Cathy Young, whose libertarian/feminist pronouncements on such matters are always important, weighs in on “Roe v. Wade for Men”:
Whatever the merit of Dubay’s and the NCM’s legal claim, I do think that the case illustrates rather strongly the unfairness to men of the current legal regime. With legal abortion, a woman who gets pregnant can get out of this situation with minimal consequences (unless you believe that an abortion is a profound trauma, which it does not seem to be for most women). For a man in his mid-20s to be ordered to pay $500 a month for the next 18 years—and presumably more if his income increases—is no trivial burden. It means a radically altered lifestyle, including seriously reduced opportunities to have a real family if he wants one.
I’m also struck by the attitude taken by feminists like Shakespeare’s Sister, who says:
Men have plenty of “say†over this decisionâ€â€but it all happens before the pregnancy. They have “say†over the women with whom they choose to have sex. They have “say†over whether they choose to discuss in depth with a partner what they would do in the case of an unintended pregnancyâ€â€and what their partners would do. They have “say†over whether they put a condom on.
I’m struck by it, of course, because it reminds me so much of what right-to-lifers tell women—perhaps most pithily encapsulated in a photo I saw many years ago, in pre-Internet days, of an anti-abortion demonstrator (male) holding a placard that says, YOU HAVE A CHOICE: DON’T SCREW.
In my own post on the subject, which inspired quite a heated debate in the comments, I noted, too, that the same argument being marshaled with such haughty finger-wagging by Shakespeare’s Sister was (ironically) attempted by Wade in 1972 to suggest that women already have a choice—and was, of course, rejected and ridiculed by the very same contingent of the feminist movement who seem now quite comfortable pulling that particular rhetorical latter up behind them. Everything old is new again, I suppose…
At any rate, Young’s piece is lengthy and link-filled, so you’ll want to read the whole thing. Cathy also points to several other discussions on the case, including this two–parter from neo-neocon, Dean Esmay, Salon, and Shakespeare’s Sister.
From Cathy Young, where she takes on the “best interests of the child” argument:
Of the mothers without an award, nearly 40% said that they did not seek an award either because they didn’t want the father to pay child support or because they didn’t want the child to have contact with the father.
I hadn’t even thought about this. So, if a guy doesn’t want to pay child support, it’s in his best interest to act like a complete jackass so that the woman doesn’t want him around.
Interesting. Perhaps there’s no need for men to be allowed opt out of fatherhood after all. We already have a method.
I don’t mind them trying to tilt the legal playing field their way; that’s what political blocs do. Just spare me the fucking yammering about equality, please. You want choices and you don’t give the slightest semblance of a shit how it affects our choices. We got it.
Damn! When I saw the title “Roe v. Wade for Men” I thought it was finally legal to terminate the woman in an unwanted pregnancy.
Oh well, back to the Condom Shack.
Heh; this “choice” is narrowly defined by gender fems to mean per abortion only, Allah—control the dialog, control the outcome. However, womyn have a smorgasbord of unilateral choices in the full-on business of Kidz For Opportunity having chosen birth, too.
Thank Wally Mondale and Chuckie Schumer for those brilliant abuse-proof pieces of socialist legislation…
That’s awesome: the 2nd-3rd generation pro-abortion advocate doesn’t even know the history of her own ideology to keep from using the very same argument used by Wade himself. Too funny.
The government places heavy, open-ended, affirmative duties on parents. That kind of affirmative duty doesn’t exist anywhere else in the law. They aren’t imposed on someone unless he voluntarily assumes them by entering the relationship.
It’s kind of a waiver/estoppel idea: you can’t accept the benefit of a behavior and then later try to deny its costs. Even if the costs outweigh the benefits, the fact that the two are causally related is enough. In fact, whenever the costs of some behavior outweigh the benefits, the proper decision is DON’T DO IT. If you are allowed to simply deny the costs, then the economic calculus is distorted.
As far as I can tell, politics is a giant game designed to help certain people deny costs and impose them on others.
I am currently engaged in a debate on this issue with Darleen of Darleen’s Place on her blog and mine.
The status quo is completely unequitable. A man can be forced to pay child support even if the child is the result of fraud, adultry, self-insemination without the man’s knowledge, rape (statutory or otherwise) or a legal contract absolving the man from parental and financial responsibility.
Just to be clear, when I talk of rape in my previous post, I mean cases in which the man is the victim of the rape.
Don’t forget that a man can also be forced to pay child support for a child that isn’t even his (biologically).
Oh. the injustice!
Actus weighing in with heavy duty analysis again. Do you ever contribute anything of substance?
All those silly arguments about fraud and contracts were taken care of last time we discussed this. It basically boils down to: fucking is not an arms length business deal, no matter how much the prudes try to make it so.
fucking is not an arms length business deal, no matter how much the prudes try to make it so.
1)One of the points I am making is that a man can be forced to pay child support without engaging in consensual sex, or even any sex. Maybe if you actually did a little reading and analysis rather than engage in writing narcissistic drivel, you’d realize that.
2)The man thrust of the case brought in Michigan is that the law does not treat both parties engaged in consentual sex equitably.
fucking is not an arms length business deal
Now you’re just creeping people out actus.
no matter how much the prudes try to make it so.
Okay dude, you’re gay and oppressed. We get it. But this is a discussion about paternal rights. Your commenting on it is like Bill Clinton taking a turn as a marriage counselor.
It’s incongruent.
And yet it can be enforced in court, damages can be awarded, and while both parties must agree upon (ahem) entry, one of the parties can impose additional burdens on the other by committing fraud. Even odder—one of the parties can turn the whole thing into a criminal act by changing their mind later.
I don’t see anything particularly prudish about saying “hey, you BOTH got into this, and you BOTH have rights and responsibilities”. I guess that’s a definition of “prude” I’ve never come across before.
Here I had thought that prudes infantalized society by trying to cover up sexuality—all along the prudes were the ones trying to treat adults as fully human.
Heh.
Well those arguments aren’t as silly, but instead focus on the other interests in the situation.
Not really, because they’re not asking for an equitable result. They say that a woman has pre-natal choice, while men dont. And they want to balance this with the ability of men to avoid post-natal responsibility. If equity is what they want, they should allow pre-natal shirking by men, not post-natal.
Changing your mind later does make it criminal.
But we do say this.
Duh. Changing your mind later does not make it criminal.
“Changing your mind later does not make it criminal.”
Sometimes I think actus is deliberately obtuse. I think what’s being referred to here are the occasions when a woman engages in consensual sex, regrets it afterwards, and then claims date rape.
Prude? I thought Leftists believed that libertarians were conservatives who like porn!
Sometimes I think actus is deliberately obtuse.
It ain’t even sometimes.
And in this situation, no crime has been committed by the man. Sure its a horrible thing to be involved in the criminal justice system, but the sex does not become a criminal act because someone changes their minds.
My preferred way of dealing with the inequalities imposed by the Victorian precepts of the current system is to legalize gay marriage. Doing so would require legally revisiting these outmoded gender-based legal roles.
Soâ€â€who farted?
Cathy young is full of crap.
Inducing abortion is less risky than giving birth, but it is *relatively* less risky. Young sneers that it is “nothing.” It is not a “nothing” consequence of pregnancy. A woman never “gets out” of the dangers of pregnancy, she can only attempt to mitigate them.
Changing circumstances may change how much physical burden a women is willing to bear, and all persons should have the right to make medical decisions based on their current circumstances.
Women have an incentive to renounce abortion in favor of childbirth. There is no easy way out of pregnancy. There is always physical risk, physical burden. Men share NONE of this.
Women don’t get a free do-over, and even if induced abortion WERE “nothing” it’s not some kind of mulligan to get out of the $$$$ of child rearing.
If a women takes the risker path and carries to term, she has shirked nothing. What possible complaint is there in that situation? Why should a man have an option to renounce the child he made when his body is not connected to the child and never will be?
Men are hard wired to cast their seed far and wide. If there is no cost for men to procreate with large numbers of women, as there is for women, they wil ldo it.
Society must demand men contribute to the support of born and living children.
When men have to directly bleed, face infection, infertility, damage to internal organs, an organ systems, temporary or permanent phsyical incapacity, permant harm from tears, nerve injury, etc, etc etc, in other words, when they get pregnant, then they have the saem rights a w0man has to mitigate the risk of injury.
Do you know what the incidence of having your uterus pulled outside of your body inside out is? 1 in 2000. That’s like winning 40 bucks in the damn lotto. Women have a right weight the risks and benefits of their condition and make their own choice up until the time an infants life can be sustained without her body as flesh and blood life support machine.
Those who argue that “having to work to make money” is the equivalent can get stuffed.
Men and women in this country have the right to leave a job if they want to and find another. Tha’s right, you can abort your job. Men have a right to choose pencil pushing over being a fireman. No one can force you to take any particular job, and your specific job whether male ofr female is not a physical result of pregnancy or childbirth. There is no law compelling you to work the night shift at Taco bell, or feel sad about the flourescent lighting at Capitol One.
Dibs on a date with SarahW!!
Men are hard wired to cast their seed far and wide. If there is no cost for men to procreate with large numbers of women, as there is for women, they wil ldo it.
This is true. However there used to be a limiting factor, in that there were costs for women permitting this immoral behavior. However ever since the Pill, Roe, and the sexual revolution, society has been telling women there are no longer costs for this behavior, and so immoral sexual behavior has become rampant. This began to impose costs on society, so legislators have transferred these costs inequitably to men.
TW: hotel Come on ..that is just too easy.
It is if that’s what you want it to be, Sarah. It’s not ours to question reasons for choices, only to make sure that choices are available for any woman who wants to make them for any reason. “I don’t really feel like having and raising a kid” is probably the most oft used reason for abortion.
Men? Fuck ‘em. Shut up and pay your bills, bitches! No post-conception choices for you!
Is that about right?
Neither party does!
This sorry debate keeps dicking around on the margins of a massive national kids > money > incentive > legislation > discrimination conflict of interest that includes a complete ruination of basic personal rights (typically fathers but occasionally mothers) to say not a damn thing about the running fraud that is family court and the feminist jackpot that is the DHHS, VAWA, and your innumerable fine local “authorities” offices.
Unless she’s an idiot, Sarah’s sperm screed willfully necks the full perspective down to about 20% of the issue, and actuse, well actuse just is an idiot.
Just how many times do we have to go thru this before we can get serious about what’s really going on here?
If this is representative of the feminist position on paternal parenting, it’s predictable but highly questionable. The entire feminist custody juggernaut is based on the presumption that all men are abusers and all women are victims … even when they literally have to create them.
In actuality, DV is roughly gender equal, while child abuse is actually perpetrated 60%+ of the time by women. Whether or not that’s because they have overwhelming primary custody is a debatable point but so far, unknown.
Many feminist-propagated “statistics” are bogus, if for no other reason that they entirely defy simple reason and human nature—mothers have every incentive in the world to seek single-parent homes and once established, child support hasn’t a thing to do with visitation. In fact, the child support industry has more to do with relocating moms away from dads than it possibly could bringing dads into their children’s lives.
Ask Michigan DA Mike Cox about his infamous pizza-for-child alienation scheme, whereby billboards around Detroit offered kids Dominos pizza for turning in their dads for “child support”. Dominos caught wind of what was really going on and bailed out, but not before Cox raised nearly $7,000,000 in single-parent behavior modification.
When Washington’s Title IV-D kicks back 66% of every “child support” dollar, you can bet there’s a money trail and an incentive to make single fathers whenever possible. Naturally the socialist media loves this stuff, even when they too have to invent reality.
The biggest hoax in child custody statistics history that I’m aware of was perpetrated when feminist Phyllis Chesler sad that fathers won 70% of all child custody cases and her bogus research made it’s way into innumerable cites and reports. This fraud has become cornerstone for NOW-lobbied legislation adopted by feminists—male and female—in all 50 statehouses and Washington DC.
The reality is that according to the US Census Bureau, fathers “win” primary custody 15% of the time. And there’s nothing they can do about until a presumption of joint custody bill passes their legislature … against hysterical cries from feminists, social workers, attorneys, and even the judicial branch, testifying in violation of their own state’s constitutions.
Child support has absolutely nothing positive to do, legally or otherwise, with paternal contact. Keeping parents apart is profitable for the lobbies that support this horrible legislation, as well as for local coffers and local legal associations, which just happen to include family court judges. The adage in family court is that attorneys are their own clients; defendants are the hapless dependants that keep the wheels greased and campaign contributions flowing.
The child support and divorce industries are than closely linked with the domestic violence industry and all work actively to split families apart, regardless if willfully or unconsciously, for profit or not. Every statistic on the books supports this assertion. Every one. When you have mandatory arrest laws that say in case of a DV call police must arrest someone, anyone, and when that arrest grants just enough “sole custody” right to the remaining parent to immediately move the Court for property and custody (and some $750 of support per month per child!) well, what do you think happens?
The end result of our Orwellian family law system is the regular violation of a half dozen personal rights, among them due process, equal protection, presumption of innocence, right to freedom and property, etc.
Sometimes fathers start demanding contact after they get hit up for child support.
In countless cases they can “demand” all they want…
What you meant to say (but simply and uncharacteristically miscued) was that tens of thousands of fathers a year simply go away or underground after they get “hit up” for child support.
Some, actuse, should we use that word in a meaningful contect, blow their brains out when everything they live for is taken from them in an afternoon by legal fiat from the for-profit legal industry.
Your industry, If I do not miss my guess.
tw: property
I alluded to for-profit nanny-state meddling in the sanctity of the family. This includes increasing amounts of forced involvement from statist psychologists and psychiatrists acting on leftist norms and standards exclusive to their own behavioral goals. This is an integral part of the divorce, child support, and domestic violence industries.
From Instapundit, dated today, concerning Dr. Helen’s post: Destructive Trends in Mental Health and Politics
It’s all part of the same beast: It’s socialist, nanny-state government and it has at it’s core gender feminism, rewriting definitions, rights, perceived harms, roles and responsibilities, and collectivism. It’s all over your statehouses too…
I know what I meant. What I meant is that deadbeat dads disappear. And then when they get caught up with, and pay the financial price, start demanding visitation. But they wouldn’t if they weren’t busted.
I’m so sure.
Family law sounds like a mess. A rather unremunerative one, for the amount of work and heartbreak you have to deal with. No thanks.
Yes, precisely. And the consolation that they *might* be find innocent in court is tiny. The accusation alone can be enough to ruin a life.
There were a couple of recent cases of women claiming to be gang-raped. The accused had videotaped the encounters, though, and it was apparently clear there was no rape involved, just regrets, second thoughts, and vindictiveness.
And if regret made it a crime, those men would be convicted. But no.
Ah.
So first you’re saying (1) that the system doesn’t manufacture disenfranchised single fathers—the great statistical majority of single parents are men, (2) that the system always applies payable child support fairly and justly, (3) that there’s no disencentive—no epidemic of false allegations of DV or child abuse—to discourage a single father from returning, (4) that the DV and child abuse industries are without blame in fathers forced to leave their children’s lives, and that (5) in general, fathers are always welcomed with open arms as equal custodial parents and can simply never be kicked to the curb, post-separation or post-divorce?
Are you saying that the DHHS, DCCS, UCCC, welfare, Title IV-D, VAWA and the Mondale Act don’t exist or that if they do, that they’re absolutely gender-neutral?
And you’re claiming that any father not involved in his children’s life is a willful deadbeat and deserves his fate, right?
And are family law attorneys and judges completely reliable officers of the court at all times and in all circumstances, despite your profession of ignorance about their pratice?
I suggest you look at Lindsey Beyerstein’s take on the issue.
This response is somewhat of an echo, I’ve posted it so many times in many different variations. So I won’t take up too much space here, I’ll direct you to my opinion on this that was posted on Newsvine (a very neat little site). I do apologize for the shameless self promotion, but I don’t want to take up an entire page with my opinion about this, just my snarky comments will take up enough, without laying the groundwork for my argument.
I agree with the blog owner, Jeff, I think that the “Keep yer dick in yer pants†argument is similar to the “Keep yer legs closed†argument often thrown at women in regards to choice – both arguments are merely morality judgments that serve to help… no one. I have been somewhat disappointed with this particular reaction from some feminists that I hold in high regard, if the table was turned, there would be quite a wrath to receive. It was a stupid argument before, and it is a stupid argument now. Shit happens. People change thier minds. Etc.
However, this circle jerk over the feminist “gotcha†is pretty absurd as well. Ooo… suddenly we have a “situation” where (it appears) feminists don’t want equality. But before you pat yourself smugly on the backs, I’ve a question. Given that women have been, and still are, the sole “gatekeepers” when it comes to birth control… is this really a shock? You (male rights activists) really want to even up the par? Funny, in terms of actual birth control, they’ve never expressed this. As far as I know, child support laws are equal. And if they are not, I’ve no problem with them being so. The parent that raises the child should recieve financial support from the parent that ditched out. No argument here. The “inequality” that is being bitched about here is about birth control (women have more options, and a “longer” time to exercise them than a man does), not child support.
One question. Why at this point? Why suddenly, when it is discovered that men might legally be able to screw over women, is there such an interest in male “choice�
If evil, vindictive, semen-stealing bitches are such a concern for men, where is the outrage at the fact that there is no reliable form of male birth control? Why the hell aren’t these guys screaming and protesting about this injustice? If these assholes really wanted this control, they would have asked for this a long time ago. Every dude I’ve talked to thinks it’s a great idea. Men could finally have control over their own spunk, is this not a long overdue concept? Women were put through hell during the fight for access to birth control in the past, jail time, scorn from peers, etc. Look at the history of birth control and see what women went though, hell, look at Plan B and see what they go through now. But women still fought, and still do, wholeheartedly, for this access. All men have to do is just merely ask for it. But yet… They don’t. No outrage. No demand. Why not?
It has been admitted by big pharma that the male birth control pill is achievable. But the demand is not there, so it is not produced. What I want to know is why these male rights activists wait until after conception to claim “responsibility†and “choice�
Because they (again, male rights activists) don’t actually want choice, they just want an easy out of their responsibility. Funny how they only want it after the fact, when the responsibility can be pushed on someone else via forced childbirth or bribed abortion, isn’t it? God forbid these male rights activists actually have a responsibly to keep track of their birth control, take their pills, get the yearly exams, etc. That’s wimmin’ stuff, no? God forbid the responsibility of birth control actually be shared by both genders rather than thrown completely on the woman. And let’s face it, if male rights activists actually tried to push for more “choice†in male birth control, they’d actually have responsibility for the “predicament†they are in. What the hell would they blog about all day?
Is this not interesting that this only came about as paternity testing became more accurate? Damn, we can’t do the whole “She’s a slut and it isn’t my kid†trick anymore, let’s go with the “She’s a vindictive bitch and tricked me into siring her child†argument instead. Whatever allows me to afford cable, dude.
Anyway, point being, it’s a scam. The situation is unfair in terms of birth control, not child support. Women pay (or should pay, no exceptions) if the man raises the child. If these male rights activists were really concerned about the poor, victimized men, they would have pushed for male birth control a long time ago.
And they didn’t. That should tell you something.
TW: And born is a stylish, hip new way to practice misogyny for male rights activists.
I have no idea what the discipline rate is for those practitioners compared to others.
It seems like you’re arguing against a ghost. And you’ve got some personal problems too.
I have no idea what the rate of professional discipline is for this practice compared to others.
But I think your use of hyperbolic questions is very effective at drawing pity.
Someone’s not paying attention …
Not even close. Presumption of joint custody laws are a gleam in father’s eyes, one they’ll probably get enacted within ten years at best, despite hundreds of thousands of them in all western countries protesting and working governments and legislatures as best they can in the face of successful feminist and trial lawyers lobbies with a half century head start.
Remember, the leftists love family-by-government, dependency and feminism, and conservatives love to preach “responsible fatherhood” and pay-for-your-damn-kids,-crackhead. Both are authoritarian and therefore, both damage the family.
Which, remembering those politically-savvy feminist activist minions—the people frantically pissing on this issue in order to preserve their biases and mealtickets, if not their very livelihoods because this is a big damn industry—would make you unique.
Should the parent that raises the child in the house she basically stole receive financial support from the parent she threw out in a violation of his equal protection, due process, presumption of innocence, and property ownership rights?
None needed: You skewed that argument contrary to reality.
On this issue, defining the debate (birth control) is only slightly more common than moving the goalposts … and both are chronic. Not one feminist yet has presented an honest, comprehensive view on gender discrimination as it applies to the whole of custody, support, ownership, and basic constitutional rights. Not one. It’s all narrow definitions and denying statistic.
Rather, the inequality bitched about here is the institutionalized gender discrimination that grants a 85/15 ratio of mothers to fathers as primary custodians, billions of dollars more personal property owned by the allegedly financially disadvantaged gender, and three consecutive generations of disenfranchised fathers.
And that just scratches the surface.
Meanwhile, I believe you call them “deadbeats” when they’ve been destroyed by the custody/divorce, domestic violence, and social services industry…
You’ve spent little or no time in family court, that much is clear.
tw: Per usual.
Frankly actuse, in light of the substantial evidence that typically precedes your various pathological denials and cartoonish Houdini’s—your trademark hyperbolic questions—you don’t think. You react and pose and then run away, just like clockwork.
You’re pathetic. You and I both know what a cesspool the practice of law is and only one of us would dream of defending it by its own merit. Obviously, this then has nothing to do with virtually nonexistent incidences of bona fide self-policing within the closed society of lawyers that extends through the courtroom and into the legislature. It has to do with who’s getting fucked with by that society.
Just this month it was the revelation that huge numbers of cases are adjudicated in secret. Give me a fucking break.
I have a problem with cheats, liars, and thieves.
For once, actuse, take ownership of the filth you spew, you kneeling little misfit. When you’re caught out over and over and over, deal with the issue. When you post some gaseous rot, be prepared to stand behind it and admit what a complete jackass you’ve been.
What are you talking about?
I wrote that sometimes deadbeats that get caught start to demand visitations—there being a nexus therefore between visitation and paying up.
This resulted in a torrent of you and your hyperbolic issues. Grow up.
No acthole, what are you talking about? I know what I’m talking about; you answer some hard questions for a change or I’ll conclude “hyperbolic issues” is your code for the perpetual defeat of your miniscule character.
Crimso
NOT in all states (family law varies from state to state) and only because of the old (pre DNA) stance that a child born within a marriage was presumed the legitimate offspring of a marriage.
I have no problem with affirmative policies in order to try and bring some sense of responsibility and …dare I say…wisdom to sexual activity and child rearing. But a lawsuit that seeks to create a class of legal bastards is more of the same bad policy.
How is hurting kids going to make people better parents?
This is just a tit for tat exchange between the gender feminists and the gender masculinists (each screaming about Genitalia Conspiracies) with kids caught in the crossfire.
ENOUGH.
Sounds awful. Of course, I favor opennes, except for reasons of privacy.
You want me to answer this ‘hard question’:
And are family law attorneys and judges completely reliable officers of the court at all times and in all circumstances, despite your profession of ignorance about their pratice?
You’re a demagogue.
Forgive me all … but why does anybody bother replying actus? Has he ever contributed anything of any worth to any debate on this site?
Jeff, why do you still let him pollute your property?
actus sez:
Sometimes people start using asinine stereotypes and presenting degrading generalizations as justification for bad law after they log onto protien wisdom.
Such is currently in clinical trials. But of course, evil men have kept it from market because we like getting hateful, vindictive women pregnant because servicing them financially for 18+ years is so very gratifying! The arguments about why you can’t…nay, shouldn’t be allowed to actually father one’s children are just irresistably entertaining, and paying legal fees for such arguments to be used against you is just so relaxing! Taxation without representation is for pikers. This is the Holy Freaking Grail of legal responsiblity without legal rights.
Put the goalposts back where you found them, Stacy. That’s man’s work. Now take your generalizations, young lady, and cram them where government fears to tread. (That, BTW, isn’t up my ass. The Government loves going there.
This is just a tit for tat exchange between the gender feminists and the gender masculinists (each screaming about Genitalia Conspiracies) with kids caught in the crossfire.
1) Gender msculinists? Somebody throw me a frickin’ bone here. I didn’t even know there was a masculinist movement, much less that it had fragmented already.
2) Why is it that the kids aren’t caught in the crossfire when the topic is abortion? Or regulating the behavior of mothers during pregnancy?
I see that Darleen has finally caved to the reality of the situation, by her silence on the core issues tacitly admitting defeat and testing a partial truth on only one.
Concerning forced payment for kids you didn’t sire Darleen sez It’s For Their Good(tm) and then floats one:
Er, bullshit, Darleen; bullshit in the sense that while your lovely CA had indeed just last year passed legislation partly righting this horrific wrong, the great balance of the country has only recently even begun to deal with the issue of willful, systemic, strategic fraud by womyn of the courts and the national Uniform Child Custody Code, a federal machine that—as you habitually ignore when I pose it to you—pays states kickbacks amounting to 66% of every child support dollar collected.
To suggest that this is a state’s rights issue when the NOW had made it a national issue years ago is disengenuous at best.
Get it straight: Escaping “child support” is federally prohibited under Bradley, nearly regardless of circumstance—false paternity, incarceration, illness, destitution and even death.
How any DA can sleep at night knowing that their system establishes guilt by accusation (DV and “child support), mandatory arrest without cause or crime (DV), no due process (DV, custody, lost property rights, and “child support”), unequal protection (all of the above), and a host of lesser offenses says volumes about how public servants see themselves as masters and not as upholders of the Constitution.
What law was that supporting? Its just saying that there is a link between visitation and payments. Its not a legal link, but they aren’t completely unrelated.
Because there are no kids.
Heh. The father’s rights movement—more accurately the equal shared parenting movement because a small minority of the child custody and support industry’s victims are women—is gathering steam and will one day make a run at Washington. But you’re right; for the most part it’s fighting both leftist socialism and rightwing big brother, and the whole world hates the single father, even when that same federal system creates them for fun and profit.
The size and power of the industry that feeds on single parents, domestic violence, dependent kids, mental health and related nannyism almost cannot be overestimated. The DHHS alone is a fifteen billion dollar tyranny of statist interests as they concern the family. Add in various powerful women’s lobbies, the massive legal lobby—including cronies on both sides of the bench along with their campaign contribution debts—and legislatures overrun with local agents of all of these special interests, and it’s no wonder why even judges will testify to legislatures in order to keep their family-court powers unchecked.
Family court largely has no jury system. It’s a kingship and it serves attorneys very, very well. Single parents—overwhelmingly fathers—are squeezed until they break and the whole cesspool is constutionally rotten to the core.
For all of these reasons and more nearly all 50 states have recently been presented suits against their divorce, custody, DV, and support industries amounting to trillions of dollars. Alleged are precisely these crimes against free, law-abiding men and women, as well as heaps of constitutionally-illegal violations of their individual rights.
Excuse me, I meant a $55 billion dollar tyranny…
One more thing, Darleen; about this:
Setting aside “more of the same bad policy” as your acknowledgement of the problem of anti-father legislation and practice, “legal bastards” is precisely what hundreds of thousands of single fathers already are. Under the auspices of, as you also said, it’s-for-the-children statist feel-good, anything goes in family law that wouldn’t begin to to cut legal or contitutional muster and would never pass for civility—much less sanity—anyplace else in society or in the law.
If by “legal bastards” you mean either single fathers or their children, it’s already epidemic.
This case is a shot across the bow of feminist victimizing, legal irrationality and financial opportunism. It’s high time it was presented, as it’s high time suits are prosecuted taking apart the architecture of oppression single parents and fathers have labored under for decades.
You should be supporting this case, not taking weak shots at it. It’s not about evil patriarchs sowing seed at whim. It’s about stemming the tidal wave of abuses hostile and dishonest mothers—like this one—have grown completely comfortable using as strategic and tactical means to game society of it’s most precious familial resource.
That we’d ever defend their frauds and deceit by saying that society is best served by driving families apart and having “bastards” out of marriage and the family unit as long as it pays is simply remarkable.
Oh brother. Which is being currently tested in Africa in order to spread AIDS…or something.
But, then again, ever hear of something called a condom? Well you don’t wrap it around your vulva, sister. Nonoxel 9…I’m looking at you.
TW: Ring. Because somewhere a liberal argument just earned its wings.
Sure, actus.
You might want to take a look at this lovely person’s blog, directed to the women of South Dakota, who may decide to perform an abortion with the help of an untrained, unlicensed assistant.
She advises as follows:
There are no kids, right, actus?
No kids.
Right.
Just don’t forget the head.
DONT.
FORGET.
THE.
HEAD.
I think the pro-abortion lobby ought to find a way to work this sentiment into ALL of it’s literature. Something like:
It’s not a person, you toothless, Bible-thumping fascists! (* But don’t forget the head!)
Or:
Keep your laws off my body! (* But don’t forget the head!)
What do you think?
And doesn’t that just solve our little problem here?
Ladies…
Okay, I’ve just grossed myself out.
I think women need accurate medical advice in order to protect their health, specially if proper health services are inaccessible or can land them in jail.
From the Detroit News, voice of the home of one of the biggest Kidz For Kash welfare rackets in the country:
IT’S BECAUSE OF THE COUNTLESS AIRBORNE PATRIARCHAL SEEDS OF EVIL!
How very sensitive of you.
Then again, I suppose by “accurate,” you mean something other than, “When we feel the curettage and removal is complete, we’ll examine the dismembered arms, legs, torso, and feet that we extracted to see if we missed anything obvious  for instance, a head. If so, we’ll be sure to find it and remove it … But, no, the fetus isn’t a person. We just can’t forget the head!”
That would be “accurate,” wouldn’t it, you sick fuck?
And women could die from inaccurate advice.
Absolutely, hopelessly, single-mindedly shameless…
That’s OK, six.
Max Planck said that science advances one funeral at a time. So does morality.
The younger generation is decidedly pro-life. They are growing up with 3-D ultrasound. They can see the pathetic, miserable losers that populate the Boomer generation, the generation that grew up listening to the bilge spewed by Steinem and company. They may dress like they are in the 70s, but they certainly don’t think that way.
Actus and the rest of the degenerates who promote the slaughter of children will be dead soon enough, and the world will look back on this horror the way we look back on every other horror.
I’m optimistic that way.
Perhaps the evil men and the vindictive women should just hook up and we could be rid of them. Find your straw-soulmate.
Seriously though, I read an article about male birth control recently that said that female birth control, in which the most popular forms are taken monthly or every three months, is more profitable for pharma then male birth control, which would be yearly, if not for a longer period of time. So it’s going to take a lot of demand for pharma to give that up. Which should piss people off, I mean, basically pharma is telling men that they should stick with condoms and blind trust so that they can make better profits. I’ll try and find the article for you guys, it was interesting.
Might want to do some research before you play birth control guru. If you did, you’d know that condoms aren’t the most reliable things in the world, even if they are used flawlessly, which often they are not. They are also never covered by health insurance. I think that men should have more reliable, affordable, trustworthy ways to control their spunk. Can you even imagine how life as we know it would change? It’s long overdue.
6Gun, No, I have not spent much time in family court and it’s not something I’m very knowledgeable about. If the laws regarding child support are biased towards men, then I am in favor of leveling that playing field. If you were to start a campaign to do this, I would support the effort. But I don’t see how this “solutionâ€Â, opting out of child support, will fix any of the issues you brought up. And if the solution doesn’t fix the problem, then perhaps the two aren’t related.
I’d tend to doubt that. I think there are many that are ignorant about the subject, as people tend to care about the issues that matter personally to them, and that’s why adjustments have not been made. And this is another reason why opting out of child support is a bad idea, it makes it less personal, so that one is comfortable in their ignorance. Why should Joe Blow care about the way fathers are screwed in the child support system? If he knocks someone up, he can just opt out of it, it’s not his problem. In fact, it’s probably going to end up hurting the guys that do choose the “good†path and own up to the responsibility to try to support their kid. These guys are still going to get screwed, because instead of trying to overhaul this legal system, these male rights activists are only trying to exempt certain people from having to enter it. The guys that are actually in it are ignored.
Heh – I’d have to know more about the situation, being that you are framing it in a way that elicits a specific response.
But when it comes to your arguments, you aren’t even kicking on the same field. Please explain to me how the ability to opt out of child support will fix any of the issues you brought up in regards to unfair treatment of fathers in the legal child support system. It won’t, because it’s not being used as a solution to any of those issues, it’s being used as male birth control. The case is referred to as “Roe v Wade for Men”, for chissakes. Obviously, it is being framed as birth control. And since it is being used this way, comparing it to other birth control options is not moving the goalposts. Opting out of child support is being used to level the birth control playing field for men, and I am proposing a much more logical solution to that unfairness.
That’s because the dialogue isn’t there. A solution to unfairness in child support isn’t being discussed here – if it is, again, tell me how opting out will help fix any of the issues you mention above. It’s a different conversation. If you claim that men are discriminated when it comes to child support, and that this is wrong, and that we need to take steps to reform the court system in regards to this, I will agree with you. But that is not the conversation that is going on. If you were to discuss contracts made out in regards to adoption that would allow either party to opt out if the other decides to keep the child (after they have both agreed to the adoption), I would agree with you (provided the agreement was in writing). But again, that is not the conversation that is going on.
I don’t recall bringing it up at all, actually, don’t put words in my mouth. Please address my actual arguments and fight with your strawfeminsts on your own time, I’d sincerely like this not to turn into a flame war like so many threads on here do.
TW: On the move.
Such as: There’s no kid. Just clean up in there as best you can.
The proper advice? DON’T FORGET THE HEAD.
Spread the word, actuse.
tw: It’s that thing between the not a baby’s ears.
I’m glad you find that funny. It’s an awfully common occurrance. What specifices do you need, Stacy?
<object as “deadbeat dads†trying to evade their responsibilities. <b>In point of fact, fathers are rarely given the option of assuming them.</b></blockquote>
Ain’t that the truth. Nice find, 6Gun. They missed one little thing in this list of indignities, which is getting to pay for her lawyer to clean you out.
I’ve only got a few minutes for this but someone’s still not paying attention:
The equal shared parenting movement is well underway, Stacy, and it is in every Western country on earth, at least as far as I can see. Here in the US it’s grown to include hundreds of grass roots organizations and has already, as I’ve said at least twice in this thread, mounted a class action against nearly every state in the Union. At dispute are a half dozen basic constitutional rights. That dialog is massive and you’d find it if you spent 90 seconds on any search engine. I’ve given you half of the reasons right here in this thread – I’m certainly not alone; there are tens or hundreds of thousands working on this.
You’re redefining the debate. As I’ve also said, this case isn’t about “opting out of child support†– words that beg “deadbeat dad†far more often as not.
The debate is also about contracts, rights, and obligations. Marriage is/was a contract as well, and abuses of single parent’s rights (statistically almost always fathers) depend on it’s being made as useless as this woman’s empty word prior to the entire arsenal of anti-single parent warfare getting hauled out by a system that willfully makes billions on acrimony, not solutions. I’ve already told you some of what they’ll do to protect this golden goose.
The solutions are simple and as with all runaway failures of socialist legislation, eminently sensible: Remove the incentive and the problem goes away. The same holds true in this case.
Perhaps. In the end, Stacy, the issue is constitutional rights, contractual obligations, and social responsibilities. Contrary to that architecture of civility and ethics stands the great mess of feminist-led willful social irresponsibility and this case is a poster child against that corruption. How it impacts disenfranchised fathers remains to be seen, but since at it’s core it’s about both parties being held accountable equally, it can only do good for fathers of all status.
You seem to be quite accomplished at framing debates, Stacy, and at narrowing debate to serve one end but not another. What you’d led with and what you conveniently omit was this piece of rubbish:
…which ranks right up there with “deadbeat dadsâ€Â, doesn’t it? I’m losing interest in wasting my time replying to you. You originally went on with:
So it’s not about responsible child support? I guess ditching is back on the table, boys.
Regardless, what it’s not about is birth control either, not in the end. It’s about being defrauded, and being defrauded in violation of the ethics and structures the rest of civilized constitutional society depends on and expects.
So I’ll stand by this, Stacy:
…which you take issue with:
We’ve been through this: The solution is equal rights in a constitutionally ethical family law system! Come on, if chickie here (and tens of thousands of other biological-clock-ticking airheads OR suddenly disillusioned wives) decide to bilk dads, they’ve got a blank check. And I’m not on the same field? Only if you have an agenda, and based on your careful channeling of this opting-out-only debate, I’d have to conclude that you certainly do.
[Further redundant, circular logic snipped]
True. But only as long as you limit the debate and seed the dialogue with what amounts to your stereotypical “deadbeats”, unilaterally “opting out of child support”.
Yes, because the dialog isn’t there.
Because what? They’re single? Under a certain age? Randy? Have poor choices in fuck buddies?
You tell me, Stacy. I want to be inbounds; kicking on the same playing field, so to speak. I don’t want to ever assume that women would, just because of their gender group, choose to game the system in order to, well, basically have kids for gain. Or receive gain for having kids. Or have kids, wait six months, change their minds about the blissful state of motherhood sans dad, and then file for support. Surely there are nuances here that redefine motives along alignments entirely unrelated to the eventual common aim, right? Which is kids. Or kids for money. Or money for kids.
You tell me Stacy.
I don’t believe I have. What I’ve done is extend the debate to a place you don’t seem comfortable going: The entire sphere of parental responsibility and the lucrative incentives feminism has created to avoid it.
You see “spunk” charged deadbeats. And you’d be correct; they exist.
But I see decades of systemic fraud perpetrated for gain by one gender agains the other. You tell me which debate is more pertinent.
tw: Standard.
Here’s another little piece of gender discrimination.
In International Union, United Auto Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc the Supreme Court ruled that you cannot discriminate by preventing pregnant women from doing jobs that may harm the fetus. However, in courts all over the coutry, cases have been upheld in which employers gave preferential treatment to women, such as extended sick leave, and protecting their jobs while they are out on maternity leave.
Feminists, women generally, and lawyers:
How about just having your female partner sign a pre-coital agreement accepting complete responsibility for any ensuing pregnancy? Would it fly in court?
If not why not?
I realize it would probably be a downer in a first date or pickup situation but what the heck casual sex tho very desirable from a male point of view is objectively harmful to society.
If it became accepted practice to obtain legally enforceable contracts prior to intercourse the problem of child care squabbles would largely disappear. And I speculate that unwanted pregnancies and abortions would also decrease.
Addendum: Outside of marriage only…within marriage there would still be a problem when the women gets pregnant and there is a disagreement about whether to continue the pregnancy or not.
How about just having your female partner sign a pre-coital agreement accepting complete responsibility for any ensuing pregnancy? Would it fly in court?
If not why not?
The courts have consistently shot this down. In fact as I stated earlier, they don’t even allow this in many cases of sperm donation without coitus.
The most consistent reason given is that it is in the best interests of society and the infant to have the father provide financial support. There is also a 14th Amendment argument that to do otherwise would create two groups of separate and unequal children, those entitled to support, and those not.
Thanks.
Leave it to the courts to make the nation damn near ungovernable. First gave us Roe which gave women the right to kill their children without their partners consent while maintaining men are nevertheless responsible if they don’t kill their children.
Don’t get me wrong, I am unalterably against abortion. What I don’t like is being sucked into any entanglement into the moral decision of someone else. I guess I will just stop fucking or get a vasectomy.
I guess I’m confused, 6Gun, I think we are talking about different cases. Have you read the press release about this case? It’s here, on the “National Center for Men†website.
Some excerpts:
On March 9, 2006 The National Center For Men will file suit in a United States district court in Michigan on behalf of a man’s right to make reproductive choice, to decline fatherhood in the event of an unintended pregnancy. We will call our lawsuit Roe vs. Wade for Men. TM
More than three decades ago Roe vs. Wade gave women control of their reproductive lives but nothing in the law changed for men. Women can now have sexual intimacy without sacrificing reproductive choice. Women now have the freedom and security to enjoy lovemaking without the fear of forced procreation. Women now have control of their lives after an unplanned conception. But men are routinely forced to give up control, forced to be financially responsible for choices only women are permitted to make, forced to relinquish reproductive choice as the price of intimacy.
We will ask that men be granted equal protection of the laws which safeguard the right of women to make family planning decisions after sex. We will argue that, at a time of reproductive freedom for women, fatherhood must be more than a matter of DNA: A man must choose to be a father in the same way that a woman chooses to be a mother.
Is there a particular way you’d like it to be phrased? Or are you just grasping at straws to try and paint me as a daddy hater because you think it’s a valid argument? Personally, I’d like to debate the actual case, rather than play “Let’s pretend we are Freudians and can read Stacy’s mindâ€Â. “Opt out†doesn’t seem all that offensive to me, which is why I used it. I thought something like “Declining Fatherhoodâ€Â, which is what the Center for Men uses, sounded worse. I will use “declining fatherhood†from here on out.
The debate could bring up a good starting point for debate on these issues, in regards to child support. But as I stated before, the right to “decline fatherhood†isn’t going to fix any of these issues. The court case is not centered around that, the case makes the argument that since women have more birth control options then men (because they have the option of abortion), men should be able to “decline fatherhood†to even the field. This is what I am disagreeing with.
If you think this case serves just to spark debate about the subject, and would disagree with it’s being successful, then I can see where you are coming from. You can say that you do not wish to debate this as a form of male birth control, rather you want to debate the experiences with fathers, custody and child support in general. And, since it is an area that I am not familiar with, I will stand back and lurk on it, perhaps learn a thing or two. Everybody happy. However, you cannot accuse me of dishonestly framing the debate when I am using the frame that the National Center for Men chose for themselves. If you have a problem with that frame, take it up with them.
Can you elaborate on this? Are you advocating that all child support laws be abolished? (And although the rest of this post is pretty snarky, this is actually a sincere question – what is the alternative?)
As you see it. Me? This is about society finally waking up and realizing that birth control is not just a woman’s responsibility or issue, that it affects both genders to a large extent. Men don’t have the options that women do with birth control, and that is unfair. But the way they propose fixing this imbalance is not practical or fair.
Uh huh. Me and the National Center for Men.
You only think that men can be deadbeats? Why do you hate daddies?
Yes, I hold a negative view of people that abandon their responsibilities to their child. I’m sorry, I’ll try to hold them up on a pedestal from now on and worship them as the awesome slackers they are.
But we are not debating my character here, and ad hominems are a pretty pathetic way to argue your point. If you’d actually read what I wrote, rather then trying so desperately to find in my words that daddy-hating feminist that you dream of beating down, you’d see that I used “parentâ€Â, not “fatherâ€Â. And assuming that I mean daddies because you just assume I hate daddies is reaching. So try again, since character assassination seems to be your strongest argument here.
So instead of evening it up for both genders, you’d rather we just give the blank check to the father, instead. Because lord knows men never change their minds. Only those flighty “chickiesâ€Â.
As I have stated a few times now, no. I don’t think it’s really about child support. It does nothing to change or reform current child support laws. It offers up a way to even up the score when it comes to birth control options.
Were we playing boys against girls?
Let’s try this. Let’s assume the child support system is not corrupt as you say. Do you think that men should be able to “decline fatherhood†or not? And if you do, what is your logic behind it? This would be the argument I’m coming from, and it is the argument I started from, before you took it up.
And we could stop all the violence in the world by having world peace.
Meaning, saying that we have to get to that point really doesn’t do a damn thing in helping us get to that point. And what I keep asking, yet you do not answer, is how “declining fatherhood†is going to accomplish this feat.
Again, as far as “framing†goes, you can take it up with the National Center for Men. Curiously enough, however, you also bring up agendas. Let’s look at what we have here. You have yet to address any of my points, and instead have relied on trying to paint me as intelectually dishonest by “moving” goalposts away from a place they never existeed in the first place. You have also tried to paint me as a daddy-hater who argues that women should have more rights than men. I have never said any of these things (in fact, I’ve stated a few times now that child support proceedings should be fair, which leads me to believe you have done this only because I am female and you have perceived me as one of those feminist you hate so much). Not to mention that although I professed ignorance and expressed an interest in the courts system in regards to fathers, you opted for condescendingly wagging your finger at me rather than try to get me involved by posting links or recommending groups. So I think it’s pretty obvious who really has the agenda here. I’m arguing ideas. You are arguing ad hominems. I am recognizing this as a problem, and am trying to find solutions that are workable and fair for both genders. You are using this situation to bash feminists and liberals and whomever else might dare to have a different ideology than you. So when it comes to having agendas, well, your sanctimony is showing, my dear.
TW: Representin’ the Land o’ Ten Thousand Lakes.
You’re grasping (and gasping) Stacy.
But a nice attempt fisk. Your bolding was broken, though. Allow me:
As you were, Stacy … back to proudly parsing and framing, and selective highlighting and sharpening your little nubby pencils.
But it’s good to know, assuming the facts are real and the reality is acceptable to you, that you’d be all for solutions. That’s really good to know.
tw: The person from Blue Minnesota?
So as you were, 6Gun, all strawmans and ad homeins and no argument. Really, are you serious?
This is funny though:
Because you pretty much did the same thing you are accusing me of here. Let me bold what you forgot
You can bold the whole thing if you want, either way, you were proven wrong. The case being discussed in this thread is about evening the playing field in terms of birth control. Thus, you are the one that is moving the goalposts. Ask yourself what “choices†women “are permitted†to make that men are not. Then you will have your answer over who is “framing†the debate here. Nice try though.
Are you honestly suggesting that I should just take some dude on a blog thread’s word for something without researching it? I trust you about as far as I can throw you, buddy. Or do you really believe that your puffed up authoritan act actually yields you credibility? To someone half as smart, who you can actually intimidate, maybe it does. But all I see is someone busting out a thesaurus and using the latest trendy blogsphere lingo to dress up tired old playground insults. Take away all of your logical fallacies that you rely so heavy on, and you have nothing.
Let’s recap.
Me: If men want control over reproductive choice, then they must also accept some of the responsibility of reproductive choice. When women’s reproductive choice was limited by biology, they utilized birth control technology to even the ante. Now men have expressed grievances in being in a similar situation, that biology limits their reproductive choices. My suggestion to them to fix this imbalance lies with fighting for their own access to male birth control rather try to balance it financially.
You: I’m going to ignore your whole argument and just jump into the character assassination. I can’t derail the thread, so I’m going to accuse you are framing the argument. Even though I can’t explain why or how, or go into detail about how far I wish to take the issue, I state that “declining fatherhood†will magically fix the court system that is biased against fathers. I can’t explain why or how this will work, however, I can’t even go into detail and specifically state what exactly I want to come from the idea of “declining fatherhoodâ€Â. All I know is that I can’t address the points you brought up in your arguemnt, so I have to grasp at straws. Oh, and I think you are female, so I’m going to try to make people think you are anti-daddy, regardless of everything you say otherwise.
Me: But that’s not what that court case is about, it is about being able to “decline fatherhood†as a “fair†alternative to women’s birth control options. Here is a link to the organization that is backing the case.
You: Nuh uh, is not. I’m going to ignore the whole press release, because it’s embarrassingly clear that my attempts to frame you as intellectually dishonest have backfired and shown that it is I that is actually intellectually dishonest here. But even though it failed miserably the first time, I’m going to try again. Your use of the bold tabs appears sinister. I mean, I know that you linked to the page, and actually quoted in your argument the context of the statement, but still, I have nothing, so I’m going to harp on the usage of bold tabs. Oh, and you are from a blue state. If I had been paying attention during the 2004 elections I might have noticed that it’s not actually a blue state, and was fairly evenly divided, and I might have noticed that the governor, who has a decent approval rating, is conservative, but that doesn’t fit well into my ad homenin slam (because I’ve been in an echo chamber so long that I actually think that “liberal†is an insult) so, like everything else that doesn’t fit my narrow viewpoint, I’ll just ignore it.