Fathers Rights ? [Archive]

Coggeh

21st November 2009, 01:29

Ok before the any slurs are thrown for sexism or whatever just keep reading....

I was just wondering about the opinion of others about fathers rights groups and their demands in general .

Personally I see nothing wrong with many of their ideas except a few and the way in which many of the groups operate on a sort of anti female line .

The demands of having equality for deciding custody of a child and rights to see a child should be pretty obviously supported in my view .

However many are demanding a right to have a say in a womans choice to terminate a pregnancy or not to which their should be no say by the male partner.

Besides some reactionary viewpoints etc I see some of their demands as being pretty reasonable and stuff.

What do others think ?

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

21st November 2009, 01:55

I find father's rights a really interesting concept. One of the things I find extremely interesting is that although men get the advantages of power most of the time, it's an extremely sensitive topic. Most of the legitimate requests of the father's rights movement (and men's rights movement) are laughed at even by men. I've presented some of the ideas to women who have absolutely had at me. Aka, loud, angry, clearly emotionally upset with me even bringing the topic up. Maybe it was legitimate. I just am taken aback when anyway gets angry in a debate.

1. I support shared parenting if there is a divorce, assuming it corresponds to the child's wishes.

2.Paternity leave is obviously something men should get. I would argue both men and women should receive it. This would decrease pregnancy related discrimination towards women in hiring practices. Furthermore, it would likely help out women who would prefer to stay at home but, making more money (or having a lazy husband) are compelled to return to work.

3. This is not "father's rights" but I do think there should be a period after pregnancy where men can voice their objections to having a child and avoid future child support payments. This always gets me in big trouble. I don't know why. Technically, women get a choice after the pregnancy happens. I don't see why men shouldn't.

4. This is another one that occasionally gets me in trouble. I don't think a parent should get custody rights because of biology. If a legitimate adoption takes place, a parent should not later have a legitimate claim to shared custody.

21st November 2009, 02:00

3. This is not "father's rights" but I do think there should be a period after pregnancy where men can voice their objections to having a child and avoid future child support payments. This always gets me in big trouble. I don't know why. Technically, women get a choice after the pregnancy happens. I don't see why men shouldn't.

This is absurd! The man has his choice, it's called a condom. Seriously. He can't just say after he gets a woman pregnant, "oh, I don't want it now" and then not have to pay child support. Seriously, what the hell.

Random Precision

21st November 2009, 02:08

I think our critique of groups proclaiming "father's rights" as their goal needs to extend beyond what they say their aims are. Besides the cases you listed where they have tried to interfere with the woman's right to have an abortion, you can see the impact of their demands, if put into practice, would be to trample all over women's rights.

For example the claim of many father's rights activists that a child cannot be brought up "correctly" by just the mother is to be condemned as sexist. Many of them even go further than this, and say that in a situation of parental separation, in cases where the father is the primary custodian there are less cases of ADHD, higher stability etc. Furthermore they demand reform of child support laws in favor of the father's income rather than the actual needs of the children. We must face the reality, which is that the woman on average far more often is required to make all kinds of sacrifices in bringing up the children, far above what most fathers are willing to do.

Also I can speak from my own experience. I know anecdotal evidence is not very reliable, but here goes. My parents separated when I was 15 (a freshman in high school), and their divorce agreement was finally settled two years ago. After they separated I lived with my father except for a few hours on every Tuesday night. This went on for two years, and afterwards the agreement was renegotiated so that I spent about half of each week with my mother and the other half with my father. Now the time I lived with my father I was very often in a situation of being verbally abused, or alternatively just ignored, which was the case most of the time. I didn't have enough food to eat sometimes. When my mother first proposed renegotiating the custody agreement to help me out, she was met with all kinds of complaints about my dad's "right" to be with me, I was told that she and her "dyke lawyer" were trampling all over both me and my dad. Also I heard a lot that he couldn't afford the child support- him being just a workin' man, whose work happened to be the low-paying trade of eye surgery. Funnily enough that had been what I had been hearing even before the agreement was renegotiated- and that was when my mom was paying him child support for me.

I think this illustrates a bit what father's rights is really all about- not really concern for the child, which would be the thrust of a genuine movement in that direction, but an attempt to remove even the lousy protections our capitalist society has for divorced women and reinstate the worst aspects of patriarchy.

Glenn Beck

21st November 2009, 02:11

The main legitimate claim Father's Rights advocates make is for redress of inequities in the way divorce is handled, namely the general favoritism towards mothers when it comes to assigning custody over children and ownership of assets. There are also some cultural observations about double standards against fatherhood and male parenting in general which I would imagine can dovetail quite well with feminism, as the logical corollary to the denigration of fatherhood is natalism ("parenting is women's work; women are natural mothers").

On the other hand, giving men any say over abortion is just moronic, no good can ever come out of it. Forcing a woman to bear a child or undergo an abortion is way more monstrous than being forced to pay child support or do without a lovely heir. People who advocate this seriously need to get a grip.

Patchd

21st November 2009, 02:12

This is absurd! The man has his choice, it's called a condom. Seriously. He can't just say after he gets a woman pregnant, "oh, I don't want it now" and then not have to pay child support. Seriously, what the hell.
Obviously I'm on your side on this, but I don't like your argument. For one, condoms can split, fact, if that happens, is it really the 'fault' of any of the two?

The mother, for one, had to have the burden of carrying what is essentially a parasite, in her body for nine months. Coupled with this is the restrictions on abortion rights in many places worldwide, if a pregnant woman decides she no longer wants the child after the legal time period when you are permitted to get an abortion has elapsed, then she is stuck with that burden until the point of pregnancy. Thirdly, we can't forget about the rampant sexism prevalent in today's society, women get paid, on average less than men, they come second choice to men when it comes to work, or many other fields of life and many single mothers are socially stigmatised, whereas fathers on the other hand, by virtue of being male, are much less so.

Also, just curious, what exactly are the statistics concerning mother-father custody rates (as in on average, with figures, who usually gets custody over the child?), and in addition to this, does anyone know of any other statistics which may show the amount of women having preference over the father for custody of the child to be down to, say, domestic violence on the part of the father, or 'poor parenting', again on behalf of the father?

Il Medico

21st November 2009, 02:32

The Father has absolutely no rights when it comes to whether or not to abort the child. However, I think it would be a nice gesture for the woman in question to at least inform the man in question of her decision.

EDIT: I will most likely respond more toughly to the points in this thread later, but as of right now I have to work tonight and need to go to bed before then.

21st November 2009, 02:43

Obviously I'm on your side on this, but I don't like your argument. For one, condoms can split, fact, if that happens, is it really the 'fault' of any of the two?

No, I don't think I said anything about anything being someone's 'fault'. But the fact is that condoms very rarely break. If you're that worried about it, double up, get a vasectomy, or don't have sex. Otherwise, be prepared to pay child support if the condom breaks and abortion isn't on the table.

Coggeh

21st November 2009, 02:55

I think this illustrates a bit what father's rights is really all about- not really concern for the child, which would be the thrust of a genuine movement in that direction, but an attempt to remove even the lousy protections our capitalist society has for divorced women and reinstate the worst aspects of patriarchy.
I don't think you can speak for the entire fathers rights movements , demanding equal say in custody of a child is a legitimate demand and I've heard of countless cases where custody has been given to a mother even though the father would have been a better choice .

1 case I know of someone close to me is that her mother was given custody even though she was a multi drug addict , emotionally abused her children, spent most of her time passed out or away leaving the kids alone for even days at a time yet even though the father pressed and pressed for custody he never got it and it wasn't till 9 years after all of this that the sister of the father had been given custody of the child after her and the father taking care of them for the most part when the mother couldn't.All the while the oldest of the kids (the person close to me) was telling social workers she didn't want to live with her mom anymore.

I find the system of childcare responsibilities sexist to both men and women it puts the role of parenting down to the woman if it becomes a choice. It is complete bullshit.

Whether your a good or bad parent has nothing to do with gender and its not partriarchial to say that their should be an equal judgement regardless of gender when deciding custody terms. It is not a protection of women like you say either to favour women in this.

For example the claim of many father's rights activists that a child cannot be brought up "correctly" by just the mother is to be condemned as sexist. Many of them even go further than this, and say that in a situation of parental separation, in cases where the father is the primary custodian there are less cases of ADHD, higher stability etc. Furthermore they demand reform of child support laws in favor of the father's income rather than the actual needs of the children. We must face the reality, which is that the woman on average far more often is required to make all kinds of sacrifices in bringing up the children, far above what most fathers are willing to do.
Its obvious that their isn't a need for a father and mother , children can be perfectly brought up in different settings of parental arrangements these demands are reactionary of course by fathers groups and should be pretty much ignored.

With regards to child support I think a system ( in capitalism) of who earns more pays accordingly should be brought in . In socialism I don't see any child support being need to be paid .

Women are far more required to sacrifice during parenting but this is a product of the system of sexism towards woman for the best who knows how long. By continuing this "stereotype" of woman as better parents we are perpetuating the very same sexism ourselves.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

21st November 2009, 02:58

This is absurd! The man has his choice, it's called a condom. Seriously. He can't just say after he gets a woman pregnant, "oh, I don't want it now" and then not have to pay child support. Seriously, what the hell.

Christians criticize women for the same reasoning with respect to abortions. Why are women guaranteed the knowledge that they can have sex and avoid the responsibility of a child, and men don't get that same privilege?

Here is a hypothetical scenario. I have sex with a women who gets pregnant. She told me beforehand she would get an abortion if something bad happened. We even used a condom and other forms of birth control. We just got very unlucky.

Now that she is pregnant, she changes her mind. I'm expected to pay child support? Why don't I get the privilege of having sex without the attached "by the way, you might get stuck with a financial burden for life and there is nothing you can do about it."

What if men had to undergo a procedure as painful as abortion? Let's say they measured it scientifically. If the man doesn't want a child, they had safe sex, and the women had previously suggested she wanted an abortion, why is the man accountable?

Should "I" really have to pay up in this case? Why?

You agree to get in my truck. You know I sometimes drive in dangerous areas. I take you somewhere I know you don't want to go, and you get shot.

It seems like I did something wrong? But you did have the opportunity to get out of the car once I told you what was going to happen.

Women + man have sex. Pregnancy. We are having a child if I decide. No if I don't, says women.

I would never say a man should get to force a women to abort, but I don't think he should have to pay especially in very explicit cases. There was a famous case where a women told a man she was infertile and he ended up with child support.

Coggeh

21st November 2009, 03:07

This is absurd! The man has his choice, it's called a condom. Seriously. He can't just say after he gets a woman pregnant, "oh, I don't want it now" and then not have to pay child support. Seriously, what the hell.
I think this stereotype of the dad who never pays child support while could be more common than a mother doing it is still a bit overdone IMO

Information from multiple sources shows that only 10% of all noncustodial fathers fit the "deadbeat dad" category: 90% of the fathers with joint custody paid the support due. Fathers with visitation rights pay 79.1%; and 44.5% of those with NO visitation rights still financially support their children. (Source: Census Bureau report. Series P-23, No. 173).

The following is sourced from: Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security Policy, Oct. 1991, Authors: Meyer and Garansky.

Custodial mothers who receive a support award: 79.6%
Custodial fathers who receive a support award: 29.9%
Non-custodial mothers who totally default on support: 46.9%
Non-custodial fathers who totally default on support: 26.9%

From: http://www.childrensjustice.org/stats.htm

Patchd

21st November 2009, 03:10

No, I don't think I said anything about anything being someone's 'fault'. But the fact is that condoms very rarely break. If you're that worried about it, double up, get a vasectomy, or don't have sex. Otherwise, be prepared to pay child support if the condom breaks and abortion isn't on the table.
Again, all the 'child support' issue boils down to is the problems created by Capitalism itself, if you could have what you need/want provided to you for free, then the issue would not even be an issue. I'm not too clued up on this, does the rates for child support vary depending on your income? If so, is it done on a percentage basis, and if so again, does that rate change depending on income?

Sorry, I didn't realise you meant what you said that way. To me, it sounded like you said "The man has his choice, it's called a condom".

On a different note, my dad was one of those people who didn't pay child support (never helped my mum or me out financially once, and he owns a small company in the USA), he's a cock.

21st November 2009, 03:10

Christians criticize women for the same reasoning with respect to abortions. Why are women guaranteed the knowledge that they can have sex and avoid the responsibility of a child, and men don't get that same privilege?

What are you talking about? It's called birth control. Yes, there is a very tiny chance the condom could break. If that freaks you out, as I said, double up or don't have sex. In the case that a condom breaks and the woman gets pregnant, the woman isn't any more "privileged" than the man.

Here is a hypothetical scenario...We can go into "what if" scenarios all day. The fact is that there is no justification for a law which enables men, after impregnating a woman, to forfeit responsibility; it would have probably a handful of legitimate uses ever and countless cases where men didn't want to wear the condom, or whatever, and then went to the lawyer the next day and did whatever the necessary procedure would be to excuse him from paying child support. It's an absurd suggestion...

21st November 2009, 03:14

Again, all the 'child support' issue boils down to is the problems created by Capitalism itself, if you could have what you need/want provided to you for free, then the issue would not even be an issue. I'm not too clued up on this, does the rates for child support vary depending on your income? If so, is it done on a percentage basis, and if so again, does that rate change depending on income?
I honestly have no idea.

Sorry, I didn't realise you meant what you said that way. To me, it sounded like you said "The man has his choice, it's called a condom".
That is what I said. He doesn't have any say over whether a woman gives birth or not; his say = choosing (or not choosing) to wear a condom. He does not/should not have any laws in place to protect him from responsibility (financial or otherwise) if he changes his mind about wanting a child after he's impregnated someone.

Random Precision

21st November 2009, 04:00

I don't think you can speak for the entire fathers rights movements , demanding equal say in custody of a child is a legitimate demand and I've heard of countless cases where custody has been given to a mother even though the father would have been a better choice .

I have no problem with individual fathers who want this. Each situation should be examined on its own terms. What I object to is a movement that, on the basis of cases such as the one you described demands things like the abolition of reasonable amounts of child support, that mothers not be allowed to move away, and claims things like that children who are raised by single fathers as opposed to single mothers have a lower rate of ADHD, and that most women who make claims of domestic violence during divorce proceedings do it to get more alimony or because their lawyer told them to. Like it or not, the current organized "father's rights" movement is completely wrapped up in this kind of patriarchal horseshit.

And of course any movement organized around defending the rights of men in a male-dominated society is always going to end up like that.

Whether your a good or bad parent has nothing to do with gender and its not partriarchial to say that their should be an equal judgement regardless of gender when deciding custody terms. It is not a protection of women like you say either to favour women in this.

Women are far more required to sacrifice during parenting but this is a product of the system of sexism towards woman for the best who knows how long. By continuing this "stereotype" of woman as better parents we are perpetuating the very same sexism ourselves.

I think it's pretty clear that in our type of society women will typically be expected to be the child's primary caregiver. As you say this is sexist and should be fought against. But because this is an expectation, the typical thing is also that many, if not most men will not care for their children to the level that the mother does, because they are not expected to. Until this system is abolished, I think as socialists we need to support the rights of those who are most likely to be taken advantage of in the current system, and to fight for whatever kind of meager support they can get from the justice system.

bcbm

21st November 2009, 05:08

double up do you mean use multiple methods of birth control by this, or just doubling up the condom? because doubling up condoms is a bad idea.

21st November 2009, 06:45

because doubling up condoms is a bad idea.

:ohmy: Serious?
Well, the point still stands (minus the double condoms); we don't need a law in place to protect men in the tiny chance that a condom breaks, so they can get out of paying child support. There are enough men who don't fucking pay it as it is.

bcbm

21st November 2009, 06:46

Serious? yes, it creates more friction and actually increases the risk of condoms tearing.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

21st November 2009, 06:56

What are you talking about? It's called birth control. Yes, there is a very tiny chance the condom could break. If that freaks you out, as I said, double up or don't have sex. In the case that a condom breaks and the woman gets pregnant, the woman isn't any more "privileged" than the man.

The fact is that there is no justification for a law which enables men, after impregnating a woman, to forfeit responsibility;

The women gets to choose whether to have an abortion or keep the child. She is a lot more privileged than the man in that circumstance. If I'm worried about the "tiny chance" (which is higher than you might think), it's unfair. I should have a very small window to declare that I don't want a child before the women decides whether to keep it. She can put it up for adoption, abort it.

Why is a women who never wanted a kid in the first place choosing to have one "and keep it?" It makes little sense.

Let me play devil's advocate here. Why does the man have any responsibility even if he willingly has sex without birth control of any kind? Let's go even more extreme. I'm not advocating this, but I'm just trying to challenge conventional assumptions. I'm more interested in how we we are justifying our conventional views.

Why is a man in any way responsible for the child? The women has rule over her own body. She choose to allow a foreign substance into her body knowingly. She knew what the consequences might be. Why is something that suddenly leaves her body having responsibility transferred over to the man?

If it's for equality or justice, fine, but we need to explain that in more detail. If we're being purely individualistic, the man shouldn't have to pay child support at all unless he agreed to a commitment.

If we are being purely collectivist, the man really should be getting a chance, in some cases, to claim he does not want the child.

I'm not an authoritarian. If I was, I could decide to have a known sexually "loose" man sterilized. I wouldn't do this, of course. Let's pretend I did because I love scenarios.

So I did that. Now there is no future child B. In another case, I did nothing. A child is born and the father has a responsibility to care for it. Don't I have an equal responsibility? My choice, a choice "not to do anything" led to the birth of another child. I also contribute and help keep a society running that allows new children to be born into poverty every day. Aren't we all "fathers" with a moral obligation?

I still think that in our current context there should be some sort of circumstances that allow men post-facto (or pre-facto) to guarantee no responsibility of a child without resorting to surgeries. For instance, a written contract (if women are so confident safe sex is safe enough, they shouldn't be worried about rolling the dice on commitment like us men, should they?) Or a short period after the pregnancy begins to have it noted they do not want the child.

Really, this is what I mean more eloquently:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_abortion#Criticism_of_child_support_policies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubay_v._Wells

Look at the Dubay case. Is "that" case not ridiculous? There isn't even a denial of his claims. So, I tricked you (admittedly he might not be the brightest). I want child support.

Here is the court:

"the Fourteenth Amendment does not deny to [the] State the power to treat different classes of persons in different ways."

Isn't that an outright admission by the conservative United States judicial system that the issue is a matter of equality. But hey, we just don't care?

***

21st November 2009, 07:11

The women gets to choose whether to have an abortion or keep the child. She is a lot more privileged than the man in that circumstance. If I'm worried about the "tiny chance" (which is higher than you might think), it's unfair. I should have a very small window to declare that I don't want a child before the women decides whether to keep it. She can put it up for adoption, abort it.

Why is a women who never wanted a kid in the first place choosing to have one "and keep it?" It makes little sense.

That's exactly the point! You've made my point for me. That's why such a scenario is so rare, and why such a law, if put in place, would be abused daily and used legitimately probably a handful of times ever.

Why is a man in any way responsible for the child? The women has rule over her own body. She choose to allow a foreign substance into her body knowingly. She knew what the consequences might be. Why is something that suddenly leaves her body having responsibility transferred over to the man?
Hate to tell you, bro, you're challenging conventional views with views that were far more conventional for a far longer time. The view that the father has a responsibility (if not physically, than financially) for the child also is sort of a new concept.

If it's for equality or justice, fine, but we need to explain that in more detail. If we're being purely individualistic, the man shouldn't have to pay child support at all unless he agreed to a commitment.

If we are being purely collectivist, the man really should be getting a chance, in some cases, to claim he does not want the child.
How is that "collectivist" in any sense? The second example is just as "individualistic" as the first. Funny, though, how in both examples the man is totally off the hook, isn't it?

I'm not an authoritarian. If I was, I could decide to have a known sexually "loose" man sterilized. I wouldn't do this, of course. Let's pretend I did because I love scenarios.

So I did that. Now there is no future child B. In another case, I did nothing. A child is born and the father has a responsibility to care for it. Don't I have an equal responsibility? My choice, a choice "not to do anything" led to the birth of another child. I also contribute and help keep a society running that allows new children to be born into poverty every day. Aren't we all "fathers" with a moral obligation?

I still think that in our current context there should be some sort of circumstances that allow men post-facto (or pre-facto) to guarantee no responsibility of a child without resorting to surgeries. For instance, a written contract (if women are so confident safe sex is safe enough, they shouldn't be worried about rolling the dice on commitment like us men, should they?) Or a short period after the pregnancy begins to have it noted they do not want the child.

Really, this is what I mean more eloquently:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_abortion#Criticism_of_child_support_policies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubay_v._Wells

Look at the Dubay case. Is "that" case not ridiculous? There isn't even a denial of his claims. So, I tricked you (admittedly he might not be the brightest). I want child support.

Why is a man in any way responsible for the child? The women has rule over her own body. She choose to allow a foreign substance into her body knowingly. She knew what the consequences might be. Why is something that suddenly leaves her body having responsibility transferred over to the man?Seriously, get fucked. You're like a white kid whining because he can't say "nigger".

*Viva La Revolucion*

21st November 2009, 08:35

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

21st November 2009, 18:29

This is absurd! The man has his choice, it's called a condom. Seriously. He can't just say after he gets a woman pregnant, "oh, I don't want it now" and then not have to pay child support. Seriously, what the hell.

And if the sexual partners agreed that their main method of protection would be a hormonal birth control - perhaps because the man is allergic to latex and all other condom designs are fairly ineffective - but the female irregularly consumes her prescription (in some cases purposely so), resulting in a pregnancy - do you share that same outrage? Why is it the conservative argument against "sex implies acceptance" doesn't hold true for the woman, but it's demonstrably true for the man?

I don't think anyone here is seriously advocating that the mother and child not be cared for if their financial situation demands it (health care and abortive costs), but the individualization of child support is both punishing towards men and presumes that a man must be held responsible for a child he does not want. Perhaps it gets stickier when the couple were in a long-term relationship and the father was there rearing his children before the separation, but in a lot of scenarios the child support is extracted from relationships where there was no consent on keeping the child.

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

21st November 2009, 18:44

And of course any movement organized around defending the rights of men in a male-dominated society is always going to end up like that.Most components of the male rights movement are a legitimate response to the very real issues neglected by contemporary sociologists. The sentiments expressed in this thread - that any attention paid to men will by necessity take away from females - is a great illustration as to why more education needs to go into why men have their own institutionalized problems and consequences that need to be addressed.

Child care is just a drop in the bucket. Much, much higher suicide rates; unfair treatment by the incarceration and justice system; warfare being predominantly a "male's duty"; lower educational achievements.

One can see issues faced by both men and women.

Il Medico

21st November 2009, 19:39

Christians criticize women for the same reasoning with respect to abortions. Why are women guaranteed the knowledge that they can have sex and avoid the responsibility of a child, and men don't get that same privilege?
Cause the man doesn't have to lug the bastard around for nine months and then push the 6-10 pound baby out his penis.

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

21st November 2009, 23:11

Cause the man doesn't have to lug the bastard around for nine months and then push the 6-10 pound baby out his penis.

Of course not. The penis does not stretch to accommodate even kidney stones.

Hey, if you're going to be facetious and condescending just to defend a backwater conservative argument like "sex implies consent," expect reciprocation.

Assuming you were actually being serious, I'm left wondering what you think should occur relating to deadbeat moms, since women typically pay half of what their male counterparts pay when the father takes custody, despite make about 80 cents to every dollar (and even then we have to account for the fact men typically work longer in more strenuous fields like mining and fishing). Is the role of female reproductive organs really the determinant factor in all of this?

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

22nd November 2009, 01:10

Cause the man doesn't have to lug the bastard around for nine months and then push the 6-10 pound baby out his penis.

The women can choose not to do that.

I'm still rather confused. A man chooses whether or not to have sex with a women "knowing what he is getting into." That doesn't mean the situation shouldn't be made as fair as possible.

Why does a man get put into a situation where he has no power simply because he had sex with a women? It's her body. Why is he responsible for a choice she made with it?

If I have sex with a women and she breaks my penal bone, should I be holding her 50% accountable for the medical expenses? I made a choice with my body. I took a risk. Something bad happened. That's a risk "I took."

Here is another scenario. There is an incredibly fun video game in the lab of a mad scientist. He gives me the only key. Here is the catch. If I active the game (which is incredibly fun), a random women will be given access to the machine. What can she do with this access? She can choose to play it, but she knows the choice will electrocute me, leaving me requiring regular and costly surgery to repair it.

She wouldn't be right to play the game. Let's tie pregnancy back into this situation. A man gets a women pregnant. He didn't choose to have a child. He choose to get a women pregnant. Why does that entail that he should be necessarily committed to support the women in whatever choice she makes?

We know the following:

1. The women would've planned for a child if she wanted one.
2. Pregnancy is more painful than abortion.
3. Objections to abortion are religious.

So men can be held at ransom for money because of what are essentially the religious motivations? Why can't they get one week to declare they do not wish to have the child, renounce all possible rights, and get out of the situation.

The women still has the same choice. Have the child or not. What exactly is the problem? She is actively choosing to have a child of her own free will. It is a choice "she" makes. Why is the man held accountable to her choice?

I really don't see how this is supposed to work. I think the state should support all single parents rather than individual people so I wouldn't advocate hanging them out to try. I just fail to see why, especially in specific cases, men are held accountable for child support.

Can we hold a sperm donor accountable? No, simply because we socially decide "that's different." It's really just like that for all cases. The only issue is that introducing this concept would leave women in bad circumstances. Well, maybe it's time to overhaul how we deal with single parents anyway?

Look at child support. Some random girl hooks up with a millionaire and her and a child live the life of luxury. Surely it's in the interests of everyone to just income-level tax and redistribute the wealth to single parents? This is within the context of our current society, of course.

EDIT: I'm not advocating that a man has any right to force a women to get an abortion or force her to continue a pregnancy.

Random Precision

22nd November 2009, 01:26

If I have sex with a women and she breaks my penal bone, should I be holding her 50% accountable for the medical expenses? I made a choice with my body. I took a risk. Something bad happened. That's a risk "I took."

I really hope you know that there is no such thing as a "penal bone".

Also, you are getting seriously annoying with your "playing devil's advocate" and "hypothetical scenarios". This is not an ethics class. At a certain point you will not be indulged anymore, you will be seen as sexist and we'll have to take the appropriate steps.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

22nd November 2009, 01:59

I really hope you know that there is no such thing as a "penal bone".

Also, you are getting seriously annoying with your "playing devil's advocate" and "hypothetical scenarios". This is not an ethics class. At a certain point you will not be indulged anymore, you will be seen as sexist and we'll have to take the appropriate steps.

Yeah, I'm just going crazy with hypothetical scenarios.

What grounds is there for claiming I am sexist? Where have I said women should be forced to have an abortion or continue a pregnancy? Where have I said women are unequal to men? Where have I said women who become pregnant and choice to keep the child don't deserve society's support in every way, including financially? Where have I said a women is a bad person for wanting financial support for her child? I simply suggested maybe it should work in a different way.

What kind of completely arbitrary definition of sexism are you using where I would legitimately fall under it?

Glenn Beck

22nd November 2009, 03:10

double up

D:

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

22nd November 2009, 04:02

22nd November 2009, 04:07

^GeneCosta, no one here is going to indulge your confused, utterly backward conception of white males being the victims of discrimination.

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

22nd November 2009, 04:26

^GeneCosta, no one here is going to indulge your confused, utterly backward conception of white males being the victims of discrimination.

Only because this forum is rampant with sexist ideologues like yourself who fall back on moralistic arguments when males defend themselves.

"Use a condom before you complain about having a child" is something I should be reading at Stormfront or FreeRepublic, not RevLeft.

eyedrop

22nd November 2009, 15:09

As for the arguments that having sex means should equal risking having a child I thought that was what the main inhibitor on female promiscuity (?) before the prevention pill was invented? Let's not fall back to that again. Having children and having sex should be seperated as we have the technical means to do that now. (Please make a male prevention pill scientists)

I don't see why the scenario where someone is burdened with fatherhood in a period of their life where they absolutely don't want/can't support children is so alien. Surely most people know someone in that situation.

Though maybe most male rights groups campaigns against the financial support that is a reactionairy position and what should be on the table is for society to take up the financial support to single mothers. Why should the financial burden of raising children fall on single persons? Let's fight for collective support of single parents instead of fighting against single support of parents.

Equal paid maternity and paternal leave is better for women (maybe somewhat longer for women as pregnancy takes quite a hit on your body) as it equals the field in the work market and careers as it's not just women who are expected to take a long break from their work, besides dispelling the ridiculous notion that women are better parents.

Meridian

22nd November 2009, 15:59

That's exactly the point! You've made my point for me. That's why such a scenario is so rare, and why such a law, if put in place, would be abused daily and used legitimately probably a handful of times ever.

Hate to tell you, bro, you're challenging conventional views with views that were far more conventional for a far longer time. The view that the father has a responsibility (if not physically, than financially) for the child also is sort of a new concept.

How is that "collectivist" in any sense? The second example is just as "individualistic" as the first. Funny, though, how in both examples the man is totally off the hook, isn't it?

Seriously, get fucked. You're like a white kid whining because he can't say "nigger".
That is absurd.

Your entire line of reasoning is filled with logical fallacies and your post is based on guilt by association.
Completely out of the blue you end your post with get fucked? That is completely immature, very irrational, and very, very stupid. Yet people thanked you for your post. Go figure.

bcbm

22nd November 2009, 17:28

even then we have to account for the fact men typically work longer in more strenuous fields like mining and fishing

mining and fishing? let me catch you up to the 21st century here...

for the united states: in 2004 (http://www.infomine.com/countries/SOIR/USA/), there were about 207,000 wage and salary jobs in the mining industry. in 2006 (http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs001.htm#emply) there were about 25,000 jobs in fishing, hunting and trapping combined, with a total of two million if we add jobs like agriculture and forestry. you probably should've gone with something like "manufacturing and construction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States_by_sector)," assuming we can keep applying traditional stereotypes. notice that both fall quite a bit short of health care and social assistance and the service industry as a whole.

Invader Zim

22nd November 2009, 19:26

This is absurd! The man has his choice, it's called a condom. Seriously. He can't just say after he gets a woman pregnant, "oh, I don't want it now" and then not have to pay child support. Seriously, what the hell.

Not that I disagree that men should have to pay child support payments if they get a woman preganant, accidentaly or otherwise; but interesting, this is the exact same argument raised by the anti-choice lobby. There is an obvious disparity in the application of your reasoning; but there absolutely should be. If men have to pay child support for an infant they didn't want; tough. While it is not a perfect or fair system, it would be far less fair on the children in question if they and their mother suffer from economic hardship because the father doesn't want to live upto his resoncibilities.

22nd November 2009, 23:47

That is absurd.

Your entire line of reasoning is filled with logical fallacies and your post is based on guilt by association.
Completely out of the blue you end your post with get fucked? That is completely immature, very irrational, and very, very stupid. Yet people thanked you for your post. Go figure.

Yes, well at least I've actually put forward an opinion. As I said in your negative rep comment, if you disagree, make an argument to the contrary.

The whole premise of this case in favor of "father's rights" is essentially, as far as I'm concerned, not really any different than revolutionary leftists debating whether they ought to champion the cause of white rights or male rights or straight rights. Women (which, obviously, includes mothers) are systematically oppressed based on the fact that they are women; men are not oppressed due to being men. Therefore, men don't need advocacy groups organized on the basis that they are men advocating men's rights. To the extent that such groups exist, revolutionary leftists have no business supporting them. We support struggles of the oppressed; men (which obviously includes fathers) are not oppressed on the basis that they are men.

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

23rd November 2009, 00:23

mining and fishing? let me catch you up to the 21st century here...

for the united states: in 2004 (http://www.infomine.com/countries/SOIR/USA/), there were about 207,000 wage and salary jobs in the mining industry. in 2006 (http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs001.htm#emply) there were about 25,000 jobs in fishing, hunting and trapping combined, with a total of two million if we add jobs like agriculture and forestry. you probably should've gone with something like "manufacturing and construction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States_by_sector)," assuming we can keep applying traditional stereotypes. notice that both fall quite a bit short of health care and social assistance and the service industry as a whole.

I was bringing up these industries because they are considerably more dangerous than all other professions and because men predominantly occupy these jobs even today. Your insistence on bringing up raw numbers was entirely useless and contributed nothing to the thread other than trying to provoke unneeded controversy.

Besides, it's not as if we're talking about chariot makers here. There are roughly the same number of licensed extensive care surgeons in the continental US.

Anyway... distraction aside...

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

23rd November 2009, 00:31

Yes, well at least I've actually put forward an opinion. As I said in your negative rep comment, if you disagree, make an argument to the contrary.

The whole premise of this case in favor of "father's rights" is essentially, as far as I'm concerned, not really any different than revolutionary leftists debating whether they ought to champion the cause of white rights or male rights or straight rights. Women (which, obviously, includes mothers) are systematically oppressed based on the fact that they are women; men are not oppressed due to being men. Therefore, men don't need advocacy groups organized on the basis that they are men advocating men's rights. To the extent that such groups exist, revolutionary leftists have no business supporting them. We support struggles of the oppressed; men (which obviously includes fathers) are not oppressed on the basis that they are men.

Indeed, your entire argument is that we should just ignore the plights of fathers and men, deluding ourselves into believing they don't exist and that gender roles - which force both genders into tidy, quantitative lifestyles - have no negative impact on males. Or if they do, it doesn't really matter. The fact male suicide rates are four times as much as what you find in females is not something to blow off. It should not just be "ignored" because it doesn't deal with restrictive ownership of the means of production. There are definite issues men are facing. Some of us want resolution.

It is quite clear since the Sexual Revolution that lifting the oppressed out of their state of dire need does not resolve the 'chain' issue Frederick Douglas talked about in his autobiography. Just because women are continuously making strides does not mean that all those problems which face males are going away in a mirroring effect. The issue at hand is how to resolve these problems while balancing a concern for historically oppressed groups. The Left, like the Right, has proven itself ignorant of the subject. It's a new phenomena with little literature and thought devoted to it, so people are reacting harshly to the notion that just perhaps we need to devote time towards figuring out what direction men need to take. It's quite clear where women need to go in terms of economic and social empowerment - and how to deal with the consequences of female gender roles - but men are now lost in a confusing mess of indicators. There is no definite direction for them to take, and "just support women" is not enough when they have their own issues needing to be addressed as well. I'm sure we can all pretty much agree on what constitutes a self-thinking, independent woman, but there's absolutely no consensus - even in the feminist communities - on what makes an independent man. Why are men leaving their children behind? Why are they dying at a younger age? Why are they killing themselves? Why are they being laughed at when raped? Why are they forced into aggressive environments like gangs, prisons, and war? These are issues interconnected with the struggle for female liberation, but at the same time, men need to feel like they have people caring for them. It needs to be a mutual struggle.

And frankly just ignoring the issue will have the adverse effect of making men reactionary. It's a question of either incorporating these issues into the movement for gender equality or stagnating indefinitely.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

23rd November 2009, 00:40

Invader Zim

23rd November 2009, 00:54

The whole premise of this case in favor of "father's rights" is essentially...

Which aspect of "father's rights"? As noted, I agree with you on the issue of woman's right to expect financial aid, regardless of willingness, from the father of their child. However I think there is a legitimate case to be made on behalf of some men who are stripped of their right to have reasonable, if any, contact hours with their children.

bcbm

23rd November 2009, 01:03

I was bringing up these industries because they are considerably more dangerous than all other professions and because men predominantly occupy these jobs even today.
which is relevant to the issue of deadbeat moms (what you were talking about when you brought this up) how, exactly?

Il Medico

23rd November 2009, 01:31

What category does this fall into. If a man is caught staying at home to care for children, he is looked at as less of a man? If a man is seen as emotional, he is seen as less of a man.

The society is built for Manly Men against woman and other who don't fit into the stereotypical male gender role. Men are never oppressed because they are men, but because they "act like women".

23rd November 2009, 02:29

Which aspect of "father's rights"? As noted, I agree with you on the issue of woman's right to expect financial aid, regardless of willingness, from the father of their child. However I think there is a legitimate case to be made on behalf of some men who are stripped of their right to have reasonable, if any, contact hours with their children.

As I said, the entire premise of organizing men, on the basis that they are men, to fight for their ‘rights’ as men. The only time, in my opinion, that revolutionary leftists are correct to express solidarity and support for groups which organize on an “identity” basis other than class is when the group in question is oppressed/discriminated against on an “identity” basis (e.g. ethnic minorities, women, LGBTQ community, etc.). Men are not oppressed on the basis that they are men, so I don’t support them organizing on the basis that they are men, to fight for men’s rights any more than I support whites organizing on the basis that they are white to fight for white peoples’ rights. None of this is to imply that working class white men are not oppressed; they certainly are. But they are oppressed directly because of their class, not because of their sex or because of their race; on the contrary, they are generally privileged on the basis of their sex and their race in comparison to working class women and to working class people of color.
So, to be clear, I am not opposed to groups which are not organized on an identity basis but which seek to make the entire process of separation and child support (etc.) better for all involved. I am, however, opposed to groups which are not oppressed on the basis of identity organizing on the basis of identity, to lobby for ‘rights’ for their particular non-oppressed identity group.

Meridian

23rd November 2009, 22:22

The society is built for Manly Men against woman and other who don't fit into the stereotypical male gender role. Men are never oppressed because they are men, but because they "act like women".
I get your points, and I do not directly disagree. I wonder, though, how you can say it like it was some sort of theorem? Is it not concievable that, hypotethically, an instance would occur in which a male or a group of males are oppressed because they are, in fact, males?

If we are blind to the possibility of this, then the idea of gender equality is far off.

. Men are not oppressed on the basis that they are men, so I don’t support them organizing on the basis that they are men, to fight for men’s rights any more than I support whites organizing on the basis that they are white to fight for white peoples’ rights. None of this is to imply that working class white men are not oppressed; they certainly are. But they are oppressed directly because of their class, not because of their sex or because of their race; on the contrary, they are generally privileged on the basis of their sex and their race in comparison to working class women and to working class people of color.
Maybe if I'd not seen t-shirts for young girls in H&M proclaiming that "Boys are great, every girl should own one", I'd be more willing to accept your premise that males are never discriminated against for being males. I am saying males because I know how much boys are falling behind in school, in many western nations, and are often categorized as having learning disabilities. The reason is frankly because it caters more towards girls. Your premise is rendered false.

What I want is equality for the sexes when it comes to means. This can in reality only come through ending capitalism. Until then I will support any group fighting for equality. Doing anything else is reactionary.

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

23rd November 2009, 23:22

Males and whites and heterosexuals and even Christians are discriminated against through whatever "ism" affords an appropriate definition - it's just that there's a false perception on RevLeft that society (and thus its institutions) are entirely monolithic. One only has to look at how racist attitudes and behaviors exist between demographics commonly perceived to be oppressed to see the myth shatter. It's not that the oppression faced by homosexuals is on level with that faced by heterosexuals, however.

Class oppression precludes all other forms of oppression. Racism, sexism, and what have you follow the existence of a class system. East Asia is a great illustration of this because many of the prejudices there (although not all) were not initiated by European colonialism. It then follows that when the class system witnesses these mechanicisms erode - in this case on the large scale, but it can also be in small communities - it's possible that the historically oppressive group can be oppressed. After all it's not that the heterosexual white male is more "evil." It's the way class system manifested over the course of a thousand years. Whether significant or not, the bourgeoisie has diversified in recent decades and the relationship between oppressor and oppressed have become more complex.

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

23rd November 2009, 23:32

The society is built for Manly Men against woman and other who don't fit into the stereotypical male gender role. Men are never oppressed because they are men, but because they "act like women".

The ideal alpha male in many parts of the developed world is one who is promiscuous and not committed to any one woman. This runs contrary to other notions of "manly" men being faithful bread earners. Both sentiments are expressed by men and women in regards to what a man "should be." And now there's a growing community of men who are much more "feminine" and accepted into society as "real men."

h0m0revolutionary

24th November 2009, 14:04

The ideal alpha male in many parts of the developed world is one who is promiscuous and not committed to any one woman. This runs contrary to other notions of "manly" men being faithful bread earners. Both sentiments are expressed by men and women in regards to what a man "should be." And now there's a growing community of men who are much more "feminine" and accepted into society as "real men."

Yes, there are many images of men as different things and different expectations of men as men. But that doesn't refute the fact that men are not discrimminated against because of their sex.

I think you're right to suggest that there exist many self-defined, cis-gendered men who act in ways contreary to the stereotypical image of macho man. But this in no way invalidates the fact that men in society experience discirmmination based on their gender presentation, their sexuality, disability status, class and a whole range of other criteria, their sex however, is not one of those criteria.

The idea that we defend men's right to congregate as men for male liberation is wholly reactionary and belittles the very real fight for women's/trans/gender varient liberation.

Invader Zim

24th November 2009, 14:25

Men are not oppressed on the basis that they are men

That certainly is true. But in this instance I think there is an argument to be made that there is a pre-existing assumption within society, based on outmoded gender roles, that men make inferior parents regardless of actual ability. Not only is this assumption bad for the children in question when it comes to the issue of assigning custody, but it is also unfair to the male parents. I also think in this issue these men are not arguing for rights as men, but individual rights when it comes to particular disparities within family law.

h0m0revolutionary

24th November 2009, 14:31

In general, that certainly is true. But in this instance I think there is an argument to be made that men are discriminated against because there is a pre-existing assumption within society, based on outmoded gender roles, that men make inferior parents regardless of actual ability. Not only is this assumption bad for the children in question, but it is also unfair on the parents particularly the men.

Which stems from an assumption that females are child-rearers and better able to look after children, because child-rearing is their responcibility.

This isn't an illustration of anti-male bias within the judicial/child-support system. It's an example of sexist myths regarding the bringing-up of children that is prepetuated by the pro-nuclear family, sex-negative, conservative class who want women to continue raising the next generation of worker at minimal cost to the bourgeoise.

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

24th November 2009, 19:02

which has no relevancy to the fact users are purposely overlooking how sex stereotypes are harmful towards a lot/most men and need to be addressed as such without users plugging their ears and sticking their heads in the mud.

The idea that we defend men's right to congregate as men for male liberation is wholly reactionary and belittles the very real fight for women's/trans/gender varient liberation.

.

No, it doesn't. The charge of it being reactionary has only been established through rhetorical games like what constitutes "sexism" versus bigotry. (Interestingly enough, even when conversations about bigotry towards men are made with language devoid of the word "sexism," they're still derided as "reactionary." Fuck my life)

And Jazz, kisses for the rep. Hope chocolate isn't an allergen.

bcbm

24th November 2009, 19:11

which has no relevancy to the fact users are purposely overlooking how sex stereotypes are harmful towards a lot/most men and need to be addressed as such without users plugging their ears and sticking their heads in the mud.

gender stereotypes are harmful to everyone and this is why we need to destroy the social category of "gender," not organize for "men's rights."

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

24th November 2009, 19:22

Of course, but when looking at sex rather than gender, it's impossible to ignore "male" and "female." I don't think anyone on RevLeft (hopefully...) would disagree with the notion that only by destroying gender roles can the individual (and the sexes in general) be free.

If distinguishing between "bigotry" and "sexism" is the main conflict here, then I'll concede that their origins are different just to move this thread forward. It's not that I'm ignorant of the differences between social discrimination resulting from class issues and discrimination resulting from other factors like cultural isolation, but I don't define "sexism" as the former. However, like I said, we'll move beyond that since it's just rhetorical disagreements. I recognize that the class structure has established conditions where women are oppressed and only as a consequence do men suffer from their wives/sisters/daughters being in a subserviant position related to the means of production. In fact this set up - when established for working-class families - hurts husbands since the oppression of women is primarily used to benefit capitalist men who have no regard for the notion of two incomes. My interest, however, has not been trying to prove men are equally devestated, but rather just to observe and correct the effects on men. I am not arguing the situation for men and women is the same, but rather that when a man is stripped of his children and belittled for being raped, there needs to be focus on destroying "male gender roles" as well as "female gender roles." My thesis is that you can't just destroy one gender role and expect the other one to evaporate - indeed so long as there is a defined "masculinity," there will always be an ideal "female." We must pinch both gender roles at the same time, and that also means attacking those negative effects felt by men.

I hope that was more clear.

Oh, and "male liberation" is a ridiculous phrase, but "male awareness" and "male rights" sound about right.

bcbm

24th November 2009, 19:29

what do the sex categories "male" and "female" have to do with the stereotypes you're mentioning, which are based in gender? they're social problems, not problems intrinsic to your genitals.

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

24th November 2009, 19:50

what do the sex categories "male" and "female" have to do with the stereotypes you're mentioning, which are based in gender? they're social problems, not problems intrinsic to your genitals.

I was just stating the obvious: gender roles were and continue to be defined around sex.

bcbm

24th November 2009, 20:10

I was just stating the obvious: gender roles were and continue to be defined around sex.

why?

Oh, and "male liberation" is a ridiculous phrase, but "male awareness" and "male rights" sound about right.

given what you say in your preceding paragraph, "destroy gender because it fucks everyone" sounds a bit better.

Invader Zim

25th November 2009, 11:50

Which stems from an assumption that females are child-rearers and better able to look after children, because child-rearing is their responcibility.

Having re-read this statement I am still at a loss as to just what part of it you think contradicts anything I said in my post. Care to enlighten me?

This isn't an illustration of anti-male bias within the judicial/child-support system. It's an example of sexist myths regarding the bringing-up of children that is prepetuated by the pro-nuclear family, sex-negative, conservative class who want women to continue raising the next generation of worker at minimal cost to the bourgeoise.

Well, I don't know about the latter; that strikes me as a particularly dubious theory that makes the fatal flaw in assuming that there is a specific planned motive that manifests itself as a coherant policy as opposed to an unconscious assumption, ingrained by society from the earliest of ages, regarding gender roles. Furthermore it also makes the even greater error of assuming that conservatives are alone in falling victim to these social constructs I would argue that the reality is that it is, in fact, a near (if not) ubiquitous problem within society.

But either way, contrary to what you suppose, it does clearly result in a bias that favours mothers in custody battles and many fathers are granted insufficent contact hours with their children by the courts, and naturally they object to that. Whether you choose to accept it doesn't alter the fact that it is a reality. It strikes me, though I could be wrong, that you are under the mistaken impression that gender stereotypes have a one way negative influence.

The Red Next Door

27th November 2009, 23:10

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

28th November 2009, 07:16

The father should have the right to see his kids but as when come to the issue of pro-choice like Apikoros said dudes choice was the condom and the fuckers should of choose to use one instead using i am gonna pull it out before i come bullshit rule. But it all depends, we should based the right for the mother and father to see their children on how well have they took care of them and they the effort of being their child support. this issue goes both ways.

The right to abort should forever remain a female affair - assuming men don't biologically engineer themselves for pregnancy in the future, ha.

But financially caring for a child - in fact, all human beings - is the responcibility of society, not one individual. And that relates to father or mother. We're talking about sex, not rape. It's a mutual decision. And the idea only men decide to forgo protective measures for pleasure or convenience is so blatantly false that it's not worth even addressing (outside of this little rant..)

h0m0revolutionary

28th November 2009, 11:26

.. there is a specific planned motive that manifests itself as a coherant policy as opposed to an unconscious assumption, ingrained by society from the earliest of ages, regarding gender roles. Furthermore it also makes the even greater error of assuming that conservatives are alone in falling victim to these social constructs I would argue that the reality is that it is, in fact, a near (if not) ubiquitous problem within society.

Oh I agree. Genedered roles, have long pre-dated capitalism. My point was only that they serve a specific function under capitalism and are untouchable for that very reason. As an illustration of this, in the Gender Recognition Act, as in every 'Trans rights' legislation to come form the British Parliament, Trans is identitfied very specifically. One can only be trans, according tot he government, if they transition, with a sex change (which is bad enough) and from one set gender to another rigid gender identification.

Of course gendered roles/values and norms are a problem endemic in society. Sadly, nobody could suggest gender doesn't have a huge bearing on many peoples lives. Despite the false dualism offered by the male-female binary.

...it does clearly result in a bias that favours mothers in custody battles and many fathers are granted insufficent contact hours with their children by the courts, and naturally they object to that. Whether you choose to accept it doesn't alter the fact that it is a reality. It strikes me, though I could be wrong, that you are under the mistaken impression that gender stereotypes have a one way negative influence.

It's not contreary to what I am saying. yes the state in this one way (and i'm hard pressed to think of another example) does benefit females*. But the reason it does so, isn't because of entrenched anti-male bias, it comes from the sexist notion, ingrained in society and the state (better? :P) that women are better able to raise children in virtue of having a uterus 0_o.

I don't see how far we disagree then, I imagine, though I hope i'm wrong, that you would label this a battle worth fighting, march under the banner of 'fathers rights'. Whereas I view this as a feminist cause, and nothing more than an illustration that females cannot be alone in their fight for liberation because men are as much a part a fight given they too will benefit.

*not that gender is the primary concern in this instance, i can't imagine a bi/lesbian, disabled person or black woman standing the same chance against a cis-gendered, heterosexual, able-bodied male partner..

pastradamus

28th November 2009, 11:47

This is absurd! The man has his choice, it's called a condom. Seriously. He can't just say after he gets a woman pregnant, "oh, I don't want it now" and then not have to pay child support. Seriously, what the hell.

No, Im sorry but no.

People have this idea in their head, that when one uses a condom than its impossible for a woman to become pregnant. Condoms are fantastic in theory but I've had to run for the morning after pill on a number of occasions after using condoms. I dont buy into all this bullshit about them being 99.9999999999999999999999999% effective and all that shit. I understand your point but just had to hit on this issue.

Offhand, MEN SHOULD SUPPORT THE CHILD THEY CREATED. THEY SHOULD ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT TO CUSTODY OF THE CHILD ON A FAIR AND EVEN BASIS.

h0m0revolutionary

28th November 2009, 12:03

People have this idea in their head, that when one uses a condom than its impossible for a woman to become pregnant. Condoms are fantastic in theory but I've had to run for the morning after pill on a number of occasions after using condoms. I dont buy into all this bullshit about them being 99.9999999999999999999999999% effective and all that shit.

Sorry im with Apikoros on this one.
She, like I, am not saying that condoms are 100% effective. Condoms are 96-98% effective, with incorrect usage accounting for the majority of occurances of torn condoms. I don't think that's contentious.

But a man, having engaged in that sexual relation, regardless of contreception used, absolutely has the obligation to support that child.

So as far as I can see, you don't disagree substantially with Apikoros, only that condoms aren't perfect. The point is that men should raise children whatever circumstances conception occurs - if the baby is theirs and they were involved in the sexual act that created the conditions for conception..

MEN SHOULD SUPPORT THE CHILD THEY CREATED.
Yes.

THEY SHOULD ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT TO CUSTODY OF THE CHILD ON A FAIR AND EVEN BASIS
Yes, but this isn't an example of men being discrimminated against because of their gender. It's an example of women being labelled, unfairly, as beter able to rear children because of sexist myths of women as nurturing, gentle and vulnerable.

pastradamus

28th November 2009, 12:37

Sorry im with Apikoros on this one.
She, like I, am not saying that condoms are 100% effective. Condoms are 96-98% effective, with incorrect usage accounting for the majority of occurances of torn condoms. I don't think that's contentious.

But a man, having engaged in that sexual relation, regardless of contreception used, absolutely has the obligation to support that child.

So as far as I can see, you don't disagree substantially with Apikoros, only that condoms aren't perfect. The point is that men should raise children whatever circumstances conception occurs - if the baby is theirs and they were involved in the sexual act that created the conditions for conception..

OH yes of course. I've good time for that poster. I was simply disagreeing with the condom issue. Im not the type to run out on a woman if I make her pregnant or nothing. Im absolutely against that. But off that, I believe a man has a right to custody of a child he created as well as the mother. I dont accept this view in modern conservative politics that somehow seems to say that Mothers are more capable of loving children then fathers and so renumerates them better on the basis of this view.

Meridian

28th November 2009, 13:06

Yes, but this isn't an example of men being discrimminated against because of their gender. It's an example of women being labelled, unfairly, as beter able to rear children because of sexist myths of women as nurturing, gentle and vulnerable.
How can you distinguish between the two? It is, in fact, an example of men being discriminated against. It is men who are labelled as unfit to bring up children. You said it yourself, women are labelled as better able to rear children. In the case you mentioned, depending on your point of view, it is men who are discriminated against. That is not to say that the gender bias is good, though.

ZeroNowhere

28th November 2009, 13:15

Yes, but this isn't an example of men being discrimminated against because of their gender. It's an example of women being labelled, unfairly, as beter able to rear children because of sexist myths of women as nurturing, gentle and vulnerable.I'm rather curious as to how men being less favoured in a decision based on being seen as lesser child-rearers due to being male is not men being discriminated against because of their gender. I don't see why its origins in myths about females being child-rearers has anything to do with whether or not the males are being discriminated against in this instance.

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

28th November 2009, 19:09

I don't see how far we disagree then, I imagine, though I hope i'm wrong, that you would label this a battle worth fighting, march under the banner of 'fathers rights'. Whereas I view this as a feminist cause, and nothing more than an illustration that females cannot be alone in their fight for liberation because men are as much a part a fight given they too will benefit.

Because in this particular example men come out with the short stick. It's not as if any parent is obligated to take on the child, but it's often the case that the two partners will pursue guardianship with the expectation of distance.

29th November 2009, 00:46

@pastradamus:
So let's see what I said in context:

Originally Posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1604147#post1604147)
This is not "father's rights" but I do think there should be a period after pregnancy where men can voice their objections to having a child and avoid future child support payments. This always gets me in big trouble. I don't know why. Technically, women get a choice after the pregnancy happens. I don't see why men shouldn't.This is absurd! The man has his choice, it's called a condom. Seriously. He can't just say after he gets a woman pregnant, "oh, I don't want it now" and then not have to pay child support. Seriously, what the hell.

You responded to me by saying the following:

No, Im sorry but no.

People have this idea in their head, that when one uses a condom than its impossible for a woman to become pregnant. Condoms are fantastic in theory but I've had to run for the morning after pill on a number of occasions after using condoms. I dont buy into all this bullshit about them being 99.9999999999999999999999999% effective and all that shit. I understand your point but just had to hit on this issue.

Offhand, MEN SHOULD SUPPORT THE CHILD THEY CREATED. THEY SHOULD ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT TO CUSTODY OF THE CHILD ON A FAIR AND EVEN BASIS.

Well, in spite of your comment seemingly having absolutely no relation to what I was responding to whatsoever, it would seem safe to assume that since you are objecting to my disagreement with Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor, that you must agree with his comment:

Originally Posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1604147#post1604147)
This is not "father's rights" but I do think there should be a period after pregnancy where men can voice their objections to having a child and avoid future child support payments. This always gets me in big trouble. I don't know why. Technically, women get a choice after the pregnancy happens. I don't see why men shouldn't.Is that a correct inference? Or have you not actually bothered to read the context in which my comment was made? I'm banking on the latter.

pastradamus

29th November 2009, 11:31

You responded to me by saying the following:

Well, in spite of your comment seemingly having absolutely no relation to what I was responding to whatsoever, it would seem safe to assume that since you are objecting to my disagreement with Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor, that you must agree with his comment:

Is that a correct inference? Or have you not actually bothered to read the context in which my comment was made? I'm banking on the latter.

Had you read my reply to Homorevolutionary you'd see that I cleared up that issue and was agreeing mostly with what you said. Im not accepting DAB's point so dont bother with that shite.

redcom90

29th November 2009, 13:08

gorillafuck

29th November 2009, 16:14

Pregnancy by default should be discouraged
What? Why?

redcom90

29th November 2009, 16:47

What? Why?

Do you seriously have to ask why a woman wouldn’t like to be a walking incubator for 9 months? Do you seriously have to ask why a woman wouldn't want to go through child-birth?

I don’t like having to repeat myself, so next time read my post and save me some time. Pregnancy is long, physically inconvenient and physically damaging. Child-birth is often painful and humiliating. The extent to which a woman is able to be an independent earner in capitalist society is linked to her rejection of having a family. Women often throw-away their financial independence/future career to have a child. There’s a reason why pregnant women are praised in capitalist society. There’s also a reason why abortion rates were high in socialist countries and the average child per couple was lower than average versus comparable countries; female emancipation inevitably includes a critique of the family and of pregnancy itself.

29th November 2009, 17:09

Condoms and birth control pills are very effective at preventing pregnancy. But when you consider (a) the number of people whom have sex a year and (b) the number of times each person has sex, then even if its effectiveness is 99%, it’s inevitable that there will be tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of unwanted pregnancies. Frankly the person who said the man should just ‘double up’ or get a ‘vasectomy’ or just avoid having sex altogether is proliferating a deeply conservative view which is encouraging of patriarchal relations.
Look, another person ignoring the context of my comment. The comment was in the context of someone suggesting that men should have the choice to excuse themselves from any financial responsibility immediately after impregnating a woman. I responded that the man's choice is to wear a condom. It was pointed out that, as everyone knows, condoms present the very marginal risk of breaking. I responded to this by suggesting other, admittedly crude, alternatives. Obviously the man can also make sure that he is only sexually intimate with women who are also using a diaphragm and taking oral birth control. Any risk that may still exist is a risk to both parties involved.

Neither party of course, is as agreed, is at fault. It’s just a statistical inevitability. The man shouldn’t be any more responsible for ‘doubling up’ or getting a vasectomy any more than the woman getting her tubes tied. Women, because they are the ones whom are pregnant, have the ultimate choice of abortion, however.Of course, when one enters the universe known as Reality, it is hardly that simple. There are numerous factors which inhibit a woman's ability to receive an abortion. Financial issues, legal issues, social stigma issues, the list goes on and on.

If a man gets a woman pregnant where they were having safe sex, and the woman refuses to get an abortion and wants to raise the child, then her recourse to complain about the costs of raising that child is limited. Capitalist society, which requires men to help pay the cost of raising an unwanted child, is specifically designed to discourage abortion and for women to remain child-bearers and raisers, i.e. to specifically perpetuate patriarchy. Implying as you are that a woman who was impregnated unintentionally but doesn't receive an abortion must be doing so because she wants to have the child ignores the reality of the vast majority of working class women, of course.

Any socialist worth their weight would put the costs of raising the child not on the man, but on the state, as raising a child should primarily be a social cost. The costs which the man should be required to pay, if any, are his share of the costs of the abortion. Obviously I think that abortions should be provided free by the state. And in the meantime? As it stands, the state does not pay for raising children, the state does not offer free abortion. Are you suggesting that men should not have to pay child support anyway?

Yes, that should encourage abortion which is a GOOD thing, because even if she did have the baby and the man paid child support her position in society would be one of a mother, a child-raiser which is one of severe disadvantage. Being pregnant is a long and very physically inconvenient and often humiliating process. Child-birth is often painful and has negative long-term health effects.In addition to the fact that (assuming we're dealing with working class women) the woman will in the majority of situations be working at least one full time job to pay for the costs of raising the child, and it is a statistical fact that women are paid substantially less than men who do the same exact job in the same exact position with the same exact qualifications.

Lastly, the views which were encouraged in this thread I would expect to see from a conservative holding anti-sex views. People should be able to have sex without even the slightest possibility of putting themselves in a position of severe financial burden/sacrifice of their future. People should be able to have sex without even the slightest possibility of physical pain and humiliation. People have either sided with a clearly misogynist view point in this thread i.e. the advocates of 'father's rights' or have sided with a perspective which, although might seem 'fair', is at best hardly radical and at worst justification for a woman's role as being nothing more than a baby-producing machine.So what method of birth control has a 0% risk of malfunctioning? If you want to be super careful, use multiple methods of birthcontrol. If you can't handle the tiny, tiny, tiny chance of pregnancy that still exists even when condom + diaphragm + oral birth control is used simultaneously, I don't know what to tell you. But the answer isn't to fight against child support payments ffs. Talk about perpetuating patriarchy. :rolleyes:

redcom90

29th November 2009, 18:11

Implying as you are that a woman who was impregnated unintentionally but doesn't receive an abortion must be doing so because she wants to have the child ignores the reality of the vast majority of working class women, of course. If we’re talking about the West, then yes, most women have children because they have made a CHOICE to have them (either to continue with an unwanted pregnancy or for a planned pregnancy), however distorted that choice is by capitalist culture. Hundreds of thousands of women in the US every year make the opposite decision and have an abortion. Undoubtedly, society today makes them want to have a child; motherhood is celebrated as the most important job, abortion might not be covered by medical insurance, abortion is depicted as a sinful act etc. On the other hand, if they do get pregnant; maternity leave is sometimes available; benefits from the state are available. And YES, if your partner doesn’t support you, then the state can make him pay maintenance. Clearly capitalist society encourages women to have babies, the point is to question why and examine what women can actually do about it. The vast majority of women (around 55% from memory) who do have abortions, when questioned why, state that they simply don’t want a child. Financial considerations come in at next, at around 20%.
And in the meantime? As it stands, the state does not pay for raising children, the state does not offer free abortion. Not exactly correct. Numerous countries offer benefits for mothers who raise children, just like they offer benefits for independent full-time students and so on. But no state AFAIK has made child-raising a social responsibility, rather than one for mother.
Are you suggesting that men should not have to pay child support anyway? I’m suggesting that in the meantime women take control of what they can take control of: their own bodies and their choice to exercise abortion. If we are talking about America, considering that you want to avoid hypothetical situations, abortion is available. Not free, but available. People might not like to hear it, but having an abortion is going to be a far better financial and social decision, if that's what people here are concerned about, rather than relying on men to pay maintenance.
In addition to the fact that (assuming we're dealing with working class women) the woman will in the majority of situations be working at least one full time job to pay for the costs of raising the child, and it is a statistical fact that women are paid substantially less than men who do the same exact job in the same exact position with the same exact qualifications. AFAIK, this isn’t a statistical fact at all. Women in the West don’t face income disparity simply by not being paid the exact same for the same job with the same qualifications. Such discrimination would run afoul of various anti-discrimination laws. RATHER, it’s the fact that women are employed in types of jobs (sometimes called Pink Collar Jobs) which STATISTICALLY offer lower wages; hairdressers, secretaries, waitresses, nurses etc. Rarely, if ever, today will you see a man and a woman who work the same job and the woman getting less simply because she’s a woman. The jobs typically expected of women, the types of skill expected for those jobs, the fact that they're often part-time, the fact that women are expected to run families too, these are the pertinent elements to income disparity. Inequality is far more complex than simply not being paid the same amount for the same job, which really isn't an issue today as it was 50 odd years ago. You as the moderator of the women’s forum should have at least have a clue about this.
So what method of birth control has a 0% risk of malfunctioning? I’m glad you’ve got the point. Its called abortion. You know, it was somewhat the crux of my post.

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

30th November 2009, 03:05

People have either sided with a clearly misogynist view point in this thread i.e. the advocates of 'father's rights' I love how the term misogynist is thrown around on the forum as a paper weight with no real clarifications or purpose. It's now just a term you use when someone disagrees with you on gender politics. Everyone is a misogynist now, hooplah.

I don't see child care as a proactive way of discouraging abortions when the guardian still pays most of the bills even if the father or mother (who, statistically, skip out on child care payments more often than men - probably due to lower wages and a belief women don't have to help men) feeds a portion of their checks into the costs. An abortion runs anywhere from $300-$1,000 (excluding late term care) and organizations like Planned Parenthood cater towards the poor through deferred payments and even subsidies. A child costs more than that in six months.

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

30th November 2009, 03:53

Do you seriously have to ask why a woman wouldn’t like to be a walking incubator for 9 months? Do you seriously have to ask why a woman wouldn't want to go through child-birth?

That's not the question. It related to why you want to dissuade all women from being pregnant when that is just as wrong as dissuading abortion or alternative routes. Your argument of societal causation being the main culprit is false. Even in a society that frowns upon pregnancy prior to mid-20s numerous women will have the urge for a baby in their teens. The questioned pertain to women in general and not "a woman."

here’s also a reason why abortion rates were high in socialist countries and the average child per couple was lower than average versus comparable countries;Yeah, because we all know a negative growth rate is wonderful...

female emancipation inevitably includes a critique of ... pregnancy itself.No it doesn't. Ignoring the fact reproduction is an ingrained desire for almost every organism in a sexual population, your way would only lead to disaster as there would not be any youth to care for the elderly and continue on our species. I'm not particularly fond of extinction.

redcom90

1st December 2009, 06:07

I love how the term misogynist is thrown around on the forum as a paper weight with no real clarifications or purpose. It's now just a term you use when someone disagrees with you on gender politics. Everyone is a misogynist now, hooplah. Not really. I call someone a misogynist whey they’re a sexist. Is that clear? My purpose is to point out that the there is nothing radical or progressive about the person. Is that clear? No one claimed that everyone was a misogynist, but people like you who talk about father’s rights or male right’s, who claim that white heterosexual males are discriminated against, are just sexists disguised as progressives. I’m genuinely surprised that you’re not restricted, because I’d expect your sort of views from a Republican.
Males and whites and heterosexuals and even Christians are discriminated against through whatever "ism" affords an appropriate definition - it's just that there's a false perception on RevLeft that society (and thus its institutions) are entirely monolithic. Clearly you don’t understand what discrimination is and/or how it as a term is employed by communists. The sort of discrimination which leftists are concerned with is social discrimination which results in the oppression of a certain demographic. Males face no social discrimination which oppresses them. Heterosexuals face no social discrimination which oppresses them. White people face no social discrimination which oppresses them. On the contrary, white heterosexual males are the most privileged social group in society. I’m surprised I even need to point this out on a leftist site.

Not only does your statement that white heterosexual males are discriminated against have no basis in reality, its fundamentally offensive because it derides actual discrimination and oppression, not some middle-class white male being called a cracker by a black person. How about you read about the several hundred years of slavery, the ghettos, the denial of black people from even the most basic civil rights, the denial of black people from access to the most basic services, a system of police brutality, a system which structurally perpetuates poverty. Then come back, and we can talk about how white people are discriminated against.
One only has to look at how racist attitudes and behaviors exist between demographics commonly perceived to be oppressed to see the myth shatter.The only myth this shatters is one you’ve invented in your brain.

The fact that an oppressed demographic holds racist attitudes is neither surprising nor proof that white males are systematically discriminated against. Black South Africans under apartheid could be as racist as any white, but when they’re an oppressed demographic, i.e. when white people systematically enforce their privilege by denying black people positions or services in society, the so-called racism of blacks is insignificant because its not state enforced or have any structural component in society. When homosexuals face the potential of imprisonment or execution for being homosexual, the fact that they may dislike heterosexuals is irrelevant.

Clearly you don’t understand the difference between prejudices which may infect the individual, versus social discrimination which is often state enforced and has material repercussions. Sexism can be categorized between personal bigotry and institutional sexism. The latter is concerned with the social system which produces and perpetuates gender inequality. The former is just the personal bigotry of the individual. Women face both institutionalized inequality and personal bigotry. Men only, if ever, face the latter. You conflating the two is extremely dishonest and a typical tactic of the conservative right who like to moan about how white males are being oppressed when they’re actually the most privileged group in society.

There’s no doubt that you should be either banned or restricted. People here shouldn’t have to even read your bigoted nonsense.
It's not that the oppression faced by homosexuals is on level with that faced by heterosexuals, however. On the contrary, heterosexuals in regard to their heterosexuality aren’t faced with oppression at ALL (they may face other forms of oppression, but not as heterosexuals). When you have a state system, as well as cultural elements, which encourages and awards heterosexuality, then heterosexuals don’t face oppression by virtue of their heterosexuality. Please.
Racism, sexism, and what have you follow the existence of a class system. East Asia is a great illustration of this because many of the prejudices there (although not all) were not initiated by European colonialism. It then follows that when the class system witnesses these mechanicisms erode - in this case on the large scale, but it can also be in small communities - it's possible that the historically oppressive group can be oppressed. After all it's not that the heterosexual white male is more "evil." It's the way class system manifested over the course of a thousand years. Whether significant or not, the bourgeoisie has diversified in recent decades and the relationship between oppressor and oppressed have become more complex. This is only one great big straw-man that you’ve set up. No one here claimed that heterosexual white males are more ‘evil’. The fact that, for instance, black people may comprise the ruling class in an African country is no proof that black people in America aren’t oppressed. Your misrepresentations are pathetic and designed to cover up your sexism.
It's not that I'm ignorant of the differences between social discrimination resulting from class issues and discrimination resulting from other factors like cultural isolation, but I don't define "sexism" as the former. How surprising!
I recognize that the class structure has established conditions where women are oppressed and only as a consequence do men suffer from their wives/sisters/daughters being in a subserviant position related to the means of production. What nonsense; men don’t suffer as a consequence from their wives being oppressed. If they are oppressed, its by virtue of them either being a worker or some other form of social oppression. A man having a wife, i.e. a domestic servant, is one of advantage to him.

Engels wrote: In the great majority of cases today, at least in the possessing classes, the husband is obliged to earn a living and support his family, and that in itself gives him a position of supremacy, without any need for special legal titles and privileges. Within the family he is the bourgeois and the wife represents the proletariat. In the industrial world, the specific character of the economic oppression burdening the proletariat is visible in all its sharpness only when all special legal privileges of the capitalist class have been abolished and complete legal equality of both classes established. The democratic republic does not do away with the opposition of the two classes; on the contrary, it provides the clear field on which the fight can be fought out. And in the same way, the peculiar character of the supremacy of the husband over the wife in the modern family, the necessity of creating real social equality between them, and the way to do it, will only be seen in the clear light of day when both possess legally complete equality of rights. Then it will be plain that the first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and that this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society.
In fact this set up - when established for working-class families - hurts husbands since the oppression of women is primarily used to benefit capitalist men who have no regard for the notion of two incomes. Uh, not really.

Patriarchy isn’t simply designed to be used to benefit capitalist men, but rather the specific patriarchs – i.e. the father’s who have an interest in it. So far as patriarchy is concerned in capitalism, it was social relation that was substantially weakened under capitalist development; in the interests of capital, women were granted the right to work, vote and own property. There are also issues where capitalists support patriarchy, e.g. in order to provide a growing workforce.

Capitalist men, by virtue of their class status, don’t require a wife to function in their capacity as a capitalist. Because it is men whom are expected to earn a wage, it is the duty of the woman to sacrifice her financial independence or career in order to care for their children or to perform frivolous domestic tasks.
I don't see child care as a proactive way of discouraging abortions when the guardian still pays most of the bills even if the father or mother feeds a portion of their checks into the costs. I didn’t state it as a proactive way, but its still designed to discourage abortion because it provides a social back-up for the woman who wants to keep the child.
who, statistically, skip out on child care payments more often than men - probably due to lower wages and a belief women don't have to help men Unverified claim needs support. But considering that the vast, vast majority of women are the ones with child custody, when it IS the man who has child custody, there is probably some intervening factor why the woman doesn’t have custody, in which case its barely surprising that they wouldn’t pay for child-care, and such a statistic would be highly misleading if in the hands of a misogynist like you because it would be representative of only a minority of mothers, whereas the statistics of men who don’t pay child support actually depict the vast majority of men.
An abortion runs anywhere from $300-$1,000 (excluding late term care) and organizations like Planned Parenthood cater towards the poor through deferred payments and even subsidies. A child costs more than that in six months. Absolutely, which is why an abortion is a better decision for a woman to make and why its something that people actually interested in women’s emancipation should encourage, not sit on the side-lines.
It related to why you want to dissuade all women from being pregnant when that is just as wrong as dissuading abortion or alternative routes. What nonsense! Opposition to pregnancy in capitalist society is completely different to opposition to abortion. People who oppose abortion, i.e. conservative sexists who don’t see the woman as having any persona autonomy, can’t be compared to people who oppose pregnancy on the basis that in capitalist society having a child is one of the most damaging social and financial decisions a woman could make. Numerous feminists have pointed out the obvious disadvantages of being pregnant, Simone de Beauvoir described it as an experience of ‘profound alienation.’
Your argument of societal causation being the main culprit is false. From a sexist biological determinist, I wouldn’t expect anything less from you. As a Marxist, whilst you simply don’t ignore biological influences, you recognize that how society is economically structured is the most relevant factor. Beauvoir wrote that ‘It is obvious that females are biologically different from males in that only the female sex possesses the organs and functions of maternity. But it is not true that nature is responsible for the oppression of women; such degradation is exclusively the result of manmade institutions and laws in class-divided patriarchal society.’ Reproduction isn't excluded from materialist analysis.
Even in a society that frowns upon pregnancy prior to mid-20s numerous women will have the urge for a baby in their teens.Yes, and little girls have a natural disposition to play with dolls, right? It has absolutely nothing to do with the society in which they are brought up in, right?
Yeah, because we all know a negative growth rate is wonderful...Typically high growth rates are a sign of high infant mortality rates, a sign of poverty as the family requires a number of children so as to support the parents as they age, and also a sign of the position of women in society (i.e. to breed for the economic survival of the family). There’s a reason Cuba has consistently had a low population growth and a high abortion rate. In a society where women are not marginalized economically and hence socially, where there is no pressure for motherhood, the birth rate will naturally fall, because few women would want to subject themselves to the physical inconvenience of pregnancy and the pain of child-birth, let alone the responsibility and time of raising a child.
No it doesn’t. Ignoring the fact reproduction is an ingrained desire for almost every organism in a sexual population, your way would only lead to disaster as there would not be any youth to care for the elderly and continue on our species. I’m not particularly fond of extinction.What a joke. Address my actual points at least, rather than inventing ridiculous straw men and biological determinist arguments. Reproduction in society has always been fundamentally a social question, because humans are social creatures who thankfully are more complex than you depict. If a woman wants to reproduce, then primarily the person’s welfare who should be considered is that of the WOMAN. Pregnancy in order to simply continue on the human race or from some social utilitarian argument presents women as nothing more than breeders.
Child care is just a drop in the bucket. Much, much higher suicide rates; unfair treatment by the incarceration and justice system; warfare being predominantly a "male's duty"; lower educational achievements. Uh, warfare might be considered a predominantly ‘male’s duty’ (as if anyone here campaigns for gender equality in imperialist armies). But its women and children who suffer the most from war. Women and children make up the majority of casualties from war. Women and children make up the majority of refugees. It is women who are the ones who are raped by enemy soldiers. And when women DO join armies, they are subject to sexual harassment and bigotry from male soldiers.

So fuck you for even suggesting that warfare is 'sexist' towards men.

So far as educational standards are concerned, women sometimes make up a majority of students in certain disciplines in universities. However, numerous studies have shown the extent to which that matters; despite women making up either an equal or a majority composition of certain disciplines (for instance, law), the proportion of professional females is STILL underrepresented. The proportion is even lower at the higher end of town, i.e. the CEOs or partners. So yes, women often make up a majority in certain disciplines in universities – its because they understand that they need to be more qualified than their male counterpart to even be considered. And even when they are qualified, many women give up their careers to care for their children.

So far as suicide is concerned, it is women who attempt suicide on a far higher basis them men; it is just that men are the ones who actually succeed.

The fact of the matter is that for all your crying about the grievances males face, its simply a fact that feminism, whilst certainly arguing that the sexes should be equal, has far more to offer women than men. That is hardly surprising because it is women who are the ones who are disadvantaged in society. It is no coincidence that some men are actively opposed to the privileges which an equal communist society would deprive them of.

1st December 2009, 07:08

AFAIK, this isn’t a statistical fact at all. Women in the West don’t face income disparity simply by not being paid the exact same for the same job with the same qualifications. Such discrimination would run afoul of various anti-discrimination laws. RATHER, it’s the fact that women are employed in types of jobs (sometimes called Pink Collar Jobs) which STATISTICALLY offer lower wages; hairdressers, secretaries, waitresses, nurses etc. Rarely, if ever, today will you see a man and a woman who work the same job and the woman getting less simply because she’s a woman.
Ignore that it happens to be from the NY Times (:rolleyes:):
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/03/01/business/20090301_WageGap.html

black magick hustla

1st December 2009, 07:26

apikoros, i agree with most of what you say but if abortion is completely legalized, do you think it is right to expect child support? idk, i just find it really bad that some highschool kid had sex with a girl after a few drinks only to realize later he is baby's daddy. i mean, what if he doesnt want the baby, and abortion is legal, but the girl is a christian prude. obviously the guy cant force her to abort, but by the same token, wouldnt it make sense to say that if she doesnt want to abort she should not be entitled to anything?

you can say, well he could have used a condom. well, the girl could have used a condom, pill, etc. you can say well it was the choice ofthe guy to have sex with a christian prude, but it was also her choice to open her legs.

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

1st December 2009, 07:30

Ignore that it happens to be from the NY Times (:rolleyes:):
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/03/01/business/20090301_WageGap.html

Er, I know this wasn't addressed towards me, but you should probably pick a source that doesn't assert, "discrimination as well as personal choices within occupations are two major factors, and part of the gap can be attributed to men having more years of experience and logging more hours."

Wage discrimination based on sex certainly does exist, that I won't deny. I believe there was an incident with Wal-Mart underpaying thousands of its female employees a few months ago; however, I do agree that the debate over wage disparity needs to be broken down, because raw discrimination between equal labor is increasingly rare and met with public outrage (as said incident demonstrates). I would also assume any company that now looks at disparity favorabley is doing so as a way to compensate for maternity leave more than consciously promoting the idea women aren't equals. At least that's what I've heard while talking to a few female business majors and entrepreneurs.

The real issue is much more subtle and ingrained in the general lifestyle differences of women and men - which in turn affects why women select lower-paying professions that also have less general requirements, whereas men will take on jobs that require more hours in the work place. (Allowing time for women to take care of the home, of course. Sigh.) This disparity also leads to a curious situation where women will make less money (on average) and be the victims of sexual violence, but men will be less healthy or in danger of dying earlier on.

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

1st December 2009, 07:50

Not really. I call someone a misogynist whey they’re a sexist. Is that clear? My purpose is to point out that the there is nothing radical or progressive about the person. Is that clear? No one claimed that everyone was a misogynist, but people like you who talk about father’s rights or male right’s, who claim that white heterosexual males are discriminated against, are just sexists disguised as progressives. I’m genuinely surprised that you’re not restricted, because I’d expect your sort of views from a Republican.

[...]

rather than inventing ridiculous straw men Critiquing alleged logical fallacies by poisoning the well.

and/or how it as a term is employed by communists.So by admitting that there are different definitions of discrimination you render this entire debate useless. Like I said, I'm not interested in petty rhetorical discussions over the differences of racism and bigotry, just as I don't care for the debates where capitalists define capitalism one way and communists define it using different terms and the whole argument becomes one of etymology instead of substance.

Besides, I've already acknowledged the differences between bigotry that results from a class system and bigotry that results from cultural isolation, so please do spare me of the lectures. I am just pointing out that it's a continuous curiosity that when a user does bring up a reactionary view held against whites (which I am "half"), Christians (which I'm not), or males (which I am), the person is told to shut up. Believing men should individually care for a child he doesn't want when socialists support social guardianship and autonomy for childless parents is the antithesis of everything else related to gender politics and some of the remarks in this thread (" he should have slapped a condom on") are reactionary to the core.

not some middle-class white male being called a cracker by a black person.Or better yet, an example from a different thread:

When black rioters in LA attacked the white truck driver Reginald Denny and later admitted their actions had only to do with the color of his skin, it was an act of racism, full stop. Beating the shit out of someone to the point he will forever be designated a cripple is certainly an instance of depriving "rights."

The sort of discrimination which leftists are concerned with is social discrimination which results in the oppression of a certain demographic.I'm interested in all forms of discrimination, not the parameters you want to establish.

Clearly you don’t understand the difference between prejudices which may infect the individual, versus social discrimination which is often state enforced and has material repercussions.Like I said, I've already distinguished between the two. Get back to me when you actually read up on my politics instead of touting the all-too-popular line of purposefully misinterpreting my posts. I care about both.

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

1st December 2009, 08:18

Your misrepresentations are pathetic and designed to cover up your sexism. Lol, you're too kind.

But considering that the vast, vast majority of women are the ones with child custody, when it IS the man who has child custody, there is probably some intervening factor why the woman doesn’t have custody, in which case its barely surprising that they wouldn’t pay for child-care, and such a statistic would be highly misleading if in the hands of a misogynist like you because it would be representative of only a minority of mothers, whereas the statistics of men who don’t pay child support actually depict the vast majority of men.M'kay. Again you poison the well by saying anything I post is an example of misogyny. Wonderful deductions. I don't believe in the concept of child support, especially when it applies to a couple that is anything but, so my remark was just a secondhand thought about how "deadbeat dads" and "deadbeat moms" are both in the same pool. You trying to justify women skipping out on child payments is quite curious, but I'm not in the game of "let's hate on this gender" so we'll move on.

People who oppose abortion, i.e. conservative sexists who don’t see the woman as having any persona autonomy, can’t be compared to people who oppose pregnancy on the basis that in capitalist society having a child is one of the most damaging social and financial decisions a woman could make.[...] and who advocate annihilation of the human race and the despair of millions of elderly. You left that part out.

Yes, and little girls have a natural disposition to play with dolls, right? It has absolutely nothing to do with the society in which they are brought up in, right? Or the presumptive assumption menstrual cycles are just a product of society. Please, let's be done with trying to insinuate that there isn't any hormonal biology to speak of when talking about something like child bearing. I'm not talking about dresses and t-shirts. Society certainly has a role in how or how much we as individuals engage in sexual congress and reproduce, but it can not wipe out these urges.

Women and children make up the majority of casualties from war.No they don't. When looking at both civilian and operational populations, men are more likely to die than women. How you came up with that statistic is beyond my comprehension when peer reviewed studies consistantly show that to be false. In WWI 80% (http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/8/0/9/0/p180907_index.html) of all casualties were military personnel, predominantly men. As an aggregate, of all recorded war casualties between 1955 and 2002, "58% were in people aged 15 to 34 and 81% were in males (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmj.a137)." (Click males for link)

Women and children make up the majority of refugees.Well you can't really flee when you're dead.

You're also being dishonest by comparing "women and children" (two different demographics) to males. I'm not well versed on the refugee crises, but a quick search showed that women only constitute about half of all refugees (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20080622/ai_n27517709/). Granted on this subject I can't find peer reviewed studies so I may be wrong, but it appears that the concept of refugees being almost entirely women is false.

It is women who are the ones who are raped by enemy soldiers. No one here is denying that women are consistently confronted with the threat of rape. But men are also tortured in different ways unrelated to their reproductive organs and in fact are also not immune to sexual abuse (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC420204/). Indeed rape targeted against men by both men and women remains one of the most hushed up topics of this century.

“The occurrence of sexual torture of men during wartime and in conflict situations remains something of an open secret, although it happens regularly, and often takes place in public,” says the report.

But few men admit to having been sexually tortured or seek help, says the report, and professionals may fail to recognise cases. Survivors may fail to report sexual torture because they are ashamed.

“One of the striking points to emerge from the study is how silent male survivors of sexual torture have remained about their experiences. The silence that envelopes the sexual torture of men in the aftermath of the war in Croatia stands in strange contrast to the public nature of the crimes themselves,” say the authors.

I care about these topics and these men, which is why I participate in these type of threads.

So fuck you for even suggesting that warfare is 'sexist' towards men.There you go again beating your chest for no apparent reason. Yes, "fuck me" for caring about how men are four times more likely to die from war, four times more likely to die from suicide, and two times more likely to die from violence in general. Oh, and for caring about how the legal system too often strips them of their children under the false assumption that men will just fumble the task of guardianship.

And I get called a "sexist" because I want to help these men and criticize the gender roles and presumptions (held by both men and women, traditionalists and feminists) that enable this to happen. You view the issues as an EITHER OR debate. You can't argue for men without neglecting women. I don't view it like that.

Invader Zim

1st December 2009, 11:06

Not really. I call someone a misogynist whey they’re a sexist. Is that clear?

It certainly is clear, you misuse the word. The words 'sexist' and 'misogynist' are not synonymous. Furthermore your entire point is based on a false premise; what necessarily makes the entire body of those men, and indeed women, who attack the disparities in family law sexists let alone misogynists?

but it's [child support policy] still designed to discourage abortion because it provides a social back-up for the woman who wants to keep the child.

Certainly it might have that effect, but what evidence would you care to show us that proves that the aim of the policy, as opposed to a side effect? I also find your argument that pregnancy should be discouraged some what bizarre. You seem, though I could be wrong and please do correct me, to be under the strange delusion that reproduction is inherently reactionary.