Via Red State Feminist, a pdf file of the court’s ruling can be found here. The court ruled “that the plaintiff’s claim is frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation.”
Here’s a bit of the ruling:
According to the pleadings, Dubay commenced a personal relationship with defendant Lauren Wells, dated her, engaged in intimate sexual relations, impregnated her, terminated his relationship, and sued her for bearing his child. If chivalry is not dead, its viability is gravely imperiled by the plaintiff in this case.
But chivalry is not the issue here, nor does it provide a basis upon which to decide the legal and policy issues that Dubay seeks to advance through this litigation. Rather, the plaintiff contends that Michigan’s paternity statutes are repugnant to the United States Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses because he has no say, he argues, in the decision whether to beget and bear a child. Therefore, he insists, he ought not to be saddled with the financial responsibility of the child’s support, and he should receive damages from the private and public defendants who are attempting to exact that toll from him.
The plaintiff’s claims have been rejected by every court that has considered similar matters, and with good reason. The plaintiff’s suggestion that the support provisions of the Michigan Paternity Act implicates the Equal Protection Clause does not find support in the jurisprudence. First, the Act’s provisions apply only if a child is born and essentially do not concern anyone’s right to choose to be a parent.
Second, the statutory provisions are facially neutral, requiring both parents equally to support the child.
Third, the plaintiff argues that enforcing the Act’s provisions, without any deviation from the neutral language of those provisions, still can implicate the Equal Protection Clause because of an underlying inequality: the State’s recognition that women can choose to be parents and men cannot. This argument in turn is based on the existence of a right supposedly grounded in substantive due process, as the plaintiff acknowledged at oral argument. But the Sixth Circuit has squarely rejected the argument that fairness or reciprocity generates a substantive right to avoid child support on the theory that a woman has the right to bring to term or terminate a pregnancy on her own.
Finally, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate in even the most remote way that state action plays a role in the interference with his choice to reject parenthood. The consequences of sexual intercourse have always included conception, and the State has nothing to do with this historical truism. Because the plaintiff has failed to state a colorable claim in his amended complaint, the Court will dismiss the complaint against all the defendants. In addition, the Court finds that the plaintiff’s claim is frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation. Therefore, the Court will grant the State’s motion for attorney fees….
The above is pretty much the “executive summary” section of the judgement; read the whole thing if you’d like to see the arguments developed in more detail.
NOTE FOR COMMENTS: Please don’t post about how you have an income of $500 a month and the judge ordered you to pay $2000 a month in child support to your ungrateful lazy ex-spouse who spends all the child support money on dresses she can wear to the track and she earns more than you do anyway and the judge won’t even reply to your motions. Unless I know both you and your ex-spouse, and can hear her side of the story for myself, I don’t think anecdotal evidence of that sort really helps advance the discussion.
Pingback: It’s All Connected…
Pingback: PrawfsBlawg
Pingback: feminist blogs
Complicated decision, but I guess that’s the best we can hope for when the underlying biology is so obviously biased. It seemed to me that this version of “choice for men” accomplished nothing but leaving all consequences squarely on the woman who dared to have sex. After all, when two people have sex she gets pregnant, or not. If she gets pregnant, she has a baby or not. Whether she carries to term, has a miscarriage, or undergoes an abortion, I can’t see how anyone can argue she’s not taking responsibility for her choices and taking the consequences in stride. Given the cold hard facts of pregnancy, women don’t have a choice whether or not to take the consequences. If she has the child, she keeps the child or not. Keeping the child, she’s pouring her time and income into the child in which case the primary responsibilities and burdens are hers. If she gives the child up for adoption, she has the emotional consequences and whatever physical ramifications she was left with, but both she and the father are “off the hook” financially.
Then there’s the father. When he has sex he impregnates or not, neither result alters his body’s homeostasis at all though he might have some emotional response (some men don’t, let’s not discount them, and some men don’t know for one reason or another). If he impregnates, she carries to term or she does not. Presumably he can suffer emotional consequences either way or he might not, entirely depending on his temperament. If she doesn’t carry to term, he’s not obligated in any way to pay a dime (though many gentlemen do pay for medical procedures), his body hasn’t been involved for anything but the sex, and his emotions may or may not have been affected. If she carries to term, she may keep the child or not. If she doesn’t keep the child, he can adopt them in which case he certainly has consequences for the decision to adopt in that he is now raising and paying for them, but she’s just as on the hook for payment as he would be if she’d kept the child. If he doesn’t adopt… no financial consequences implicit, no bodily consequences implicit, nothing but his emotional entanglement. I’d argue the emotional consequences are not the realm of legislation and are so variable we can’t really make any pronouncements on them one way or other other.
In other words, no matter what happens: once there’s a pregnancy the woman is on the hook for boatloads of physical, financial, and legal consequences (pregnancy doesn’t come cheap, although she might get it subsidized through adoption), not to mention the unavoidable emotional consequences she may or may not have but, given her unavoidable daily, intimate involvement in the situation plus hormones probably will. The man, on the other hand, is definitely on the hook for whatever emotional consequences he’s liable to have and may be up for some financial and legal consequences if his “worst case scenario” develops. Even so, his financial and legal consequences won’t be comparable to hers even if he is on the hook for child support, presuming he didn’t want the child and didn’t adopt them. This version of “choice for men” means the man in question would be left holding some potential emotional consequences and nothing else, while the woman in question, regardless how the pregnancy proceeds or doesn’t, is left holding all consequences. Whatever happened to “it takes two to tango?” Doesn’t seem equal in the least. Actually, the current system doesn’t seem remotely equal since the woman handles all the consequences up until birth and then the law ostensibly views men and women equally, but that’s biology and the flipside is that the woman whose biology is personally effected have a say in managing the effect an unintended pregnancy has on their body which has a mitigating effect on those upfront consequences.
Is it fair? No. Is it equal? No. Is it the State’s fault? No, I’m afraid the State couldn’t legislate away this can of worms if it desperately, desperately tried (although holding fathers accountable for their offspring at all was an attempt). Certainly I understand how frustrating the situation is for the men caught in it: they don’t have a say in this event of major importance to their lives. Neither did any of us have a say when we were born and we’re not going to have much of a say when we die, some things just work out that way. How on earth are we supposed to improve the situation? Giving men a say after the fact is a legal fiction, generally a very bad idea, and extremely tempting because it holds no penalties for the man. He can avoid the payments and legal obligations, then years later have a mid-life crisis and get back in contact. Or the child will get curious and contact them. They get to be a father when they feel like it, if they feel like it, but the reality is different and it hasn’t changed.
In one form or another, this has always been a bone of contention and always will be. For what it’s worth, I would never have the child of someone who didn’t absolutely want to be a father and I’d advocate that approach to all women, but it’s nothing something one can legislate.
Glimmering, yes women are the ones who get pregnant.
Beyond the unavoidable biology, exactly what arguments against male choice do not apply to female choice?
After a woman gets pregnant, but before the third trimester, there is no child.
If you don’t like thinking of it as “male abortion” think of it as putting the child up for adoption.
Rob, the statutes are gender-neutral. If the woman did not want to be a parent, and she gives birth, she is still legally on the hook as a parent.
For what it’s worth, I would never have the child of someone who didn’t absolutely want to be a father and I’d advocate that approach to all women, but it’s nothing something one can legislate.
Well, it may not be something one SHOULD legislate. But you probably CAN do so without trampling on Constitutional rights.
These folks argue that even when you leave out the disturbing concept of a father having the right to force an abortion on a woman who didn’t want it, there is still a big gap left between that (which is truly frightening) and the current state of the law vis a vis child support, paternity, etc. So in theory you could elect to legislate anywhere within that gap, or outside it (e.g. you could make child support/paternity laws even more stringent.)
Similarly, they often argue that even if you leave out the equally disturbing concept of a father having the right to prevent an abortion even if the woman wants it, there is a gap left (a much much smaller one in this case) between that and issues regarding mental distress, etc, esp. between unmarried folks.
I have seen both arguments put forward numerous times. The first one is much stronger both from a moral and legal sense, and is usually the main one they focus on. Though it’s still a losing argument in court, as we can see here, for a variety of reasons. In particular, the state can always pull the “best interests of the child” magic bunny out of the hat, and it’s pretty damn impossible to win that argument.
Personally I’m somewhat of a free will contract advocate, so I’d have no problem with men and women being allowed to contract out of the default future child support/paternity/maternity agreements if they so chose. I’d be in favor of enforcing those agreements under contract law: at least it’d prompt folks to talk about these things before they went and had sex. But that is a different topic entirely.
Indeed they are however there is the option of abortion, Roe vs Wade isn’t just about bodily integrity, its also about financial and mental, and a child will have a mental and financial (and likely physical) effect on the father as well as the mother. Men should imo have the option to opt out, or perhaps better an opt in as then it cannot be used as a weapon against the mother.
It has never seemed fair to me that women have this abundance of choice in regards to having a child and men have zero less they be a dead beat dad. And even that comes with financial and criminal penalities. Women have birth control options(Abstinence, Condoms, Patch, Pills, Shot, IUD) They also have choice regarding an unwanted pregnancy (Morning After pill, Abortion, Abortion pill). They can also opt out after having the baby (Safe Haven, Adoption). This is complete disregard to the emtions or financial stability of the father. All without any criminal or financial penaltie
Lets see, men have birth control (Abstinence, Condoms) or they could opt out or be unable to afford a child and be seen as the scourge of society.
Hardly seems fair or right. I am currently 4 months pregnant. I told my husband the way things are now, I could decide on my lunch break i don’t want to do this, go downtown, take the next day off and the day after have no baby. Without his knowledge or consent, this is something that would completely crush him emotionally.
But my mind set is you should never have sex with anyone you don’t want to have a child with. But thats just me.
I’m am 100 percent in agreement with choice for men.
I’ve got the same answer for this guy that I’d have for a woman; if you don’t want to deal with the consequences of fathering a child, keep your pants on. If you wanted to have sex but didn’t want to start a child and took contraceptive measures, too bad; sometimes they fail and that’s a known risk you accept when you use them. And if your partner said that they were using contraception and either it failed or they lied, once again too bad; once again, a known risk.
Mythago, if a woman does not want to be a parent, she can place the child up for adoption, or abandon it(in some states) without any consequences, legal or financial. If the child goes to foster care, she cannot be imprisoned for not paying child support.
RonF, that at least is a consistent position, at least it is if you think abortion should be reclassified as first degree murder.
Hi Ampersand. Very glad to see you talking about this again! I loved all your past blogs on this issue – you’re very eloquent. (For those who want to find a few of them, search on “Ampersand” and “drinking brandy” – that’s how I look them up.)
Here’s what I posted here a couple of years ago:
What the C4M’s keep arguing, in not so many words, is that a man’s right not to use birth control – or not to campaign for better BC – is more sacred than his kid’s right to be fed and clothed. Or that bodily autonomy is no more sacred than a wallet – i.e., that a woman’s right to an abortion is no more sacred than a man’s right to his bank account. (Isn’t that pretty much the same argument used by those governments that cut off the hands of convicted thieves?)
See Katha Pollitt’s piece below (this should beVERY eye-opening to some who’ve posted today on this issue):
http://tinyurl.com/6k2ue
I can’t help but wonder whether the C4M’s WOULD bother to take advantage of better male birth control if they had it. If all men took full advantage, they could practically turn the U.S. into a patriarchy again – sort of a male version of “Lysistrata,” if you will! Not to mention why there’s little loud demand for it in the first place. Even columnist Cathy Young – whom I respect quite a bit – has yet to comment on the male lack of interest in male birth control!
I also want to hear what the ACLU’s Wendy Kaminer would say…
Comments?
she can place the child up for adoption
Not unilaterally. Unless the father’s rights have been severed, he has a say in the adoption. Surely I’m not the only one who remembers some very famous cases where adoptions were reversed because, post-adoption, bio-dad found out he was a father.
or abandon it(in some states) without any consequences, legal or financial
You misstate the law. In California, these ‘safe baby’ statutes say that a mother or a father who leaves a baby at certain designated places, such as a hospital, will not be prosecuted for abandonment. That abandonment doesn’t automatically cut off either the mother’s or the father’s rights. The hope of these laws is that desperate parents will leave their babies at a hospital, not in a Dumpster. They’re not a ‘get out of child support free’ card.
If the child goes to foster care, she cannot be imprisoned for not paying child support.
Are you saying that in your state, the law holds that only fathers, but not mothers, are liable for child support if their child is in foster care for any reason?
The bottom line is that women are just as much on the hook as men. The only difference is that women sometimes have the option of getting an abortion, and sometimes may put a child up for adoption. But “I didn’t want to have sex” or “the condom broke” or “My husband locked me in the basement for nine months and prevented me from having an abortion” or “I didn’t want to be a mother” do not excuse a woman from her legal obligations to her child, either.
Well, lenona, if you’re going to ask for comments…
I am not a C4M advocate, and never will be: There are better uses of my time and a lot of the C4M folks have nasty anti-woman politics which I dislike.
But c’mon, enough of the straw men already. And there are a lot of them here, fertile or no.
First:
I can’t help but wonder whether the C4M’s WOULD bother to take advantage of better male birth control if they had it. …Even columnist Cathy Young – whom I respect quite a bit – has yet to comment on the male lack of interest in male birth control!
Who are all these “uninterested” men who don’t care about male birth control? You mean the ones under development that they can’t buy yet? I don’t think you have to wonder at all. Perhaps you missed Katha Pollitt’s link:
Ahhhh, THOSE uninterested men. My mistake. And you think a noninjectable pill wouldn’t get interest?
Let’s open up the rest of the straw bales here, shall we?
What the c4m’s keep arguing, in so many words, is that a man’s right not to use birth control…is more sacred than his kid’s right to be fed and clothed.
Nope. nasty missstatement. If I were to summarize the C4M position, I’d say:
Kids can be fed and clothed by men, women, both, or society. The responsibility for feeding and clothing a child should be proportional to the desire to actually have a child and/or act accordingly.
This may not even be accurate. I don’t think the C4M position is anti-BC. Instead, I think it has more to do with the rights and burdens which result from an unagreed-on pregnancy, whether accidental or not.
a man’s right not to …campaign for better BC – is more sacred than his kid’s right to be fed and clothed.
Ok, not only have you invented some random “right not to campaign for better BC” here but… oh hell, this is so silly it’s hard to respond. I have never heard this one. Would you mind providing some nice quotes, in context? I promise I won’t start talking about women not failing to exercise their right not to campaign against men not campaigning for male BC, because I get my nots mixed up.
Or that bodily autonomy is no more sacred than a wallet – i.e., that a woman’s right to an abortion is no more sacred than a man’s right to his bank account.
There are surely antiabortion C4M folks. I don’t really read their stuff though.
However, you’ve pretty much stated the worst case of idiocy which is “my wallet> your uterus.” As I discussed above, there’s a lot of grey area. Uterus “wins” easily IMO, but that does NOT mean “wallet = 0” it only means “uterus > wallet”.
(Isn’t that pretty much the same argument used by those governments that cut off the hands of convicted thieves?)
…and this is relevant how?
It’s hard to have a discussion about the flaws of the ACTUAL c4m movement if we are, instead, forced to discuss the c4m movement dressed in a straw gorilla suit. That’s why I’m replying here.
BTW, Lorena, I am curious as to whether you’re of the “if you don’t want to deal with the consequences of fathering a child, keep your pants on” camp. And, if so, how are your relations with your prochoice acquaintances?
Uterus “wins” easily IMO, but that does NOT mean “wallet = 0″ it only means “uterus > wallet”.
Why is the debate framed purely in terms of “uterus” vs. “wallet”? Are these supposed to be each parent’s only investments? I’m sure there are plenty of men who don’t wish to be fathers, not because of the price tag, but because they do not want the moral responsibility of fatherhood. Yet the debate seems to come down, always, to child support.
I dunno why, Mythago. But when I see c4m folks pop up it’s usually about money.
I’ve got my guesses as to why, curious to hear yours. In no particular order, my guesses are:
1) It may be that in theory you can disclaim some of the moral issues by offering your choid up for adoption, for example. If you believe (as I do) that there is no inherent harm in adoption, then the moral responsibility of fatherhood is somewhat easier to avoid.
2) they adopt an adaptation of the typical prochoice argument:
-Adults will have sex;
-Some will get pregnant even if they try not to;
-the moral responsibility (if any) derives from choice and control. No choice, no control >> no moral responsibility.
3) It’s easier to talk about money, and easier to attack child support.
Legally women always (before a certain point in the pregnancy) have the choice to abort. A woman who does not want a child does not have to have one. Period. You may think this is horrible law, and that abortion truly is murder, legally, this is not the case. Every child is the result solely of the mother’s choice.
Mythago, it is my understanding that in my state, a women who does not want to be on the hook for 18 years of child support can, if she so desires, make the choice of aborting the embryo.
The point at which men should be able to opt out of any responsibility for a child should match the points at which a woman can opt out of having a child or having financial responsibility for the child.
As to baby drop off, do you honestly think if the father took the baby, without the mother’s consent, and dropped it off, that should take him off the hook, or that he would not be prosecuted. Dropping of the baby does not end rights, but it probably ends responsibility.
Probably C4M revolves around money because the courts can force child support, but cannot force love or concern.
On adoption, if a woman does not list a father on the birth certificate, how could he oppose the adoption? Aditionally, very few of the C4M people are against abortion.
Rob,
before I respond I’d like to be positive I understand what you’re saying.
I think you’re saying this, in essence:
So long as a woman can get a legal abortion, and so long as someone (he/she) can pay for it, then the man should be able to opt out. At which point the woman will have two choices: 1) Abort; or 2) Bear a child knowing the father will not assist her.
Is that a correct summary?
I’m pretty much in agreement with TheGlimmering, who I think covered most angles of this argument in her comment. No matter what happens–abortion, miscarriage, carrying to term–the woman is strongly affected after the pregnancy, either physically or emotionally or both, and this can’t be said of men. So it’s absurd to say that women currently have all the “choices” while men don’t. Once conception happens, the woman’s body is going to be affected and she doesn’t have a bit of choice about that.
Well I believe since we have to 100 percent bear the brunt childbearing, as nature has designed, it is 100 percent our responsibility to make sure an unwanted pregnancy does not happen outside of being raped in any form.(which is the only way I could see a woman being impregnanted without her consent). This means using all available means of birth control and/or practicing absintence or limited sex to men you are willing to procreate with.
If a woman CHOOSES to bear a child outside of those limits they should be willing to raise a child financially, emotionally, and physically alone whatever the impact such child may have on their bodies. Lets not talk about we don’t have any choice. In most cases we have a choice lay down with men.
A man, since he is not responsible physically for the burden of a child, but emotionally and financially, should assume that any woman he puts his penis in is a potential mother to one of his children and he should use all available birth control options given to him, including abstinence. If he chooses to have sex outside of the limit he should expect to bear finanically and emotional reponsibilty for any offspring.
HOWEVER
So far as abortion is legal and women have the many options of not being burdened with responsibilities of parenthood(and its financial and life impact cost) or the effect on her body a man should also have an option. It takes two to make a baby.
This is the kind of issue that I’d want to reserve judgment except on a case by case basis. There are too many variables to make a solid case for one ideal situation. However, I can understand why courts can’t possibly mediate individual cases. Any law around this will be unfair to someone, but I think current legislation errs in the right direction. It ensures a bit of a brighter future for a child who is less impoverished than without support from or contact with dad.
I ended up pregnant in a rebound relationship. I decided to have the baby, but recognized the father’s right to have a say. I wasn’t about to allow him a say over whether or not I abort – it’s my body; but I did let him choose between sticking around to enjoy the child and help pay for it, or leaving scott free with no money requested nor visitation allowed. BUT, I had decided to have the baby from a solid emotional and financial position. Not all women who find themselves pregnant have that luxury.
Some argue that if, at 8-weeks pregnant, a woman can choose to have or not have the baby, the father should also be allowed to choose to parent or not. It sounds reasonable in theory. But a man choosing to leave might create ongoing suffering for the child. And that should never be someone’s right.
But it IS so dependent on the people involved.
As to baby drop off, do you honestly think if the father took the baby, without the mother’s consent, and dropped it off, that should take him off the hook, or that he would not be prosecuted.
Do you honestly think a law written to prevent babies from being left in a Dumpster or a toilet to die by mothers or fathers, and which is specifically written to include both mothers and fathers, somehow does not apply to mothers and fathers?
On adoption, if a woman does not list a father on the birth certificate, how could he oppose the adoption?
If the woman does not list a father on the birth certificate, how can he consent to the adoption so that it may legally take place?
A woman who does not want a child does not have to have one. Period.
Rob, repeating things that are false does not make them true. I have a right to own a mansion overlooking Puget Sound. Does that mean if I want a mansion overlooking Puget Sound I will get one, period? Of course not. You’re assuming that any woman who wants an abortion can get one. You assume that she has physical access to a facility that provides abortion and that she can afford one, merely because she has the ‘right’.
You also keep skipping past the point that once a child is born, both parents are financially and legally responsible. That is regardless of whether they wanted to be parents. If I get hit by a car tomorrow, go into a coma, and wake up nine months later to find I had a baby, do you honestly think that I am legally allowed to say “I didn’t want that baby, I didn’t get to choose an abortion, so I don’t owe the kid child support and I don’t have to be its mother”?
Z, why does childbearing have anything to do with responsibility for conception? Presumably everyone who consents to sex is consenting to the risk, however small, of pregnancy.
Z and I cross-posted. I want to add that I’ve never in my life had unprotected sex, and I have three beautiful children to show for it. I was on the pill for my first, and I took it every day at the same time of day. It’s not 100%. Then, since I hate the pill anyway, and it didn’t work for me, I started using a diaphram. I got pregnant again. Also not 100% – in fact way less after the first child even if it’s newly fitter – good to know! Finally, before my guy moved in with me I decided to have a freaking tubal ligation!!! I was told to stop all sex for two weeks after the operation, then I’d be good to go. We waited a month. Six-weeks later I found out I was pregnant. My obgyn had warned me that even sterilization isn’t 100%, but it’s pretty darn close. I’m the first in her 10-year practice to get pregnant. My mom (who has two kids less than 10 months apart) told me we’re just built for making babies. Lucky bloody me!
Life’s a page turner!
I have a right to own a mansion overlooking Puget Sound. Does that mean if I want a mansion overlooking Puget Sound I will get one, period? Of course not. You’re assuming that any woman who wants an abortion can get one.
That’s a practical question, not an issue of rights. You and I both have 1st amendment rights; we have variable levels of access to printing presses.
It doesn’t undermine my right to freedom of the press that there aren’t any printing presses for rent in (wherever-you-live).
Sage there are always exceptions.That is why all options for birth control and unwanted pregnancies should be available.
I myself am a product of an exception. A father, signed the birth certificate, then decided to not bear any responsibilty. My mother struggled, fought, and had to suffer the humiliation of being on welfare. (back then it was embarassing) Then he decided marriy my mother, had another child with her willingly, divorced her then left her holding the bag for both of us. By him signing my birth cert there was an assumption he was taking responsibilty for me, he made no claims otherwis, then he doesn’t uphold his end.
MYTHAGO
“You also keep skipping past the point that once a child is born, both parents are financially and legally responsible. That is regardless of whether they wanted to be parents. If I get hit by a car tomorrow, go into a coma, and wake up nine months later to find I had a baby, do you honestly think that I am legally allowed to say “I didn’t want that baby, I didn’t get to choose an abortion, so I don’t owe the kid child support and I don’t have to be its mother”?
Z, why does childbearing have anything to do with responsibility for conception? Presumably everyone who consents to sex is consenting to the risk, however small, of pregnancy. ”
You could give your kid up for adoption and sever all your legal and financial responsibilities to it. Thereby saying you don’t want it. This discussion is about more than abortio.n
And as far as I know, the most common way to have to suffer childbearing is to have sex. And I doubt women having invitro are doing it just for fun not expecting the result of a child.
Robert, that’s just the point. “You have a right to an abortion, some restrictions apply” is not the same as “no woman ever has to have a child if she doesn’t want to”.
Z, you have to have both parents agree to put the child up for adoption, or have one parent’s responsibilities severed . If I wake up with a new baby, and my husband doesn’t want to put the child up for adoption, I can’t say “Well I do, so the child support and responsibility are 100% yours, buster.”
mythago,
If I wake up tomorrow with a new baby, as a single woman I can write “father unknown” on the birth certificate and give it up for adoption without even letting the dad know we conceived a kid. I don’t need the father’s agreement or knowledge at all.
Robert, that’s just the point. “You have a right to an abortion, some restrictions apply”
But feminists acknowledge no restrictions on the right to abortion – it’s supposed to be free and unfettered – or do I misunderstand on that point?
Safe,
If you can simply write “father unknown”, put the child up for adoption and have the stick over a father’s objections, then you must not live in the US. There have been court cases where fathers learned of their children, sued and the adoption was reversed. In that case, the biological mother is still on the line for child support.
If I wake up tomorrow with a new baby, as a single woman I can write “father unknown” on the birth certificate and give it up for adoption without even letting the dad know we conceived a kid.
Better hope he doesn’t find out. Apparently Oregon is a popular state for adoption for precisely that reason–there is a law in Oregon that if an unmarried father isn’t present and involved with the mother during the pregnancy, he can’t veto an adoption. It is apparently unique in this respect, and adoptive parents who don’t want any rude surprises prefer adopting there for this reason.
Robert, I’m talking about reality, not theory. Abortion is not available to any woman who wants it, free, whenver and for whatever reason she wants it, as Rob thinks.
But feminists acknowledge no restrictions on the right to abortion – it’s supposed to be free and unfettered – or do I misunderstand on that point?
I believe mythago is talking about reality, not feminist goals. In real life, in the U.S., there are quite a number of legal restrictions on abortion. ( That’s where the “mansion overlooking Puget Sound” comparison falls apart.)
Whoops! Cross-post. Sorry, mythago.
An adoption can only proceed if the father is not officially known. A mother can put unknown on a birth certificate. Many private adoptors will happily continue the process without a second thought as to birth father. She can also put her child up for adoption with baby in utero without the father’s knowledge by simply stating that the father is unknown. Only if, and ONLY IF the father is made aware of the adoption in due time and has the MEANS of fighting it than he MAY be successful in blocking the process. This is only the case if the father has the financial means of taking the adoption agency, the mother and the adoptive parents to court. If he doesn’t have the means to hire good legal council, best interest of the child, and the bias for mother in the legal system will beat him out. He has another point against him if he is seen as unfit compared to a 2 parent stable household the child might adopted into. Especially if he is young or unwed or not gainfully employed. He is always treated as an intruder or the enemy. His other problem is time. If he is assuming his child is going to be with its mother and does not contest the adoption within 30 days, or has no knowledge of it past that he is seen as given consent to the adoption. If the child has been immediately placed into the custody of the 3rd party right after birth than it becomes even more impossible because there is the bonding issues.
It is possible for a father to win over in adoptions, but it is an extremely hard and costly fight. Esepcially against adoptive parents that are desperately seeking to have a child in their hands.
I think the old feminst point about how technically ‘neutral’ provisions can have enormous gender bias does get a running here. If Robert impregnanted Mythago she would automatically have custody after the birth and could drop the baby off at a safe haven if she wished. His chances of getting custody and being able to do the same would essentially be zero.
Nik wrote:
What makes you so sure? Dividing the Child, a well-regarded book I’ve often seen cited by men’s rights activists, concluded that there isn’t enough evidence to conclude that courts are biased in men’s favor (or in women’s favor) in custody cases. (I’ve seen anecdotal evidence going both ways, of course, but that doesn’t tell us anything about the system as a whole.)
I’ve seen MRAs make this claim (that men can’t use safe haven laws) a lot. However, I’ve never seen any evidence that save haven drop-offs refuse to accept babies dropped off by men, or that they arrest men who drop off babies. Given what safe haven laws say (outside of Georgia), I’d find this remarkable if it were true. Nik, do you have ANY evidence at all that these things are happening, or is this just something you assume to be true?
(In contrast, I think there’s a lot of solid evidence that marketplace discrimination against women does exist – it’s not just something feminists pulled out of our collective ears and expect everyone else to accept on faith).
If the mother of the child didn’t consent to the safe haven drop-off and the father then proceded to take the child and drop it off, then wouldn’t our current system be seen as being guitly of custodial interferance if not out right kidnapping?
It is easier for a mother do drop off the infant given that she has default custody from birth. Just as the reality of abortion makes it difficult if not impossible for some women to get them – the reality of the safe haven laws make it difficult for a father to use them.
That being said, I still feel that as an adult that has chosen to have sex then unless the mother and father both agree to sever ties to the child, then the child should be supported by both the mother and the father.
And this is totally anecdotal, but I have a friend that put a child up for adoption without telling the three potential fathers. She simply left the father’s spot on the birth certificate blank, and then proceded with a private adoption to parents out of state. Ten years later and the fathers still do not know of the child and at this point it would be near impossible because of “best interests of the child” to over turn the adoption by anyone.
How many of these potential fathers ever use condoms? The guy in this case didn’t, and he’s upset because despite the precautions he didn’t take conception resulted and he can’t push it all away. What a guy.
Just because men can get away with not using contraception doesn’t meant they should, and in fact if they’re not using contraception they get no sympathy at all.
Ginmar,
I don’t know if they were using bc or not (the woman or the men). And I agree if a man chooses to not use bc then he is as responsible for the resulting conception than the mother is even though she bears all the physical impact of the pregnancy.
I tend to believe our current laws are fine, but that there are some rare cases that should be looked at individually. As in the case of another of my friends, she deliberately misled her partner by telling him that she’d had a hysterectomy. Admittedly, this woman suffers from bi-polar disorder. But my feelings are that in this case, the man should have some options open to him other than those existing.
Like I stated, cases like the one I mentioned are very rare, and are exceptions to the normal situations seen in court. Men should always use condoms if they do not wish to be fathers, and if that desire is life long, then they should have a vasectomy and use a condom to ensure no conception can occur.
Amp,
I just made the claim on the basis that I think it’s bleeding obvious that the mother will get custody at birth.
The argument’s just one from incredulity. I don’t think it would be possible to bring a custody or paternity action in so short a timeframe (even ignoring that they would delay the case until the mother had recovered from labour and could give advice to lawyers). And if it came down to it – and I doubt it ever has – I don’t think a judge would use either the ‘best interests of the child’ or ‘primary caregiver’ standard to justify taking a newborn from a nursing mother who has just given birth and giving it to the father.
Please don’t misunderstand my point. I’m not making any general claim that custody is ‘biased’ against men – in the sense that men who reach a given standard have a tougher time than women who reach that standard. I’m not complaining about the standards courts use for judgement being bias. I’m just saying, in practice, there is no way Robert would be able to take possession of the child in the timeframe needed to use a drop off unless Mythago allowed it.
Apart from I think 4 or 5 states the laws all allow men drop off babies. That’s my point about a technically ‘neutral’ provisions. But I just can’t see how, unless the mother gave him the child, a father could legally get his hands on a child to drop it off.
Robert, I’m talking about reality, not theory.
Precisely my point. There is a theoretical right to reproductive freedom, and then some practical limitations on that right.
And you’re using those practical realities as an argument against a theoretical right on the man’s side of things. You are, in effect, saying that I don’t have a 1st amendment right because you don’t have a printing press. But in fact, my theoretical 1st amendment rights are the same as yours, regardless of which of us has what physical property.
Similarly, under the “reproductive choice” rubric, if humans have this theoretical reproductive autonomy, then we all have it.
I find C4M morally repugnant – but (correctly formulated) it is no more repugnant than C4W. If we’re going to permit moral repugnancy in the name of freedom, then we at least ought to be consistent about it.
What the C4M’s keep arguing, in not so many words,
See Katha Pollitt’s piece below
http://tinyurl.com/6k2ue
Dear Sailorman:
I fear you made a few “errors”:
(Who are all these “uninterested” men who don’t care about male birth control? You mean the ones under development that they can’t buy yet? I don’t think you have to wonder at all. Perhaps you missed Katha Pollitt’s link:
So far, most of the experiments have involved not a pill at all, but weekly injections. Even considering the pain of the injection and the hassle of getting to the doctor’s office every week, men have apparently been lining up for drug trials. Fred Wu, a researcher at the University of Manchester in England, told the South China Morning Post, “When we made a request for volunteers, the switchboard was jammed for several days.”
Ahhhh, THOSE uninterested men. My mistake. And you think a noninjectable pill wouldn’t get interest?)
That was AFTER Pollitt’s column, from another article. What’s more, while men in England or China – no surprise there, what with one-child laws – may crave better methods, men’s rights groups in the U.S. have hardly been loud in the media about demanding them. Maybe that’s why they can’t buy them yet.
Also, I said “arguing in NOT so many words.” You removed “not.”
I admit I’m not as good a writer as Pollitt. As Amp said a while back, bottom line is, once a child is born, it has rights that can’t be signed away, even in advance.
Just check out this bit from Pollitt:
“In the quest to control their fertility, women have demonstrated in the
millions, gone to jail, jammed the polls, put up with the side effects and
health damage, and even died. They pay hundreds of dollars out of pocket every
year for contraception and abortion, and donate millions of dollars and
volunteer hours to Planned Parenthood, NARAL and other groups. How many of the
men complaining that women have all the reproductive options have written a
letter, given a dollar, joined a group, marched or demonstrated to get some for
themselves? Every disease and condition in the country has its advocacy
organization; where is the big fertile-male campaign to forward the development
of a male pill or a reversible vasectomy? Is male-controlled contraception at
the top of the list of demands of any men’s rights group?”
BTW, Lorena, I am curious as to whether you’re of the “if you don’t want to deal with the consequences of fathering a child, keep your pants on” camp. And, if so, how are your relations with your prochoice acquaintances?
When women can easily impregnate men and men are faced with carrying babies to term, get back to me.
Apologies, ms_xeno, I’m not following your point.
Yes, men impregnate women, and women bear the children to term (or not). And?
I suppose the underlying question is: do you believe that human beings have reproductive autonomy?
I suppose you missed the other 40 billion times that Ampersand has argued the correct point, even though often enough he has argued it directly to you.
The point is that women bear the major burdens and risks borne of reproduction. This is true regardless of whether she aborts or has the baby and deals with the attendent issues. It is thus ridiculous to argue for symmetry where biological symmetry clearly does not exist.
The point is that women bear the major burdens and risks borne of reproduction. This is true regardless of whether she aborts or has the baby and deals with the attendent issues. It is thus ridiculous to argue for symmetry where biological symmetry clearly does not exist.
This is the argument that patriarchs use to argue against women’s full participation in society.
Women bear the major organic burdens and risks of reproduction. There are many other burdens and risks associated with children, which can be born by any parent (or even kindly stranger). The organic burdens run a high risk for a short period of time; the non-organic burdens run a more moderate risk for two decades-plus. It is not intuitively obvious that womens’ reproductive burden is automatically greater than mens’; the net burdens can be grossly unequal or quite egalitarian, depending on the arrangements reached by the participants.
And you didn’t answer the question.
Do you believe that people have a right to reproductive autonomy?
Robert:
How did I know you were going to say that ? You needn’t be coy. Say it. Say, “ms_xeno is using the same argument a sexist male could use to tell women they can’t play pro football.” Except that would be bullshit. Nobody uses their reproductive parts to play football. People use their brains, limbs, hands and feet to play football. There is no biological disymmetry there between men and women. Unlike reproduction, where the disymmetries are glaringly obvious.
Furthermore, the fact that patriarchs use this excuse underscores my point. They use it to avoid the knowledge that if women are going to fully participate in society, they will need things that men don’t now and have never needed. It’s a neat, and classic trick. “We can’t give you special privileges, Honey. It’s we who have decreed that your nature-ordained physiology is inferior, which is why we also get to proclaim that any pro-equality measures which acknowledged this would be special privileges. Now stop complaining. It’s a sign of female weakness, not a sign that you actually have any legitimate complaints.”
Oh, bullshit. How many women in this space who’ve carried babies to term have torn your contention here to shreds ? Not to mention your claim that nine months of even a relatively uncomplicated pregnancy is nothing compared to some poor man having to work his tail off all by his lonesome so his kid can got to college ? I’m not playing this game with you again. It’s old.
Well, it isn’t obvious to a patriarch who lives to play “GOTCHA'” with feminists, at any rate.
Do you ever tire of attempting to back your opponents into corners with questions based upon useless generalizations, and then feigning wonderment that we don’t take your queries seriously ?
I’m not going to repeat myself in an endless loop. My point stands. It’s time for you to find another pigeon now.
It sounds to me like you are intellectually aware of the contradictions in your autonomy-for-me-but-not-for-thee position, but either are not able or are not willing to address them.
The biological disparities that create a differential in (say) football are certainly less structurally inevitable than those which create a differential in reproduction, but it’s risible to say that they don’t exist.
I’m not sure what your paragraph about women who have given birth is all about. It would seem to support the contention; at childbirth, the bulk of a woman’s unique contribution to the reproductive process is done. (Nursing can extend the process, but on balance nursing seems to be fairly risk neutral.) Your statement about what I am claiming is dishonest, and so I won’t respond to it, other than to flag the dishonesty. Whether a man does the toiling after birth to nurture a child, or whether a woman does, or whether both do, and the relative magnitude of those contributions, is obviously variable. It is therefore intellectually invalid to claim that women always and everywhere have the larger burden. (And thus, arguments predicated upon women’s permanent condition of bearing the whole burden fail.)
Finally, how is my question to you going to back you into a corner? If you DO believe in reproductive autonomy for all people, fine. If you believe in it only for women, fine. I do not think there are any consequences to your beliefs, certainly not within this social space; all my question is attempting to do is get you to clarify them.
Your reluctance to do so pretty much answers the question: your position is cognitively incoherent and boils down to “women should get to do what they want”.
I won’t be participating much in this debate, because the only computer I have access to is in a non-air-conditioned area. I’m sweating and sticky just typing this much. It’s gross. But I’m so dedicated to this blog, I’m going to type a response to Robert anyway.
O, how I suffer! You folks don’t appreciate what I go through to you. Did I mention that the walk to the computer is uphill both ways, and despite the 100-degree weather it’s through hip-deep snow? Weird, but there you have it.
I beleive that everyone, male or female, has an absolute right to do whatever they want with their own body to control or prevent their own reproduction.
I also believe that once a child is born both parents, male or female, are responsible for providing their child with needed support. (There are narrow exceptions to this, but by and large the general rule holds true, and the exceptions apply to both sexes).
You’re dishonestly twisting the feminist case to claim that “reproductive autonomy” includes the right for a woman to abandon a born child. But that has never been the claim made by most feminists about “reproductive autonomy.” You’re not finding a contradiction in the feminist views; you’re just setting up a strawman.
You can also fall back on the ridiculous – but commonplace – claim that brains and minds have no moral status whatsoever, and that there is no difference in the moral status of a five-day-old embryo and a five-year-old girl. But you’ve shown again and again that you’re unable to defend that position (or its close relatives) logically, so let’s not go there, please.
You’re quite right that I can’t make a good logical argument for equating fetuses and babies; luckily, that has absolutely no bearing on the C4M argument, as I understand it.
Don’t overestimate what I’m trying to say – I’m not claiming that reproductive autonomy (for anybody) includes the right to abandon a born child. In fact, it seems that we are in substantial agreement about what “reproductive autonomy” means.
We both agree that before conception, people who don’t want children should act accordingly. (We differ on what “act accordingly” means, but nvm.)
We both agree that after birth, it doesn’t matter whether you want the kid or not; you’re liable to support any born child, with narrow exceptions that we probably do agree on, in the main.
What’s left?
The obligation to support a child that is in the womb.
I believe that both men and women have an obligation to support a child that is in the womb. I believe that if women have the right to terminate their support of such a child, then so do men. If a woman terminates her obligation by terminating the child, she does so into the indefinite future. If a man terminates his obligation by (legally) terminating the relationship between himself and the kid, that also goes into the indefinite future. I really don’t see much difference – other than that the man doesn’t have to kill anybody to exercise his “right”.
You (I think) believe that women have no obligation to support a child that is in the womb, but that men do, if the woman desires that. Which (at least to me) seems to be about on a par with saying that women have an obligation to support a child that is in the womb if the man desires it – which feminists reject as outrageous.
Is that a fair statement?
You (I think) believe that women have no obligation to support a child that is in the womb, but that men do, if the woman desires that. Which (at least to me) seems to be about on a par with saying that women have an obligation to support a child that is in the womb if the man desires it – which feminists reject as outrageous.
Is that a fair statement?
Robert, I think you’re using radically different meanings of the word support. Support from a man’s perspective means child support. For a woman, it means the use of her body, significant physical health risks, and potential long term effects if the pregnancy isn’t an easy one. I don’t think you can rationally equate physically carrying a pregnancy to term with writing a check. So no, it’s not a fair statement, and it’s remarkable that you’d try and equate the two.
The problem I see here consistantly is that of the physical burden on the mother, when we are address in totality all of the options a mother has to unburden herself of a child once its conceived versus a father.
The abortion argument only works if the sole purpose of the various means that women can unburden themselves of a pregnancy was due to the physical nature of pregnancy and thats it. Many women terminate pregnancy due social and life impacts such a pregnancy would have on them. A baby is in utero maximum 10 months. If it is born a parent is responsible for it for atleast 18 years. That can create a life impact larger than actually carrying the baby to term.
Not one person I know who has has an abortion has done it soley because of the physical burden(an its unfortunate I know many). That was the least of their worries.
GIMNAR
“Just because men can get away with not using contraception doesn’t meant they should, and in fact if they’re not using contraception they get no sympathy at all.”
I find this statement as to the very root of the unfairness. Women are given a free pass to kill or destroy soemthing that is essentially alive (and i say this as a pregnant woman whom weeks ago had nothing but a embryonic pole with a heart pulsating in it), or get out of it by other means, and no one puts any responsibility on them for pregnancy. We need sexual responsibilty the same as men. We can receive welfare to help us pay for such children to cloth them, feed them, and house them, college discounts, food vouchers, etc,
When is the last time you saw a public assistance program for men who are too young or too poor to support their children other than Jail or being branded a deadbeat and receiving. ” no sympathy”
Sometimes and Oops for a woman is the same Oops for a man, and if birth control is 98.9 percent effective and woman can still get pregnant on it, a condom is only 80 percent effective and thats one of the only options for a man.
I have zero sympathy for women whom CHOOSE to lay with men irresponsibly or even with irresponsible men and have resulting children
Again if a women bear 100 percent the responsibilty of pregnancy(as you guys seem to be arguing) and doesn’t want to get pregnant, they need to assume 100 percent of the responsibilty in preventing it.
With exceptions of course. Sage’s tale is a good example.
Again, it takes two to make a baby or maybe I’m wrong and thats not the case.
Z
Robert, I think you’re using radically different meanings of the word support. Support from a man’s perspective means child support. For a woman, it means the use of her body, significant physical health risks, and potential long term effects if the pregnancy isn’t an easy one. I don’t think you can rationally equate physically carrying a pregnancy to term with writing a check. So no, it’s not a fair statement, and it’s remarkable that you’d try and equate the two.
I’m not equating the two. I’m comparing the total investment in a child required of a mother and of a father, and not finding any blindingly obvious mandatory disparity in the sum total. Women make a unitary unique contribution to a child’s support, and that contribution has a very large amount of value – but it isn’t the total, or close to it. Speaking in purely cash terms (although those terms are inadequate – see below), it seems odd to say that you can’t possibly equate carrying a child to term with writing a check – because there are women who choose to bear children for strangers in exchange for a check every day. Obviously these people manage to make the equation. It depends on the size of the check.
But it isn’t the “check” that’s the real burden of supporting a child. “Support” involves material support, emotional support, cognitive support (life training), an investment of time, bodily support, a host of foregone opportunities, and probably a bunch of other categories. It’s a HUGE sum total. The exact amount of support a particular parent gives a particular child is somewhat chosen (although people with certain values may feel compelled to provide more support than people with other values) – the state’s mandatory minimums are a tiny fraction of what supporting a child really entails. A child has legal entitlement to a bare minimum from each parent; he or she has moral entitlement to far more than that.
Women are free to jettison both the legal and moral responsibility. I’ve yet to see a consistent defense of the notion that men should not similarly be free.
Women …no one puts any responsibility on them for pregnancy.
What about all the women in your country who are prosecuted or jailed for not being clean or healthy enough in pregnancy, Z? What about all the social pressure, to do this do that, not do this and not do that? What about the employment ramifications…
As for practicing a combination of contraception and abstinence with someone you are willing to procreate with, I’m sure your DH must be thrilled about that.
Helen
I don’t know about unclean(whatever you mean by that) women being jailed having to do with Women having more choice than men and the double standard given to men. The only few cases I’ve heard are those that are addicted to narcotics and will not follow a treatment program.
I don’t understand the rest of your point. What about those problems for women? They exist.
Robert:
I don’t find it incoherent in the least. I believe firmly that you cannot call for legal symmetry where biological symmetry is likely to never exist. And, yes, I do believe that women should do what they want when it comes to reproductive choices. But you’ve known that for a dog’s years. You needn’t feign any confusion on that point. Actually it would make more sense to say that “the woman in question should have the right to make her own desires the final word on the subject.” Even if I don’t believe that her decision is the right one, she still had the right to make it.
Frankly, I think the guy who brought this case sounds like a grade-A heel. Even if I had a speck of maternal instinct, I’m not sure I would want to bring his child to term. Then again, what if I wanted the baby, and didn’t have enough financial support to break all ties to him, no matter how much of a heel I thought he was ?
Frankly, I think it’s rather funny that you can claim my position suffers from any more incoherence than yours does. I’m guessing that you are happy that this woman chose to have her baby once she knew she was pregnant, even under less than optimum circumstances. And yet, if “Choice for men” had enabled the heel of a father to drag her kicking and screaming to an abortion clinic, you’d probably be calling for him to be publically flogged– at the very least. Also, you don’t seem like the type that would champion the sort of programs that would make “Choice for men” feasable to society at large;The sort of programs that would diffuse the burden from a few heels out to the taxpaying population at large. Rest assured that your position seems as incoherent to me as mine does to you.
In other news, grass turns brown in Summer if nobody waters it.
Amp wrote:
Ding ding ding ding !!
BTW, does anybody remember the somewhat-related case of the woman who lost her court battle for the right to be impregnated by the frozen embryos that she had conceived with her ex-partner ? I felt bad for the woman, but I think in that case the court made the proper decision. The embryos were frozen. They were not already in the process of growing. I think that situation is closer to being a symmetrical situation for the man and woman– if only because the “potential child” is essentially in a state of stasis and the woman’s body doesn’t change unless somebody willfully implants the embryo. Incoherent ? Whatever. There seems to be a lot of that going around. Also, I’m guessing that particular situation is much less common than the one that’s the main subject of this thread.
Z, if you try any harder to miss the point you’ll be on the other side of the planet. You’re comparing things wihch cannot be compared: women get pregnant; men do not. I really don’t care if you’ve had kids or not—-why in hell would that grant you any credibility? Emotion is not an argument.
My comment was this: if men wish to not have kids, then they can avail themselves of any number of birth control or sexual practices wihch most definitely do not cause pregnancy. When they do not and whine, then I have no sympathy for them. Now what does your reproductive status have to do with that?
I just made the claim on the basis that I think it’s bleeding obvious that the mother will get custody at birth.
Custody? Both the mother and father have equal rights and responsibilities–including the right to shared physical custody–unless a court orders otherwise. Dad is not ‘kidnapping’ his own child. Yet again, the point of the ‘safe haven’ laws is to keep people from leaving unwanted children in places where they will die. If Robert is punished for taking our baby to a hospital, future Roberts will not be dissuaded from throwing the kid off the Golden Gate bridge or into a gabrage can.
By the way, if Robert impregnated Mythago, he’d be SOL because the law would presume Mr. Mythago to be the baby’s father.
You are, in effect, saying that I don’t have a 1st amendment right because you don’t have a printing press.
No. I am am saying that having free-speech rights under the First Amendment does not mean that everyone who gets a printing press wants one. Rob’s argument is that anyone who has free-speech rights can print as many band flyers as they want whenever they want.
I believe that if women have the right to terminate their support of such a child, then so do men.
Indeed. So let’s agree that men have no obligation to support a fetus. Once there’s a born baby, a man’s rights and obligations are identical to a woman’s. As that’s the current state of the law, our work is pretty much done here.
First, I should clarify that I’m a female and a feminist, and happily so. So that y’all don’t mistake me for a troll. *g*
Now, in this particular case, and with the law as it stands, this guy’s a heel.
The way I tend to think about reproductive choice is this: Abortion is what you do to end a pregnancy, and adoption is what you do to end a parental relationship. Women, as the only folks that can get pregnant, have the right to choose not to be life support. However, once a baby’s born, you’re a parent.
On that understanding, I’d be totally open to the following solution: in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy which started through *consentual sex*, (an important distinction), a man could sign an “adoption” contract giving the baby once born up for adoption. The woman could either decide to raise the child without a dad or give the child up herself: in any case, if the father gave up the child for adoption, he’d have an order of no contact with the child. Conversely, if the woman decides to put the child up for adoption, the dad could take the child and the woman could have no contact. If the third trimester is reached (because in the third trimester, babies can and do come at any time), both parties are on the hook: both must sign off for adoption if that’s chosen, and both are on the hook for support.
What I’m interested in is what’s the feminist analysis of that is. Having gone through two pregnancies, I know how much bloody work pregnancy is, even without the childrearing afterwords: but that to me seems a different issue than that of child support and parenting. (In my proposed system, we could look at pregnancy support options, maybe: that a guy has to provide some help to defray the costs of pregnancy and childbirth. That makes sense.)
Of course, the child support thing bugs me, fundamentally… My mom never received a lick of it, and neither did my husband’s mom – and both were cases of dads bailing out, and both were cases where dad was offered full or joint custody – and the moms of three of my closest friends also didn’t receive support. The whining about support kind of pisses me off; for christ sakes, you don’t want your kids to have nutritious foods?
if Robert impregnated Mythago, he’d be SOL because the law would presume Mr. Mythago to be the baby’s father.
If I impregnated you, I’d be SOL because my wife would cut off my dick.
!?! You undermine your own point. You say something is the case, only to then admit it isn’t.
Just again: I realise (most) ’safe haven’ laws allow fathers to drop of babies. But how does a man take physical possession of the baby in order to be able to do this? The mother could allow him to take the kid, in which case there’s no problem. But other than that he’d have to undertake paternity and custody actions before his right to do this is recognised. But there’s no way these would be successful before the time limit needed to use a drop off expires. And even if a custody case was heard, there’s no way a judge would give custody to the father over a nursing mother who has just given birth on either the ‘best interests of the child’ or ‘primary caregiver’ standards. As there’s a strong case that she’s both the primary caregiver and it’s in the best interest of the child to be allowed to stay with her.
How about an easier scenario?
Two consenting adults. Both with a clearly stated desire to avoid kids. Both using a mutually-agreed-on birth control. She’s told him she would have an abortion if she conceived. He’s told her he would not protest–in fact, based on what she has said, he expects her to have an abortion if she conceived.
They’re both careful. They’re both rational. They’re so unusually careful that they wouldn’t even have had sex if not for the above arrangements.
Then, she gets pregnant.
GIVEN THE ABOVE SCENARIO (no fair changing the hypothetical in your reponse)…
Well, what’s the man going to do?
He can’t make her abort. That is revolting to imagine.
If he changes his mind, and DOES want the child, he can’t make her keep the child. that would be equally revolting.
What’s the woman going to do?
She can make her decision to abort without his input. No rational person would suggest this would be inappropriate. he may be hurt; he may leave her; he may be pissed… but it’s not his uterus.
She can also make her decision to keep the child without his input. No rational person would suggest this would be inappropriate. He may feel guilty; he may leave her; he may be pissed…. but it’s not his uterus.
The only relevant question in this scenario is whether, IF the woman decides to keep the child, AND IF the man doesn’t want it, she should be able to sue him for child support. that’s it.
That question doesn’t affect her uterus, her choice, her ability to parent, or anything else which is directly related to her body. It’s “just” a matter of money.
I dislike many of the C4m arguments. But in this particular, limited, situation, I have difficulty understanding what a compelling argument would be to force the father to pay child support.
Arwen, my father asked my mother to get pregnant and then bailed, and so we lived on welfare and charity for a long period of time. And thank God it was there because we would could have fell homeless or on the street. But there are men guinely that cannot afford children just as women can, but they have no support system to fall back on except again deadbeatism, losing their licenses, wage garnishment(even if is little) or jail. Sometimes they are too young to be viable enough to fully support a child. My father wasn’t the case and there are many men that are just bums, but there are many that can fall into the above category. I even think more poor fathers, especially young poor fathers, would take a more active role and be willing to be involved in their childs lives if they had some sort of support system themselves to deal with the huge responsibilty. It might even raise the quality of life for the child. It is always easier to just run away than deal with it, especially if they feel as if they are just looked at in terms of dollars signs and seen as an enemy. Alot of this men themselves have any fathers themselves to act as confidants or role models. And there are some adult men that can barely support themselves and end up with impregnating a woman non-purposely, it would be nice if they couldn’t get the same support that women can seek out.
Ginmar
Lets just agree to disagree, I have no sympathy for anyone, With Few Exceptions, who willingly has sex and it results with a unwanted pregnancy. Women or men. That is the essential purpose of the act.
Getting away from abortion (because thats only 1 option women have to relieve themselves of the responsibilty of parenthood), I belive that single men should have some sort of way to legally opt out.
But there are men guinely that cannot afford children just as women CAN’T, but they have no support system to fall back on except again deadbeatism, losing their licenses, wage garnishment(even if is little) or jail.
Yeah, Z, what are you doing on a feminist site, with all this those poor men crap? The fact is, men do not use birth control nearly as often as do women, and beyond that I don’t care for their whining. They don’t want to wear condoms, tough luck.
Sailor,
If all else in this society were equal, that solution would probably be okay. If we had an excellent social support network to help poor women bear the financial responsibility of the babies that will come out of your outlined situations, that would probably also be okay. Unfortunately, as there is little help out there for women to raise children, as women are more likely to be poor, and so on and so forth, it doesn’t really work.
I guess we have to throw out the old method of Marriage for life abstinence before marriage.
This was a method of dealing with this. Unfair yes, puritanical yes, but it was an attempt to protect children and women. Yes don’t scream I know it was oppressive and needed to go.
You could always go the Stalinist gulag route and put all children in state Daycare / orphanges shortly after birth.
Another choice is like conscription in where every adult is on the hook for four years for child care and assistance of parents regardless of status or position, sort of like an Israeli Kibutz, crossed with mandatory conscription…Like “It takes a village” on military steroids and official-ese. Of course parents would have less influence on their own children.
Or we could go European and Tax everyone to provide for a motherhood stipend, It would be like paid extended maternity leave. ( I personally hate taxes but it has been done, not that I would vote for it.)
Or finally we could license parenthood. Require Mandatory non negotiable contraceptives for both sexes until they are licensed for children.
Select your favorite … then explain why. Or critcize my reasoning but offer your own solution.
Ginmar, surely “feminist site, with all this those poor men crap” is not really what feminism is about, aren’t we supposed to be about equality rather than female superiority?
I like the mandatory contraception and license idea, seems like a good idea for dealing with these sorts of situations, I mean you need a license to drive and having a kid seems like a much more important issue.
Sarah: Equality is not workable. You can average equality over a major mass of people but individualy it doesn’t work.
And as for female supremacy -vs male supremacy which would you pick? I know you want to say none of the above but if these were the only two which one and why?
TBH I would say male superiority, ok probably incorrect on this forum however in general Men seem to be more group orientated (in a very hierarchical way) while we (women) tend to focus much more on creating more of a social net. While the latter is can be very beneficial and helps support everyone the former is more likely to get stuff done as there is a clear hierarchy, similar to corporations I suppose. Social nets function well however in a society which needs to get things done and organised simply having a hierarchy makes more sense.
Equality I would say is creatable and viable, however it is equality of options not equality of choices, Women are geneally weaker than men, if we can meet the standards for things like firemen/people then this should be open to us, similarly if a man can meet the standards for teaching, nursery care etc then he should have that option open to him. Completely gender neutralise lawss and remove affirmative action. We should not be disadvantaged because of our sex but neither should it be a benefit, in this case Matt Dubay may be an idiot, a bad father and any number of things but he does have a point, they were screwing under the idea that no kid would result, to change these rules invalidates any contract they had.
In this specific case I would tend towards giving men the option to opt out (or in) as a legal abortion as Roe was not designed simply as a bodily integrity issue but for many different factors, if we are willing to allow it only on a body issue then perhaps we have a point but otherwise we seem hypocritical. Of course we do have to think of the child, however it is clear that this child was wanted on only one side, is it fair to the child to force a man who doesn’t want it into its life? Additionally the government is willing to help support (I would prefer only people who can support kids to have them but that is a different issue) people in these situations so the exact need for Matt to be present is unclear.
I do not believe that women or men are naturally better than each other, we have different focuses and development paths however thats the cards we were dealt, I know women who are great engineers and men who make great nannies however these fields are traditionally (and perhaps for a reason) dominated by the other sex.
Sarah:
Thank you for a very in depth answer.
I tend to be philiophical about such things. As for which sex should be superior I would like to see women, just to watch at how it would work. Valuble data is gathered when observing women in conditions where they cannot behave in ways that are natural and have to adapt to the situation. Establishing a female Heiarchy with no male input would be interesting to observe. A world where a woman could not rely on any man, could not trade the protection of a husband for the police, where auto mechanics and plumbers were not men. An interesting thought.
As for equality I was not refering to Gender but group dynamic. Take the most equal group you can think of, Identical Twins. Have you noticed how twins will decide among themselves who speaks first and who dominates? A couple is no different. Dominance is sometimes subtle but is rarely purley gender driven.
True, however legislation should not treat people differently, the highest ranked member has the same basic rights as the lowest, different sub-groups may require specific legislation dependant on special conditions (such as minimum wage, or wage multipliers for CEOs) to ensure that people are not artificially stunted by their starting position in life. Groups alter and work very differently depending on stimulus, a look at history for example:
Women used to have virginity as a requirement (one would assume to ensure that any children you bear were actually your husbands) and in return you were meant to receive the support and protection of your husband.
Today virginity is a thing often traded for a few drinks or the promise of some company, in return the protection and support that were originally granted are now considered oddities.
We have adaptedto changing conditions, women have become more similar to men and in return are treated more like men, whether this is a good change or not is determined by the reader.
In a society of only women you would likely fill all of those roles, and likely a hierarchy would be utilised as it is essentially a requirement for a large number of people (where as men seem to like to form hierarchies even with only a small populace), again the quality of each of these roles might differ, however as no men would be present the requirements for the roles would also be different (very few 6’4 300lbs women running around for police officers to catch :D).
In the end however I do not think that modern society can support the road we are taking with support, benefits etc as (at least in the UK) a third of people receive benefits! I think that we need to rethink our approach and attempt to reintegrate the family units (nx parents + children) as a self supporting group.
Ginmar I can come to this site if I want to as long as Ampersand allows me the privilage. I’m in a debate just like everyone else is here. I have an opinion, or is that against your rules for what sites I can comment on?
What if I said something to the tune of :
What are you doing on a feminist site? When you have routinely shown you are not a feminist but female supremecist.
But how does a man take physical possession of the baby in order to be able to do this?
The same way the mother does: he picks the kid up and walks off. You keep insisting that he has to undertake ‘paternity and custody’ actions. Why? Based on facts you threw in about how the mother must be nursing and must be the primary caregiver:
Yet AGAIN: baby drop-off laws are not about custody, paternity or caregiving. Their entire goal is to tell people “Please don’t endanger or kill your baby. If you leave your baby at a hospital, police station, etc., you won’t be in any trouble with the law.” If you prosecute a father for doing this, congratulations, you’ve just insured that the law is absolutely useless.
But in this particular, limited, situation, I have difficulty understanding what a compelling argument would be to force the father to pay child support.
The fact that there is a born child, and the law requires parents to be legally and financially responsible for their children regardless of whether those parents ever wanted the child in the first place.
There is no “didn’t want it” or “couldn’t stop the pregnancy” exception for women. You are trying to create one for men.
Something about the choice-for-men argument reminds me of an argument I used to have all the time with my father, before we stopped discussing politics. Basically, his position went like this: once I no longer have children, there is no reason why my tax dollars, except, perhaps a small, minimal amount, should go to pay for the education of other children. That responsibility belongs to their parents and the other parents of that generation of kids or community. When I pointed out to him that the quality of the world his grandson will grow up to be a part of will be directly and, in many ways, causally related to the quality of the education received by “other people’s children,” he had no answer.
To argue that a man’s ability to choose not to pay to help support a child he has helped to conceive is the moral/ethical/legal equivalent to a woman’s rght to reproductive choice is to argue from the same kind of individualism–and I think it is a peculiarly American individualism–that my father was arguing from. The man gets to play a rhetorical trick–and I am thinking here of a point before anything legal is involved–which transforms the child he helped to conceive into not-his-child and so he feels he shouldn’t be obligated to pay for it.
I had more to say, but I am falling asleep. Still, I’m going to put this out there, just to see if it strikes anybody as a line of thinking worth following.
For me it’s really a more limited question regarding promises.
Man: “I want to have sex with you. I know a child is possible, even if we both do our very best to prevent it. And while I want to have sex, I do NOT want to raise a child. Or pay for raising one. Before we have sex, I need to know: If you get pregnant, will you abort the child, if I pay for it? And if you don’t want to abort, will you promise right now that you won’t ask me to support you and the child?”
Woman: “I want to have sex with you, too. And yes, I would abort.”
Man: “Are you sure? Abortion or a promise to leave me out of it? Because I really don’t want to get stuck with a kid I don’t want.”
Woman: “Yes, I promise. I don’t want one either.”
(Sex happens. Condom breaks. Pill fails. Pregnancy ensues.)
Man: “Oh, shit. Do you want me to pay for the abortion?”
Woman: “No. I think I’m going to keep the baby. I’ve changed my mind.”
Man (getting a little nervous): “Oh. That’s not really what I expected. But it’s your choice, I suppose. Do you plan to put it up for adoption?”
Woman: “No. I think it’s time I had a child of my own.”
Man (getting a lot more nervous): “Oh. So, you’re not going to break your other promise, are you? I’m off the hook, right?”
Woman: “We’ll see how I feel in 9 months.”
Man: “oh, shit. That sucks.”
Woman: “Well, I don’t have much of a support network. So it’s necessary.”
Man: “But neither do I! And you don’t have to have the child if you don’t want to support it.”
WIoman: “Don’t try to interfere with my reproductive autonomy, you asshole.”
Man: “I’m not. With or without my support, you have the SAME CHOICES you have otherwise. So stop claiming I’m screwing with your reproductive autonomy.”
Woman: “Well, you’re being stupid. You know pregnancy is always a risk of sex, and you chose to have sex anyway.”
Man: “Well, that sucks. I thought that you and I already contracted around the risks of pregnancy through the whole ‘abort or let you out of it’ conversation. Didn’t we? And more to the point, what’s up with YOU using that argument? Every time you discuss abortion with those prolife nuts down the street, you fly off the handle if someone suggests that you can simply avoid unplanned pregnancies by not having sex. In the abortion argument, it’s all about ‘sex is natural’ and ‘sex is necessary’ and ‘pregnancy is going to happen’…. why is it all of a sudden my fault now that the view benefits you?”
Woman: “well, it’s in the best interest of the child.”
Man: “No it’s not. At least not in a relative sense. And no, i’m not talking aboput the prolife ‘how can you care about its interests if you’re willing to kill it for convenience’ crap line. You and I both know we could put this kid up for adoption, and someone would take it. That child could be taken care of by SOMEONE.”
Woman: “Yeah? So?”
Man: “Well, if someone will take care of it, its needs will be met. It’s interests will be taken care of. YOU don’t have to do it–and I sure don’t have to do it either.”
Woman: “Well, that would cause emotional damage to me. That’s not fair.”
Man: “Fair? Why is my financial liability for the next 18-22 years irrelevant? Why should the emotional damage you might suffer by putting this kid up for adoption be any more relevant than mine: brokeen promises, unwanted fatherhood, financial liability…”
Woman: “It’s part of the physical differences between men and women. It would be to damaging to me to give up my child, And it’s not as damaging to you to be forced to parent.”
Man: “Huh? That’s bullshit. Only yesterday you were lobbying for 2 gay men to be able to adopt–you think they can’t parent because of their physical differences? And weren’t you also lobbying for more men to stay home so women could work? If you’re so much ‘better suited’ or so much more ‘invested’ then why are you taking those positions?”
Woman: “That was those arguments. This is a different argument. You contradict yourself sometimes, too.”
……and so on.
Yes, i KNOW this was an unusual and one-sided example. It’s a hypothetical designed to prove a point:
All we really need are enforceable “prenup” style documents which will relieve folks from child support (on either side). You can make ’em as detailed as you want.
If you’re a woman and you don’t want to abort (and don’t want to raise a kid) you could lock the man in advance into taking custody, or paying full support, or finding an adoption. Or for paying for an abortion, for that matter, if that’s what you want.
If you’re a man, and you don’t want a child, you can secure your freedom from child support and/or custody. You might have to ‘trade’ a promise to pay for an abortion, or for delivery–but you would know before you went and had sex.
Beneficial for everyone, I think….
Sailorman,
I am off to a meeting and so I don’t have the time to respond in more detail, but I wanted to say that your hypothetical example reminded me of an actual conversation that I had with a girlfriend when I was in my 20s. I wrote about it an essay that remains unpublished, but I have posted the relevant excerpts on my blog.
…not just one-sided, but a highly stereotypical rendering of an odd situation as if it were normal.
Sorry, but that sounds a lot like “but women lie about rape!”
Hypothetically, men don’t need sex. Hypothetically, if a man is not mature enough to envision financially supporting a child he creates through sex, he is not mature enough to be having sex — isn’t that what they argue in regards to teen sex? Penis in vagina sex is one of a myriad sexual positions and acts. Don’t want a baby? Expand your sexual horizons.
True. That’s why when it does become gender driven red flags should be going off everywhere.
Oh come on mandolin.
How does my saying something is “unusual and one-sided” make your response anything but a personal attack? Don’t tar me with that broad ad hominem of being an anti-woman rape analyst, it’s beneath you. I hope.
Hypotheticals are useful because they allow you to deliberately craft a situation to discuss very limited issues without the ‘baggage’ of normal life.
I am trying to make a very limited point. I don’t care about the “oops” folks; I don’t care about the “didn’t think of that” folks or the “I was drunk” folks.
I am most interested in protecting (if I protect anyone at all) the most compelling set of people: Those who literally do everything within their power to avoid the situation. That’s what this hypothetical is set up to address.
And before you get back on your high horse: This is a common tactic. What, you think prochoice folks argue based on the drunk 24 year old who doesn’t use BC and gbets pregnant? no, they argue theory first based on a woman who DOES use BC and DOES do everything possible, and still needs the right to an abortion because nothing’s perfect and she shouldn’t have to bear the burden of an unwanted pregnancy.
So let’s start with the hypo I posted. Try responding to what I wrote (I didn’t see ‘rape’ or ‘lying’ in there anywhere, BTW). Or write your own.
Nope. I was comparing your desire to analyze this weird and unsusual situation (as if it was normal) to the desire of rape apologists to analyze the weird and unusual situation of women lying about rape as if that were normal.
I see it as another manifestation of male anxiety around women’s bodies. Men want conversation about rape and abortion to center around their experiences.
It is appropriate for me to question why this hypothetical situation shows up on this thread at all.
And, BTW, I can disagree with you without personally attacking you. I don’t believe I have personally attacked you.
(And BTW, I understand that you have highlighted this situation as “rare”, but that disclaimer doesn’t cut it for me. It’s still playing on a stereotype of women as fickle and lying people, and it resonates with ideas about how women get pregnant to trap men.)
Gee, Z, accusations of female superiority are common amongst anti-feminists. Just FYI. Sarah, same to you. It’s a revealing red flag.
# Mandolin Writes:
July 31st, 2006 at 9:28 am
Nope. I was comparing your desire to analyze this weird and unsusual situation (as if it was normal) to the desire of rape apologists to analyze the weird and unusual situation of women lying about rape as if that were normal.
Nice (again) ability to ignore what I actually say (e.g. “this is wierd and unusual”) and treat is as if I said what you want to argue against.
I call straw man.
Hell, look above: You’re ignoring what I ACTUALLY say and comparing me to folks, who (in your own words) would phrase this “as if that were normal.” Not to mention that you just so happen to have used a comparison group who is clearly offensive, though you claim it’s not an ad hominem. I’ll grant you that one, but still… the deliberate misinterpretation is sort of annoying.
Shall I set you up as a straw feminist next? I’m sure the conversation would be grand.
I see it as another manifestation of male anxiety around women’s bodies. Men want conversation about rape and abortion to center around their experiences.
Can we both agree that this thread isn’t generally about rape? That my post has absolutely NOTHING to do with rape? This is getting sort of silly. I can’t control what other people post in the thread, but I”m not them.
It’s also not about abortion rights. In fact, my post doesn’t even question abortion rights; I’m a strong prochoice advocate. If you are feeling too lazy to read my posts (maybe this explains the problem…?) I can pull out the (multiple) quotes like these:
See? No rape. No abortion. it’s about c4m, which is the thread topic.
It is appropriate for me to question why this hypothetical situation shows up on this thread at all.
You’re right (sarcasm.) Why on earth would I be discussing choice for men in a post entitled “Court Strongly Rejects “Choice For Men” Civil Rights Lawsuit?” Are you sure you’re protesting in the right thread? This is what the thread is about.
As you would see if you read my posts, I’m not saying women are fickle and lying–they’re no more prone to that than anyone else (though incidentally I also don’t think women are LESS fickle and/or lie LESS than anyone else). I suppose you can read it any way you want, but you seem determined to view this as problematic no matter what I say, which seems extremely odd. Whose stereotypes are you so concerned about? This is beginning to seem like there’s some elephant in the room only you can see.
Who the heck can tell how they’ll feel in the future FOR SURE? Not me. You don’t know how you’ll feel about being pregnant until you’re pregnant. You can guess, but plenty of people are wrong. This isn’t “fickleness” or “lying” it is just a fact of life. (you don’t really know for sure if you’re a man, either).
Predicting how you’ll feel when you _____ is an imprecise science. The question is: who bears the burden of the imprecise prediction?
Other than refusing to talk about it or saying it’s inappropriate, do you want to address the issue?
Hell, if you think this is so obvious, concede and post your own hypothetical. But if you’re just dodging because you don’t want to answer, then why spend all this time on the thread?
.
.
Q grrl: Yes, in theory, I agree with you completely. Abstinence is, of course, entirely functional in avoiding support.
The main reason I don’t use that argument is that it seems to be at complete odds with a strong assumption made in the prochoice argument. I’m not willing to weaken my prochoice argument as a ‘side effect’ since I view it as more important than the support argument.
I don’t see how a prochoice person can claim “you can avoid kids via abstinence if you want” with reference to support. Because then you’re setting yourself up for the “well, then you can avoid needing an abortion outside of rape, so what’s the harm if they’re illegal?” response. And though of course you can reply to that, it’s not as strong a reply.
There’s no good way to avoid the generalized attack: If you acknowledge that pregnancy is purely voluntary and that some sort of “consequences” are OK, you’ve got a much weaker foundation. It’s just not worth the risk to prochoice arguments IMO.
Because there are laws against picking up kids and walking off with them. Safehaven laws give you immunity from a child abandonment charge, but not from a kidnapping charge. If you are not recognised as having any legal connection to the child, and you take it without permission from a person who does (the mother), you are in a great deal of trouble. The fact remains, while the law is techically neutral, it’s very difficult for men to exercise their ‘right’ to use a drop off without the mothers permission. I don’t believe you can’t see this.
I’d love to see statistics on how many women have abortions compared to the amount of men who skip out on child support payments.
Of course your argument sets you up for the “why in the hell don’t men pay child support if they know damn well that abortion is either a difficult or illegal choice for a woman to make?”
You part and party of the mindset that needs and wants to view men’s and women’s reproductive choices as being unilaterally equal in depth and number. You feel quite comfortable framing abortion and child support on male biology, which IMO is probably the most fool hardy of viewpoints with which to approach the subjects. Female biology being what it is, it requires different choices, ones that are uniquely belonging to the woman making them. Men who are not comfortable with women making autonomous choices, that may or may not adversly affect the men, should not be engaging in the one sexual activity that will most likely result in a pregnancy.
And if you think I’m arguing for abstinance, your venue of sexual activity is mighty dim.
Q, sorry. I don’t really use ‘abstinence’ much in normal conversation ;) and was using it to refer to penis-in-vagina sex. I thought this was clear from the context.
As for the rest of it, like the “You part and party of the mindset that needs and wants to view men’s and women’s reproductive choices as being unilaterally equal in depth and number” statement….
That’s not what I said. At all. As I’m sure you know. (Is there someone else posting under my name somewhere? Are you confusing me with another opponent? This is strange.)
But hey, maybe I’ve missed my own typing. Certainly I make mistakes. So:
If that’s what you think I’ve said, can you quote me sections of text from my posts which support your statements? If you’re going to tell me what my mindset is, or what I feel comfortable doing, it’d be helpful if I could see where on earth you’re getting your ideas.
Female biology being what it is, it requires different choices, ones that are uniquely belonging to the woman making them. Men who are not comfortable with women making autonomous choices, that may or may not adversly affect the men, should not be engaging in the one sexual activity that will most likely result in a pregnancy.
I don’t think there’s much basis for suggesting women can’t make autonomous choices. And I’m not suggesting the choices ‘belong’ to anyone else but her.
The issue is whether laws should be in place which minimize or prevent the adverse effect on others.
The two are separable. Can you see the distinction?
I was in a hurry before. I’ll just ask again – what is so wrongheaded, please, about Pollitt’s arguments? See here again: http://tinyurl.com/6k2ue . Thank you.
I’d love to see statistics on how many women have abortions compared to the amount of men who skip out on child support payments.
The abortion statistic is easy: 1.29 million abortions in 2002, per the gold-standard AGI. The number has been flat or reducing slowly since then, I know anecdotally.
Deadbeat dads is trickier.
From what I can tell from fifteen minutes of Googling, there is no single statistic; I couldn’t even find an estimate. So we’ll have to work backwards. CDC says that there are currently 3.7 divorces per 1000 population, so call that 1,110,000 divorces annually.
If EVERY marriage that ends in divorce has children in the picture, and EVERY noncustodial father is a deadbeat in his child support payments, then there are more women choosing/being forced to abort than there are men choosing/being forced to not support their kids.
The actual proportions are of course much lower; lots of people divorce without kids, and probably the majority of noncustodial fathers pay their support. So there are WAY more “deadbeat moms” than there are “deadbeat dads”.
You part and party of the mindset that needs and wants to view men’s and women’s reproductive choices as being unilaterally equal in depth and number.
I think actually that Sailorman views men’s and women’s reproductive rights as being equal in strength and number. Which seems reasonable to me.
Mythago, that’s not true about the child abandonment laws, at least not in all states. Here in Ohio, if a woman gives up her infant under our version of the law, within 72 hours of birth, she is also signing away her maternal rights.
I think this whole Choice 4 Men movement is ridiculous. The ONLY time men have any choice in whether to reproduce is when they decide whether or not to keep it in their pants. Once sperm meets egg, the process of biological reproduction is complete. Women can choose whether to impede the movement of sperm, whether to help prevent implantation, whether to end a pregnancy (which doesn’t start until implantation), and whether to keep the baby because we are the ones carrying the pregnancy. I would be for “choice for men” if men could get pregnant. They can’t. End of story.
It amazes me that when it comes to facets of human life and livelihood having nothing directly to do with gender, such as the right to be paid equitably without regard to gender, people come up with all sorts of excuses why women should be treated differently. In the one realm where gender really does make a difference? Nah, treat women and men the same. That is ridiculous.
Also? I can’t believe there are people here referring to writing a check or having money transferred from one’s account as “parenting.”
You’re not really a father if you’re just paying support, guys. You’re a non-anonymous sperm donor.
Specifically, what’s so bad about these arguments of Pollitt’s? From http://tinyurl.com/6k2ue :
Dec. 1998: “You religiously employ, with never a slip, some combination of pills, injections, implants, foams, gels and devices for, oh, twenty or thirty years with whatever side effects, inconvenience or expense each of these entails. OR you experience morning sickness, weight gain, varicose veins, stretch marks, childbirth and all that follows. OR you make your way through a swarm of screaming fanatics to a clinic for an abortion you may feel uneasy about. The ability to select, without legal coercion, from this menu of problematic and expensive alternatives is called having all the power in human reproduction. That, at any rate, is what men’s rights groups are calling it………….
“a victory for (him) could mean the end of paternal support for out-of-wedlock children–every man could claim his girlfriend tricked him………
“What if (he’s) right, though, and (she) did deceive him? Well, just as pregnancy is a risk of sex, people behaving badly is a risk of love. All the more reason for men to protect themselves (with male birth control). How many women, after all, carry unplanned pregnancies to term because their boyfriends deceptively promise to marry them or otherwise support the child? It’s the oldest story in the world!……..
“Is male-controlled contraception at the top of the list of demands of any men’s rights group? Women assume all the responsibility for birth control, and all the risks of its failure. This isn’t women ‘having all the power.’ It’s men having their cake and eating it too.”
And finally, so long as the majority of American men continue to ignore or laugh, Jay Leno-style, at men like Frank Serpico or Peter Wallis or Matthew Dubay (all of whom filed pretty much the same lawsuit), I think that says that most American men believe in taking responsibility for what they helped start. Not to mention that no man I’ve ever heard of has seriously wished to go through pregnancy and childbirth just for the alleged beauty and spiritual glory of it, so that, again, sounds as though men know when they already have a pretty good deal going for them, and they’re not about to demand more. Except, let’s hope, in the form of better male birth control. Keep in mind that a condom, by itself, is only 90% good, and the real-life failure rate of the female Pill is 6%. Sounds as though you should use them together, no?
Q Grrl Writes:
July 31st, 2006 at 12:28 pm
I think actually that Sailorman views men’s and women’s reproductive rights as being equal in strength and number. Which seems reasonable to me.
Sure, they can be. However, no man should confuse the point at which his reproductive rights end: ejaculation into a woman. The choice over his autonomous body and actions ends once he has ejaculated into a woman.
No debate there in terms of the BODY. And no debate in terms of his physical contribution to a fetus.
Up until that point he has the same choices and responsibilities. After that point, his responsibilities start to far outnumber his choices.
What I’m confused by is your appaernt inability/unwillingness to distinguish between the PHYSICAL/NECESSARY and the NONPHYSICAL/OPTIONAL. They’re not the same. The fact that the man does not have any choices which directly affect the pregnancy does not directly relate to a requirement for him to be responsible.
If any given man does not like this, or thinks it is unfair, he can:
1) get a vasectomy
2) use a condom
3) refuse to ejaculate inside of a woman
4) refrain from sexual activity
1) is possible, and fairly cheap. It’s difficult and expensive to reverse, but there’s no reason not to if you don’t want kids any more. I’ll be getting one myself soon, I think. technically this isn’t 100% effective either, though (unlike BC) the failure rate is really minuscule.
2) is great but not nearly 100% effective; it’s not really a solution any more than another type of BC.
3) Assuming you’re not referring to the Amtrak method of birth control (always pulls out on time…), then this is certainly functional.
4) As you noted, where’s the fun in that? Though it would work seeing as it’s just an expansion of #3.
Sailorman: your hypothetical story is based soley on a perceived equality in biological function and therefore in the choice making attendent to that function.
I really don’t understand this. I could list ways in which women and men are different; I could list all the various quotes where I’ve said that in this very thread–and you’d continue to blather on about how I think ____ no matter what. Jeez, would you stop already?
You are assuming that men and women can come at the issue on a similar plane, at least legally and contractually, but in reality you are trying to extend the man’s rights while retracting the woman’s autonomy. He wants a contractual agreement; she wants determination over her own body/biology.
Perhaps he needs to keep his zipper up and his peter in his pants.
This is not a zero sum game. It is merely adding an ADDITIONAL issue:
5) He can sign a document promising _____, and his partner can sign a document promising ______, and they’ll be legally enforceable solely on the matter of finances and/or custody
Please explain to me how that impacts her body. Or her biology. PLEASE. Because the fucking straw men act is getting on my nerves.
Leona
Is the physical nature of pregnancy the sole reason women have abortions?
That question’s answered in her post, Z.
Sailorman: buy a clue, then buy a book. Plenty of feminist theory floating around the used bookstores. You keep shifting the hypothetical around, bit by bit. Her biology is effected by the fetus; he wants a contract that premises his economic desires and she makes a decision contrary to that. He is trying to circumscribe her physical autonomy with his financial needs. I think that is a sloppy sexual ethic.
Sailorman, thank you for being willing to argue this here.
Bean, the thing about the different equalities was quite interesting.
Q Grrl, while I agree in the context of the situation mentioned both parties agreed as to what should happen, the reality may differ however it does seem that the guy is the one to lose out with no choice, it may only be financial however in the modern world money is power…
Some people act as though these guys are the only ones who have to provide financial support.
Mothers are still expected to financially support their children, and can and have been prosecuted when they have not done so. They do not escape financial obligations just because they get child support. Child support does not provide for all of the cost of supporting a child.
There is no money fairy. Jeez.