|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's try a more constructive thread.
What's the sense of the importance of c4m here? Certainly, the position of men in reproduction is invidious, especially in the US. You have to pay for all the kids that are yours and sometimes for those that aren't. That the man/boy was a victim of trickery, undue influence, or rape is no defence.
A prudent man would probably have his sperm stored at an early age for future AI and have his tubes tied.
Women, OTOH, get several low-cost post-coital opportunities to escape: abortion and "surrender".
I don't know of a single case where a woman has been forced to pay CS for a child which wasn't hers (there was a case in Australia where a lesbian "father" was ordered to pay maintenance to her ex-"spouse").
However, would the practical implications of c4m be socially acceptable? who would support children conceived without the father's consent?
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've never seen so many off-topic, irrelevant, counterproductive messages on this site before. It's an embarassment, and I have deleted them all before it snowballs out of control (it was certainly in the process of doing so).
If you have something to say about the letter Jim wrote, or C4M in general, say it here. Otherwise, take a moment and think about your commitment to the men's movement before starting another irrelevant flame war. Things like this are the reason that the men's movement is having such a hard time getting off the ground - we're too quick to attack and divide against each other.
Scott
PS - I still managed to screw up, though. When I went to go delete the messages I checked off all of them for deletion up to the one remaining now from Smoking Drive. For some reason, all of the posts after Smoking Drive's comment (which I *hadn't* checked for deletion yet) were also deleted. So to anyone who followed up to SD's post that got deleted as well, my apologies. I wish I never had to do this in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 06, @10:18PM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
I already said what I wanted to say about C4M and you deleted it. Let me just say that C4M is essential.
I don't know if you really deleted those posts for the reason you state. I know for a fact that last night at least 22 of the 24 (and maybe all 24) were posted. Hardly a thread spiraling out of control.
In any case, Scott, if there is some strategic reason that you wish to share with me you can contact me at clarencecdw@icqmail.com. Discretion and privacy is assured. If you wish to promulgate a new rule, I think it would be fair and wise to post it here for all to see.
I don't see the men's movement as being damaged at all. We've had a lot of succeesses to date. And I think you will lose far more by censoring opinions, and trying to build imaginary consensuses then you will ever gain.
Remo
If there is some
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remo,
You're entitled to your opinion, and I may have made a mistake. This isn't a habit I'm interested in forming (deleting posts).
Suggesting that I may have deleted the posts for reasons other than I said above is not very generous of you. I'm not lying about what happened, and unless you can offer evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to put any effort into proving myself.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Scott. Your decision is, no doubt, imperfect. We live in an imperfect world.
Let's move on.
Together, as much as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 07, @01:53AM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
Scott, you're the one who originated this site and now spends enormous time maintaining it. No one can really criticize the actions you take. That especially includes me since I've posted only a few messages in the 1 1/2 years I've been reading mensactivism.org.
Personally, however, I felt most of the posted comments were quite productive and on-topic. Several people were able to express the tremendous anger they feel regarding C4M (or lack of). I believe this anger is very valid.
For example, current child support laws in California would require me to spend over 500K in today's dollars over an 18 year period for a child that wasn't mine or for a child that I didn't want when it was still a "mass of tissue" (to quote pro-choice advocates). I've estimated that the marginal cost for supporting such a child would be 14 times what I spend on myself. In other words, it would cost me 14 times less to raise the same child at my standard of living. And of course, the child doesn't receive this money, the mother does. The mother has no legal obligation whatsoever to spend this money on the child. She can spend it on herself.
Should I be angry about the lack of C4M? Yes. How should I feel about someone or a legal system that wants to take several years of my life and give these years to a woman for a child that isn't mine? My labor has a huge physical and emotional cost. And again, the money does not go to the child. It goes to the mother.
I'm reminded of the Rodney King riots where Korean store owners used weapons to repel rioters. Legal or not, most people supported their actions. Their lives were not in danger - they were just trying to protect what was theirs.
Doesn't a man have the same right to protect what is his? We're not talking about a few dollars or a slap in the face. We're talking about the equivalent of 6-8 years of a man's life. That is, an average scenario will require a man to pay 6-8 times his annual income over an 18-21 year period to support a woman for a child that may not be his. Keep in mind that a man is taxed on the child support he pays, but a woman isn't taxed on the child support she receives.
Both men and women should be very angry about the lack of C4M, when infinite opportunities are available to women to remove themselves from any responsibility for a child. I believe this was the essence of the recent posts. I believe they were on-topic and productive. Men have every right to express their feelings and anger. In the case of C4M, I believe this anger is justified. A man's mental and emotional health is worth something, even if feminists don't want to believe so.
Shawn Larsen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, others have already presented thoughts similar to mine, but it's really late and I have an early start tomorrow. . .taking care of the woman who once tried to gut me with a carving knife when I was a teenager. So I'm just going to post this as it was written while others were making their own comments.
Scott, I disagree. There's a danger here that I think we should address -- the risk of making one of the fundamental mistakes that led from an honest and valid concern with women's rights to dishonest and elitist feminism.
That mistake is the failure to develop protocols for exactly this kind of situation, where an activist's feelings are conflated with proposed actions, and an activist's statements are criticized on the basis of protecting the movement's reputation per se. These are not identical or even necessarily competing needs, and the men's issues movement needs to develop reliable and productive methods for handling this situation -- and I don't think deletion is such a method.
The women's issues movement became feminism partly because of an absence of checks and balances in its system; it was insufficiently self-regulating, with exactly the results we're seeing today -- NOW attempting to steal monies allocated to victim relief; the sexual harassment industry; the routine denial of father's rights. Many of the articles posted on MANN are similar examples.
Within the women's issues movement, certain feelings were often unconditionally accepted, and this led to great successes in membership and motivation. The resentment of and anger caused by real gender inequities that were expressed by the prominent leaders were shared by many women who had never directly acknowledged the limitations placed upon them, and who had never seen their own feelings put into words by others. What the women's issues movement failed to do, however, was balance the acceptance of these feelings with reasoned criticism of proposed solutions to the inequities causing them.
The reverse, in general, is true of us. The men's issues movement must have a place for the acceptance of men's (and, women's) feelings. If we censor men's feelings, we're shooting ourselves in the foot. That acceptance, however, must also be matched by a fair and objective reasoned evaluation of proposed actions -- check and balance -- a requirement that the women's issues movement failed to meet.
Thus my question, Scott: What do we do the next time this happens? Because it will happen again. Count on it. And it's my observation that the failure to accept and validate men's feelings is far more the cause of the 'hard time' the men's movement is having in getting off the ground. That is the real source of our excessive quickness to attack and divide against each other -- our failure to start from a place of acceptance and validation, rather than disagreement, argument, and competition. And sweeping the mess under the carpet does not clean it up. It doesn't solve the problem -- it just hides it for a while.
The ability to emotionally handle disagreement, argument, and competition is one of our fundamental masculine-role strengths. As men, we're trained in this from childhood forward -- to challenge others, to accept being challenged ourselves, to contest with others and then leave the conflict behind when the contest is over.
But the parallel weakness that is paired with this strength is a lessened concern for men's feelings in general. They go hand in hand -- that weakness is an exaggeration of the need for getting over it and moving forward. That's an existing check in our case that must be balanced with greater acceptance of men's feelings, first. We must have the courage to express our feelings. Because they're valid -- and there are millions of men out there who have never directly acknowledged the limitations placed on them, and who have never seen their own feelings put into words by others. And the first step towards creating that courage for each other is to accept the expression of those feelings first, to communicate that acceptance second, and only then to move on to the debate about solutions to the inequities causing them, third.
Remo's feelings about this kind of violation are valid. The distinction that must be drawn is between his feelings of anger and resentment and his proposed response to the violation. They are not the same thing.
Let me repeat that: They are not the same thing.
Our responsibility as men's issues activists is twofold. First, to show Remo, or whomever, that their feelings are valid and accepted, as the women's issues movement correctly did for women's feelings. And second, as the women's issues movement did not do, to generate other options for the people with those feelings -- and thereby for ourselves -- that are superior to the proposed response, something which we achieve through disagreement, argument, and competition.
And when we do, we also satisfy the valid need to protect the movement's reputation as well, providing a win-win result. But to accomplish that, the process must be visible -- and deleting the comments involved here is, as I said, sweeping the mess under the carpet, rather than cleaning it up.
And that doesn't solve the problem. It just hides it for a while.
I'm not criticizing Scott's choice to delete the comments. I'm just pointing out that their deletion is cure but not prevention, and I'm trying to address the deeper issues of what happened, why it happened, and what we can do to prevent it from happening in the future.
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your comments, Shawn and Acksiom. They are noted, and I will keep them in mind in the future. I'll also start thinking about forming a clear policy on the deletion of posts, and post that publicly on the site somewhere soon. Don't hesitate to remind me if too much time passes.
Thanks,
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
