A US Men’s group is calling the feminist bluff with regard to “reproductive choice”. They say that if women have the “right” to abort any pregnancy without a man’s consent, the same right should exist for men who want to opt out of fatherhood.
This case is attracting a lot of attention but nowhere have I seen mention of the role of the welfare state in creating this dilemma. And it is a dilemma. What say should a male have in whether or not the female progresses with a pregnancy by him?
Most will disagree with me but as long as the state is going to fund single child-rearing, as of right, the father should be able to opt out. Having said that, it would be far better to just avoid the situation by taking responsibility for his own fertility.
If a female wants all the control over becoming a mother and the future of the child she should also have all the responsibility. That's tough on the child but it is the only way forward I can see.
If the state wasn't paying welfare then, on proof that the male is the biological father, the court should order he pay realistic child support, not simply a percentage of his earnings. In any case, the incidence of this happening would greatly reduce once the welfare incentive was removed.
My argument has always been that subsidised single-parenthood has lessened people's committment to each other and their children. It has made moving in and out relationships that have produced children, far too easy. It has created far more problems than it ever solved. Problems like this.
UPDATE; Cathy Young has written a column about this subject at Reason. She says, Sometimes, male complaints about women who get pregnant and ensnare men have strong overtones of misogyny—just as female tirades about men who cut and run easily turn to male-bashing. But not all women, and not all feminists, think alike. Feminist attorney Karen DeCrow, a former president of the National Organization for Women, has written that "autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice."
One can hardly castigate men for treating an unwanted child as a burden to be avoided unless one recognizes that prochoice feminism has fostered such a mentality. Given the biological differences between the sexes, there may be no way to find a balanced approach to reproductive rights that would be equally fair to women and men. But the issues raised by Feit's lawsuit deserve consideration.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
My feeling is that if a woman wants full custody and rights of choice with out the man having any say then she should take all the financial responsibility. but of course welfare screws that up because it tells women that whatever choice they make Big Daddy will take care of them.
"Most will disagree with me but as long as the state is going to fund single child-rearing, as of right, the father should be able to opt out."
I agree.
But I don't like it either.
Child support requirements are not as financially onerous in NZ as they are in the US.
In my opinion if a couple are in a marriage relationship there is an implied agreement by the father to support any children produced by the relationship. In all other situations there is no such agreement, so if a women wants a man to provide for her child she should get married first or get his agreement before engaging in sex.
Of course the current welfare system muddies things up considerably.
We have shared-care (we have 4 days a week (incl. weekends); the father has 3).
The father hides his income through being self-employed, doing cash jobs and selling stuff via trade-me (he currently has $40,000 worth of stock on sale on trade-me; yet claims an annual income of $30,000). As such, we have to pay him over $100 / week in child support for a child that spends more time in our care than in his.
Child support regulations need to be fixed.
You may be interested in this excellent post - written by a man, no less.
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2006/03/elephant-in-mens-movement-living-room.html
in the course of conception, gestation, childbirth, and lactation, you only have to do the fun bit at the beginning. The rest is SOMEONE ELSE'S PROBLEM on the most elemental and undeniable level.
All of these advantages don't come without responsibility. Two of them rise above the rest- Protection and Providence.
You get a lot out of life just because you pee standing up. You want to talk to me about Men's Rights? Button it, boy. You have a right to get out there and get a job and provide for your progeny, at minimum. We have some names for men that don't. We call them "Sorry," "No count," and "Worthless."
Ruth, glad to see you endorsing a strident argument against the DPB.
spam, I'm sorry that's happening in your situation. Split parents often don't seem to focus on the payment being for the children and instead grow resentment because they see it as a payment to the ex-partner that is perceived to not need it. Bollocks if the parent is wealthy - the payment is towards the children. He is a lousy piece of **** if what you suspect is true. Having said that, there are also situations where a man is bled to a very basic existence with Family Courts coming down on the woman's side with little balance. Speaking to an IRD auditor a few weeks ago, I suggest you should report your ex-husband's business dealings to the IRD with as much detail as you can provide. They are obliged to follow it up but also obliged to disclose that the investigation was instigated by means of complaint, but not who it was that did it. In your case, if you don't want to be in a position to lie about it, perhaps a friend can make the complaint so you have deniability. One thing to consider is that the IRD investigation outcome may also mean he'll owe a huge debt, therefore reducing is actual ability to pay...
of course, if you post his trademe user id, anyone can do it ;)
Interesting that anonymous has assumed Spam is female.
It seems absurd that where care of child is 'shared' both parties have to pay child support to each other. If child support is really about the child's needs and the care is roughly 50/50 why should either party pay? I understand that the IRD sits on child support payments for a period accumulating the interest.
Lindsay -I posted this on my blog:
Continuing on from the "Roe vs Wade for Men" idiocy...it's been interesting to see which groups (generally conservative/libertarian) support this deadbeat's "rights". I don't want to sleep with anyone who:
1.Thinks their sperm have constitutional rights -and therefore women who've permitted sperm to enter them have ceded their rights.
2.Thinks there is an equivalent relationship between what a woman chooses to do with her BODY and what a man chooses to do with his MONEY.
3.Thinks that contraception is entirely or mostly the woman’s responsibility, and that the failure of contraception is entirely or mostly the woman’s fault. If you don’t have foolproof, non-intrusive, reversible options for contraception, take it up with Pfizer, not with women.
And as Feministe said: The kind of parent who doesn’t want to pay child support is the kind of parent who probably shouldn’t have regular contact with their kids.
In the meantime, people, get yourself a plan for preventing pregnancies you don't want, so you don’t get mixed up with messed up assholes who won’t be supportive should something happen you didn’t explicitly plan. Call it preventive medicine.
Then again, the guys advocating this case are also advocating a pre-sex contract to rule out any of their responsibilities to any unplanned pregnancies they may have with you — pass the word along and tell your friends to stay away from dudes who bring a contract and a pen into bed.
As a woman you must surely agree with that. if you are not for us, you are against us.
SPAM: We have shared-care (we have 4 days a week (incl. weekends); the father has 3).
LINDSAY: >Interesting that anonymous has assumed Spam is female.
Well, I re-read it, I can see that it is ambiguous. Didn't pick up on the "we" bit and thought that as "the father" was being complained about, the "mother" was doing the complaining. Mea Culpa.
I admit to going "oh, Spam's a woman?", as I had thought spam a male in the past. Looks like I should do more sleeping and less blog commenting.
If child support is really about the child's needs and the care is roughly 50/50 why should either party pay?
Are you proposing it isn't about the child? It shouldn't be about the child? And in the event where the child stays at one parent for the week, the schooling, the homework and gets to play with the other parent for 1 day every other weekend, don't you think someone's not doing his/her parenting job?
I would have thought it consistent with liberal views that if you make a human being, you are responsible for that act, including the total "cost" of raising the child, no matter the financial position of the other parent.
For all we know spam's partner decided the grass was greener and slept around like a professional, walking out on spam's partner's partner against his will and out of his control. And for this he is then also supposed to pay? It sucks, but yes. It isn't about the wayward partner, it's about the child.
These separations are a mess by definition. But what frustrates me is that it often becomes more about the parents than the child.
You make a baby? It's your cost centre until they're 18. Full stop. If you also like to enjoy the process of being a parent, good on you - but separation of parents doesn't absolve you from the responsibilities that creating a human being brings with it.
Not in THIS liberal's opinion.
And Lindsay, if you feel substantially different on this topic, then I consider that inconsistent with what you normally propose on other matters; where a foundation of taking responsibility for your own life seems to be presented quite consistently. Until now?
Post a Comment