User-submitted essay: The Wrong in Women’s Rights (Part II)

The Wrong in Women’s Rights (Part II)
by E. Abdiel

Some may have thought that I plainly stated in Part I of my editorial “THE WRONG IN WOMEN’S RIGHTS” what the correct course of action should be for assigning financial responsibility to men for illegitimate children (If you have not read this, please go to http://news.mensactivism.org/node/11762). Let me make this clear. I did not plainly state it. My intent in writing the original “THE WRONG IN WOMEN’S RIGHTS” is threefold.

First, my intent was to use the arguments of those who support a woman’s sole right to choose an abortion to discredit their own arguments concerning a father’s responsibility in raising illegitimate children. By following their “My body, My Choice” argument to its logical conclusion, it discredits their position that a man is 50% responsible for the child rearing of illegitimate children. The fact that men are denied equal protection under the law because of their position is not in dispute which the Supreme Court itself acknowledges (although their validity as a credible adjudicating branch of our Federal Government is increasingly suspect). The argument that men are 50% responsible for illegitimate children when it is “Their body, Their Choice” is illogical, unethical, and contradicts principles clearly stated in our Constitution as well as practiced through our laws in comparable scenarios. So by pointing out the inherent flaw in their argument, it forces those who are truly seeking fairness to acknowledge that the laws on the books cannot be correct. That alone may not provide us with the exact solution, and my initial editorial “THE WRONG IN WOMEN’S RIGHTS” does not do that, but it does point us in the right direction. As discovered through my everyday interactions, the first step in changing minds is to logically point out the error in what is currently being practiced.

Secondly, my intent was to make sure that men continue with the dialogue concerning this issue and do not simply surrender to the mindset that things are as they should be as so many men and women now believe. We may never correct this injustice (and due to a multitude of unstated reasons I do not believe we ever will) but we should not simply submit to it. As I stated in the first editorial, “…they take away what truly makes him a father and a man and then demand payment for it”. They may take away from us what makes us fathers but to acquiesce to their second class treatment, without a word of protest, is to allow them to take away what truly makes us men.

And lastly, my intent was to show by your own thoughts and comments that this issue will never have the slightest hope of any resolution until the few men who have enough courage to fight against it start speaking with one voice. Debating minor points is one thing but our own positions are so far apart that we fight against ourselves as much as we fight against this injustice. Some men who are pro-choice see the inherent flaw in the “My body, My choice” argument and want to have no financial responsibility for the decisions that are solely made by women about the unborn. Other men who also see the inherent flaw in their argument still do not fully accept this solution because they are pro-life and feel this is allowing a larger problem in order to correct a lesser one. Some men actually reiterate the feminist position that men shouldn’t have any voice when it concerns abortion and it doesn’t seem fair that a woman should assume all financial responsibility when they both had sex (This despite my editorial clearly demonstrating that in life, similar acts alone do not equate to equal responsibility for all parties involved). These men are willing to accept 50% financial responsibility as long as they are legally given 50% say in all decisions before birth (Not taking into consideration that it is impossible for both to be fully represented if one party is determined to say no to an abortion and the other is equally determined to say yes). Other men seek no rights before a child is born but only equal rights, in law and in practice, over the lives of their children once they are born (Not taking into consideration the men who want the equal right to choose to become a parent. Because women not only decide when and if they become mothers to their benefit, but against a man’s will they decide if and when a man becomes a father to his detriment). Some men don’t care at all about the principles stated in the editorial even though they too take issue with the current laws. For them, nothing is worth reading if they hear the word “religion” mentioned. Believing this indicates an irrational bias, they are unable to recognize the bias in their own belief. It didn’t matter that legal, scientific, and common sense arguments were used, and not religion, to advance the position. Though people of faith also agree with our legal and scientific arguments and will argue in such a way in secular forums, they are often excluded as partners simply because they don’t solely need the law or science to reach the same conclusion we all believe in. All of our differing viewpoints, which are from a negligible minority that the public receives unsympathetically and with ridicule, are only the tip of the iceberg.

So I ask you this: Why do we expect others to change the law when we our divided and cannot even agree as to what the law should be ourselves?

Here is one of the main problems in many men’s reasoning. It is the same problem that feminist had in their reasoning. It’s the same problem all categories of people have in a society increasingly based on entitlements. People on all sides keep stating what they want. And what they want is what they say the law should be. But it isn’t about what YOU want. You may not get everything you want. It is about being fair but simultaneously realizing that what is fair does not mean that everyone gains or loses the exact same thing in a negative situation. There are a multitude of factors that determine the level of responsibility assessed and what one’s responsibility actually is. And these factors may dictate fairness differently for different people. EQUAL OUTCOMES WITHOUT REGARD TO OUR DIFFERENCES IS NOT EQUALITY. IT IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF EQUALITY. To ignore our differences when considering issues is to impose a higher and more oppressive standard upon one party. This is exactly how the current laws we protest against came to be. To continue in this mindset when trying to resolve this issue is not only futile but hypocritical and will cause you to thrust upon women a solution as flawed and discriminatory as the one now thrust upon men.

When negative situations happen, fairness and the responsibility assessed to us are determined by our individual circumstances. It is not simply based on a universally set result for everyone. Sometimes we determine responsibility and fairness due to someone’s age or mental acuity (we sentence children and the mentally handicapped to lighter penalties than adults to ensure they’re being FAIRLY treated). Sometimes we determine responsibility and fairness because of someone’s financial holdings (we distribute larger fines on big business than we do on small business to ensure they are EQUALLY affected by their actions). And as demonstrated by the female homeowner in Part I of “The Wrong in Women’s Rights”, we always determine accountability based on what we are personally responsible for controlling (unspoken for drugs found in the glove compartment of a car are automatically attributed to the owner not the passenger to ensure the appropriate person is held RESPONSIBLE). And so on and so on.

But the only kinds of individual circumstances we are not allowed to consider, even though they are glaringly different, are our biological circumstances. That’s because we have been taught by the woman’s movement and political correctness that it is sexist, discriminatory, and unfair to even consider such a thing when making these decisions (as if the biological circumstances of being male does not require things of men that it does not of women in a multitude of situations). If we are ever to correct this problem, we need to understand that we do not achieve equality by ignoring our differences. Rather we need to realize that because we are different, we each have different responsibilities we must meet. Fulfilling your unique responsibility while your partner fulfills theirs, will not only achieve a common goal but the equality we all seek. And understanding that we each have different but equally important responsibilities will lead us to the answer as it concerns a man’s responsibility in raising illegitimate children.

Keeping this in mind, the answer to the problem is this: A man should not be held financially responsible for illegitimate children. A man should only have full legal rights and be held financially responsible for children conceived in marriage or conceived outside of but born in marriage. It should be the man’s sole decision how much, if at all, he decides to contribute to the financial support of illegitimate children unless otherwise stated by a legally binding court order THAT CAN ONLY BE INSTIGATED VIA A FATHER’S PETITION. All requests for legally recognized financial support of illegitimate children will be not be heard unless requested by the father and agreed to by the mother. However, the direction and upbringing of an illegitimate child should be the uncontested right of the mother. Men should have no legal right to their illegitimate children without a legally binding court order THAT CAN ONLY BE INSTIGATED VIA A MOTHER’S PETITION. It should be the mother’s sole right to determine the extent, if at all, that anyone, including the father, is involved in an illegitimate child’s life. All requests for legal rights to illegitimate children will not be heard unless requested by the mother and agreed to by the father.
This is not the best solution, it is the only solution.

Every concern would be addressed if we returned to the way society has dealt with this situation since civilization began. Including our own society before the so-called intellectuals thought they could improve upon thousands and thousands of years of history. The reason this has worked throughout history is because there is a built in deterrent for promiscuous behavior and a built in incentive for responsible behavior for both men and women. Women risk economic hardships for their irresponsible sexual behavior unless they marry a man they deem worthy to assist in the financial support of their children. Men risk their influence over and a relationship with their children for their irresponsible sexual behavior unless they marry a woman they deem worthy to bear their children. Each party assumes their unique risk if they choose to participate in premarital sex. In this situation, both men and women are equally responsible for their irresponsible sexual behavior.

Many men who are currently fighting for access to the lives of their illegitimate children may not initially like this anymore than women who have won financial support for their illegitimate children. If you are one of these men, understand this: Your initial opposition is stemming from injustices carried out against you for an act you took under ambiguous assertions and unfair laws. It is not stemming from the way the law should be. After all, when society tells a man that he has equal rights to his children under all situations but laws are only put in place to guarantee a woman’s sole right, how can you not feel as if an injustice has taken place against you? But if men and women clearly understood what society and an unbiased law expects of them BEFORE an illegitimate child is born, they would not perceive their circumstance as injustice even if they don’t get everything they want from the situation. Men as well as women would understand that they are simply paying an unpleasant price for their irresponsible decisions; just as they use to understand before “our intellectual superiors” established our current laws. Different but equally important responsibilities. Different but equal consequences for irresponsible behavior.

This would reduce illegitimacy and single parent homes, which is the driving force behind most societal problems, to statistical non-relevance. Though this would not change the inequities in our abortion laws, even pro-life supporters can whole-heartedly support this because abortion would also become a rare occurrence in the lives of women (currently 1 in 6 women have had at least one abortion). And though abortion would still be our country’s most divisive topic, a woman’s sole decision to abort or not abort a child outside of marriage, thereby forcibly deciding for a man if he will become a father who must financially support an illegitimate child, would no longer be an issue. Abortion would still be the woman’s sole decision to make but she would accordingly take sole responsibility for her decision. The Roe v. Wade decision, whether you agree with it or not (and I strongly disagree), would become a completely unrelated debate. Suffice it for me to say, all the moral and legal repercussions that are currently crippling our society that would be greatly diminished or completed resolved are too numerous to fathom. Our society itself would be transformed.

Again, this is not the best solution, it is the only solution.

And until we as men come to understand this solution and begin to speak on it with one voice --- to our legislators, to the media, to our wives, to our daughters, to our sisters, to our girlfriends, to our friends, and to other men --- we should consider ourselves culpable in the injustices taken against us.