"Fine, Would-Be Deadbeat Dads. Here’s A Suggestion For You."

Why is it when men claim to be victimized, feminists invariably deny men can be victims, or claim that victimization is incredibly rare? You assert the dad women deceiving men into becoming fathers is a rare thing, without any evidence to supprt such an assertion. But I would argue that it isn't rare. In fact, even a mainstream feminist journalist admitted in an article that she had tried it**, not once, but twice. And you could then argue, but that's just one example... and you're right, it is just one example. The problem is, within 6 days, another journalist had found 4 more examples, written a story on it++, AND gotten it published. That's a pretty quick turnaround for something as rare as you claim it to be.

**http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem...

++http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem...

But you keep denying men can be victims, when the system is tailored to incentivize women to do just that.

As to whinging that legal parental surrender is a ridiculous suggestion because it doesn't involve the bodily autonomy abortion entails... check out women's right to safe haven abandonment... It doesn't involve bodily autonomy ether, and more accurately describes when men are calling for... except safe haven abandonment in only available to women, ad it denies the other parent (fathers) of ever getting the chance to parent. Legal parental surrender would allow women who carry to term, but don't want to be mothers, to give over the child to the father without fear of being saddled with child support themselves. This may help cut down on children being raised in orphanages, by giving mothers another option to opt out of parenthood that doesn't deny the father his rights. but I suppose abandoning a child in a firehall, denying it a relationship with even one parent, is a better option than giving fathers an equivalent option to opt out. After all, the male gender role is that of provider, and feminism has never been about breaking down gender roles, right?

I would never support anything like this. It is so important to keep fathers and children together.

Here are some random thoughts.....

Birth certificate - doesn't the child have a right to a correct and accurate birth certificate?

Why would there be any six month thing? He is aware that sex causes pregnancy. If he wants to be notified, he should then have an obligation to keep in contact with his sex partners. Hold on, my head is spinning on this. I suppose they would both have to prove that they could have been reached if the other wanted to. Women cannot escape notification of pregnancy, and if you're trying to make things equal, then he should have to prove that he left her contact information on how to reach him.. She would also have to prove that she tried to contact him. I suppose the six month thing might become relevant if he could prove that she didn't attempt to contact him even though she had the ability to.

And absolutely no contact with the child or mother for life. In many situations that would be impossible to uphold. He has to be like "a ghost"? What about his family, do they have to be "ghosts"? What if co-workers conceive a child? what about two 17 year old neighbors who conceive a child. What if the couple already has a child(ren)?

Also it is often the child who would be the one to seek out his/her father. Children are very curious and with internet, facebook, etc it would be nearly impossible to keep all this away from the child. What's the mother to do when child starts demanding a name? Certainly someone will tell the child who his father is.

I also think it's impossible for fathers to stay away for an entire lifetime and would be to hard to demand that they pay 18 years of back child support with interest. Who is going to police this for the child's lifetime

I've been around many situations (not always directly, but heard the situation secondhand) as my dad volunteers as a motivational speaker at a men's prison. The best thing we can do for men is keep them close to their children. The biggest regret I hear from most men is the detachment from their kids (often they did it themselves) and the ONLY men I have seen turn their lives around are the ones who had their kids around them!

This proposal seems to make it nearly impossible for men to come back to their kids unless they can pay a shitload of back child support. IMO, this is not good for men or children. Men need incentives to stay connected with their kids from birth and it would be great if social services were there for them to help facilitate this if needed.

I'm all for no child support or minimal child support, but fathers should ALWAYS have their parental rights in my opinion; and kids are entitled to their fathers. Not something that can be negotiated away by others, IMO.

There are three women in my immediate family, my mother and two sisters.

My mother and one sister got pregnant deliberately by having unprotected sex with very drunk men in order to trap them into marriage. The other sister got pregnant and quite deliberately pushed the man concerned out of her life completely before the child was born.

Ms Marcotte is one of the most dishonest human beings I have ever had the misfortune to encounter.

I agree that, as proposed, this is unreasonable, largely due to the plethora of ways in which it allows to saddle the man with the debt anyways... which mothers who give up their rights (via adoption or safe haven abandonment) never have to concern themselves with, but many of the other factors are over the top as well.

That said, legal parental surrender is something that should be advocated for, both from an equality standpoint, as well as from a best interests of the child standpoint. The fact is, women have an option to have a child without any man around, via sperm banks, which would ensure no ex hassling them for custody, giving them a hard time getting child support from, etc. But very few women avail themselves of that option. The reason is because they are currently incentivized, by mandatory child support obligations for fathers, with absolutely no recourse if the child is against their wishes. It's a trap for men, for women's benefit. Take away that mandatory obligation, and I'm confident a LOT more women would have second thoughts about trapping a man into parenthood, given that they couldn't, not legally. This would mean women would be more careful to ensure the fathers WANTED to be fathers so they didn't have to go it alone. I'd say making sure the children who were born had fathers who wanted to be fathers would benefit children more than the current fathers who resent them and/or their mother, and who taught to hate their "deadbeat dad" by the mother and/or society, and only get grudging financial support at the end of a gun. I suspect more fathers would be willing to step up and be fathers, so long as it was THEIR choice, not some government enforced provider obligation.

As to a father "always" having their rights... I disagree, only in that adoption requires that a parent be able to absolve their rights (man or women, so long as it is by THEIR choice and not them being cut out, as so many adoption and father registries currently do, they should be allowed to do this.)... and I see legal parental surrender very much as the equivalent of adoption/safe haven abandonment, but with "right to first refusal" granted to the other parent.

Deleted my original post and replaced it with this one:

"That said, legal parental surrender is something that should be advocated for, both from an equality standpoint, as well as from a best interests of the child standpoint" -Kratch

1 - I don't see it as being equal at all.

2 - I don't see it in the child's best interest at all. One reason is this: look at the men who wanted their female partner to abort, but ended up taking on fatherhood when the child was born, they embrace fatherhood. If the mother marries and asked them to sign away their rights to stepfather - they wouldn't. Does that mean they lied about wanting the mother to abort during pregnancy, or is "wanting pregnancy" and "wanting parenthood" two different things? It's been beneficial to these children to have their dads. Even if man refuses physical and emotional support, his financial child support is beneficial to the child, and who knows he may decide to come back, and his rights are still in place. This is all beneficial to the child. Accurate birth certificates are also beneficial to the child

You seem to think a lot of women trap men into fatherhood (you act as if it is the majority). I don't believe this, the birth control usage and abortion rates don't support this.

Your arguments don't consider accidental pregnancy from female's birth control failing, pro life standpoint, man's birth control failing, men lying about birth control or men lying about intent to support a pregnancy or even how much more a man could use the paper abortion option in his lifetime compared to a woman's option for real abortion. I don't see anything equal about assigning all birth control responsibilities to one gender, and all consequences of birth control failure to one gender, and making only one gender susceptible to deceit (a man not wearing a condom, knowing woman isn't on birth control but promising he will opt in if she gets pregnant - but then doesn't, many young or drunk women will fall for this)

"The fact is, women have an option to have a child without any man around, via sperm banks, which would ensure no ex hassling them for custody, giving them a hard time getting child support from, etc. But very few women avail themselves of that option." -Kratch

Are you implying that women should be using sperm banks if they want kids or as type of "proof "that women have ulterior motives?

How would it sound if I said something like "the fact is, men have the option of freezing sperm and having vasectomies. This would ensure they only have children when they want them, but since most men don't use this option, they must not care who or when they impregnate..."

You realize that most women (who never married the father) receive very little child support, if any. I don't see it as an incentive the way you do for the majority of cases. Perhaps for celebrity or extremely rich men, but that's a small population; and implementing a plan of minimal support (half of basic expenses, or give father shared custody) would fix that, as well as maintain the father's rights, which is beneficial for the child.

So I don't think taking away child support obligation from the father will be an incentive for women to abort or adopt out. You've been to the ghetto haven't you? You see how many women have babies with little/no financial support from the fathers?

I'm not okay with the system now, but financial abortion will run willing fathers out or at least into a peripheral role. There is too much incentive to choose it during pregnancy since it is SUPER beneficial for the father, and unlike real abortion, the odds are he can always come back as the mom will most likely be in a needier position compared to the father, and fathers often change their minds about fatherhood once the child is born. Once the child is about 13, it will be impossible for the mom to police and stop contact if both the child and father want it. Who is she supposed to call if child-father communication starts occurring.

Custody is the real bargaining chip and is what mother care about,

I'm all for a new system. One that promotes incentive for both genders to watch their reproductive material, keep both genders from being deceptive and be responsible for their children. The best way to benefit children is to keep them close to their fathers, not give fathers incentives to "opt out". My plan would be a mandatory shared custody with no support paid to either parents and both parents having access to social services if needed. If shared custody is not practical, then we should look to the which parent wants custody more than the other or "best parent". Mothers would not be guaranteed full custody like they are now, and fathers would be assigned full custody more often.

Like I said, CUSTODY, is the bargaining chip that effects the majority of women, not child support (which most mothers don't get anyway). And if you are serious about doing what is most beneficial to children - keeping their fathers close is the best thing you can do. It is also best for men and best for society. Men that walk away from fatherhood have way more problems in life in terms of happiness, alcohol/drug issues, problems with the law, etc.

Father having "right of first refusal" in adoption after filing for paper abortion :

No way! If a parent gives up a child via paper abortion, that implies they have no child and no legal rights. The remaining parent (mother) would have absolutely no legal obligation to the father after he signs a paper abortion. Real abortion is 100% or not at all. There is no such thing as having a 95% abortion. So once a father signs he looses 100% of his rights. Same if the mother dies during child birth or shortly after birth and father had opted for paper abortion. Her will or next of kin would handle the placement of the child. The mother may have infertile and/or willing relatives she wishes to place the baby with or considerations she feels important when choosing adoptive parents (perhaps she will look for two-parents with plenty of financial resources, or parents of a certain religious affiliation). It is her right to make all the adoption decisions.

Mothers and adoption:

In my family, just recently my cousins would have been the adopting parents to a newborn, but the adoption was blocked by the biological father. He had no contact with mother during pregnancy and took on full custody. My family has a lot of adoptions and this is the second time, in my family, a father has blocked adoption. Currently a mother does not have legal right to make adoption choices against the father's wishes (sure more needs to be done to ensure a mother does not act illegally and father's rights are protected, especially in Utah, but any other place adoption w/o father's consent would be difficult and illegal).

PS- In my previous post my statement about father always having rights, was not properly worded. It was meant as a generalization. Society should do what it can to ensure fathers keep and utilize their rights unless they agree to adoption or they are proven to be abusive.