Forced child care

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Forced child care is discriminatory garbage, particularly on men who did not contract a marriage. It is the woman's right to carry her fetus or abort, and it is the male's right to reject his own offspring, sue for a matter different than what the mother wants (after birth), or care to the child with the mother.

Child care has become little more than an abusive leverage tool. In some scenarios its gotten so bad that men are sent into poverty after a loss in income.

[Black Dagger]

Gene, why do only ever makes post in here about 'male oppression'? :confused:

[JohnnyC]

I agree with GeneCosta.Female discrimination is a very important issue that's still far greater than male oppression, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight them both.It quite bothers me that male discrimination goes almost completely unnoticed by most leftist I know.
For example, because I'm a male (where I live) I will go to jail if I refuse compulsory military service.Is that fair?NO!And this is VERY important issue for me, at the moment, since I will soon, most likely, be forced to be a slave to the state for 6 bloody months just cause of my gender. :(

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Gene, why do only ever makes post in here about 'male oppression'? :confused:

Because we're all in virtual agreement that women are oppressed. I just want to inspect the other side of the coin. Sexism cuts both (or three, or four) ways. Your use of quotes, for example, would not be tolerated in a topic about female oppression.

Men have just as much in stake in feminism as women.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I agree with GeneCosta.Female discrimination is a very important issue that's still far greater than male oppression, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight them both.It quite bothers me that male discrimination goes almost completely unnoticed by most leftist I know.
For example, because I'm a male (where I live) I will go to jail if I refuse compulsory military service.Is that fair?NO!And this is VERY important issue for me, at the moment, since I will soon, most likely, be forced to be a slave to the state for 6 bloody months just cause of my gender. :(

That sucks. :(

[GPDP]

I agree with GeneCosta.Female discrimination is a very important issue that's still far greater than male oppression, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight them both.It quite bothers me that male discrimination goes almost completely unnoticed by most leftist I know.
For example, because I'm a male (where I live) I will go to jail if I refuse compulsory military service.Is that fair?NO!And this is VERY important issue for me, at the moment, since I will soon, most likely, be forced to be a slave to the state for 6 bloody months just cause of my gender. :(

That fucking sucks. If the draft were to be instituted here, I would leave this country, and go off to live somewhere else, for better or worse. I'd rather go hungry night and day in some seedy-ass neighborhood in Mexico than serve the interests of the American empire.

[kiki75]

Forced child care is discriminatory garbage, particularly on men who did not contract a marriage. It is the woman's right to carry her fetus or abort, and it is the male's right to reject his own offspring, sue for a matter different than what the mother wants (after birth), or care to the child with the mother.

Child care has become little more than an abusive leverage tool. In some scenarios its gotten so bad that men are sent into poverty after a loss in income.

This will cease to be an issue with the end of capitalism, I should think. Until then...take it up with your government. Men used to enjoy that right more often, but the government got tired of seeing abandoned and starving children, I guess.

[jake williams]

Patriarchy certainly has negative effects on men. However, complaining about this often takes the form of ugly anti-feminism. A lot of the things "men's rights activists" or whatever complain about take the form of their loss of privilege because of feminism. In this particular case, men as part of a whole society have to take a collective social responsibility for looking after children, and maybe then they're off the hook for their kids. I'm certainly sympathetic to the notion that if women are free to choose whether or not they want their kids, men should be too. I think that's partly true, but part of the problem is we don't really live in a society where women are totally free to choose.

[butterfly]

For example, because I'm a male (where I live) I will go to jail if I refuse compulsory military service.Is that fair?NO!And this is VERY important issue for me, at the moment, since I will soon, most likely, be forced to be a slave to the state for 6 bloody months just cause of my gender.
This is fucked. You should get out of the country if you can, that's what a few of my mates have done in the past...just fucked.:mad:

[Yazman]

Patriarchy certainly has negative effects on men. However, complaining about this often takes the form of ugly anti-feminism. A lot of the things "men's rights activists" or whatever complain about take the form of their loss of privilege because of feminism. In this particular case, men as part of a whole society have to take a collective social responsibility for looking after children, and maybe then they're off the hook for their kids. I'm certainly sympathetic to the notion that if women are free to choose whether or not they want their kids, men should be too. I think that's partly true, but part of the problem is we don't really live in a society where women are totally free to choose.

Sounds like you're pretty much "brushing it under the rug" so to speak. Both parents should be able to make a decision.. I don't think economic bondage is ever really appropriate.

[jake williams]

Sounds like you're pretty much "brushing it under the rug" so to speak. Both parents should be able to make a decision.. I don't think economic bondage is ever really appropriate.
I'm not brushing it under the rug, like I said, I think it is a problem. But we do have to understand it in the larger context. I also thing it's important to distinguish - and it's a fine line - between legitimate harm that comes to men under patriarchy, and anti-feminist whining. I don't think this is the latter, but it's not quite the former either.

[Module]

I'm going to agree with jammoe on this. I fully accept that sexism hurts men, also. However... I think you'd do well to remember that men and women do not have an equal freedom, socioculturally, in making the decision to "reject their own offspring", and in the case that the offspring is not rejected by the mother (which, in an ideal world would be a free and individual decision of the mother, but obviously this isn't an ideal world), even (or especially, in some cases) in a marriage, the responsibility of raising the child is not evenly distributed.
Placing the entire responsibility of a pregnancy at the foot of women is something which they to a large degree already have, and yet women are only one half of a society which is unfortunately plagued by the problems which make this responsibility economically detrimental to them.
Basically, I think your complaints are a little individualistic, too say the least, and perhaps lack perspective on the wider economic context which women are already, obviously, disadvantaged by due to the responsibility of raising children already falling overwhelmingly to them. Children should not be women's responsibility, but society's responsibility. To complain that child support is oppressive towards men because single mothers are the ones who made the independent decision to have a baby in the first place is, frankly, individualistic.. er... bullshit.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Basically, I think your complaints are a little individualisticSince when did individualistic become a bad word?


Children should not be women's responsibility, but society's responsibility.What exactly does this mean? I'm asking simply because some individuals here have offered up the idea that we should ship children to "learning camps," which I find utterly ridiculous.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I'm not brushing it under the rug, like I said, I think it is a problem. But we do have to understand it in the larger context. I also thing it's important to distinguish - and it's a fine line - between legitimate harm that comes to men under patriarchy, and anti-feminist whining. I don't think this is the latter, but it's not quite the former either.

It's not harm, but it's a financial obligation that should not be determined as is. Monetary discrimination is still ultimately anti-feminist.

[Yazman]

I'm going to agree with jammoe on this. I fully accept that sexism hurts men, also. However... I think you'd do well to remember that men and women do not have an equal freedom, socioculturally, in making the decision to "reject their own offspring", and in the case that the offspring is not rejected by the mother (which, in an ideal world would be a free and individual decision of the mother, but obviously this isn't an ideal world), even (or especially, in some cases) in a marriage, the responsibility of raising the child is not evenly distributed.
Placing the entire responsibility of a pregnancy at the foot of women is something which they to a large degree already have, and yet women are only one half of a society which is unfortunately plagued by the problems which make this responsibility economically detrimental to them.
Basically, I think your complaints are a little individualistic, too say the least, and perhaps lack perspective on the wider economic context which women are already, obviously, disadvantaged by due to the responsibility of raising children already falling overwhelmingly to them. Children should not be women's responsibility, but society's responsibility. To complain that child support is oppressive towards men because single mothers are the ones who made the independent decision to have a baby in the first place is, frankly, individualistic.. er... bullshit.

So basically you advocate moving the economic bondage from women onto men? How is this any less sexist?

[Module]

Since when did individualistic become a bad word?
It's bad when you're looking for greater freedoms for one section of the working class on the apparent basis of a specific form of discrimination, at the expense of another section of the working class, which on that same basis is already in a far worse position.
To suggest that any kind of disadvantage experienced by men on the basis of childcare is the result of sexism, favouring women is to totally ignore the class oppression experienced by both men and women as the result of capitalism, not sexism, and puts the wellbeing of working class men effectively above the wellbeing of working class women.
To suggest that men are unjustly oppressed by women's decision is to ignore the fact that the position that women are in is already unjust. That kind of individualism, (though I am assuming that your concern comes from your own fear that one day you might be put in a position where you are unable to avoid supporting a child, at your own direct expense, a position which many women already have great reason to fear. Otherwise I suppose it could be a kind of solidarity with your country's menfolk that may be put in that position, in which case it would be a sort of reactionary identity politics, instead) is definately a bad thing.

What exactly does this mean? I'm asking simply because some individuals here have offered up the idea that we should ship children to "learning camps," which I find utterly ridiculous. Socialism, GeneCosta. I'm saying that neither any specific woman nor man should have to give up their own individual resources for a child, rather children should be supported by society as a whole. I'm not sure what you mean by learning camps but if that's like boarding school then no, I don't mean that.

So basically you advocate moving the economic bondage from women onto men? How is this any less sexist?
Erm, no...
I'm saying that you shouldn't be advocating moving economic bondage from men onto women in the respect which they already have a far greater economic bondage, on the basis of gender.
To suggest that men are oppressed as men by having to economically support their children is an absurd suggestion to make, since women are already the ones who are by and large burdened with bringing up children.

[Yazman]

Erm, no...
I'm saying that you shouldn't be advocating moving economic bondage from men onto women in the respect which they already have a far greater economic bondage, on the basis of gender.
To suggest that men are oppressed as men by having to economically support their children is an absurd suggestion to make, since women are already the ones who are by and large burdened with bringing up children.

Well, I don't really think they are oppressed as such, but I think it is massively fucked up that it is far easier for a woman to divorce herself from such rights whereas it is typically beyond difficult for a man to do so. Its a difficult scenario to analyse I guess as a man is unable to get a child without the woman's expressed consent although a woman can do so regardless of the man's opinion on the matter, so in that sense I can totally understand and I agree with what you are saying.

I just think its fucked up that a person can be forced into poverty as a result of something they never consented to in the first place (if they did not want a child). I wouldn't say men are being oppressed because of this, I just think its a situation that we need to explicitly oppose. Nobody should be forced into economic bondage.

[Module]

I think it is massively fucked up that it is far easier for a woman to divorce herself from such rights whereas it is typically beyond difficult for a man to do so.What rights are you talking about, specifically, that a woman can far more easily 'divorce' herself from?
Nobody should be forced into economic bondage.That's capitalism for you. ;) (This sentence isn't supposed to sound at all patronising so if it sounds like that I apologise in advance)

[TC]

In some scenarios its gotten so bad that men are sent into poverty after a loss in income.

You've bought into an extremely self serving sexist male chauvinist myth about child care. In reality, when women care for children without being the partner of the child's father, they have extreme financial penalties from lost work, from diverting huge amounts of money towards their child, from loss of economic opportunity from restrictions on their mobility and hours (and therefore limits to advancement). The opposite is true of divorced fathers who actually on average benefit financially from the divorce.



The common perception surrounding divorce is that wives generally take their husbands to the cleaners. But the first study to track the changing wealth of British divorcees claims the opposite to be true, especially when the separating couple have children.
The effects of divorce upon income are so marked that they are enough to haul men out of poverty while plunging women into it. The incomes of ex-husbands rose by 25 per cent immediately after the split, but women saw a sharp fall in their finances, which rarely regained pre-divorce levels.
Some 27 per cent of women ended up living in poverty as a result – three times the rate of men – and only 31 per cent received maintenance payments from ex-husbands for their children.
"The difference between the sexes is stark. But this is not so much a gender thing as a parent thing. The key differences are not between men and women but between fathers and mothers," said Professor Stephen Jenkins, a director of the Institute for Social and Economic Research, who carried out the survey. He combined data from 14 British Household Panel Surveys from 1991 to 2004 with information from five European surveys, then came up with new per capita incomes by recalculating the figures using the same formula employed by the Government to measure poverty.
"The percentage change in income is less if [women] have worked beforehand and continue working after the relationship breakdown. There is also a potential positive impact if she remarries," he told The Observer.
The situation was only reversed in cases where the ex-husband remarried and had children with his new partner while paying child maintenance to his former wife, Professor Jenkins said, adding that the only way to even out the inequalities was to tackle differences between the roles of men and women in the labour market and within the family.
Ruth Smallacombe, of divorce specialists Family Lawyers in Partnership, said: "The general belief that men get fleeced by their divorces while women get richer and live off the proceeds has long been due for exposure as a pernicious myth. In reality, women often suffer economic hardship when they divorce. In addition, the resentment caused by unfair financial settlements has many knock-on effects."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/why-divorce-makes-women-the-poorer-sex-1515463.html

[TC]

Because we're all in virtual agreement that women are oppressed. I just want to inspect the other side of the coin. Sexism cuts both (or three, or four) ways. ..
Men have just as much in stake in feminism as women.


I wish this were true, because it would make organizing men for human liberation easier, but the fact is that its not.

Institutional sexism, the type relevant to Marxists, the structural formations that reproduce power dynamics consistently along gendered lines, does not 'cut both ways', actually, it benefits most men at the expense of most women. The use of unpaid female labor to make individual male lives more comfortable and expand the labor force without expanding capital or realizing profit directly, is in fact the interest that patriarchy protects, and its the socio-economic interest of partnered straight men, not just ruling class men.

Feminism is a position that sexism should be eliminated so the sexes are equal and their relationship symmetrical, to suggest that men have an 'equal stake in feminism' entails the absurd position that the sexes are already equal.

[Yazman]

What rights are you talking about, specifically, that a woman can far more easily 'divorce' herself from?That's capitalism for you. ;) (This sentence isn't supposed to sound at all patronising so if it sounds like that I apologise in advance)

I was simply referring to the biological matters and the resulting sorts of legal conclusions made in capitalist society.. if a woman doesn't want to have the child they simply 'don't have' the child. Men can't do this (of course, women deserve 100% control over their own bodies - to oppose that would be reactionary), and so whether they want the child or not can be seen as irrelevant, and as there is no community support of single mothers already poor men can be forced into poverty through the associated legal/economic bondage of child support payments.

I think that in a post-capitalist society such payments should be unnecessary as there should be community support already.

Also, no worries about that last sentence.. I can deal with it. lol.

[BobKKKindle$]

to suggest that men have an 'equal stake in feminism' entails the absurd position that the sexes are already equal. Surely, however, men do have some stake in feminism, if we conceive of feminism as a movement which seeks to expose gender roles as social constructs lacking any biological basis? We all acknowledge that men are not oppressed in the same way, or to the same extent as women, mainly because the state does not actively exercise and support oppression directed against men, but the fact remains that there are certain aspects of the male gender role that disadvantage men - the legal obligation for men to perform military service is directly linked to the perception that men are stronger than women and should therefore adopt the role of a "protector" (not only of an individual family, but of society as a whole), and more seriously, men also make up a majority of victims of gang violence - due to the importance of aggression as a component of what it means to be a man in a patriarchal society. This does not in any way diminish the fact that women are compelled to care for children instead of going out to work, and this places women at a major and systematic disadvantage in terms of their ability to participate in public life and the leverage they can exercise over men in the home, and means that men derive benefits from their status as men in the context of a patriarchal society. The oppression of women is structural and all-encompassing, whereas that of men is limited by comparison. However, would it be unfair to argue that drawing attention to the disadvantages imposed by male gender roles (even if these disadvantages are meaningless in comparison to the social and legal oppression suffered by women throughout the world) could serve as a way of drawing men closer to the feminist movement, and encouraging men to reject the oppression of women as fundamentally unjust?

There are ways in which patriarchy is similar to white supremacy. White men do benefit from the fact that they are white - they are less likely to be pulled over by the police and searched, they are less likely to experience discrimination at the hands of employers and the state, they are less likely to be victims of gang violence and knife crime - but this does not mean that white working-class men have an objective long-term interest in maintaining the oppressed status of black workers, because racism ultimately serves to create divisions within the working class, and even white workers suffer exploitation and oppression because they are workers. In the same way, men benefit from patriarchy within the context of a capitalist and patriarchal society, but, given the role of sexism in dividing the working class, it is ultimately in the interests of male workers for sexism to be combated.

EDIT:


Sexism cuts both (or three, or four) waysIt's funny you should use that slogan, because the BNP made a poster with the exact same slogan, except relating to race, in order to further their racist agenda and create the illusion that racism consists solely of individual acts of oppression, instead of being a system of oppression maintained by the state and popular culture, rooted in the material interests of the ruling class. Men experience individual acts of sexism, but it is absurd to suggest that this "oppression" is qualitatively or quantitatively similar to what women experience.

[Glenn Beck]

Men experience individual acts of sexism, but it is absurd to suggest that this "oppression" is qualitatively or quantitatively similar to what women experience.

To make a small somewhat pedantic point I'd argue that it won't even do to name isolated acts of "reverse racism/sexism" that conservatives are always whining about as racism/sexism. To me, racism and sexism are social structures, not abstract principles that instantiate themselves whenever one kind of person wrongs another kind of person in a specific way. The idea that a wealthy white man who is assaulted and robbed upon entering a poor black neighborhood because of his race and wealth is a victim of racism or classism is just absurd, even though this admittedly discriminatory act is unjust. Though he is the victim of this particular injustice and can be said to indirectly suffer from the racism and classism that created poor black neighborhoods and rich white men saying that due to this he is a target of racism and discrimination is useless except as a right-wing talking point.

The same goes for a man who is forced to pay up to support his children. Under socialism it is far less of an issue as whether the father is present or not the child would in principle receive the same amount of social support. Under capitalism the alternative to the father doing his share to relieve the tremendous financial burden (not to speak of the social, physical and psychological burden) of raising a child alone is an impoverished mother and child, and if legal reforms are taken to enshrine the right of a man to reject his offspring as somehow analogous to a woman's right to abort then one can easily imagine terrible social consequences as men now have no legal or economic deterrent to abandoning any child they do not wish to support.

[black magick hustla]

women have it a million times worse than men and things like "being drafted" or "child care" are more of a question of class than a question of sex. However, I don't have sympathy for women who live in places where abortion is legalized and still force the other guy to complete financial ruin just because of the reactionary idea of "sanctity of life". This is not "institutional sexism" in as much as affirmative action is not positive discrimination, but it is completely fucked up and it is beyond me why would revolutionary communists support someone willing to ruin another's life just because she is a godsucker.

[black magick hustla]

notice i am not talking about fathers abandoning their offspring, but the simple idea of consent

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I wish this were true, because it would make organizing men for human liberation easier, but the fact is that its not.

Institutional sexism, the type relevant to Marxists, the structural formations that reproduce power dynamics consistently along gendered lines, does not 'cut both ways', actually, it benefits most men at the expense of most women. The use of unpaid female labor to make individual male lives more comfortable and expand the labor force without expanding capital or realizing profit directly, is in fact the interest that patriarchy protects, and its the socio-economic interest of partnered straight men, not just ruling class men.

Feminism is a position that sexism should be eliminated so the sexes are equal and their relationship symmetrical, to suggest that men have an 'equal stake in feminism' entails the absurd position that the sexes are already equal.

Equal does not necessitate similarity. Sexism has a yin and yang aspect to it: by asserting that woman are categorically [x], it is automatically implied men are [y]. I am not interested in either gender as a whole but rather the individuals who compromise our society and the barriers enacted against them through any institution - economic, political, social, or cultural - which limits their activities. Men face discrimination in all of these categories. Parental alienation; unfair divorce, childcare, and widow settlements; a belief that men should be "strong" and violent and not cry; different treatment in courts and in incarnation; higher suicide rates; mortality rates from work at much higher for men due to the assumption there are "male" and "female" jobs.

If anyone is wanting to suggest that there hasn't been a reactionary element to some self-identified "feminists," I'd have to disagree. "Reverse" discrimination, while unpardonably a rightist term, is garnering support as a result of some women turning all men into villains. This loses male supporters for feminism. Granted they're the exception to the rule, but reactionaries turn up propaganda from them.

So in short, yes, I think men and women are equally disenfranchised and invested in feminism, but they face different circumstances to sexism. Now let me amend or perhaps clarify previous statements. I believe sexism is not a term solely applicable to oppression, but stereotypes and other circumstances as well. If we're talking about who is oppressed "more," I would definitely agree it's women (although not solely).

[Schrödinger's Cat]

You've bought into an extremely self serving sexist male chauvinist myth about child care. In reality, when women care for children without being the partner of the child's father, they have extreme financial penalties from lost work, from diverting huge amounts of money towards their child, from loss of economic opportunity from restrictions on their mobility and hours (and therefore limits to advancement). The opposite is true of divorced fathers who actually on average benefit financially from the divorce.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/why-divorce-makes-women-the-poorer-sex-1515463.html

The article you quoted is not all that relevant to the matter of males being forced against their will to pay for a child they otherwise might have opted to abort if situations were reversed. I did not state all or even the majority of women use child care as a scheme to quickly become a millionaire. I argued such self-serving women do exist and they are abusing a sexist institution (be it a loophole or purposeful).

With any statistic you need to look up what correlation there is that gets these results. I can think of two that would put women, as a whole, at a "statistical" disadvantage: 1.) women are paid less (which leads to a whole different matter of alimony) and 2.) women generally come out of a divorce with children.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

It's bad when you're looking for greater freedoms for one section of the working class on the apparent basis of a specific form of discrimination, at the expense of another section of the working class, which on that same basis is already in a far worse position.I don't think of "sections" at all. I think of individuals.


To suggest that any kind of disadvantage experienced by men on the basis of childcare is the result of sexism, favouring women is to totally ignore the class oppression experienced by both men and women as the result of capitalism, not sexismI don't think capitalism is the cause of sexism. It does not actively discourage sexism, but that's a different matter entirely.


Otherwise I suppose it could be a kind of solidarity with your country's menfolk that may be put in that position, in which case it would be a sort of reactionary identity politics, instead)It's a concern for others in the general sense.

(Sorry my responses in this post are so choppy. They're not factual, just opinionated)

[Bitter Ashes]

The simple answer is to use contraception. The most effective form of which is condoms. If a guy makes a choice not to use a condom then he's made a choice to accept that any kids are his responsibility too. Dont get me wrong though, women have a part to play too. If they dont want kids then they should follow the example too and get themselves on the pill, or even better, stand up for thier own bodies and demand that a condom is used.
It does bug me when guys want to shirk responsibility for a situation they could have easily prevented.:thumbdown:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

If a guy makes a choice not to use a condom then he's made a choice to accept that any kids are his responsibility too.Says who? The belief that responcibility for children is tied to sex is used by rightists to defend all movements against reproductive rights. I'm not suggesting that's what you're in favor of. Rather, your argument is pretty weak.


It does bug me when guys want to shirk responsibility for a situation they could have easily prevented.:thumbdown:And if the BC simply failed?

Unless there is an agreed upon position to be taken (which marriage contracts do), the result of a one night stand should not be thrown onto the father's feet.

[Bitter Ashes]

Says who? The belief that responcibility for children is tied to sex is used by rightists to defend all movements against reproductive rights. I'm not suggesting that's what you're in favor of. Rather, your argument is pretty weak.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying it's pretty weak. If there's a mutual informed consent between a man and a woman to having sex, then part of that is aknowledging the consequences if contraception isnt used. If the consequences happen to be that the woman is to be soley responsible for the child then how on earth is that fair? They have both made that choice. They should share the responsibility.


And if the BC simply failed?

Unless there is an agreed upon position to be taken (which marriage contracts do), the result of a one night stand should not be thrown onto the father's feet.



I'm not suggesting that the result should be "thrown onto the father's feet" exclusivly. I'm saying that the responsibility is to be equaly shared by both parties. Even in a communist utopia, where raising a child alone can put you in the gutter isnt an issue anymore, it still requires several hours a day of attention. It requires sacrafices. or at the very least; major changes, to be made towards the personal life of the parent. It is totaly unfair that one parent should have to burden this solely by themselves, purely because of thier gender.

[CommieCat]

However, I don't have sympathy for women who live in places where abortion is legalized and still force the other guy to complete financial ruin just because of the reactionary idea of "sanctity of life".

Well firstly, the one whom will be damaged the most financially/socially from not having an abortion is the woman; its the woman whom is really going to care for the child & therefore suffer the most economically & socially for it, even if the man decides to stay or not.

But yah, I agree, it IS fucked up for a pregnant woman to keep a child where they simply do not have the economic means to support the child, regardless of whether that comes from a religious ideal of the sanctity of the human life, or whether it comes from a viewpoint where motherhood is promoted as some magnificent goal.

Ultimately, if you're a pregnant & your partner has walked out on you, then not having an abortion is one of the worst moves a woman could do for herself; marriage (& hence financial security) is pretty much a prerequisite for having a baby & NOT being very socially & economically disadvantaged.

So yeah, it is unfair, but the alternative is having a man's viewpoint matter regarding a woman's choice over her body. However, whether we like to admit it or not, men DO have a strong say in whether a woman has an abortion or not; if the man is unwilling to support the woman, then any sensible woman is probably going to have an abortion.

That sort of economic & hence social dependence is pretty fundamental to the makeup of capitalism. What I'm trying to say, is that in a fair world the woman's choice of whether to keep a baby or not wouldn't harm anyone. But we don't live in a fair world.

[black magick hustla]

imagine some dumb college kid hooking up in a one night stand with a dumb college girl in a bar and then realizing he might be a daddy. whether the woman will be fucked up more by not practicing abortion its her problem, i think. due to biological circumstances, men cannot get pregnant so it is irrelevant that the female will get dragged down worse because the only one that can decide whether both take the financial bomb in this situation is the woman. i agree with most of this thread on the issue that women have it much worse however if some girl pulled that shit on me i would probably just get the fuck out of the state

[brigadista]

if he couldn't be bothered to use a condom he should pay up

[Dean]

To complain that child support is oppressive towards men because single mothers are the ones who made the independent decision to have a baby in the first place is, frankly, individualistic.. er... bullshit.

I disagree. Child support basically stipulates that a husband must maintain a certain degree of economic output for his partner, assuming that he is the primary bread-earner. What this means is that certain economic responsibilities are legally held up, and this is particularly troublesome in a failing economy or in cases of credit excesses.

I would say, rather, that Gene is lamenting the individualist application of the system. Society should be responsible for childcare, and forcing the man to deal the entire sum out is exploitative, not only of those who have to pay support, but of the notion of masculinity and "standing on your own" strength - ideas the system clearly appeals to to keep from socializing the responsibility.

[black magick hustla]

if he couldn't be bothered to use a condom he should pay up

there are female condoms too btw and you sound like some conservative shithead:rolleyes:

[black magick hustla]

imagine some dumb college kid hooking up in a one night stand with a dumb college girl in a bar and then realizing he might be a daddy. whether the woman will be fucked up more by not practicing abortion its her problem, i think. due to biological circumstances, men cannot get pregnant so it is irrelevant that the female will get dragged down worse because the only one that can decide whether both take the financial bomb in this situation is the woman. i agree with most of this thread on the issue that women have it much worse however if some girl pulled that shit on me i would probably just get the fuck out of the state

actually its not really her problem because society is fucked up and there should be legit means for the state to sustain their children but still she is the only one that has any real choice on the matter

[Black Dagger]

I'm glad you clarified that ;)

[Coggeh]

Its not the males sole responsibility to ensure proper protection , females should always carries condoms too.If she doesn't and he doesn't its simply both their fault . Equally .

[Bitter Ashes]

Its not the males sole responsibility to ensure proper protection , females should always carries condoms too.If she doesn't and he doesn't its simply both their fault . Equally .
I think I'd agree on that, but it's still the guys who make all the excuses about not actualy wanting to put one on. But, women should be standing up for thier own bodies and saying no if a guy wont comply to a condom.
So, in the incicidence where you've got an irresponsable jerk and someone with no self control then the pair of fools should really be suffering together for thier combined stupidity.

[Yazman]

I'm not sure what you mean by saying it's pretty weak. If there's a mutual informed consent between a man and a woman to having sex, then part of that is aknowledging the consequences if contraception isnt used. If the consequences happen to be that the woman is to be soley responsible for the child then how on earth is that fair? They have both made that choice. They should share the responsibility.

[/FONT][FONT=Arial]
I'm not suggesting that the result should be "thrown onto the father's feet" exclusivly. I'm saying that the responsibility is to be equaly shared by both parties. Even in a communist utopia, where raising a child alone can put you in the gutter isnt an issue anymore, it still requires several hours a day of attention. It requires sacrafices. or at the very least; major changes, to be made towards the personal life of the parent. It is totaly unfair that one parent should have to burden this solely by themselves, purely because of thier gender.

I'm sorry but the second you use the term "communist utopia" I am unable to take you seriously in any way, shape, or form politically. There is nothing "utopian" about what communists support.


if he couldn't be bothered to use a condom he should pay up

This is one of the most ignorant attitudes a person can have - Oh, I don't need to take contraception because he's using a condom/she's on the pill! Condoms aren't perfect and they do break and no form of contraception is perfect, and if you think that you are responsibility-free when it comes to contraception you need a wake up call or else you might just fuck up somebody's life with your ignorance. If you want to talk contraception then both people need to be using that shit, it's not just something that you should point at X gender and say "well I/she got pregnant because THEY weren't using contraception!" Its something both people should be using and consciously making sure they are using if you want to avoid having a child.

Contraception isn't "the man's responsibility" like you are saying it is. Or on the flipside, "the woman's responsibility." Both need to use and pay attention to it.