Hugo is going to be appearing on Glenn Sacks’ show again, this time to debate “choice for men.” I was rereading my old posts on the subject (if you’re curious, they are here, here, here and here), and I came across this post I wrote in the comments, which I thought was worth “promoting” to its own post.
Question: Is it really accurate to say that both parties have the opportunity to unilaterally prevent reproduction?
Making this statement, I am making some assumptions. First, that “you can chose not to have sex” doesn’t count as control, simply because we don’t accept that argument when referring to anti-choice positions (ie “if she doesn’t want to have a baby, she shouldn’t have had sex”).
The thing is, this argument assumes that the exact same standard should apply to both men and women; put another way, it assumes we should treat women and men the same. 99% of the time, I’d agree with that. But here’s the thing: when it comes to bearing children, men and women are NOT at all the same. Treating them as if they are doesn’t make sense.
To see what I mean, consider this question: Is it discrimination that men’s room provide urinals (letting men get in and out faster, leading to shorter lines) while women’s rooms don’t? Shouldn’t we treat men and women the same and provide them both with urinals?
Men and women are physically different. That means that we pee differently, which would make it foolish to treat men and women the same when it comes to bathroom fixtures. And it means that we have different roles in childbirth, which makes it foolish to act as if men and women are similarly situated when it comes to childbirth.
Both men and women should have every reproductive choice biologically possible. For men and women both, that means they should have the choice not to fuck, if they don’t want to. For men and women both, that means they should have access to every kind of birth control. And for women, that should mean access to abortion.
Cutting either men or women off from their biologically possible options is wrong, in my view. But “abortion” just isn’t one of men’s biologically possible options.
To say “well, if an argument’s valid for women, then it should be valid for men as well” is true most of the time – but it’s not true in a discussion of abortion, because men can’t have abortions. Men and women are not, when it comes to this issue, identically situated; and it’s illogical to act as if they are.
UPDATE: Be sure to check out this related post by Lorenzo at Unimpressed.net.
It boggles my mind that men don’t consider the possibility of pregnancy when they choose to have intercourse. If anything, I worried too much about it, which made for problems in my first sexual experiences. I’m seriously considering getting a vasectomy before I become sexually active again, since it was always such a worry for me that I had a hard time enjoying intercourse, even though I’d carefully make sure we were using at least two means of birth control at once.
I’m getting the impression that many other men never think about it at all. (I mean, what the Hell is the matter with men who refuse to use condoms?)
I wonder if many women mistakenly assume that men are considering all the potential ramifications of intercourse, as women must, when many men don’t.
The flip side of that, La Lubu, is that the man also has no rights. No showing up in the delivery room to demand the baby be named Joe Jr. before disappearing. No donating sperm to a lesbian couple and showing up a few years later to demand your rights as Daddy. And, of course, it puts a bit of a damper on the idea that a child will grow up spiritually crippled unless there’s Daddy in the household. You can see why the David Blankenhorns of the world are not exactly cheering this on.
mythago wrote, “It is a burden, period.”
As I said, some women consider it so, and some don’t. I once explained the theory of abortion rights to a woman who objected strongly to any suggestion that pregnancy was a burden. (This woman was herself a mother.) “If the pregnancy is unwanted, it is a burden,” I said. She found this idea very hard to swallow.
“While the man has no such option, the degree to which the woman does have an option is not as great as many of us would like to believe.” This is absolutely true. Decnavda and I were discussing the relationship of the situation to the theory of abortion rights, to which the practical limitations of abortion availability (and desirability, for any given woman in any given case) is not applicable. If we get down to practical cases, I agree with you. Casually saying “oh well, I’ll just have an abortion” is not reasonable to expect women to have to do. Nor is casually saying “oh well, I’ll just give the kid up for adoption.”
“Amp, you forget another unfairness”“by giving men the choice to opt out, the mother’s ability to make a choice about her pregnancy is affected.”
Amp may have forgotten that, but I haven’t. This is the reason why I feel a simple “Choice for Men” solution is no answer, and I was just as appalled by Joe’s original argument in that direction as by anything else.
Trish quoted, “In the words of one court, [w]hile it is true that after conception a woman has more control than a man over the decision whether to bear a child, and may unilaterally refuse to obtain an abortion, those facts were known to the father at the time of conception.”
But those facts are also known to the mother at the time of conception. So either you have a situation where the woman is treated as a being with inferior reasoning and decision-making abilities to those of the man at the time of conception, or else you have an argument that can be used, and has been used, just as easily to deny abortion rights. Is that what you want?
Furthermore, you should talk to mythago about this, because mythago has been eager to point out that abortion is often unavailable to women and, even if available, is not an easy decision lacking in trauma of its own.
So here’s the thing: if the man should have thought of it beforehand because he can’t have an abortion, why shouldn’t the woman also have thought of it beforehand if abortion isn’t available to her either?
You can quote all the courts you want, but the facts of biology do not explain why this responsibility has to be asymmetrical.
Brian wrote, “It boggles my mind that men don’t consider the possibility of pregnancy when they choose to have intercourse.” It boggles when women don’t do it either, Brian. Having abortion rights doesn’t excuse her.
Yes, Simon, women should seriously consider the possiblity of pregnacy before she spreads her legs, just as a man should seriously consider it when thinking about where he wants to put his dick. But the facts of biology DO explain why the rights and responsibilities should be different (or, Sarah explained way above, facially identical, but different in reality). The woman has the responsibility to carry the fetus, as she is the only one who can. Technology allows termination after pregnacy, and that technology should be available to be used by parents who decide they made a wrong decision. But even if every doctor in America had easy access to a Star Trek medical transporter as standard equipment that could painlessly beam the fetus out of the woman’s body, the proceedure would still involve changing what is going on INSIDE of the woman, and it would be an intolerable violation of bodily integrity to give anyone else the right to command or veto the proceedure. And to give a parent the right to walk away from supporting a helpless person he helped to create is also intolerable.
The result is unfair to men, but these are all bad choices, and unfairness to the man is the least bad one.
You are arguing against us, but you also say you do not support C4M. Yes, we (or at least I) agree these are *all* “bad” choices. But the rest of us have gone out on a limb and stated which one we prefer. Which do you prefer?
Trish quoted, “In the words of one court, [w]hile it is true that after conception a woman has more control than a man over the decision whether to bear a child, and may unilaterally refuse to obtain an abortion, those facts were known to the father at the time of conception.”
Simon quoted, “But those facts are also known to the mother at the time of conception. So either you have a situation where the woman is treated as a being with inferior reasoning and decision-making abilities to those of the man at the time of conception, or else you have an argument that can be used, and has been used, just as easily to deny abortion rights. Is that what you want?”
That an argument might have been used against abortion doesn’t mean that abortion rights are easily denied. Plenty of arguments have been used by men regarding their reproductive responsibilities (or lack thereof), but they have not succeeded in getting their wishes. The law article I quoted pointed that out. When abortion is unavailable to women it tends to be because she doesn’t live near a clinic where she can easily get one. It’s not about a man successfully arguing that he has no responsibility for a pregnancy. As Decnavda had written, “women should seriously consider the possiblity of pregnacy before she spreads her legs, just as a man should seriously consider it when thinking about where he wants to put his dick.”
why shouldn’t the woman also have thought of it beforehand if abortion isn’t available to her either?
She should have, and the law reflects that. A woman who gives birth to a child she didn’t want and couldn’t abort is STILL financially and legally responsible to that child, unless and until she agrees to give it up for adoption–which she cannot unilaterally do if the father has any rights at all, which he usually does.
I can’t believe I have to keep repeating this.
Simon writes: “Thus far, the man and the woman are in identical situation. Any sauce for the gander about his having to bear the responsibility for his earlier decisions is also sauce for the goose.”
Well, no it isn’t. I think some people here are equating “equality” with “sameness”. There is nothing identical or the same about men’s and women’s experiences of sex and pregnancy. Nor should there be for equality under the law (and social equality) to exist. If a woman’s voice in the decision to abort ends at a certain point (legally) in her pregnancy, why is it difficult to presume that a man’s voice ends when he ejaculates into a woman without the use of birth control? I see nothing contradictory in firmly stating that this is when a man’s voice ends. In fact, if this were a given, men’s views towards sex, women’s bodies, and reproduction would probably change greatly. Insisting that there is a sameness of experience throughout the continuum of sex to pregnancy is not only false, but a red herring.
Or more precisely, it is insisting that the male body’s experience is the status quo from which not only social norms arise, but upon which legal and political decisions are based.
mythago:>>She should have, and the law reflects that. A woman who gives birth to a child she didn’t want and couldn’t abort is STILL financially and legally responsible to that child, unless and until she agrees to give it up for adoption”“which she cannot unilaterally do if the father has any rights at all, which he usually does.
I can’t believe I have to keep repeating this.
>>
Well, yeah. And the man gets stuck with child-support payments iff the woman chooses not only to have the baby, but to keep and raise it: for him to be burdened with any obligation, she has to assume an even greater obligation.
And since we’re talking about senseless equations…does it really make sense to equate being forced to give over money to an existing child to being forced to devote one’s body to a potential child?
Well, yeah. And the man gets stuck with child-support payments iff the woman chooses not only to have the baby, but to keep and raise it: for him to be burdened with any obligation, she has to assume an even greater obligation.
And since we’re talking about senseless equations…does it really make sense to equate being forced to give over money to an existing child to being forced to devote one’s body to a potential child?
Well, if child support were at reasonable levels and didn’t often require working two jobs or very long hours at one; if income wasn’t imputed, if women didn’t often lie (or reading Trish’s link go to such extremes as fishing condoms out of the garbage) in order to get pregnant, and most importantly IF the system was as honest as Trish is being about what “child support ” really is, perhaps we wouldn’t be having this little discussion now, would we?
Earlier on in the thread, someone said:
“The result is unfair to men, but these are all bad choices, and unfairness to the man is the least bad one. ”
Yes, keep telling yourself that. I’ll be sure to continue to inform men about these things, thus resulting in an even shallower pool of “marriageable” men, and with more men pre-warned, perhaps changes for the better will eventually happen in the laws. Even if not, I predict the “male pill” will alter the playing field significantly. It will be fun when women can’t just go “oppsie” and have a pregancy, and then play around with his visitation while he faces the threat of garnishment, poverty, and jail if he doesn’t pay the inflated “child support”.
Then we have La Labu, who whines that she’d never have sex with anyone who presented a contract to her. Well, goody for her. I wouldn’t have sex with someone like her, because it would occur to me that she’d mostly just love to lie to me in order to get pregnant outside of wedlock, thus denying me even the slightest say in OUR child’s upbringing. ( I know that probably shocks alot of you, but to more than one poster here it seems men only come into a childs life as a walking wallet).
Last but not least, whining about carrying around a baby for 9 months when one has chosen to do so, and has free choice to end the pregnancy and comparing that to 18 to 21 years of paying exorbitant amounts for a child that the law shows no interest in even enforcing your right to visit, is the very height of silliness. And by the way, I used to work for Child Support. I know how it works on both the low and high ends. It truly IS a racket in some ways.
because it would occur to me that she’d mostly just love to lie to me in order to get pregnant outside of wedlock, thus denying me even the slightest say in OUR child’s upbringing
Gosh. Paranoid much?
By all means, share your message with men. The ones who don’t treat women as The Enemy, and have female partners who likewise don’t get excited at the idea of pretending the opposite sex is evil, could use the Schadenfreude.
I’d batter you with statistics from blood banks and divorce statistics and you’d throw in some femist studies and around and around it would go, doing no one any good at all.
From my standpoint, however, the good thing is that you are so delusional as to imagine that there is no problem, that more women than men treat the other sex as “evil”, and that half of all marriages, for instance, end in divorce, I can pretty much guarantee that the anger and bitterness of the losers (mostly men) will continue to grow and grow, thus putting more strain on the current system until it ends. Unfortunately , while I am in support of a mild version of choice for men, and am open to other suggestions, it’s not gonna be moderates like me who will control the backlash.
So go on with your denials and ad hominems. You should, at least , work to set up some reforms in the parts of the system that are easily abused, (custody, restraining orders, child support amounts) but I don’t think from what I’ve read that most of you here have any interest in that. Thus, when the shit hits the fan, you will be well-deserving of whatever comes your way.
“Statistics from blood banks”? (How interesting that you use ‘battering’ to describe an online disagreement, though.)
I do find it funny that a person who is convinced women “often” deliberately trick men into getting them pregnant (men not being clear on this whole idea of biology, I guess) and that all those ‘femists’ will be up against the wall when the revolution comes considers himself to be a moderate.
Do you have some ideas for actual reforms you think would improve the system? I’d be interested to hear them.
Clarence, you apparently have poor reading skills. If you had actually read any of my posts, it would be quite clear to you that I do not receive, nor have I ever sought, child support. It would also be quite clear that I did not get pregnant by fishing through the garbage for a used condom, but the old-fashioned, time-immemorial way; my partner ejaculated inside me. In fact, I’d really love to see your credible, peer-reviewed statistical studies on how many women per year get pregnant by smearing the ejaculate from a used condom fished out of the garbage. As opposed to “lying”, besides using a visible means of birth control, I specifically told my partner that I chose that means for physical and medical reasons, that I would not be changing my method of birth control, that if he wanted to increase the effectiveness he could certainly put on a condom, and that in the event of pregnancy I would emphatically not be having an abortion or pursuing adoption. And yes, I spelled it out for him that if he was absolutely certain that he did not want the risk of parenthood, that he had better not have sex with me, as birth control can fail, and he would be better off ending the relationship with me and finding a woman who has already had a tubal ligation.
Any guess as to why he didn’t choose that route? If your guess is “well, La Lubu, he probably saw you as a walking wallet!” your guess would be spot-on. In retrospect, he got the glint of dollar signs in his eyes when he met me.
No, the reason the contract turns me off is because of its adversarial nature. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to share my bed with someone who hasn’t already gained my trust. And if I haven’t already gained his trust, why should he want to go to bed with me? Nothing says, “you aren’t a person, just a vagina” quite like that contract. It would be asking me to take all of the risk, with potentially no pleasure. Rather than go to bed with someone who already views me as an adversary or enemy, I think I’d rather just end that relationship and masturbate. Masturbation guarantees one 100% pleasure, and 0% risk.
And Clarence? Why lie to some guy in order to get pregnant? That’s what sperm banks are for. Easy path to pregnancy, and no risk of some guy showing up years later, all-of-a-sudden wanting to play “daddy” to some child he’s ignored for years. That scenario is not good for children, and unfortunately that’s a risk I have, for trusting the wrong person.
>>Last but not least, whining about carrying around a baby for 9 months when one has chosen to do so, and has free choice to end the pregnancy and comparing that to 18 to 21 years of paying exorbitant amounts for a child that the law shows no interest in even enforcing your right to visit, is the very height of silliness.>>
Trish has covered the “exorbitant” part. When child-support claims are enforced such that the average kid receives awarded child-support monies, I’ll argue about just amounts. Until then, “exorbitant” is ludicrous.
The latter is an obligation that men can also impose on women, remember? In the event that the other parent gives up custody, each biological parent has the right to assume custody of the child and stick the other parent with child-support payments. In other words, if a dad wanted to care for his kid and the mom didn’t, he could get money out of her for the child’s upkeep.
Women who have chosen not to abort aren’t whining about pregnancy. They’re whining about being obligated to carry the pregnancy to term and then care for the resulting baby with no help whatsoever from the biological father.
And last but not least, the woman has the right to abort a _fetus_. There is no “best interests of the fetus” principle. The non-custodial parent, like the custodial parent, does not have the right to abandon a _baby_, an actual child with actual legal standing and actual needs.
Pingback: The Mahablog » Some Things Aren’t Equal