|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As I understand it, Dubay and his people expect to fail, but have brought the case to highlight what they see as an unfairness of the system. Grossman's commentary contributes to the publicity, but does little more than illustrate the use of the general principles of law as a means to avoid facing up to actual inujustice. It is interesting however that she points out Dubay could sue for fraud, albeit that it is unlikely he would succeed.
Perhaps the real benefit of this case is that it shows that a woman can dictate life choices to a man through laws that were intended to prevent the dictation of life choices by men to women. Perhaps this will lead into a recognition that there are other areas in which there is no biological inevitability exists, but women are still able to dictate to men. Grossman herself acknowledges this in the paragraph which begins "Once the child is born, the similarities between mother and father re-emerge."
In a way, I think it is a pity that Dubay's case is getting so much publicity for his desire to opt out of fatherhood. There are an ever increasing number of fathers out there who desperately want to opt in, but cannot for the unilateral behavior of the mother and the prejudices and biases of the courts.
But, as Barnum said, there's no such thing as bad publicity.
--
--
Silence is the voice of complicity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 05:18 PM March 22nd, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
It may be academic, but it clearly points to the fact that Men have been discounted as equal individuals by our court systems. By using the laws administratively our system has pitted Men and Women against each other so that they could continue to pull the wool over our eyes. Most men are trying to survive an overly oppressive system from day to day. Through encouragement of the system there are many Women that prey on Men, "because they were trained to" as an excuse to survive. The laws have always been oppressive unless you were rich or had connections for both Man and Woman, but Women have received preferential treatment even before they acquired the upper hand legally. We as a people need to start demanding what is ours to begin with, the right to participate in the laws that we live under, and make sure they are "equally" administered over "everyone". Just a thought....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think we have to recognize that women have not been given preferential treatment across the board, only in certain areas. Historically, women have been clearly oppressed in very significant ways. It might be suggested that the preferential treatment was a societal compensation for the oppression. However, today, many of those inequalities have been, or are in the process of being redressed. What is not widely recognized is that many of the compensatory advantages are still in place and, indeed, others may well have been acquired. On the other hand, many ways in which men have been oppressed have not been redressed and, it is sometimes argued, some of the freedoms acquired by women have resulted in additional oppression of men. The result is a shift in the balance, and women have the upper hand in many inappropriate ways.
As for the case in point, I think it is actually a fairly poor way to show the bias against men and for at least one of the reasons that Grossman cites - men don't get pregnant. It is a very difficult problem: 18 years of wage slavery seems "cruel and unusual punishment" for one night's irresponsible fun, but, let's face it, someone's got to make sure the kid is OK. It is also an age old problem, there have always been unwanted pregnancies. No one has yet come up with a truly "fair" solution and I don't think they will now either.
I'd far rather see this kind of publicity for a father who truly wants to be a father, but is denied it through the excesses of a biased system. This is happening all of the time, but we just seem to accept it as normal.
--
Silence is the voice of complicity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Uberganger on 08:57 AM March 23rd, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
18 years of wage slavery seems "cruel and unusual punishment" for one night's irresponsible fun, but, let's face it, someone's got to make sure the kid is OK.
And why must that 'someone' be the man? As usual, the woman has no responsibilities. She is portrayed as a poor, suffering victim of a man, and he in turn is recast as somebody who owes someone something. The woman has a choice as to whether or not to use contraception and whether or not to have an abortion; both of these things are to do with her body and her life. The man has to use contraception not for the sake of his own body and life, but to guard himself aganst having the consequences of the woman's abdication of self-responsibility transferred onto him. Society has to create and maintain through violence, or the threat of violence, men's 'responsibility' for women's abdication of self-responsibility. Women's choice is men's no-choice.
Here's how it should be. If a woman chooses to have a child, the father can have as much or as little involvement as he chooses. The woman must take on board the consequences of this before the issue arises. The woman has no legal claim on the man's money or property, but at the same time she doesn't have exclusive rights to the child - she doesn't own it like it's property. The man doesn't have to buy time with his child, nor does he have to pay for a child he didn't want. The woman is still free to have a child when she chooses, but she has to consider more than just her own wants and feelings. Before anyone starts saying how 'unfair' this would be, please note that the system I describe does not contain violence or the threat of violence, or require a legal system or govenment agencies designed to criminalise, punish and enslave its own citizens. It does require women to be held to the consequences of higher values, which I concede is a major flaw.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 08:24 PM March 23rd, 2006 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
(Uber) -- "And why must that 'someone' be the man? As usual, the woman has no responsibilities. She is portrayed as a poor, suffering victim of a man, and he in turn is recast as somebody who owes someone something."
This attitude all goes back to the feminist trick of using crude neo-Marxist class conflict theory.
The fems made a clever bait-and-switch argument: (1) capitalist rulers = male oppressors.
(2) suffering proletariat = women and girls
So, the gender wars began in this confused, simplistic, false ideological shill game.
And the result?
All women are now defined as "oppressed victims."
It's argued that they have no personal power, no individual agency, no responsibility for their choices or failure to make choices...
In short, feminism has provided women with a 24 x 7 alibi and "get off the hook" pass for life.
(The Evil Patriarchy did "it" ---- whatever it was.)
What's really sad is that young men today are still seeking to marry/partner/cohabit with these toxic infantile predators.
Just as sad, women accept intellectual infantilism as a condition of their "privilege."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 05:06 PM March 23rd, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
First, and foremost it is the responsibility of every Human Being to fend for themselves, unless of course they opt for a team effort, marriage, etc. So if Child support was done away with, and it was the Womans responsibility to raise that Child if it was a "mistake", how many mistakes do you think we would have? Or, if joint custody, six months out of the year in the same school district, no child support, how many mistakes you think would happen? As far as Women being oppressed in our society, yes they had been, but the laws were designed to facilitate the industrial "revolution" so that Men could be mules in industry. I don't feel sorry for Women I feel sorry for Humanity. We are still being played by the controlling factions of our society, pitted against each other so that our lives are so distraught that the majority can't figure out what is happening. If you truly feel that it is OK to make Men into wage slaves beyond that which we are already, then you must be a Person that has lived a life of privelege, and hasn't suffered like the rest of us. In order for our government to implement this system of income recovery it was necessary for a president to sign away the Constitutional Rights of the American Male, now tell me that is OK. "It is a good day to die!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 11:02 PM March 22nd, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
The plaintiff and his team may view this case as "academic", but I don't. I don't think anyone should. Certainly not Joanna Grossman, who seemed to think it threatening enough that she had to write about it at length.
There's nothing right about the current situation. That the plaintiff expects to lose doesn't mean he likes it. He has just accepted the fact that his concerns and claim of right will be dismissed-- albeit with ridiculously flawed arguments. It's very sad, really. If Rosa Parks had expected to lose her battle vs. segregation, would she have been better off not to press the issue of where she sat on the bus and just, well, expect to be put back in her place?
No one, not MRAs, or anyone else with a just cause, should expect to lose. We need to keep at it until we win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by pondguy on 05:16 PM March 23rd, 2006 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Forgive me, I am confused.
Her argument is that men and women should not be awarded equal rights because they are situationally dissimilar. A man cannot become pregnant. I grant her that.
But then she agrees that men and women become situationally similar after birth. In fact, technically they are on equal footing.
I am confused as to where all of the discussion about abortion, etc comes from. How is this related to abortion. By her own admission, this is about equal opportunity for persons in similar situations. The mother and father of the baby, then, at childbirth are equally responsible, she says.
Yet women can either abandon the baby or put it up for adoption. She balks at men trying to avoid their responsibility, but wholeheartedly commends women for doing the same. By her line of thinking, adoption and abandonment should be abolished.
Why can mothers put their children up for adoption but fathers cannot? Technically, the mother and father at birth are both equal partners in the relationship to their child. Thus, if the father wants to adopt out the child the mother has full rights to adopt him/her, and vis versa (though clearly the law makes it intentionally impossible for fathers to adopt their own children).
This is not about violating women's rights or their right to abortions or motherhood. Its about a adoption rights, in my opinion. Thousands of babys are abandoned by deadbeat moms with not so much as a second thought, but everyone is up and arms when a father attempts to do the same.
This article is irrelevent and, really, just argues more FOR Dubay releasing himself from his financial committments rather than against it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by oregon dad on 07:12 PM March 23rd, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
No you are not.
This is an excellent response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yet women can either abandon the baby or put it up for adoption. She balks at men trying to avoid their responsibility, but wholeheartedly commends women for doing the same. By her line of thinking, adoption and abandonment should be abolished.
This is a good point if it is true; I've heard that the law requires the consent of both parents for an adoption, but I could be mistaken. Feminists routinely cite this as a reason why asymmetries in adoption rights "do not exist." If it is correct that the consent of both parents is required before an adoption can take place from the narrow perspective of the law, both parents are "similarly situated" even if in fact the woman can withold the name of the father on the birth certificate to prevent the father from objecting to an adoption, or if the state paternity registries are so closely held and hard to locate that fathers are effectively situationally dissimilar. Somehow the presumed legal requirement that both parents must give their consent is mmagically waived...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is a bit of a distortion to say that the consent of both parents is required and that every effort to locate the father is made, as some feminists claim.
The law allows for one parent to unilaterally place their child up for adoption "...if that parent does object or does not reply to the notice, and the parent who intends to place the child believes there are sufficient grounds to terminate the rights of the other parent - for example, a consistent failure to support and communicate with the child - the prospective adoptive parents can go ahead and file a petition for adoption..."
This is from the Uniform Adoption Act (1994)
[PART] 1. PLACEMENT OF MINOR FOR ADOPTION
SECTION 2-101. WHO MAY PLACE MINOR FOR ADOPTION.
(a) The only persons who may place a minor for adoption are:
(1) a parent having legal and physical custody of the minor, as provided in subsections (b) and (c);
(2) a guardian expressly authorized by the court to place the minor for adoption;
(3) an agency to which the minor has been relinquished for purposes of adoption; or
(4) an agency expressly authorized to place the minor for adoption by a court order terminating the relationship between the minor and the minor's parent or guardian.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c), a parent having legal and physical custody of a minor may place the minor for adoption, even if the other parent has not executed a consent or a relinquishment or the other parent's relationship to the minor has not been terminated.
(c) A parent having legal and physical custody of a minor may not place the minor for adoption if the other parent has legal custody or a right of visitation with the minor and that parent's whereabouts are known, unless that parent agrees in writing to the placement or, before the placement, the parent who intends to place the minor sends notice of the intended placement by certified mail to the other parent's last known address.
(d) An agency authorized under this [Act] to place a minor for adoption may place the minor for adoption, even if only one parent has executed a relinquishment or has had his or her parental relationship to the minor terminated.
Comment
...
Subsection (c) provides that when both parents share legal custody, or one parent has legal custody and the other has a right of visitation, the parent having legal and physical custody cannot place a child without the other parent's written permission or without notifying the other parent of the intended placement. This provision is much less likely to affect the parents of an infant than of an older child when the parents - whether divorced or never married to each other - are subject to a court order for custody and visitation. One parent will be discouraged from attempting to place the child for adoption when the other parent maintains an actual and not simply de jure relationship to the child. If that parent can object to the placement while it is being contemplated, instead of after it has been made, the child can be spared the disruption of being shifted from one custodial environment to another. Nonetheless, if that parent does object or does not reply to the notice, and the parent who intends to place the child believes there are sufficient grounds to terminate the rights of the other parent - for example, a consistent failure to support and communicate with the child - the prospective adoptive parents can go ahead and file a petition for adoption. See Section 3-301. In conjunction with that petition, the parent who has selected the prospective adopters can file a petition to terminate the other parent's relationship to the child. See Section 3-501(1). If a custodial parent wants his or her spouse to adopt the child, a "placement" as contemplated by this part is not required and the parent and stepparent may commence an adoption proceeding under Article 4, in which case the status of the other parent will be determined during the pendency of that proceeding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now in the case of putting a baby up for adoption at birth by the mother, the mother cannot claim that the father has consistently failed to provide support or consistently failed to communicate with the child.
The mother would seem to have an advantage over the father in the ability to terminate the father's relationship to the child. This is even if the law is written in a gender-neutral way.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
