I can do it

Why equal reproductive rights benefit everyone

As a woman who advocates for men’s rights I am often asked why I choose to fight for a cause that “only benefits men”. To this I always give the same response: “when men have equal rights, everyone in society benefits”. This response tends to draw looks of confusion and baffled expressions.

People have a hard time understanding that equality not only benefits those seeking to be equal, but the whole of society as well.

I know there are many areas of inequality when we are discussing men and their rights, but for this article I would like to focus on two areas of inequality concerning men that I feel are most important at this point and time and how, if these areas were made equal to the rights that women currently have, society would benefit from them.

The two areas I would like to discuss are the abdication of parental rights, also known as legal paternal surrender, and child support.

Currently women are the only ones who are legally permitted to decide whether or not they wish to become a parent. They have many options at their disposal such as legal abortion, adoption, and even legal abandonment should they become pregnant and decide that they do not wish to become a mother. Men however do not have any legal rights when it comes to becoming a father. They are forced to go along with the woman’s decision no matter what. She is the one who decides his fate. And once her decision is made to have the child, the man is forced to provide for that child, even if he never wanted it, and even if he actively took measures to prevent the pregnancy.

But what if men were allowed to opt out of being a father? What if men were allowed to abdicate their parental rights via legal paternal surrender?

If legal paternal surrender were allowed many women would have to stop and think long and hard about how they were going to raise their child on their own with no financial support from a father. If he abdicates his parental responsibility he would then not be forced to pay out child support for a child he never wanted. She would have to be the sole provider for that child. She could no longer rely on someone else’s financial assistance. She would have to own her decision and be 100% sure that she is prepared to raise a child on her own.

This also benefits the child immensely. Children would no longer be used as pawns in an attempt at financial gain by mothers. Women would have to want to and be able to be mothers. Bottom line – they could no longer have children for purely financial gain.

This would likely result in more mothers who would be more dedicated to their children, more likely to raise them in a loving environment, and be more committed to providing them with the best life possible. Children would be less likely to be neglected or abused by their mothers which would in turn allow them to grow up with a healthy self-esteem, solid work ethic, and less chance of falling into poverty or crime.

When you enable women to have children for financial gain in the form of child support, for control over a man, or any misguided reason other than the real desire to be a self-sufficient mother, no one benefits, least of all the children who are seen as objects instead of individuals with rights and needs of their own.

Allowing men to abdicate their parental responsibilities, via legal paternal surrender, would put an end to this cycle of abuse. And it is abuse. Women abuse the system, the men, and their children by being allowed to game the system without being challenged.

The current system removes personal responsibility and accountability from women which allows them to remain dependent on others rather than themselves  to provide for their children.

This lack of responsibility and accountability is insulting to all women, and enables women to basically remain toddlers throughout  their lives, and we all know that toddlers cannot care for children properly.

  • Steve Moxon

    Hi Kristina
    The problem would be the State’s great reluctance to agree to shoulder any more responsibility for the cost of children than it already does — the history of legislation and interpretation here in the UK shows this.
    Isn’t the reality that proper non-intrusive male contraception with no side-effects (which is now on the near horizon) will largely put a practical end to the problem?

    • Aimee McGee

      What if single mothers who could not afford to look after their children had to give any more infants up for adoption…oh I forget, that infringes on her rights to have children…at what point do we start talking about responsibility.
      If you’ve ever been foolish enough to try to foster or adopt in most Western countries, you would realise that there are ridiculous hurdles put to ensure the prospective parents are fit…I’ve looked at fostering and there is NO WAY I would be considered due to my medical history.
      Where is a similar code of responsibility for people chosing to have biological kids?

      • Steve Moxon

        Well, Aimee, perhaps again reality will intervene on the side of sense as our economies become no longer able to afford welfare on any great scale: the notion of an ‘undeserving’ poor will emerge once again, and the category of ‘feckless mother’ will be undiminished by the current unspoken ‘holding to ransom’ of the State she manages through the paramount consideration of care for and protection of a child. We will resume the attitude that a child is essentially selfish produce and not everyone’s responsibility irrespective of circumstances.

        • Nightwing1029

          Steve,
          While I would love to see what you are proposing happen, the problem I see is that as long as we do not look at the responsibilities involved in raising children, that most likely will not come about.
          Responsibility is not something that most political or financial institutions look at. Just the desires of the loudest voices.
          I disagree that reality is going to intervene on the side of sense. Because, as has been shown over the past couple decades, sense is taking a back seat to “I need.” And responsibility a back seat to sense.
          So here’s a question…
          How do we get back to putting responsibility on top, sense next, and re-align “I need” to I want?

          • Steve Moxon

            Hi Aimee
            I’m not ‘proposing’ but looking ahead to the inevitable consequence of the widely foretold catastrophic economic implosion as ‘Planet Ponzi’ runs out of Emperor’s New Clothes. There will be little taxpayers’ money even for the sick and the old, never mind for mums who won’t go out to work and still manage only to raise gang-warfare fodder; so State money for the re-designated ‘feckless mum’ will vanish.

      • TigerMan

        Good points Amy – the longer orphaned children are in “care” (ie orphanages) the more likely it seems they will come to and cause harm. Paid volunteers are no substitutes for one on one parenting motivated purely by love and compassion. Sadly too many ideologues are in the way of clearing logjams for fostering and adoption. A black child being put on hold until applicants that are also black are found etc. Very fkn ironoic that the same brigade that have “racism” featured strongly in their vocabulary seem to be blind to the inherent racism of leaving say a black child in a place where it is there more than a day is absolutely necessary is another day where that child is at risk from being led astray by more wayward peers and sad to say sometimes also wayward staff.
        Better that 2 white foster parents give that child a stable home than stay in one where the “cultural” influence is more from the feral streets than a wholesome loving environment.

    • http://gloriusbastard.com/ JJ

      Although I largely agree with your statement; it is merely the outer layer of the onion. The outermost thin skin layer of the onion. Like an onion, the under layers really put it your cry makers.

      The fact is this; the state not only benefits from this (Social Security Title IV-D matching funds/upwards of the hundreds of millions for most states), the attorneys who run the state bar associations, who make tons of money each every year of the familial conflict in and after divorce, who elect or fire judges, and who determines whom “NOT TO” assassinate politically for political office are very keen on weeding out anti-feminist practitioners from success. There is a reason most senators are lawyers and not doctors, engineers, and administrators; or whatever profession you may hail from. They hold the power to themselves.

      In other words, one need look no further than the Governor of Minnesota who recently shot down the shared parenting act that largely swept through their state congress.

      We are making headway, but there is still too much money for the golden goose of feminism to make for its political masters in the Elite.

      If we continue to fool ourselves that they will hand over the reigns of power without presenting the elite some way for them to make the same sort of cash flow, and “police line” of usual suspects for them to scapegoat during campaigns; forget about getting them on our side!

      We have but one option: Get powerful enough where they have to woo us, and when that fails; we assaisinate several federal level politicians long standing careers. Say John Kerry. We isolate him, and not just take him out for his hypocritical stance on men; but also show the world how he continually benefits from insider trading.

      Essentially, and most importantly non violently; we must be able to “fire” a president, a US Senator, and a couple governors for any of their lesser intentions towards men; and society as a whole.

      Until we can do that; they are not going to listen to us. Most likely they are going to try and undercut us before we get there!

    • bhwebb

      Hi Steve,

      While I certainly agree that non-intrusive male contraception accompanied by awareness and education campaigns would be a tremendous asset, the Constitutional implications cannot be ignored no matter how difficult the issue is perceived to be. I grant you that the states and the federal government will be greatly reluctant to shoulder anymore responsibility for the cost of children (although it was the discovery of a profit motive that compelled government intervention in the first place), however, these entities are bound to the Constitution. Here in America, the 14th Amendment in part states, “…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

      • Steve Moxon

        Hi ‘bhwebb’
        Here in the UK everything is always trumped by ‘the best interests of the child’, which of course really means ‘whatever are the interests of the mother’ — which in turn really means ‘whatever can be extracted from the father to be given to the mother to prevent the State having to cough-up’. The consequence is that no matter what is written in law, men have no rights. Any ‘equal presumption’ flies out of the window with the first hint of a ‘safety’ issue — that is, any intimation of intimate-partner violence (which does not have to be proved so doesn’t need to be formally fabricated). All this takes place with no scrutiny, and if it ever gets contested as far as court, these are secret. I take it similar applies in the USA and canada.

        • bhwebb

          “everything is always trumped by ‘the best interests of the child’, which of course really means ‘whatever are the interests of the mother’ — which in turn really means ‘whatever can be extracted from the father to be given to the mother to prevent the State having to cough-up’. The consequence is that no matter what is written in law, men have no rights. Any ‘equal presumption’ flies out of the window with the first hint of a ‘safety’ issue”

          Could not agree with you more Steve. Having said that, it is still no reason to ignore or abandon the legal aspects of ensuring equal rights for men. In my opinion the legal battle is but one facet of a multi-faceted approach that must be undertaken. Concerning reproductive rights, better contraceptive choices, education and awareness, and the law are all aspects to be pursued as I believe there is no one-size-fits-approach. Persistence is the key.

          I would also agree with you regarding lack of evidentiary requirements for particular allegations, however, I think we are addressing due process in that regard.

    • adversity

      If we went more to a system that automatically awarded both parents 50/50 custody legal and physical and then used the current child support system with one major change, enforce both sides to pay their respected “pics” percentage income for determining child support. The money would be paid into the state from each party and then split 50/50. Failure for either party will be enforced equally. If the time isn’t 50/50 because they agree to a difference, then the same money would just be split according to the percentage of time with the child or children. This calculation would be used as a preferred method whether married, single, divorcing or what not…. Anything less that 50/50 would either have to be agreed upon in court or one parent would have to have a serious history of being arrested to justify otherwise….no current accusations without jail time would even remotely be admissible. Obviously friends, family and close ones will side with accusing parent and frankly no one wants to hear it.

      Just a thought on evening the playing field.

  • Raven01

    “She would have to be the sole provider for that child. She could no longer rely on someone else’s financial assistance. She would have to own her decision and be 100% sure that she is prepared to raise a child on her own.”

    That is overly simplistic.
    Selfish women will still crank out crotch-fruit as a meal ticket and expect (and get) society in general to pick up the tab.
    That increase in drain on taxes via welfare is the biggest obstacle facing men seeking equality.

    A better argument is no argument at all other than, “Because it is the right thing to do. Everyone must have the same basic rights and freedom to live as they choose.”

    • Stephen O’Brian

      Kristina,
      I agree with Raven that as things are I don’t see what would stop women who willfully choose to get pregnant sponging off the state. They already do.
      They would be spared the hassle of having to make false accusations to alienate the father too.
      At least that would be one less kick in the face for men.
      Mind you, we already have those star chambers where pre-nuptials made in good faith get overturned by feminist – chivalrous judges. So I can just imagine some poor schmuck agreeing to impregnate cupcake thinking he’s off the hook for child support, until she goes to court, says he forced her to agree to a pregnancy or some other baloney, and the judge orders he pay child support.
      Jackpot for her. Jack shit for him.
      Anyone who thinks that wouldn’t happen needs to remember many women make false allegations as it is. This would just be another type of false allegation to make – with a golden incentive to make it.

      I see no other safe alternative for men than the Non hormonal male birth control pill or some such similar contraceptive device for men.
      When that goes to market in the west, as it is currently in Indonesia, I’m going to throw a street party with my buddies and dance like a maniac.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      I down voted the “crotch fruit” comment. Children are innocent in this.

      This needs to be looked at – fairly – in a historical perspective.

      I’m older, and I well remember the era “before”. The pendulum HAS swung too far, but keep in mind – that pendulum swung from one bad extreme to another.

      My sister didn’t accept welfare or child support after her husband left her with an infant to raise alone. Her personal struggles were terrible, but the worst of it was as a toddler, her son was once severely burned and sexually abused in daycare, and later molested by a coach at school.

      If she had “sponged off the state” she would have been around instead of off working like a dog. If she had demanded child support she wouldn’t have had to work as much as she did.

      It was cases like hers that caused the swing to favor women so much, but it’s now created more problems than it solved.

      It’s the kids that suffer.

      • Stephen O’Brian

        I’m older too and don’t need to look at things in a historical perspective to have a fair minded view of what is happening here and now, today.
        Right now countless men are being shafted and kids horribly shortchanged as legions of women de-father them and use them as cash convertors. I know the feminist narrative is that it’s men who are philanderers getting women pregnant then abandoning them, but that’s BS. Now it’s women for the most part divorcing as a lifestyle choice creating marriage breakups.
        In turn that creates a growing segment of society that is immature and all too often criminal as a result of being rendered fatherless and under-parented.
        There’s much research pointing out that a large proportion of the prison population grew up without a father in the home.
        Kristina raises the issue of men having equal reproductive rights. I’ve said the male pill would help a lot in that regard. For if women cannot prove themselves to be responsible parents by stopping their frivolous “because I can” divorce treating men (in this case fathers) as disposable utility objects in the process, then men should stop procreating with them.
        That’s another way to bring about equal reproductive rights as in effect it’s men saying “If I can’t breed and parent children safely , then nor can you breed, as I’m going to take the male pill until conditions improve – for the children’s sake”.

        • Bev

          In Australia (at least) the real problem is a mother with serial boyfriends and 3, 4 children by different fathers.

          Collect support (welfare) for children (the more children the more support). Plus collect child support from all the fathers for each child.

          • Wendy

            I live in California and it occurred to me one day and I did a little research that, because I am a broke college student who was working retail at the time, by using the college or state daycare and receiving foodstamps, I would literally be in a better financial position than I was if I had a baby. Me and my friend were talking about birth control because she’d never been on it before and was starting it. I remember saying to her, “It’s sad because it (having a baby) wouldn’t be the end of the world and it ought to be a little more life changing then that.”

        • MGTOW-man

          Ditto: “That’s another way to bring about equal reproductive rights as in effect it’s men saying “If I can’t breed and parent children safely , then nor can you breed, as I’m going to take the male pill until conditions improve – for the children’s sake”’.
          —When we males demonstrate the courage to leave bad women alone mostly, to find themselves as spinsters, or will-be old maids, then they will get our message. Women in general, apparently, at-least partially controlled by their inner “wiring” of feel-good (or not) feelings-interface-scrutiny for all things going in and out of their minds—rendering them useless as objective contributors—will not change on their own.

          We have already seen that. We have mass-trusted them…and it didn’t work.

          More drastic measures must be undertaken, which includes that of inserting ourselves back into the power scheme when it comes to procreation—THE only system we have which should belong to both sexes equally regardless of what it means for the “owner” of the incubator.

          It is a greater loss of dignity and a stronger reduction in their human rights for men to have no power in procreation than it is for women to have to share…to have only half.

      • Near Earth Object

        Thumbs up & especially on this:

        “The pendulum HAS swung too far, but keep in mind – that pendulum swung from one bad extreme to another.”

      • Stu

        Yeah, I don’t like the Crotch Fruit thing either. I would have said Womb Turds ;)

        • OneHundredPercentCotton

          I keep focus on the guilty party – the adult.

          Kids are innocent.

      • JinnBottle

        “The pendulum HAS swung too far, but keep in mind – that pendulum swung from one bad extreme to another.”

        Hunn’ert: I get the basic direction you’re coming from (I was already married by January 1971), and yes, perhaps men were compensated for their work in the Trade Off slightly more than women were for theirs. But I think you’re inaccurate to compare women under “patriarchy” with men under feminist governance and gynocentrism. (<- For instance, "gynocentrism" just got red-underscored as I typed; patriarchy does not.)

        Women were not herded to jails in any numbers at any time during the pre-feminist days. To give you an example of the flip side: Yesterday I watched two ads – one a public (dis)service, the other a commercial for some new contraption Adobe's put out. The Adobe ad appeared just before I went to check up on how Mayor Rawlings "10,000 Men" recruitment is going. Anticipating (and oversimplifying) the type of audience they'd attracted, the Adobe commercial featured a male boss *backhand-smashing the face of – I mean slapping really hard, several times* – his male employee for even hesitating to praise the guaranteed effectiveness of this new toy from Adobe.

        The disservice announcement was a (Black) cop saying "So you think you look pretty cool with your pantswaist halfway down your legs, hiphop style?" – twoshot of a couple of (Black) young men walking city sidewalk: All you can see out of the hiphop drawers is *boxershorts* – not a square inch of skin.

        Cop then goes on to inform all such fiendish offenders that showing part of your boxers hiphop style can *get you a $300 fine AND up to 2 years in the state pens of Massachusetts, and up to 3 years in county*.

        Yes you read that right.

        There is nothing approaching the equivalent mainstream sanctioned sadism or government draconianism on women from the pre-fem days.

        • by_the_sword

          “Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.”
          ― Robert E. Howard

      • Raven01

        If you choose to have kids that you cannot afford it is not my responsibility to care for them at the point of a gun or threat of imprisonment.
        I may choose to do so of my own free will but, to enforce this is about as immoral as you can get since I have zero say in whether or not you choose to bear children you cannot support.

        Down vote all you like it still doesn’t mean I am not right.
        That doesn’t even touch on what seems to be wide-spread child abuse in the form of PAS. Just the using children as meal-tickets. Me using the term “crotch-fruit” is far less repugnant than the women that actually raise children as such.
        Again, it is not my fault that they see children in this manner.

        • OneHundredPercentCotton

          I down voted the ugly terminology you used toward children. Nothing else.

          There is no merit in dehumanizing children because of adult misbehavior.

          I knew my words were going to get twisted and misinterpreted but I offered them in good faith so I have to think it will work out…or it won’t.

          • Raven01

            Then you are missing that it is the selfish mothers that are doing the de-humanizing.
            The last person on the planet that one would expect to do so.

            Career welfare mothers bear crotch-fruit.
            These children are not raised to realize their potential. This is the doing of the women that see them as little more than a pay cheque rather than small people. They are the future prisoners, gang members and, career welfare recipients, not because I used an objectionable term but, because the person that brought them into the world had no intention (or likely ability) to parent.

            From the actions of feminists I have come to the clear conclusion that not only do they have a low opinion of women, they really despise children. Otherwise, they would be unable to look at themselves in the mirror given the amount of damage they help cause to children.

          • OneHundredPercentCotton
      • Bev

        I do agree there was a time (before the pill) when single pregnant women did get a bad deal. They either faced backyard abortions with the danger that brought. Or in many cases sent to another city to be out of sight out of mind. Generally they wound up in a charity home and at birth the baby was taken away for adoption by force.

        Even then though there was a downside for men. They often were never told of the pregnacy, never given a chance to offer to marry and raise the child with the mother. Some charities forbad informing the father as a condition of taking the woman in. They wanted babies for adoption and father might intefer with that.

      • tom b

        Your sisters situation is that of a bad marriage which had its own dynamics and I don’t see relevant to the general tone of the article. Blaming the ex for your nephews misfortune is way out in left field. And atthe very least, not justification for public assistance. Your nephew was abused by two morons. If te coach abused your nephew, he/she more then likely abused kids that had a mom and dad. Your nephew wasn’t abused in day care because he came from divorced parents.

    • Rad

      The state’s interest is in pawning off the welfare payments they would make to the woman, onto the man. Dependence begets dependence. This perverse incentive would not exist if there were no handouts from coercion to begin with.

      It’s the same issue with immigration. If there were no handouts, there’s no theft or additional load to the “system” by letting more people into the country. Those people who are unwilling to make the requisite effort will then for the most part not show up. In that context, the productivity of those who do want work benefits everyone else too.

      And think of the kind of culture that that arrangement creates. No longer is there an incentive to be suspicious of others, whether immigrants or women. There’s no longer this sense of a scarcity of goods or employment that is dwindling, but rather an affirmation of seeing hard work and knowing that in some way, you benefit too. There’s no longer this threat in the background that you’re going to be gouged by her option to sick the state on you — in that absence of a threat, suspicion is replaced by an honest feeling of benevolence.

  • http://thefeministmra.wordpress.com/ thefeministmra

    This doesn’t benefit everyone, if we make this change how will society deal with the spoiled, the entitled, the lazy, the selfish and the users? How will Octomon make money off her growing brood of doomed youth? How will the gov’n’ment extort money from men who have been proven to not be the father?

    No no, this simply makes too much sense. We can’t hold people personally responsible for their own choices! It would doom our society into a productive and honorable state. We simply can’t have that!

  • 98abaile

    “only benefits men”
    I hate this non argument, the implications are that women don’t already have the benefits.

  • sevencck

    Nice article Kristina,

    It’s all but a guarantee this will continue for some time. With the birthrate falling, the state will be happy to continue offering a man’s coopted life to a woman to incentivize her decision to reproduce. This is especially unlikely to change when you consider the prevalent attitude toward men being providers from both the feminist movement and the traditionalists. As you can see, trying to bring this form of 21st century slavery to a halt is met with questions of how it benefits women.

    • Nightwing1029

      “How does it benefit women?”
      Thus the quandary that befalls all of our arguments.
      “If this is so good for women, why do the feminists not fight for it?”
      The more we can actually show that it will benefit women, the better chance we have of bringing others over to seeing more of the reality.
      To quote someone (don’t ask me who, I don’t remember):
      What is easy, isnt always right.
      And what is right, is almost never easy.

  • droobles

    A dream to strive for!

  • herman melville

    I’m with Moxon on this one. States will never permit this because all know it’s an open invitation to ever more state-subsidized childcare. State legislatures are not going there. But a safe and effective male contraceptive is another story. Of course, there will be plenty of men who won’t use it. After all, women have had safe and effective contraception for decades and we still have about half of all viable pregnancies being “unplanned” according to the Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. But at least men will have the option, and many will take control of their fertility.

  • TheSandreGuy

    The “male pill” has existed for over a decade, and before that there were other known compounds that caused temporary sterility among men. None of these have been made public though.

    Why?

    Because NOTHING scares feminists as much as men having the ability to decide WHEN and with WHOM to start a family. Overnight the majority of unstable families would decline and eventually men and women would alas live together as equals.

    • Steve Moxon

      There’s more than a little truth in that. I once talked with the inventor of the (female) contraceptive pill, Carl Djurassi (I met him at a convention titled ‘Sex Wars’ at the ICA in London), and he stated that the biggest obstacle to research into a male ‘pill’ was women not accepting that men should be allowed (could be trusted) to have responsibility for contraception!
      Times have moved on with laws enforcing child support: surely few man with sense would not use a non-intrusive contraceptive with no side-effects should this become readily available.

    • Stephen O’Brian

      Please tell us more about this “male pill” that has “existed for over a decade”

      can you provide links?

      • TheSandreGuy

        • Stephen O’Brian

          Ah yes TSG, I’d seen that video before and forgotten about it. Thanks for resurrecting it.
          Very enlightening – for those you haven’t seen it, note the comments given about feminists resisting the male birth control pill. Like we should be surprised eh?

          Whilst I’m here – I hear rumors there is some kind of natural birth control used by men in China.
          Can anyone supply details?

          Come to think of it here are three things I’d love to see happening –

          1. Please forward to AVFM details from around the world of different male contraceptions used or in development. I will gather such information and create a part three to the articles I previously posted here –

          http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-issues/the-next-red-pill/

          http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-issues/the-next-red-pill-part-ii/

          2. I know that AVFM has much to do as it is, however this is such a vital issue I’d be delighted to see a group formed specifically to drive the issue of male contraception forward into public consciousness and advocate for production to market. Although I cannot be physically present at AVFM HQ, I am willing to be an online presence involved in such a venture.

          3. It strikes me that AVFM now has ‘chapters’ in USA Europe, Canada, Australia. And the occasional input from India, but virtually zilch from China.
          It would be fantastic to have someone reporting from there. I imagine they would have much to contribute being such a huge and diverse population, many of whom speak and write well in English these days too.

  • Bombay

    Another significant advantage for men being able to opt out of fatherhood is also that children are also more apt to have a loving father.

  • gateman

    It’s going to be an uphill battle to get reproductive rights for men. The state wants as many children born as possible, by any means possible.
    As Stefan Molyneux would put it, babies are the next generation of livestock, future slaves, future tax payers.
    As far as the government is concerned, better to force unwilling fathers to pay for the kids, than the state.

  • The Equalizer

    “Men however do not have any legal rights when it comes to becoming a father. They are forced to go along with the woman’s decision no matter what. She is the one who decides his fate. And once her decision is made to have the child, the man is forced to provide for that child, even if he never wanted it, and even if he actively took measures to prevent the pregnancy.”

    No matter how many times I confront this stinking injustice towards men, it still manages to stun me with its savagery. Kristina’s paragraph above sets out the immorality of the situation concisely and powerfully. A good one to cut and paste into any discussion with a wrong pill person.

  • http://equalitythroughtruth.blogspot.com/ Jean Valjean

    The great problem is that women are allowed to place accountability for their reproductive choices on the father (or dupe) and the state.

    This creates a dynamic that destroys the equality between men and women. Women are hypergamists and so long as she must give love and affection to gain access to a man’s resources she will have respect for him. But women cannot stand men who are doormats. So humbled that they become beggars. As a result, the power of the state to compel men to support a woman’s offspring turns him into property and many women can no longer value him as a result.

    Giving men equal reproductive rights means that men are no longer compelled to support a disloyal woman and her offspring.

    This does not mean that men should do this, but rather that given an equal position to bargain from men and women can come to more amicable and mutually beneficial long term agreements. This equal footing keeps either party from becoming so powerful that it invites disloyalty or abuse.

    Some men may abscond from their obligations to offspring just as women do. Those offspring are better off being raised by someone who is willing and loving than by someone forced into it.

    Steve Moxon posted above that the state will not agree because it is unwilling to shoulder more of the burden than it already does.

    While I agree in principle I also will add that women, no longer getting a guaranteed support check for 20+ years and suddenly being told that their 100% reproductive autonomy will also be accompanied by equivalent accountability will be far less willing to reproduce willy-nilly.

    The fact is that birth control is nearly 100% effective. It can be used before, during, and after sex and if 2 methods are used simultaneously then the chance for pregnancy is 1 in millions.

    Women, faced with accountability for their independent and autonomous reproductive choices will be compelled to make better choices.

    Fewer unwanted pregnancies is better for children and everyone else.
    An equal footing between men and women in regards to reproduction is better for both.

    Most men want to take care of their offspring. But they do not want to be slaves. Most women want to love the father of their children, but they are genetically programmed to discriminate against low status men.

    A man under the thumb of the states bigoted reproductive laws is one of those low status men.

    • Stephen O’Brian

      “Most men want to take care of their offspring. But they do not want to be slaves. Most women want to love the father of their children, but they are genetically programmed to discriminate against low status men.

      A man under the thumb of the states bigoted reproductive laws is one of those low status men.”

      You nailed it right there Jean. Brilliant.

  • Nostradormouse

    This may be way off base here, but has anyone considered drafting a “Declaration of Human Responsibilities” or “Declaration of Human Duties”?

  • externalangst

    Modern male contraception needs to be accompanied by an education campaign for boys into the dangers of unwanted pregnancies. This could be a toe-in for the MHRM into the mainstream consciousness.

    Educate boys in the awfulness of being in servitude to a malicious woman while being denied a meaningful relationship with their child. How women’s tricks of ‘happy little accidents’ can destroy their life.

    Fanciful? Maybe? Would feminists hate it – sure. But this technology may just largely remove the economic incentive for women and governments to maintain their policy of exploiting men. Once men have choice to be fathers and most of the ill-gotten money disappears, the expropriation system shrinks to a point where maintaining it is hardly worth the trouble.

    Then, for the few remaining cases of male unwanted pregnancy, governments may as well permit parental surrender for men as the big money has dried up anyway. Suddenly, self-determination for men and boys was a good idea all along. With this meme in place, the post-divorce racket may be taken on. Modern male contraception maybe the first baby steps towards men’s human rights.

  • Manalysis

    Hi,

    I’d like to offer a slightly different solution. The root of evil here is that raising children is a paid job for women, and financial punishment for men; and that if there is a split in a family, the law ties all the money to the neck of the kids and tosses the kid into the middle of the ring between two enraged parents. You don’t get any money unless you beat the other.
    Serving in the military is already a men-only responsibility, so why should paying for the next generation also be a father-only responsibility? (Like …. aren’t we doing enough, already?) And in truth, it doesn’t take 1200 USD a month to raise a child. That would never pay for roads and the schools where our kids learn the science to be doctors and engineers. All of this is a joint effort for the kids, and this grand joint effort covers everything except the measly pocket money they squeeze out of fathers. So – close down the family court and the CS enforcement bureaucracies, that should more than cover father’s pay.
    So. Mum gets Kiddiepay, Dad gets Kiddiepay. If one US parent wants to go to Australia for six months to work, said parent can sign over the kiddiepay to the other parent for the duration. If it’s Australia for life ….

    No fighting over the kids. Lots of choices for men. No loss for women. I don’t know which of these is going to sink it for the feminists.

    M

  • Steve Moxon

    How about trying to get a handle on this from looking at what naturally men do / would like to do in all this, and how far removed is what the State imposes?
    The leading (biological) anthropologist expert on ‘love’, Helen Fisher, concludes that the human pair-bond is short-lived given a peak in the rate of ‘divorce’ just four years after ‘marriage’. This fits (factoring in ancestral very long lactation) with the pair-bond having evolved to ensure that the woman conceives more than one offspring by the same chap. We know it’s not to provide support to the child, because by two years of age even the mother dying does not impact in any significant way on children in pre-modern societies — other female relatives being always around to take-over, when they’ve been sharing childcare and other duties anyway.
    So it seems fairly clear that expecting the guy to stay around ’til death us do part’ or even for a decade or two is not reasonable given the natural way of things.
    With the mother’s relatives (especially those on her side, rather than her in-laws) ancestrally the key, then isn’t there a strong case to shift the burden of financial support on to them rather than an entrapped father (or the taxpayer)?
    Of course, in contemporary footloose societies they’re often nowhere near geographically, but then it would be up to the woman as part of her fertility decisions how close she has such support; and this can be factored into assessing how worthy or unworthy she is to receive financial support eiher from an ‘absent’ father or the State.
    Just flying a kite here.

  • Keith

    Mandatory draft is the ticket, if they can draft you to kill they can draft you to raise a family. Mandatory draft, 6 year minimum if you re-enlist then you get to kill. If you go awol you get the stockade, which also serves as a daycare.

  • Rad

    From Dubay vs Wells:

    “Dubay’s claim that a man’s right to disclaim fatherhood would be analogous to a woman’s right to abortion rests upon a false analogy. In the case of a father seeking to opt out of fatherhood and thereby avoid child support obligations, the child is already in existence and the state therefore has an important interest in providing for his or her support.”

    So since it’s a “child” upon conception, abortion is murder right? Wait a sec….derp.

  • the Tired Low Social

    why don’t we just perform a coup? take care of everything in less time than a war

  • Autcel

    Well said. It is very unwise to have children if they cannot afford it. Plus, it’s not just state resources, but also environmental resources which would be drained when unwanted children are born. In this overpopulated planet, it’s best to have proper family planning.

  • http://www.hermitparkclinic.com.au Greg Canning

    Sounds good in theory but in societies based on the concept of enforcing male responsibility to fund women’s right’s / privilege can’t see it getting much traction any time soon. But I live in hope.

  • Grumpy Old Man

    Personal responsibility. What a concept!

  • All Contraire

    Re above: Bev in reply to OneHundredPercentCotton:

    “I do agree there was a time (before the pill) when single pregnant women did get a bad deal.”

    That “bad deal” was punishment . . . and a judicious warning to all against making wrong choices: Don’t do this or you’ll have to face the consequences. Holding us adult citizens accountable for our actions was the pre nanny-state approach to discouraging us as individuals from making bad decisions in our lives. In this libertarian morality the powerful and alone effective ‘invisible hand’ of our own myriad interpersonal relationships worked efficiently at the individual, family, and neighborhood local level of people pressuring people to ‘do the right thing’.

    But in contravention of human nature and cloaking itself as the all-?loving? steward of charity, pity and mercy, the cold and very unloving State has replaced personal responsibility with its own amoral control; and we now have an explosion of ‘self-actualized’ people forgiven and even encouraged for selfishly choosing ‘bad deals’. Relegated to Marxist-Feminist State disempowered slavery, we the myriad invisible citizen taxpayers merely ante up for the mess.

    The majority of “We the people” willingly allow themselves to be brainwashed by the ‘bread and circuses’ media; even as, thus distracted, they are disdainfully bamboozled by our aloof global-plotting Elites. We are all then left ?happy? to go obediently about our regulated lives as the coercive Benevolent State –– trumpeting its failures as “success…but” –– finds evermore neediness and endlessly presses for increasing interference, control and funding at the cost of personal and family freedom and political sovereignty. The Master State and its Masters: money-and-power mad Marxist-Feminists and Wall Street, generously still allow us one liberty: our responsibility to pay the bill.

    Individual and community responsibility and freedom from State control and debt slavery are foundational to our individual freedom and autonomy …

  • Wendy

    It’s my favorite topic! This is my stance:

    On reproductive rights:

    Men need to have access to the same types of birth control options women have. This includes things like the resug (sp?) and a male birth control pill, as well as better sized condoms and proper instruction in the use of condoms while in school. It also includes voluntary paternal surrender. It’s fairly straightforward. These are the male equivalents of female reproductive choices. Having them would make men finally equal.

    On child support:

    First, a woman should have to prove “intent to father” by providing evidence in the form of (a) signed adoption papers or (b) a positive match DNA test AND evidence such as a signed birth certificate or proof that the man resided with the mother and child after the child’s birth for some period.

    Second, the notion of what’s “best” for the child needs to be decided in a more concrete way. Is it who can provide the best day to day care or is it who can provide the most money? The child requires its needs to be met. To me, this means judges decide who can provide the best day to day care and then split the incremental cost of that person raising the child between both parents. The mother is the best caretaker? Well, she would already have to provide her own shelter, food, utilities, and transportation. The extra cost of a second bedroom and additional food/utilities and the cost of the child’s clothes and medical needs should be what’s split. If she cannot take care of her own needs, then she is probably not the best caretaker. Anything else the child wants (participating in sports or really cool clothes and toys) should be voluntarily provided by the parents.

    IMHO, anyway.

    • bhwebb

      I agree that men need better options in terms of birth control. I also agree that men should have equitable reproductive rights as the Constitution requires it. Given obvious biological differences, voluntary paternal surrender rights (or whatever one wants to call it) would not make men equal, but rather would provide equity under the law.

      Regarding child support, I think we should call it for what it really is…ALIMONY. To date, I am not aware of any state’s “child support” guidelines or laws that require custodial parents to use the money received from the non-custodial parent, otherwise known as dad, exclusively on the needs of the child are provide an accounting of the money they receive. Some state laws actually regard such payments as helping, in part, to support the custodial parent. Considering this, I question how we can accurately refer to this monetary transfer as “child support”.

      I disagree with your concept of “intent to father” for money. You suggest if the father resides with the mother and child for a period of time…how long is that exactly? Would that coincide with state safe haven laws? If a woman gives birth to a child and keeps it for an undetermined amount of time outside of the hospital would that not constitute an intent to mother?

      In terms of what is best for the child, family courts demonstrate regularly they have little understanding of this concept choosing rather to serve the personal interests of one parent (mainly mom) over the other (mainly dad).

      I believe that all states should have the presumption of shared parenting. Research demonstrates that children are best served with access to two parents. Not just shared parenting but shared responsibility including financial responsibility. From this premise, I agree that further determinations should be made (if needed) based on the parents ability to meet parental and financial obligations. Courts should be instructed to consider financial support as a “last resort” and if it is determined necessary, the recipient should be required to account for every penny they receive.

      The notion that mothers are by nature, better caretakers for their children stems from the scientifically unproven folklore that is the tender years doctrine.

      • Steve Moxon

        Well, there isn’t any doubt that the female has evolved to be the primary childcarer, and is more motivated to perform this function; BUT research shows that the child has need specifically of its mother only for so long as it is breast-fed. After this period, other caregivers can be as good — notably other female relatives.
        As for the father providing the main care: this happens in about 10% of single-parent families, where usually the father has been obliged to fulfil this role irrespective of whether or not he wants to. Therefore, if, in a custody dispute, the father shows that he really does want to provide this function, then given we know that men can adequately do this, there would be no reason to incite a ‘tender years’ doctrine as reason to award custody to the mother.
        There is a general finding that children do not need particularly good parenting: just parenting that is ‘good enough’. Problems come only if they get positively bad parenting, which is quite rare. The vast majority of any problems children may have stem from the peer group, not from the parents. [See Judith Rich Harris: The Nurture Assumption.]

        • bhwebb

          “Well, there isn’t any doubt that the female has evolved to be the primary childcarer, and is more motivated to perform this function; BUT research shows that the child has need specifically of its mother only for so long as it is breast-fed. After this period, other caregivers can be as good — notably other female relatives.”

          In the context of the Tender years doctrine, which extends beyond the breast-feeding stage to around 5 years in age, holds the assumption that women are by nature, better nurturers and better at child-rearing, however, there is no scientific basis proving that one gender is better than the other in this regard.

          I would agree that fathers as primary caregivers in single parent families is comparatively low, however, the number of fathers as primary caregivers in two-parent families is increasing. Recent Census Bureau data shows that 32 percent of fathers in two-parent families are the regular/primary caregivers. Of children under the age of 5, 20 percent of fathers are the primary caregivers. I happen to be in the 20 percent. The times they are a changin’.

          You’re right there should be no reason for citing the tender years doctrine or applying such theory in custody determinations. Yet, given the increase in fathers as primary caregivers of their children, how do you explain data persistently showing women receiving custody of the children in over 80 percent of divorce/custody proceedings?

          “There is a general finding that children do not need particularly good parenting: just parenting that is ‘good enough’. Problems come only if they get positively bad parenting, which is quite rare. The vast majority of any problems children may have stem from the peer group, not from the parents.”

          Perhaps your not familiar with the wealth of data relating to child risk factors in fatherless homes.

          • Steve Moxon

            Hi ‘bhwebb’
            It is quite false to say that there is no evidence that those of one sex usually make better child-carers than the other. Females are far and away the sex that has evolved to care for offspring. They are more instinctual, able and motivated in this regard.
            It’s not just mothers: female relatives do most of the childcare the mother doesn’t do herself.
            Men rarely do any childcare unless they are obliged to.
            As I said, this does not at all mean that men don’t do a good or good enough job when they are thus obliged; but then they don’t need to do more than a just good-enough job for there to be no negative impact on the child. The peer group is great at providing all the negative impact a child doesn’t need.
            It’s certainly true that in the household the mother is the most likely source of abuse for the child, but this is a function of the fact that the great bulk of childcare is performed by mothers; so mothers would be the greatest ‘risk factor’ in terms of prevalence even if mothers were responsible for the lowest incidence of any harms.
            The impact of child abuse is grossly exagerrated, in any case — especially child sex abuse.
            Of course, the supposed potential harm from fathers is through conflating natural and step-fathers. For obvious reasons step-parents are 10x more likely to be male, and with their non-relatedness to the child they lack instinctual attachment to the child, and this can be particularly problematic. Biological fathers are the least likely source of abuse for their children.

        • bhwebb

          Hi Steve and my apologies for the delay. On the contrary, it is quite false to base your position on gender stereotypes. While women traditionally and presently maintain the greatest access to children and time spent with children, you are relying on a long-held belief that this alone makes women by nature, better parents.

          However, as stated before, we are seeing changes in this social trend. In more than 1 in 5 homes in America, fathers are primary caregivers, and data indicates steady increases in single fathers raising children without a mother or other parent. When social science has focused on fathers as primary caregivers finding reveal they can be every bit as nurturing, loving, caring, supporting, and so on as mothers. Hence, when fathers assume the role traditionally held by mothers, they are every bit as effective.

          While the generally held opinion is that women are more instinctual or instinctive, men are considered to be more rational. With respect to the instinctive nature of women, social science in recent years has begun to focus on their instinctual nature and how traditional, socially-accepted gender roles have served as a construct to feminine beliefs and instincts as to their role as a parent and the father’s role. Social science indicates these instincts often serve to determine to access a father has to his children and his relationship with his children and vice versa through maternal gatekeeping, which is a common problem in our society and in my opinion merits inclusion into the APA diagnostic manual.

          Although women still comprise the majority of primary caregivers, it is quite false to assert that men rarely do any childcare. Current data refutes that claim. It is also equally false and quite absurd to suggest men only engage in childcare because they are obliged to do so. Are women not obliged to care for their children? If men engage in childcare only because they are obliged, how do you explain fathers as primary caregivers who choose to take on the role? Furthermore, how do you explain the growth of single fathers raising children without a mother or other parent? The latter consists of gay couples, widows, the rare fathers who obtain custody of their children, and the increase of fathers raising children through surrogates and adoption? As well current data refutes your rather pejorative claim that fathers only need to do a “good enough” job in raising children.

          It is grossly disingenuous to dismiss the role of the family environment and parent(s) in child behavior and behavioral problems. Social science has consistently demonstrated links between child behavioral problems and the family environment. As well, social science indicates that it is worse for children to be raised by single mothers regardless of their socioeconomic status. I disagree that child abuse is grossly exaggerated; perhaps you view it as such to suit your position. I am however, in agreement with you that the overriding problem with child abuse and child sex abuse is that it is all too often portrayed in the context of abusive father, which we know is not true. Equally problematic, is that female perpetrated violence is largely ignored.

          • Steve Moxon

            It’s not ‘gender stereotype’. That’s sociological bull. In no traditional society do men perform a significant share of childcare, let alone predominate in it.
            There is a lot of research showing that it is very much the peer group and not the family that is key to good adjustment and mental health. The family environment is just a temporary refuge, whereas the peer group in the milieu in which you find your place in the group and it’s determined to what extent you will reproduce. The family needs to be no more than just ‘good enough’.

        • bhwebb

          “It’s not ‘gender stereotype’. That’s sociological bull.”

          Gender stereotypes are simplistic generalizations about the gender attributes, differences, and gender roles.

          Examples of simplistic generalizations from your previous post:

          1) “They (women) are more instinctual, able and motivated in this regard” (child care).

          2) “Men rarely do any childcare unless they are obliged to.”

          “In no traditional society do men perform a significant share of childcare, let alone predominate in it.”

          Collectively, no. As I stated, women still comprise the majority in relation to childcare. However, current data shows that millions of men do in fact perform a significant share of childcare or predominate it in their homes.

          Regarding your insistence on the influence of peer groups, you have omitted the fact that the influence of peer groups on child behavior becomes more prominent in adolescence as children become more independent of their family and seek association with peer groups. This is the stage where children begin to experiment and explore in search of their ego identity or the person they will eventually become. Of course, peer group association, similar to the family environment can positively or negatively affect child behavior and mental health. However, that has little effect on the influence of family environment, which also can positively or negatively affect child behavior and mental health and the links established through social science.

          • Steve Moxon

            Profoundly false.
            Something is not merely a ‘stereotype’ rather than a manifestation of an evolved sex dichotomy just because some anti-science ideologue who accepts nothing but the ‘standard social science model’ says so.
            That many men in our non-traditional first-world contemporary societies contribute to childcare says nothing about any predilection to perform childcare; just a lot about the practicalities of contemporary life.
            The over-riding influence of the peer group starts from toddler age, not adolescence.

      • Wendy

        Yes, choosing a specific time period would be difficult. However, the man has the length of the pregnancy (or at least 4 to 5 months, depending on when the mother starts showing or informs him) to decide to move out. My concern would be a man fathering a child biologically, then proceeding to father the child on a day to day basis, and then deciding he doesn’t want to anymore. This would be an unusually conniving person to neither sign a birth certificate or a legal paternal surrender. I would want to avoid any situation where someone tries to have their cake and eat it, too, so to speak. And I would say that, yes, that would be the equivalent of a mother taking her baby home for a while and when the child was six months or a year old, suddenly changing her mind and taking the child to a fire station or hospital to abandon. At that point, it becomes neglect. She should face consequences. She had nine months to make up her mind.

        Then again, in that situation, she could adopt out her baby at that point with no consequences. I guess I’m concerned that there might be some unscrupulous person who would, through his actions, indicate to the mother that he wanted to be there to support a child and help her and so she makes the decision to also keep the child and then he changes his mind and she is no longer financially capable of caring for the child.

        I thought about this for a long time. I wanted to find the best possible solution to cover as many different types of situations as there could be in life, but that was still relatively easy to apply. It isn’t perfect, but that’s no possible, I don’t think.

        • bhwebb

          I do not necessarily think that not signing a birth certificate is conniving. There might actually be legitimate reasons for not wanting to sign a birth certificate. I would agree that it would be as you put it conniving for a man or any parent to commit to parenting a child for anything length of time only to walk away later…but only to a certain extent as I believe there are circumstances in which men would be justified in walking away if they chose to do so.

          For example instances where a woman conceals her pregnancy and does not inform the father only for him to find out months or even years later that he has a child. Or, paternity fraud, which is a serious problem in this country.

          In this context, I do not believe that voluntary paternal surrender can be limited to the legally permissible timeframes for abortion, adoption, and surrender of child under safe haven laws.

          • Wendy

            If she were to conceal her pregnancy, then she wouldn’t be able to show via the method I indicated earlier that he intended to father the child. I think there should necessarily be a time limit to legal paternal surrender because I think you would have a case of the pendulum swinging too far in the opposite direction. What if a man has a child with a woman, raises it for five years, and then walks away? That would be grossly unfair to the child and the woman. I would not personally have a child with a man unless I thought he were committed to becoming a father. If I had a birth control failure but were in a position where I would be willing to have the child and keep it, my decision would then be based on whether or not the man who impregnated me also wanted the child. If he did not, I would then likely consider alternatives. But what if he, for some reason, indicated he did? Then I would quickly move past the time limit for abortion and then, what if, five years later, after I’d been relying on his support and our child only knew him as a father, and he walks away?

            No, I think there needs to be a time limit. If women have time limits, so should men.

        • bhwebb

          Hi Wendy,

          Frankly, I think you are getting into the weeds with all the what if’s. That can go on forever and get us nowhere. Sorry, I do not buy the intent to father bit, women already have way too much control in this area, and in she said/he said matters more weight is almost always given to “her” version of events.

          As for voluntary paternal surrender, how do you put a time limit on paternity fraud and/or women concealing pregnancies from the father. These events unfold over weeks, months, and usually years.

          • Wendy

            That’s why there should be some sort of proof that he wanted to father the child. The intent to father is to protect the man in the case of a concealed pregnancy or paternity fraud (hence why a positive paternity test is essential when the child is not legally adopted). The woman cannot very well conceal a pregnancy once the child is born, so at that point, the man can move out or sign a paternal surrender. Or he’s protected by default if he moved out for some reason before the child was born, was unaware of the pregnancy and so never signed a paternal surrender. The ‘intent to father’ is a default protection. It also simultaneously protects the mother from a guy fraudulently pledging his support and moving out after a couple years. Granted, that would be an unusual scenario, but it’s also a side effect of the default protection provided to the man who was unaware of the child. Also, the other situation in which the “intent to father” would be beneficial is that if a woman specifically wants only the baby and she doesn’t want the father in the child’s life, she has to inform him so he can sign a paternal surrender. But, she can’t force him to. Although he would not have shown intent, he still has the option of stepping in if he desires to have a relationship with a child he knew nothing about. The intent thing is all on the mother to prove.

  • http://pinterest.com/zetapersei/male-privilege/ Perseus

    >>:-[

  • Xevaster

    Semi-off topic post. Out side the hospital where I work, this past week, there have been abortion protestors. Both Pro and anti. They stand on the opposite side of the entry to the hospital and glare at each other. My wife and I were talking about abortion because our oldest daughter asked what is was.
    I mentioned to my wife that I felt that a man should have the right to abdicate his parental responsibility. My wife agreed, but with the addition that he should have to abdicate within a certain amount of time or he is bound to be part of the child’s life. Her example was, if a guy knows right away and hangs around with the prospective mother and then one month before the baby is due he changes his mind and wants nothing to do with the child, too bad. Her thought was that a man should have the same amount of time to decide as a woman has to decide before an abortion is no longer allowed. I’m not sure where I stand on a timeline of when he can give up parental right.

    Now to the off topic part. One of the pro-abortion protestor had the following sign. [i]Let me get myself under control here.[/i] It said, “I have 99 problems and every one is misogyny.” WHAT! If I hadn’t been in the car with my whole family I would have pulled over and asked the idiot with the sign to explain to me her problems and then proceed to point out how every single one of her problem was her own damn fault and had nothing to do with “misogyny”.
    I am a reasonably calm guy but that just pissed me off to no end.

    • Bombay

      I agree about the time line for abortion. Please also consider the time line for adoption/dropping the child off at the police/fire station. That can take place after birth.

  • Grumpy Old Man

    Kristina, good commentary young lady. When I first met my wife…who worked for PP she’d tell me stories. Back then, 1989 or so I told her the only way to stop stupid is to get rid of child support, spousal support and hold women accountable for their actions/decisions. I’m glad it’s coming around, you articulated well.

  • Logic1

    Kristina, I don’t think that a truly equitable government can just stop at sexual reproductive equality. There must also be limits to the concept of the “maternal child custody only” theory when it comes to separation or divorce. Both parents if residing in short proximity of each other should both be able to get joint custody. In case of moving far away as to prevent joint custody, doesn’t reason dictate that any children should be in the custody of the parent that can provide better monetarily for their progeny (usually the father with greater earning potential)? I still don’t think the other parent should be fleeced by paying overburdening child support payments, but their should be a legal standard, which should dictate that no amount should go over X amount of dollars, pounds or euros. Using Tiger Woods, Brendan Fraser and Sean Combs as examples, do their children’s mothers really need $50,000-$60,000 a month in child support payments? That’s $600,000-$720,000 a year for one child (when really the money goes to supporting a woman’s lifestyle).

    The cost of raising children over an 18 year span according to the United States government equals $200,000 which if divided by 18 years comes to $11,111 a year which if divided by 12 months comes to $930 a month in child support. So why should child support exceed this amount? Lastly, as an American, alimony is unconstitutional as it violates the 13th amendment and should be abolished on account thereof. Not only that, but alimony existed when women couldn’t enter the workforce except as wage-slave factory workers (along with many male and child wage slaves) or prostitutes. Women constitute half the workforce in Western democracies, and thus renders alimony as exploitation of men. Even still, if women couldn’t work, does one woman using Tiger Wood’s ex-wife as an example deserve $100 million of money that she never worked a day in her life to achieve? I would use the same arguments to defend a woman against a parasitic male, but given that 97% of all alimony cases are about women fleecing men, the term alimony itself has become an operative word to describe an unscrupulous gold-digger. Lastly, it would be nice to hear you address issues pertinent to false-rape claims. Our society won’t be completely equal until, reproductive rights, child support, alimony, false-rape and sexual harassment cases, are completely gender neutral.

  • St miracle

    man made eggs,man made Uterus
    that’s important

  • tom b

    “reproductive rights?” What about the guys who want the children that she decides to abort? fathers will never have the ultimate reproductive rights as long as a women can choose abortion without regard to what the father wants.

  • jerrytheother

    Here’s my video on the subject:

  • Wine Fiend

    A few questions, if I may?

    – I think an intent to father and a paternity test at birth, as part of the standard paperwork that has to be filled in, is an excellent idea. At what point in time after that though is parental surrender by either sex allowed to happen without consequence?

    -shared equal custody in the event of a split also makes perfect sense to me. How would this work in practice though? Both parties would need to have access to the opportunity to work yet also spend leisure time with the child. Like I said, love the principle and the equal opportunities it gives to both parents to be involved in the upbringing of the child but am interested to hear ideas on its practical implementation.

    – If a parental surrender is signed, would it be legally binding for the life of the child or would it give provision for coming back into its life later on down the road? I have no studies at my fingertips but I would be interested in hearing opinions on whether this would be damaging for the child?

    Sorry this is a little long-winded, but am new to the site and have yet to master pith!

  • krista15

    I think it’s very misleading to say that women are just as able to “walk away” from parenting–via adoption and legal abandonment–as men are. Very few women actually place their child up for adoption or legally abandon their baby; the number of men walk away from kids they conceived. And why is that? Because all of the debate about equal reproductive rights does not take into account the fact that a mother usually has a much stronger bond with a child than a man; in addition, it is still VERY socially unacceptable for women to surrender the care of a child to the father or other caretaker. I became pregnant during a committed, 7-year relationship due to condom failure–actually HIS mistake. The father wanted me to abort and I could not do so. He was not ready to be a father and we broke up. I was very well aware that it would be tough as a single mother…I wasn’t making much money, my very traditional parents disapproved, and in truth I did not want to have a child at that point in time. My periods were irregular and I had to have an ultrasound to get the pregnancy “dated”…I saw the fetus, beating heart and all, and I literally could not terminate. The “bonding” hormones in pregnancy/infancy are very strong for a reason–so a mother will carry her baby to term and raise it. I am very, very pro-choice but when I was placed in that situation, I could not do it and I suspect other women have felt the same way. Similarly, I can only imagine how gut-wrenching it would be to give up a child for adoption. Also, women who give up their kids for adoption are frequently ostracized by others who think a “real” woman would raise her own child. Most single women who choose to keep an unplanned baby are well-aware that the road she’s about to walk down is not easy but the alleged alternatives are, in many cases, are just not real options for many women.

  • TreGibson94

    Legal Paternal Surrender should be legal, women have a choice to become a parent, men do not. This violates the Canadian Constitutions. (I’m sorry for not including other countries, Canada is the only constitution I’m familiar with, feel free to tell us your countries constitutional obligations). The Canadian Constitution(more specifically the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) clearly states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” This was referred to in the Canadian Supreme Court Case of R. v. Morgentaler.

    “The right to “liberty” contained in s. 7 guarantees to every individual a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life. Liberty in a free and democratic society does not require the state to approve such decisions but it does require the state to respect them.
    A woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy falls within this class of protected decisions. It is one that will have profound psychological, economic and social consequences for her. It is a decision that deeply reflects the way the woman thinks about herself and her relationship to others and to society at large. It is not just a medical decision; it is a profound social and ethical one as well.

    Section 251 of the Criminal Code takes a personal and private decision away from the woman and gives it to a committee which bases its decision on “criteria entirely unrelated to [the pregnant woman's] own priorities and aspirations”.

    Section 251 also deprives a pregnant woman of her right to security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter. This right protects both the physical and psychological integrity of the individual. Section 251 is more deeply flawed than just subjecting women to considerable emotional stress and unnecessary physical risk. It asserts that the woman’s capacity to reproduce is to be subject, not to her own control, but to that of the state. This is a direct interference with the woman’s physical “person”.

    This violation of s. 7 does not accord with either procedural fairness or with the fundamental rights and freedoms laid down elsewhere in the Charter. A deprivation of the s. 7 right which has the effect of infringing a right guaranteed elsewhere in the Charter cannot be in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

    The deprivation of the s. 7 right in this case offends freedom of conscience guaranteed in s. 2(a) of the Charter. The decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision and in a free and democratic society the conscience of the individual must be paramount to that of the state. Indeed, s. 2(a) makes it clear that this freedom belongs to each of us individually. “Freedom of conscience and religion” should be broadly construed to extend to conscien- tiously-held beliefs, whether grounded in religion or in a secular morality and the terms “conscience” and “religion” should not be treated as tautologous if capable of independent, although related, meaning. The state here is endorsing one conscientiously-held view at the expense of another. It is denying freedom of conscience to some, treating them as means to an end, depriving them of their “essential humanity”.

    Making men be subject to paying FORCED child support is a clear violation of another piece of the constitution which states: “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

    FORCED child support makes Men’s capacity to reproduce “subject, not to {his} own control, but to that of the state. This is a direct interference with the {man’s} physical “person”.

    FORCED child support needs to be struck down by the Supreme Court for violating a man’s right to personal autonamy.