>Family planning: Not a Dude Issue

>But you use privilege like a dirty word. My guess is that you have not been as fortunate, and for that, I am sorry. Oh, quite incorrect. I was raised white, male, middle class. I'm privileged as fuck. What you need to realize is that this isn't personal.When I use "privileged" as a pejorative what I mean is people who benefit from their privilege and yet deny that it exists, or that it's a bad thing. Or most often both.But your characterization of Marxists (of which I'm not really one) as being jealous of people with more privilege than them is laughably predictable. Marx himself was not underprivileged, you know. He was an academic, and by no means poor or working class. But conservatives do like to pretend that that leftists are really just jealous of the rich.

>"What you need to realize is that this isn't personal."Given the insults you have levied against Natasha, and in the past against me, I'd have to say you routinely make it personal. You have demonstrated repeatedly a vitriol towards anyone who speaks for men's rights, but doesn't do so in a manner that first prostrates themselves to the feminist ideology."When I use "privileged" as a pejorative what I mean is people who benefit from their privilege and yet deny that it exists, or that it's a bad thing. Or most often both."You mean like feminists with regards to anything woman and family? IE, Family courts, reproductive rights, child services…Or perhaps you mean like how government is packed with men like you and David, men who put feminist needs first, while also having a ministry dedicated to women's needs, and then denying women have any influence or advantage in government?

>IT was spam filtered and is up now.

>Kratch- I'm not trying to "have it both ways"; don't put words into my mouth. My question is only one of economic fairness and practicality: being as how the medical system/parental leave/wage differences are, how would "opting out" even work? Being as that 90% of welfare recipients are single mothers, and 50% live below the poverty line, I honestly have no idea how you came to the conclusion that children can be raised in a financially stable environment without any sort of child support. Wouldn't it be more sensible to assume that if men were given the right to relinquish their parental obligations (which, btw, I'm not opposed to the idea, if there was a way in which to make it work) there would be MORE need for government welfare, much like in 1834? 

>"Kratch, do explain to me how women secretly dominate the world"I've never said women secretly rule the world, I said they have advantages in tat government officials are often feminist oriented, and thus, put their needs first, therefor, claims of "most politician's are men, therefor men have a voice" is denying the privilege women receive by having men like TriP, who has actually said "Men's issues get enough attention/money in our society" (despite virtually no men's abuse shelters, prostate cancer getting less then half the research funding (not to say anything of the awareness campaign funding), men still being denied their own children and any chance of fairness in family courts, etc etc).As to the personal assumptions about me and my character, I'll simply ignore them as an attempt to shame me into silence."Sure they do. This is why abortion is under attack everywhere"If you can't see the fact that abortion itself is controversial, and thus, even feminist men aren't immune to disagreement over the subject, add to that the fact that the government refuses to fund abortion (I presume it's due to the controversial nature), except in specific circumstances, an agreement PP violated, and you have a reasonable explanation for why their funding got cut, rather then relying on some conspiracy theory that the government is out to get women. Always the victims with you, isn't it?"because women secretly love to have lots of babies they can't afford"Women have an ample supply of birth control options. If that's not good enough, then I will reply with the exact same phrase given to any man who speaks up about men's reproductive rights and being forced to have children they can't afford…"If you don't want to take responsibility for your actions, keep your pants on and quit whining."

>bathorie: wouldn't it be more sensible to assume that if men were given the right to relinquish their parental obligations (which, btw, I'm not opposed to the idea, if there was a way in which to make it work) there would be MORE need for government welfare, much like in 1834?That's the big issue here. The point is that there is a child that needs care and attention and that costs money. The only way it would make sense to allow fathers to not pay child support would be if the govt itself offered enough child support for the kid to not be horribly deprived. And that would mean a lot more money to single moms. And I think we all can predict where most MRAs would stand on that issue. Heck, kratch has given us a pretty good clue with his contention that women are having babies to collect a "paycheck" so they can get by "without working for a living."

>"That's the big issue here. The point is that there is a child that needs care and attention and that costs money."But that isn't necessarily the case. If a man was given the right to opt out (not of children already born as of the date implemented, but of any potential births going forward from that point on), then a woman would need to think very carefully before she even decided to keep the baby. If she choose to keep the child, despite knowing the father may choose not to support it, that is her choice and her responsibility. Not the fathers, not the governments, HERS. Why is this such a difficult concept for feminists to grasp, the idea that woman can and should be responsible for their own choices? Why is it the governments responsibility to support a mother and child? If she was not capable of supporting the child herself, she should not have had the baby, and it would likely be better off with a different family. "Heck, kratch has given us a pretty good clue with his contention that women are having babies to collect a "paycheck" so they can get by "without working for a living.""So you deny this happens? You deny that a woman who is living off social assistance anyways (particularly in the US) is better off financially with a child then without? I'm not claiming that that is the motive for all women, or even most, but I do believe that there are enough doing so, particularly those living on the poverty line or bellow, to explain the numbers you all keep providing to oppose men's reproductive rights.

>Prime example of why men should be given reproductive rights…http://www.lasisblog.com/2011/02/26/man-receives-oral-sex-ordered-to-pay-child-support/

>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

>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.

>“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.

>" 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."I've never said anything of the sort. In fact, it is you who are demanding the reverse, that all a womans 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.