|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boy am I steamed...
"....a recent study of the impact of Canada's social-welfare system on family structure concluded that "providing additional benefits to single parents encourages births of children to unwed women."(9)
Um, excuse me... I'm sorry .... but children born are born to TWO parents not just one. These "unwed" women didn't conceive by osmosis.
"......by removing the economic consequences of a out-of-wedlock birth, welfare has removed a major incentive to avoid such pregnancies.
Yep got that right. ZERO consequences equals less incentive to prevent conception. Now, explain to me why this theory only works on females ??????
......A teenager looking around at her friends and neighbors is liable to see several who have given birth out of wedlock. When she sees that they have suffered few visible immediate consequences ...... she is less inclined to modify her own behavior to prevent pregnancy.
Yep right again. Now what about the boys looking around to see if the FATHER has suffered any immidiate consequences???????? Once again the incentive/disincinteve theory only hold true for females???????
.....until teenage girls, particularly those living in relative poverty, can be made to see real consequences from pregnancy, it will be impossible to gain control over the problem of out-of- wedlock births.
Once again... can we make the boys see the real consequences? No? Why not? Because to $$@*ing choose not to thats why. We're too busy discussing how to punish women.
Same shit.... different century.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 08, @07:57PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Sure Lorriane.
You do have a point. But its still overwhelmed by the larger problem -- which of course, you still don't see. Men are considered expendable wallets. They are not needed to raise the child, and indeed under current family law are easily seperated from the children they bring into the world.
Face it: The girl in question has the ultimate ability to decide whether to conceive or not : Not only is there female birth control (all men currently have are vesectamies or condoms -- though that may be about to change) but if necessary, the young lady can abort the baby. The man has no say as to whether he wants to be a parent or not. And thats not mentioning the option of giving the child up for adoption. So ask yourself this : Why do these women decide to conceive? Why do some of them have multiple babies from multiple fathers? I see two answers one of which I am sympathetic with, and one I am not.
The first answer is that having a man, having a baby, makes them feel worthwhile. This is sad, but understandable.
The second reason isn't so pretty. Cash. They know they can live relatively free of responsibilities and with an enhanced status ( struggling single mother).
I worked for a year as a temp at my cities Child Support Enforcement office.I was friends with most of the caseworkers, and I was the one who entered all the case data into their database system. I SAW the cases. There were plenty of people, mothers and fathers who were screwed by the system, I can assure you. Mothers, however had custody about 87 percent of the time, if my memory serves me correctly. And there were TONS of enforcement tools to make the life of the NCP miserable.
In the end, who was more screwed by the many flaws and bad laws was in the eye of the beholder. Women, however, did and do have more reproductive rights. I suggest they learn to be responsible with them.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The girl in question has the ultimate ability to decide whether to conceive or not"
No, she does not. They both have exactly equal ability to prevent conception.
Face it: If we are talking about incentivizing PREVENTION (which the articla was about) then we can damn well provide incentives/disincentives for BOTH parties to conception.
The article's premis is that taking away welfare would provide the incentive for GIRLS not to conceive. This presupposes that she and only she is responsible for the support of the child. There's your inequality right there from the get go.
And no, I don't believe in promoting abortion, especially not among teenagers, but also because, once again, surprise surprise, the female is the one incentivized with consequences. Also the premis of the article was PREVENTION, not after the fact solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 08, @08:28PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
The article's premis is that taking away welfare would provide the incentive for GIRLS not to conceive. This presupposes that she and only she is responsible for the support of the child. There's your inequality right there from the get go.
I may not know Canadian law, but I do know American law. And in American law, that young man --regardless of whether the mother is on welfare or not --has the responsibility of providing child support. In part, to pay the State back for the welfare the mother is using.
I think it was your misunderstanding. The simple fact is that the girl/mother pays NOTHING if she has custody of the child. A custody, I must add, that is fairly easily obtained -- either by some failure of the father -- or by abuse allegations -- or by any of a million other means.
Men already have plenty of incentives not to reproduce. Why do you think so many of us are delaying marriage? Or deciding not to get married altogether? How many fewer children would there be in this world if a man had some options in the post-fertilization stage?
All my life ( Im 30 now ) I wanted a wife and child to love, and to love me. Despite the tons of hazzards, I'd still like to get married someday. But only in the last month have I finally started to give up on wanting a child. To put it bluntly, I'm SCARED to have a child. It only increases my vulnerability and liability in this world, and doesn't provide me with even the presumption that as a father I might love my child, or have any place in his or her life. The sick thing is that while this breaks my heart it really isn't my decision anyway-- should I have sex with a woman who lies to me about birth control, ( Or does something else, such as punch a small hole in my condom) and should she conceive -- well, there I am a father. Legally liable for supporting that child, but with much less rights to see it or be in its life. You don't believe me? I suggest you read some family law. And when your done , I want you to tell me with a straight face how men and women have equal rights concerning childbirth.
I suppose we could sterilize men and women. Or find a way to get rid of the sex drive via some form of genetic engineering. Maybe that would be best for this society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 08, @11:14PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
The only reason men are "delaying marriage" is because they know they can have sex with a female without getting married and if she gets pregnant they can simply move interstate. Ask any young male in their teens or twenties about marriage and they'll say "Why get married". Please don't try and tell me that men are delaying marriage for any responsible reason. Men who accept responsibility are still getting married - It's just that there's just so few of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Please don't try and tell me that men are delaying marriage for any responsible reason. Men who accept responsibility are still getting married."
Sorry, but I will say exactly that. I'm thirty two and just got out of a five year relationship. We're still friends, but I'm the one who was not interested in marriage and I said so from the start. The vast majority of men who don't pay their child support are either poor (often homeless and mentally ill) or have been denied access to their children. The latest Census shows that men are better at paying court-ordered child support than women are. So all your talk about men who "are" or "are not" being responsible is just more male bashing.
If there were a male form of abortion, like a period of time after the pregnancy to waive their parental rights and responsibilities, then we might have more equality of parental choice and we'd see a more realistic picture of whether men are really less "responsible" when it comes to parenting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The vast majority of men who don't pay their child support are either poor (often homeless and mentally ill)"
This is an accurate description of my ex-husband. He was diagnosed with a bipolar and obsessive-compulsive disorder when our daughter was just 2. We divorced shortly after the diagnosis, because he would not stick to treatment and was prone to disappearing for weeks at a time. Five years later, he works sporadically, visits even more sporadically, has developed a drug addiction, and last I heard sleeping on a friend's couch.
Note: I waived child support because he was unemployed and mentally ill, even though I was urged by the attorney to pursue it, in case he one day miraculously gets better and/or comes into some money. I have sole custody of our daughter (his only demands were the cat and the CD player, both of which he promptly lost), but he has open visitation. If he ever decides to use it - as I said, he doesn't visit much. Again, the attorney wanted limited visitation but I was afraid that this would dissuade him from visiting at all.
I work full-time, I don't get child support, and I don't get welfare. We've done okay. I only tell this story to illustrate that not all women are out for their baby's daddy's wallet. Incidentally last year he approached me and said he wanted me to bear him a son. I laughed it off - yeah, right, support two of his kids without help - but chalked it up as a symptom of his illness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So he is disabled.
If you had become disabled would you expect him to be at all responsible for your well being?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flip side of wiccid's story.
I know a man who has raised his sons alone from ages 5 and 7. Their mother was an alcholic. The father tried for years and years to help her, get her treatment etc. It never worked out and eventually became a choice between her and the welfare of the boys. He chose the kids. He divorced and got custody. She rarely visited in part because he moved far away. It was sad becaue he loved her and the decision to take the kids away from their mother tortured him, but he believes he did the right thing for the kids.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want to let Lorianne and "wiccid stepparent" know that I appriciate your input in the conversations on this site. Most women interested in gender issues would probably ignore it as a "typical" male site. I applaud any woman that is compassionate when it comes to divorce since during so much of the process women have the upper hand.
Tank you for sharing your stories.
Linking this back to the men's issues portion of the site I have been wondering about the 9/11 event and I wonder how men who lost their wife's are dealing with being single parents and what thier stories are like. I think I will write to a few news companies and pitch the idea.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I WAS responsible for his wellbeing, for as long as he would allow it. It's really hard to take care of someone who has run away and doesn't want to be found. The best I could do for him is what I did - let him go, and not hinder him with financial obligations he could never meet. He knows he is welcome in my home whenever he wants to see our daughter. While he is on drugs and refusing treatment, he chooses not to see her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like the idea of an article which addresses fathers who lost their wives in 9/11 and how they are adjusting. You hear alot about the widows and orphans but not much about the widowers and their children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very good point wiccid. I saw one interview with a young father left with a couple of kids on Bill O'Reilly I think. Other than that you're right it's mostly widows.
Also you don't hear a lot about same-sex partners left behind (except from some fundementalist Christians who didn't want charity proceeds or insurance money to go to same sex partners).
Also, they made a big hullabaloo about one of the heros of flight 93 who was Christian father of 3, but not much said about another hero who was a gay man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
just a note to your comment about same-sex relationships and 9/11. New York governer made it law that same-sex couples who lost a partner in 9/11 will be given aid. Virginia has yet to do so and there is a "moral" political battle going on there currently.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was actually referring to somebody else's idea that was posted. It remains a good idea though. Re the same-sex partners, you mostly hear that they aren't going to receive the same survivor benefits as heterosexual married couples. I wonder how that would affect same-sex partners who had children?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes it would be interesting and less bias than the current, women only focus of parental and spousal loss.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So tell us Lorianne, which half of the worlds population has the final say in giving birth or not? and also, which half of the worlds population has at least a dozen contraceptives? I'm sure you can work it out.
I think I know why you hate this article (I doubt you'll admit it) I think you hate the thought of women being regulated don't you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I think I know why you hate this article (I doubt you'll admit it) I think you hate the thought of women being regulated don't you?"
Unilaterally, yes.
Once again the article presupposes that incentives will ONLY work on girls/women. I get that becasue it mentions NO incentives for men not to co-conceive. That is unilaterally placing responsibility on girls/women not to conceieve.
Also, the implication from some of the posters here is that poor girls/women owe an abortion to society, but the fathers don't owe anything to society for the the consequences of their actions.
Next step, mandated abortions or sterilizations (and you can bet it won't be men who are forced to be sterilized.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 08, @09:08PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
>
Remo again.
You don't get it do you? Men already owe society 18 freaking years of child support for a child they don't even have a right to see! And if you are single and childless (as I am now) you are paying for both the mothers poor choice , and any dereliction on the fathers part through your taxes. All for two presumptive "adults" and a child you don't even know. The person who ultimatly decides whether to conceive is the woman. And once again, she does NOT pay for it in terms of money or status. In the past there was a stigma, but its much less now, and in many inner cities doesn't exist.
Sterilize women? Please! There are plenty of old-fashioned "knights" out there who exist only to protect females from those horrible males and their horrible lust. And females CONTROL the family law system, also to protect innocent girls from those evil, repacious men. Considering how evil men are presumed to be, considering how emasculated much of the society is these days ( The exceptions being the military in WARTIME and most pro sports) , I wouldn't bet against men being the first to be sterilized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The person who ultimatly decides whether to conceive is the woman."
Wrong, wrong, wrong. This attitude is half the problem right here. You just tried to absolve men of all responsibility for prevention with one little sentence.
Nice try, but sorry, you cannot simply will away biological realities.
This is the whole deal right here. Men who make statements like you just did do not "ultimately" want to be responsible for preventing conception. So they do something men are good at. They simply declare they are not responsible..... and expect all the laws of nature fall in line with their thinking. (Note: I did not say ALL men think like this, but enough of them certainly do).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whoa! The point I think that he is trying to make is that once conception has occured the decision is out of the man's hands. He has no say. Even though he will be held financially responsible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 08, @09:27PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
"The person who ultimatly decides whether to conceive is the woman.
Ok, I see your point. When using conceive, I was using it to mean "carry a pregnancy to term", which my dictionary informs me is incorrect. However, my basic argument stands. I DO NOT have the right to control my own reproductive destiny. If a woman gets pregnant with my sperm (regardless of whether she obtains it by rape, by fraud, by accident, or by consent) she and ONLY she can determine whether to have the child or not. If she decides to have the baby, I'm the one who will be paying for it.
I dare you to deny this.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I deny it.
Presently there are laws which presume to make the non-custodial parent pay child support, but in reality, and sticking to the article posted (which by the way did not discuss abortion but instead prevention through incentivizing welfare payouts) how many low income fathers actually pay child support? How many are even able to pay for each of the kids they co-create? How many do even if they are able?
The fact is most low income men have little ability to support the kids they co-create. Same as the women. They have little education, few marketable skills, and as the article pointed out many are still affected by racial prejudice. So they are financially hampered from the beginning, just as are the women.
So, since BOTH parents have limited ability to pay for the kid(s) they co-create, why are the dis/incentives to stop creating them targeted only at the party which usually has the physical custody of the kids? And at the kids themselves? Why aren't the fathers targeted for incentive/disincentive programs aimed at PREVENTION? Simple. Because we just decide not to. Thats it.
And so it goes on. We continue to blame only women for all the cyclical social problems caused by poverty. And we get pieces of rubbish like this CATO report which basically unilaterally blames women for crime!
This article makes no sense no matter which way you look at it.
Let's say for example that when a baby is born it goes automatically to the father. And the mother is required by statute to pay child support. Same deal. The father would need welfare to support his child(ren). Or some kind of childcare assistance, job placement assistence etc so he could support his kids and work and take care of the kids. (Remember the mother is out of the picture).
So then, how do we incentivize fathers toward prevention? Oh let's see... let's cut off welfare support to him and his kids and let him struggle to support the kids or wrangle the money out of the unemplyed mother if he can find her and if she even has any money. (Maybe she works for cash and so it can't be proved she's even employed).
Now the father has however many kids he's fathered and no money, probably a minimal education and skills and no child care and No public support. Will this actually stop him from co-creating more kids? Maybe. But even if it did, what becomes of the kids in the meantime? Is he supposed to just let them starve and receive no health care, clothes, etc and live in a homeless shelter or under a bridge?
And why doesn't the mother have presumptive role in preventing conception (from the point of view of the CATO Institute et al. who totally ignores on parent's role by fiat in the creation of the child)? Instead the CATO Institue wants to incentivize the father by cutting off support to his kids but doesn't care about the mother's role. She can keep on co-creating all the kids she wants as far as the CATO Institute is concerned. They just decide she's immune to incentives and since she doesn't have possesion the child there is no real way to punish her with using the child. So they'll continue to go after the father, the one with the child.
What is the father going to do? Watch his kids starve, or go out and get a $6/hour job and leave the kids at home alone or in the car? What are his options? Sure, he might think twice about having no more kids, so the disincentives might work. But he's still left with these kids. Do the ends justify the means? He might stop creating kids but at what cost to get him to do so?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 08, @10:34PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Ok Lorriane:
I have to go to work ( I work overnights) so I can't reply to you right now. I will say its nice to have a post from you that doesn't seem like a personal attack on me, rather than an answer to my arguments. As for yours, I will say they deserve a lengthy reply, and they will get it.
Have a good night :)
Remo/Clarence
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree and disagree with you Lorianne.
I do agree that men should be more involved in their child's lives. Society should encourage this through laws and social rules but it doesn't and as a result men and women suffer.
Men get the shaft in the deal because they are still considered by society and law as the secondary parent. As a new father I can tell you that things are slowly changing but only slowly. A few things I noticed, the mother fills out the birth certificate, which is a legal document, indicating who the name, mother and FATHER of the baby. This is legally binding until proven otherwise. Even after my name was on the birth certificate I was still not allowed custody of my baby when we were going to leave the hospital, my wife had to sign for her release. I could give more examples but the evidence is well documented, men are not considered necessary as a parent and are not encouraged to do so other than financially. This is beginning to change on a social level but in the court system and law books it still is a "hard fact."
Also one of the hardest issues for me is male rights about reproduction. women once they are pregnant have total control of the pregnancy. WOMEN choose to have the child or not to, men are entirely out of the loop. I do not pretend to know the right answer here but it seems that things should not be both ways.
a few notes: If I remember right the percentage of men that pay their child support is around 80+ (The % women who pay CS when it is required is MUCH lower)
IF I WAS KING:
All people would need a year long class on child rearing and a permit to have a child. (too avoid those people who are just plain unfit as parents).
The government (i.e., society) would pay for all the BASIC necessities of children: health, education, etc.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 08, @11:48PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
No Tony YOU choose to have a child or not. You have control over your own penis don't you? As for those laws that make males the secondary parent - who put them there? Not feminists that's for sure. Go complain to the MEN who made children the sole responsiblity of females. I didn't ask for sole responsibility for children I can assure you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes and no. I do while I am having sex except in the case of female on male rape (yes there is a court case where a man who was raped had to pay childsupport)I am not trying to argue against taking resposibility for the chance of a pregnancy occuring. what I am arguing for is more security for men when it comes to birth control. the studies on a "male pill" are a good start, Also I think if it can be proven that a woman lied about birth control then there should be a strong arguement against responsiblity for the child.
no I don't think you did and I think, from you actually being one of the few women who take the time to post your opinion here, you wouldn't support one. BUT women groups do support these type of laws directly and indirectly. I study men's issues like this daily and it is shocking how bias the system is. Organizations like NOW and AAUW promote and suppport this idea. Please take an hour or two and browse a few men's issues sites about custody, reproductive rights and fathering and you will see what I am talking about.
as for men making women the sole caretaker this is just not true. society was created by both men and women together. The division of family and work was due to changes that occurred in our soceity. (HINT: the industrial age was a major part, Kimmel's book Manhood in America is about this exact subject) women were expected to be primarily responsible for the family and men were expected to be finacially responsible. BOTH sides created this social condition. The women's movement has changed the ties to the home for women but has not opened them for men. This problem is both a male and female one and both should work on it.
PS I am the primary caretaker in my household of our 5 month old girl but it is an uphill battle against stereotypes.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tony,
It's heartening to hear about how you are resisting anti-male stereotypes. One reason that there are so many anti-male laws passed by male legistrators is that many men have no consciousness of what it means to be male. You do, which makes you a more interesting person and gives you a broader perspective on social justice.
My sense is that most persons in the US believe that there is and should be a separation between sex and procreation. This state of affairs exists for females in the US via very permissive abortion laws, opportunities to put a child up for adoption, opportunities to legally abandon a child , and the denial to men of any effective rights with respect to children born out of wedlock.
Lack of recognition of this gross inequity shows the extent that male perspectives are almost non-existent in public discussion, even though many men have leadership positions.
We must resist bullying, intimidation, and shaming, and have the courage to state the obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I deny it." Huh? Then you change the topic to welfare policy. A rather typical approach to ignoring men's issues. I'm sure you're trying to keep an open mind so that you can see things as they really are. Please try to do this even more.
Then you might notice that men have no reproductive rights. Keep your pants on is not in NOW's authority dictionary of reproductive rights.
In terms of welfare policy, a simple equitable approach would be a gov't welfare program, funded out of general revenue, with the purpose of guaranteeing at least a minimal welfare to all children. Children are not private property of their parents and children deserve to be supported by everyone if that's necessary. Fear of too many poor black children is racist and unwarranted, and no one should be punished for having children.
That would be much more humane than jailing poor men who do not pay child support (see Gore's policy proposal in the last presidential election).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In terms of welfare policy, a simple equitable approach would be a gov't welfare program, funded out of general revenue, with the purpose of guaranteeing at least a minimal welfare to all children. Children are not private property of their parents and children deserve to be supported by everyone if that's necessary. Fear of too many poor black children is racist and unwarranted, and no one should be punished for having children.
Yikes! No offense, plumber, but one thing I don't want to see is more welfare programs by the U.S. government. And that's one reason I am particularly happy Gore is not our president (that, plus the fact that he has, in the past, been anti-free speech and quite anti-male). I'm from Tennessee, and you'll notice that he lost us, even though he claims we are his "home state."
Welfare programs do more harm than good. Clinton's claim in 1992 that he was going to make welfare "what it should be," in my opinion, never panned out. It always, always, always becomes a crutch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My sense is that most persons in the US believe that there is and should be a separation between sex and procreation.
You have hit the nail squarely upon the head!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now the father has however many kids he's fathered and no money, probably a minimal education and skills and no child care and No public support. Will this actually stop him from co-creating more kids? Maybe. But even if it did, what becomes of the kids in the meantime? Is he supposed to just let them starve and receive no health care, clothes, etc and live in a homeless shelter or under a bridge?
Such a policy isn't crazy, it's simply harsh. The parent can A)develop a network of friends and relatives for support, B)Establish an intimate relationship with someone willing to provide support or C) Give the kids up for adoption.
It is the needs of the children that take priority, not of the parent.
The decision to become a single custodial parent is usually a decision to become dependent on others. That's not unfair. That's not oppression. That's just reality.
People have a right to choose. Society does not have a blind obligation to support them in their choices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After some thinking about this topic some more (I really need to stop posting at 1 am here and not thinking my ideas out fully )
Here is my basic argument:
Sex has two separate components in today's society.
Sex combines a process of pleasure and reproduction to propagate the species but they are also, thanks to birth control, distinctly separate. Before there was any reliable form of birth control the social structure demanded that we treat sex as one entity, a pleasurable process but the expected end result should be a child (note that the Roman catholic church still believes this). Because of greater knowledge about the biological process we know ways of preventing the expected result of sex and been able to concentrate more on the pleasurable portion of sex.
The 60's sexual revolution was in large part due to the advent of "the pill." The freedom of the expectation of pregnancy as a result of sex allowed women to take greater control of their lives and sexuality. The women's movement was an outgrowth of this change in ideology about sex. Abortion issues, the pill, divorce laws, rape laws all increased WOMEN'S rights to control their destiny and body's. The issue I am trying to point out is that none of these addressed men and their unique position in the matter of sex.
Yes, there are some men that do not take responsibility for sex and the possible results. Yes, there are some men that push the responsibly of reproduction upon women. My argument is that there are women that in the totally justifiable demand to control their body's women have walked right over any rights men have in the biological process of sex.
If the act of sex one of mutual responsibility and both people know a possible result of a sexual encounter could be a pregnancy then both people are equally responsible for the result and should have equal control over the outcome. (this is where even I have problems with the idea of equality since women take more physical risks during a pregnancy than men, I had a friend die during childbirth so its hits home hard) The problem that men have is we have zero control over the outcome after the initial act of sex. If anyone expects another person to take responsibility then you must give them options. Currently the only options men have is to "run away" or "be a man." Given these wide and diverse options can anyone be surprised that some men take no responsibility for children.
I feel that if people expect men to take on a greater responsibly for the children everyone, men and women, need to help create a society that provides more options for men along the entire road to birth other than sperm donor.
This is a difficult and emotional topic but the current way of dealing with the issue is obviously not working.
Men need more control over their reproductive process than they do now.
I do not feel that women should not get less help but that men should get more than negative incentives and social stigmatization if they are expected to be involved and responsible of children.
Some final political notes: I do feel that we should have a better welfare system. The stereotypes about welfare the public are wrong. we all should have the right to shelter, food, healthcare and education.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday December 09, @08:44PM EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne:
You asked some questions , so I'll try to give some answers. I see that others on this thread have expounded on one of the points I wanted to make: Namely, that men currently have many disincentives to bring children into the world, whilst women have none -- indeed, have welfare based incentives to have children outside of wedlock.
"...in reality ... how many low-income fathers actually pay child support? "
In Baltimore city that number is up from about 23 percent to just about half ( 48 percent last time I looked ) due to increased enforcement provisions, one of which is the removal of any drivers or other professional licences. The reasons that the other half don't pay vary. Most are in jail, and a significant number could not be located. Contray to popular belief, skipping state doesn't help very much. Most if not all states now have a reciprocity agreement that was passed doing the Clinton administration. No, if you don't want to pay child support, its best to either go to jail, (and you'll still have to pay when or if you get out ) or disappear.
There are other misunderstandings in your post. For one, if welfare was cut off tomorrow, the NCP would still , by law, be required to pay child support. Should the NCP be unemployed, or in a low-wage job, the CP would simply have to find a way to get more money from a turnip. However the CP would still , by law, have a right to money for the child/children , and in some cases, quite a substantial amount, based on the ability of the NCP to pay.
From my experience entering the cases, I can tell you that about 90 percent involved one mother/one father/one child. Multiple parent/child cases made up the other 8, 9, or ten percent. Most of these involved 2,3, or 4 NCP's. There weren't all that many extreme cases. I remember seeing one record of a man who had impregnated about 11 women. And they had been trying, mostly unsuccessfuly, to get support for most of the last 23 years. And two or three with mothers with multiple NCP's (more than 4 or 5). One had 13 different fathers and something like 18 children. Obviously, cases like these cost society alot of money, and the children involved, a lot of heartache.
The article was concerned with the perverse incentives for out-of -wedlock births, not births, perse. Right now welfare would punish a woman for being married. The rad fems at NOW and many other orgs want to increase welfare benefits -- and they are very honest about why. They mention that they want women to be free from the tyranny of needing a man in their lives to support their kids. In other words, Government should take more of my taxpayer dollars, and play "big daddy" with them.
As for my comments: You didn't deny them at all. You side-stepped them. Right now, Lorianne, I am your slave. If you want, you can rape me. You can lie to me , and tell me your using birth control. Regardless of how you get my sperm, you can take it to term, and take my income for 18 years. I wonder just where your outrage would be, if I did such a thing to YOU.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll respond to the points in your post one by one because otherwise its too confusing.
"....men currently have many disincentives to bring children into the world, whilst women have none -- indeed, have welfare based incentives to have children outside of wedlock.
Disagree. Abortion or being burdened with the care of children with no money ARE disincintives. The article even wants to make it more of a disincetive by cutting off more support. The question is, IF disincentives can be provided for women not to co-conceive, then there is no logical reason why we cannot propose disincentives for men not to co-conceive.
"......In Baltimore city that number [men who are paying child support] is up from about 23 percent to just about half ( 48 percent last time I looked ) due to increased enforcement provisions, one of which is the removal of any drivers or other professional licences.
Right. The correlation being enforcement steps up support. Drop enforcement, and support will drop.
"......There are other misunderstandings in your post. For one, if welfare was cut off tomorrow, the NCP would still , by law, be required to pay child support."
True, and if he/she doesn't and the state cuts off welfare, who benefits from this arrangement? Will this policy reduce OOW conception? How? And if it does by only punishing women and children, and not the fathers, is it fair?
"....The article was concerned with the perverse incentives for out-of -wedlock births, not births, perse. Right now welfare would punish a woman for being married.
Agreed. I have never contended the welfare laws are not in need of reform. There are tons of problems, one of he main one being the one you mentioned. I was arguing the premis of the article which to me angled to eliminate welfare.
We could start another topic on HOW to reform welfare, not WHETHER to have it or not, and discuss these issues. I have some ideas.
".......The rad fems at NOW and many other orgs want to increase welfare benefits -- and they are very honest about why. They mention that they want women to be free from the tyranny of needing a man in their lives to support their kids. In other words, Government should take more of my taxpayer dollars, and play "big daddy" with them."
I don't know if I agree or not with your contention about the stated goals of "rad fems". I've never heard or read such, but I have my differnces with mainstream groups so I would not be surprised. In any case, see above my point about reform not elimination of welfare.
"......Right now, Lorianne, I am your slave. If you want, you can rape me. You can lie to me , and tell me your using birth control. Regardless of how you get my sperm, you can take it to term, and take my income for 18 years. I wonder just where your outrage would be, if I did such a thing to YOU."
Believe me, if I had a sex slave it would NOT be for the purposes of procreation and getting a paltry CS check from him. I'm more imaginative than that and not that low on options :o)
Seriously. I really don't think THAT many women conceive in order to make a measely living off of welfare or child support. You simplify the issue too much. Also, by framing the issue just in terms of women purposefully conceieving you make it arbitrarily one-sided. There are many cultures where a man doesn't feel he's a man until he has fathered a child (whether or not he intendes to support it). So there is intense pressure on him to procreate. The same for women.
There are just too many viables to make a blanket claim that most or even a significant number of children are born expressly to get CS or welfare. Generally people that low on options in society, make many many other "mistakes" of judgement that are all heaped into the mix. And not just women. The fathers are still an equal part of the "problem" of perpetuating cycles of poverty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"There are just too many viables to make a blanket claim that most or even a significant number of children are born expressly to get CS or welfare."
Agreed. the vast majority do NOT abuse welfare a few do and those are the ones we hear about. The ones that abuse the system by having child after child are almost nil. The real problem is our society's belief of a meritocracy leading to the belief that the reason anyone that is poor because of something they did not the system or "bad luck." (yes i have read research supporting both sides and can argue both sides equally well but the fact is welfare only helps people not hurts)
but this isn't the real issue we are talking about,....
"The fathers are still an equal part of the "problem" of perpetuating cycles of poverty. "
This comment is getting at the root of the problem sort of. Fathers are an equal part of the "problem"ie creating and raising children.
The problem, basically,is that women control the private sphere of society and refuse to relenquish control of it. (this is kind of harsh but I wanted to be blunt) Because men are not allowed equal status as parents they feel disconnected from entire process. If women want men to be involved in raising children then they need to realize this simple fact. I know simple arguement to this is that "I will let men watch a child" or a similar comment but a simple look at society will indicate this is mixed message.
first off the obvious indications of this:
WIC-Women, infant, children.
Welfare- it is much more difficult for men with children to prove a need for help than women with children.
If you doubt me look at the forms that are required to be filled out and the information asked.
courts give custody of children to the mothers 80%+ of the time reguardless of the circumstances or ability of the fathers.
Many men are trying vary hard to take responsibility of thier children but the simple fact is women are considered the experts and won't relinquish this are they dominate in our society.
I am not trying to play a blame game here but that is how I see it and what the research shows. it is very similar to how women were treated in the economic realm when they tried to enter and put a foot in the door. The problem is that we as a society feel the family is off-limits as far as governmental control so until the women's movement makes a conserted effort to recognize this issue is a partially due to them nothing will happen and we will continue to have women being blamed for "milking" society of money by using children.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 08, @11:19PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Adam, the "final say" about giving birth or not comes from the male when he ejaculates inside the female. Case closed. Get over yourselves, you're all trying to make out you're these helpless males being continually screwed by females. How many of you had sex with females when you were teenagers, dumped them and then bragged about how you did it to your friends? Maybe karma has caught up with you all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How many of you had sex with females when you were teenagers, dumped them and then bragged about how you did it to your friends? Maybe karma has caught up with you all.
Heh. That's pretty funny. Anonymous thinks we're still living in the 1950s, apparently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So if you flip your argument around, it becomes a reason to forbid abortion. After all, women had a final say too when they decided to have sex. The point is that people make mistakes and pregnancies happen, and when they do, the woman has a choice of whether to abort, and the man has no equivalent choice. So those woman who do have birth have done so *more* out of a choice than the men have, because the men did not have a way out of it while the woman did. Then when the men wind up robbed of custody based on false accusations, tossed to the street, billed for the expenses, labeled deadbeat dads and thrown in jail as a result.
And the attack you make on teenage males is just more stereotyping and misandry. I've heard plenty of women brag about who they fucked, as well as what guys they emotionally hurt just because they no longer liked him. Karma just may be catching up with us - that's why our movement is growing, and will continue to. Like it or not, people are slowly becoming more aware of the misandry that permeates throughout our national policies on gender.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For a lot of women abortion is not a viable choice, due to upbringing, religion, or if they are underage, lack of parental consent. Or maybe just a fundamental belief that while abortion is legal it is still wrong. You can't really say "well women can always abort."
Conception however is a two-way street (outside of incest, rape or maybe statutory rape - and in this comment I mean victims of either sex). If however you are a consenting adult having sex with a consenting partner, it's best to find out upfront what your partner's intentions are reproductively, and be very, very careful if you don't want the same things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>it's best to find out upfront what your partner's intentions are reproductively, and be
>very, very careful if you don't want the same things.
So many people do not do this, even in marriages. So many people who don't want children marry people who do, and neither one of them ever expresses their desires until after they marry, when it's too late to get out of the relationship easily.
Opinions involving children are like opinions involving abortion. Almost no one is in the middle. You either really want children or you really don't. People who do want kids also tend to be very adamant about how many they want, and when they want them. A marriage where the spouses don't agree about having children, or don't agree as far as how many or when, is a marriage that is, IMO, doomed. It is very highly unlikely that either one of them will ever change their minds.
People usually think of unwanted pregnancies as taking place in casual relationships, but many of them happen in marriages. Before getting engaged, you should always ask your intended whether they want kids, how many, and when. If you do not want the same things, you should not get engaged. If your partner doesn't bring it up, then you should, unless you want to guarantee a divorce later on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You said it a lot more eloquently (not to mention succinctly) than I have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claire is absolutely correct. Having a solid agreement about children, both when and how many, is a critical part of a functioning marital relationship. It is not however failsafe. I can't tell you the number of times I have seen a couple in therapy who are in a fight to the death about having "one more child." The typical scenario is that they both agreed to two kids, they have two now, she is 39.5 years old and wants another child and he says NO. You want a nuclear concoction? There it is. What does the man do at this point when his wife seeks to be artifically inseminated against his will? I've seen this and other scenarios including wives who sabotage condoms or seek affairs to get pregnant. It gets nasty.
Put your agreement in writing and both sign it. It really helps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women don't always seek to get pregnant by sabotaging condoms and seeking affairs. Birth control methods are not always 100%. Sometimes, pregnancies just happen. Actually, even within legal marriage the majority of pregnancies were not planned. Really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know, Tom. Unfortunately, despite the best of planning and discussion, this sort of thing happens. There are childfree men who married women who supposedly, like they, didn't want children. Then the chick hits 38 and gets infected with what we CF people call "baby rabies." Instead of seeking medication for this condition (it's hormonal and can be treated, IMO), they demand a bayyyyyyyyybeeeeeeeeeee and act shocked that their husband still doesn't want one.
Yep, it sure is a nuclear concoction. Written agreements would solve this problem, but only if courts were willing to enforce them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Actually, even within legal marriage the majority of pregnancies were not planned. Really.
I know. It's scary as hell. I can't help but think that most of thes unplanned children end up as children who are emotionally, and sometimes physically, abused and neglected by parents who didn't want them in the first place. I wish there was an answer, but unfortunately there's not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How many of you had sex with females when you were teenagers, dumped them and then bragged about how you did it to your friends? Maybe karma has caught up with you all."
That doesn't appear to be the common scenario where unexpected pregnancy is concerned. In Carol Gilligan's study of women considering abortion:
"Although the pregnancies occurred under a variety of circumstances in the lives of these women, certain commonalities were discerned. The adolescents often failed to use birth control because they denied or discredited their ability to bear children. Some women became pregnant due to the omission of contraceptive measures in circumstances where intercourse had not been anticipated. Some pregnancies coincided with efforts on the part of the woman to end a relationship and may be seen as a manifestation of ambivalence or as a way of putting the relationship to the ultimate test of commitment. For these women, the pregnancy appeared to be a way of testing truth, making the baby an ally in the search for male support and protection or, that failing, a companion victim of male rejection. Finally, some women became pregnant as a result either of a failure of birth control or of a joint decision that was later reconsidered."
-In a Different Voice, pp.71-72
It does no good to make either men or women the saints or victims when unexpected pregnancy occurs. There is plenty of stupidity, horniness and selfishness to go around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 08, @11:02PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Why does the government have to pay welfare cheques to these women and children? Isn't it because the males get these teenage girls (who don't know a lot about contraception) pregnant and abandon them?
They're getting off easy if you ask me. I wonder if any of you men would dare say anything to these young men about the children they've brought into the world. No it much easier to pick on a young, disadvantaged single mother isn't it guys?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday December 09, @03:14AM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne, you seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that there is a level playing field at present as far as incentives/disincentives go, and that this proposal would result in disincentives only for mothers.
The fact is, as things stand men have NO financial incentives to have children and MASSIVE disincentives already in place, albeit in a de facto sense: the fact that an unwed mother will almost certainly retain sole custody, the fact that he will be ordered to pay child support at at least 35% of his salary for eighteen years, and the fact that it is at the motherfs discretion whether he can see the child or not (visitation orders are rarely enforced). Even if the man is currently unemployed he has the debt hanging over his head and the debt will be deducted from any future income he makes.
I say gin a de facto senseh because the court bias that gives mothers custody most of the time, rigorously enforces payment of child support, yet refuses to enforce visitation orders is not gofficial policyh, although the bias is measurable.
At present it is mothers have NO financial disincentives to have children (from the courts), and are the ONLY ones to have the financial incentives of child support and welfare. This is why the disincentives are targeted at them.
On the other hand, Losing over a third of any income for eighteen years paying for a child you may never see is more than enough of a disincentive for any man sensible enough to be influenced by a disincentive. The men who have unprotected sex regardless are too ignorant, irresponsible or stupid to be influenced by ANY kind of rational disincentive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To all of you posting in this thread I'll begin with
part of one of the quotations from a previous topic:
"... never listen to a woman. Once she
gets permission to tell stories you never get rid of her."
Kierkegaard
Look at the following statement with your eyes wide open:
"We're too busy discussing how to punish women.
Same shit.... different century."
This is a RADICAL FEMINIST statement; 16 men in prison for
every women and their traditional compensatory rights gone and
we are too busy talking about punishing women? Despite how
far the feminist juggernaut has advanced nothing has changed - it is
the "same s---" (ergo, we must push even harder.)
WAKE UP! This is why women say men are dumb -
because you are dumb enough to listen to and believe them. You
contradict them and some Don Quixote wants to play the White
Knight and afford them protection they don't need or deserve.
"'The girl in question has the ultimate ability to decide whether to conceive or not'
No, she does not. They both have exactly equal ability to prevent conception."
A teenage girl can tell you of the differential effect of a sexual stimulus on boys.
Modern research has confirmed what people known for thousands of years -
that the higher brain functions are more shunted out in the male during sex.
This is why the female says men "think with their pants" allowing her to supply
her own thoughts in the place of the ones she has just robbed from him. A
women plying a man with sex is like a man plying a woman with alcohol,
in the feminists' own words it is "Against Our Will" and "RAPE". Where
there is no will there is no guilt and no responsibility, that is why females
are acknowledged to be guilty or more guilty in sexual matters. The best
men have tried to do is to warn others of the danger, e.g.:
"It is the nature of women to seduce men in this (world); for that
reason the wise are never unguarded in (the company of) females."
Code of Manu, c. 1500 B.C.
That and by trying to reduce the female's seductive effect by covering
them up; the extreme case being found in fundamental Muslim countries
and which is the counterpart of men being denied the use of physical
against women which is the norm in the western world.
I don't wish to belabor the point but eventually you must come
to the conclusion that statements like those above come from
a hopelessly deluded fanatic or that you are being played for a fool.
I am not saying that there aren't any women who have a
genuine respect for justice and fair play, but they are
so rare, and your ability to recognize them from the frauds
so limited, that you are better off not listening to them at all:
"At the time of consultation let him cause to be removed idiots, the dumb,
the blind, and the deaf, animals, very aged men, women, barbarians, the sick,
and those deficient in limbs.
(Such) despicable (persons), likewise animals, and particularly women
betray secret council; for that reason he must be careful with respect to them."
ibid.
Throughout the web I see men's groups infiltrated and sabotaged by women,
some of them in time are hardly differentiated from pro-feminist "men's"
groups. Often the men, with the best intent, invite these women in and never
realize until too late what they have done. Most have yet to learn, which is why
we are in the present mess - Because you KEEP LISTENING.
"(When creating them) Manu allotted to women (a love of their) bed,
(of their) seat and (of) ornament, impure desires, wrath, dishonesty,
malice, and bad conduct" ibid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree with Spartacus that we shouldn't listen to women, though I do think we should identify the point at which two diametrically opposed views are not going to be reconcilled.
To interject my take on the whole matter, I don't see how women can be forced to bear the burden of raising a child anymore, because they have the choice to abort. So if they are suffering so much from being the primary caretaker, they are only doing so because they *chose* to bring the child to term and keep it. Men don't have this choice, and the "keep it in your pants" argument is unfair because women have choices even after "opening their legs."
Women can use abstinance, many forms of birth control, the morning after pill, full surgical abortion, putting the child up for adoption, or in many states, abandoning the baby at a hospital or police/fire dept.
Men can use abstinance, a couple forms of birth control, and in the other cases, the man has no say in the matter. So it would seem to me that until men have equal reproductive rights to decline paternity, the motto here is "her choice - her responsibility." Only men can be forced into parenthood, not women.
This is of course a controversial topic and I would encourage people interested in this to check out tonight's MANN/iFeminists chat, which will be held at the ifeminists chat room:
http://www.ifeminists.com/interaction/chat/
The topic is, "the rights/responsibilities of men in the situation of abortion."
I won't be able to make it to this one, but I'm sure it will be a lively discussion!
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Adam, the "final say" about giving birth or not comes from the male when he ejaculates inside the female. Case closed."
You know what you just admitted? you just told me to not trust any woman, ever. Due to current laws I think that might well be the best idea. A pity idiots like you are forcing men to shun the other half of humanity.
Spartacus: you the man.
Lorriane: you have no argument, come up with something useful or stop wasting our time by being so hatefully blind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adam, please refrain from using insults in your postings (ie, "idiots like you"). This is an emotional and controversial topic, and we need reasonable, objective arguments here more than ever.
Thanks,
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I don't see how women can be forced to bear the burden of raising a child anymore, because they have the choice to abort"
Well, I refuse to accept that abortion is the best possible solution we can come up with. Especially as the "problem" could have been averted much of the time. In the remainder of the time, genuine "accidents", I certainly don't endorse anything which promotes or coerces abortion, especially among teenage girls... or provides a social stigma on women who don't abort. This will lead to mandated abortion. When men say "Well she can always abort" what I hear men saying is "I don't want to take any responsibility at for my part in this".
In any case, the article to which we are responding is concerned with PREVENTION not abortion. It is suggesting that cutting off welfare for children already born (after the fact) is a before the fact solution. And it targets children more than adults anyway. Beyond that it is just plain dumb and short sighted. How the hell can cutting off aid to children and the parent who is caring for them a wise move? How exactly will catapulting children into deeper poverty avert crime? The CATO instutute doesn't care, says so at the end of the article, solutions are outside the scope of their study! Yet they have no problem scapegoating women unilaterally and slyly suggesting a solution throughout the article. They are not really interested in solutions, they are interesting in finding a scapegoat. If they were really looking comprehensively at the problems of PREVENTION, they might have mentioned at the very least the biological role the male plays in conception at least once. They didn't.
Also one fairness point, why is it fair to punish the adult who is present and accounted for, the custodial parent? This seems backward. What they're really advocating is elimination or abandonment of children by targeting the parent who is actually physically present and caring for the child. From what I can predict this will cause an increase in abortion, an increase in children up for adoption, an increase in children abandoned and abused, an increase in poverty and crime. It will NOT decrease the number of conceptions!!!! (This is what the article pretends to be about, preventing conception).
Spartacus' argument is more of the boys will be boys argument that tries to make woman not only responsible for her own behavior but that of every man she encounters as well. (This is an arbitrary construct despite his lame attempt to provide historical credence to it... and a construct I might add we could just as arbitrarily turn around the opposite way if we want). Also, he has a pretty low opinion of his fellow men. He denies their most human quality, their free will, by declaring that men act as mere involuntary animals (and as such are not responsible for their sexual/reproductive actions). I'm sorry some men have such a low sub-human opinion of their brothers.
Conception is the default consequence of sex. No amount of declaring this or that will change that fact away. For the foreseeable future, unwanted, unintended conception will occur. Period. No discussion there. However, it can be greatly reduced if we put our minds and hearts and energy into it (instead into weasely ways to pass the buck). But it will never be reduced/eliminated without the equal participation of men and women.
It will never be reduced by transferring responsiblity for before-the-fact preventative action from either party to the other unilaterally after the fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry some men have such a low sub-human opinion of their brothers.
Thank you for saying "some." Although I'm not sure I agree with you that Spartacus has a low opinion of his brothers. It's no secret that he and I have disagreed in the past over exactly how much free will men regarding women and sexuality, though.
I *do* control my penis, but that *doesn't* mean that I can't still get into trouble, especially in weak moments, like those of a sexual nature. Likewise, it doesn't meant that I can't be sexually assaulted or abused by a woman.
By the way, I don't know if anyone here ever watches "Oz," the HBO "men in prison" series (which seems from the one episode I saw to be not much more than an excuse to show naked men in prison to a female audience, but that's beside the point). HBO had a free preview one weekend not long ago. I watched one episode of "Oz," and there was a scene where a man who had been tossed into solitary confinement (sans his clothing) was attacked and raped by a female guard.
This may be the very first time I've seen a television series depict the rape of a man by a woman, and do so without humor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Well, I refuse to accept that abortion is the best possible solution we can come up with."
I don't think anyone on this thread has advocated abortion. But it is relevant, in thinking about sex equity, that in the US the need for abortion has been extensively discussed in mainstream media, and a right to abortion has been found in the US constitution to the extent to protect even "partial birth" abortion. Men need to think about that in thinking about the justice of laws governing male sexuality.
Men's reproductive rights and good welfare policy are not the same issue. In terms of welfare policy, a simple equitable approach would be a gov't welfare program, funded out of general revenue, with the purpose of guaranteeing at least a minimal welfare to all children. Children are not private property of their parents and children deserve to be supported by everyone if that's necessary. Fear of too many poor black children is racist and unwarranted, and no one should be punished for having children.
That would be much more humane than jailing poor men who do not pay child support (see Gore's policy proposal in the last presidential election).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 10, @03:13PM EST (#48)
|
|
|
|
|
No, children do not deserve to be supported by everyone. Then everyone would be paying child support, not just for 18 years but for their entire lives, and would be paying it for other people's kids. Why should I have to pay to support someone else's problem? And why should any father choose to take responsibility if he knows he can just sign the kid over to the government and force his neighbors to pay for his mistake?
I will never support C4M if it means all these mistakes are going to end up on welfare, with MY MONEY BEING USED TO SUPPORT THEM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will never support C4M if it means all these mistakes are going to end up on welfare, with MY MONEY BEING USED TO SUPPORT THEM.
Sorry, I must be losing track of the thread. Did someone here say that C4M includes welfare? I am strongly opposed to welfare, and I don't recall seeing anything about it on any C4M Web sites I've visited.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 10, @06:49PM EST (#54)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know what the C4M movement thinks in general, I was replying to Plumber's suggestion that kids whose fathers choose not to support them, should be supported by everyone else through welfare. There's no disincentive for women to keep having kids they can't afford, even if men don't have to support them, if the woman can just collect welfare.
It also does not equal the end of child support for men. Under Plumber's plan, you'll still be paying child support, only you'll be paying it for everyone else's kids. Even if you never have a kid, ever, you'll be paying to support other people's problems and mistakes. Why should anyone be forced to pay for someone else's kids?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"And why should any father choose to take responsibility if he knows he can just sign the kid over to the government and force his neighbors to pay for his mistake?"
A lot of men (but not all) want to be real fathers, which means a lot more than paying money to support a kid. Many men love kids and do not consider them a mistake.
Regarding children with parents who want to be real parents but cannot provide money, yes the government should help such children, and their parents. Taxpayer money goes to support poor old persons and poor adults; why are you so upset that taxpayer money might go to support poor children? Do you favor a financial qualification to be a parent?
Love is the most important thing that children need, and only individual men and women, not government, can provide it. But at least government should provide some money to those who need some money to survive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what about welfare and social security.
One of the major complaints of people is that society shouldn't be responsible for children because thats welfare. So once again I looked up what welfare is. From the American Heritage Dictionary 1a. health, happiness and general well-being.b. prosperity. 2. welfare work 3.public relief.
Out of these three I think its the public relief part that some people here have a problem with. Why should I pay for a child thats not mine and I didn't want. I wonder if those same people are against Social security which is the samething as "welfare" (ie. public relief) for those over 65. What about relief for the disabled? Retirement?
Why should I pay for someone else's grandparents or failure to plan for their retirement?
While the argument is that people pay into the SS system while they are working this is not always the case and not all people pay into it.
Just to be clear I am for a more socialist system of government similar to the UK or Canada where the basic needs of people are taken care of.
just a thought about
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just went through your letter Spartacus and well I just have to say I disagree with you on several points political and idealogical. Also you might be interested in this site http://www.politicalcompass.org/
It gives a nice explaination of the political spectrum and lets you take a little test to compare yourself to "famous" political individuals.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also you might be interested in this site http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Interesting test, Tony. According to this "political compass," I am .25-degrees to the right economically and minus 4-degrees toward libertarian versus authoritarian.
I always suspected I was dead-center economically. I'm somewhat surprised by my social results, though. ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Society and therefore law considers that a male's role in the family is mainly finacial.
Society and therefore law considers that at woman's role in the family is mainly a caretaker.
This role has been chanllenge by the feminist movement and enourmous changes have been made to share the finacial role of the family with women,
BUT until men are allowed equal SOCIAL and LEGAL access to their family's and children they will continue to feel alienated and powerless.
If women want men to take part in familylife then they need to examine their own personal bias about men and family just as men have been forced to examine their bias about women and work. Not on an individual level but on an instiutional one. Saying "I am not a bigot." does not mean that there isn't enormous hidden bias built in to the legal and social system of interaction.
A personal story that emphasises this point:
I was changing my baby daughters diaper at a friend's house. Her daughter of three was looking at me strangely when the mother felt it necessary to explain, "Daddies sometimes have to touch thier little girls 'there' when they change their diapers." I feel this shows the enourmous hidden bias men feel when dealing with children, even their own.
If a woman was made to feel uncomfortable at the workplace in a similar way there would be a way to address the situtation. Since this was a social reaction based on a stereotype of men as sexual predetors there was nothing I could do but "grin and bear it".
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott,
You write "I disagree with Spartacus that we shouldn't listen to women".
This is not an argument, it is an unsupported statement which anyone can
make, the kind our opposition makes every day. And given your position
in this forum it could take on the character of a command, which is why
in Robert's Rules of Order the chairman must relinquish the chair before
engaging in debate. In a free society leaders offer their reasons for the
public to accept or reject, in the other kind of society they give commands
without explanation or without debate. You are a congenial person but
in principle you often toe the line between these two societies. Tell me,
what is the fundamental difference between "political correctness" and
your "Our Philosophy"? And I don't mean in application (because I know
you don't force it on us the way THEY do) - but in the pure conceptual form
of saying what the "proper" way of thinking is for a group with widely
disparate views.
Your statement I'm sure did give "Aid and Comfort" to the enemy which
causes me to ask; "Why do you let the enemy operate behind our lines?"
Even if one were to grant you that there are some exceptional women
dedicated to our cause how do you explain the presence of this one. She
is clearly making hard-core feminist and anti-male remarks in this forum
which can only harm the movement. If I tried to post my sentiments in
a feminist group do you think they would show me the same toleration
that you are showing this Maenad? Do you think in a war we are already
losing it makes sense to let the enemy have more weapons and more range
of movement then we are allowed?
Look at her statement:
"Spartacus' argument is more of the boys will be boys argument that tries to make woman not only responsible for her own behavior but that of every man she
encounters as well. (This is an arbitrary construct despite his lame attempt to provide historical credence to it... and a construct I might add we could just as
arbitrarily turn around the opposite way if we want). Also, he has a pretty low opinion of his fellow men. He denies their most human quality, their free will, by
declaring that men act as mere involuntary animals (and as such are not responsible for their sexual/reproductive actions). I'm sorry some men have such a low
sub-human opinion of their brothers."
Can you not see the low under-handed demagoguery that is being used here?
For people who have no scruples tactics are everything. I attack women for
the benefit of men and she attempts to reverse the order of things in your minds
so that your friends will be viewed as your enemies and your enemies as your
friends. If you are not well versed in the principles of propaganda let me say that
you usually can spot it quickly enough by a constant repetition of a simple a message,
e.g..; "he has a pretty low opinion of his fellow men", "some men have such a low
sub-human opinion of their brothers". The use of the Hitlerian term "sub-human"
is particularly instructive, and it is no surprise because the Nazis and communists
adopted the methods of "persuasion" of women in their politics.
"Spartacus' .. tries to make woman not only responsible for her own behavior but
that of every man she encounters as well".
The reversal here is bit different - you could simply say that it is a
case of calling the kettle black because as we know feminists refuse
accountability for themselves and blame men for both the actions
of men and women. But besides the blatant attempt to "demonize"
me as shown above we have the familiar "straw man" argument
that uses a common logical "fallacy." I give a specific instance where
men lose control and she generalizes to suggest that in all situations
men are not to held accountable. Furthermore, she makes my attempts
to raise men up by pointing out their defects look as if I am putting them
down, ergo, you will not listen to me and "stay in your place" - which
is under the feminist boot heel.
"This is an arbitrary construct despite his lame attempt to provide historical credence to it...
and a construct I might add we could just as arbitrarily turn around the opposite way if we want"
Again the repetition - the propaganda; "arbitrary .. arbitrarily"; again the attempt
to discredit; "lame attempt"; again the attempt to reverse; "we could just as arbitrarily
turn around the opposite way if we want". These are all propaganda methods, all truly
diabolical - all truly feminine. You would think it incumbent on someone who criticizes
someone's evidence to provide better evidence in return. But not a shred of evidence
or anything that could properly be called an argument is presented - it is is all
unfounded statements by someone who would impose their tyrannical will upon you.
And Scott, if you don't back your statements don't expect the other's to do so
either.
Spartacus
From "Mein Kampf"
'The future of a movement is conditioned by the fanaticism, yes, the intolerance,
with which its adherents uphold it as the sole correct movement" p. 350-1
"The greatest of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies
in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its
own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others." p.351
"one man must step forward who with apodictic force will form granite principles
from the wavering idea-world of the broad masses and take up the struggle for
their sole correctness, until from the shifting waves of a free-thought world there
will arise a brazen cliff of solid unity in faith and will." p. 381
("sole correctness = political correctness"; the "masculine principle" inclines
to freedom the "feminine principle" to unity; "free- thought" is to give way
to "unity"; "intolerance" is a concomitant of unity)
"After my entrance into the German Worker's Party, I at once took over the
management of propaganda. I regarded this department as by far the most important." p.579
"At most a leaflet or a poster can, by its brevity, count on getting a moment's
attention from someone who thinks differently. The picture in all its forms up
to the film has greater possibilities. Here a man needs to use his brains even
less; it suffices to look, or at most to read extremely brief texts, and thus
many will more readily accept a pictoral presentation than read an article
of any length. The picture brings them in a much briefer time, I might almost
say at one stroke, the enlightenment which they obtain from written matter
only after arduous reading." p. 470
From "Generation of Vipers" by Philip Wylie:
" ... The radio is mom's soul .. * ...
* In place of "radio," of course, the alert reader will now
automatically substitute "TV."...
The radio is mom's final tool, for it stamps everybody who
listens with the matriarchal brand--its superstitions, prejudices,
devotional rules, taboos, musts, and all other qualifications
needful to its maintenance. Just as Goebbels has revealed
what can be done with such a mass-stamping of the public
psyche in his nation, so our land is a living representation of
the same fact worked out in matriarchal sentimentality, goo,
slop, hidden cruelty, and the foreshadow of national death...."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spartacus ___
I did not make the argument that men are unable to control their sexual urges. YOU did. I did not declare that men are not responsible for their sexual conduct because they lack the human quality of "free will" in the presence of women. YOU did.
“Where there is no will there is no guilt and no responsibility, that is why females are acknowledged to be guilty or more guilty in sexual matters.” Spartacus
It is up to men to determine if they believe they have less “free will” in their sexual lives than do women. I’ll let your comment stand for itself. It was not my intention to tell men what to think about it, about what you are saying about them. They’re smart enough to judge for themselves. However, I DID say what I thought about it. I think it is insulting to men to suggest they lack “free will”, a fundamental characteristic of being human vs. animal. As far as I know, I’m entitled to my opinion, and in my opinion you are wrong about men, and insulting them besides.
Furthermore, I did not frame this or any other argument in the language of “war” or men and women being “enemies”. YOU did. Therefore, I will not defend a position I never took. It is up to you to declare war and wage it on your own.
Furthermore, if you do not want to listen to women (or men) who disagree with your positions, no one forces you. If the people of this board wish to discuss issues only with people who agree with them, that is their prerogative. There are ample means of censoring dissenting opinions on a website, for example, the webmaster (I assume) has the ability to block any ISP-ID he chooses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne - IMO making statements to people on this board like:
"I'm sorry some men have such a low
sub-human opinion of their brothers."
Are not helpful. If you expect to be treated with respect I hope you can offer that same respect to others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom,
Your criticism is noted. My comment is not helpful, but it was an honest reaction to remarks which are also "not helpful" to the discussion.
".....females are acknowledged to be guilty or more guilty in sexual matters.” Sparta
Would you agree?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glad that you agree your comment was not helpful. Let's now focus on a good discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne wrote, "There are ample means of censoring dissenting opinions on a website, for example, the webmaster (I assume) has the ability to block any ISP-ID he chooses."
I have no intention of doing this, now or ever (I hope). I'm in the process of responding to Spartacus, so see my next post.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 10, @03:19PM EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
Hey dude, why not just move to an island and live by yourself, or with a group of other men? Being as every single one of your posts just drips with utter, all-consuming hatred for females, I think you'd be a lot happier, and society at large a lot safer.
You must be really fun at family gatherings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 10, @06:17PM EST (#52)
|
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that when women get pregnant and get rid of the father they get a child and money from the gov't and father. While the father gets an extra bill every month. Is there something I'm missing where the guy needs extra punishments rather than the girl fewer incentives? Yes yes I agree that both are equally responsible but I fail to see equity in the girl getting a baby and cash and the guy left with a greater mistrust of women.
Personally I suggest a large advertising budget supporting oral sex over having intercourse. That is, if seperating sex from baby making is desirable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spartacus wrote, "given your position in this forum it could take on the character of a command."
I hardly consider myself some sort of leader who gives commands to MANN readers. The philosophy of this web site is based on community participation more than hierarchal control. You greatly overestimate my influence.
"You are a congenial person but in principle you often toe the line between these two societies. Tell me, what is the fundamental difference between "political correctness" and your "Our Philosophy"? And I don't mean in application (because I know you don't force it on us the way THEY do) - but in the pure conceptual form of saying what the "proper" way of thinking is for a group with widely disparate views."
I'm not a perfect person, and my guidelines for dealing with widely disparate views on this web site is not perfect either. But it's the best that I can do, and I'm trying to do it with as much sincerity and objectivity as possible. I've received positive feedback from many people who say that the greatest aspect of this site is how it is able to stay more apolotical and inclusive than most (and note I'm not claiming it's perfectly apolitical, because that's simply not possible). I know I can't please everyone, and apparently you have some problems with the philosophy I've been using to run this web site. Perhaps you could do better. If you think this, then by all means - go for it!
I'm also open to suggestions. But if your suggestion is to close this site off to women, or to portray them as "the enemy," then I'm afraid that's an issue that I'm unwilling to compromise on. If you want me to start censoring Lorianne or people like her, it's a lost cause. Why not exercise your right not to respond to her if you believe what she is saying is nonsense? Certainly, just because something is posted on this site doesn't mean it's right. Certainly, if that were the case, this site would be nothing but a set of contradictions!
The only reasons I'd ever delete a posting would be if it were an obvious troll where there were more explicatives than content, or when someone tries to spread hatred on this site. Lorianne has done neither so far, in my opinion. She may not completely agree with everything on this site, and that's fine. In fact, that's kind of the point of this site.
The day is coming where we will be dealing with trolls every singe day...look at Slashdot, which gets dozens of "first post!" and "goatsex" comments on each story. I will always welcome reasonable debate on this list as long as people don't cross the line into hatred. I have also permitted many postings of things I disagree about, but I think as someone who puts the effort into keeping this site up and running, that I have a right to define where that line is drawn.
Also, I have no interest in getting into the debate between you and Lorianne. That's for you and her to deal with.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott,
I almost missed your message until I saw the "Mensactivism.org Overload"
- I hope it wasn't anything I said.
"I hardly consider myself some sort of leader who gives commands to
MANN readers. ... You greatly overestimate my influence."
What I said was "given your position in this forum it could take on the character
of a command." In other words, you don't have to give a command, because
your position carries a certain weight to it that others can't match. There is a
psychological effect that comes with authority, and if the authority figure is
not elected and accountable to any rules but his own ( "I have a right to define
where that line is drawn.") then the effect will be even greater. Take the following example:
"apparently you have some problems with the philosophy I've been using to run
this web site. Perhaps you could do better. If you think this, then by all means - go for it!"
I doubt that this person is suggesting that I run *his* site better, so what is he saying then?
That I should go peddle my goods elsewhere? Oh, how unpleasant - and so close to
the holidays too! Now let's say this person has the power to make me walk the plank
anytime he wants. Do you this person's words will have the same effect on me as say
some "dude" who thinks I should voluntarily exile myself?
As for women being the enemy, there is a truth in this that is eternal and unalterable;
you can fail to realize this, you can live in denial - but you can't change this. You can
compromise - but the underlying tension is always there. And if you want equal terms
you must bargain from equal strength, and if your enemy is ruthless than you may be
forced to respond in kind. In your language the sexes represent "two diametrically
opposed" forces or principles - you can't go up and down at the same time - but you
can oscillate. (see quote below)
Dealing with an "obvious troll" is a relatively easy thing, it is the ones who pretend
to engage in honest debate and mask their evil intent with congenial language who
are difficult to discover. Of course, I would have thought the feminist intent I see
popping up all over to be rather obvious.
"Why not exercise your right not to respond to her if you believe what she is saying is nonsense? ...
Also, I have no interest in getting into the debate between you and Lorianne.
That's for you and her to deal with."
I don't recall offhand ever responding to any feminist. Have you ever seen me
talk to any woman in your forum? Well, enough questions, I address statements
made by feminists for the purpose of exposing them and not for the purpose of
debating with them..
On the subject of spreading hatred I will go over the most offensive comment
again for purposes of illustration.
I wrote "the higher brain functions are more shunted out in the male during sex."
The higher brain functions make us human so the effect then could be said to
dehumanize us or make us "sub-human." What was it that Medea said?; "A bit of the
dog isn't it?". The feminists don't stop with mammals but tell us that we have a more
"reptilian" brain. Clearly it is they who wish to dehumanize and make us look sub-human.
So I point this out for purposes of avoidance and the feminist in question twists it to
makes it look as if I have a "sub-human" opinion of men, as if I am trying to put them
down rather than raise them up. Now if this isn't a hateful thing to do then I don't know
what is. Like the "obvious troll" a straightforward insult or hateful remark is easier to
spot than the careful machinations of a devious person. For those reading this the
counterpart to this is the "I'm sorry" bit, she feels sorry that some people view men as
sub-human - the feminist that is.
Well, I 've got lots to do before I get out of town, my mother, sisters, and nieces
are all waiting for me back in Virginia and you know how much I would hate to
disappoint them.
Spartacus
"the two supreme powers in nature, the positive and negative magnetism,
the centrifugal and centripetal forces, the masculine and feminine elements,"
"Woman and the Republic" by Helen Kendrick Johnson, 1913.
"Policy for Woman is eternally the conquest of the Man ...
This secret and fundamental war of the sexes has gone on ever since
there were sexes, and will continue -- silent, bitter, unforgiving, pitiless --
while they continue ...
and with a still more uncanny potency than in the other History that
takes place between man and man .. nothing in the political world
even begins to compare with the abysses of a Clytaemnestra's or
a Kriemhild's revenge."
Spengler, Oswald, The Decline of the West, p.328
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday December 12, @03:36PM EST (#71)
|
|
|
|
|
If women are truly the enemy, doesn't you visiting your mother, sisters and nieces equate to you cavorting with the enemy?
Gee, I'll bet the holidays in your house are a non-stop laugh riot. I can picture it right now. It makes my family look like the Bradys.
I actually feel very sorry for you. It must be tough to walk through life hating 50%+ of the population right off the bat. I put the plus sign there because you obviously hate men who don't share your hatred of women, and that would be most men. You even took it upon yourself to insult the moderator of this site. I didn't see Scott say /anything/ about making you walk the plank.
I pity you, and I hope you don't carry all this hate around forever. It's hurting you a lot more than it hurts the objects of your hatred.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
