead of “father”? I understand that women can refuse to identify the father (or claim to be unable to, or actually be unable to), but in cases where the father is known and has been notified, do you grant men an inalienable right to “opt-in”? Or do I, as a woman, have the option to block men who know of their children from having a relationship with them (in the event that no contract was signed before sex)?
One of our longstanding complaints about feminist-controlled forums generally, and Alas in particular, is how unfairly we get treated on them. It was because of this that we set up FCB, with it’s covenant to treat feminist guests fairly.
Yet as I’ve been contemplating putting up a post, basically to direct our readers to this thread, I was thinking that I should also acknowledge just how fairly I have been treated in this thread on the whole, by guests and bloggers alike, certainly every bit as fairly as we are able to achieve for feminist guests on FCB, given our limited moderation abilities, and the constraints we operate under.
Then someone, a moderator no less, comes out with this:
Shame on you!
How about MWBTKaUCLs – Men Who Believe Teenagers Know and Understand Contract Law.
—–
See now, there is a huge and fundamental flaw with the contract model as applied to teenagers: While in some jurisdictions teenagers are permitted by law to enter into contracts (meaning said contracts are not void at formation) such a contract is voidable at the teenager’s option prior to the age of majority – for any reason (standard defenses to formation) or for no reason at all. One would be hard pressed to enforce a contract against a teenager concerning child rearing when that same kid can void a contract at any time prior to attaining majority on the purchase of a computer or an ipod.
Further, in re: adults signing contracts prior to and / or shortly after sex, if as many people who don’t go to the stationery store to pick up a child-rearing contract (to conveniently keep in their pocket or bag, ready at a moment’s notice, natch) is equal to the number of people who don’t go into the stationery store and pick up a will kit, I predict yet another flaw in the contract theory – there will be significant numbers of people not buying and signing these contracts just as there are significant numbers of people who die without a will. (Oh, and those stationery store wills? Anyone who believes they are ironclad is sorely mistaken. Draw what conclusions you will about child-rearing contracts.)
Also, as with any contract, a party (either one, man or woman) could allege the contract is void, raising one or even several defenses to formation: duress, misrepresentation, fraud, basically anything that will void a contract.
Finally, this contract model is unlikely to hold water with legislators and with the judiciary. Under the current model, the no-contract model, by default parents are automatically held responsible for born children – in some cases, even if said child is not biological, if the adult has been acting as a parent, as in living with the other parent, providing financial support and nurturing, in the event the adults’ relationship dissolves, they are still held financially responsible for the child. Changing to a contract model, where there would definitely be allegations of a void contract, would significantly burden the court system and that is something lawmakers generally are loathe to do.
I believe these are absolutely fair and legitimate criticisms.
Mandolin Writes:
I don’t agree with Daran – fundamentally, “choice for men” is NOT the same thing as an abortion or a safe-haven. Avoiding any arguments about misogyny or abuse or whatever, this is all it takes for me to dismiss the concept.
But your reply is rather disgusting. Real, actual, decent guys _are_ roped into servitude by “accidental” pregnancy. Could they have avoided it? Obviously. Should they be responsible for the children they helped create? Likewise. Is “Choice for men” an asinine solution? Definitely. But are they “pro-abuse” or evil for noticing that they’ve been royally screwed over, and coming up with a flawed, one-sided solution to their problem? Hell no.
I equate “choice for men” to be the men’s equivalent of things like James Sterba’s asinine “reckless sex” crime idea (in which the burden of proof should be automatically on the male suspect). That is, a real problem exists, but radicals propose a solution that is so thoughtless, extreme, and utterly one-sided that it embarrasses those who’ve actually suffered through the problem.
They’re pro-abuse for other reasons.
Pingback: Feminist Critics
It boggles the mind that it seems that Daran thinks it is better to advocate the creation of a whole new area of family/contract law that will result in instability for millions of children and families as well as skyrocketing costs in legal and court fees than to advocate for universal sex ed and accessible safe and reliable contraception. Or maybe it doesn’t really – it’s a great example of men thinking that the universe should be grateful to revolve around them.
Still, maybe it would be good for the lawyers…
[snip] the creation of a whole new area of family/contract law that will result in instability for millions of children and families as well as skyrocketing costs in legal and court fees [snip]
Yes, indeed.
And may I repeat: See now, there is a huge and fundamental flaw with the contract model as applied to teenagers: While in some jurisdictions teenagers are permitted by law to enter into contracts (meaning said contracts are not void at formation) such a contract is voidable at the teenager’s option prior to the age of majority – for any reason (standard defenses to formation) or for no reason at all. One would be hard pressed to enforce a contract against a teenager concerning child rearing when that same kid can void a contract at any time prior to attaining majority on the purchase of a computer or an ipod.
Haven’t read all your posts but my view is that the female if she keeps the child has a lot more responsibility. Her whole career is affected so in most cases maintenance payments do not reflect the true cost of proper housing healthcare and security etc unless th male is well endowed ( with money). Most single mums are poor even when maintenance is payed. By law in my country you are not allowed to leave kids under 14 alone. This means you cant even leave the house for a break unless you can afford to pay. This is why men don’t want custody because the single parenthood thing is damned hard and they know it.
A bit of maintenance for the average girl doesn’t cover it and she often doesn’t get the maintenance anyway so it shoud be her decision unless you want to slap a whole lot of extra laws on men to make them pay properly for the lifetime of 24/7 devotion a mother needs to and usually gives.
Tara, I would be quite shocked if Daran was less than a completely enthusiastic supporter of universal sex ed and and accessible, safe, and reliable contraception.
It’s just absurd to call it “unfair” that a man can be legally forced to provide for a born child just because the mother -could have- had a physically invasive surgical procedure to kill the fetus inside her body or -could have-taken fetus killing poison.
Mandolin, where did Daren advocate domestic violence? Did I miss a comment somewhere? As far as I could see Daren was politely arguing his position when you comment came out of left field? For the record I don’t like Daren’s proposal, but I don’t see how it equates to domestic violence. You comment seems rude and insulting for no reason.
I see MRAs as supporting domestic violence through their actions. Pro-abuse set = MRAs. And now I’ve said that twice, and am done answering questions on the subject.
Moving on:
Progressive suggestions for retitling “Choice for men” so that it’s less euphamistic?
And getting back to a strain of conversation:
I’m sorry, Katie. :( For some reason, I missed your comment in the other thread, or didn’t remember it.
I hope Mr. Moore takes your note to heart.
I’m not an Mens Right’s Activist. In general I think they’re silly and I don’t pay much attention to what they have to say. (I think Daren’s policy is ridiculous and about as politically likely as Heart’s Man Tax but that’s beside the point)
I think your labeling position is absurd and/or dishonest. Is this now a rule at alas? Can I re-label anyone who disagrees with me in a generally offensive way? Can anyone who thinks that a particular group, or policy position, has a negative outcome label them as being ‘for’ that outcome? Also, in this case,it really looks to me like you’re saying that Daren is personally in favor of domestic violence.
but doesn’t give them a right to it, same as for fathers.
Okay, speaking as Grandma, Daran :-*…this one is a non-starter.
Grandparental rights is a muddy area of law, but it does exist. Your proposal appears to simply wipe out legal recognition of familial relationships that have stood the test of time and culture.
Grandparents do have legal standing. If I understand correctly…grandparents are the default preference if Mom and Dad are absent/incompetant/incapacitated for whatever reasons. Your proposal to reduce paternal grandparents to mere bystanders in the lives of their grandchildren is frankly…horseshit. If you think for one heartbeat the BH and moi will surrender our legal standing to intervene if bad things are happening to one of our grandchildren, getting in line behind the state or other “interested parties”, think again. As far as I’m concerned…your “right” not to pay child support does not supercede our “right” to see to the wellbeing of our grandchildren.
An apology would be appreciated.
Really? If we’re going to be trading fake outrage, then I’d appreciate your apology for defaming feminists with “Children’s interests come second, and men’s (including the interests of baby boys, who will grow up to become men) come nowhere.” But we both know you’re not really feeling defamed and outraged; you’re just looking to score points by pretending that you’ve been “defamed”. And yes, I’m afraid that you very much come across as being angry at women, period.
And speaking of private facts:
This is not generally true. Both parents can agree to put the child up for adoption. Or the mother can do so unilaterally if the father doesn’t know he has a child. Or she can just abandon it in a safe harbour without making any formal arrangements for its care.
Daran, I know you’ve been around for many, many discussions on this topic. So you know exactly the extent to which these statements are true. I don’t understand why you think repeating them louder changes that.
A woman who puts a child up for adoption unilaterally risks that adoption being undone. A woman, like a man, can abandon a child in a safe harbor without fear of prosecution, but this does not automatically end her rights and obligations, nor the father’s to the child. All you’re really arguing for is better enforcement of laws that say “you need the father’s consent to put the kid up for adoption”.
You natter on about the ‘consensus’ of whether the law is wrong or right, but again, your proposal comes down to this: A complete change in the legal principle that the child’s best interests are paramount, and that rights and obligations attach to both biological parents as the rule, absent some exception severing those rights. You want this in order to insure that men don’t pay child support if they don’t want to.
If you’re willing to do that, I don’t understand why you support an ‘opt-out’ system rather than an ‘opt-in’ system. The only reason to support ‘opt out’ is a desire to give men special rights women don’t have; ‘opt in’ does a much better job of fending off child support.
But, bu, bu Myth..does not “opt out” leave room for the possibility of Dad getting religion down the line, and subsequently seeking the legal restoration of his parental rights? Wouldn’t this approach be ever so much better for Dad? After all, children need their fathers. :-*
“Opt-In” precludes this possibility, as Dad who failed to “opt in” has no standing to seek parental rights.
Gee…I wonder why “opt-in” is not gaining traction. Can it be that in the end, MRA’s still want the “choice,” even if it comes down the line?
I see lots and lots of bashing of Daran’s idea. But because I feel critisism without any correction or input is unfair, does anyone have any idea of how to stop the current “Pay up, shut up, and stay out of the way” system that men seem to be facing now that is better than what Daran suggests?
Lessee.
We don’t agree with you that the system does the things you claim it does.
Oops!
@ed
If you look at Sacks or any other MRA sites, the really egregious stuff doesn’t come from the laws themselves, but from the actual system built around those laws – men pushed into bankruptcy (or suicide) by utterly erroneous child-support arrearages. Putting the foster system before willing, capable parents. Allegations of “sexist” courts that assume that the father could never be a better parent (I’m not going to debate whether these allegations are true or not here). Things like that.
These are implementation issues, not issues with the laws themselves. The biggest flaws with the CS system are organizational and oversight issues – NOT the underlying laws. Fundamentally, the idea that
a) If you are a parent of a child (including if you knock up a woman in a one night stand), you’re responsible for the child, and
b) there must be some time-share arrangement so that the child gets to be with both parents
are not really disputable.
There may be some custody issues where MRAs do have some legitimate gripes – after all, society is still mentally stuck in the patriarchal model where the mother is assumed to automatically be the primary care-giver, and the father is, by extension, secondary parent. But those issues are far more complicated to solve (has anyone actually figured out a 50/50 custody arrangement that wouldn’t completely screw up the kid?) than simply stating “dad doesn’t have to be a parent if he doesn’t want to be”.
(has anyone actually figured out a 50/50 custody arrangement that wouldn’t completely screw up the kid?)
Yeah.
I’m sure it would be a lot harder with babies and very young kids, but my parents divorced when I was 11 (my brother was 7) and they had no trouble arranging 50/50 custody which worked very well for everyone involved. The important things they did were: put my brother and I far, far ahead of their grudges against each other; recognize that both were good parents and that my brother and I loved and needed both; stayed far, far away from the courthouse. By living in the same town (which I know isn’t always easy, what with jobs, housing, etc) and continuing to talk to each other, there was really no trouble at all.
So a healthy 50/50 custody arrangement is definitely possible.
ed, I’m not sure you read my critique at comment #150 above?
You know, in Iran–and I think in Shia Islam in general, but I am not sure–they have something called temporary marriage, in which a man and a woman can contract to be married, with all the social, legal, cultural, etc. rights, obligations and responsibilities attached to marriage, for (as I understand it) a time period of their choosing. As my wife, who is Iranian, has explained it to me–and I am not trying to position her as some kind of authority–temporary marriage is a mechanism whereby people can legally (in Iran’s terms) have what we would here call casual sex. (I should add that I am not saying this is the only purpose of temporary marriages; I don’t know if it is or not; but this is one purpose my wife has said that the institution serves.) If a couple conceives a child during their temporary marriage, when the marriage is over, there is no question that the man involved is responsible for the support of that child in the same way he would be if his marriage had not been temporary and he and his wife had gotten divorced.
I am not suggesting this as a solution to anything that is being discussed here, though I do think what I have described does, at the least, acknowledge that no matter how casual the sex is that two people might have, any children that are born as a result of that sex are unambiguously the responsibility of the people who concieved them, whether they wanted to conceive the child or not.
I don’t know why, but Daran’s very complicated contractual system put me in mind of temporary marriage, not because they are so similar in content, but because the each seem to share the impulse to nail down as unambiguously as possible the fuzzy social and cultural aspects of non-marital sex.
RJN – Thanks for that. I have had conversations, internet and IRL, where various contract-based models for marriage have been examined. I talked with a very interesting law professor several weeks ago who proposes IIRC 4 different models.
It was a most interesting conversation. I would like to continue to explore the area as I, at present, do not see that they would be received in the US because the result of implementing them would be to throw out the current marriage / union scheme.
Daran’s system actually puts me in mind of those “pre-industrial” cultures where men imitate childbirth, either because their female partners are giving birth or as part of a shamanic ritual.
If, as Daran claims, the law’s priority should be “no man has to be responsible for a kid if hethey didn’t ask to,” then the opt-in system is far superior. It also has a feature of which Daran heartily approves: namely, women would always know that they can’t impose any obligations on a man, and would conduct themselves accordingly.
The “opt-out” system not only gives men rights women don’t have, it’s ridiculously complicated and nigh-impossible to enforce. What does a woman have to prove to show abortion was “available”? What if one or both of them is above the age of consent but below the age where they can legally enter into a contract? What happens when somebody changes their mind?
Myth, I think the reason “opt-in” has not caught on is because the men want to hedge their bets.
What happens when Mom raises an amazing kid solo, and Opt-out Dad suddenly wants a piece of the action? Oh look…paperwork! Dad relinquished all rights…but now has a change of heart? Don’t think that with “opt-out,” it won’t happen!
Yes, “opt-in” covers all of Daran’s concerns. The problem, I am guessing, is that with “opt-in,” there are no “do-overs.” My sense is that with a kid in this world, men are not truly willing to burn their bridges.
Hmm.
That, and the need to start off from a position of power that they can volunteer to give up.