>Family planning: Not a Dude Issue
>
 |
| Note to MGTOW: Not actually how it works. |
Oh Men Going Their Own Way, why must you be so confusing? MRAs and MGTOWers complain all the time about how unfair it is for women who somehow magically get preggers after having sex with them to decide to actually keep the kids and saddle them with — gasp! — some of the cost of raising said kids. So you’d think manosphere dudes would all be fervently in favor of easy access to abortion or, at the very least, birth control.
Not so much. Because apparently for quite a few of these dudes, the desire to gloat over the misfortunes of women actually outweighs their desire to protect themselves from the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy.
Or so I am forced to conclude after reading this thread on MGTOWforums.com dealing with the recent passage in the House of a bill blocking funding of Planned Parenthood — an event that strikes many of the commenters as hi-larious.
Apeiron offers this nugget:
Yes i saw the femms frothing at the mouth on their boards.
Well you know what bitch, we have to make cuts, lots of cuts …
Good news is if the sluts see the cuts they might keep their legs shut and act accordingly.
The appropriately named womanhater presents his own analysis of the sexual politics of abortion:
Well – the twats replaced the husband and father with the state. Now they’ve bled that hubby and father dry. Of course, there’s no replacement cock/sucker for the state. Have fun girls!
Rock adds:
[F]eminism cannot be defeated without cutting out funding. … The neverending supply of manginas and white knights will keep it going unless these same people run out of money. And that is what’s happening. Who would’ve thought the bad economy could have a good side effect. :)
Forum moderator hasmat concurs:
Want an abortion cuz you couldn’t keep your legs shut? Fine, kill your baby, whore. But, I ain’t paying for it. Not a penny.
But it is intp who offers the most, er, original take on the issue:
Question. What percentage of women would give their daughters up for sacrifice if they could remain young-looking/beautiful in return? I’m guessing a considerable percentage would take the Devil up on that deal. The rationalization hamster in women is strong. They would probably tell themselves I’ll just have another baby later. Or “What about my needs? I have a right to be beautiful!” I ask this because per statistics most abortions occur due to non-health threatening reasons. The woman simply does not want to have a kid yet. She wants to keep screwing like a man (riding the carousel) until the last possible minute.
Ignoring the rest of intp’s, ah, speculation, I have to wonder: what exactly is wrong with “screwing like a man?”
–
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
Posted on February 22, 2011, in MRA. Bookmark the permalink. 162 Comments.
>Kratch, thank you for a serious response.I have no idea what funding PP uses or how it is set up. I am too tired to go look it up. However, as it is with my current job, operational funds can be easily divided into different accounts and it can be kept separate. Therefore the issue of funding can be dealt with and may show there is little to worry about with PP.As for the "government conspiracy" idea-government is made up of people. In the US it is made up by politicians elected after a period of campaigning that (in theory) means that the average person's wants and needs are represented at the various levels. Right now, many of those politicians have a certain opinion that has little to do with a national opinion and much to do with a local (if that) opinion that seems to view women having the sex as distasteful to the point of in fact doing a conspiracy type action…although it is out in the open and obvious to us all.American society has always had issues with sex-especially women having sex that has no consequences (either getting pregnant, a disease or otherwise harmed in some way.) Despite the fact that PP helps men out with STI testing, testing for prostate cancer and other medical needs that have stuff beyond just plain reproduction, it is the fact it helps any woman out after she has sex that causes the government and other forces to fight it.I would be more coherent but I went to Vegas this weekend and it was a pretty tiring time. :)
>Kratch: I’m going to have to totally disagree with your premise. Child support, as a law, is based largely on economic circumstances. The reason why the abolition of child support failed in 1834 was because it was (and is) cheaper to hold individual men responsible for the upkeep of their children, than for the taxpayers to do so. Childbirth, and raising a child, is not a economic decision, and therefore negative financial consequences aren’t effective. We know this because there are already negative consequences to having children for a woman in any circumstance, and yet women still have babies. (There was recently a very good study done on how much income potential a woman looses by not delaying a pregnancy for a year, but I can’t find it at the moment. Here’s an article on the “motherhood penalty”, at any rate[1].).) There are simply certain decisions that we make, or do not make, and endure the financial consequences because of it. (Another example: marriage. Married adults have faired better economically than unmarried adults since 1970[1]. Yet in Canada, we have one of the highest median (first marriage) marrying age in the western world and the lowest rate of marriage anywhere (Quebec).) As to your question on welfare, I’d encourage you to read the Social Assistance Statistical reports that the government produces [2]. The questions you’re asking make me think you’ve never been on welfare, or done much procedural reading, and are listening to anecdotes. Firstly, there is no such thing as a person on welfare who is “unwilling to work”- from the Canadian government’s website: “Should a recipient choose not to pursue employment or retraining, he/she may be subject to penalties ranging from a specified reduction in benefits over a prescribed period of time to the full cancellation of benefits. […] Generally, single parents are considered as employable and required to actively seek and accept reasonable employment, where the parent and dependent child(ren) are physically and mentally healthy and when the dependants have reached a certain age.” A single woman would be on basic assistance, (assuming she has no disabilities or other circumstances) as would a woman with a child. The amount they would get would be in equal ratio to their circumstances. The difference is that a single mother could apply for childcare (as soon as mat leave is up, she needs to work, remember), transportation benefits, and school supplies. She would also get higher priority for subsidized housing, but she would not get “better” housing than the single woman. [3] So, being as that women loose potential income when they have a baby, and that women on social assistance are given it on an equal ratio based upon their needs, single, low-income women would come out far and ahead in the long-term than low-income single mothers. [1]http://www.businessweek.com/careers/workingparents/blog/archives/2009/06/the_motherhood.html[2] http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1466/economics-marriage-rise-of-wives%5B3%5D http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/welfare.htm#statistics%5B4%5D http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/publications_resources/social_policy/sasr_2007/page03.shtml
>David: I’d love to see a day when governments make steps to truly support the children they insist everyone have. Alas, I’m pretty sure I’d die before that happens- I can imagine everyone, not just MRAs bitching about supporting some slut and her illegitimate spawn, urgh. Also, I don’t get many attempts to mansplain- sorry about that.
>bathorie, thanks for the posts. The long one got spam-filtered (maybe because of the URLs? I don;t know; the spam filter is ornery and can't be turned off.) Anyway, it's up now.
>“a local (if that) opinion that seems to view women having the sex as distasteful to the point of in fact doing a conspiracy type action…although it is out in the open and obvious to us all.”I see no such attitude, and if it is so obvious, you should be able to provide ample examples. Furthermore, as there is still access to abortion, and there are an abundance of birth control options available to prevent the need for abortion in the first place, I do not see how this cut could even succeed at controlling women’s sexuality. While I do acknowledge north America has a hang up regarding sex (in that any nudity makes a film rated R, while violence makes it PG14), but I don’t see that as evidence of gender bias, as a man’s bare ass incurs the same effect.“it is the fact it helps any woman out after she has sex that causes the government and other forces to fight it.”And perhaps when I start seeing feminists regularly advocating for men’s reproductive rights, I’ll show some sympathy, but again, until that happens, I will only offer the same advice men get when speaking of reproductive rights… “If you’re not prepared to take responsibility for your actions, keep your pants on”.
>“The reason why the abolition of child support failed in 1834 was because it was (and is) cheaper to hold individual men responsible for the upkeep of their children, than for the taxpayers to do so. “But there are three significant differences. 1: what is being recommended, and I have already said this (not to mention it is a consistent attribute of any argument for men’s reproductive rights), is for men to be given a period of time to which he is capable of terminating his rights and responsibilities. It is not being recommended that all child support be abolished, only (all) responsibilities (and rights) to a child that he does not wish to have as of the time he is initially notified.2: Birth control has become significantly more effective and available since the 1830’s3: Women are now capable of supporting themselves and their children (if they choose to have a child without a man present). Thanks to feminism, a woman is no longer dependant upon a man to survive. The fact that you refuse to let that go makes me wonder just how effective feminism really was regarding women’s independence.“Childbirth, and raising a child, is not a economic decision”Are you suggesting women don’t know babies cost money? All those women and men who are holding off on having children until they are financially stable are very much making an economic decision.“ We know this because there are already negative consequences to having children for a woman in any circumstance, and yet women still have babies.”Those negative financial consequences are often enough handed off to the men, not the women. This fact makes the financial consequences for having a baby low to non-existent. For some, it is even profitable.“(There was recently a very good study done on how much income potential a woman looses by not delaying a pregnancy for a year, but I can’t find it at the moment. Here’s an article on the “motherhood penalty”, at any rate[1].)”I’m guessing that study never comes up during discussions of the gender pay gap?“The questions you’re asking make me think you’ve never been on welfare”I actually just got off welfare this month (new job, hence why I’m not posting all day now) after being on it since May of last year. But keep in mind I am in Canada, and the social assistance are different.“no such thing as a person on welfare who is “unwilling to work””As I have been on welfare for a while, I can assure you that there is very little in the way of checks to insure those on assistance are looking for work.“So, being as that women loose potential income when they have a baby, and that women on social assistance are given it on an equal ratio based upon their needs, single, low-income women would come out far and ahead in the long-term than low-income single mothers. “And again, none of that is relevant as nobody is suggesting that we allow child support agreements, already in place, to be terminated. I’ve said this in two previous posts already. Men are perfectly capable of determining if they are financially capable of raising a child at a given point in their lives, are you suggesting women don’t have this capacity? If they do have this capacity (and I assume you do), they isn’t the guarantee of a man’s income going to be a significant contributor to the decision to have a baby or not? If they guarantee is no longer assured, then that will change how the decision is made , and as such, would allow a man his reproductive rights, while still giving the woman the ability to make an informed decision for herself. This is not an unreasonable concept, you simply make it unreasonable due to your straw man exaggerations of the suggestions made, as well as your unwillingness to give up your privilege in the name of equality.
>Kratch, this basically is where we have to part ways-as a feminist I believe in helping women obtain things that they need not ignore their needs in favor of men.That said-cutting the funding for PP harms male reproductive rights outside the abortion part. If a male has low or no access to health insurance and gets some kind of STI, it is very possible that he will become sterile from it because it is not treated timely. Other medical conditions may not be addressed before it becomes too late to either stop sterility or terminal illness.For the US though, take a peek at the book I referenced, it is a fascinating look at the reasons behind abortion laws and attacks like the one on PP. The fact is that by dressing it up in a lot of words like "pro-life" "it is about the child" it makes it easy to ignore the fact that it is about sex. If it was really, truly, about the child, those laws may still exist but so would state funded day care centers, child health insurance up to age 18, high quality schools for all children regardless of socioeconomic background, family friendly policies that let both parents take time off from work to care for their children…stuff like that would be much more prevalent instead of disappearing or never have existed in the first place.
>" this basically is where we have to part ways-as a feminist I believe in helping women obtain things that they need not ignore their needs in favor of men."And that's why Feminism isn't, never was, and never will be about equality. It is about female empowerment, and female only. When it comes to giving up something (not that assurance of child support is a "need" before the choice to have a child is even made) for the sake of equality, well, not going to happen. Not if feminism has anything to say about it."That said-cutting the funding for PP harms male reproductive rights outside the abortion part. "Oh, I don't disagree, despite the cut's being refereed to as a women's issue almost exclusively, except when it's beneficial to acknowledge it's impact on males (like now). With that said, what I have argued is that there is a valid reason why the cuts were made, as far as I'm concerned (IE, abortion is not allowed to be funded by federal dollars). As well as pointing out the hypocrisy of complaining about women's access to abortion and, thus, reproductive rights, while still denying men even a consideration of equality with regards to their reproductive rights. "The fact is that by dressing it up in a lot of words like "pro-life" "it is about the child" it makes it easy to ignore the fact that it is about sex."Funny, "best interests of the child is regularly used in the same way in family courts to disguise bigotry and discrimination against men. Even when a man is the primary caregiver, it is apparently in the child's best interest to be given to the mother upon divorce, and that househusband required to get a job and pay support.http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=13316#more-13316As to the rest, I'm not sure how not funding daycare somehow restricts or controls women's sexuality. You keep making these connections but you are unable to explain them. I have asked several times now how restricting funding of abortion, but still having it legal, controls women's sexuality, when they continue to have an abundance of options available to them? It seem to me that your problem is that the state isn't taking (full) responsibility for women's sexuality, which is an entirely different concept to controlling it. And to be honest, I don't blame it, women are entirely capable of taking responsibility for their own choices and actions, despite the apparent feminist goal to shirk all such (financial) responsibility onto others. For all the feminist efforts to provide financial freedom for women, it often still comes down to wanted to be supported by someone else, but not to be accountable to that someone anymore.
>So you are saying that feminists should ignore their needs (as women or feminists) and focus solely on men. After all, it would not be equal if we dared try to make sure that our reproductive rights are respected, it might mean men are not the sole focus of any group.We should immediately cease all efforts to secure funding for our health needs and fully fund every single male oriented reproductive need until men are 100% taken care of. Only then, may we focus on ourselves.————–Here is how it is connected and maybe this time you will get it:If access to birth control is restricted it means that a pregnancy might result from a woman having sex. If access to abortion is restricted it means that a woman might have a baby (or die, having a kid is still dangerous.)If a baby is born, it needs food, shelter, schooling, clothing, love, attention, caring, and a host of other things. If this issue with PP was about making sure that babies in utero are safe and secure from conception to adulthood, every single person talking about cutting the funding would be talking about making sure that the baby resulting from restricting birth control and abortion has everything it needs to become a healthy productive adult (and no, it actually does not need to come from government-simply paying workers well enough to ensure they can afford the things their kids need would render that needless really.)It would not matter what kind of mother it had or what kind of father-that kid would have access to the food, shelter and clothing it needs at the very least. And the policies the people talking about ending would not matter as much because all of those unwanted babies being born would have what they need after birth.But they are not talking about expanding funding for those things. Instead they are cutting them. Again and that is why when I say is not about the baby or the child, it is because it is not. If it was, those unwanted babies would be taken care of regardless of the reason they came into being.It is about the sex the mother had and now they want to punish her for having that sex. By forcing her to have a child that may be neglected or harmed by a resentful mother. Letting her have birth control or an abortion means that she is not punished. She gets away with it. And that makes them angry to the point of wanting to end things that help everyone, not just women.This is the final effort I am going to make-you either can see that if there is no assistance (such as the things I described) for the unwanted child then it is not about saving a life but about punishing a woman for stepping out of line.Oh and about that fathers families thing? Not quite as simple as you make it out to be.
>"So you are saying that feminists should ignore their needs (as women or feminists) and focus solely on men."I've never said anything of the sort. In fact, it is you who are demanding the reverse, that all a woman\s needs be met before even considering men's issues. Equality isn't just one way, and you need to realize this. Just because I say there are men's issues that need to be addressed, in no way presumes that women's issues should be put aside, this is not a zero sum issue, both men's, and women's issues can be worked on simultaneously, or is the assumption that women are better multitaskers and organizers then men also a lie?In addition to that, what "need" is being taken away from "women" by allowing a man to say "if you ***CHOOSE*** to keep and raise this child, you will need to do so without my support". Do you seriously believe that simply having sex, sex that, by your own words, can be consequence free, if she so chooses, should result in a "need" for a man to financially provide (at least in part) for that choice, a choice that did not need to be made? Is this, a situation in which the man needs to provide and the woman needs to be provided for, an example of how feminism has broken down the gender roles?"We should immediately cease all efforts to "Straw man argument, I won't debate it further."If access to birth control is restricted it means that a pregnancy might result from a woman having sex. "No access has been restricted. Birth control is still available, it is just more expensive.Furthermore, feminists have been telling men for ages "if you don't want to risk having a baby, then keep your pants on.""If access to abortion is restricted it means that a woman might have a baby (or die, having a kid is still dangerous.)"Access is again not restricted, just more expensive.Again, feminists have been telling men for ages "if you don't want to risk having a baby, then keep your pants on."As for the pregnancy being dangerous… provide me figures on the death rate of women due to complications in pregnancy. Until such point, I Suspect you are exaggerating based on the standards of 200+ years ago."If a baby is born, it needs food, shelter, schooling, clothing, love, attention, caring, and a host of other things. "If a baby is born, there is still adoption and relinquishing it at any number of places.Therefore, all those responsibilities you list are a result of personal choice (choice to have sex in the first place, choice not to use proper birth control, choice not to pay the expense of abortion, choice to keep the child upon birth. A man only has a say in the first two choices, and you (and virtually all other feminists) would specifically deny him a choice regarding the rest (or a similar choice for himself). And yet, you feel he is not only equally responsible for the outcome (the baby), but responsible for the woman's "needs" on top of that.The answer is simple…"if you don't want to risk having a baby, then keep your pants on.". You're not going to escape the past. these are your (feminism's, but I believe you specifically have recited them or something similar) own words, and your demand for government funded access to abortion is direct contradiction to your refusal of male reproductive rights. And you know I'm right, that's why you attacked that strawman at the beginning of your post so viciously.Lunch break is over. I'll respond to the rest later.
>But there are three significant differences.1. I understand that you aren’t arguing for a retroactive abolition of child support; neither am I. I brought up the point about 1834 as a past example of how the abolition of child support in general has failed before.2. True, but half of all pregnancies are still unplanned, as are 25% of births, which is a rather large portion of the population. [1]3. Less capable, certainly. I already posted a link to stats on single mothers and welfare- considering them, I think its safe to say that single mothers are less capable of financially providing for their children than mothers who are partnered, and have sufficient resources through child support. On a personal note, I don’t actually believe feminism has been wholly effective in justice for women, especially in regards to children. I believe there is much more breaking down of old and patriarchal processes before feminism’s work is complete. Are you suggesting women don’t know babies cost money?I left out a word, I think: childbirth is not wholly an economic decision. Women know babies cost money, its that women (and men) who have children accept that consequence, because they are rewarded (socially, spiritually, mentally, emotionally, etc) for it. Or, in comparison to my other example, MRAs know that staying single costs money; some just accept that consequence of not being married. Those negative financial consequences are often enough handed off to the men.Honest question: did you read the article? Do you have stats for men vs. women in regards to income and children?I’m guessing that study never comes up during discussions of the gender pay gapAbsolutely it does. It’s even a part of the Wikipedia article on the pay gap. It’s a feminist issue because discrimination against mothers is discrimination against women, full stop. I actually just got off welfare[...]Then I’m sorry I made a wrong assumption- I assumed that someone with experience in the system would know how basic assistance was calculated, including income and dependants. I definitely phrased the last part wrong- SA has it’s downfalls, but you can’t deny that a single mother is required, by the rules, to work. I know you’re Canadian; so am I, which is why I gave Canadian stats in our discussion.And again, none of that is relevant[...]Then why did you ask me the question? I answered to my knowledge. Men are perfectly capable of determining if they are financially capable of raising a child at a given point in their lives, are you suggesting women don’t have this capacity?I’m suggesting that largely for both men and women, having a child is not a decision made based purely upon finances, and that it would be ignorant to assume so, and further, change child support laws based off that assumption.[...]you simply make it unreasonable due to your straw man exaggerations of the suggestions made[...]What would those be? I’m honestly curious- I’ve provided citations for the facts I have, and if there is one, its slipped by me. [1] http://www.ehow.com/about_4611925_unplanned-pregnancy-statistics.html
>Kratch, Essentially your view boils down to this: feminists should be in favor of letting men skip out on their responsibilities whenever men want to since men do not get to determine when a woman has a baby. Since feminists do not, they are being unequal to men and hence are wrong.
>“If this issue with PP was about making sure that babies in utero are safe and secure from conception to adulthood”I’ve never even suggested that’s what this is about. If anything, your claims of “trying to control women’s sexuality” comes far closer then anything I’ve said. I merely acknowledge that the government does not want to fund something so controversial, or whatever the reason is for the “no federal funding for abortion” law, and that PP violated that Law. It is a punishment for violating an agreement, as far as I’m concerned. The rest of this seems to be an attempt to justify your opinion that a woman who ***CHOOSES*** to have a child should be provided for by others. “But they are not talking about expanding funding for those things. “But as you yourself said, these cuts aren’t about making sure babies are cared for in every way needed (again, not that I ever suggested otherwise). That shouldn’t be government’s responsibility, and I can’t fathom what level of privilege and entitlement one needs in order to believe it is.“It is about the sex the mother had and now they want to punish her for having that sex. By forcing her to have a child that may be neglected or harmed by a resentful …”Does that mean that women are trying to punish men who have sex? If you are suggesting that being forced to have a child that one does not want is some kind of punishment, then it applies equally to what men endure from feminists. The situation is no different then the reproductive rights men are calling for. Reproductive rights you feminists deny. The one significant difference is that women still have options, several options, while men still have none. Do you not see the hypocrisy in your argument?“ Letting her have birth control or an abortion means that she is not punished.”Nether of these have been denied women. Abortion and birth control are still accessible to women. You’re exaggerating the impact of these cuts to be a complete denial of any kind of reproductive rights for women, when it was simply a single source that had their funding reduced (it wasn’t solely government funded, otherwise their abortion clinics were undeniably funded by federal funds). “you either can see that if there is no assistance (such as the things I described) for the unwanted child then it is not about saving a life but about punishing a woman for stepping out of line.”Again with the strawmen. Your entire post was riddled with them. I’ve never claimed this to be about saving children’s lives. I’ve never suggested it. I’ve never believed it. And I’m getting tired of repeating myself. If you’re not willing to read my posts and debate what I actually say, rather then simply debating an argument you feel you can win, regardless of whether I’ve said it or not, then please let me know, so I can stop wasting my time.I don’t deny there are those against abortion who are likely revelling in this cut, but I don’t stand by those people’s opinion, for the same reason you described (plus I would like to see men’s reproductive rights, and that will be easier if abortion is reasonably available). But I also don’t think for a second that “punishing women” is not only the most reasonable explanation, but the only one. I’ve said it before, PP violated an agreement, and they are suffering the consequences of that violation. And that is a far more reasonable and rational explanation then some persecution complex about government run control, by men like David and Trip, to control women's sexuality. This has nothing to do with punishing women.
>“Essentially your view boils down to this: feminists should be in favor of letting men skip out on their responsibilities whenever men want to since men do not get to determine when a woman has a baby.”For the forth time, it is not whenever men want to. It is only during a short period upon finding out he is going to be a father. This is no different then women’s choice to skip out on their responsibility when they abort, abandon or adopt. The later two of which ALSO leaves a child in the world without a parent, and can be done without the fathers consent (IE, denying the father the opportunity to be a primary caregiver in order to avoid child support payments.).“Since feminists do not, they are being unequal to men and hence are wrong.”This is correct.
>For some reason the spam filter keeps grabbing comments in this topic; I'll unfilter them as soon as I see them.
>“True, but half of all pregnancies are still unplanned, as are 25% of births, which is a rather large portion of the population. [1]”But not all of those are unwanted. Unplanned and unwanted are two completely different things. Only a portion (not sure how many) of those are born against the fathers wishes, and without the guarantee of a child support check, it is not unreasonable to think that this number would decrease, not increase.“ Less capable, certainly.”1: Having a child is still a choice. A woman is not forced to have a child. EVER.2: This does not mean that she is incapable. She is still capable of supporting herself and her child, if she chooses to have a child without the support of a man (women do this all the time already, when they choose not to inform the father (for whatever reason))3: This does not make it men’s responsibility to provide for them simply because they choose not to use birth control (properly) and choose not to have an abortion and choose not to give the child up for adoption. A man should be given a choice whether or not to be a father as he deems fit, and if he deems no, that does not change any of the women’s options (only the degree of one of the consequences)“ its that women (and men) who have children accept that consequence,”But the difference is, women have a choice to reject those consequences, if she so chooses. A man does not.“because they are rewarded (socially, spiritually, mentally, emotionally, etc) for it.”Men who do not want to be a father (for whatever reason), don’t get those rewards. Especially if the mother cuts the father out of the child’s life (or chooses not to tell him for years, then come after him for backpay).The rest of this sounds like trying to enforce marriage onto men. Get married or suffer the financial consequences (this of course ignores the women’s choice whether they want to marry or not. As well as ignoring the fact that a marriage forced upon a man will not be healthy for anyone. As well as the vast majority of divorces are by women, and there is a very high assurance that she will get the kids and child support, leaving him right where he was pre-marriage. It also enforces, rather then breaks down, the male provider gender role, which is contradictory to the supposed goal of feminism).“did you read the article? “No, I did not. I don’t think it’s relevant enough to the discussion to dispute. But are you denying that men are required to pay child support? Does not that child support offset the financial loss a woman faces (and then some)? So if any pay lost due to having a child is returned, and then some, by the father via child support, is that not handing off the negative financial consequences to the men? Why should men be required to pay the (financial) consequences of the woman’s choice, a choice he had no say in, a choice she was not required to make?“because discrimination against mothers is discrimination against women, full stop. “Lost financial earnings due to the choice of having a baby are not examples of discrimination. “I assumed that someone with experience”And your experience with the system is?“Then why did you ask me the question?”That didn’t answer any question I’m aware of making. Quote me please.“What would those be?”The Strawman is the assumption that Men’s reproductive rights would have any impact on the babies already born (and the parents supporting and raising them) by applying it’s impact on the current system. You can quote all you want the statistics of how things are now (all you prove is the current system doesn’t work), but they all made the choice to have a baby, knowing the man would have to pay child support. Going forward, women would not have that assurance, so there would be more reason to consider alternatives. More importantly, it would encourage women to have children with men who wanted to be a father, and that would only be a plus for the child.
>"For some reason the spam filter keeps grabbing comments in this topic; I'll unfilter them as soon as I see them."I'm pretty sure it's the links. I don't seem to have problems unless ether I have a link, or my "character (with spaces)" count (based on MSWord) is over 4000.
>Kratch- The very first sentence of my last comment was I understand that you aren’t arguing for a retroactive abolition of child support; neither am I.” I am not putting up a strawman. My actual argument is: given what we learned from the reform in 1834; given that currently, women have children despite the negative financial consequences; given that single mothers are the most likely people to be on welfare, even with the current child support laws, you have not made a convincing argument that the birth rate to single mothers would drop enough as to be economically sustainable for everyone. I’m taking about how things are now because it is a better predictor of how things would be in the future, than playing a game of lets-pretend. without the guarantee of a child support check, it is not unreasonable to think that this number would decrease, not increase.Do you have any facts to argue this point? References to theories as to why birth rates fall in countries with available birth control?Having a child is still a choice. A woman is not forced to have a child. EVERWhere did I ever say or imply that women should be forced to have children? This does not mean that she is incapable.Which is why I said “less capable [...] than mothers who are partnered”.This does not make it men’s responsibility to provide for them simply because they choose not to use birth control (properly) and choose not to have an abortion and choose not to give the child up for adoption.It is at this moment because there is no other viable way. If you had an actual solution to the economics of this problem, I’d be happy to agree with you.Men who do not want to be a father (for whatever reason), don’t get those rewards.That’s a rather simplistic view of human nature. And do you have any statistics of how many women cut their children’s fathers out of their lives?The rest of this sounds like trying to enforce marriage onto men.Now there’s a strawman. My point is that there are certain life events that we do despite the financial hit. Some women have children. Some men don’t get married. I don’t want anyone forced into anything- it is entirely their choice to accept the consequences of that.No, I did not. I don’t think it’s relevant enough to the discussion to dispute.It’s my second “given”, actually. But are you denying that men are required to pay child support?Where did I ever say anything to imply that?Does not that child support offset the financial loss a woman faces (and then some)?I don’t know- does it? You’ve given me no actual information for which that assumption is based on. Lost financial earnings due to the choice of having a baby are not examples of discrimination.It is a loss men will never have to face, being as that they can’t give birth. It is a loss only applicable to women, and therefore, unfair at the very least. And your experience with the system is?Are you asking me this because some of my information is wrong?Quote me please.“Let me ask you this, if a woman is already going to be on welfare, because she can't or is unwilling to get a job, is she better off as a single recipient or as a single mother (with both child support and welfare)?” From your post on Feb. 27, 5:11PM
>Sorry. This is a long couple posts: Part 1“From your post on Feb. 27, 5:11PM “Thanks. I just looked over that article you linked earlier and am amassed that you would even provide it as a source. It’s a joke. It says women get paid $11,000 dollars less…. $11 K less then what? $30,000? $100,000? It’s not a particularly helpful number. In addition, it doesn’t make mention of other factors that may have been offered instead, such as additional vacation time or family benefits.Fortunately, the link (that worked) to the study explains that a little further. It says on average a 5% per child decrease (which would mean that $11K less was based on a $220K/year job application). As most child support is at least 10%, and women generally seek a man who is an equal or higher earner then themselves, not to mention child support doesn’t get taxed… We can see that any income lost due to being a mother is more then made up for by child, not to mention the rewards of having a “wanted” child you mentioned earlier.As to welfare: In the states, Welfare for a single person is significantly lower then welfare for a single mother + child support. In Canada, Welfare for a single mother results in at least twice as much money from assistance[1] as that for a single individual [2] (it seems to be around $10K/year more for having a child. This conflicts directly with your assertion they get an equal ratio based upon their needs), plus eligibility for national child benefit supplements, this more then amply offsets the costs of having a child. Not to mention the rewards of having a “wanted” child you mentioned earlier.[1] http://www.cnb-ncw.gc.ca/l.3bd.2t.1ilshtml@-eng.jsp?lid=331&fid=27%5B2%5D http://www.cnb-ncw.gc.ca/l.3bd.2t.1ilshtml@-eng.jsp?lid=331&fid=25So, based on this, the answer to my question “is she better off as a single recipient or as a single mother “, is that she is better off as a single mother, except in the rare circumstances that she makes over twice as much money as the babydady. So, as far as this shows me (your own sources), what I claimed earlier, that any financial consequences are passed onto the man or government, is correct.Therefore, the lack of financial consequences due to child support and/or government support, combined with the rewards of having a “wanted” child, actually encourages women who want a child to have one, whether the chosen man actually wants it or not. I don’t think it is reasonable to deny a man the right to choose whether he is willing to allow
>Part 2“given what we learned from the reform in 1834;”Given that was almost 200 years ago and things have changed dramatically (women’s ability to support themselves, birth control options and availability, government support, abortion), not to mention the suggestion for male reproductive rights is not the same as a uniform ability to abandon your support obligations, regardless (as was the case in 1834), I don’t see how anything relevant can be taken from that example.“given that currently, women have children despite the negative financial consequences;”As I showed above, government and child support negate the negative financial consequences you have listed.“given that single mothers are the most likely people to be on welfare”And men are the most likely to be homeless and/or dead (via Workplace death, suicide or street violence).“you have not made a convincing argument that the birth rate to single mothers would drop enough as to be economically sustainable for everyone. “And you haven’t proven that it wouldn’t drop “enough”, or that women who choose to have a child against the fathers will, shouldn’t incur the financial consequences. And as equality would demand male reproductive rights, I don’t see the validity of your argument, other then to maintain the status quo of female privilege, the very argument regularly used against men who seek change. Furthermore, As far as social assistance is concerned, in Canada, nothing would change for the mothers. In the US, women would lose part of a significant financial incentive to trap and force men, against their will, into financial servitude, and I don’t see this as a bad thing. An unjust system should not be maintained simply because the solution “may” not be economically sustainable for those who choose to abuse that unjust system. If they choose to have a baby, even though the man doesn’t want to, it is her choice to do so, and she should be the one to carry the burdens. If she wanted help, she’d find a man who wanted a baby.“Do you have any facts to argue this point?”No, I don’t (though I suspect they are out there). That’s why I presented it the way I did, IE, a thought.“Where did I ever say or imply that women should be forced to have children?”By the assertion that her having a baby means there is a child that must be supported (by the man). There is only a baby because she made a choice, several in fact, to get there. If she had no choice in the matter, then I would agree the responsibility should be 50/50, but she isn’t forced, therefore he should not be ether.“It is at this moment because there is no other viable way.”There is a viable way… GIVE MEN A CHOICE!!! Your arguments have not even come close to proving that a woman can not support a child without a man’s support, and as such, as a woman is capable of supporting a child on her own, without a man, there is a viable option… IE if she really, really wants the child, she can do it on her own, because as even you acknowledge, she is not incapable of doing that.“If you had an actual solution to the economics of this problem”But I do. If a woman insists on having a child, against the wish’s of the man involved, make her as accountable for the responsibilities of raising that child as she was for the choice to have the child in the first place.
>Part 3“My point is that there are certain life events that we do despite the financial hit. Some women have children.”But currently, there isn’t really a financial hit for a woman to have a child with a man who does not want one.“I don’t want anyone forced into anything it is entirely their choice to accept the consequences of that.”Except men forced into child support, so women can “do” that life event without the need to sustain that financial hit. A married couple takes a financial hit for having a child, as their income before child ether doesn’t change or decreases (due to time taken off or downsizing career), yet, you don’t think it’s reasonable for a single woman to incur this same thing if she chooses to do so without the support of a man. Does this not actually encourage women to stay single and have a child (and then find a man to be with)?“It is a loss men will never have to face,”Not true. If men were given equal rights and responsibilities with regards to their children, IE, equal parental leave (UK) and Equal shared custody in divorce (not to mention a choice as to whether or not to have a child), plus if women were more willing to consider men who make less then them (and thus, the men would make the career sacrifices for children, that is the economically sound decision), then the reasons for women making less due to being a mother may very well be incurred by men as well. Separated fathers tend to HAVE to work more just to pay the support plus cost of living… Plus they tend not to have much to do most nights due to not having their kids. Fathers who are still with their child’s mother tend to be the one who makes (more due to hypergamy (generalization, not meant to be indicative of all cases)), and thus are the ones who stay at work when additional money is needed or wanted (After all, are you going to get the higher earner to come home early to take care of the kids while the low earner gets overtime?). These are why men are typically considered better options. This is changing, but will require men to be considered equal in family regards before women can truly benefit. Feminism has demanded equality in the workplace, but still hordes dominance of the family influence. That dominance of the family influence will always have an impact on the workplace, unless that dominance in family is given up in favour of equality. I have no sympathy for this kind of “unfair” treatment of mothers, so long as it is a consequence of men’s discriminatory treatment in family regards.“Are you asking me this because some of my information is wrong?”As I’ve shown above, in the links to welfare payments by province, yes, you are very wrong when you claim single women and single mothers get the same (basic or otherwise) assistance. Simply having a child tends to increase the base amount (not including child benefits) by 50% or more. Further child based benefits effectively doubles (or more) the total potential assistance.
>Oh, I forgot. I was under the impression it was illegal to ask in an interview if a person has children?