|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great article! If we expect girls/women to be responsible in sex and its consequences, we must expect the same from boys/men.
Anything less is sexism, promotion of abortion or promotion of continueing the cycle of poverty and despair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great article! If we expect girls/women to be responsible in sex and its consequences, we must expect the same from boys/men.
Only if you're looking at this from a strictly black-and-white standpoint, which individual child support cases are not. The man who must shell out 200% of his income in child support is not being held responsible. He is being railroaded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great article! If we expect girls/women to be responsible in sex and its consequences, we must expect the same from boys/men.
P.S. Elder may be a great talk radio host, but he's a terrible writer. Did anyone else have trouble understanding what he was getting at until about half way through the piece? Maybe I just don't understand his style.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist__ The woman who is being told she has an obligation to assume all risks and consequences in sex becuase that is her lot in life is being railroaded as well. Both sets of "railroading" would be non-existent IF men and women assumed equal responsibility in prevention. I think that is what Mr. Elder is saying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Both sets of "railroading" would be non-existent IF men and women assumed equal responsibility in prevention. I think that is what Mr. Elder is saying.
Nevertheless, he is generalizing and further propagating the notion that there are more "deadbeat" dads than good fathers, and that men do not assume responsibility, which is factually untrue. Likewise, he is assuming that all "deadbeat" dads are "deadbeats" because they want to be and not because their circumstances dictate they must be.
Someone should point out to him that the issue is not so black and white. I don't listen to his show, so I don't know what kind of abuse he dishes out to listeners who disagree with him (as many radio personalities do), but I'm inclined to write him myself for a bit of enlightenment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know, Nightmist, you have a point. I didn't notice it in this article but in general I agree.
With all these types of arguments from either the more male critical or more female critical perspective, what gets lost in the shuffle is that the vast majority of men and women are decent, honest, hardworking people who love their kids and would bend over backwards to be responsible and would never try to screw over anyone. I truly believe that is true :)
I wonder how we can discuss all these very serious issues without losing sight of that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It should be noted Nightmist that he is specifically talking about "black" fathers not all fathers. The issue of single black mothers having to raise their children alone is not a new one. The only problem I do see is that he fails to mention how the racial bias against "black" men often prevents them from accomplishing this very goal. While he portrays himself as an example of a "black" male who overcame the problems the reality of the situation in many ghettos is that black males between 18-32 are more likely to be in jail or dead than in college.
(I actually had a classmate say, "Black women are doubly discriminated against in society because they are women and a minority." Talk about being ignorant of the condition of (minority) men!)
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It should be noted Nightmist that he is specifically talking about "black" fathers not all fathers. The issue of single black mothers having to raise their children alone is not a new one. The only problem I do see is that he fails to mention how the racial bias against "black" men often prevents them from accomplishing this very goal.
Well, even if he is limiting it to black fathers I still think he's generalizing too much. In fact, I know it: http://www.realmencook.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::chuckle:: I am sure he is "widening" his audience to help sales. I guess my main point is that it is difficult to compare the situations since black males have an additional amount of discrimination placed upon them. (I love using this example to point how black males suffer more than black females no matter how you cut the cake. Really puts gender fems on the spot.)
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"the vast majority of men and women are decent, honest, hardworking people who love their kids and would bend over backwards to be responsible and would never try to screw over anyone. I truly believe that is true :)"
Every time I want to believe that, I remember the statistical FACT that 56% of all pregnancies are unplanned/unwanted, at least on the part of the father.
To anyone who wants to claim that "unplanned" does not mean "unwanted," you read the messages on this thread and decide. I don't hear anything about how wonderful and rewarding fatherhood is. I hear lots of remarks about how unplanned children wreck lives, and about how it's just great that mothers can legally dump unwanted brats off at bus depots, and about how this law should be expanded so that their fathers can do the same thing. Because no one wants to throw their money down the toilet raising a mistake.
Exactly what does a man involved in an unwanted pregnancy get from sticking around? The love of a chylde? He can get love from a dog, and the dog won't cost anywhere near as much.
I challenge anyone to name even ONE benefit a guy reaps from sticking around and raising an unplanned kid. I certainly can't think of any. There is every reason to leave the sprog with its sow and make her ruin HER life for the sake of the sprog.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Every time I want to believe that, I remember the statistical FACT that 56% of all pregnancies are unplanned/unwanted, at least on the part of the father.
I've seen you use this stat a lot - I must have missed the cite. Can you post it please?
Exactly what does a man involved in an unwanted pregnancy get from sticking around? The love of a chylde? He can get love from a dog, and the dog won't cost anywhere near as much.
I have trouble with this assertion. I can only speak for myself here - my youngest daughter is the product of my ex-wife's adultery while we were married. I am not the bio-dad, I don't know who is. Neither does the mother, for that matter. I love my daughter, nontheless.
I raised her while we were trying to make our marriage work, I cared for her, I was (and am) her Daddy. My ex has custody, and I pay support, and I see her 6 weeks of the year - but those six weeks are crucially important to both of us. My daughter's love cannot be replaced by a dog's affection.
My daughter probably qualifies as "unplanned" by most standards - regardless, she is worth more to me than any riches, just as my other children matter to me more than - well, I can't imagine what could take their place.
I can follow your argument, with difficulty - it's hard for me to understand the mindset, I guess. Perhaps you are right. In this matter, I can be no more objective than you appear to be. I know more than a few who, even when "oops!"'ed, regard their children as the center and crown of their lives - as well as a lot of work. I think that, for themselves, they might disagree with you. Speaking only for myself, I must respectfully disagree as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hear lots of remarks about how unplanned children wreck lives, and about how it's just great that mothers can legally dump unwanted brats off at bus depots, and about how this law should be expanded so that their fathers can do the same thing. Because no one wants to throw their money down the toilet raising a mistake.
Whoa!! Hold on a second! When did anyone EVER make ANY statement remotely paralleling what you just stated? All I've read on this thread are words of concern for the deadbeat parents that engage in intercourse without coming to terms with the consequences, and for the poor young souls born to undeserving adults who don't realize the gift they've been given. And children are NOT mistakes, no exceptions! It's a sacrilege to make children out to be anything less than miracles.
Exactly what does a man involved in an unwanted pregnancy get from sticking around? The love of a chylde? He can get love from a dog, and the dog won't cost anywhere near as much.
First, if a man has intercourse with a woman and doesn't want her to get pregnant, then he should've taken the proper precautions. Either that or the woman could've said "no" to intercourse in the first place, or taken precautions as well. Thus the blame cannot go fully onto one partner or the other.
Second, the love of a "chylde", or even a "child", is more than reason enough to "stick around", and anyone who says otherwise is either a fool or a liar.
There is every reason to leave the sprog with its sow and make her ruin HER life for the sake of the sprog.
If you follow that logic, then why don't fathers all across the country leave their wives/girlfriends and children? If they have nothing to gain, then why do they stick around if they can leave the sprog to the sow, as you so eloquently stated? Perhaps they actually do have something to gain. Something to think about.
If I got the wrong impression about anything Claire, please respond.
"Stereotypes are devices that save a biased person the trouble of learning."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First I will address what does a male get for hanging around after the birth of an "unwanted child" (I too want to see the research on this one.) I can tell you how I feel about my daughter who was planned. (the feelings are the same) I is almost impossible to put into words what you get from a baby. I can tell you there is plenty you get in return. The problem is that men feel trapped with only two real options become a father or run away. In addition women have a monopoly on the family structure in our society and refuse to share any power they have. If men were allowed to feel like they were needed for something other than a paycheck maybe they would be more likely to stick around.
The male issue here is the fact that the ONLY male reproductive right a man has is,... none. His only choices are to have sex or not have sex. This is like saying you have the right to breath or not to breath, your choice. We are sexual beings not animals where the only reason for sex is for reproductive purposes.
To address deacon's comment, "First, if a man has intercourse with a woman and doesn't want her to get pregnant, then he should've taken the proper precautions. Either that or the woman could've said "no" to intercourse in the first place, or taken precautions as well. Thus the blame cannot go fully onto one partner or the other."
Those are NOT options!! Sex should not be something where the only choices are to not have sex or to have sex. This sounds very similar to draconian christian moral views.
Here is a thought. Maybe there should be "no-fault" insurance for single men who are sexually active to cover unwanted pregnancies.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 01, @09:18AM EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with Uberganger. If dad's and mom's expectations of pregnancy are different, then someone is likely being mislead. And THAT is the cruix of the C4M problem.
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those are NOT options!! Sex should not be something where the only choices are to not have sex or to have sex. This sounds very similar to draconian christian moral views.
You're correct in stating that my choice of words did sound a little draconian, but that wasn't the intention. I wanted to get the point across that if you want to have sex but don't want kids, then take precautions. There's nothing christian or draconian about that at all that I can see.
Also, what other choices are there besides having sex and not having sex?
"Stereotypes are devices that save a biased person the trouble of learning."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I got that figure straight off the choiceformen.com website. I don't know where they got it. I wish I could believe they were exaggerating, but I don't.
I am sincerely glad that you are a loving parent to your daughter. My distress and anger stem from looking around society today and seeing so few examples of loving parents. It seems to me that too many people put more thought and planning into purchasing a car than they do into having kids. Unlike the car, the kid can't just be sold if the parent finds it can't deal with its upkeep.
Just today, I read an absolutely disgusting letter to "Dear Abby." It was written by a 14-year-old girl who just had a miscarriage. She wrote that she was very upset because she really wanted the baby. She's also very upset because her boyfriend was angry about the pregnancy, and celebrated when she miscarried. He's also telling the entire school that she's a whore. Umm...Not to sound cold-hearted, but what in the hell did this pathetic little brat think was going to happen? Sorry, but it was better that she miscarried. I can only imagine what kind of a "mother" she would have been, and what kind of a life that kid would have had. I cannot believe she's so surprised that her boyfriend "hates" her (her words), calls her a whore and is elated that she miscarried. What the hell did she think was going to happen???? It got even better. She started whining about how she's thinking of ending her pathetic little life, because of the situation she put herself in.
I do not feel the least bit sorry for her. I think she's a pathetic whack job who deserves a kick in the ass (and a tubal ligation), not sympathy. I can picture her popping out five kids by five different men by the time she turns 19. We can only hope that perhaps her body can't sustain a pregnancy, or we the taxpayers will end up supporting her and her litter forever.
I blame her boyfriend too. He probably knew the pathetic thing wasn't taking any birth control. However I blame her even more, because she is too selfish, immature and overall whacked in the head to take one pill a day.
I read things like that, and I just don't know what to think, other than there are more selfish little moomies like her around then there are loving parents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"And children are NOT mistakes, no exceptions! It's a sacrilege to make children out to be anything less than miracles. All I've read on this thread are words of concern for the deadbeat parents that engage in intercourse without coming to terms with the consequences, and for the poor young souls born to undeserving adults who don't realize the gift they've been given."
Go read Message #42, commenting on how miraculous these children really are, and how much sympathy they garner. In a nutshell, the poster said they are mistakes, they should have been aborted, and it doesn't matter if they suffer, because if they'd been aborted they wouldn't be around to suffer.
Yet in an ironic twist, they're not allowed to sue the mothers who refused to do the right thing and abort them.
"the love of a "chylde", or even a "child", is more than reason enough to "stick around", and anyone who says otherwise is either a fool or a liar"
Apparently the author of Message #42 strongly disagrees, and IMO far more people think like that person than think like you. That is the sad and pathetic part. That is what fuels my distress and anger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 01, @03:19PM EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
Damn, Claire, what got you started ? :-)
In your post #37, you talk about the girl in the Dear Abby letter, and I have to agree with you except that I'd add one point. That boy's father needs to take him out behind the woodshed and kick the shit out of him. That boy is a prime example of what Elder was talking about, and the kid is as irresponsible as the girl who miscarried. I disagree with the point of Elder's article, but the truth remains that there are irresponsible boys out there to whom discipline MUST be directed by a father figure.
Yet another reason to have a father around the house.
I'm all for getting young women to learn to be responsible for their own behavior, but boys need the same lessons. Just because I support the men's movement doesnt mean that I (and I hope none of us here) have lost sight of that.
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It will probably shock you to hear that I agree with this article. The author is one of my heroes.
Yes, there are men who are told to pay 200% of their income in child support. Those are NOT the men the original article (written by Sandy Banks in the L.A. Times) was referring to. The article was referring to irresponsible men who spawn with equally irresponsible women, then take off.
Both sides are at fault. Although--and here comes the part Lorianne has come to expect from me--I still fault the women more for not taking their pills, and for not getting abortions when they did conceive an accident. Lorianne is pro-life and sees abortion as murder. I do not see abortion as murder. I strongly feel that unplanned/unwanted pregnancies should be aborted, no exceptions.
It is a cruel and selfish act to bring a kid into a world where it is not only unloved, but despised beyond words by its bio father. There is something worse than being aborted, and that is growing up wishing you'd been aborted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 01, @02:08PM EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm.
A legal maxim: "The one who accrues the benefit assumes the risk."
Women control the initiation of sex, birth control, and what happens after the baby is born.
That is total control. From total control come total responsibility. So long as abortion on demand is legal, and it is none of men's business, any woman who bears a child without a father there is an idiot, and deserves to be stuck with raising it alone.
Ain't the father doing it to the baby. It's the mother. She has a choice. Her failure to exercise it is her problem, and if the child suffers it's her fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Ain't the father doing it to the baby. It's the mother. She has a choice. Her failure to exercise it is her problem, and if the child suffers it's her fault."
MOOmie doesn't give a damn about Snotley, so why should Duhdie? If Snotley suffers, too bad, because Snotley was a mistake that should have been aborted.
Ironically though, Snotley is not allowed to sue MOOmie for not aborting him. If we all agree that MOOmie should abort, and that MOOmie did the wrong thing by having Snotley, shouldn't she be held accountable? I think she should.
Chyldrun are precious miracles my ass. Most parunts care about their chyldrun my ass. Unplanned doesn't mean unwanted my ass. Chyldrun are better than dogs my ass.
"From total control come total responsibility."
Yet if that 14-year-old who wrote into Dear Abby this morning wanted a tubal ligation instead of a bayyyyybeeee, you would probably say she's "too young to do something like that to her body." But she's not too young to be left with Snotley after Duhdie walks out.
Total responsibility should mean total control--and total control would be tubal ligation on demand for any female who wants it, no matter her age. Personally, I think any smart female would get sterilized at puberty, to prevent her from ever having one of these unwanted MISTAKES.
Not miracles. MISTAKES that should have been aborted, because even their own fathers don't want the fugly things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 01, @04:57PM EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
Claire,
The way you use insulting terms to describe children, parents, and having children goes way beyond expressing your opinion that being childfree is more desirable to you. Instead, it reflects your immaturity, to the point of looking equivalent to a third grader.
If you don't like children, and you want to express it, that's fine by me. But you're only making an ass out of yourself and the childfree movement by acting like such a child yourself.
I bet if you showed a bit more respect, more respect would be shown to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know what? You're right. =( I can't argue with anything you just said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 31, @06:36PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
If we expect girls/women to be responsible in sex and its consequences, we must expect the same from boys/men.
A logical statement, but since we don't expect girls or women to be responsible for sex or its consequences, the statement has little meaning.
Boys/men should have the same right as girls/women to walk away from the consequences of sex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boys/men should have the same right as girls/women to walk away from the consequences of sex.
The time when they can be equally responsible is BEFORE conception. Boys/men who expect that a woman can just bleed their way out of consequences, while they can simply walk away, are cold, heartless, cruel individuals. They "walk away" on the pain and blood of others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"while they can simply walk away, are cold, heartless, cruel individuals".
I disagree, Lorianne, I think there are two very powerful forces at play here.
One, they are selfish(self centered) but mostly I think they are simply indifferent, and that this self centered indifference comes from simple ignorance.
Two, fertility carries great status (especially among the poor) in many cultures. The Japanese say; a poor man's wealth is his children (Sex and destiny : the politics of human fertility by Germaine Greer).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"generally divorced dads who are fully employed and are allowed uninterrupted visitation on a frequent and regular basis are pretty good about paying all of what they're required to pay. As a matter of fact, non-custodial dads have a lower delinquency rate than non-custodial mothers when it comes to court ordered child support compliance."
Exactly. This is documented in Cathy Young's "Ceasefire!" and elsewhere. In one study, over 80% of such fathers paid their support in full, less than 5% didn't pay at all, and 16% overpaid (which isn't factored in the 'deadbeat dad' stats).
Many of the men who avoid paying are men who are denied access to their children just because they're men and often because a false accusation was made solely for the purpose of gaining custody. Many men get hit with a false accusation before they even know a divorce is coming. The ones who can't afford an attorney are totally destroyed by the District Attorney, who has monetary incentives to drag daddy through hell, break him down, take the kids from him and win the highest support rate possible. Dad is then driven away from the whole system and ultimately his own kids, often winding up homeless and suicidal. Then dad becomes a national "deadbeat dad" statistic.
Warren Farrell likens this routine to making a lion hunt for and bring food to the lioness for the cubs, only to then be barred from visiting the cubs and instead told to keep brining more food. It is perfectly understandable why a lion treated this way would eventually leave in pain and despair.
Those who assume there are more deadbeat dads than deadbeat moms just because of the raw numbers are either ignorant, bigoted, or both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. This is documented in Cathy Young's "Ceasefire!" and elsewhere. In one study, over 80% of such fathers paid their support in full, less than 5% didn't pay at all, and 16% overpaid (which isn't factored in the 'deadbeat dad' stats).
Marc: you are always eloquent in explaining these points and you are well-versed in them. Would you want to contact Elder and give him your info? I don't feel adequate to the task this time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Many men get hit with a false accusation before they even know a divorce is coming."
I have a problem with this. I knew I was being set up, and I knew there was danger at hand - in the wind.
"making a lion hunt for and bring food to the lioness for the cubs, only to then be barred from visiting the cubs and instead told to keep brining more food."
I find this misses the point.
From personal experience:
The dead-beat dad expression offended and frightened me when I heard it the first time.
It offended me because it was a high-handed impersonal charicature for being "in disgrace with fortune and men's eyes". It frightened me because it was no different than slope, nigger, kike, ginny, "Judden" or wop.
The injury related indifference or civil disobedience has to originate from a source out-side of the marriage. If it originated as an attribute of marriage conflict and eventual break down, murder rates would be going up, becasue there would be an identifiable target or source at which one could vent a "profound" rage - a rage like that which would consume anyone confronting the kidnapper of their children before an escape could be made. Instead it is suicide rates that are going up which implies an amorphous or ellusive even overwhelming target against which the venting of a profound rage would be meaningless - a rage consistent with watching your children being taken away even tortured by an invading conquerer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The link is simply a book reference.
The Japanese saying is just the only one that I am aware of.
Yes Japan has been crowded for a long long time. It didn't get that way from abstinence or people thinking about the beauty and wonder of children as regularaly pregnant mothers watched half of their off spring die.
Did you know that in Bogota the priests give a form of last rights to the garbage dumps for the sake of the discarded new-borns they don't have the resources to recover? I was stunned by the sheer size of the North-end (impoverished sector) of the city. I had to be satisfied with a mountain-top vista of the "miles" of shanties and cardboard houses.
I was downtown on occasion (not often) as it is truely very dangerous to wander around down there, and there are no words to adequately describe that place. I have been in the poor sections of Miami more than once and it doesn't compare; it is not even close. These are places where the "police", when there are any to begin with, serve only to keep the pandimonium from becomming complete anarchy - not in the sense of evil, but in the more abstract yet practical sense of out of control. Like those horrible pictures of people being crushed to death at soccer games from the sheer weight of the crowd when it gets out of control.
There was a great deal of rural poverty in the Santander Valley (Andes Mountains). My limited personal experience of just being out there, in-country so-to-speak, my own poverty, and from what I have read, is that poverty is actually a catalyst for child birth not a deterant.
It is horrible, and usually the only escape from genuine chronic misery, and aching mind numbing tedium, is the only drugs that the poor have at their disposal, estrogen, testosterone, adrenaline and endorphins - more commonly know as sex and violence and the distraction that preganacy provides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, precisely. Reproductive rights are tilted strongly in favor of women. It's fine to utter exhortative about gender independent responsibilities, provided both genders have the equal rights to decide to be a parent after conception. As it stands now, only women have the right notto become a parent after conception. Equality of `reproductive rights means equal rights at every stage of reproduction, not the equal right of both genders not to engage in sexual activity, and the unequal right of one gender to decide whether both parties will become parents after conception.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good point. I agree with Mars about the unfairness of women having the privilege to decide whether or not both partners become parents. Re "deadbeat dads", generally divorced dads who are fully employed and are allowed uninterrupted visitation on a frequent and regular basis are pretty good about paying all of what they're required to pay. As a matter of fact, non-custodial dads have a lower delinquency rate than non-custodial mothers when it comes to court ordered child support compliance. The situation with black couples from poor backgrounds may be different than couples in general. And of course there should always be a distinction between divorced and never married couples who have children.
I usually agree with what Mr Elder's viewpoints. Like a lot of conservatives, though (see George Gilder), he has a sort of "men are irresponsible" attitude, which often reflects a tendency to protect women from responsibility (similar to what feminists do.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mars___ Before conception there is nothing to abort. What you (and many others) are doing is confounding the derivative with the function.
Before conception occurs both parties have a responsibility to prevent it regardless of the leverage either possesses after the fact (which they both have BTW, not just the woman).
In addition, to say "Oh she can just undergo an abortion, what do I care?" is just plain selfish, callous and inhumane treatment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To Lorianne:
It seems to me that the important point is that after conception the woman has a variety of options while the guy has few if any. I'm thinking here of an unmarried couple who have consensual sex (whether or not the pregnancy was planned). Warren Farrell points out in his book "Father and Child Reunion" that in addition to abortion, women have caring arrangement options that men don't have: adoption; invite dad to parent; parent alone; require dad to pay, but prevent him from parenting; parent alone without informing dad, but then require dad to pay "after the fact".
Farrell goes on to say that as far as preventing conception, women have the following options: the pill, diaphragm, IUD, etc. and Believability -- the unconscious assumption of the moral superiority of women -- that men can trust women to tell the truth more than women can trust men; that a woman would never consciously or unconsciously become pregnant to get a man to marry her and support her and the child, yet a man would lie to a woman because he "can just walk away." So if she says she's on birth control (and doesn't have herpes, etc.) and he still reaches for a condom, he is violating the unwritten code of women being inherently worthy of trust.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mars___ Before conception there is nothing to abort.
Cheap shot, ok.
Before conception occurs both parties have a responsibility to prevent it regardless of the leverage either possesses after the fact (which they both have BTW, not just the woman).
Agreed. The point, however, was that equality of reproductive rights for both genders means the right to decline equally during and for some time after conception.
In addition, to say "Oh she can just undergo an abortion, what do I care?" is just plain selfish, callous and inhumane treatment.
Ok, however, that's not implicit in anything I've said. Declining parenthood may mean different things for different genders; as far as rights are concerned, the genders differ...
my own solution is to be celibate...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Celibacy can work very well, as long as you are not drugged or get intoxicated.
The other option is to form a relationship with a woman who has had a hysterectomy, tubal ligation, or is beyond her childbearing years.
The third option of course is a vasectomy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Celibacy is the option that women often can be heard, in a high-minded way, recommending to men; not that any of them would live that way themselves.
Somehow being celibate and avoiding relationships with women seems to be the safest option, as long as reproductive rights are tilted so strongly in favor of women's choices. Women have the choice to abort or not, so their options aren't as limited. Somehow the discussion devolves into the ad hominem exhortation to "keep it in your pants" instead of an honest admission that women have more choices than men in this regard.
So, I feel compelled to mention during these discussions what should be a personal choice, which is that I'm celibate, to head off this ad hominem tangent to the central issue of the limited range of choices men have vis-a-vis women with regard to reproduction.
It's a sad commentary on women if women are telling men, "if you want to be with us, you take the risk of having us decide to bear your child with no input on you, should we become pregnant with your child. The decision is ours alone, and we can chose not to tell you about our decision to bear your child until years later, and until thousands of dollars in child support have accrued, with interest. Take it or leave it, buster. If you don't like potentialy not being a party to your own fiscal future, then stay away."
This is not terribly inviting. Now none of the women in my family would force a man into fatherhood....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since there is no tax data on child support. We can't know just what kind of a problem we are dealing with.
We can't even get a comparison, of child support failures as a percentage of total child support payments - how big is this problem "really".
And we can't get a comparison of the simple cost of the Family (Kangaroo) Courts as a percentage of all support failures or even as a percentage of GDP.
In other words is it cheaper to just use public funds (welfare)in the worst most hopeless cases than to spend public money on the entire Family (Kangaroo) Court system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is the average monthly child support award in each state? Yes, we all hear about the cases where someone is ordered to pay $10,000/month in chylde support, but what is the average monthly payment?
The USDA says it costs each parent $373/month, on average, to raise a child from birth to age 18. Therefore if the average award is over $373/month per child, that would be a point to attack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is the average monthly child support award in each state?
It varies widely from state-to-state and judge-to-judge. Some states, like Tennessee and Illinois, have laws which base percentages on your income level (of course, some judges interpret that to mean income potential). In Tenn. the smallest a NCP can pay is 21% of net income. In Illinois, I think it's 20% So, if you're making $2,000/month, you'll pay $400 month in child support (I think).
Again, though, it varies. Also, how would the USDA know what it costs per month to raise a child considering the cost of living varies so widely in the U.S. from state-to-state?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boys/men who expect that a woman can just bleed their way out of consequences, while they can simply walk away, are cold, heartless, cruel individuals. They "walk away" on the pain and blood of others.
That a woman carries a pregnancy is a biological fact. That fact can lead to considerable suffering, as can a women's choice to have an abortion (a woman's choice of abortion can cause considerable, uncompensated suffering for a man, but that's another issue).
How does making a man suffer, through the burden of 18 years of monthly fines, through the risk of jail when faced with loss of income and inability to pay, change a woman's suffering from a pregnancy? Is creating additional pain a compassionate approach to existing pain? Is child support really about compensating a woman financially for the suffering of carrying a pregnancy to term? Why then isn't a woman paid "child support" even after she gives up a child for adoption?
Government policies that make men suffer is neither a compassionate nor a beneficial approach to women's suffering from pregnancy. A much better approach would be to try to lessen total suffering by helping women with an undesired pregnancy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"making a man suffer, through the burden of 18 years of monthly fines"
So is fatherhood a joy or is it a burden to be suffered through? Is providing for a child joyous or a horrible burden equated to fines?
Doesn't it then follow that a dog is better?
"Is child support really about compensating a woman financially for the suffering of carrying a pregnancy to term?"
Apparently so, because MOOmie is the one that gets the reward money, not her precious "miracle" chylde. That chylde who is so precious even its own father doesn't want anything to do with it.
"A much better approach would be to try to lessen total suffering by helping women with an undesired pregnancy."
Not with my tax money you're not. MOOmie refused to take her pill, MOOmie can go flip burgers to support her precious miracle chylde. MOOmie made her bed of nails. MOOmie can lie in it and read the directions on her pack of birth control pills.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While I generally agree that all should assume responsibility for supporting their children, I do have problems with your article.
First, there are more deadbeat mothers than deadbeat fathers (go to the census of the US or Canada and look up the numbers. It's not as if they are hard to find.) Why do you attack only the men? Is that not sexist? I think so... Moreover, it contributes to the massive problem we have in both our societies with women being allowed to behave badly.
Second, child support awards which add up to more than a person's income cost all taxpayers immense amounts of money. Men who are ordered to pay more than they make (this never happens to women) drop out of the work-world and disappear into the underground economy or kill themselves. Either way, we are stuck paying the bill. In the case of suicides we have extra costs due to the inherent costs of suicide.
Third, the most likely person to be ordered to pay more than he makes is a disabled man. Disabled people cannot go out and get two or three jobs. Starving the disabled man to death so mom and kids can make two trips to Florida does us all harm.
Think about it,
Greg Sherk
the Volksgaren Project (a Stop Abuse For Everyone: anti-domestic violence project)
Suite 143, 24 First Ave.
St. Thomas, ON, Canada, N5R 6H8
T: 519-773-9644
F: 519-637-1210
URL: http://clix.to/support/
the Volksgaren Project: Intelligent Abuse Recovery, http://clix.to/support/, jaxom@amtelecom.net, 519-773-9644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Finally, one thought, an article about struggling welfare mothers that gives deadbeat dads a tongue-lashing for abandoning their financial and moral responsibilities."
What do you mean, 'finally?' There has been nothing but hate and bigotry directed at non-custodial fathers for as long as I can remember. I find one article, thanks to you, pointing out that men are being hammered by an anti-family system that is rewarded for enslaving males with financial obligations beyond anything I ever imagined and you say 'finally an article about struggling mothers?!' When I started checking around to see what non-custodial fathers are being hit with for child-support I was shocked. No wonder there is so much talk and legislation around this. It is a huge money making racket. The slave trade is alive and well. I also
found that in the few instances that the antifamily court does not award custody to the mothers they rarely give her the same child support obligations as the men. And a higher percentage of females are deadbeats than males, yet no one cries for the poor struggling father trying to raise his kids all alone. Our federal government is literally spending tens of billions of dollars on programs for females-only while our males are mired in a recession that began long before the collapse of the dot coms. I recall occasional articles mentioning that males were long ago in a state of recession while females were raking it in and driving SUVs. Then the recession hit the women, too, and suddenly we have a problem that we care about.
Do you not have any idea what is going on in the anti-family courts? Most men don't because the press doesn't mention it so I don't fault you for that. Do you not know that 75% of all divorces are filed by the woman because she says, "I just feel this is what is best for me" and to hell with the children or their father? Again, most men have managed to ignore this despite the research pointing to an alarming and destructive trend in Western females. The financial incentives for a woman to discard the father of her children once she has as many as she wishes are tremendous, especially for middle and upper class women.
Good Lord, Larry, pull your head out. Take some time to cruise a few men's rights websites and read some of the legislation that has been passed around the country. In Mississippi, which is light years behind the rest of the world, they are just now getting around to passing a new bill which declares the male guilty of domestic violence in all instances without regard to who actually attacked whom and for what reason. Is this justice? The victim is arrested and charged with the crime of his attacker based on his gender? Remember the segregated South? Well now it is the segregated United States and instead of 2 classes of citizens being broken down by race it is now gender. You who celebrate this are once again a second class citizen, and I along with you, because we are male. Ask any family law specialist you can find if men are being discriminated against in the courts. I know you won't take my word for it. Go ask a lawyer. Ask someone who actually has to function in these courts. A female lawyer was fined in L.A. for shouting in frustration during court, "Its the men who are oppressed now!" Do you think she was just kidding?
Is it a coincidence that a woman wrote the article you found so disgusting? Men have been saying what she said for years. Did you listen? Clearly not. You, like all the rest of us, have learned to tune out the male perspective and dismiss it. "Oh those coloreds are just whining again." Oh, excuse me, I meant to say 'stupid males.'
The bigotry is the same. The target has simply moved. And in case it doesn't occur to you, you are male, too. Because you are male when you speak on issues relating in any way to gender all your words are only half heard and then only if you cry for the women and spit on the men, as you so eloquently did. If only you were female you could speak with indignation more loudly and be heard more clearly. Too bad for you. You were unfortunate enough to be born male in an era
when our Congress, all our state governments, our media and all the universities have deemed maleness to be synonymous with being a criminal.
And you bragged about overcoming the stigma of being black. Hell Larry, that was yesterday. Today you are inferior because you aren't female. Get with the program. We're all hating men now. The white sheets they wear are now pink.
Sincerely,
Steven Jones
Memphis, TN
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, Steve. Right between the eyes. Can you get LaSalle to publish in his letters section?
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Is it a coincidence that a woman wrote the article you found so disgusting? Men have been saying what she said for years."
Did you even READ the article Larry was referring to? Do you even KNOW what Sandy Banks said in that article?
She said that it was important to get men on welfare into good jobs, so they can hand over their money to the MOOmies and their sprogs, so that the MOOmies can watch TV and eat Twinkies all day...Oh, I'm sorry, I meant be stay-at-home mothers to their precious chyldrun.
Nothing about the MOOmies getting off their fat asses and getting J-O-B-S to support the brats they chose to have.
Nothing about the MOOmies taking birth control pills to prevent them from having more brats.
Sandy Banks defended this by claiming that most welfare recipients are "traditionalists." That means they think women are entitled not to work for a living just because they can farrow.
I suggest everyone who wants to defend Sandy Banks go read her articles in the L.A. Times.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
