Quantcast

«

»

Jul 15 2013

Official: The Conservative policy on single teenage mothers

After three years picking on the disabled, the poor and the unemployed, you might have thought the Tories would have run out of easy targets to bully. But no, today they decided to pick on one of the most unfairly demonized and mythologized sections of the population: single teenage mothers.

Cynics among you might imagine that this is a shameless piece of tabloid-rimming, a play to the lowest common denominator of public prejudice. But you’d be wrong. The new Tory approach was a carefully thought out policy, as demonstrated by the policy page on their official website.

Just in case they one day get around to changing it, here’s a screengrab

loremtories(click to enlarge)

You might think the policy is to make single mothers learn Latin. You’d be wrong. This isn’t Latin, it is Ipsum Lorem, the meaningless gobbledegook that designers use as placeholder text when they’re waiting for actual content to come in.

Nice to know they give these things so much careful consideration and planning, isn’t it?

 

[Big hat tip to @belovedsanspoof who pointed me that way.]

374 comments

3 pings

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    johngreg

    HAHAHAHA.

    That is absolutely priceless. I’m a tech writer, so that sort of thing always tickles me, especially as since 2001 we have seen such a turndown in the available tech writing work as so much of it is now passed on to otherwise-experted office staff.

    Love it.

  2. 2
    Bill Door

    So, the actual Conservative policy remains an anguis in herba?

  3. 3
    Sid

    Not a conservative, but why shouldn’t all these women that are opting to have children without the willing consent of a suitable father and teaching young children that its normal be held responsible for their choices?

    Oh silly me, I forgot – they are female and therefore don’t make choices.

  4. 4
    Sid

    Link to the con. policy’s not working.

  5. 5
    Adiabat

    Sid: Because holding them responsible for their behaviour involves abandoning the child to a life of abject poverty. That’s why the state provides for them.

  6. 6
    Adiabat

    Plus they are children themselves and we generally don’t hold children to the same standards of behaviour as adults.

    Perhaps they should make it legally impossible for a child to become the legal guardian of another child and force the parents/grandparents to provide for them.

  7. 7
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    For fuck sake, Sid.

  8. 8
    Sid

    Adibat

    Because holding them responsible for their behaviour involves abandoning the child to a life of abject poverty. That’s why the state provides for them.

    No it doesn’t.

    You can easily point out that these women are making bad choices that are costing a fortune leading to higher rates of criminality etc. and reduce incentives for doing so without abandoning the children to a life of abject poverty.

  9. 9
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    Sid, you are presumably aware that being a single mother is almost always not a choice?

  10. 10
    Sid

    @Thumper AM

    What would you prefer,

    that we keep pretending that children are born into these dysfunctional situations by accident and women to continue to believe its normal to have children with unsuitable and fathers that gave no consent to fatherhood?

    or

    have a culture in which women understand that its a abusive to make unilateral decisions to bring children into these dysfunctional situations?

    The latter would be best for the children, which treats women like responsible adults, the former is delusional nonsense that inflanalizes women.

  11. 11
    Sid

    Thumper AM

    Sid, you are presumably aware that being a single mother is almost always not a choice?

    Citation?

    So, all these teen mothers have no access to abortion?

  12. 12
    John Morales

    Sid, what would being “held responsible for their choices” entail, in your opinion?

  13. 13
    Adiabat

    Sid; “You can easily point out that these women are making bad choices that are costing a fortune leading to higher rates of criminality etc. and reduce incentives for doing so without abandoning the children to a life of abject poverty.”

    True. I agree with you above that they often do have a choice most of the time, though exception exist. But you also cannot force people to make sensible choices. And once they have made their bad choice what do you do?

    Taking the child into care is even more expensive. Not helping at all can lead to poverty and living on the streets for mother and child.

    I prefer forcing the grandparents to become legal guardians where possible/alive. But for the exceptions social housing is the cheapest alternative. There are cheaper ‘hostel-like’ solutions where we house several single-parents and children together but they cannot be long term.

    Also note that the article refers to teenage pregancy. If these are adults then I’m less sympathetic, but solutions are still limited.

    I agree that our current system can be tweaked though to find a new balance between helping people and incentivising them to make bad choices.

  14. 14
    Gjenganger

    @Sid 3
    Short answer: Even if you do not want to, you need to help the mothers because it is the only way to help the children. And 1) Their parents are not their fault. 2) Having children grow up in bad curcumstances without help is not only a waste of human resources, it makes expensive trouble for society further down the line.

  15. 15
    Sid

    Gjenganger@14

    Having children grow up in bad curcumstances without help is not only a waste of human resources, it makes expensive trouble for society further down the line.

    All the more reason to start teaching women that making unilateral decisions to have babies without the willing consent of a suitable father is abusive.

  16. 16
    brizian

    @Sid 11

    So, all these teen mothers have no access to abortion?

    If the article were about single mothers getting abortions, you’d be in a frenzy about why the fathers weren’t considered.

  17. 17
    Bitethehand

    While I am not in favour of withdrawing benefits from single mothers, I do believe that their payment should be conditional on the father being identified, where this is possible, (sometimes the father is deceased) so that he can be required to make a meaningful social, economic and financial contribution and committment to his child’s life.

  18. 18
    Ally Fogg

    Sid, I think we can all generally agree that it is not the best idea for single young girls to be having babies without the social and financial resources to support them. Forget the economics, it’s just not really the ideal life choice for anyone.

    As it happens, the great majority of teenagers who get pregnant do have abortions. Many of the others have boyfriends who say they will support them and then bugger off when they see the reality. Othtyers are so terrified by what’s happening that they don’t tell anyone until it’s too late for an abortion. The situations are almost always complicated and messy.

    It is a complete myth that having a baby is a ticket to housing, benefits and an easy life for the vast majority of teenage mothers. It’s a ticket to years of poverty, stress and hard work for most.

    All of this might be why the numbers of teenage pregnancies have plummeted over the past 40 years. The numbers of teenagers who intentionally get pregnant, for whatever reasons, is minute. If not a single teenage girl got pregnant for evermore, the savings to the overall benefits bill would be so negligible as to go unnoticed.

    So to pick on them as a political project is purely sensationalist and intended to divide and rule and distract people with Ten Minutes of Hate.

  19. 19
    Sid

    brizian@16

    If the article were about single mothers getting abortions, you’d be in a frenzy about why the fathers weren’t considered.

    Nope.

    A father has no right to force unwanted parenthood on an unwilling woman that has not consented to parenthood, and this is quite correct.

    My controversial and allegedly misogynist position is that I also believe that women should have no right to force parenthood on men that have not given their willing consent. (SADDLE UP, GET OUT THE PITCHFORKS AND TORCHES FEMINIST MEN!!!)

    I believe my allegedly misogynist position provides incentives for better contraception use and would save billions as well as would ease suffering, poverty, abuse and criminality

  20. 20
    Jacob Schmidt

    You can easily point out that these women are making bad choices that are costing a fortune leading to higher rates of criminality etc. and reduce incentives for doing so without abandoning the children to a life of abject poverty.

    Whenever I see crap like this, I wonder how far away the speaker is from proposing a ban on teenagers recieving medical aid for car accidents.

  21. 21
    Sid

    Ally

    Benefits culture where children = payments is not a myth.

    Thomas Sowell predicted it back when it started, and he was rights – since then the steady single mother rate of 6% has been greatly greatly inflated.

    What you are looking at now is an ingrained culture.

  22. 22
    pikeamus

    @ Bitethehand:
    That doesn’t sound right to me. Consider the following scenarios:
    1. Contraception fails for two 17 year olds who have just started having sex. Assume neither have a supportive family background. The girl decides she wants to keep the child. This is of course absolutely her right and should not be taken away from her by anyone.

    I believe that in this scenario it would be laudable for the boy to choose to be responsible (financially and otherwise) for the child but I would also say that it would be unfair for the boy to be held financially responsible for something that was the choice of someone else.

    2. Same situation but this time the girl is unsure if she wants to keep the child. The boy says he’ll support her and be there and encourages her to keep the child. Shortly before the child is born the boy has a change of heart and leaves.

    In this situation I believe the boy should have a legal financial responsibility for the child. His actions, at a point where a different outcome was possible, led to this situation so the consequences are justly his.

    3. Same situation but in this case the pregnancy is not discovered until too late to allow for termination. Alternately, the girl does discover but through social pressure, fear, embarrassment or other reasons does not inform the boy until too late.

    Honestly not sure which way I lean in this scenario but it an important enough situation that it should be mentioned.

    Obviously the child will need support in all three scenarios (and countless others) but I would say there are likely to a large enough number of cases where it would be unethical for the law to demand financial contribution from the boy, so well-crafted legislation would try to avoid the kind of blanket approach you advocated.

    There will always be some asymmetry of financial risk between men and women with regards to pregnancy, that is unavoidable* but the law should try and be as fair as possible. In cases where additional financial help is required for raising a child the state should of course oblige.

    * That is, the asymmetry of financial risk is impossible to eliminate entirely while abortion is available and where the decision is legally only in the hands of the woman. Anybody that wants to change these conditions though is morally monstrous anyway.

  23. 23
    brizian

    Nope.

    A father has no right to force unwanted parenthood on an unwilling woman that has not consented to parenthood, and this is quite correct.

    My controversial and allegedly misogynist position is that I also believe that women should have no right to force parenthood on men that have not given their willing consent. (SADDLE UP, GET OUT THE PITCHFORKS AND TORCHES FEMINIST MEN!!!)

    I believe my allegedly misogynist position provides incentives for better contraception use and would save billions as well as would ease suffering, poverty, abuse and criminality

    Woah there. Who’s talking pitchforks and torches?

    I would argue that, as a male, if you don’t want kids, it’s up to you prevent them. No woman can force fatherhood on you if you’ve taken your own precautions.

  24. 24
  25. 25
    Adiabat

    Ally:

    It is a complete myth that having a baby is a ticket to housing, benefits and an easy life for the vast majority of teenage mothers. It’s a ticket to years of poverty, stress and hard work for most.

    Try telling the teenage girls this because I’ve known a couple actually do it. You’re right about the fact that it’s not what we would class as “the easy life”, but the bigger question is whether is an “easier life” than what other alternatives they can expect. These girls often have no prospects whatsoever, so in that sense a “free council house” and “free money” for getting pregnant is a viable choice for some.

    The increased opportunities that have come about in the last 40 years could be seen as the reason why teenage pregnancies have dropped rather than the idea that it’s “all a myth”. And there’s also the issue that the current situation incentivises some to claim they are single parents when they are not, due to the fact that they will be made much better off.

    The numbers of teenagers who intentionally get pregnant, for whatever reasons, is minute.

    And how many perhaps don’t take as much precaution as they should because of the extensive safety net they have? It’s not just about intention.

    Basically I’m asking for evidence for your “it’s all a myth” argument.

    JC:

    Whenever I see crap like this, I wonder how far away the speaker is from proposing a ban on teenagers recieving medical aid for car accidents.

    Which crap in particular? I believe there are some tentative results coming out linking single-parenthood to greater chance of criminality. And future criminality is a future cost which adds onto current welfare costs. I admit it’s not something I’ve looked into extensively though.

  26. 26
    Adiabat

    brizian: That same argument can be used to disallow abortion.

  27. 27
    FloraPoste

    “Making unilateral decisions to have babies without the willing consent of a suitable father”

    So who defines what a “suitable father” is? You? Or the mom?

    What if an “unsuitable” father is strongly in favor of having the baby? Should the mom unilaterally decide not to have the baby?

  28. 28
    Sid

    FloralPoste

    Unsuitable father – unknown, victim of reproductive abuse, not willing to commit, never gave to consent to fatherhood, wasn’t planning a baby, had on idea she was planning on a baby, teenager whos not ready etc.

    What if an “unsuitable” father is strongly in favor of having the baby? Should the mom unilaterally decide not to have the baby?

    Yes.

  29. 29
    Sid

    What if an “unsuitable” father is strongly in favor of having the baby? Should the mom unilaterally decide not to have the baby?

    Only a very hypocritical and oppressive person would support one gender having the right to force parenthood on the other, while simultaneous defending the others right to not have parenthood forced on them, right?

  30. 30
    Schala

    I would argue that, as a male, if you don’t want kids, it’s up to you prevent them. No woman can force fatherhood on you if you’ve taken your own precautions.

    Keep it in your pants is not valid when pro-life people tell it to women, it should not be valid when pro-choice people tell it to men either.

  31. 31
    FloraPoste

    Sid – so you think it is up to the woman to evaluate the father for suitability, and if he doesn’t meet the criteria, to abort even if she would otherwise want to have the baby, and even if the father is in favor of having the baby?

  32. 32
    Timid Atheist

    How do you get a demand for abstinence from this quote?

    I would argue that, as a male, if you don’t want kids, it’s up to you prevent them. No woman can force fatherhood on you if you’ve taken your own precautions.

    Precautions usually mean birth control do they not? At least that’s how I read it. I could be wrong. But regardless of his intent with that sentence, youi’re right Schala, abstinence isn’t the right answer regardless of who they’re telling it to.

    As a single mother, who was an adult when she became pregnant, I have a bit of knowledge when it comes to situations like this. But I’m in the US and I’m also white and able bodied and cis, which makes a huge difference when dealing with such things. Along with that my child’s father and I married for a brief time and while we have joint custody, she goes to school where he lives, so I see her less often than he does.

    Pregnancy and child raising is difficult in the best of circumstances. These young girls need help, absolutely. Not everyone is lucky to be born into privilege. Taking away this kind of help disproportionately affects women of color, disabled women and so on.

    I don’t know how this affects anyone who has a uterus that does not identify as a woman. Anyone know?

  33. 33
    Adiabat

    FloraPoste (31):

    Sid – so you think it is up to the woman to evaluate the father for suitability, and if he doesn’t meet the criteria, to abort even if she would otherwise want to have the baby, and even if the father is in favor of having the baby?

    I knew you would intentionally misinterpret Sid when he posted #28 I almost made a post telling him to make it clearer but thought it would be a good test to see who’s arguing in good faith.

    It’s obvious that he’s referring to the “unilaterally decide” bit when he said “yes”, but of course you decide to interpret him in the worst possible way.

  34. 34
    Sid

    I would argue that, as a male, if you don’t want kids, it’s up to you prevent them. No woman can force fatherhood on you if you’ve taken your own precautions.

    I would argue it should not be view as the woman right to force parenthood on a man in the event of rape, reproductive abuse/ BC sabotage, an accident, a night in mutual irresponsibility etc.

  35. 35
    Sid

    edit

    I would argue THAT it should not be THE view THAT the woman HAS THE right to force parenthood on a man in the event of rape, reproductive abuse/ BC sabotage, an accident, a night in mutual irresponsibility etc.

  36. 36
    brizian

    @Sid 29

    Only a very hypocritical and oppressive person would support one gender having the right to force parenthood on the other, while simultaneous defending the others right to not have parenthood forced on them, right?

    Once a woman is pregnant, it is her body and thus her decision whether or not to continue with the pregnancy. This is a very simple concept to grasp. It’s a bummer if you both agreed beforehand you didn’t want kids, and she suddenly changes her mind, but the only recourse is taking away her bodily autonomy, and that is unacceptable.

    @Schala 30

    Keep it in your pants is not valid when pro-life people tell it to women, it should not be valid when pro-choice people tell it to men either.

    First of all, I didn’t say “keep it in your pants”, I said take precautions.

    Second of all, that is a false comparison. In the first case, pro-life people are trying to override a woman’s right to bodily autonomy (they don’t want her to have an abortion). In the second case, a man is trying to override a woman’s right to bodily autonomy (he wants to force her to have an abortion). You are essentially arguing that women should only have bodily autonomy when you want them to.

    Nothing’s foolproof, but you don’t get to override someone else’s decision about their own body. This is why I said it is up to you (and in your best interest) to take precautions if you are having sex but don’t want children.

    @Adiabat 26

    brizian: That same argument can be used to disallow abortion.

    Not true. See above.

  37. 37
    Timid Atheist

    I would argue it should not be view as the woman right to force parenthood on a man in the event of rape, reproductive abuse/ BC sabotage, an accident, a night in mutual irresponsibility etc.

    In the event of rape of the man? Or are you talking about all rape?

  38. 38
    Sid

    Perhaps it should be reciprocal – women that are of the view that women should be able to force men into parenthood, forgo the right to abortion, adoption etc.

    Women that support men having the right not to be forced into parenthood against their will, have access to the full range of choices and options.

  39. 39
    brizian

    @ Sid 35

    I would argue THAT it should not be THE view THAT the woman HAS THE right to force parenthood on a man in the event of rape, reproductive abuse/ BC sabotage, an accident, a night in mutual irresponsibility etc.

    I think the only way this could possibly work is if you have some sort of legal option for “opting out” of parenthood. How you would successfully implement this, I don’t know, and the ramifications and potential for misuse/abuse are enormous. Any thoughts on such a thing?

  40. 40
    FloraPoste

    I am asking for clarification. Sid is the one who brought up the issue of father’s suitability. Whose responsibility is it to decide when a farther is “suitable”? He listed “wasn’t planning a baby” and “being a teenager” as factors that would make a father unsuitable. If the prospective dad in those situations supports the birth option should his offer of support be ignored?

  41. 41
    Ginkgo

    Thumper @ 9 – “….presumably aware that being a single mother is almost always not a choice?”

    This may be a little overstaed but it probably comes in pretty close. if we look at the various ways someone becomes a single mother:

    1. Teenage girl getting pregnant – I got a good look at this when I was teaching high school. Either the pregnancies were absolute accidents – the sperm and the ova of the most destructive weed species in the history of the planet are pretty sure to find a way eventually around even the most advanced barriers – or else they were girls who “chose” to have a baby because they just felt ti was time to geton with life and motherhood meant adulthood to them.

    If you told them that a teneage pregnancy would ruin their lives, they would probably agree, but they didn’t see that they were going to have much of a life, and they were mostly objectively correct about this, so they went with what they knew from home. If this is a choice, it’s not enough of a choice to be called a choice.

    So moving on off topic:

    2. NYT trend pieces about rich young women in Manhattan deciding to have children on their own. This is so de minimis – these people are in fact so marginal and trivial and few that I am only mentioning them because they are often brought up like the Next Big Looming Disaster.

    3. Divorce – Women tend to initiate divorce more than men – so much for men being the commitphobes -and there are surveys showing that women divorce because they are not “happy” in the marriage, which can cover a lot of ground, but if it’s just lack of romance or fulfilment in their lives, that is in fact a pretty selfish reason to inflict single parenthood on their kids. But I just have a hard time believing this is happening all that often. Sole custody is bad for kids if it results in functional fatherlessness, but that is a separte if related issue.

  42. 42
    Sid

    brizian

    Women intending on having children would have to inform their partners and get consent or in the event of a pregnancy they intend on converting into a family, they would have to to inform the “donor” and they could lodge paternal surrender order, or accept future parenthood.

    The very existence of this would stop a lot of the dysfunction that’s going on out there.

  43. 43
    brizian

    So the government would, in essence, have to issue “baby licenses” in order for it to be legal for you to reproduce?

  44. 44
    Adiabat

    Brizian: “Not true. See above.”

    Very true. You are arguing that if you don’t want to be responsible for a child then it’s your responsibility to use precautions to prevent pregnancy. That argument is as equally valid against a woman as a man. Therefore it can be used to disallow abortion just as much to force men to provide for children they do not want. Both forms of the argument are as valid as one another.

    After fertilisation is a completely separate issue:

    Once a woman is pregnant, it is her body and thus her decision whether or not to continue with the pregnancy. This is a very simple concept to grasp. It’s a bummer if you both agreed beforehand you didn’t want kids, and she suddenly changes her mind, but the only recourse is taking away her bodily autonomy, and that is unacceptable.

    That’s not the only recourse. The fact that Sid in post #19 said “A father has no right to force unwanted parenthood on an unwilling woman that has not consented to parenthood, and this is quite correct” should’ve given you a clue that that isn’t what we are arguing before you gave your predictable ‘stock reply’.

    If we agree that we have to right to bodily autonomy, then that includes all bodily autonomy, including the right to control the results of your labour. As it stands currently we give the woman complete control over her body in her decision to relinquish all responsibilities for failed protection etc, and we give her control of the body of the father, in the form of his labour for the next 18 years. The solution is to give both parents control over their bodies: that is allow for what is known as ‘paper abortions’ where the man, like the woman, has a say to relinquish all responsibilities and rights as a parent. If he chooses a paper abortion she still gets complete control over her body.

    It should also be remembered that forcing men against their will to provide for a child they did not want will “disproportionately affect men of color, disabled men and so on”. /sarcasm

    Timid Atheist: The rape of the man, obviously.

  45. 45
    Adiabat

    Brizian: Sorry about the last post, lost my cool a bit. I’ve just heard that argument sooo many times it gets a bit tiring.

    I just wish people would argue against what people say, or ask for clarification, then argue against a strawman.

    I suppose that’s the internet though.

  46. 46
    Adiabat

    Florapaste (40): It wasn’t the unsuitable father bit, but the “abort even if she wants the kid” bit. I can normally forgive a bit of misinterpretation; we all misinterpret the people we are arguing against but that one was so egregious, especially when he said the exact opposite several times already that I had to call it out.

    Personally, and I can’t speak for Sid, but it seems obvious to me that we are all responsible for those we choose to have children with. It doesn’t excuse a “deadbeat dad” but to claim that we can breed with someone who is unable to provide for the child, such as a child (ie teenage boy), then moan about how he doesn’t provide for the child seems a bit silly to me.

  47. 47
    Adiabat

    Last post for today. Promise.

    Brizian:

    I think the only way this could possibly work is if you have some sort of legal option for “opting out” of parenthood. How you would successfully implement this, I don’t know, and the ramifications and potential for misuse/abuse are enormous. Any thoughts on such a thing?

    Obviously legal and free availability of abortion would have to be in place, and the paper abortion decision would have to be made before the abortion limit. If pregnancy is discovered too late it would be an exception. Rapists would get no option for paper abortion. If the mother knows but decides not to tell the father then he gets the option within a time period of finding out, regardless of whether the abortion date has passed.

    What particular ramifications and misuse/abuse do you predict?

    P.S I don’t see why ‘baby licences’ would be required. Can you elaborate?

  48. 48
    brizian

    @Adiabat

    I believe I misread Sid’s post.

  49. 49
    Sid

    brizian

    So the government would, in essence, have to issue “baby licenses” in order for it to be legal for you to reproduce?

    The government and / or the church has being something similar for a long time, marriage.

    Women would just have to have willing consent before then made someone a father, men would know they have the right to say no when there are “accidents”.

    As a result use of BC would go up, single mothers, crime, welfare, abuse etc would go down.

    Did you know that 1 in 10 american men have caught their SO trying to commit reproductive abuse? Obviously the true figure is going to be much higher – if men could say no, all that would end.

  50. 50
    Adiabat

    clarification: If pregnancy is discovered too late it would be an exception and paper abortion would not be an option.

  51. 51
    brizian

    @Aidabat

    Let me pose a hypothetical scenario:

    1. Both partners agree beforehand that they want kids.
    2. The woman is uncomfortable with abortion.
    3. The woman becomes pregnant and the man changes his mind; opts for paper abortion.

    Do we not have here the potential for a new type of “deadbeat dad” (for lack of a better term), one who gets cold feet at the last minute and is now able to legally wash his hands of the situation?

  52. 52
    Schala

    Second of all, that is a false comparison. In the first case, pro-life people are trying to override a woman’s right to bodily autonomy (they don’t want her to have an abortion). In the second case, a man is trying to override a woman’s right to bodily autonomy (he wants to force her to have an abortion). You are essentially arguing that women should only have bodily autonomy when you want them to.

    What Adiabat said at 44 and 47.

    Nobody forcing anyone to do anything, wether to abort or raise or pay for the kid. Worst kind scenario, the state pays for the kid. The right of the child is thus insured. The right of one parent to force the second parent to pay for the unilateral decision of the former does not and should not exist. You decide, your consequences. Or you can adopt it out. Unless the father opts in (signifies that he wants the kid, without coercion present – such as families thinking shotgun weddings are fine and dandy).

  53. 53
    Adiabat

    brizian: “I believe I misread Sid’s post.”

    No problem. I’m bowing out for now. I’ll reply to any comments at some point.

  54. 54
    Schala

    Do we not have here the potential for a new type of “deadbeat dad” (for lack of a better term), one who gets cold feet at the last minute and is now able to legally wash his hands of the situation?

    He has to agree DURING pregnancy, in written word. Not before, in an unspecified time frame (could be 10 years before), orally.

  55. 55
    FloraPoste

    “Florapaste (40): It wasn’t the unsuitable father bit, but the “abort even if she wants the kid” bit”

    Wait, what? “Abort even if she wants the kid” is *exactly* what he is advocating with the “take responsibility” talk. Abort it even if you can’t support it.

  56. 56
    FloraPoste

    Oops, I mean, abort if you can’t support it.

  57. 57
    Anonamoose

    This barely seems worth mentioning because this wasn’t strictly speaking based on the website so much as the website was used as a reason to discuss it…but you know that was a mistake right? Probably a leftover from when they were scaffolding the site that was accidentally left live.

  58. 58
    Ginkgo

    Brizan @ 51 – ” The woman becomes pregnant and the man changes his mind; opts for paper abortion.

    Do we not have here the potential for a new type of “deadbeat dad” (for lack of a better term), one who gets cold feet at the last minute and is now able to legally wash his hands of the situation?”

    If you flip the genders aremedy for this already exists in some states – no-questions-asked dropped boxes for newborns. Does the UK have anything simialr?) If fathers as well as mothers had the right to this option it would remedy what you are calling a new type of deadbeat dad.

  59. 59
    brizian

    @Gingko

    You’re missing the point. The mother doesn’t want to give up the child. The father has made a last minute change of mind to go the “paper abortion” route. This was a planned pregnancy that the mother intends to carry to term, but the father changed his mind at the last minute and he is now being given a legal route to absolve himself of all responsibility to the child. This is what I mean when I talk of potential abuse of the system.

  60. 60
    Ginkgo

    Brizian -”@Gingko -You’re missing the point. The mother doesn’t want to give up the child. The father has made a last minute change of mind to go the “paper abortion” route”

    No, you’re missing the point. The point is that if a mother decides at the last moment to go her own particular paper abortion route, the drop box, we provide a way for her to do that, and neither she nor the father have any further repsonsibility – despite whatever he may want. All I am suggesting is that we afford the exact same option to the father – an option for him unilaterally to decide to give the child up for adoption, the same as the mother has in those states. And again, neither parent would have any further responsibility and the child is cared for in an adoptive family.

    “This is what I mean when I talk of potential abuse of the system.”

    The option for adoption resolves this. The child is cared for – there is a huge adoption market because the demand is so high and the supply so small – and neither parent has any further responsibility to evade.

  61. 61
    brizian

    So you’re suggesting that the father should be allowed to take the newborn away from the mother that carried it to term and wants to keep it, and then give it up for adoption?

  62. 62
    Schala

    So you’re suggesting that the father should be allowed to take the newborn away from the mother that carried it to term and wants to keep it, and then give it up for adoption?

    She raises it alone financially, or she gives it away. Either way she can’t blame him.

  63. 63
    FloraPoste

    “She raises it alone financially, or she gives it away. Either way she can’t blame him.”

    But “it” might blame him.

    An abortion often prevents a life of suffering for a child. A “paper abortion” never could.

    And no adoption doesn’t resolve everything – there’s huge demand for healthy white infants, you’re out of luck if born disabled and mixed race.

  64. 64
    WithinThisMind

    Of for fuck’s sake, no, the mother doesn’t have the ability to ‘unilaterally’ give a child up for adoption. The father, if he has bothered to pay the slightest fucking bit of attention, can petition for custody in such a case and even get child support from the mother.

  65. 65
    Schala

    Of for fuck’s sake, no, the mother doesn’t have the ability to ‘unilaterally’ give a child up for adoption. The father, if he has bothered to pay the slightest fucking bit of attention, can petition for custody in such a case and even get child support from the mother.

    IF he knew she was pregnant.
    IF he knew she was pregnant from him.
    IF he wants to raise the kid alone.
    IF she doesn’t go to a baby box.
    IF he petitions within a very early window of opportunity.
    IF he even gets notified.

    And good luck with getting child support.

  66. 66
    Schala

    An abortion often prevents a life of suffering for a child. A “paper abortion” never could.

    And no adoption doesn’t resolve everything – there’s huge demand for healthy white infants, you’re out of luck if born disabled and mixed race.

    Boo fucking hoo.

    But the kid might be an outlier who doesn’t have it easy in life! Let’s make men into slaves for 18 years instead.

  67. 67
    carnation

    @ Sid

    Ah, the “spermburgling” MRA fantasy!!

    OK Sid, let’s play your silly game. I’ll keep it simple…

    How many people aren’t aware that sex can lead to pregnancy?

    How many people involved in sex potentially leading to pregnancy (usually)?

  68. 68
    carnation

    @68 Schala

    Define a slave?

    Define a man paying a financial contribution towards raising his child?

    Why are you against men being held to account for the results of their decisions?

  69. 69
    carnation

    @ Sid and @ Schala

    My dear MRA friends, a scenario for you.

    A woman is pregnant toa man. The woman wants an abortion. The man wants the child to be born and him to raise the baby.

    Way rights should the man have?

  70. 70
    Schala

    There are debtor’s prisons for men who don’t pay child support. Making it actual slavery. If they default, to prison they go, regardless of the reason for defaulting.

    And debtors prisons were supposed to have been entirely removed, on top.

  71. 71
    Schala

    A woman is pregnant toa man. The woman wants an abortion. The man wants the child to be born and him to raise the baby.

    Way rights should the man have?

    Sucks to be him, unless she really wants to bring the child to term, he has zero recourse.

  72. 72
    Ginkgo

    Brizian @ 61 – ‘So you’re suggesting that the father should be allowed to take the newborn away from the mother that carried it to term and wants to keep it, and then give it up for adoption?”

    In the states I am referring to, that is exactly what the mother is empowered to do to the father, and you haven’t criticized that so i take you find it unobjectionable – so what is oyu criticism of my proposal?

    And please no pregnancy privilege “she carried the baby in her body!”special pleading. Both parents are either equal or they are not.

    carnation @ 69 – Whatever rights he may have do not trump her right to decide what she does with her body.

    One right he does retain of course is to sever any tie he may have with her, whatever its nature, at the moment she decides to abort, because at that point he owes her exactly nothing. But that should be no skin off her nose.

  73. 73
    Ginkgo

    carnation @ 69 – “Why are you against men being held to account for the results of their decisions?”

    Are you going to hold a woman to the same standard – once a pregancy commenncesshe renders all decison-making power to the otrher parent? If not why not? You do believe in equality, don’t you?

    As you say “How many people aren’t aware that sex can lead to pregnancy?”

    You do realize you are parrroting the anti-abortion crowds position, don’t you, plagiarizing their exact formulation?

  74. 74
    Ginkgo

    WTM @ 64 – “Of for fuck’s sake, no, the mother doesn’t have the ability to ‘unilaterally’ give a child up for adoption. The father, if he has bothered to pay the slightest fucking bit of attention, can petition for custody in such a case and even get child support from the mother.”

    Ths comment is either disingeuous or ignornat. It can only be one or the other. Let’s take apart a piece at a time:

    “Of for fuck’s sake, no, the mother doesn’t have the ability to ‘unilaterally’ give a child up for adoption. ”

    In some states she has exactly this option.

    “The father, if he has bothered to pay the slightest fucking bit of attention, ”

    Providing he even knows about the pregnancy, providing she has deigned to inform him. That’s quite a big if, and by the way, all in her power alone.

    “can petition for custody in such a case”

    Having to petition for custody of his own child, when the mother has no such requirement – that’s your idea of equality?

    Oh and there’s a wide gap between petitioning and actually recieving custody, which of course the mother does not face.

    ” and even get child support from the mother.”

    His chances of getting that granted are slim and of actually recieving any child support even slimmer – mother default on CS payments far more than fathers do. Although of course in this as in all things the pussy pass is in full effect. Deadbeat moms do not go to jail at anything like the rate fathers do for defaulting on CS payments. Is that also your version of equality?

  75. 75
    carnation

    @ Schala 70

    Try to escape the MRA intellectual ghetto

    Both sexes pay child support.

    A slave is someone owned by another person. A person financially supporting their child is NOT a slave, but IS a person… well, financially supporting their child.

    The inane comments via a vis pro-lifers aren’t worth responding to.

    Both parties to reproductive sex know the potential outcome.

    @ Schala 71

    I asked what rights he SHOULD have – should he be able to prevent the abortion?

    Re paper abortions, since both parties engage in an activity of which the possible outcome is known, why should one party either shirk their responsibilities? Or insist on bodily trauma for the other party?

    This area is one in which MRAs truly surpass their already high levels of evidence lacking hyperbole, worst case scenario factoids and mysoginistic stereotyping.

  76. 76
    carnation

    @ Ginko 41

    I broadly agree with your points on choice. Would you agree with me that virtually none of these mothers will be supported, financially or otherwise, by the father of their child?

    By the way, this isn’t a criticism of the father of the child: more a comment on his limited life choices and lack of financial and cultural capital.

  77. 77
    John Morales

    [OT]

    Schala:

    There are debtor’s prisons for men who don’t pay child support. Making it actual slavery. If they default, to prison they go, regardless of the reason for defaulting.

    What a remarkably stupid claim.

    (By that reasoning, tax is actual slavery!)

  78. 78
    FloraPoste

    Carnation, in the US since Clinton’s welfare reform, there’s been more stringent measures that require women to identify the father of dependent children if they apply the aid, and get the fathers to contribute support. And this is in conjunction with fewer and fewer blue collar jobs that can support a family, so it falls hard on working class men. Below a certain income level, the effects on fathers can be harsh, with little improvement to the circumstances of the child. But instead of talking about the war on the poor, the MRA’s insist on talking about feminazis, pussy passes, and insisting that surrendering a child in a drop box (which is done very rarely in cases of extreme stress) is totes the same as a dad skipping out of child support after the kid is born.

  79. 79
    Schala

    (By that reasoning, tax is actual slavery!)

    Tax is taken on your income, or included in the price of something you buy.

    Child support is imputed REGARDLESS OF YOUR CURRENT INCOME (lost your job, too bad, hire a lawyer and go try to change your order…good luck having enough money while jobless to do this though).

    Child support has been imputed on teenage boys who have no skills, not even a high school degree, based on potential future income, even if they’ve never worked. And they’ve been forced to pay their statutory rapist (who has custody of the child product of the rape) because of “best interest of children” policies.

    A slave is someone owned by another person. A person financially supporting their child is NOT a slave, but IS a person… well, financially supporting their child.

    In this case he is slave to the state, not to the child. Who will imprison him if he defaults? The state.

    And no, it’s not like taxes, read above.

    You see, I’m on welfare right now, government last recourse funds. But if I owed child support, they’d (the state) force me to find work regardless, because otherwise the state has to finance the child. And if they can put that on someone, preferably a man, they will. And trans women are considered men sometimes, women other times – whichever is most convenient.

  80. 80
    Bitethehand

    @22 pikeamus

    Yes I’m sure as you point out, that asking boys and men to take responsibility for the children they father is fraught with difficulties and there will be all manner of arguments as to what that responsibility entails. I was merely trying to raise the issue of the role of the fathers of the children of single mothers as they are rarely mentioned when the issue of “single mothers” is raised.

    This thread which seems to me to be about “ownership” rather than responsibility, is a case in point.

  81. 81
    mildlymagnificent

    Child support is imputed REGARDLESS OF YOUR CURRENT INCOME (lost your job, too bad, hire a lawyer and go try to change your order…good luck having enough money while jobless to do this though).

    There’s your problem right there. Get a better child support system.

    In Australia if a child support payer loses their job, their payment is automatically taken from their unemployment benefit payment – at the rate of $6 per week.
    http://www.smh.com.au/national/child-support-payments-cut-as-parents-lose-jobs-20090519-beau.html

  82. 82
    John Morales

    Schala:

    Tax is taken on your income, or included in the price of something you buy.

    Your contention was that being jailed for defaulting on debt was actual slavery.

    Are you now changing it to state-imposed debt based on one’s actions being actual slavery?

    (It’s still just as stupid)

    Child support has been imputed on teenage boys who have no skills, not even a high school degree, based on potential future income, even if they’ve never worked. And they’ve been forced to pay their statutory rapist (who has custody of the child product of the rape) because of “best interest of children” policies.

    Leaving aside that your original contention was about men, not teenage boys, and that if they have defaulted they definitionally haven’t been forced to pay, that has no relationship to actual slavery.

    (Your insinuation that single teenage mothers are statutory rapists is also risible)

  83. 83
    John Morales

    Bitethehand:

    I was merely trying to raise the issue of the role of the fathers of the children of single mothers as they are rarely mentioned when the issue of “single mothers” is raised.

    On the contrary; by virtue of the use of “single mothers”, it is never not mentioned.

  84. 84
    John Morales

    [meta]

    Schala:

    And trans women are considered men sometimes, women other times – whichever is most convenient.

    Maybe so, but your frequent recourse to your trans status (no matter how extreme the shoehorning may be) as a rhetorical cudgel wears thin.

    (Bah)

  85. 85
    Schala

    Are you now changing it to state-imposed debt based on one’s actions being actual slavery?

    (It’s still just as stupid)

    Can you read? Put your glasses on and read what I was replying to.

    Carnation saying I was equating tax with slavery. I said I was not.

  86. 86
    Schala

    Maybe so, but your frequent recourse to your trans status (no matter how extreme the shoehorning may be) as a rhetorical cudgel wears thin.

    I know of a trans woman who has joint custody, 50% of the time pretty much exactly. Income is similar. And guess what? She pays child support to the other parent (who is considered the only mother).

    The reverse would never happen (a woman paying to a trans man, for example). Because the system likes to think gender roles are a good thing, whenever it thinks it can get away with it (whenever it burdens men more – since no one cares, and no votes will be lost).

  87. 87
    Schala

    Leaving aside that your original contention was about men, not teenage boys, and that if they have defaulted they definitionally haven’t been forced to pay, that has no relationship to actual slavery.

    If you have defaulted it doesn’t mean you NEVER paid, it means that you have been unable to meet one or more payments. It could be your 125th payment.

    (Your insinuation that single teenage mothers are statutory rapists is also risible)

    What the fuck Batman, reading comprehension.

  88. 88
    John Morales

    Schala:

    Can you read? Put your glasses on and read what I was replying to.

    Carnation saying I was equating tax with slavery. I said I was not.

    Why would reading that to which you were replying change the nature of your contention?

    (I quoted you verbatim, and addressed that which I quoted!)

    I know of a trans woman who has joint custody, 50% of the time pretty much exactly. Income is similar. And guess what? She pays child support to the other parent (who is considered the only mother).

    The reverse would never happen (a woman paying to a trans man, for example). Because the system likes to think gender roles are a good thing, whenever it thinks it can get away with it (whenever it burdens men more – since no one cares, and no votes will be lost).

    The issue at hand is single mothers; if the trans man happens to be a single mother, then it’s relevant (but hardly typical!).

    If you have defaulted it doesn’t mean you NEVER paid, it means that you have been unable to meet one or more payments. It could be your 125th payment.

    Defaulting on debt is synonymous to non-payment of due debt; if one has been forced to pay, then one has paid and thus has not defaulted.

    (You left yourself no wriggle-room)

    (Your insinuation that single teenage mothers are statutory rapists is also risible)
    What the fuck Batman, reading comprehension.

    So, are you speaking of single mothers in general, or of that subset of single mothers who are statutory rapists and have won child support rights? :)

    (Holy equivocation, Batman!)

  89. 89
    Schala

    Defaulting on debt is synonymous to non-payment of due debt; if one has been forced to pay, then one has paid and thus has not defaulted.

    (You left yourself no wriggle-room)

    If your debt is continuous and you miss payments 120 through 130 they confiscate your driving license and then emprison you, you’ve paid part of your debt (the first 119 ones), and have been punished for not paying it completely.

    Defaulting on mortgage doesn’t mean “not paying a single cent”, it means you stop paying your due.

    So, are you speaking of single mothers in general, or of that subset of single mothers who are statutory rapists and have won child support rights?

    The latter obviously. And teen mothers? WTF I never mentioned them. It might be the thread topic, but it’s not necessarily what I talk about.

    and your “debt based on one’s action”, by this you mean, having sex?

    Having consensual sex now runs the risk of 18 years of child support, backed by the threat of prison if you don’t pay at some point, for any reason whatsoever. Abstinence never looked brighter…for men anyways. Women can have affordable 99% effective non-rubber birth control, on top of barrier methods, abortion, baby drop box, adoption without naming the father – why be abstinent right.

    Equality – except when it benefits women.

  90. 90
    Schala

    Never been more happy to be idiopathically and permanently infertile.

    Lots of people, maybe the majority, want kids. Some for peer pressure “because everyone does it”, some want to pass on their genes, some want to pass on their knowledge, some want to vicariously live through them, some find no other purpose in life than being a parent…

    So while I can celebrate my not being able or ever wanting to be a parent, I doubt my situation is practical or even desired for most.

    But given the costs, I bet more men want it nowadays than before.

    You know, in countries with super male privilege and female oppression, there is the notion that trans men would outnumber trans women, because wanting male privileges and social bonus would be much more of an incentive for the people on the fence on the trans masculine side than those on the fence on the trans feminine side.

    Yet I know of no country where this is true. While the stereotype says the reverse is very true, even in countries where being trans is very oppressive, or makes you a pariah (Thailand). The standards of care have even outlined in them that one should not be green-lit for transition if they transition for privileges afforded to the other sex. At a time when people who drafted those standards thought only or the vast majority of trans people were trans women.

    But keep thinking male privilege trumps female privilege.

    I know otherwise. I’m much more privileged now. Where it matters, at the social and protection level. I don’t care for being rich, for being famous or for having the illusion of power. I’ll leave that to people who want it. I want a good quality of life, protection from violence directed at me from all sources, and a just system to prosecute wrongs against me – and I got all that. Much much more as a female. They’ll even side with me when they shouldn’t, based on bias they shouldn’t have, that says I’m better, safer, more moral, earned it more, suffered more. This includes your random shopkeeper, and your court judge.

    Because I’m worth it.

  91. 91
    John Morales

    Schala:

    Defaulting on mortgage doesn’t mean “not paying a single cent”, it means you stop paying your due.

    Therefore, you haven’t been forced to pay your due (since you have stopped paying your due), and therefore this is not applicable to your contention; or: part-payment is not payment.

    (You can’t salvage that claim, as I’ve already noted. That you nonetheless essay the effort speaks volumes about your acumen)

    The latter obviously. And teen mothers? WTF I never mentioned them. It might be the thread topic, but it’s not necessarily what I talk about.

    So… what do you imagine is the ratio of single mothers who are statutory rapists and have won child support rights to single fathers who are statutory rapists and have been imputed child support rights?

    I put it to you that it is less than unity by a fair amount.

    (Holy cherry-picking, Batman!))

    Having consensual sex now runs the risk of 18 years of child support, backed by the threat of prison if you don’t pay at some point, for any reason whatsoever.

    For the male parent, perhaps; for the distaff side, it’s not a risk — it’s a certainty!

    (The asymmetry is striking)

    Abstinence never looked brighter…for men anyways.

    If so, it’s because it’s the legal consequences — rather than the moral ones — which motivate them. :|

    Women can have affordable 99% effective non-rubber birth control, on top of barrier methods, abortion, baby drop box, adoption without naming the father – why be abstinent right.

    Your narrative equating young women to trollops is less than admirable, leaving aside its congruence to the realities of our culture.

    Equality – except when it benefits women.

    Heh. You wrote that; do you stand by it?

  92. 92
    John Morales

    [meta + OT]

    But keep thinking male privilege trumps female privilege.

    I know otherwise.

    Here, you’re just another commenter; you have no privilege any other commenter doesn’t have, nor do you lack any privilege any other commenter has.

    (If only you’d learn to quantify your claims, you’d be a much better commenter)

  93. 93
    carnation

    @ Schala

    I didn’t equate paying tax with slavery – that’s an idiotic thing to do.

    I said to be a slave means to be owned by someone else. To financially support your child means to financially support your child.

    Got any citations for your claims about imprisonment levels and the fact that income isn’t taken into consideration?

    Also, what did feminism have to do with any of this?

    Sex can lead to pregnancy, which can lead to the birth of a child. That child will need supported, developmentally, emotionally and financially. The first two can’t be forced, the third can. The state has a responsibility to force parents to ensure a child is being adequately supported. Social services monitor the first two, the last is done by other state agencies.

    @ John Morales

    Good contribution. Unfortunately, there was a shocking case when an older woman became pregnant by a minor. A bizarre legal loophole meant that he became liable to pay child support. Naturally, this became an MRA cause célèbre: an attention grabbing anomaly repeated endlessly.

  94. 94
    Ally Fogg

    Tee hee. This post was described as a “pretty big exclusive” by the Guardian Diary column, no less.

  95. 95
    Sid

    Florapost@78

    But instead of talking about the war on the poor,

    I don’t think you know what the mens movement talks about, you certainly can’t find out on manboobz.

    The mrm was very critical of National Organisation For Women’s reforms that reduced the level of arrears that resulted in prison, citing how the poorest of men were being targeted.

  96. 96
    carnation

    @ Ally

    Congratulations :)

    btw slight problem with link, there’s an ) at the end warping it.

  97. 97
    John Morales

    [meta + OT]

    carnation, “Unfortunately, there was a shocking case when an older woman became pregnant by a minor. A bizarre legal loophole meant that he became liable to pay child support. Naturally, this became an MRA cause célèbre: an attention grabbing anomaly repeated endlessly.”

    Yes; it’s precisely to what the idiom The exception that proves the rule refers.

    Ally, your link @94 is currently malformed — it has an extraneous right parenthesis appended to to the anchor tag.

    (And grats!)

  98. 98
    carnation

    @ Sid 95

    The MRM is “very critical” of many things, but is characterised by docility. Immobility and stagnation.

    What has the MRM actually ever achieved? Tangible results, please. Come to think of it, besides blogging furiously and spamming comments sections, what does the MRM actually do? After all, it’s a self described movement.

    Because you’ve experienced difficulties in understanding/accepting debate in the past, I’ll break this down further:

    *Provide examples of things that the MRM has achieved, independently.

    *Dont provide lists of things that them fem’nists have gone done, that the MRM has “exposed”

    *Provide examples of real life (NOT online) activism that the MRM has engaged in

    *Don’t provide examples of MRAs anonymously putting up posters advertising blogs

    To beat you to it, having a few counter demonstrators turn up to a university, then doxxing students, isn’t helping anyone, except those with sadistic tendencies.

  99. 99
    John Morales

    [meta]

    tarnation, carnation — you beat me to it! ;)

  100. 100
    carnation

    @ John Morales

    You said it far more eloquently than I did!

    Must brush up on my Latin. I wonder if any MRAs could assist in that endeavour…

  101. 101
    carnation

    @ Ally Fogg

    Might I ask, what’s more personally satisfying – Hugh Muir’s endorsement, or operating this blog?

    It’s become a staple of my daily life. Long may it continue, and hats off to Ally Fogg for making it happen.

  102. 102
    Sid

    Correction

    Promoting Economic Justice S0023 was the bill that reduced the level of felony CS arrears from 10,000 to 5,000, which was supported by NOW. I don’t know if the reform originated with NOW or their legal defense arm.

  103. 103
    Adiabat

    Wow, I see carnation and Morales are trolling the thread as usual.

    I especially like #69. Let’s play a game everyone! Who can find the most times that the question in that post was answered before carnation posted it? I found 3 times!

    Afterwards we can play the same game with #68 and #67. What fun!

    Brizian (51):

    Let me pose a hypothetical scenario:

    1. Both partners agree beforehand that they want kids.
    2. The woman is uncomfortable with abortion.
    3. The woman becomes pregnant and the man changes his mind; opts for paper abortion.

    Do we not have here the potential for a new type of “deadbeat dad” (for lack of a better term), one who gets cold feet at the last minute and is now able to legally wash his hands of the situation?

    I have a couple of responses to that. The first is more technical: A service is freely available but you’ve set the situation up in such a way to eliminate that factor from the equation. You might as well argue that we should disband the police force because someone was burgled but distrusts the police and doesn’t call them.

    For this reason your example doesn’t really demonstrate a problem with the police/paper abortion. A service is available but she chooses not to use it. Alternative services are also available. The choice not only to have the child but to raise it is completely hers. If she does have the baby benefits will be available to provide a basic standard of living, just as they are now when there are ‘deadbeat dads’. In this sense I see no change in the current situation regarding absent fathers.

    The second response is more pragmatic. The situation you describe will be relatively rare and is no reason not to implement a fundamental right to give men control over their bodies. Something doesn’t need to solve every single problem before we implement it. I could easily concoct a scenario where free and legal abortion makes it easier for abusive and controlling “fathers” to force girlfriends/wives to abort babies. These rare scenarios aren’t a reason to not allow abortion and your scenario isn’t a reason to not allow paper abortions.

    P.S I found Sid’s post #49 interesting with regards to marriage. Marriage is largely an empty and useless institution nowadays so more and more people aren’t bothering. If we remould marriage as a form of ‘prior consent’ to children we could remove the options for paper abortions from husbands and make marriage mean something once again. Would we also have to remove the option to have an abortion from the wife as well? I dunno. We would have to include exceptions for the exemptions of course for rare situations.

  104. 104
    carnation

    @ Adiabat

    Um, when has Morales been prominent on other threads?

    And how is discussing topics “trolling”?

    That aside, lets discuss the MRA “hot topic” paper abortions.

    Let’s assume that this is being seriously debated (which it won’t ever be) in a legislature.

    So a parent signs a document relinquishing all parental rights and responsibilities. What happens if the parent has an active role in the childbearing having had a “paper abortion”? How would it be policed?

    How would poor parents, keen to take a role in parenting, but with no economic resources, be protected from the spectre of signing a paper abortion because of the (alleged) threat of a debtor’s prison?

    At what stage of pregnancy would the paper abortion be applicable? Could it be reversed? Would the reversal be contingent on ability/willingness to pay child support? Isn’t there a risk of extortion?

    Meanwhile, in the real world, the Citizen’s Advice Bureau and MP’s offices are inundated with parents not being paid child support, with not much being done about it, non-resident parents are working hard to contribute financially and otherwise, towards their child’s upbringing, many vulnerable young (mainly) women are struggling with a child/children, with a poverty of resources of all types.

    But, as usual, MRAs occupy their patch of the lunatic fringe quoting anecdotes and suggesting legislation so wildly improbable as to be dismissed as satire by those unfamiliar with the MRM.

  105. 105
    Adiabat

    carnation, you seem to be under the misapprehension that I consider you someone worth talking to.

    I’m not making that mistake again.

  106. 106
    John Morales

    [OT]

    Adiabat:

    Marriage is largely an empty and useless institution nowadays so more and more people aren’t bothering.

    In your opinion (for what that’s worth).

    Here: The seven ways civil partnership isn’t the same as marriage

    If we remould marriage as a form of ‘prior consent’ to children we could remove the options for paper abortions from husbands and make marriage mean something once again.

    Then post-menopausal women or infertile individuals (or transwomen*) would not qualify, would they?

    (You forget that adoption is a possibility?)

    Would we also have to remove the option to have an abortion from the wife as well? I dunno.

    Inchoate opining from ignorance is not a laudable attribute.

    We would have to include exceptions for the exemptions of course for rare situations.

    Or we could define marriage as a committed partnership between two people, rather than between a man and a woman. No need for exceptions, then.

    (Poly marriages would then become the next frontier)

    * Hey Schala! :)

  107. 107
    John Morales

    [meta]

    Adiabat blusters thus:

    carnation, you seem to be under the misapprehension that I consider you someone worth talking to.

    I’m not making that mistake again.

    Translation: Adiabat cannot muster an adequate response to carnation’s posts.

  108. 108
    Adiabat

    @107 Yawn. Typical troll response to someone saying they aren’t going to reply to trolls.

  109. 109
    John Morales

    [meta]

    Adiabat, it is not a problem either for me or for carnation that you leave our claims standing; rather, the contrary.

    (I am, however, mildly amused by your ironical hypocrisy when you respond merely to claim you shan’t respond)

  110. 110
    carnation

    @ Adiabat

    Um, I was under the impression that since you addressed me, we were conducting a “discussion”. Whilst I understand you’re an MRA, I do give you some credit.

    For my part, I started off dismissing MRAs quite quickly, but now I engage with them, with promising results. Sid, for example, is an ardent MRA. I carefully and patiently explained many things to him, and he acknowledged, through omission, his extreme levels of cognitive dissonance and double standards. This is encouraging, like most MRAs, he’s driven by emotionalism and a reactionary nature. He’ll come round, slowly but surely. Of that I’ve no doubt.

    I haven’t experienced enough of your thoughts to form an impression, but MRAs are fairly generic in many ways.

  111. 111
    Jacob Schmidt

    Schala

    Women can have affordable 99% effective non-rubber birth control…

    Uhh… what? By what definition of affordable? Yours? Without insurance, the costs are actually fairly prohibitive for many (me and my partner included).

  112. 112
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    @Sid

    Apologies for taking so long, but in reply to your #10 I would preferr you to get a fucking clue, rather than presenting false dichotomies based on the fallacious assumption that all or the vast majority of single mothers became so entirely by choice. What do you think happpens, exactly? They wake up one morning and think “I fancy having a kid; best go get myself pregnant”. Single mothers exist because relationships end. As in, couple has baby, couple splits up. Or because accidents happen. What world do you live in where you think women are going out and getting purposefully pregnant with the full understanding that the father won’t be around? That’s such a mind-bogglingly stupid assumption I’m genuinely having trouble believing you were serious when you said it. However, being reasonably familiar with you by this point, I think you were. And that’s rather depressing.

  113. 113
    Schala

    Uhh… what? By what definition of affordable? Yours? Without insurance, the costs are actually fairly prohibitive for many (me and my partner included).

    I have 150$ of hormones per month. 100% covered by insurance because I’m on welfare. The normal coverage rate if I was working would be 69%, leaving me with a 31% co-pay.

    I think 50$ a month is a lot, but not cost-prohibitive. I don’t know how much contraception costs, I hear it’s entirely free here.

    Move here if you really can’t afford it. If I can afford my pills and possibly contraception on zero income, I’m sure you can too, here.

  114. 114
    Schala

    I have 150$ of hormones per month. 100% covered by insurance because I’m on welfare. The normal coverage rate if I was working would be 69%, leaving me with a 31% co-pay.

    Note that this is the universal healthcare insurance, the “I don’t have any private option” one. The basic, floor, “can’t have less than that” insurance.

  115. 115
    Sid

    @Thumper AM

    Yes, we all know accidents and “accidents” both happen, a strong indication that an accident is a legitimate is the presence of an abortion and the absence of a woman trying to force a man into fatherhood against his will.

    The majority of these teen mothers, have either planned to get pregnant, or having found out they are pregnant CHOSE it bring the baby full term.

    Of course women that get legitimate consent and planning with a father, and end up single are a different story.

    I think where you are going wrong is working off the assumption that women don’t really have minds.

    Did you know that 1 in 10 american men have caught their partners sabotaging birth control?

  116. 116
    Sid

    The most shocking thing for feminist leaning men in getting involved in the mens movement is hearling the alleged misogny that men and women think, commit abuse, pick their noses, commit reproductive abuse and pass gas at roughly equal rates.

  117. 117
    Adiabat

    In the UK female concraception in the form of the injection, implant and pill is 100% free. Girls under 18 can also get it without parents consent, as worry about parents finding out they are having sex was a major cause for them not using contraception.

    Condoms do cost around £10 (around 15$) for a pack of 12, but are free from GP surgeries and family planning clinics.

  118. 118
    Jacob Schmidt

    Schala

    Move here if you really can’t afford it. If I can afford my pills and possibly contraception on zero income, I’m sure you can too, here.

    We’ve been over this before. Also, your insurance is through a government aid to which I have no access.

    Note that this is the universal healthcare insurance, the “I don’t have any private option” one. The basic, floor, “can’t have less than that” insurance.

    Seeing as I do, in fact, have less than that, you’re clearly wrong.

  119. 119
    Adiabat

    Carnation (110):

    Um, I was under the impression that since you addressed me, we were conducting a “discussion”.

    If you look you’ll notice that I never addressed you until your ‘challenge’.

    But as a fig leaf I have a proposition: I will answer all your questions in #104 (they all have rather simple and obvious answers to anyone engaging in good faith genuinely trying to understand the points of view of other people) if you can deign to act in good faith long enough to answer just one in a reasonable and sensible way. Go on, put yourself in your opponent’s shoes; try to see things from his point of view just for a little bit.

    I’ve copied your questions below, so choose one:

    “So a parent signs a document relinquishing all parental rights and responsibilities. What happens if the parent has an active role in the childbearing having had a “paper abortion”? How would it be policed? “

    Or

    “How would poor parents, keen to take a role in parenting, but with no economic resources, be protected from the spectre of signing a paper abortion because of the (alleged) threat of a debtor’s prison?”

    Or

    “At what stage of pregnancy would the paper abortion be applicable? Could it be reversed? Would the reversal be contingent on ability/willingness to pay child support? Isn’t there a risk of extortion?”

    (I’ll give you a hint as well: part of one question has already been answered upthread before you posted the questions).

    And out of curiosity, do you agree or disagree with the basic principle that people have a right to bodily autonomy, including the right to control the results of your labour? My biggest problem with you is that I’ve clearly explained the basic ideas underpinning paper abortion in #44, yet you ignore that to post pointless questions about the execution of it in legistlation. I see it as trollish behavior not to acknowledge fundamental points before using more advanced potential issues to shut the other side down. (Ignoring valid points to post insults and random tangents is a becoming a trend for you.)

  120. 120
    Adiabat

    Me: “I see it as trollish behavior not to acknowledge fundamental points before using more advanced potential issues to shut the other side down.”

    The fallacy being that just because their may be some issues that need working out to implement the moral principle in legislation the moral principle itself is wrong.

  121. 121
    Sid

    Someone has done a good illustration of men’s reproductive obligations verses women’s reproductive rights and privileges.

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/portal/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Fuck-you-Amanda-Marcotte.png

  122. 122
    carnation

    @ Sid 121

    Sid, do you realiize that a blog which had been flagged by an organization dedicated to combatting hatred and bigotry isn’t going to be recognised as a valid source by the overwhelming majority of people?

  123. 123
    Adiabat

    Thumper (112):

    What do you think happpens, exactly? They wake up one morning and think “I fancy having a kid; best go get myself pregnant”.

    I’ll have a stab at this. Like I said, I’ve known a couple of teenage girls do the whole baby-council house thing. As far as I can tell they don’t wake up one morning and think “I fancy having a kid; best go get myself pregnant”. So you are right. Usually they just don’t pay much attention to contraception because they don’t consider the consequences of getting pregnant to be that bad. I remember hearing the phrase, and I’m paraphrasing because it was a while back, “So what? If I get pregnant I’ll just get given a house by council like my mum/sister/cousin did” more than a few times. (fsm, am I glad I no longer live where I grew up).

    No doubt they regretted it when the baby came and they couldn’t go out with their friends anymore.

  124. 124
    carnation

    @ Adiabat

    “How would poor parents, keen to take a role in parenting, but with no economic resources, be protected from the spectre of signing a paper abortion because of the (alleged) threat of a debtor’s prison?”

    I’ll answer this as I’d imagine an MRA would.

    The father of the child is already in danger of a debtor’s prison if he can’t afford to pay for the upkeep of his child, even if he has no access to,said child. So having a “paper abortion” would be a way of protecting the father for this threat. The father might already know that he’ll be excluded from the child’s life by the mother anyway, and decide that he’s going to opt for the safe option.

    I felt ridiculous writing some of that, but I’m a good sport, so,there you go.

  125. 125
    carnation

    @ Adiabat 123

    Teenage pregnancy predates council housing. And the welfare state, for that matter.

    It’s natural for people to emulate their elders, and therein lies the problem.

    But, to quote Tony Benn: “if you think teenage girls get pregnant to get a council house, you’re living in a funny world, my friend”

    How apt.

    The pressure on young men/boys to be promiscuous and the lack of maturity and self esteem of both parties leads to teenage pregnancy.

  126. 126
    Sid

    Look at how wrong that pathological false accuser is on the concept of paper abortion – despite their grandiose tones and behaviour.

  127. 127
    Schala

    We’ve been over this before. Also, your insurance is through a government aid to which I have no access.

    Live here for a year, this gives you naturalized citizenship. Provided you didn’t have cancer or some very costly disease prior to coming (in which case it would be seen as fraud), then you can have the exact same coverage I have.

  128. 128
    carnation

    @ Sid 116

    “The most shocking thing for feminist leaning men in getting involved in the mens movement is hearling the alleged misogny that men and women think, commit abuse, pick their noses, commit reproductive abuse and pass gas at roughly equal rates.”

    No, Sid, that’s what you’d *love* to believe. Feminist leaning men, like almost all men, understand that women are human, with all that that entails.

    The most shocking thing for anyone, except MRAs and misogynists, and misogynistic MRAs, upon being exposed to the MRM is that people actually hold such ridiculous beliefs, that people claim to be a movement, whilst doing nothing, and that others read their blogs and don’t recoil in horror. Thankfully, such people are as statistically insignificant as they are intellectually lacking.

    However, could you explain how,men and women commit reproductive abuse at roughly equal rates?

  129. 129
    Sid

    Gov policies have inflated the number of single mothers by something like 700% since the 1970s.

    Now there are large fatherless, matriarchal ghettos where boys and girls are being socialized to see this as just what’s normal.

    All it took was policy changes and 1 generation to create.

    Seems reasonable to think a campaign and supporting legislation telling boys and men they can say no during accidental and “accidental” pregnancies, the concept of consent to fatherhood and supporting legislation and 1 generation is probably all it would take to get the rates heading back down towards 6%.

  130. 130
    carnation

    @ Sid 126

    What false accusations have I made, Sid?

    Sid, we’ve talked about this, remember? When you just recite metaphors without any substance, you look really, really silly and people won’t take you seriously.

    So please list the false accusations that I’ve made, or acknowledge once again that you’re wrong, misguided,and ill equipped for debate.

  131. 131
    Sid

    Look at carnation, thinks he understands women are equal, calls equal treatment misogny while white knighting for feminist cookies.

  132. 132
    carnation

    @ Sid. 129

    OMG… You hit this one right out of the delusional park! I’ll carefully ask you to explain your bold statements (remember that opinion pieces and blogs flagged by hate group watchdogs won’t be accepted by virtually anyone as evidence)

    “Gov policies have inflated the number of single mothers by something like 700% since the 1970s.”

    Where did you get this statistic from”

    “Now there are large fatherless, matriarchal ghettos where boys and girls are being socialized to see this as just what’s normal.”

    I’m fascinated to know what a “matriarchal ghetto” is, and also where they are. Citations, please!

    “All it took was policy changes and 1 generation to create.”

    Which policy changes? And cite the statics that prove your two previous points.

    “Seems reasonable to think a campaign and supporting legislation telling boys and men they can say no during accidental and “accidental” pregnancies, the concept of consent to fatherhood and supporting legislation and 1 generation is probably all it would take to get the rates heading back down towards 6%.”

    Yeah, you’ll need to explain this in a more clear and concise manner, with supporting evidence.

    Sid, you bring out my mothering instinct.

  133. 133
    carnation

    @ Sid. 131

    This is a virtuoso performance, Sid. I challenge you to back up your slanderous accusational cliches with examples, and you come charging right back with more metaphors and cliches!

    This is like watching someone try to play draughts/checkers in a chess competition!

  134. 134
    Sid

    Look at the grandiose clown talking down their nose.

  135. 135
    Sid

    Ally Fog

    Have you no policy at all for dealing with repetitive and obvious trolls?

  136. 136
    carnation

    @ Sid 135

    “Have you no policy at all for dealing with repetitive and obvious trolls?”

    Hahahahahahahahahhahahahaha, hahahahahahahhahahaha, hahahahahahahhahahaha, hahahahahahahhahahaha….

    I actually lol’d there.

    Sid, you are a ray of sunshine. Admittedly, kinda lost in this weather, but in your own little way, you brighten the place up.

  137. 137
    Adiabat

    Carnation (124): You couldn’t even engage in good faith for one post could you.

    Paper abortions aren’t about protecting men, they are about putting them on an equal footing as women; giving them an equivalent decision wrt their rights and responsibilities towards a child if contraception fails etc.

    ““How would poor parents, keen to take a role in parenting, but with no economic resources, be protected from the spectre of signing a paper abortion because of the (alleged) threat of a debtor’s prison?”

    A women would face this problem already, in the current system. A starting off point for you would’ve been to look at how she may come to a decision. How is she protected from the ‘spectre’ of freely available abortion, when she is keen to take a role in parenting, but has no economic resources? (This is of course assuming there is no father she can pass all responsibility of the decision to by getting him to pay.) The answer: there are benefits available which alleviates the problem a bit but at the end of the day she has to make a hard decision about her life; she gets little protection currently. The injustice now is that in most cases she does have the option to make whatever decision she wants and pass all responsibility of the decision to someone else. His labour, his bodily autonomy, is not under his control. Her protection involves giving her control over another persons body.

    Under paper abortion the father and mother have the same issue. There will be benefits available but at the end of the day, both have to make the decision. Both have an ‘out’. The question is: why do you seemingly judge a man more for opting for a paper abortion more than a woman opting for a regular abortion in the same circumstances?

    But all that is beside the point as I gave you a chance to show that you aren’t a troll and you blew it. The whole point, as has been said again and again, is about choice and bodily autonomy, not deciding for them or giving people easy choices. I’m of two minds to accept your post as a valid attempt or not, after all your answer could be a result of just not understanding the issue. However since you go on so much about how much you understand MRA arguments and how they are all stupid etc this cannot possibly be it, surely? The only answer therefore is that you aren’t arguing in good faith. Especially since you didn’t answer my question in my last post about whether you agree in principle, even if you think it won’t work in execution (ie you showed the exact same trolling behaviour I explicitly pointed out to you).

  138. 138
    Adiabat

    carnation (125): “But, to quote Tony Benn: “if you think teenage girls get pregnant to get a council house, you’re living in a funny world, my friend””

    Firstly, who gives a fuck what Tony Benn says?

    Secondly, I explicitly said that teenage girls aren’t getting pregnant just to get a council house. I said that the extensive safety net contributes to them being not giving as much attention as they should to contraception, and gives them an irresponsible attitude to the possibility of getting pregnant. This “misreading” is just one additional piece of evidence that you are a troll arguing in bad faith.

    “Teenage pregnancy predates council housing. And the welfare state, for that matter.”

    What a stupid point. We are not arguing that the availability of council housing causes all teenage pregnancy. We’re saying it’s a contributory factor. This “misreading” is just one additional piece of evidence that you are a troll arguing in bad faith.

  139. 139
    carnation

    @ Adiabat 137

    “I blew it”… The only people who call me and a troll are you and Sid.

    I criticise MRA theory wherever I see it, and MRAs accuse me of trolling. It’s pathetic. The enclosed MRA world doesn’t allow for much dissent, so I can empathise at how unusual it is for people to challenge your theories, but get used to it.

    Of course I don’t agree in principle about a “paper abortion”, I find the concept morally and ethically repugnant, as would most people, I’m sure.

    Two people of opposite sexes are required to create a pregnancy, the female alone decides whether or not to subject her body to nine months of pregnancy and the trauma of childbirth. This is right and just. When the child is born, the father is, undeniably, the child’s father, regardless of paperwork (including adoption).

    That some would decide to relinquish their rights and responsibilities to a new born child to save money/shirk responsibility/avoid debtor prison/insert MRA factoid here is despicable. Those that support this measure are likewise, morally repugnant.

  140. 140
    carnation

    @ Adiabat 138

    Haha, goodness, you’re getting a bit excited, no?

    Who gives a fuck what Tony Benn says? I think you do, for starters, you just used foul language to question his standing. Other than you, most politically aware people would care.

    Nope, teenage pregnancy predating the “safety net” you speak of is not a “stupid point” it is absolutely relevant, because it proves that the safety net didn’t influence generations of teenage parents before this one, thus rendering your tabloid factoid opinions irrelevant.

    Anything else?

  141. 141
    Loud - warm smiles do not make you welcome here

    @Adabiat #137

    His labour, his bodily autonomy, is not under his control. Her protection involves giving her control over another persons body.

    Hyperbole much? Child support is not loss of bodily autonomy no matter how you stretch it.

  142. 142
    Schala

    That some would decide to relinquish their rights and responsibilities to a new born child to save money/shirk responsibility/avoid debtor prison/insert MRA factoid here is despicable. Those that support this measure are likewise, morally repugnant.

    Safe haven laws and baby drop box are there to protect babies from infanticide from mothers who “decided to relinquish their rights and responsibilities to a newborn child to save money/shirk responsibility”.

    No one says they’re despicable.

  143. 143
    Adiabat

    I’m feeling kind so I’ll answer the other questions. I know it’s pointless talking to carnation so this is more for anyone else with similar queries.

    “So a parent signs a document relinquishing all parental rights and responsibilities. What happens if the parent has an active role in the childbearing having had a “paper abortion”? How would it be policed? “

    The parent who has a paper abortion has no legal rights as a parent, including visitation rights. It is a private arrangement if the mother isn’t so pissed off* that she lets him have an active role in the childbearing but he gets no more rights than a step-dad. I’m unsure what needs to be policed.

    ““How would poor parents, keen to take a role in parenting, but with no economic resources, be protected from the spectre of signing a paper abortion because of the (alleged) threat of a debtor’s prison?””

    They would both get the same protection a women currently gets from the ‘spectre’ of freely available abortion if she is in the same situation and the father is unavailable to provide child support (got pregnant, he got hit by a bus a week later for example). That is: not much beyond benefits.

    “At what stage of pregnancy would the paper abortion be applicable? Could it be reversed? Would the reversal be contingent on ability/willingness to pay child support? Isn’t there a risk of extortion?”

    As said in #47 “the paper abortion decision would have to be made before the abortion limit.” No it can’t be reversed, though perhaps adoption could be an option, with the usual strict standards required, to reacquire parental rights as an adoptive parent. The fact that he is the natural father should carry no weight in this decision as he has relinquished that status. As for extortion: isn’t there a risk of extortion in the current setup? Elaboration is needed.

    * This should probably be pointed out in case it’s not clear: having a paper abortion should carry as much stigma as a regular abortion.

  144. 144
    Schala

    Hyperbole much? Child support is not loss of bodily autonomy no matter how you stretch it.

    Then don’t pay child support and tell me what happens.

    Also when you pay child support, you might have to go for or choose a higher paying job just to get by, because the child support is such that you can’t have liveable income + child support on say, minimum wage (in fact, minimum wage is not liveable by itself, regardless of support amounts).

    This removes the choice of where to work, and under threat of incarceration and losing your driver’s license should you even slip in payments due to financial problems of any kind. Maybe your car broke down. Maybe you got burglared. Any other “surprise” expense.

    And “why didn’t you save money” is a joke in 2013. Only the very rich can save money. Everyone else is in major debts as is.

  145. 145
    carnation

    @ Schala

    Would you describe a mother who left the child with a young father with no means to support the child as despicable?

  146. 146
    carnation

    @ Schala 144

    Where are you finding the evidence of these poor, tormented men, sent to prison, enslaved, by financially supporting their children?

    Please note that MRA blogs don’t count as evidence, and that anecdotes are anecdotes.

  147. 147
    carnation

    @ Adiabat143

    OK, let’s take your first response:

    “The parent who has a paper abortion has no legal rights as a parent, including visitation rights. It is a private arrangement if the mother isn’t so pissed off* that she lets him have an active role in the childbearing but he gets no more rights than a step-dad. I’m unsure what needs to be policed.”

    So the father could have no legal rights to the child because of a paper abortion, but could have a role in the child’s life anyway, at the mother’sbehest.

    Call me a cynic, but mightn’t this lead to instances of fathers shirking the financial obligation (already modest) part of their parenthood?

    And why should society subsidise a father’s unwillingness to financially support his child?

  148. 148
    Loud - warm smiles do not make you welcome here

    @Schala #144

    Then don’t pay child support and tell me what happens.

    I’ll tell you what doesn’t happen – the loss of your bodily autonomy.

  149. 149
    Adiabat

    “Safe haven laws and baby drop box are there to protect babies from infanticide from mothers who “decided to relinquish their rights and responsibilities to a newborn child to save money/shirk responsibility”.

    No one says they’re despicable.”

    Exactly. Carnation are you willing to make the same strong statement against new mothers? Hypocrite.

    “Who gives a fuck what Tony Benn says? I think you do, for starters, you just used foul language to question his standing. Other than you, most politically aware people would care.”

    You seriously think people care about the unevidenced opinion of a retired MP who hasn’t been in power since the 70’s. You’re delusional. I don’t want to disparage him, but your quoting him adds nothing at all to this discussion. Is a unattributed unevidenced quote the best you’ve got?

    “Nope, teenage pregnancy predating the “safety net” you speak of is not a “stupid point” it is absolutely relevant, because it proves that the safety net didn’t influence generations of teenage parents before this one, thus rendering your tabloid factoid opinions irrelevant.”

    No it proves nothing. Learn some logic. The existence of a problem prior to council housing provides no comment of the influence council housing has on current teenage pregnancy rates. It only proves that it’s not the sole cause, which no-one is arguing.

    Loud (141): “Hyperbole much? Child support is not loss of bodily autonomy no matter how you stretch it.”

    Someone deciding to have a child but getting someone else to pay for it without their agreement under threat of jail is taking control of that persons bodily autonomy.

  150. 150
    Adiabat

    Carnation: “So the father could have no legal rights to the child because of a paper abortion, but could have a role in the child’s life anyway, at the mother’sbehest.

    Call me a cynic, but mightn’t this lead to instances of fathers shirking the financial obligation (already modest) part of their parenthood?”

    The man is considered the same a stranger to the child. Strangers can’t just look after children without the parents consent. If one tries – call the cops.

    These ‘ridiculous scenario’ arguments are pathetic. Anyone can make up a scenario that abuses the system we currently have and it would still wouldn’t mean that we should’nt allow abortion.

    “And why should society subsidise a father’s unwillingness to financially support his child?”

    You’re basically saying that even though it’s a breach of his rights to bodily autonomy we should do it anyway because of the cost. The same argument could be used to breach a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and force her to abort any children she can’t afford.

  151. 151
    FloraPoste

    Ally, the link to the Guardian Diary column goes to “Page Not Found” ? To the commenter that referred to the Lorem Ipsum being left over from the development process – yeah that’s the point. It was someone’s responsibility to fill it in with actual content, and they failed. Carnation, I’m not finding this as fun as you are. Whoever said that it was a discussion about property rights, is correct. And the idea that giving dad the right to take a baby from a mom who wants to take care of it and putting it up for adoption is all fair and good, because baby drop boxes -OMG, the callous stupidity, it burns. Anyone who says “it will increase the supply of babies available for adoption!!!!” as an argument *for* a policy, has lost the debate big time. You don’t know anything about reality, or you know and don’t care. If anyone wants to restore their faith in men and fathers, the vast majority of whom do care about their children, even when it’s a struggle, watch this video, about a young man who immigrated to the US from Ethiopia to join his father, and wound up in child care. Rather than becoming a bitter MRA-type, he founded a non-profit that supports fathers, with casework, legal help, and helping amily resource centers and social service agencies to become more father-friendly:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjfYddnsKKU

  152. 152
    Adiabat

    Anyway, the troll is just getting more and more ridiculous and I’m off for now. If anything of any worth is posted I may reply at some point.

  153. 153
    Carol Lynn

    @ 112

    What world do you live in where you think women are going out and getting purposefully pregnant with the full understanding that the father won’t be around?

    But. but… there’s a SONG! You hear it all the time and it’s sung by a woman so it MUST, it HAS to be exactly how the wimmenz think! Why would there be pop song about it if it wasn’t TRUTH and happening ALLTHE TIME?

    Here… read the lyrics and you’ll see –

    When she woke up late in the morning light
    And the day had just begun
    She opened up her eyes and thought
    Oh what a morning
    It’s not a day for work
    It’s a day for catching tan
    Just lying on the beach and having fun
    She’s going to get you

    All that she wants is another baby

    “So if you are in sight and the day is right
    She’s the hunter you’re the fox
    The gentle voice that talks to you won’t talk forever
    It is a night for passion
    But the morning means goodbye
    Beware of what is flashing in her eyes
    She’s going to get you

    All that she wants is another baby
    She’s gone tomorrow boy”

    Now, isn’t that EXACTLY how Sid and the MRAs say wimmenz behave? It HAS TO BE TRUE because there is a popular song about it!

    /sarcasm – tag just so there is no doubt about my position.

    All That She Wants lyrics © Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., EMI Music Publishing

  154. 154
    AndrewV69, Visiting MRA, Purveyor of Piffle & Woo

    Someone implicilty mentioned the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center)?

    I would like to mention a few things about the SPLC and why one should be cautious about accepting anything that organization says without independent verification.

    The SPLC has a history of being careless with facts and willing to smear anyone that does not tow it’s party line(1). Some of the critics of the SPLC are on the same political side and do not appreciate the fear mongering(2) and have raised eyebrows at the fact that currently the SPLC, despite it being a tax-exempt charitable organization it has two offshore bank accounts and cash reserves of $256,554,758 (3) and the majority of their spending was on programs to raise more funds and pay salaries of over $100,000 to 19 individuals, two of those make a bit over $300,000 each.

    They do precious little other than that.

    1).The SPLC tries to silence Swain, a Professor of Political Science and Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University.

    Swain, who is black, is a professor of law and political science at Vanderbilt University. She is an expert on white supremacists, having written a book on the subject, “The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration,” which was published in 2002 by Cambridge University Press and drew plaudits from scholars both liberal (Harvard’s William Julius Wilson) and conservative (Princeton’s Robert P. George).

    Swain goes so far as to say that if liberals and African American leaders don’t start to address the legitimate concerns raised by the white nationalists on race matters, they risk being partly to blame for racial unrest in America.

    A black scholar gets smeared as “an apologist for white supremacists.”
    _http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704335904574496250622719022.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

    2). Critical articles about the SPLC:

    Harpers:
    _http://harpers.org/blog/2010/03/hate-immigration-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center/

    Blogs:
    _http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/05/15/king-of-the-hate-business/
    _http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/04/splc-milking-old-northern-liberals-for-decades/
    _http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/03/fearmongering-at-the-splc
    _http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/jw-obtains-emails-exposing-connections-between-doj-and-controversial-southern-policy-law-center/
    _http://harpers.org/archive/2000/11/the-church-of-morris-dees/)
    _http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/SPLC/Harpers_Morris_Dees_2000.html
    _http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/The%20Church%20of%20Morris%20Dees.html

    News:
    _http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/king-fearmongers_714573.html?nopager=1
    _http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-5468-burning_down_the_church_of_tolerance.html

    3). SPLC Financial Information
    _http://www.splcenter.org/who-we-are/financial-information

    IRS Form 990 for the year 2012 for a tax-exempt charitable organization
    _http://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/downloads/resource/SPLC_2012_Form_990.pdf

    The biggest expense for the SPLC in 2010 was in Salaries: $12 million total and an additional 307,539 for Contract labour and Legal case expense was $1.1 million. They also spent $4.3 million in educational publications. Total expenses was $31.1 million.

    Financial Statement 2012
    _http://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/downloads/resource/SPLC_FinancialStatement1012.pdf

    At year end of 2012 they are sitting on an endowment fund of $245,280,276.

    We are left to guess how much of that is sitting in accounts in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda (Part V 4.b of the 990 form) also both counties are known tax havens).

    Anyway gross receipts were $46,807,371 and total expenses were $38,237,350 and they finished the year with total assets of $256,554,758 after expenses of $24,942,056.

    They had 19 employees making more than $100,000 per annum. The top earners were: Richard Cohen at 300,937 and Morris Dees at 306,429. The lowest salary paid was to their Deputy Legal Director Sheila Bedi who only made $115,965 for a total of $1,760,935 in this category.. Further on down they list a $10,973,908 in other salaries and wages.

  155. 155
    FloraPoste

    Sorry about the lack of line breaks in the previous comment, I hate walls of text like that.

    Schala: Then don’t pay child support and tell me what happens.”

    Stop providing 24/7 care to an infant, because you’re stressed out and it’s just too hard. You’re likely to wind up doing harder time than for non-payment of child support.

    Schala again, in re the affordability of contraception: “Live here for a year, this gives you naturalized citizenship. ”

    Ah hahahahahah, as well-researched as ever!

  156. 156
    Ginkgo

    carnation @ 76 – “By the way, this isn’t a criticism of the father of the child: more a comment on his limited life choices and lack of financial and cultural capital.”

    Gotcha. Flora makes that point later too.

    This is a complicates thing to sort out.

    carnation @ – 146 – “Would you describe a mother who left the child with a young father with no means to support the child as despicable?”

    A mother who just abandons her kids is usually stigamtized pretty hard. This may be one reason that Eat, Pray and Love was so celebrated, because it pushed back against this. I happen to think it was a bunch of selfish self-indulgence.

    @148 – “I’ll tell you what doesn’t happen – the loss of your bodily autonomy.”

    Imprisonment is not loss of bodily autonomy? You don’t really have a clue, do you?

    Flora @ 151 – “And the idea that giving dad the right to take a baby from a mom who wants to take care of it and putting it up for adoption is all fair and good, because baby drop boxes -OMG, the callous stupidity, it burns”

    Oh please, try to treat men like we’re human, however much effort hat takes for you. You’re so horrified by the drop-box analogy? The pointis that drop-boxes allow a woman to do to a father exactly what you call so callously stupid when it’s proposed to happen to a mother.

    Just mind-boggling dehumanization and objectification. Honestly, the cultural sociopathy of white women – and apologies if you’re not a white women, no intention to be insulting – is projectile-vomit nauseating.

  157. 157
    FloraPoste

    Gingko: I do treat men like they are human – I know that most men, like most women, see the point of drop boxes as preventing child abuse. Not some horrible feminist conspiracy to give women more rights than men. I know that it is just a kind of pathology in you and your ilk in particular, that prevents you from seeing that, and not some generalized fault of the Y chromosome.

    Why would you assume that I wouldn’t think that a woman who would take a child away from a dad who had bonded with it and wanted to care for it, as just as bad a man doing the same thing?

  158. 158
    FloraPoste

    In the US, at least, there’s nothing gender-specific about baby safe haven laws. A single father, or any person with legal custody regardless of gender, has the same protection from prosecution or abandonment as a mother.

    Gingko, can you be bothered to treat children, roughly half of whom are male, as people rather than property? I know you had a hard time imagining that the worst victims of family court dysfunction were fathers, and not children. And again, I am in no way attributing your particular callous stupidity to men in general.
    .

  159. 159
    FloraPoste

    Curses, screwed up again:

    Should be: “I know you had a hard time imagining that the worst victims of family court dysfunction were children, and not fathers”

  160. 160
    Raging Bee

    While I am not in favour of withdrawing benefits from single mothers, I do believe that their payment should be conditional on the father being identified, where this is possible, (sometimes the father is deceased) so that he can be required to make a meaningful social, economic and financial contribution and committment to his child’s life.

    If the father is no more mature than the mother, that won’t help the child much, except maybe by treating the father as a source of forced labor. And even that won’t help much if the father can’t get a decent job. How’s the job market for teenage boys these days?

    The idea that forcing a child’s father into a situation somehow makes government assistance more justifiable, or more effective, is just poorly-disguised wishful thinking.

  161. 161
    Raging Bee

    Just mind-boggling dehumanization and objectification. Honestly, the cultural sociopathy of white women…

    You accuse a broad general group of “cultural sociopathy” in the SAME SENTENCE as you complain of “dehumanization and objectification?” What a nicely-packaged load of childish hypocritical horseshit.

  162. 162
    Raging Bee

    Why are you against men being held to account for the results of their decisions?

    Because the reality of such policies doesn’t even come close to the ideal outcomes or objectives envsioned by their advocates.

  163. 163
    AndrewV69, Visiting MRA, Purveyor of Piffle & Woo

    @18, Ally Fogg

    Very interesting about the decline in Teenage pregnancy rates in the UK. What do you think is driving it? Sex Ed as some suggest or other socio-economic factors?

  164. 164
    Sid

    Feminists here, you have recently arrived at the 1970s in this respect – the realization that men and women commit abuse at roughly equal rates. Try getting your minds around the fact that in a world with state promoted voluntary eugenic’s or “choice” as its known, there is no need for men to have to “man up” when there are accidents or “accidents”, there is no need for men to be commenting themselves to situations they know are wrong but stay quiet about it out of some outdated idea of doing the right thing.

    If men were given the power to say no while women were encouraged to observe consent to fatherhood, and there were fewer incentives for single motherhood the rate of unwanted children would plummet, along with many social ills.

    It’s utterly oppressive that a woman can chose to take control over a man’s body and labour for 12 years, under the threat of violence in a world where the same woman has choice.

  165. 165
    Sid

    21 not 12

  166. 166
    Raging Bee

    Sid, you were asked to provide some sort of backup for the utterly ridiculous allegations you made @129, and you had nothing to offer. Now you’re back with nothing but a new round of utterly unbelievable bullshit, including that tired old misogynist charge of “eugenics.” IF all you have to offer is empty bloviation, maybe you should stick to the Slymepit. You’re certainly not adding any value here, nor are you fooling anyone. Bluffing doesn’t work after your bluff has been called.

  167. 167
    Raging Bee

    If men were given the power to say no…

    Men need to be “given” the power to choose not to fuck?

  168. 168
    Schala

    In the US, at least, there’s nothing gender-specific about baby safe haven laws. A single father, or any person with legal custody regardless of gender, has the same protection from prosecution or abandonment as a mother.

    And sleeping under bridges is condemned for both the poor and the rich, right?

    Because safe haven laws are used by men even 1% of the time, right?

  169. 169
    Schala

    Men need to be “given” the power to choose not to fuck?

    Equality:

    1) Everyone always consents to pregnancy and parenthood with sex. No contraception, no abortion, no adoption. Man/woman-up, it’s yours, deal.

    2) Everyone has the option of opting out after conception.

    No other fucking way.

  170. 170
    Sid

    RagingBee, carnation

    Acknowledging the reality that we live in a world where women have choice and therefore the olde idea’s about women being stuck with pregnancies and manning up are no longer needed isn’t misogny, there are no women being attacked or to protect so there is no need for the silverback gorilla impression and this backward nonsense

    http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/452270-white-knight

  171. 171
    Raging Bee

    It’s utterly oppressive that a woman can chose to take control over a man’s body and labour for [21] years, under the threat of violence in a world where the same woman has choice.

    Dude, if you have to live in a fantasy bubble-verse, can’t you at least make up a PLEASANT fantasy? That’s kinda what fantasy is for, innit?

    You can’t handle reality, so you retreat into fantasy to escape from it…and you can’t even do that right. That’s both bizarre and pathetic.

  172. 172
    Ally Fogg

    Goodness, haven’t you all been busy?

    Sid

    Have you no policy at all for dealing with repetitive and obvious trolls?

    Yes, I have a policy. My policy is to let you argue with each other to your hearts’ content ;-)

    Everyone

    FWIW my views on all things relating to child care, child support and all the other things under discussion, including so-called paper abortion, is that all policies begin and end with the question what is best for the child?

    And on that basis, all of the outlandish ideas described above fail at the first hurdle. And I do find it telling that nobody arguing for, eg, paper abortions, has made a single attempt to argue that it would be best for the child.

  173. 173
    Sid

    Ally Fog

    Paper abortion and consent to fatherhood is what’s best for the child. It would a near end to unwanted children being born.

  174. 174
    carnation

    @ Sid 173

    Great Scott!!

    That’s that settled then.

    Sid, how can we bring this forward? It’s imperative that we all pull together as a team, let’s do it for the children, they are the future. We are the world. They are the children.

    Just quickly, cn you prove that bold statement? Before giving it my undivided support, I’m going to have to see a bit of evidence.

    Whatcha got?

  175. 175
    Ally Fogg

    Paper abortion and consent to fatherhood is what’s best for the child. It would a near end to unwanted children being born.

    No, it really, really wouldn’t.

    It would lead to far more men being far more irresponsible with contraception, further reduce condom use (with the associated public health risks).

    The numbers of pregnant women choosing to terminate purely because the father to be is scarpering would be minimal.

    When I was young and free, I used to be entirely paranoid about accidentally getting women pregnant and so made damned sure it never happened. Why? Because I was terrified of the responsibility before I was ready. The option of a paper abortion would have completely changed that equation for me, and I refuse to believe I’m unique in that.

    When a woman, especially a very young woman is pregnant and wants to keep it, she’s not thinking about money – not for a moment. If she was, she wouldn’t be doing it. she’s thinking about the potential for a growing, living human being springing from her body and making her life feel complete. Financial arrangements simply don’t come into it.

    So the end result of this idea would be vastly more children cut off from support, which either results in lots more claims upon the taxpayer or many more children growing up in desperate, abject poverty.

    it’s an absolutely idiotic idea, which would almost certainly increase the numbers of unwanted pregnancies and definitely increase the numbers of children growing up fatherless and in poverty.

    The only people it suits are men who want the right to shag around while being freed from the responsibilities and consequences of that.

  176. 176
    summerblues

    What are boys and teen boys/young men being taught about impregnation prevention? How to protect themselves?

  177. 177
    carnation

    @ Ally Fogg

    “The only people it suits are men who want the right to shag around while being freed from the responsibilities and consequences of that.”

    Not quite true, it also suits MRAs and right-wing reactionaries, gives them another method of hounding, shaming and other-ing women, particularly vulnerable women.

  178. 178
    Sid

    You paint men in the most misandric ways and women the most mindless, Guardian much?

    Central to Margret Sangers vision was the idea that all children would be wanted and planned.

    The current system has all womens children either wanted or planned or both. Unfortunately for children, the system and society and men the same abilities have not been extended to men.

    Contraceptive use would likely increase as all the women that are hoping for happy accidents and pregnancies with oblivious and irresponsible men would stop and think about what they are doing.

  179. 179
    Schala

    It would lead to far more men being far more irresponsible with contraception, further reduce condom use (with the associated public health risks).

    Bring The Pill for men, problem solved. Most people ever use condoms for STIs. If they absolutely want to avoid pregnancies, they (established clean-of-STIs couples mainly) use non-PIV exclusively, calendar method, or anti-conception pills.

    I’m using the non-PIV exclusively method. And have no need of the other methods, since I won’t ever use my penis penetratively. I’m a rare case though.

    And if you think even with the pill more men than women would be irresponsible, then you’re on the side of Israel and India feminists who fear false accusations of rape – from men. And want to keep rape a male-on-female exclusive crime, because those evil evil men will counter-claim every time they’re accused. And everyone knows rape of men never happens.

  180. 180
    Carnation

    @ Sid 173, 178

    Still waiting on the evidence for your claims, Sid.

    In case you’re unsure:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

    @ Schala 179

    Your third paragraph was a bit of MRA psychedelia extraordinaire, not unlike some of the nuggets of avant garde madness Sid produces. He’s his namesake plus Barratt, you’re more Crazy World of Arthur Brown.

    Don’t you think?

  181. 181
    Sid

    State promoted voluntary eugenics works through the woman’s financial situation dictating whether or not she chooses to have a baby. If she can’t afford a child naturally she would chose reliable BC, and in the case of a legitimate accident she would naturally chose abortion. Women weight up the options and chose to, or not to have children and there is little to no consent to fatherhood present, the conservative man up attitude has been kept on.

    Feminist leaning men here, wake up from your conservative dream, women aren’t the mindless creatures that just have children by accident that you prefer to see them as (what does that buy you?) and 1 in 10 american men have caught their partners sabotaging or lying about BC.

    Where you are going wrong is your conceptualization of women as sort of a cross between angels and children. You will be rewarded for this in feminist areas, but to people in the men’s movement you look a lot like conservatives with your heads in the past.

  182. 182
    Sid

    have children and there is little to no CONCEPT OF consent to fatherhood present IN THE CULTURE,

  183. 183
    carnation

    @Sid

    That’s not evidence. I provided a link for you to go to. If you read it carefully, you will realise that what you have provided could best (and charitably) described as opinion:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion

    Now, please provide evidence for your earlier statements.

  184. 184
    summerblues

    (I don’t know how you guys stand these…)

    To the MRA’s: http://www.arhp.org/publications-and-resources/contraception-journal/june-2010

    It goes both ways, now shut up about it and focus on the article, please. kthxbye

  185. 185
    carnation

    @ summerhouse

    Do you seriously expect people to listen to the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals when avfm have written a blog post instead?

  186. 186
    Schala

    @summerblues

    Imagine, I’m not a MRA. I, like permutation of ninjas, am an egalitarian who is unaffiliated with any organization, movement or group.

    Because of people like carnation, Raging Bee, John Morales and others, who think MRA is an insult and means “retarded” without the ableism.

  187. 187
    carnation

    @ Schala 186

    Given that the entirety of MRA activism consists of defending MRA theory on blogs and comments sections, and that you do just that, in what way are you different from, say, Sid?

  188. 188
    FloraPoste

    Sid said:

    Contraceptive use would likely increase as all the women that are hoping for happy accidents and pregnancies with oblivious and irresponsible men would stop and think about what they are doing.

    This made me laugh quite a lot. Think about it. He’s saying women will be able to make rational decisions about contraception based on future consequences, but that men cannot and do not. Misandry!

  189. 189
    Paul

    Teenage birth rates are at an all time low in the uk which is to be welcomed given that teenage parenthood almost always has a negative effect on the life chances of teenage parents- especially mothers- and their children. And i agree that by singling out teenage lone mothers in particular the Tories are just trying to make capital in ” Middle England” by picking on a relatively small and vulnerable minority.

    Nevertheless i would like to see more well-funded community based projects to try and further reduce levels of teenage parenthood which are still relatively high in a number of mainly socially deprived communites. And where relatively high levels of teenage pregnancy can sometimes go hand in hand with relatively high levels of stds.

    The highest levels of teenage parenthood in the uk are to be found in the Bangladeshi and Pakistani communites -almost all amongst young women of 18 and 19 in arranged/forced marriages.And the Black Caribbean community where the teenage birth rate is about 50% higher than it is for White British girls and where almost all the births are to lone mothers. Therefore any community based projects to address issues of sex and sexuality amongst teenagers must also be culturally sensitive . For a one-size fits all approach is almost certainly doomed to failure.

    One final point.I’ve kind of skimmed over the discussions on this thread and i think it’s important to say that from conception to birth the woman must always have the final say purely on account of it being her body. And fathers should always respect the decison of the woman as to whether she gives birth or has an abortion. For the idea of a woman being forced to either abort a child against her will or give birth to a child against her will actually horrifies me.

  190. 190
    Schala

    This made me laugh quite a lot. Think about it. He’s saying women will be able to make rational decisions about contraception based on future consequences, but that men cannot and do not. Misandry!

    Men have a faillible barrier-method which many find annoying at best, and a good protection against STI in a best case scenario. Few people want to use them for pregnancy-protection in a LTR.

    Men need to have a pill that is just as easily gotten and just as effective as the contraceptive pill. Then we can talk about men making rational decisions about contraception.

    It has been argued by many – including people on Feministe blog – that if men had such a pill, women wouldn’t trust them with it, think men would sabotage their own birth control, to force women through a pregnancy. Those evil men who force women to not abort. And then get full custody and force those women to pay 18 years of child support. Right?

    Sabotaging birth control is done by both sides, for stupid reasons relating to “a baby will keep us together” usually. Except his methods are not final, hers are. Post-conception he can do fuck-all, except murder the baby (which is 1st degree murder, even in her uterus – regardless of the method). She can abort, adopt it out without naming him, or baby drop box it, and never be responsible for it, ever again.

    Consequences are only for the duration of pregnancy.

  191. 191
    Schala

    One final point.I’ve kind of skimmed over the discussions on this thread and i think it’s important to say that from conception to birth the woman must always have the final say purely on account of it being her body. And fathers should always respect the decison of the woman as to whether she gives birth or has an abortion. For the idea of a woman being forced to either abort a child against her will or give birth to a child against her will actually horrifies me.

    No one, MRA or egalitarian, thinks the woman should be forced to abort under any circumstances.

    But many think that he should have a out from responsibilities, legal and financial, prior to the child’s birth (provided he is even informed – not informed, not responsible).

    If she still decides to have the kid, well she can be responsible for it, it was her unilateral decision to birth the baby.

    If she feels coerced into abortion because she doesn’t have the financial means to support the kid. Sucks to be you, we all have difficult choices in life. This isn’t any more coercion than people being forced to work minimum wage to eat crappy food and not be homeless.

  192. 192
    Raging Bee

    No one, MRA or egalitarian, thinks the woman should be forced to abort under any circumstances.

    Notice how, when two instances of coercion of women were mentioned, Schala only rules out one? That’s probably because the entire “fathers’ rights” movement is really nothing more than yet another cover for the anti-woman, anti-abortion movement. They want fathers to have the right to veto a woman’s choice to abort a pregnancy — but not to veto a woman’s choice to carry her child to term.

  193. 193
    Raging Bee

    Because of people like carnation, Raging Bee, John Morales and others, who think MRA is an insult and means “retarded” without the ableism.

    It’s our fault MRAs consistently make themselves sound like lying, squalling, infantile idiots?

  194. 194
    Schala

    Health insurance doesn’t charge women more even though they use health services much more than men do. Car insurance doing this to men is going to become illegal soon worldwide imo (it is in Europe).

    And employers cannot refuse to hire women because of the very real possibility of pregnancy, which means lots of time off, having to find someone in the meantime, formation costs etc.

    So it’s not like we’ve never gone around biology in policies. We have, a lot, all the damn time. We correct for perceived imbalance in biology so policies are not biased disfavorably…to women, anyways. That’s why there’s female olympic disciplines…its questionable if we need a female chess championship but it exists too.

    So why not have legal abandonment on par with safe haven, but for men too?

    That’s what the concept of paper abortions is.

    And it makes up for the inequality post-conception re responsibilty of the child.

    And to anyone who ever utters this: “But I don’t want to pay taxes for those deadbeat dads”

    Welcome to the right-wing, where taxes steal from you.

  195. 195
    Raging Bee

    State promoted voluntary eugenics

    Sid, you keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means. Can you prove you know what it means?

  196. 196
    Schala

    See this comment, on Amanda Marcotte’s blog?

    Sensei Devi rnwd • a month ago

    I disagree because the difference is that pro-life people are trying to shame a woman’s abortion choice not saying anything objective about sex being had to force her to be pregnant-they want her to either give the child up for adoption or keep it. Technically she always has the consequences by having to have an abortion or give birth, this would give him privileges she doesn’t have and if there’s a child then he should pay up because that’s best for the child and I’m not paying for some dead-beat dad to go around and impregnate more women. There is no way of making this “equal” short of giving men uteruses. Not to mention but it would be impossible to enforce in court.

    Right-wing to the bone. “I’m not paying” means taxes.

    Now, right-wing people usually object to welfare, food stamps and the likes – but essentially they want ALL taxes that doesn’t directly benefit them, gone (and the very rich can do without – see New Hampshire). Objecting to supporting a man’s baby because “it will promote more men having children left and right” is the same as objecting to rape being gender neutral in law because men will counter-claim rape against their female victim often (as in more than 50% often). It’s just bullshitting.

  197. 197
    SteveF

    FWIW my views on all things relating to child care, child support and all the other things under discussion, including so-called paper abortion, is that all policies begin and end with the question what is best for the child?

    And on that basis, all of the outlandish ideas described above fail at the first hurdle.

    Arguably abortion itself fails that first hurdle though, correct? I agree that the concerns of children need to be considered carefully because they are not represented in the political process and have limited autonomy, but I don’t believe the interests of children trump the interests of others.

    From a practical standpoint, I agree entirely with your second post on the matter. Ultimately the goal should be to reduce the number of children born into circumstances that make them unlikely to lead meaningful and happy lives. Paper abortions don’t serve that purpose for all the reasons you (Ally) mentioned, and thus should be rejected as a public policy.

    Does this leave men in an unequal position relative to women as regards the ability to evade parental responsibility post conception? Yes. But that fact alone doesn’t end the argument. There are lots of ways in which biological and social realities are going to create inequality, some (hopefully, a very small subset) of which will not be possible or in the interest of society as a whole to rectify.

    (As an example, if men were granted the right to paper abortions the situation would still be unequal insofar as the trauma of a paper abortion is notably less than the trauma of a physical one.)

  198. 198
    Schala

    Paper abortions don’t serve that purpose for all the reasons you (Ally) mentioned, and thus should be rejected as a public policy.

    It does serve that purpose. Or baby box would not exist, safe haven law would not exist. Mothers would be forced, under the threat of prison for life or execution, to raise and pay for their unwanted child. No one would have no-prosecution drop box to prevent infanticide, they’d just prosecute the ones who did.

    That would be best for the child, according to you.

  199. 199
    Schala

    Amanda_Marcotte • a month ago

    I will repeat my reasoning, which is explained in the post, once, and no more: I am tired of MRAs using this “hypothetical” to distract from their *real* argument, which is that they should have all the benefits of fatherhood without any of the responsibilities. My point is to call their bullshit, so we can have the real discussion. I think the men they claim to be concerned about—men who are “tricked” into being fathers—are basically a myth. I am happy to let mythical men get their hypothetical “paper abortions” they don’t want anyway, so that we can set that aside and talk about the real issue: Men who want the benefits of fatherhood but not the responsibilities.

    You know many MRAs who want the benefits of fatherhood without any responsibility? You think paper abortion is arguing for this?

    Because Amanda seems to begrudgingly be in favor of the concept of legal abandonment by the father, saying they don’t even exist anyways.

  200. 200
    SteveF

    It does serve that purpose. Or baby box would not exist

    Baby box preserves equality, doesn’t it? It’s either a mutual decision (in theory, at least) insofar as the father has the option of taking on the child and collecting child support from the mother.

    I do see your point with regard to the escaping of parental responsibility in the case of a mutual decision to give a child up for adoption, but equality is preserved in that situation, isn’t it?

    Maybe I’m not understanding your point adequately. I’m quite open to having my mind changed on the subject.

  201. 201
    Loud - warm smiles do not make you welcome here

    @Ginkgo #156

    Imprisonment is not loss of bodily autonomy? You don’t really have a clue, do you?

    Imprisonment would be a loss of autonomy, sure, but bodily autonomy as it is generally understood, i.e. the right for someone to have complete control over who or what uses their body? No.

  202. 202
    carnation

    @ Schala

    You’re still propagating MRA theories and myths, on a blog, attacking the MRA bête noir, Amanda Marcotte.

    This is MRA standard operating procedure.

    Until you provide some evidence that you’re NOT an MRA, you will continue to be viewed as an MRA.

    So I’ll ask again,,what’s the difference between you and Sid?

  203. 203
    Adiabat

    Ally (175):

    So the end result of this idea would be vastly more children cut off from support, which either results in lots more claims upon the taxpayer…

    So you’re willing to fund women’s choice through the taxpayer, but not men’s choice? That’s basically it, isn’t it?

    Oh, and providing that funding for men’s choices “would lead to far more men being far more irresponsible with contraception” but currently providing funding for women choices, in the form of benefits and housing, in no way leads to them being “far more irresponsible with contraception”? Nope, never happens.

    I think you’ve got some “patriarchal” baggage in the way you see men and women that needs reexamining.

  204. 204
    carnation

    @ Adiabat 203

    Direct question for you. You clearly have energy and enthusiasm for your proposal. But surely you realise that arguing on blogs,isn’t going to achiv anything.

    So why not set up a charity supporting the persons enslaved via child support demands? You could,get publicity for the slaves, support them, advocate for them. Perhaps when the general public became aware of this unique form of slavery, they would demand changes. Through your real life activism, you would have platform to forward your plans.

    Like a latter day Wilberforce, you could emancipate these slaves.

    So,why don’t you?

  205. 205
    Adiabat

    carnation (204): Please point out where I have said anything about slavery. This “misreading” is just one additional piece of evidence that you are a troll arguing in bad faith.

  206. 206
    carnation

    @ Adiabet 204

    So you disagree with Schala’s contention that fathers face 18 years of slavery due to child support?

    In that case I withdraw the word slavery.

    Why not set up a charity supporting men who have to financially support their children?

  207. 207
    Sid

    Anyhow, even if they did end benefit for teen mothers altogether, all that would happen would be the adults whose lead they are following saying “it not like it was in our day where you can just decide to have a baby and get befits, you will have to wait till you are older”, followed by a trip to the clinic, in a year or two, contraception use among teens will have gone right up, and teen pregnancies will have gone right down.

    Here is Thomas Sowell explaining how welfare programs to support teen mothers created a much culture of single mother families in the US.

  208. 208
    Sid

    edit – created a much larger culture

  209. 209
    Adiabat

    carnation (206): Another mischaratcerisation by the troll. I’ve made my position clear in my posts above, at least for anyone arguing in good faith. Get it right and I may answer your question.

  210. 210
    Adiabat

    edit: “misrepresentation by the troll”

  211. 211
    karmakin

    Ironically considering the OP there is a very conservative twist to this whole debate. The whole idea of setting up a private charity to fix a social ill instead of systematic change is a common conservative dodge for various issues. Now, speaking for myself I think that paper abortions will cause more harm than good, for the reasons that Ally has said, however a lot of the rest of the argument against them has a very strong conservative bent that I’m uncomfortable with.

    For obvious reasons, we’re never going to get to absolute fairness when it comes to issues of reproduction. It’s simply not going to happen. Things are not equal so they’re not going to be equal. There are very real differences. I just wish that this realization could extend to other issues so instead of endlessly fighting about them we could just realize…oh..reproduction..right. LIke most things it’s a double-edged sword.

    Many of the gender norms we have in our society are based around reproduction, not misogyny. Now, we can move away from those norms, as people are having less kids, and it’s less essential for individuals to have kids in the first place. But obviously not fully. That’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater (and that’s horribly too close to literal considering this discussion). The idea of making the woman the primary in terms of reproductive rights makes sense. Is it gender neutral? No. But it’s probably the best outcome overall, of a bunch of bad options.

  212. 212
    Jessie

    Why do people have this bizarre idea that single women who have children and are economically inactive are automatically given a nice house and lots of cash? Most such families struggle financially.

    The real solution is good sex education at school, including the use of those baby simulators which show teenagers what a real newborn is like. We also need to ensure girls have more opportunities in life than motherhood, so they have the chance to be financially secure before they have a family.

  213. 213
    karmakin

    Oh one further thing. when we’re talking about reproduction, the big thing, the elephant in the room that’s pretty much always left out, is the immense amount of social pressure that is put on people to have kids. That sort of thing is so culturally mandated, that babies are seen as one of the primary “trophies” that people have today really encourages a lot of reckless people.

    And for a controversial statement. In the US, at least, I strongly believe that the anti-abortion lobby is primarily fueled by this social pressure. Because of the strength of this social/cultural pressure in the US, abortion is an easier “sell” than some of their other social goods that they’re trying to pass off, and they’re trying to sell something in order to prove their own relevance and power. (As goes with American Right-Wing forms of Christianity and their integration of some Calvinism)

    Notice that once the whole anti-gay thing started to swing against them they pivoted real quick to abortion to make that their primary topic? Note as well that the whole anti-gay thing AS WELL feeds into this social/cultural pressure.

    Needless to say I think this is the root of the problem (at least in North America), and trying to simply fix the symptoms is pointless.

  214. 214
    carnation

    @ Karmakin

    Challenging an MRA to be active is a barbed reference to their total lack of activism and attendent hypocrisy. MRAs will make reference to literally millions of men victimised by “feminist governance” but do nothing to help these vuctims, including prove they exist. This is my point: the MRM is counterproductive. It hinders men.

    @ Sid

    Still no evidence, no? Is it on the grassy knoll?

  215. 215
    Adiabat

    Jessie:

    Why do people have this bizarre idea that single women who have children and are economically inactive are automatically given a nice house and lots of cash?

    Because people with dependants are considered in priority need by councils when allocating housing, by law. No-one said “lot’s of cash”.

    Most such families struggle financially.

    True, but they may be better off than they otherwise would be. A free house and a small weekly stipend is still better than some can hope for.

    I’ve got no problem with council housing and benefits being provided, just with the argument that the fact we provide these doesn’t contribute to teenage pregnancy. It does.

    Why do people have this bizarre idea that recognising this is the same as calling for it to stop, and throwing single-parent families into the streets? Is it purely a political position to not give the conservatives any leeway to push through policy reducing it?

    We also need to ensure girls have more opportunities in life than motherhood, so they have the chance to be financially secure before they have a family.

    Exactly. I pointed this out upthread: It’s the lack of opportunity that fosters that “don’t care” attitude I described upthread.

  216. 216
    carnation

    @ Adiabat

    To be called a troll by an MRA is a compliment and a source of great amusement.

    Do you consider Sid to be a troll?

  217. 217
    Adiabat

    Carnation (214):

    Challenging an MRA to be active is a barbed reference to their total lack of activism and attendent hypocrisy.

    So basically you were trolling and asking the question in bad faith.

  218. 218
    Adiabat

    carnation (216): Suppose it’s just too bad for you that I’m not an MRA. There’s been a couple of occasions on this blog where I’ve pointed that out.

  219. 219
    Adiabat

    SteveF (197):

    Ultimately the goal should be to reduce the number of children born into circumstances that make them unlikely to lead meaningful and happy lives. Paper abortions don’t serve that purpose for all the reasons you (Ally) mentioned, and thus should be rejected as a public policy.

    I disagree. Equality should be the major goal considering that simply providing for the man’s decision out of tax like we do for the woman’s decision would neuter the ‘best for the child’ argument.

    Does this leave men in an unequal position relative to women as regards the ability to evade parental responsibility post conception? Yes. But that fact alone doesn’t end the argument. There are lots of ways in which biological and social realities are going to create inequality, some (hopefully, a very small subset) of which will not be possible or in the interest of society as a whole to rectify.

    Name me one biological and social reality that hinders women’s equality that we as a society don’t work against and compensate for with legislation and/or through the provision of taxpayer’s money.

  220. 220
    SteveF

    Name me one biological and social reality that hinders women’s equality that we as a society don’t work against and compensate for with legislation and/or through the provision of taxpayer’s money.

    Pressed to think about it, I can’t think of one that’s on the same level as a lien on 18 years of labor. There are, of course, small costs associated with being a woman that are the result of biology or social convention that aren’t subsidized by governments (e.g. tampons and makeup). There are a few kinds of employment that are either closed off to women or not as highly compensated for women as men, but the number of those kinds of jobs (e.g. professional athletics) are pretty small.

    I’ll have to think more about this. Your point seems sound.

    Shifting the argument, I would say that as between the father of the child and the taxpayer, the father has a greater responsibility for the existence of the child. It seems more unfair to make the taxpayer pay for the child’s care than to make the father pay.

    In the case of an actual abortion, of course, there is no child to pay for so that issue doesn’t arise.

    I suppose you could think of taxpayers paying in lieu of the father as a contraception failure insurance system, but there are the moral hazard issues Ally pointed out.

  221. 221
    Schala

    There are, of course, small costs associated with being a woman that are the result of biology or social convention that aren’t subsidized by governments (e.g. tampons and makeup).

    Make-up is 1) not necessary 2) has only even recently been coded as feminine historically.

    It used to be the mark of an aristocrat, not the mark of feminity.

    I spent 50$ on make-up…in 7 years. I’m perfectly fine and not a social pariah for it. Imagine – most people don’t care one bit. And I’m still considered attractive.

    Shifting the argument, I would say that as between the father of the child and the taxpayer, the father has a greater responsibility for the existence of the child. It seems more unfair to make the taxpayer pay for the child’s care than to make the father pay.

    That’s the old pre-Victorian contract. Can’t make it the 2013 contract. This “man-up, be responsible for your child” was valid at a time when abortion was back-alley and risky, contraception didn’t exist, and having a child outside marriage meant abject poverty for the mother (so he was forced to marry her, shotgun style).

    Nowadays we have contraception, widely available abortion, baby drop box and adoption. All of which can be done without EVER informing the putative father. Why is he supposed to have more of a financial burden over the kid, except when it’s a she, then she can give the kid away no questions asked?

  222. 222
    Sid

    Paper abortion does server the purpose of easing suffering.

    It would mean that far fewer children are going to be born into dysfunctional situations.

    The only people it really effects, are women that are trying to commit some form of reproductive abuse and women that trying to bring children into situations they would be better off not being born into.

  223. 223
    SteveF

    I spent 50$ on make-up…in 7 years. I’m perfectly fine and not a social pariah for it. Imagine – most people don’t care one bit. And I’m still considered attractive.

    Glad to hear it. I really wasn’t putting it forward as an argument–more to indicate I couldn’t come up with something on the level of the 18 year lien.

    That’s the old pre-Victorian contract. Can’t make it the 2013 contract.

    I meant responsibility in terms of causality and not morality.

    Of course, given the fact that the mother has the intervening option of abortion, you could certainly make the argument she has an even greater responsibility (in terms of causality) for the existence of the child.

  224. 224
    Adiabat

    SteveF (220): Thanks for the courteous reply. It seem that they’ve been in short supply so far.

    I’ll have to think more about this. Your point seems sound.

    I thought of a couple of minor things myself after I posted that. Nothing on the same scale though like yourself.

    Shifting the argument, I would say that as between the father of the child and the taxpayer, the father has a greater responsibility for the existence of the child. It seems more unfair to make the taxpayer pay for the child’s care than to make the father pay.

    It’s a valid shift, and I think it’s an important point to dissect. The obvious retort is that the mother also has a greater responsibility for the existence of the child than the taxpayer, so why should her responsibility be nullified by the taxpayer and the man’s not?

    Let’s assume a one-night stand to make it simpler. His responsibility seems sourced in either a failure to use contraception or failed contraception (an unintentional accident). In this sense he has exactly the same responsibility as the mother. But the mother has additional options post conception, so she actually has more responsibility for the existence of the child than he does. Let me know if I’m missing something but it seems that as a society we are willing to provide a taxpayer-funded safety net for the one with more responsibility and no safety net for the one with less responsibility.

    A further question is: do we as a society hold a failure to use contraception or failed contraception as a reason to force parents to care for a child for 18 years? Note that this question covers abortion as well as paper abortion.

    I suppose you could think of taxpayers paying in lieu of the father as a contraception failure insurance system, but there are the moral hazard issues Ally pointed out.

    Can you be more specific? The argument that men would be less likely to use contraception is mirrored in the argument that the current safety net, not to mention the option to abort, causes women to be less careful about contraception. This is something that is denied by Ally.

    The idea that children would be cut off from support died the second a taxpayer funded system was suggested.

    I can’t help but think that the arguments about how immoral it’ll make men are just as sexist as the argument that free and legal abortion will make women more immoral; the typical argument is usually about giving them “the right to shag around while being freed from the responsibilities and consequences of that.”

  225. 225
    Adiabat

    SteveF (223): Ah, I see you got in there before me with regards to my arguments.

    Should’ve refresshed before posting.

  226. 226
    SteveF

    The obvious retort is that the mother also has a greater responsibility for the existence of the child than the taxpayer, so why should her responsibility be nullified by the taxpayer and the man’s not?

    Is it nullified? I assume she’s required to pay as much as she can for the care of the child, just as a man would be. I’m not sure of how the system works in the UK.

    Can you be more specific? The argument that men would be less likely to use contraception is mirrored in the argument that the current safety net, not to mention the option to abort, causes women to be less careful about contraception. This is something that is denied by Ally.

    Well, I would say it does cause women to be less careful, but less, less careful than men since an actual abortion would be a less pleasant experience than a paper abortion.

    I can’t help but think that the arguments about how immoral it’ll make men are just as sexist as the argument that free and legal abortion will make women more immoral;

    Yes. I really don’t like the term moral hazard, but it’s the term of art for insurance. When I mean moral hazard, I mean encouraging inefficient/cost shifting behavior. It’s cheaper for one of the participants to buy a condom than it is for the taxpayer to pay for 18 years worth of child support. To whatever degree the system creates incentives to encourage the latter rather than the former is to be avoided.

    On my good days I’m a utilitarian, on my bad days a moral nihilist. So I don’t really talk or think in terms of morality as people traditionally define it.

  227. 227
    SteveF

    To clarify one point:

    I don’t think the existence of the safety net has much impact on use of contraception. Living with a child as a single mom on the safety net even in Europe or the UK is no picnic. In the US, of course, the situation is even worse.

    I don’t have any data to back that assertion up, so it’s not worth much as a gut feel. I’m not even sure how you’d set up a study for that kind of thing given how radically societies have changed since the introduction of government safety nets. If someone wants to link to a study, I’ll certainly take a look. Thanks in advance.

  228. 228
    Carol Lynn

    (As an example, if men were granted the right to paper abortions the situation would still be unequal insofar as the trauma of a paper abortion is notably less than the trauma of a physical one.)

    I know! I know! Men can have a paper abortion ONLY IF they also give up a transplantable body part! Doctor’s choice as to what’s needed most at the time. People only NEED one kidney or one eye – if some man really does’t want to be responsible for that kid, a one-time organ donation seems a fair trade to get out of 21 years of slavery. No? You say he might do this more than once and loosing two kidneys would kill him? So what if he wants to opt out on more than one kid. Pregnancy and birth can kill a woman too…. OK, OK, for the multiple times they want a paper abortion, how about some bone marrow or a bit of liver that grows back?

    That way MEN have an incentive to care about contraception too! Women risk their health all the time with pregnancy, so let’s level that playing field! Maybe men won’t fuck around so much if it means real life physical consequences for them too!

    It makes as much sense as anything that Sid has proposed so far.

  229. 229
    Schala

    Is it nullified? I assume she’s required to pay as much as she can for the care of the child, just as a man would be. I’m not sure of how the system works in the UK.

    She can give the baby up for adoption, or in safe haven places, no questions asked, no responsibility ever. And she can refuse to name the father for adoption, or use “fun” loopholes to prevent even a father who knows about the kid from adopting.

    I know! I know! Men can have a paper abortion ONLY IF they also give up a transplantable body part! Doctor’s choice as to what’s needed most at the time. People only NEED one kidney or one eye – if some man really does’t want to be responsible for that kid, a one-time organ donation seems a fair trade to get out of 21 years of slavery.

    Hey, hyperbole is my domain!

    For women to have the right to be employed at all, they would need to have an hysterectomy! Because of the very real risk of them taking time off for pregnancy at the cost (formation, replacing that person, but keeping their position) of the employer.

    See, I can make up stupid rules too.

  230. 230
    SteveF

    And she can refuse to name the father for adoption, or use “fun” loopholes to prevent even a father who knows about the kid from adopting.

    Well, that’s an argument for changing those laws. Adoptions without the consent of the father aren’t legal in most (if not all) US jurisdictions. I’m a little surprised it works differently in the UK.

    You’re right about the problem with baby box/notice to the father, but the solution isn’t to allow paper abortions.

  231. 231
    Adiabat

    SteveF (226):

    Is it nullified? I assume she’s required to pay as much as she can for the care of the child, just as a man would be. I’m not sure of how the system works in the UK.

    There are so many variations it’s hard to give an answer that is true in all situations. In the situation that the mother cannot afford to care for her child and child-support from the man isn’t possible (dead or in prison for example) then yes, her responsibility is nullified: she’ll be provided with a house and receives money to pay for the child from the state.

    If the father can pay then the state doesn’t nullify it entirely out of taxpayer money, but will chase the man for the money. Regardless of the situation, any financial responsibility is in effect nullified by the state.

    If the mother has the economic means to pay and no father, she will still receive some benefits that all parents are entitled to but not the means-tested ones. The responsibility will not be nullified, but also isn’t a problem. Of course the point is that she still had the choice to decide to take on that responsibility post conception.

    And of course the cost of abortion is completely paid for by the taxpayer.

    Well, I would say it does cause women to be less careful, but less, less careful than men since an actual abortion would be a less pleasant experience than a paper abortion.

    I can agree with that, though I was referring to the entire safety net, including the benefits, drop off boxes etc. I do think it’s important to educate girls on just how unpleasant it is to have an abortion.

    I agree with you that it will affect some men’s behaviour, provide incentives for one set of behaviour over another, but I don’t think the behaviour of some men would be enough reason to prevent all men from having the option. After all there are some women, a very small number of irresponsible women, who do use abortion as contraception. (I read an interview of some of these women in the New York Time or Washington Post a while back. I’ll see if I can find it again if you’re interested). I wouldn’t use that as a reason to ban abortion for all women. I value equality quite high in my approach to morality, not completely but largely over “the cost to society/the taxpayer”

  232. 232
    Adiabat

    SteveF (230):

    You’re right about the problem with baby box/notice to the father, but the solution isn’t to allow paper abortions.

    Okay. But we have identified an inequality in society, and shown that any equivalent inequality that negatively affects women are often compensated for by society rather than ‘brushed under the carpet’. ‘Paper abortion’ is just one solution to this inequality that I’ve come across which will move us towards greater equality, even if it will disadvantage some women. Can you think of any alternative solution?

  233. 233
    SteveF

    There are so many variations it’s hard to give an answer that is true in all situations.

    Well, what I meant was that both the mother and father pay to the best of their ability. They are both held to the same standard no? If the mother and father together can’t afford to pay the bill, the state chips in. If the father can’t pay but the mother can, the mother pays. If the father can pay but the mother can’t, then the father pays.

    I’m judging by your response that that’s more or less the case.

    After all there are some women, a very small number of irresponsible women, who do use abortion as contraception.

    I’ve actually gone down this rabbit hole on data in the US. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘using abortion as contraception,’ but a large majority of abortions in the US are the result of failure to use contraception or a failure to use contraception correctly. That failure to use contraception is not attributable to a single party. It takes two to tango, as they say. So I’m not sure it’s ever fair to attribute ‘abortion as a means of contraception’ (whatever that means) entirely to the woman.

    Of course, there is a middle road available as regards paper abortions and 18 years of child support on the taxpayer dime. You could simply impose a fee on paper abortions to defray some, but not all, of the taxpayer cost. That has the benefit of preserving the financial incentive to use birth control.

  234. 234
    SteveF

    Okay. But we have identified an inequality in society, and shown that any equivalent inequality that negatively affects women are often compensated for by society rather than ‘brushed under the carpet’.

    Well, ideally the solution here is to increase the likelihood that the father knows of the existence of his child so he can make the decision about whether he wants to take on the role of primary caregiver. The baby box situation is a delicate one given the problem it was meant to solve — infanticide. (Well, at least that was the primary issue in the US. It’s entirely possible that wasn’t the issue in the UK.)

    I guess I see these problems as distinct. You don’t solve the notice issue via paper abortions.

  235. 235
    Schala

    I guess I see these problems as distinct. You don’t solve the notice issue via paper abortions.

    I think women and men should have the right to legal abandonment of their rights and responsibilities, up to and including at the very moment of birth.

    Women already do with baby drop box. Now just need men to be equal.

    Why do you think infanticide is an issue for mothers so that Safe Haven laws even exist to this day? Not wanting to take financial responsibility for the kid couldn’t possibly be a reason?

    When a woman takes a stand about not wanting to take care of a baby and is even willing to kill the baby for this to happen, we provide an out, no questions asked, no responsibility.

    When a man takes a stand about not wanting to take care of a baby and is even willing to kill the baby for this to happen…we tell him he should have kept it in his pants, man up, pay out, I don’t want my taxes financing your sex life.

  236. 236
    Schala

    When a woman takes a stand about not wanting to take care of a baby and is even willing to kill the baby for this to happen, we provide an out, no questions asked, no responsibility.

    When a man takes a stand about not wanting to take care of a baby and is even willing to kill the baby for this to happen…we tell him he should have kept it in his pants, man up, pay out, I don’t want my taxes financing your sex life.

    Gender Roles TM, caused by patriarchy, to screw men over by burdening them with responsibility for choices they didn’t have, and help women out of responsibility for choices they did have*.

    Fun.

    *Of course, I’m talking about all post-conception choices. Unlike what pro-life people say, sex isn’t consent to parenthood.

    Men rule so badly, that they punish men more and alleviate the burden on women more, for something neither of them really had control over starting (conception), beyond an instinctual urge which few can even go against (we know how celibacy works alright for priests). Maybe it’s not men ruling, but the very rich ruling (oligarchy). And their sex matters extremely little in their decision-making, since they do nothing, nada, zilch, to help men qua men have it better.

  237. 237
    Ally Fogg

    Adiabat

    Apologies for the late reply

    So you’re willing to fund women’s choice through the taxpayer, but not men’s choice? That’s basically it, isn’t it?

    Nope. I’m prepared to use the welfare state to ensure babies don’t starve and die in poverty.

    I’d expect any man who is (literally) left holding the baby to receive every bit of support available.

    I’m not willing to provide financial incentives to encourage either parent to abandon care of the child they conceive, unless it is a mutually agreed formal adoption process..

  238. 238
    Ally Fogg

    Oh, and Schala – what’s with the drop box obsession?

    They’ve never been available in the UK where abandoning a baby is a criminal offence. Do they exist in any significant numbers anywhere in the world?

  239. 239
    Sid

    Your mentality causes more far more babies to be born into poverty and unwanted / dysfunctional situations than is necessary though Ally.

    Your heart in the right place, but really, the incentives should be based around not bringing these children into these situations in the first place, rather then encouraging it.

    That is why there should be state promoted voluntary eugenics / choice, paper abortion and consent to fatherhood all working in tandem.

  240. 240
    SteveF

    Do they exist in any significant numbers anywhere in the world?

    Safe Haven laws exist in every US state. They vary in terms of how old the child can be, who can drop the child off, degree of anonymity, and where you can drop the child off (typically hospitals, police stations, fire stations, etc.).

  241. 241
    Schala

    Oh, and Schala – what’s with the drop box obsession?

    They’ve never been available in the UK where abandoning a baby is a criminal offence. Do they exist in any significant numbers anywhere in the world?

    Same deal as Steve said for Canada. You can abandon a newborn, no questions asked. Many countries in Europe.

    Oh and countries that say its illegal and they prosecute? Show me that they use those laws in practice.

    There’s also laws against spitting and jaywalking, and I rarely ever see those applied (it’s something else if you do it to spite a police officer right off).

    Obscure “still on the books but never in practice” laws are prime grounds for “finding an excuse to arrest someone” to stick the book at them, because you want them for *something else* (like Mafia people), and for profiling, racial or otherwise.

  242. 242
    Ginkgo

    Ally @ 237 -”Nope. I’m prepared to use the welfare state to ensure babies don’t starve and die in poverty. ”

    That’s one good goal. Another is treating teenaged girls who get pregnant decently. Another is reducing the number of girls and babies this happens too. In mostcases single parenthood is not what the parent really goes out looking for.

    Some measures to achieve one goal are going to work against another,but we should soem how be able to fashion a mix that gets us soemwhere near each of them.

  243. 243
    Ally Fogg

    OK, I stand corrected on the Safe Haven rules folks. But just checked and according to this piece (unsourced) “as many as 50 babies are abandoned in the UK each year” – so it is a tiny number in comparison to numbers of babies born. I somehow doubt there would be similar numbers of men signing off paper abortions were that an option.

    Gingko

    That’s one good goal. Another is treating teenaged girls who get pregnant decently. Another is reducing the number of girls and babies this happens too. In mostcases single parenthood is not what the parent really goes out looking for.

    Some measures to achieve one goal are going to work against another,but we should soem how be able to fashion a mix that gets us soemwhere near each of them.

    I don’t disagree with any of that.

  244. 244
    FloraPoste

    Oh, and Schala – what’s with the drop box obsession?

    I know, right? it’s news bites vs the overall statistical picture again. If an infant is abandoned by the person responsible for his physical care, it’s front page news. On the other hand, a parent walking away from financial responsibility for a baby is way too common to be news.
    It’s within a specific time window, at specfic places.

    BTW, in the US, if a mom is suspected of neglect or abuse, and the child is put in foster care, in the US she has to pay child support to the foster care system. Just like a dad who for whatever reason is not allowed to see his kids.

  245. 245
    Sid

    On the other hand, a parent walking away from financial responsibility for a baby is way too common to be news.

    About 30% of men ordered to pay CS are in arrears. In this group there are victims of reproductive abuse or paternity fraud, men that never gave consent to fatherhood after a legitimate accident, men that lost their jobs, men that are just in arrears because the payments are too high, men that now have lesser paying job yet the payments have not been adjusted, men behind because they are paying alimony and so on … but in the media they are collectively demonized as “deadbeat dads”.

    Links to stats here

    http://feck-blog.blogspot.ie/2012/01/child-support-deadbeat-moms-and-debtors.html

  246. 246
    FloraPoste

    And lots of moms have to pay child support for foster care, even if they are later cleared of abuse/neglect suspicion, or even if the neglect was due to mental illness or falling apart under stress or poverty… but in the media they are collectively demonized as bad moms.

  247. 247
    carnation

    @ Sid 245

    Hello Sid. First of all, sincere congratulations on providing a source (or “evidence”) for your claim. As everyone will know, this represents real progress in your understanding of how discussion and debate works. I’m going to allow myself a little bit of credit for assisting you in this – I was steadfast in prompting you.

    However, I must take issue with your source – it is an MRA blog. Therefore, it isn’t evidence, it is opinion.

    For example, it is my *opinion* that Ally Fogg is a good journalist making good points on his blog. It is fact that he has a blog, you can check it here: www.http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/

    The web-link is the source – the evidence is the blog.

    When providing evidence, it’s important to understand that a good audience is a sceptical audience. Would you accept as evidence something from the RadFem hub, for example?

    Congratulations again, and I look forward to further debate with a newly competent Sid.

  248. 248
    carnation

    @ Gingko

    Hello, may I be so bold as to ask if you identify as an MRA, or if you agree with many of MRA theories? I have no hidden agenda, just curious.

  249. 249
    Sid

    Floraposte@446

    And lots of moms have to pay child support for foster care, even if they are later cleared of abuse/neglect suspicion, or even if the neglect was due to mental illness or falling apart under stress or poverty… but in the media they are collectively demonized as bad moms.

    I’ve never heard of these women in the media, child abusers are demonized – less so if the are female …. I’ve not seen a media report about the fact that mothers that are ordered to pay CS are less likely to pay it than so called “deadbeat dads” either.

  250. 250
    Sid

    Ally, I don’t believe for a second the ban-hammer wouldn’t be coming down for an aggressive and nasty troll were they attacking designated “good” and weak people instead of designated “bad” and invulnerable people.

  251. 251
    carnation

    @ Sid 250

    I’m assuming that that comment is directed at me. Can you givr examples of the nasty things you allege that I have said?

    Also, Sid, you are many things, but you are definitely not invulnerable.

  252. 252
    Sid

    There it is @ 251 Ally Fog

    Pretending that they don’t know what’s being talked about – passive aggression and gaslighting. Their near entire contribution here has revolved around using ideology, tribalism and female protectionism as an excuse to engage in textbook abusive behaviour.

    Why will you not treat this person the way you would someone abusing a female or other politically correct person?

  253. 253
    Sid

    RagingBee@195

    State promoted voluntary eugenics…

    Sid, you keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means. Can you prove you know what it means?

    You are probably confused yourself because I’m using an older term that probably associate with coersive Nazi eugenics.What I’m talking about is family planning.

    State promoted voluntary eugenics is fairly self explanatory. It means eugenic services and technologies like birth control and abortion, that the public can chose to use. It was shortened to “choice” in the US after the term eugenics was so blackened by the horror of coercive nazi eugenics. Examples of how voluntary eugenics works or is supposed to work – poorer people would, due to their circumstances volunteer to use contraception and abortion and so their population growth and suffering would be self limiting. Scanning for defects, with the option to abort being given is another a feature of state promoted voluntary eugenics.

  254. 254
    carnation

    @ Sid 252

    Sid, I repeatedly ask for evidence of your controversial statements. You don’t know what, if any, ideology I subscribe to because I have never said.

    You have called me a baboon, likened me to an animal. Did I call for you to be banned?

    I treat you with courtesy, I even applaud you when you get the spirit, if not th detail, of discussion correct.

    You use terms like “false accusing”, “gas lighting”, “jail breaking” and others. There is no substance. You give opinion pieces from MRA blogs as “evidence”.

    You don’t have a clue what eugenics mean. You use the term *precisely* because the Nazi connotations fit with your hysterical view of the evil feminists.

    Here’s a straightforward definition:

    “the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)”

    The important term is “qualities of th human species”: that is, the deliberate engineering of humans to fit an ideal.

    Birth control, natural and otherwise, cannot in any way be said to be a way of deliberately engineering the quality of humans to fit an ideal. To suggest this is to reveal a total lack of understanding of reproduction, history and society.

    I have also said, and will say again, that your blatant discomfort when faced with MRA hypocrisy reveals that you probably aren’t convinced yourself of many of the theories you clumsily promote on this blog.

    I extend you the hand of friendship, Sid.

  255. 255
    carnation

    @ Sid 251

    You say: “Their near entire contribution here has revolved around using ideology, tribalism and female protectionism as an excuse to engage in textbook abusive behaviour.”

    Give me some examples and I will happily accept your assertion.

    Quote me, verbatim. And also demonstrate your understanding of “textbook abusive behaviour”

  256. 256
    Sid

    Carnation

    You don’t know what you are talking about. Eugenics because more social and environmental than genetic after ww2. Affordable family planning was extended to the poor, state promoted child care was extended to the middle classes as per Osborne theories. The idea being that the poor would opt out of reproduction until they could afford it, and by giving middle class women child care, they could work and afford more children.

    Ally Fog, can you treat this disingenuous troll in the same you would one targeting a politically correct person with non stop abuse?

  257. 257
    Sid

    edit – eugenics BECAME more social and environmental

  258. 258
    carnation

    @ Sid 256

    Family planning is… family planning, and has been practised since the dawn of time, in various forms.

    Your use of the term is completely, obviously and predictably in order to forward your view of “feminism” (as you understand it) as a conspiracy driven hate movement. Utilising the discourse associated with Nazis is a way of doing this. An unsubtle, crude, crass and infantile way, but you did it nonetheless.

    No abuse has been meted out by me to you, you’re simply lying about this. I’ll repeat my earlier challenge in a moment.

    And Sid, I will challenge every unsubstantiated, ill informed, sweeping, reactionary statement that you make. So get some evidence together. And for your information, I do it with love in my heart, a smile on my face and hope for the future.

    You say: “Their near entire contribution here has revolved around using ideology, tribalism and female protectionism as an excuse to engage in textbook abusive behaviour.”

    Give me some examples and I will happily accept your assertion.

    Quote me, verbatim. And also demonstrate your understanding of “textbook abusive behaviour”

  259. 259
    smuuerblues

    I’m just going to ask: Why, in these conversations (here, avfm, huffpo, etc), does it always end up a discussion about “paper abortions” after the fact? Once a woman is pregnant, it’s too late for both parties. Wouldn’t a prevention of impregnation discussion be more productive?

    (Hi, everyone. I ran across men’s issues and MRA’s on HuffPo, found ManBoobz and then found my way here.)

  260. 260
    bierir

    It’s very simple: If you don’t want to become a parent, don’t have unprotected sex and choose a partner who doesn’t want to become a parent either. I’ve been doing this for a long time now and it works very well! I have plenty of possibilities to control my reproductive success: I used condoms and then I got a vasectomy, no trouble at all.
    I don’t understand how the sperm of all these male victims of reproductive abuse got into a woman’s vagina. The only explanation that makes sense to me is that they put it there intentionally and, therefore, should be held accountable for their action. Giving men the possibility to enjoy unprotected sex without taking any responsibility for the consequences is definitely not the way things should go.

  261. 261
    carnation

    @ bierir 260

    Good commentary

  262. 262
    Raging Bee

    You are probably confused yourself because I’m using an older term that probably associate with coersive Nazi eugenics.What I’m talking about is family planning.

    In other words, you’re intentionally misusing an emotionally loaded word to smear women just for wanting to control whether they get pregnant or not. (Tell me, Sid, is a teenage girl practicing “eugenics” when she avoids pregnancy by not having sex?) This just proves (again) that you’re nothing but a vile misogynistic hatemonger looking to demonize and vilify women using the mose vindictive words that come to your mind.

    The only “disingenuous troll” here is you. You’ve gummed up yet another decent blog thread with nothing but idiotic falsehoods and infantile hatred that you’ve never bothered to substantiate despite repeated demands that you do so. This whole blog would be better off and more worthwhile without you.

  263. 263
    Sid

    No RagingBee,

    Do you see the way you created a false accusations to create a narrative of weak women being victimized by an evil man in order for you to appear to swoop in and save them? You ridiculous white knight.

    I’m not misusing the term voluntary eugenics, every time I have used contraception I have used voluntary eugenics.

    This post is about eugenics. The conservative gov. are proposing measures to discourage reproduction patterns that are leading to more poverty, suffering and crime. What they are proposing is a social eugenics policy.

  264. 264
    carnation

    @ RagingBee 262

    When dealing with Sid, I take notice,of what he avoids or doesn’t say. This causes him obvious discomfort, he becomes even more defensive, more prone to nonsensical threads of metaphors.

    This is a good thing. It means he doesn’t have conviction in his oft stated beliefs.

    Is he a misogynist? Maybe, but I think he’s more just scared of his perception of female power over him. You can see it in his posts. He accuses other of accusing him of having a small penis, living in a basement etc, when nobody, except him, had said or hinted at anything like this.

  265. 265
    Raging Bee

    So now I’m a “white knight” because I question your misuse of a word? If that’s “white-knighting,” then you’ll have to explan again why “white-knighting” is bad.

    Second time, Sid: is a teenage girl practicing “eugenics” when she chooses not to have sex? Are others practicing “eugenics” when they don’t encourage (or coerce) her to have sex?

    Is [Sid] a misogynist? Maybe, but I think he’s more just scared of his perception of female power over him.

    Isn’t “fear of (alleged) female power” a fundamental characteristic of misogyny? I believe you just answered your own question, and the answer isn’t “maybe,” it’s a flat unequivocal “yes.”

  266. 266
    carnation

    @ Sid 263

    Where did RagingBee use a false accusation? And you slipped back into panicky, overuse of metaphor again.

    Sid, try and adopt a more mature and realistic style of discussion. You really don’t look good, or even competent,,when you recite this inane literal nonsense.

    And I’m still waiting:

    You say: “Their near entire contribution here has revolved around using ideology, tribalism and female protectionism as an excuse to engage in textbook abusive behaviour.”

    Give me some examples and I will happily accept your assertion.

    Quote me, verbatim. And also demonstrate your understanding of “textbook abusive behaviour”

  267. 267
    Sid

    Ragingbee.

    You are not a white knight because you are confused about the meaning of eugenics.

    You are a white knight because of your ridiculous, aggressive female protectionism and because you invented another damsel in distress / bad man narrative so you could place yourself in the role of aggressive, justified protector of women. Like carnation you are using female protectionism and false accusations relating misogny as a justification for aggression and abusive behaviour.

    I’m waiting to see if I am going to short the s/p 500 today, or not. that’s why I am passing my time here. I wonder why you two are here looking and for any excuse to abuse someone on the internet. Were things going alight, I don’t believe either of you would be here manufacturing excuses to internet bully and vent rage and hate.

  268. 268
    carnation

    @ Sid 267

    Please provide examples of the aggressive female protectionism, false accusations and commentary that leads you to believe that RagingBee or I want to be seen as providing some sort rescuer fantasy?

    Otherwise, it’s just more inane babble that has no relation to anything other than your own confused and contradictory ideology.

    Your last paragraph is simply hilarious, not least because you are actually trying to present yourself as disinterested in the debate, thus insulting those who are interested. That you are the. Last active commenter seems to have escaped you. And of course, you’re a hotshot broke.

    Of course!

  269. 269
    carnation

    * that you are the most active commenter seems to have escaped you

  270. 270
    Ally Fogg

    Ally Fog, can you treat this disingenuous troll in the same you would one targeting a politically correct person with non stop abuse?

    You have not been targeted with any abuse on this thread.

    You have been targeted with argument, with challenge, with dispute and disagreement, just as you target others with argument, challenge, dispute and disagreement.

    Yes, some people are dismissive of your quality of arguments and your sources. But to no greater extent than you show yourself in 267.

    And as carnation points out, only one person on this thread has got a track record of calling people baboons and suchlike.

  271. 271
    Raging Bee

    In other words, I’m a white knight because of some incoherent shit Sid just pulled out of his own bum that doesn’t have jack shit to do with anything I (as in, the real me that exists outside of what passes for Sid’s “imagination”) actually said or did. Thanks for “clearing” that “up.”

    Lemme guess…Sid is the victim of “accidental” mental masturbation, right?

  272. 272
    carnation

    @ Ally Fogg

    Semantics, but I don’t think it’s accurate to state that Sid targets others with “challenge” and “dispute”, instead he random states irrelevant metaphors and esoteric cliches. Personally, I quite enjoy it, and it’s reawakened my interest in streams of consciousness and psychedelia.

    But to most,and to me most of the time, Sid’s writings are to the gender debate what Metal Machine Music is to the legacy of Lou Reed: almost painful, nonsensical, disappointedly awful but at least consistent.

  273. 273
    Sid

    I’m not disinterested in this debate, were I, I would be passing my spare time talking about something else.

    The question I’m ask is why are you and RagingBee here during the day you are here why are you using female protectionism as a transparent excuse and cover under which to try and abuse other people?

    Ally Fog, can you treat these people in the same way you would a politically incorrect person trying to abuse a politically correct person.

  274. 274
    Sid

    Ally Fog

    that’s a non sense claim. I’m being repeatedly targeted with bad faith arguments by a small number of highly aggressive and biased posters that apparently hate and target me for the simple fact they think I’m an mra, and you are turning a blind eye.

    Were I female, and those people belonging to a politically incorrect group and behaving in the same way towards me, their abuse wouldn’t be welcome here.

  275. 275
    Schala

    It’s very simple: If you don’t want to become a parent, don’t have unprotected sex and choose a partner who doesn’t want to become a parent either.

    Then use this standard for women too. No longer adoption available without naming the father. No longer baby drop box available. No longer abortion available.

    You had sex, woman/man up. This is your message, right?

    If you don’t agree, then don’t make this the standard for men.

    Just as the state can pay for legally abandoned babies when women do it (safe haven, adoption without naming the father), the state can pay for legally abandoned babies when men do it (have to opt-in, or zero responsibility*).

    *Basically, you have to sign a contract that says that, given a pregnancy at this very moment, and the child being yours, or you accepting the child isn’t yours (as determined by DNA test post-birth), you will take care, personally and financially, of the result of your conception.

    Absent a signature on this contract, it is presumed that there is NO father. So, the woman can act with this in mind. Decide to abort, give the child away, or raise it on her own without child support (but with state help, as like now).

    No more unwanted children, of the Oops variety, except for people who decide to keep them knowingly. No more “a kid will make us stay together” reasoning.

  276. 276
    carnation

    @ Sid

    I’ve got days free because I’m actually the wife of a proper alpha male, but he made the mistake of giving MRA a credit card and I bought a bit of feminism from a university and now I can talk about it. The gaps in between my comments are taken up by the endless but anonymous work I do for charity. Like another wife of a powerful man (the former Margaret Roberts), I need very little sleep, so after a bit of rest, I wake up, jailbreak, gaslight, troll and then have a warm croissant.

    Thought experiment, Sid. You compared me to an animal and my writing to feces. You’re an MRA, by your own definition politically incorrect.

    So you, as an MRA and politically incorrect person, abused me personally and my words. But Ally didn’t intervene.

    He, and others not well disposed to MRAs, DID intervene when I crossed the line with a question that was deemed (erroneously, in my opinion) “classist”. Then as now, I retract and apologise for offence caused.

    The point is, Sid, you call people names all the time and nothing happens. I crossed the line and was censured by my peers AND by Ally.

  277. 277
    Raging Bee

    Sid, quit being such a transparently stupid crybaby. All you’re doing is giving Ally more and more good reasons to either ban you or limit your ability to participate here. For what my opinion is worth, I think Ally’s last comment here is merciful, bordering on false equivalency, toward you. Instead of wallowing in the same old obvious bogus self-pity and being an asshole toward your host, maybe you should more honestly re-examine your own actions, and ask yourself what you hope to accomplish here.

  278. 278
    Raging Bee

    Then use this standard for women too. No longer adoption available without naming the father. No longer baby drop box available. No longer abortion available.

    Um, no, that’s not the same standard as “don’t let your dick do your thinking for you.” It’s not even close. Schala, you’re just as ignorant, dishonest and pointlessly hateful as Sid, just a little bit more verbose.

  279. 279
    carnation

    @ Sid

    This is getting tiresome, but I’ve been here before.

    You wrote: “The question I’m ask is why are you and RagingBee here during the day you are here why are you using female protectionism as a transparent excuse and cover under which to try and abuse other people?”

    Give examples…. Sid, it’s not hard, if it exists,,to give examples of something.

    So give examples, or once again, your lack of substance and ability to think critically will be clear for all to see.

  280. 280
    Raging Bee

    So give examples, or once again, your lack of substance and ability to think critically will be clear for all to see.

    If you weren’t a victim of binary thinking, you’d see that Sid and his ilk can do both at once.

  281. 281
    Raging Bee

    Third and last time, Sid: is a teenage girl practicing “eugenics” when she chooses not to have sex? Are others practicing “eugenics” when they DO NOT encourage (or coerce) her to have sex?

    Your failure to answer this simple question proves your “eugenics” blather is nothing but a degrading falsehood, a blood-libel no more true or justifiable than saying “The Joos killed Christ.”

  282. 282
    summerblues

    I can’t spell today, it seems. Name fixed.

    Sid, this is a blog about men, at least last time I checked. Why do you keep bringing women into this discussion?

    I’ll ask again: wouldn’t the discussion be more productive if it were about preventing impregnantion as opposed to “paper abortions” after the fact, when it’s too late for both?

    The commenter above, starts with a “b”, just under mine…well said.

  283. 283
    Schala

    Sid, this is a blog about men, at least last time I checked. Why do you keep bringing women into this discussion?

    This is a blog about whatever Ally wants to talk about. It sometimes talks about men, but not exclusively so. This is not The Good Men Project.

    When Ally posted about “Why did you stop identifying as a feminist?” it wasn’t talking about men only.

  284. 284
    Sid

    RagingBee

    In answer to your bad faith question, a person controlling their reproduction or choosing a healthy mate is them practising personal eugenics.

    The problem here is your own ignorance, you hear the word eugenics and think about Nazis. You don’t understand that state subsidized childcare and making sure the poor have the power to chose not to have children is eugenics too.

    Why don’t you fuck off you ideological thug?

    Ally Fog

    What is the story with the ideological thuggery? A

  285. 285
    Sid

    re you going to be just another feminist area where ideological bullying is what constitutes normal behaviour?

  286. 286
    Ally Fogg

    Sid

    Let me explain with examples.

    1. Comments like this, which express disagreement and dissent, even if employing rather scathing and disrespectful language, will be welcome,, whether I agree with them or not,, whatever the ideological position of the person posting them. This is within the rules.

    The problem here is your own ignorance, you hear the word eugenics and think about Nazis. You don’t understand that state subsidized childcare and making sure the poor have the power to chose not to have children is eugenics too.

    2. Comments like this, which are just mindless abuse, are not:

    Why don’t you fuck off you ideological thug?

    You are now officially on a yellow card Sid. Please get a grip.

  287. 287
    Timid Atheist

    Choosing a healthy mate is part of eugenics assuredly, though I suppose it depends on your definition of healthy and whether you bother to go further and test for diseases a partner might carry in their genes. NOT having children is not eugenics unless the reason for not having children is to not pass along genetic material for fear the child would have birth defects or genetic diseases. Simply not having children because you don’t want children is not eugenics.

    Private eugenics is often the term used to describe people who personally do whatever they can to follow eugenics as they perceive them. Perhaps that’s what you meant?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Meanings_and_types

  288. 288
    carnation

    @ Sid 284

    Did the S/P 500 not go the way you intended, Sid? Is that why you got very angry and started using profanity?

  289. 289
    Ginkgo

    It’s very simple: If you don’t want to become a parent, don’t have unprotected sex and choose a partner who doesn’t want to become a parent either.”

    ” I have plenty of possibilities to control my reproductive success: I used condoms and then I got a vasectomy, no trouble at all.”

    Anyone limiting women to those options would be correctly called anti-choice.

    “I don’t understand how the sperm of all these male victims of reproductive abuse got into a woman’s vagina. The only explanation that makes sense to me is that they put it there intentionally and, therefore, should be held accountable for their action.”

    And here you erase female on male rape, in its various forms – minors, men who were rpaed while drunk, drguuged or asleep. Feminists are correct in calling this kind of erasure rape apology. http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/02/24/but-women-dont-rape/

    Well some do.

    “Giving men the possibility to enjoy unprotected sex without taking any responsibility for the consequences is definitely not the way things should go.”

    Same for women, and we can all agree that getting an abortion is hardly evading the responsibility as if abortion was some minor matter. I defy anyone to find even example of a woman saying she just breezed in and got one and that was that. And the way things are going in some states it is getting to be a real challenge and expense.

    And likewise, parental surrender (“paper abortion”) is a legal procedure, which we could make as difficult as we want – hopefully not as difficult as Texas is trying to make abortion.

    carnation @ 248 – fair question.

    I’m not an activist, and most actual MRAs are – going after bigoted prosecutors as in the case of Matry Kellett in maine the way AVfm has done or the activism that NCFm enages in.

    Theories – well that’s broad and I suppose there’s some congruence, but it’s congruent also to feminism’s stated positions – gender equality, rejection of the tradtional gender system – chivalry in all its forms as concerns gender, male disposability, inequality before the law, demonization of men (which mirrors the demonization of women in so many societies and periods of history) – that kind of thing. Many feminists agrew ith tall of these points.

  290. 290
    Raging Bee

    …a person controlling their reproduction or choosing a healthy mate is them practising personal eugenics.

    Just as I suspected, you’re demonizing a personal choice by tarring it with a word whose vile, racist connotations — and the public policies it was originally coined to label — predate the Nazis by about a century or so. Your words here are the words of a bigot and a hatemonger, and their sole purpose is to demonize women and invalidate their personal choices.

    (BTW, Sid, women choose not to have sex, and to use birth-control, for lots of reasons other than avoiding pregnancy. So tell us, if a woman won’t have sex with me because she doesn’t like me, it that still “eugenics?” Or does she have to run off and get knocked up by someone else to avoid that label?)

  291. 291
    carnation

    @ Gingko

    The reason I asked if that you are measured, polite and not dogmatic, therefore not like any MRA I have ever encountered online. I still very much disagree with some of your points, but basically think there’s merit in discussing them with you.

    “I’m not an activist, and most actual MRAs are”

    I’m afraid I have to vigorously disagree with this. I have previously asked for tangible examples of what the MRM has actually achieved. There are probably no more than two dozen MRAs happy to be named in public, let alone engaged in activism. I followed the Mary Kellett story for a while, and Vladek FIller. They are the exceptions to the rule.

    Tom Martin is an active MRA, but is so ridiculous that it’s difficult to know if it’s all a massive prank with him.

    The head honchos as Spearhead and AVfM aren’t anonymous, but from what I can gather, and I stand open to be corrected, actual activism is virtually nil, beyond self publicising various blogs.

    A perfect example of the ineptitude of the MRM is UK based Fathers 4 Justice. They have achieved literally nothing, not even able to collate verifiable statistics to validate their theoretical stance.

  292. 292
    Raging Bee

    Sid: a woman (or girl) choosing to avoid pregnancy is NOT “eugenics.” This is eugenics.

    Get the difference straight before you come here pretending to be a grownup.

  293. 293
    Sid

    Ally @ 286

    Yes, this is it Ally,

    you turn a blind eye to and excuse abusive behaviour when its targeting a politically incorrect person. And if I as a politically incorrect person I eventually tell one of these thugs to fuck off, I’ll be banned. Quite the bind.

    How about this suggestion though, you don’t tolerate bullying and abusive behaviour on your blog in the first place and be a different sort of a pro-feminist area.

    Timid Athiest @ 287

    Yes, when I said personal eugenics I meant private eugenics. If a person is controlling their reproduction, they are practising private, voluntary, eugenics.

    If the state is subsidizing family planning to make sure the poor have access to BC and abortion, that is state promoted, voluntary negative eugenics.

    If the state is forcing the poor to use birth control measures, that is coercive, negative eugenics.

    If the state is subsidizing child care so middle class women can work and afford more children as per Swedish / Osborns theories, that is state promoted positive eugenics.

    etc.

  294. 294
    Adiabat

    Ally, I think you being very unfair to Sid. He has been the victim of quite horrible bullying on this thread which you are turning a blind eye to.

    There are numerous example of abuse on this thread.

    For example skim reading a few comments shows many, many examples of using MRA as a term of abuse and calling people MRA’s even though they have stated that they aren’t – denying right to self-identification is abusive. Abusing by association even on people who publically disassociate with a group is abusive. Also:

    #82 & 88 and many more attributing views to opponent that they obviously do not hold to discredit them. Which is abusive. “(Your insinuation that single teenage mothers are statutory rapists is also risible)”. There is no justification for this reading.

    #110 Patronising. Abusing and belittling by talking about someone in third person knowing they will read it.

    #180 Accusation of mental illness on Sid.

    #204 using bad faith arguments. Strawmanning

    #206 using bad faith arguments. Strawmanning

    #214 admission of arguing in bad faith.

    #254 Utters the line “I treat you with courtesy” despite numerous examples of abuse, patronizing, misrepresenting and so on. Attributes Sid’s discomfort to being “confronted” with argument and not all the patronization, (likely intentional) misrepresentation of his arguments and so on. This is itself abusive

    I’m disturbed by the extreme levels of bias you are displaying here, mainly because I previously thought you were a reasonable person. Most of the posts I’ve highlighted above contained no argument and just consist entirely of slagging off and belittling Sid. I believe that your policy of only punishing ‘mindless abuse’ is leading you to ignore the effects of far worse patterns of abuse and bullying that is often pernicious and cumulative.

  295. 295
    summerblues

    @ Ginko

    It’s very simple: If you don’t want to become a parent, don’t have unprotected sex and choose a partner who doesn’t want to become a parent either.”

    ” I have plenty of possibilities to control my reproductive success: I used condoms and then I got a vasectomy, no trouble at all.”

    Anyone limiting women to those options would be correctly called anti-choice. “–Condoms, vasectomy, abstinence – the various b/c’s that women have, tubal ligation, abstinence. I’m not seeing anti-choice here.

    “I don’t understand how the sperm of all these male victims of reproductive abuse got into a woman’s vagina. The only explanation that makes sense to me is that they put it there intentionally and, therefore, should be held accountable for their action.”

    And here you erase female on male rape, in its various forms – minors, men who were rpaed while drunk, drguuged or asleep. Feminists are correct in calling this kind of erasure rape apology.

    Rape is not sex and that is not what this is about. Two adults having consensual intercourse knowing what the consequences could be. One gets pregnant and the other impregnantes. Men who are not using condoms are not protecting themselves.

  296. 296
    Schala

    Condoms, vasectomy, abstinence – the various b/c’s that women have, tubal ligation, abstinence. I’m not seeing anti-choice here.

    Women have OTHER options to avoid parenthood, even past those. This is the inequality. And this should be fixed.

    No “man up, because men are only good to take responsibility” gender role prison. If women can legally abandon kids without being prosecuted, and without paying a red cent, so should men.

  297. 297
    summerblues

    “Women have OTHER options to avoid parenthood, even past those. This is the inequality. And this should be fixed.

    No “man up, because men are only good to take responsibility” gender role prison. If women can legally abandon kids without being prosecuted, and without paying a red cent, so should men.”

    Where is the anti-choice in pregnancy prevention? That’s what this is about. I have already stated that after the fact (she is pregnant) it’s too late for both of them. Why does this seem to be such a hard concept to grasp?

    You think abortion is only about women “getting rid of a problem”? Then you know nothing about women or why they have abortions. Your disgust of women who have abortions shines through. There also seems to be some odd idea that once a man impregnates a woman that suddenly he owns a womb. This is not true. Men no more own wombs than women own penis/testicle combos.

    The inequality is already present in the respective reproductive systems. Repro rights are based on repro systems that we already own, that are ours. Not based on the opposite sex’s repro systems.

  298. 298
    Schala

    Where is the anti-choice in pregnancy prevention? That’s what this is about. I have already stated that after the fact (she is pregnant) it’s too late for both of them. Why does this seem to be such a hard concept to grasp?

    Women can legally abandon their baby. It’s called safe haven laws. Go to a police or fire station or hospital. Leave the baby there. Go away. No prosecution. No money given. And the father would have a fucking hard time doing it without her consent, but she can easily do it without his consent – since it comes out of her body.

    Daddy-the-state will pay for legally abandoned babies, no problem. Adopted out babies too.

    Why can’t daddy-the-state pay for men who aren’t ready to be parents and only agreed to a session of sex, not 18 years of forced labor?

  299. 299
    Schala

    I didn’t mention abortion, stop with your strawman.

  300. 300
    Raging Bee

    Sid, there’s no such thing as “personal” eugenics. That word was originally coined to label a set of PUBLIC policies and goals that were COLLECTIVE and COERCIVE: to prevent the “wrong” kinds of people from perpetuating the “wrong” kinds of genes, on a national scale, regardless of their own views on the matter.

    I really don’t know how to explain this any more simply: You are deliberately misusing that word! If you use one word to label two things that are different in VERY significant ways (i.e., coercive vs. non-coercive), then either you are demeaning the less evil of those two things, or the word loses its meaning. Either way, you are being dishonest, and whether or not you understand or intend it, you are slandering innocent people by comparing their personal choices to certain public policies that are very unpopular and have earned a solid reputation for being evil, destructive, and contrary to certain basic individual rights.

    Oh, and stop crying about “abusive behavior.” You had your chance to earn a little respect here, and you keep on blowing it. That’s no one’s fault but your own. Grow up.

  301. 301
    summerblues

    Schala, abortion after the pregnancy is an option. And, yes, it is preferable that she please, please drop the baby off at one of the designated places rather than kill it and stick it in a shoe box. (maybe if she’d had an early abortion we wouldn’t be having this discussion)

    Don’t give away your sperm so freely, then you won’t be arguing about having to pay child support for 18 years. Yes, Schala, it takes two to make a baby (conceive, actually). No, men don’t own women, their repro systems, their bodies so , no, men do not dictate what a woman does with that pregnancy. That is her decision alone. Yes, the man who impregnated her is responsible for the care of that child. We are all adults and know what the consequences can be here.

    Are you here to try and help men to prevent this situation for them or to just get revenge on women? Isn’t the goal for men to have a good, healthy sex life while minimizing the risk of impregnation?

    Plus, you are making a better conservative Pro-Life argument than they are.

  302. 302
    FloraPoste

    Sid at 245: ” About 30% of men ordered to pay CS are in arrears.”

    Thanks for making my point. If 30% of primary caregivers were abandoning children, it would be a national crisis. Imagine what it would cost to replace the ecological service provided by voluntary caregivers.

    If your only responsibility is to send a check, you’ve already relinquished most of your parental responsibility, or had it taken from you.

    I’m on board with fixing the kind of sexism that contributes to fathers getting shut out of parenting, it might actually improve things for children as well as adults.

  303. 303
    Ally Fogg

    OK, I can see I’m going to have to put up an open thread to talk about moderation in more detail, because this is starting to pointlessly divert all the other threads. But I won’t want to make that one about individuals so I’ll deal with these specific ones here.

    Adiabat

    For example skim reading a few comments shows many, many examples of using MRA as a term of abuse and calling people MRA’s even though they have stated that they aren’t – denying right to self-identification is abusive. Abusing by association even on people who publically disassociate with a group is abusive.

    And how many instances have their been on this thread and all the others of people using the word “feminist” as a term of abuse and calling people feminists even thought they have stated that they aren’t? You could start with the very first example on this thread, which was on comment 19, by Sid (long before anyone had even mentioned MRAs) .

    If you want me to delete all the comments that use MRA as a term of abuse, the only fair step would be to delete all those posts which do the same to feminists. Agreed? So there’s about half the comments on this whole blog zapped, for starters

    #82 & 88 and many more attributing views to opponent that they obviously do not hold to discredit them. Which is abusive. “

    No, it is not abusive. It is strawmanning, as seen in just about every argument on every website since the invention of the internet. Sometimes it is done cynically, but often it is a genuine product of misunderstanding the other person’s opinion and the logic underpinning it. Often it is hard to tell which is which.

    Yes it can be annoying, no, it is not a way to settle an argument, but we all do it at times. The first blatant example of a straw man argument on this thread is at comment No3 – by Sid.

    Straw manning is not grounds for moderation. If I did delete every straw man argument on both sides, that would be another half of the remaining posts gone.

    Patronising. Abusing and belittling by talking about someone in third person knowing they will read it.

    Not very polite, I’d agree. A good example of it is at 103, by Adiabat: “Wow, I see carnation and Morales are trolling the thread as usual.

    if I delete every post that isn’t polite on either side, that would be another half the remaining comments gone.

    #180 Accusation of mental illness on Sid.

    That was specifically aimed at Schala’s argument, calling it ‘psychedelic’, suggesting the argument was madness. It then goes on to compare Sid and Schala to Sid Barrett and Arthur Brown, which I can see could be seen as offensive, even though it was obviously a joke. But if either Schala or Sid take exception to that post, I’d be happy to delete it on request.

    #204 using bad faith arguments. Strawmanning

    See above

    #206 using bad faith arguments. Strawmanning

    See above.

    #214 admission of arguing in bad faith.

    Don’t think it is, actually, but even if it were it is not a moderation offence.

    #254 Utters the line “I treat you with courtesy” despite numerous examples of abuse, patronizing, misrepresenting and so on. Attributes Sid’s discomfort to being “confronted” with argument and not all the patronization, (likely intentional) misrepresentation of his arguments and so on. This is itself abusive

    I’d agree that the claim “I treat you with courtesy” is a bit of a stretch, but I see it in the context of arguments that have run on for several weeks in which both sides have been prone to being patronizing and disrespectful to the other, if not downright rude. And I repeat, misrepresenting people, strawmanning etc, is never admirable, but nor is it abusive.

    I’m disturbed by the extreme levels of bias you are displaying here, mainly because I previously thought you were a reasonable person.

    This would carry rather more weight with me if I had any history of stepping in to moderate every time someone insults a feminist, misrepresents feminism or otherwise intervening to protect those on one side while allowing the other free rein.

    The suggestion that I do not afford Sid the protection that I would offer “politically correct targets” (in his words) is immediately belied by the fact that I have never once stepped in to protect ‘politically correct targets’, even when they’ve been called baboons and morons, compared to Nazis, accused of being responsible for the victimisation of millions of men, had their positions and words misrepresented and misquoted, had legitimate points and queries blocked with disingenuous avoidance, been patronised, insulted and mocked. You’ll find all of that and more on pretty much every thread on this blog, most commonly by the very same person who is now demanding protection from “bullying” and “abuse.”.

    What is being demanded here is not equal treatment. This is what it looks like. You’ve got equal treatment and you don’t like it. You’re finding it doesn’t always work to your advantage. What you are demanding is not equal treatment but preferential treatment for MRA-supportive positions.

    That ain’t gonna happen, sorry.

  304. 304
    summerblues

    In theory, I support paper abortions. Legally, I will not support it. It strikes me more as a band-aid solution (like banning abortions) rather than actually addressing what the problems are.

  305. 305
    Schala

    Don’t give away your sperm so freely, then you won’t be arguing about having to pay child support for 18 years. Yes, Schala, it takes two to make a baby (conceive, actually). No, men don’t own women, their repro systems, their bodies so , no, men do not dictate what a woman does with that pregnancy. That is her decision alone. Yes, the man who impregnated her is responsible for the care of that child. We are all adults and know what the consequences can be here.

    Are you here to try and help men to prevent this situation for them or to just get revenge on women? Isn’t the goal for men to have a good, healthy sex life while minimizing the risk of impregnation?

    Plus, you are making a better conservative Pro-Life argument than they are.

    I can’t give my sperm. I never figured how to get it out of my body. I also never had PIV sex in my life, and am unlikely to (since I have no V, and have not ever and will not use my P to penetrate).

    You are making the pro-life argument.

    You tell men: Abstinence, non-PIV-sex, or permanent infertility, man, this is how it is, something goes wrong, pay up, man.

    You tell women: Abstinence, non-PIV-sex, or permanent infertility…but if things go wrong, you can also abort, you can also give the kid for adoption without naming the father and you can also legally abandon the kid no questions asked. Paying up? Leave this to men, it’s in their genes. /s

    Seriously, again, if the state can pay for adoption and abandonment of kids by women, it can very much do THE EXACT SAME for men.

    Taxes are not stealing from you.
    Taxes are not stealing from you.
    Taxes are not stealing from you.

    Repeat this in your head until you understand that it’s the same when public programs pay for male stuff.

  306. 306
    summerblues

    Seriously, Schala, stop with the TMI. Nobody gives a shit what type of sex you have.

    I focus on prevention because in every scenario that I can think of and have had experience with I keep coming back to the same solution: prevent pregnancy in the first place.

    You keep focusing on what women are doing and stating how unfair it is to men. Why? That’s the repro system aspect of it. Women are “manning up” by aborting or carrying and keeping or relinquishing (drop off) or adopting the child out. Men can and do walk away. There’s no physical risk to them personally but it does have to be a hell of a scare for them. The child is here, both parties are responsible for taking care of it (consensual sex). When men don’t want children, it’s best to match the actions to the words. Same thing for women.

    The child is the loser in all of this.

    Yes, I am a bit Pro-Life. It didn’t ask to be created, it is a unique set of DNA that both the woman and the man contributed, it’s a potential. Terminating a pregnancy is “killing your own offspring”. This is why I don’t blame women for not wanting to abort a child no matter the circumstances. I also don’t blame men for wanting “paper abortions” because they don’t want to be a parent to this child. Are you understanding yet how ugly this is?

  307. 307
    Schala

    Seriously, Schala, stop with the TMI. Nobody gives a shit what type of sex you have.

    You asked about my sperm, assume the answer.

    I focus on prevention because in every scenario that I can think of and have had experience with I keep coming back to the same solution: prevent pregnancy in the first place.

    That’s nice, but you can’t ignore sometimes accidents happen, precautions or not. Saying “well, it’s not the ideal, so screw you” is very stupid.

    You keep focusing on what women are doing and stating how unfair it is to men. Why?

    Because, unlike you, I want equality. This means arranging social policy so that biology doesn’t cause inequalities, as we’ve done in many many domains already, when it penalized women.

    Women are “manning up” by aborting or carrying and keeping or relinquishing (drop off) or adopting the child out. Men can and do walk away.

    I mean without being obligated to finance the kid. Women can relinquish the financial responsibility, men should also be able to. Without the state refusing benefits to the woman because a father exists. Men are not there to prevent expenses from the state when mothers need it. The state CAN absorb those expenses for the children’s benefit, without saddling up a particular man with the payment.

    Also, the US suck suck suck with their policies on taxes. You want super low taxes, including for the very rich, and also good services… It won’t fucking happen. Here in Quebec province we have high taxes, though the very rich are not that bad off in comparison, that’s how we can afford our services, like free hospitals, financed medications, mostly free tests (DNA and others) when medically recommended, with mostly-free universities (lowest fees in North America).

    We value state-financed stuff, for the greater good. This SHOULD include legal abandonment by the father without any repercussions, at the moment of birth or before (provided he even knows, if he doesn’t know he should not be liable for anything). Abandonment cannot be done after (like when the kid is 3) “because you don’t like the kid” or the likes. Though custody should be presumed equal, and child support presumed null (if 50% custody, then no child support, regardless of wages), no such “preserve the lifestyle of the kid” bullshit.

    The child is the loser in all of this.

    The child loses more being tied to a father that never wanted him, than if the state steps in to finance what’s missing.

    Yes, I am a bit Pro-Life. It didn’t ask to be created, it is a unique set of DNA that both the woman and the man contributed, it’s a potential. Terminating a pregnancy is “killing your own offspring”. This is why I don’t blame women for not wanting to abort a child no matter the circumstances. I also don’t blame men for wanting “paper abortions” because they don’t want to be a parent to this child. Are you understanding yet how ugly this is?

    No, I don’t see how ugly this is. Overpopulation is ugly, famine is ugly. Not being born, provided this is not selective birthing* (which would be eugenics), is fine. I would be fine with being aborted. Because I would either come back in some other way, or not even know I didn’t come to exist. Regardless of reincarnation or nihilist viewpoints (nothing exists after death), dying isn’t always a greater bad. Especially in the case of masturbation, fellation, abortion and the likes. Punishing those is the greater bad.

    *For example choosing the kid to not be gay, not be trans, not be left-handed, etc. Sex-selective birthing depends on culture. Lots of cultures prefer female babies, others prefer male babies – where reasonable, this tendency should be countered to avoid a too-skewed ratio.

  308. 308
    carnation

    @ Ally Fogg 303

    I demand that you retract the statement that I’m a politically correct person!!!

  309. 309
    Ally Fogg

    I did put it in scare quotes

  310. 310
    summerblues

    Schala, it still just sounds like you believe that men should just be able to walk away from the children they helped create, no matter what.

    Yes, birth control fails and accidents happen. Prevention should lower this number, both using birth control. The rest: you created it, you take care of it.

    Punishment? I already said that I personally support paper-abortion and get not wanting to be a parent. I would like to know what it is that men are proactively doing to prevent impregnating women in the first place.

  311. 311
    Schala

    Schala, it still just sounds like you believe that men should just be able to walk away from the children they helped create, no matter what.

    Yes, the same as women can do. Want equality? Give equality. No double standard.

    Yes, birth control fails and accidents happen. Prevention should lower this number, both using birth control. The rest: you created it, you take care of it.

    See above. If there is an out for one sex, there should be an equivalent out for the other sex. No bullshit about “it’s different because X”, or we could say the same for health insurance, pay/wages and the ability to vote/teach/build/legislate etc based on every characteristic imaginable irrelevant to the task “just because”.

    “It’s different because X” has been used to justify slavery, and the non-vote of women. It’s been used to justify class inequalities. It’s been used to preserve the status quo on an incredible amount of issues.

    Punishment? I already said that I personally support paper-abortion and get not wanting to be a parent. I would like to know what it is that men are proactively doing to prevent impregnating women in the first place.

    Give them the equivalent of the contraceptive pill, preferably in pill form. And voila.

    People would then use condoms solely to prevent STIs, and the pills for everything else. Accidents would probably still happen, but much less.

  312. 312
    carnation

    @ Ally Fogg

    Point taken :-)

  313. 313
    Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-

    So, in Sid’s perfect MRA Disneyland me still get all the fun with no responsibilities or consequences ever, while women get all the responsibilities and consequences plus the toll any pregnancy, aborted or not, takes on her body.

  314. 314
    Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-

    Schala

    Women can legally abandon their baby. It’s called safe haven laws

    Yes, and to be able to do so a woman usually has to have risked her life by giving birth alone and unassisted (because if you do it in a safe hospital environment there’s a medical record and you’re registered). Safe Haven laws are aimed to prevent desperate women from killing their newborns. They are not a “carte blanche” for women who have decided that parenthood just isn’t for them.
    I’m also quote in favour of a system where the government collects a tax from everybody and provides for all children. I’m even in favour of investing lots of that money in services like free daycare and school-meals, fully paid education and such. Because I am very opposed to the current system where children suffer for having the bad luck of being born into a family of shitty parents

  315. 315
    summerblues

    My introduction to men’s issues was through MRA’s (AVfM, Paul Elam, Angry Harry, GWW), MGTOW and PUA’s. I’m sure, Schala, that you can imagine what my reaction was. Still, I was able to see real problems around all the insults and vulgarities. So, here I am. I’m trying to bridge the gap. Right now it appears that this is an “us vs. them” situation. I don’t want that. We are not going to get anywhere if this continues.

    In your scenario of “give men equality after the conception” is not equality and it’s not the hypothetical man taking responsibility. Did the hypothetical couple have consensual sex? Yes or no, that’s it. Could the hypothetical man be the “father”? Yes or no, that’s it. Start with the truth.

    You want equality for men? Then he can pay for half the abortion costs or the pregnancy costs, all of the costs associated with these choices. Men have a right to know when a child has been conceived. Women have the final say in what happens. Ideally, they would decide together and come to an agreement. She goes through with either the abortion or the pregnancy. He pays half.

  316. 316
    Schala

    Yes, and to be able to do so a woman usually has to have risked her life by giving birth alone and unassisted (because if you do it in a safe hospital environment there’s a medical record and you’re registered).

    Doesn’t matter. She then goes away with the kid, drops the kid off, done, over, finished. Hospital birth, home birth, homoepathic birth. Who cares. But it has to be a newborn, not a 5 years old kid.

    In your scenario of “give men equality after the conception” is not equality and it’s not the hypothetical man taking responsibility. Did the hypothetical couple have consensual sex? Yes or no, that’s it. Could the hypothetical man be the “father”? Yes or no, that’s it. Start with the truth.

    The man taking responsibility, for stuff he did, for stuff he didn’t, for stuff people feel around him, for stuff he’s told to do, etc is part and parcel of gender roles. It’s not liberating or anything to just pile it up higher in the name of “man-up”. It’s also not equality.

    I don’t care if the person did conceive the kid. They had no agency in the conception itself, nor any choice whatsoever afterwards. Just like the vote should be representative, the responsibility of a birth should be contingent on having actual decision power AFTER conception, not “well, abstinence man”. If the woman has choice after and I don’t care the damn reason, then the man should have a choice too. Because this is equality.

    Or I take you’ll be in favor of employers now refusing, en masse, to hire women, because pregnancy cost them too much, and they’re the only sex that can become pregnant?

    If you don’t think we can use biology against people in employment, or insurance (health insurance isn’t pricier for women, even though they use it more), then we shouldn’t use biology against people in birthing, just because we don’t think the state funding stuff should be done if a man can pay for it instead (ie men are not worth having the state pay for them, only women).

  317. 317
    Schala

    As for abortion, all state financed. Like in Canada. Get in the 21st century, stop wanting user-paying services, we’re not having it.

  318. 318
    carnation

    @ Schala 316

    I understand your position, you feel it’s unfair that a man has limited reproductive rights. But then again, his role in reproduction is somewhat limited. He doesn’t carry the child, he doesn’t have to decide whether or not to undergo a nine month pregnancy and the birthing process (a fairly major physical trauma). It is the unalienable right of the woman to choose what she allows to be done with her body from conception, to termination or birth(allowing for abortion term laws). Nobody seems to be arguing that that shouldn’t be the case.

    So, that’s a woman’s choice. Let’s assume she decides to have the child. Then a life has been brought into the world. The child’s life is an event. That child has two biological parents, each of whom have rights but more more importantly, responsibilities. The right to shirk responsibilities should not be a right. And it won’t be a right.

    You will counter with “baby boxes”, statistically insignificant instances where a child is safely abandoned. As far as I’m aware, this is and should be against the law, in the even more statistically insignificant instance of a father being denied the chance to be a father. And the child should be tested for DNA, so that a father looking for,his child can be reunited.

    Simply put, there is no room and no reason for what you propose. It hasn’t and won’t ever be taken seriously, in my opinion, by legislators.

    Do you think that it will? If so, by whom?

  319. 319
    Schala

    So, that’s a woman’s choice. Let’s assume she decides to have the child. Then a life has been brought into the world. The child’s life is an event. That child has two biological parents, each of whom have rights but more more importantly, responsibilities. The right to shirk responsibilities should not be a right. And it won’t be a right.

    Until he agrees, knowingly, uncoerced, and with at the very least normal visitation rights (barring proven abuse) if the couple isn’t together anymore, to care for the kid himself (personally and financially) – it is to be cared for by the mother and with the state financing whatever it normally would (ie if the state would choose to go after child support to not pay welfare, now it does pay welfare, and shuts up).

    You only have responsibilities for something you chose. And if you can’t affect post-conception events, you have no responsibility either.

    The mother has to agree, knowingly, uncoerced and all that to raise the child first. Or she can get rid of it, pre-birth and after-birth, without the father ever knowing, and without ever being held responsible (the state pays).

    So I don’t see, at all, what is so outlandish about my proposition, except that society thinks men are only good to pay and never be the recipient of tax benefits.

  320. 320
    Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-

    Doesn’t matter. She then goes away with the kid, drops the kid off, done, over, finished. Hospital birth, home birth, homoepathic birth. Who cares.

    So, a woman was so desperate she just risked her life in an unsafe birth and your comment is “who cares doesn’t matter”?
    And, well, laws might be different around here, but where I’m from, if she gives birth in a hospital and therefore creates a record of birth the father has to consent to an adoption. GUess what, i know of a case where after an “oops how did that happen” she gave birth but didn’t want to have the child and he decided to raise his daughter. Guess who has to pay child support?

  321. 321
    carnation

    @ Schala 319

    What you wrote basically confirms my thoughts:

    “You only have responsibilities for something you chose”

    Neoliberalism extends to a man’s right to choose!!

    I would grant you this. If the child is conceived when the father is a child, then he should be exempt from “financial liability”.

    Whilst understanding that this is something frowned upon by some in this blog, this is MRA triple think. Man has sex knowing sex can lead to pregnancy. Woman (probably using “fraudulent”/evil methods) conceives child. Man can then choose to absolve himself from all responsibility from the known outcome of the activity he chose to undertake. As a pleasant side effect for some men, he can then use/abuse this privilege as he sees fit.

    The MRA world is not a happy world, that’s for sure.

    And Schala, this is nothing but fantasy, pseudoacademic theoretical masturbating, allowing for the pointing out of “fraudulent”/evil women and victimised men.

    I challenge you to answer the second part of my previous post.

  322. 322
    Schala

    So, a woman was so desperate she just risked her life in an unsafe birth and your comment is “who cares doesn’t matter”?
    And, well, laws might be different around here, but where I’m from, if she gives birth in a hospital and therefore creates a record of birth the father has to consent to an adoption. GUess what, i know of a case where after an “oops how did that happen” she gave birth but didn’t want to have the child and he decided to raise his daughter. Guess who has to pay child support?

    Don’t name the father, father unknown, and voila.

    Either it’s within a relationship equivalent to marriage, in which case it’s different*, or it was a one night stand or an ex from long enough ago, and he can never find out.

    *Men have been found responsible for kids that are proven to not be biologically theirs just because they “assumed the parent role”, by staying with the mother. So, pardon me if I don’t have much sympathy for the reverse.

    Man has sex knowing sex can lead to pregnancy.

    Warning Warning Warning

    Pro-life statement

    Men should be abstinent or they should pay up, because I said so.

    Women should be abstinent or they should pay up <—equivalent statement.

    No abortion, no adoption, no nothing. For both, or for neither. Equality. Swallow the pill.

    Male privilege amounts to being assumed to be responsible for things you didn't even do (which can mean being praised for stuff you didn't do).

    Female privilege amounts to being assumed NOT responsible for things you did do (which can mean being left unpunished for malicious acts).

    The downside is men then lack protection and sympathy, like here "man-up" seems to be the only acceptable response from those right-wing apologists.

    The other downside is women then lack favoritism when it comes to getting high-powered positions, like heads of state, minister or CEO. Why? Because they're not assumed to have power over stuff the way men are. When they do bad stuff "someone made them do it", why would you want Steve Jobs to be the puppet of circumstances? So you'd hire someone who is considered to have made it themselves, influence be damned.

    Kyriarchy: Not as one-sided as you think.

    Women not even being suspected as pedophiles is the flipside of being considered less competent to be executives and leaders. Pick your poison, no having it all.

  323. 323
    carnation

    Schala, comparing my comments to pro-lifers is a/ an idiotic comparison b/ obviously inaccurate.

    The parents of a child are responsible for his/her welfare. A womane, alone, has a right to choose whether to continue with a pregnancy.
    That is right and just.

    There is no need to invent a solution to an MRA myth based problem.

    Your inability to conjure up a riposte beyond “pro life comment” and your reliance on hyperbole surely suggest to you that your idea is terminally flawed?

    Echoing Ally’s earlier sentiments, please explain why and how paper abortions benefit children?

  324. 324
    Schala

    Echoing Ally’s earlier sentiments, please explain why and how paper abortions benefit children?

    Children with parents are wanted.

    Children, in any scenario (2 parents want, 1 parent wants, both parents dead/unavailable) are cared for. This is what the state is here for. This is not what the man is here for.

  325. 325
    Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-

    *Men have been found responsible for kids that are proven to not be biologically theirs just because they “assumed the parent role”, by staying with the mother.

    So, they were the father of the child, they took care of the child, they had the love of the child but all that matters is sperm and money. You know, if you ever showed a bit of concern for anybody who’s not the guy in the scenario you might come off as less entitled.

    As for your comparison:
    Men can abstain from sex, women can abstain from sex
    Men can use contraception, women can use contraception.
    Pregnancy happens to women’s bodies, therefore they can have an abortion.
    Complaining about how unfair that is on guys ignores not only the biological realities (why doesn’t the government recompensate women for their lack of prostate-pleasure?), it also completely ignores that this pregnancy-thingy isn’t some wonderful unicorn poop but a serious condition that carries consequences for the woman one way or the other.

    But let’s just flip the script:
    Since women implicitly face risks and dangers concerning sex, pregnancy and childbirth, what do you think should be the risks and dangers the guy should be willing to take?

  326. 326
    carnation

    @ Schala 324

    Your comments made literally no sense whatsoever.

    The children are born. The father contributes nothing.

    How does that help the child?

  327. 327
    Schala

    Complaining about how unfair that is on guys ignores not only the biological realities (why doesn’t the government recompensate women for their lack of prostate-pleasure?)

    Women HAVE prostates. Brush up on your biology. What was once called “Skene’s gland” is now recognized as the female prostate. Same function even.

    The children are born. The father contributes nothing.

    How does that help the child?

    The children are born, the state pays, how does that hurt the child?

    Since women implicitly face risks and dangers concerning sex, pregnancy and childbirth, what do you think should be the risks and dangers the guy should be willing to take?

    Not even worth responding. You’re worse than Amanda Marcotte. She didn’t think men who would opt out of birth’s responsibility even existed, so she made a very sarcastic article, giving MRAs exactly what they asked for with just one ridiculous clause (no contact even after the kid is adult, or you owe all 18 years at once). You’re not even there. You think we should make it so damn hard on men that few would even dare do it. Because man-up, your role in life, the game. Now available.

  328. 328
    Schala

    You know, some people thought abortion would make women all loose, having sex left and right, and using abortion as a late-term contraceptive (ie a few weeks after conception, instead of preventing it outright). The right-wing STILL think that, but for more religiously-moral reasons (of the no sex before marriage, no non-procreative sex during marriage, no oral and no anal, and definitely no BDSM).

    They were wrong. Maybe a tiny minority does.

    So it’s surprising that some people think legal abandonment for men would make men all loose, having sex left and right, and using legal abandonment as a late-term contraceptive. Or maybe you think all men (or most men) are already loose frat-level of sleeping around one-night stands.

    If you want to help in the contraception, you give them a male-pill, (as condoms will fail) but they’re not less sexually moral than women.

    I always find it hard to swallow that LGB people will shit on the T, that transsexual people will shit on the transgender people (ie cross-dressers and other more visible trans people) and so on, in an infinite loop of “I get to have my day in the boss seat, shitting on people below”.

    NONE of these groups seem to learn the maxim of “do not do unto others”, they decide to find an acceptable target and do it themselves instead.

    So women got shat on about how sexually loose they would be by the right-wing (regarding abortion). And what do they do? Do the very same thing to men, just because. Can’t learn, brain’s on vacation.

    And this is when I lose faith in humanity. And why my “adult side” is as cynical as a doomsday (my “inner child” is more cheerful, but I’m afraid my cynicism will taint her).

  329. 329
    carnation

    @ Schala. 328

    Answering a question with an irrelevant question doesn’t count.

    How does it help a child to know his father decided not to support his upbringing in anyway?

    Those of us who have supported youngsters who’ve been in exactly that situation know the damagemthismcuases, that society pays for in later years.

    The concept of a “paper abortion” is so crass, a self defeating MRA delusional cul de sac if ever there was one.

    I’m surprised Ms Marcotte pays any attention to such infantile garbage.

  330. 330
    Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-

    Not even worth responding.

    So the answer is “none whatsoever”.
    Thank you, that’s all I needed to know.

  331. 331
    Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-

    BTW, as I’m actually not unsympathetic towards the idea of tax-financed government paid child support (since I care about children who shouldn’t pay for the fact that their parents are unucky to be poor or assholes) : Can anybody imagine the MRA uproar about having to pay a 5% tax to feed the children of welfare-queen sluts?
    And would the fathers’ rights* movement be willing to dissolve and abandon the concept since there are no more duties for them, so why should there be any rights?
    Or would we get a toddler tantrum à la “I played with my toys but now somebody else has to clean up the mess”?

    *And before the usual suspects start to howl: I’m sceptical of the idea of parental rights anyway. Talk about parental stewardship and I’m listening.

  332. 332
    Adiabat

    Carnation (318): That’s actually a half decent post. I’m with you until “That child has two biological parents, each of whom have rights but more more importantly, responsibilities.”

    What’s your reasoning that he has responsibilities, especially responsibilities that incur such a huge cost? I know that our culture has a norm that he does but what’s the basis for this in the modern age? I can see why he did before we allowed free and legal abortion, essentially taking the entire decision out of his hands. And before today’s norms of sexual freedom and wide range of female contraception, including morning after pills etc… but nowadays not so much. Abortion is even becoming acceptable, at least in the UK, when the mother recognises that she isn’t in the best position she could be to care properly for the child.

    I’m questioning the cultural norm itself.

    “It hasn’t and won’t ever be taken seriously, in my opinion, by legislators. Do you think that it will? If so, by whom?”

    In the short term, no, not a chance. Medium or long term, maybe, especially as the general public becomes more aware of men’s rights and equality issues. But that doesn’t mean that it’s not an interesting equality issue to discuss on a blog now.

  333. 333
    carnation

    @ Adiabat

    The “huge cost”, in the UK at least, is a modest percentage of income.

    I just checked online. Lets take a typical MRA scenario. Father gets mother pregnant. Child lives with mother, father has child minimal times at his home (less than once a week). Father earns less than average wage in UK (I used £26k in this example).

    The “huge cost” is £59 a week. Equivalent to a pair of jeans, a decent meal for two, or a modest night out.

    Frankly, if you grudge paying about 15% of your net income towards the raising of your child, the state should force you to.

    If the father is raising the child in the same circumstances as the mother in the scenario above, she’d pay the same, and rightly so.

    Parents have responsibilities to their children. Nobody would seriously argue with that.

    Women have a right to choose whether or not to continue with a pregnancy . Few people would seriously argue with that.

    The woman choosing to continue with a pregnancy results in a child being born, which in turn creates two parents with responsibilities.

    Now, it might seem unfair that a man who doesn’t want a child becomes a father, but to invent some “rights” for him would mean introducing a legalistic framework that simply wouldn’t work and has no ethical compass.

    The unborn child/foetus has no legal status, so how could a prospective father absolve himself of responsibilities not,yet incurred? Once the child is born, a legal fact comes into being (birth of a new citizen, duty of care), then parental responsibilities kick in.

    In the spirit of a new type of commenting Adiabat, and in Appreciation of your limited compliment, I’ll finish with this.

    Interested parties should hire a lawyer, study the legalistic possibility of this, it would quickly be realised that this is fantasy, nothing more. And those so enthusiastically proposing this should honestly question their motives for doing so. It’s not even a pipe dream, it’s a hypothetical, hyperbolic, unrealistic “yeah, but” talking point not worthy of serious practical discussion.

  334. 334
    carnation

    @ Adiabat 332

    In direct answer to your question, about the cultural norm of parental responsibility for fathers. I’m not quite sure where to begin.

    Could you be a bit more specific?1

  335. 335
    Adiabat

    Carnation (333):

    Parents have responsibilities to their children. Nobody would seriously argue with that.

    I am, and you’re dodging the question. If it’s so obvious it shouldn’t be that hard to answer.

    And off the top of my head I can think of a few occasions where we don’t hold parents responsible for their children.

    The “huge cost” is £59 a week.

    Let’s assume for now your figures are correct. You still need to show that the father has responsibility in the first place for this £55224, for what may be a 1-in-a-hundred chance split condom that can happen to anyone engaging in what by current norms is normal, responsible behaviour.

    Interested parties should hire a lawyer, study the legalistic possibility of this…yada yada yada

    Which completely bypasses what I said about this being more medium/long term after cultural attitudes to men’s issue and equality changes. (And I’m sure feminists were wasting their time discussing giving the vote to women before it became politically tenable).

    P.S Do you really spend £59 a week on jeans or a meal out? And if I was spending £59 I’d expect more than a “modest night out”. Maybe you have a laid-back attitude to money and that’s why you’re seeing it as no big deal? Is that possible?

    P.P.S I can’t get my head around you claiming £59 for a meal out…. Let’s say £12 for a good main meal at a good country pub, another £12 if you have starter and dessert (optional) and £15 for a bottle of wine. That’s £39, and to me that’ll be reserved for rare occasions.

  336. 336
    Adiabat

    Carnation (334):

    In direct answer to your question, about the cultural norm of parental responsibility for fathers. I’m not quite sure where to begin.

    Could you be a bit more specific?

    I don’t think I can, to be truly honest. Perhaps you could start off by saying why you think they have responsibility. I understand that it is such an embedded norm in our culture that it’s hard to analyse.

    Perhaps you could find a comparable situation where someone is responsible for something they did to someone else even when they didn’t intend it, possible took precautions to avoid it which failed, and where the same is true for the other person but in addition the other person can avoid any consequences painlessly with “pill” for a few days after it occurred, or with, admittedly, some inconvenience and possible risk for a long period afterwards.

  337. 337
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    @Adiabat #335

    I assumed Carnation was talking about a meal for two. It’d be unusual to go for a meal on your own, and £60 is roughly what I’d expect to pay for a meal for two. *shrug* Maybe Carnation likes expensive restaurants? :)

  338. 338
    Schala

    It’d be unusual to go for a meal on your own, and £60 is roughly what I’d expect to pay for a meal for two.

    Who pays for two? Why should they pay for two? and 150$ (2.5 Canadian Collar per 1 Sterling Pound) is very very pricy.

    You’d need to be eating filet mignon steaks, with wine, and dessert, for three, on your own.

  339. 339
    Schala

    Dollar*

  340. 340
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    @Schala

    In fairness, I believe the price of living in Canada is quite a bit lower than in SE England? Feel free to correct me. £30 a head is about normal for me, even eating in mid-range chain restaurants like Pizza Express.

    You are quite obviously trying to lure me into a back and forth about gender roles and the man paying for the meal, and quite frankly I can’t be bothered. Yes it’s the social convention, no it shouldn’t be, and normally these days women like to split the bill, at least in my experience, so as a social convention I would (subjectively) say that it is on the decline. That’s all I’m saying on the matter; I was merely trying to make sense of a £60 meal, the same as you were.

    That said there are restaurants where £60 a head is the norm, and if I could afford to eat at those places then Dog knows I would do so.

  341. 341
    Adiabat

    Thumper (337): That would explain it. I assumed paying for one because we were talking about paying child support, and the calculation was done off a single wage. Plus I’d expect the man in question to be single more often than not if he suddenly has to pay child support.

    And he could’ve been out with friends so only paying for one.

    Either way I think most people would think it was too much an expense to be doing it every week.

  342. 342
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    @Adiabat

    I viewed it as Carnation merely talking about a normal weekly expense, which could be any number of things including taking someone out for a meal. Meh, the point is rather moot in so far as: A) I don’t think you and I are in disagreement as to it being a non-trivial expense B) the fact it is non-trivial doesn’t necessarily mean it is outrageously expensive, and it isn’t unusual to spend so much on a single purchase.

    In regards to B, I’m not exactly well off but nor am I that bad off, so maybe I’m having a privileged moment.

  343. 343
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    [cont'd]

    But I doubt there are many people out there who would view a regular £60-a-week outgoing as trivial.

  344. 344
    Schala

    Pizza for two here (in the restaurant at a table) is 30-35$, which is not even 15£, let alone 30£ a head.

    A filet mignon steak is 20$ (not even 10£) at a restaurant (and a fraction of that if you cook it yourself at home, like 12$ for 1 lb – and 1 lb is bigger than 1 portion).

    You must eat high cuisine if you routinely spend over 100$ a week at a restaurant. You must also be filthy rich. Or really really like food (spend an incredible % of income there).

    If I spend 50$ on restaurant food per month, I think I’m spending a lot, and it will be a special occasion (not an average). Mostly 30-40$, split in two, unless I get substitutes (ready made 6.50$ meal).

  345. 345
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    @Schala

    Ah, therein lies the disparity. I’ve never had fillet mignon, but a decent 12 oz. sirloin will cost c. £14 in a restaurant where I live. Pizza for Two (let’s say a large pizza) would depend where you go; but it’s £15.99 from Domino’s (easily the UKs most popular pizza delivery co.) and about £13 at Pizza Express. As I said, a three course meal in Pizza Express (with booze) will generally cost me about £30.

  346. 346
    Adiabat

    Thumper(343):

    But I doubt there are many people out there who would view a regular £60-a-week outgoing as trivial.

    Imagine being one of those one-in-ten-thousand who have a condom fail twice! £120 a week! (Though would the total be less if it’s mean tested and divided by the number of children? Perhaps carnation knows. And obviously not all split condoms result in pregnancy, just to debunk my own numbers :) ).

    That’s just one reason why I think my question regarding responsibility is important. Can we really hold people responsible for the situations I described to carnation above?

    It’s a cultural norm that men are responsible for any “accidental” children, but how much of this is a leftover from before there were widely available contraception, morning after pills and abortion. With modern technology I think we need to relook at that cultural norm and ask if it really is justified.

    (I’m off for now, will reply to any post from you at some point.)

  347. 347
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    @Schala

    Let’s go with the universal indicator; a pint of beer where I live costs £3.30 – £4.00, though £4.00 is considered expensive and it’s rare I have to pay that much. But you won’t find a pint for less than £3.30 in my litle town. And I drink beer, not lager, which is generally a bit more expensive. I’ve paid £4.20 for a pint of lager where I live, much to my annoyance.

    Anyway, we’re derailing the thread. Carnation’s point was that £60 a week, while not being a trivial amount, is not going to break the bank. I think Carnation has failed to take into account income disparity (there are people out there to whom £60 a week is a large amount of money) but equally I don’t think it’s wildly ridiculous.

  348. 348
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    @Adiabat

    I think you’re wrong in claiming that men are considered responsible for accidental children, my perception is that society holds both parents responsible. Certainly if I had an accident and an abortion wasn’t an option (for whatever reason) I would do my best for that child, because it’s my child. I’m it’s father, and I wouldn’t leave it to starve or have a lesser quality of life just because it was unplanned.

  349. 349
    Schala

    I think you’re wrong in claiming that men are considered responsible for accidental children, my perception is that society holds both parents responsible. Certainly if I had an accident and an abortion wasn’t an option (for whatever reason) I would do my best for that child, because it’s my child. I’m it’s father, and I wouldn’t leave it to starve or have a lesser quality of life just because it was unplanned.

    That’s the thing, just as I don’t pay if I get bronchitis or a broken leg, even if I went skiing, I shouldn’t be paying for an accident (and note that here, you can’t sue for car accidents – always no fault -> insurance for car damage and the state for anything else).

    Who pays? The state. Hence no starving children. And no people on the hook for accidents.

  350. 350
    carnation

    @ Schala 349

    Your “accidents” don’t involve the creation of another human life, a human life that requires a range of support, and that will be adversely affected by rejection, or the withdrawal of support. You can’t make someone love and support a child, you can make them pay for their child.

    @ Adiabat, Thumper

    I meant a man for two, though I have also taken two children to a “family restaurant” (an oxymoron if there was one…) and, without booze, didn’t have much change out of £50.

    Right now I have no kids. I spend about £120 a week on coffees, pints, eating out. I used to spend a lot more. I recognise that I’m in a fairly lucky position to be able to do so. If I had kids, the luxuries would have to be cut back on. So be it. I have to say that if I became a father (intentionally or not), the financial contribution that I made would be literally the least of my worries, some distance behind setting a good example, teaching, playing, nurturing, caring, worrying and loving. And I think the same would be said by the vast majority of fathers. Maybe those lucky enough to have children here can confirm or deny this?

    And the state set child support would have no bearing on how much the minimum financial support I would give would be – I’d give as much as I could, as all loving fathers would.

    On another article, Ally talks about patriarchal misandry. I think that those who “lobby” for paper abortions are guilty of this (and patriarchal misogyny). Most men, when they knew they were going to become fathers, I am sure, would have the same worries that I did, about care, love and childraisng. Part of that, particularly for economically disadvantaged men, will lead to money worries.

    To paint men as wannabe, absentee, money focused fathers is patriarchal misandry. And I’m no misandrist, or misogynist.

    That’s why I wholly oppose this nonsense.

    Child support figures taken from here:

    https://www.gov.uk/calculate-your-child-maintenance

  351. 351
    Schala

    Your “accidents” don’t involve the creation of another human life, a human life that requires a range of support, and that will be adversely affected by rejection, or the withdrawal of support. You can’t make someone love and support a child, you can make them pay for their child.

    Or the state can step in.

    I will not detract from equality. I want true equality. Not “freedom for women, man-up for the men”, that’s stupid.

    I want a contraceptive pill for men, and legal abandonment post-conception whereas the father has to “opt-in” to be the legal, financial and social carer of the kid. If he doesn’t opt-in, he has no rights and no responsibilities. The mother opts in by virtue of even keeping the child, but I’m all for letting her time even slightly post-birth on a more equal footing than simply backdoor adoption and drop box – just abandoning legally, even if the father wants it. The father gets the kid, and no child support.

    And yes, the state can stomach this. Taxes won’t raise 50%.

    Right now I have no kids. I spend about £120 a week on coffees, pints, eating out. I used to spend a lot more.

    My income is not even that. I make 670$ a month, before paying rent or anything. That’s less than 300£ a month. Imagine spending 100% of my income on eating out (meaning I would live in the street, since I would be skipping rent)? No way.

    If I worked, I would be making 1200$ a month (full-time minimum wage), but have to pay an extra 100$ on meds (which are now covered). I still wouldn’t spend 100$, let alone 300$ (120£ = 300$) a week on eating out.

  352. 352
    carnation

    @ Schala 351

    Because of the biological status of the two protagonists in a pregnancy, true equality isn’t an option.

    In trying to invent one, you have conjured up the “paper abortion”. In endorsing it, you degrade a child’s life and a father’s status, as well as confirming some misandrist stereotypes.

    The lack of humanity your proposition exhibits is degrading, it is crass, it is simply an unpleasant nonsense.

    And we’re going round in circles. I have said my piece.

    Sorry about your limited income. May it one day be resolved.

    I suspect your need for the last word means you’ll reply. I’m bowing out of this discussion.

  353. 353
    Raging Bee

    Un-fucking-believable. The MRAs, Sid, Schala and Adiabat, post endless amounts of ignorant, insulting, repetitive, threadjacking horseshit, with no restriction whatsoever from any quarter — but the minute Ally posts one word of criticism (that’s CRITICISM, not actual banning or deletion of comments), they’re squalling and crying about “unfair bias” and “help, I’m being repressed” and “we’re in such a bind” and how horribly unfair it is that their enemies have so much opportunities to cal them out on their idiocy.

    These sad pieces-of-work can’t even handle grownup interactions, let alone contribute to them.

  354. 354
    Schala

    Because of the biological status of the two protagonists in a pregnancy, true equality isn’t an option.

    Yes it is one. It’s called having a welfare state. Canada has it. I say it should go further and mandate minimum guaranteed income for all (wether you work or not), and have incredibly high marginal tax above 250k a year (no one needs above this to live, and believe me, they live the good life regardless of ONLY having a big house and not 4 of them).

    No one should be starving in the street, unless they chose not to eat, not for lack of food. No one should be homeless, unless they chose not to have a house, not for lack of money. And no one should be held liable worth 50,000$ for an accident with a condom, this isn’t the “Man-up lottery”. The state can absorb ALL that. It just needs people willing to finance a state that can make life worth living for all, not just the rich (with the rest living on the mere HOPE of maybe being rich).

    And to nay-sayers who think super high marginal taxes would have all the rich flee. Sure, it would. But the banks, the insurance companies, and the ISPs and cable companies would still be directed by someone. Someone who lives here. Someone who would be the new rich to replace the old rich. You can’t “not have banks”, you can close yours, someone will open theirs. As long as the market exists, there would be supply to take advantage of it.

    Except now working wouldn’t be a necessity of life, it would be a choice. The good-end of the stick would be with the worker. No longer forced to take just any job to not be homeless and starving. They would choose a job based on their own desires and/or capabilities. Be able to move without fearing being destitute for not having a job before the move, and prostitution and the likes would all be voluntary, no longer economically coerced. Mcdonalds and Wal-Mart would need to give actual decent conditions to people, no longer preying on people who have no choice.

    I suspect your need for the last word means you’ll reply. I’m bowing out of this discussion.

    I plead guilty, I really do like having the last word.

  355. 355
    Schala

    Un-fucking-believable. The MRAs, Sid, Schala and Adiabat, post

    Hey you, the troll.

    Neither me nor Adiabat identify as MRA. Get it through your thick skull.

  356. 356
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    Your “accidents” don’t involve the creation of another human life, a human life that requires a range of support, and that will be adversely affected by rejection, or the withdrawal of support. You can’t make someone love and support a child, you can make them pay for their child.

    QFT. Also the argument doesn’t hold up the second you move outside medical accidents.

  357. 357
    Schala

    QFT. Also the argument doesn’t hold up the second you move outside medical accidents.

    The birth of a kid is a medical accident. Especially given what we can do to prevent it. Even more in the future with a male pill.

  358. 358
    Raging Bee

    Neither me nor Adiabat identify as MRA.

    …for the same reasons most racists don’t call themselves racists.

  359. 359
    Raging Bee

    No one should be starving in the street, unless they chose not to eat, not for lack of food. No one should be homeless, unless they chose not to have a house, not for lack of money. And no one should be held liable worth 50,000$ for an accident with a condom…

    You actually equate “an accident with a condom” with starvation and homelessness? Your self-pity is so laughable I’m having a hard time believing you’re not actually on the Onion’s paid staff. You couldn’t make the MRM look any stupider if the feminists were paying you to do so.

  360. 360
    Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-

    And no one should be held liable worth 50,000$ for an accident with a condom…

    People are being held liable for much larger sums because their car breaks failed. Or becaue they slept late and somebody slipped on the ice on their pavement. Or because a tree on their property crashed on somebody’s car.

    And to clear up the obvious confusion again:
    Abortion is about a woman’s right to control her own body , just like everybody else. Giving another party additional rights depending on what she chooses to do with her body creates pressure on her again and gives somebody else power. Due, nobody should die because of an accident with a condom, or lose their kidneys. Yet it’s a risk women face, even with safe abortion being avaible. If you say “well, but that’s just the biological reality” you need to accept that for a man it’s just the biological reality that he’s run out of options once the little swimmers are loose.

    Child support is about children. It has zero zilch and nada to do with who the woman in question is, whether she’s the best person alive on earth or the worst scum to ever crawl on the surface.

  361. 361
    Adiabat

    Sorry for the long post, thought I’d cover all responses in one post.

    Thumper (348):

    I think you’re wrong in claiming that men are considered responsible for accidental children, my perception is that society holds both parents responsible.

    Yet society gives women many, many more options to shirk that responsibility, and gives men none.

    Carnation (350):

    On another article, Ally talks about patriarchal misandry. I think that those who “lobby” for paper abortions are guilty of this (and patriarchal misogyny). Most men, when they knew they were going to become fathers, I am sure, would have the same worries that I did, about care, love and childraisng. Part of that, particularly for economically disadvantaged men, will lead to money worries.

    But this argument, again, applies equally to pro-lifer arguments against abortion: “most women worry about care, love etc and wouldn’t want to abort”, “poorer women will feel pressured to abort if they have the option”. These arguments aren’t valid arguments against abortion or paper abortion.

    Also, if you really believe this why didn’t you use this patriarchal misandry argument on those above who claimed that paper abortions would make men more immoral etc?

    (352):

    Because of the biological status of the two protagonists in a pregnancy, true equality isn’t an option.

    Name me one biological cause of an inequality that hinders equality for women that we as a society don’t work against and compensate for with legislation and/or through the provision of taxpayer’s money.

    P.S carnation, you still haven’t explained the whole cultureal norm/your thougts on responsibility thing.

    Thumper (356) and Giliell (360):

    QFT. Also the argument doesn’t hold up the second you move outside medical accidents.

    The bit you are QFTing is adequately dealt with by Schala’s arguments to fund it through welfare, which nobody has presented an argument against. Same with Giliell’s “Child support is about the children” argument.

    Re Car and non-medical accidents: I’m afraid not. In what accident, for which you can sue for £50000, can the accidentee take the equivalent of a pill for the next day to completely remove any negative consequences? There is no comparable accident I can think of which occurs but the accidentee has complete control over whether they suffer any negative effects. And if there were I cannot imagine a court not taking into account this fact when the accidentee tries to sue.

    Giving another party additional rights depending on what she chooses to do with her body creates pressure on her again and gives somebody else power.

    And here is where we hit the nub of the opposition, in my opinion. The problem you have is that this is an equality issue: about giving men comparable rights and power to women, as they currently have little power. In every equality issue that has negatively affected women we have put legislation in place or made sometimes massive social changes to further equality, sometime to the detriment of men’s previous power, sometimes employers, but we have done it because equality is a worthy goal, a human right even. In fact when men have complained about the additional pressure and loss of power these changes cause them it is often argued that they are just trying to maintain their privilege.

    Yet in this one example where making a change that would further equality but negatively affect women suddenly equality isn’t that important.

    And then you wonder why people, fairly or unfairly, think that feminists are just women’s advocates who don’t really care about equality.

  362. 362
    Adiabat

    edit: “as they currently have little power in this particular area

  363. 363
    summerblues

    Schala, what you’re asking for is not equality. Rest assured, women are not getting away with anything.

  364. 364
    Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-

    Re Car and non-medical accidents: I’m afraid not. In what accident, for which you can sue for £50000, can the accidentee take the equivalent of a pill for the next day to completely remove any negative consequences?

    Wrong.
    The person who suffers the “harm” cannot take any pill. The person who gets the 50.000 bucks is the child. You’re again conflating the issues which at this point is just plain dishonest, framing it again as being about greedy women and poor powerless men.

  365. 365
    Schala

    The person who suffers the “harm” cannot take any pill. The person who gets the 50.000 bucks is the child.

    The state has no reason, besides “Hey, I don’t wanna” to make him pay though. The state can pay, it prefers not to, because that’s what men are for, right?

    And precisely, in Victorian times, it was very much part of the gender role of men, to assume financial responsibility for children he would sire. Shotgun marriages and all. But she also rarely got an out. So they were both in a lot of shit, and only he could work for enough money much of the time. It made sense then. It makes zero sense now.

  366. 366
    Adiabat

    Giliell (364): Jeez, you’re torturing this comparison if you’re resorting making the ‘accidentee’ the child. Where’s the harm to the (currently non-existent) child that results from failed contraception? Potential money issues if the mother decides to bring him/her to term? But then the greatest cause of the harm is not the accident but the decision not to take advantage of the multitude of post conception options available and to keep the child (especially considering that it’s an accepted moral and maxim that intentional and concious actions carry greater responsibility than unintentional ones). The man has no responsibility for that decision, and rightly so.

    What responsibility should the guy have to resolve these money issues? He has no influence whatsoever over whether the child is brought into a situation where they may not be provided for. He was engaging in normal, socially approved behaviour and a condom broke. A one-in-a-hundred broken condom is not enough to establish that the guy has such a massive responsibility for the child (unless he wants to take on that responsibility to have a relationship with the child).

    Sorry but a car accident just isn’t comparable to the situation we’re describing.

    P.S Please don’t accuse me of being dishonest because for some reason you can’t keep up with the conversation and use comparisons that aren’t comparable at all. And your characterisation of how I’m framing this debate is so off I don’t know where to start, where the hell have I mentioned greedy women? Maybe you should try reading what I have said again without assuming malice, as that seems to be the issue here.

  367. 367
    summerblues

    To sum up:

    This is the starting position:

    Woman’s body, woman’s reproductive system.
    Woman chooses to have sex, woman gets pregnant.
    Woman makes decision regarding her body, her pregnancy.
    Man should not be held accountable for her decision.

    Is this correct?

  368. 368
    Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-

    Yeah, Adiabat, we get it: You want all the fun but no risks or responsibilities whatsoever. Just dump it all on women and scream equality achieved!!!!

  369. 369
    Adiabat

    Giliell:

    Yeah, Adiabat, we get it: You want all the fun but no risks or responsibilities whatsoever. Just dump it all on women and scream equality achieved!!!!

    Lol, when all else fails just resort to the classic feminist arguments eh? What a pathetic reply.

    Not only am I way past the kind of “fun” that leads to the situations we are discussing, but Schala, a woman, is making the same argument as me. But don’t let facts get in the way of your attempt to smear me and misrepresent my arguments.

    The really sad part is that my position is sooo easy to argue against: Just provide an argument as to why men should assume a significant financial responsibility for something they have no power over and is likely the result of normal socially approved behaviour and a one-in-a-hundred split condom out of their control. Not one of you have managed to do this so far, you all just revert to the old “patriarchal” norm that “of course men have to take responsibility [please insert argument here]“.

    And as has been said numerous times that doesn’t mean that women are “dumped with it”. The state provides benefits for parents who cannot care for their children, as well as offering several free options for removing any obligations they have. You do realise that your argument, which is basically the current system, is that women should be able to do whatever they want and force responsibilty onto others right? You know, that thing you accused me of arguing. The big difference is that women get a choice in both systems and in both systems any responsibility they end up with is completely their own choice.

    As usual, just like the Fawcett Society’s approach to shared parenting, feminists will only fight for equality when there are absolutely no negative effects on women. If there is then screw equality, amiright?

  370. 370
    Adiabat

    Summerblues:

    To sum up:

    This is the starting position:

    Woman’s body, woman’s reproductive system.
    Woman chooses to have sex, woman gets pregnant.
    Woman makes decision regarding her body, her pregnancy.
    Man should not be held accountable for her decision.

    Is this correct?

    Not quite. The last 50 comments or so have been replying to the argument that men should take responsibility because…. [insert argument here] put forward by those who disagree with me. It’s probably because they are working of those societal “patriarchal” norms they claim to fight against. We’ve all been brought up to think that “of course men should take responsibility” and been provided with the “deadbeat dad’s are evil” meme but under examination, considering modern services and technology, the norm doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

    Before that my starting position was that I’d rather increase the ability of men to choose parenthood and responsibility, similar to the choice women have, rather than have it thrust upon them because they dared have sex. You know, that argument that pro-lifers use to argue against abortion. My opponents here also think men should have parental responsibility thrust upon them because they dared have sex. Many of them also argued against me when I argued for an assumption of shared parenting after separation in the other thread, so they also seem to think that this parental responsibility that we should force on men is also ‘less valuable’ that the parental responsibility that women can choose to have. It’s all very confusing!

  371. 371
    Adiabat

    “It’s all very confusing!”

    The only pattern I can discern is that they’ll argue for whatever inconveniences women the least, irregardless of what’s right or fair and without regard to treating people equally and furthering equality.

  372. 372
    summerblues

    It’s still an argument that men should be able to have as much sex as they want without dealing with the consequences of their actions. I view that as a very childish position. The taxpayers should not be picking up the tab for other people’s children. They do so because they don’t want the children to starve but they have limits to what they will put up with (see the USA).

    Why is it that…some men seem to not want to face consequences…

  373. 373
    Schala

    The taxpayers should not be picking up the tab for other people’s children. They do so because they don’t want the children to starve but they have limits to what they will put up with (see the USA).

    The US, the home of the Ferengi hell hole of The Poor Should Just Pull Themselves Up By Their Bootstraps.

    from wiki:

    They and their culture are characterized by a mercantile obsession with profit and trade, and their constant efforts to swindle unwary customers into unfair deals. They are also known for their business acumen and for rampant misogyny, often forcing their women into the sex trade.[1] Notable Ferengi characters include Quark, Rom, Nog, Ishka, Zek, and Brunt, all of whom were featured prominently in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.

    Their home planet, Ferenginar, is the center of the Ferengi Alliance and is governed by the Grand Nagus and a Commerce Authority made primarily of the Council of Economic Advisors (formerly Board of Liquidators). Like most of their culture, their religion is also based on the principles of capitalism: they offer prayers and monetary offerings to a “Blessed Exchequer” in hopes of entering the “Divine Treasury” upon death, and fear an afterlife spent in the “Vault of Eternal Destitution”.[2]

    Let’s not have the state pick up the tab, because it would hurt our Great Capitalist God. Except when it’s about women and infanticide. Then it’d for The Greater Good.

    It’s still an argument that men should be able to have as much sex as they want without dealing with the consequences of their actions. I view that as a very childish position

    And I view your position as a reactionary, right-wing, outdated Victorian one, that wants to perpetuate and enforce the male gender role of provider and taker-of-responsibility-at-all costs, equality be damned.

  374. 374
    Schala

    And I view your position as a reactionary, right-wing, outdated Victorian one, that wants to perpetuate and enforce the male gender role of provider and taker-of-responsibility-at-all costs, equality be damned.

    If you didn’t catch why it’s right-wing to want to charge men for the result of sex they didn’t intend:

    It’s socially right wing to think that people need to be reigned in or they would be super “have sex with everything that moves”, wether it’s their stance on abortion and how women use it as contraceptive to fuck like bunnies, or their low opinion of men and “what all men want”.

    It’s fiscally right-wing too. Of the “I want a smaller state, and to pay for nothing, everything should be paid by the individual, including education, healthcare and basically anything – because I’m rich and I can pay all that without a hitch, so should you. If you can’t, your own fault.”

  1. 375
    Hugh Muir's diary: Whither the transparency agenda? If we told you, we'd have to kill you - newspapertimes

    [...] Hat tip to Comment is free wordsmith Ally Fogg and Tweeter belovedsanspoof for flagging up a pretty big exclusive. After a lot of time, effort and heart-searching, the Tories posted the official party policy [...]

  2. 376
    Hugh Muir's diary: Whither the transparency agenda? If we told you, we'd have to kill you

    [...] Hat tip to Comment is free wordsmith Ally Fogg and Tweeter belovedsanspoof for flagging up a pretty big exclusive. After a lot of time, effort and heart-searching, the Tories posted the official party policy [...]

  3. 377
    The Mother of All Advice | Accessories

    [...] Read more… [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>