Don’t blame me. I’m just the thread psychic!
People keep bringing up that “it’s biology”. No, it isn’t just biology. There is a value judgment being made by society
Consider the following two cases:
-
A pregnant woman wants to carry the child to term, but the father doesn’t want it. If society is structured so that she can have the baby and still demand money from the man, the guy is burdened with 18 years of paying for a kid he doesn’t want
-
A pregnant woman doesn’t want the baby, but the father does. If society is structured so that she is forced to have the baby and possibly give it to the father once born, the woman is burdened with 9 months of pregnancy she doesn’t want.
Being burdened with 18 years of supporting someone against your will and being burdened with 9 months of pregnancy against your will are both bad. Today, in the US, the decision has been made that the latter is inconceivable but the former is OK.
But that’s just a judgment call. There is no universal law proving that the former is OK and the latter is inconceivable. It’s a decision we have collectively made. So, it’s not “just biology”.
So they deserve to live with betrayal instead? Way to go if you want to reward the slut who betrayed him. “Bruised ego” doesn’t even come close to the level of victimization that the man goes through here.
I was envisioning a system more like the IRS, one with random audits and where the fear of being audited was enough to ensure (to the extent possible) compliance. Such a system would require much less input from the court and would go a long way to answering the question of if there actually is a problem with misallocated child support or whether the whole issue is just a red herring.
Oh those poooooooor men. You know that women also live with kids that remind them of a betrayal, right? There are women in areas where abortion is not safe who live with kids who were conceived during a rape. I’m not trying to get into a “whose pain is bigger argument,” here. But I have very, very little patience for “men as victims” arguments.
You don’t unlove a kid you raised. You can’t tell a kid who calls you daddy that you no longer love them like you did. That your love was, in fact, actually pretty conditional. Do you have any, any idea what that does to a kid? How you are very likely going to be handing them an abandonment complex and a bunch of daddy issues that are going to screw up their adult relationships?
Get over yourself. It’s a bad scene, for sure, and I feel bad for any guy stuck in it. But “cutting off all contact” with a kid you raised for any reason is a cold-hearted and screwed up thing to do. There are things that are bigger than your pride in this world.
That said, I’m talking about a kid over the age of, say, six. A kid who will remember “the day daddy decided he didn’t love me and didn’t ever want to see me again.”
That is not true. No woman gets duped into raising a kid she doesn’t know is not hers.
What you have patience with is irrelevant.
A man has a right not to be forced to be cuckolded. He was wronged and he has every right to get the hell away from that situation.
That’s the mother’s fault, not the father’s fault.
The only thing you care about here is sticking it to the men and helping women screw guys over. Your whole argument is based on defending and excusing the women who betray their husbands.
Women will only learn not to do this when they find out that when you dupe a man into raising another man’s kid, he can walk away and leave you high and dry.
I hope a LOT of men do this just to spite the anti-male crowd. I hope they force guys like you to fight to enslave them. I doubt you’ll do much else beside stand there and be mad as they flip the middle finger and free themselves from those women’s treachery.
Just you try and stop them.
Of course not, almost no one does. Charities almost exclusively use pictures of women and children for just that reason; almost nobody cares if men are exploited, abused, impoverished, suffering or dying.
Men can’t be victims. They’re men after all. Disposable creatures the lot of them! </satire>
You realize that in the 2nd case, the mother will have to pay child support, right? So it’s no different than the 1st case, except the genders are swapped. Oh yeah, and the small detail that she has a physical burden of 9 months plus a financial burden of at least 18 years. Wow, would you look at that!
So you haven’t proven that it’s not just biology. It very obviously is. If women weren’t the ones who carried pregnancies, they would cease to have the so-called upper hand in all of this. I really have to wonder why so many people on this board seem unwilling to accept this really basic fact of life. Birds and the Bees 101.
Actually, no. It has nothing to do with men or women. It has everything to do with the one person you left out of this conversation entirely…the kid.
Anyway, when “I love you forever and you are safe with me” is the first lie you’ve ever been told, it’s a tough one to process. It pretty much screws your ability to trust anyone for a long while after. Not an okay thing to do to a kid just because his mom messed around.
It is a decision we have collectively made based on the realities of biology at the various stages. Even though things are not perfect the laws are based on years of dealing with the issue and weighing rights vs responsibilities and real world realities.
Considering the issues we already have with dead beat Dads I’d say giving men a legal out to avoid supporting children they father in the name of equity would set a very bad precedent for behavior. Imagine what would happen in a generation or two once males realized they didn’t have to be concerned about accidental pregnancy.
I’d support laws that limit welfare to unwed mothers, such as you get X dollars for 2 children and that’s all you get, even with more children. Available and perhaps free contraception, and other measures to encourage women to be more responsible with their procreation as well.
Obviously you have never seen Overboard with Russell and Hawn.
That’s not a bad idea but I assume in many cases just shelter food and clothes are enough to warrant the child support.
I used to take my daughter school shopping and keep my receipts to deduct from child support but that was a verbal agreement.
It’s possible to have an ongoing good relationship with a child even when they are not yours, without being financially responsible.
I still have a fine relationship with my stepson even though his mother and I divorced when he was pre teen.
As painful as it must be to discover you’ve been betrayed and the child you thought was yours is not, if your love for that child, that human being, is sincere the betrayal doesn’t need to destroy it. You can continue to share love and make a personal decision about how much you want to give financially.
Biology says that’s untrue.
You seem to be claiming that since she had more opportunities to decide whether to keep the child she assumes sole responsibility but that’s not true either.
Let’s assume both parties are surprised by an unwanted pregnancy. At that point she has the choice of abortion or carrying to term since biology dictates only she can carry the child. If she carries to term she can decide whether to keep the child or give it up for adoption. The father also has a choice there because even if she chooses adoption, he can partition for custody. It’s not all her choice.
If she chooses to keep the child then the needs and rights of the child are included in the mix and that outweighs the father’s wishes to not support the child. You’re making it all about the woman’s choices, when in fact it has a lot to do with the child’s needs and rights.
Apparently HRoark43 can. Which makes me think he doesn’t have kids, but who knows. It’s a scary, sick, contempt worthy attitude though.
As I mentioned earlier, I’d be provisionally (would have to think about the unintended effects more) OK with an idea that very early in a child’s life, if a husband/male partner finds out the child his wife/female partner bore wasn’t his, that he would not be held financially responsible. But if I was to find out tomorrow that my son had a different biological father, it would alter my view of my ex-wife, but wouldn’t change how I felt about him at all.
Der Trihs - I can’t dig out the exact quote, but I remember reading something from Nadine Strossen directed at Katie MacKinnon. She was talking about pornography, and how the opposition camp included both feminists and women-hating zealots like Jerry Fallwell. Her comment was along the lines that if certain people are your allies, you need to look very hard at your stance to make sure you are on the right side.
Well, I’ve done accountings for that sort of situation. I’ve definitely seen purchase/repair of a car approved, even if it isn’t 100% used for transporting the dependent.
The bottom line is I want my son to have a good life, a happy life, and to grow up well adjusted. I don’t think requiring my ex-wife to shiver in the cold, to keep receipts for everything she purchases, and to eat cat food is the best way of achieving that.
In many cultures and families biological parents never express their feelings in word or deeds that way. Virtually every person I knew growing up understood that our families loved us because we were family members (related by DNA) and that love was always conditionally on us being loyal and obedient to the family. I honestly think unconditional love is unhealthy for a child and will lead to them growing up to be psychopaths.
In parts of the world with high levels of corruption and bribery you can do just that.