What exactly have you read? As you indicate, speaking up for men’s rights is not the same as being anti-women. Discriminating against men is just as evil as discriminating against women or blacks or Jews or …
Child support is not alimony.
Well, why should a child’s fate rest on how wealthy her/his married parents are? What’s the difference? Shit happens. Sometimes your parents are rich and sometimes they’re not.
The woman has an equal responsibility to raise the child, does she not? (I’ll answer my own question; she does.)
meh.
blindboyard, I see you are very dissatisfied with the system as it exists currently.
Exactly how do you propose it should work instead?
I’m not a MRA, and I don’t hate women, but I think I can understand where the feelings come from. I have been through things in my life and have experience dealing with extreme emotions, and working on thinking through things, forcing myself not to let my bad experiences make me think the worst of people or to stereotype/scapegoat. That said, I believe most people have a much lower capacity to process things. People love to stereotype and scapegoat. It’s easy.
What I mean is, if you are a guy ( especially a “nice” and/or “good” guy) and you’ve been in any significant relationship that did not work out, you’ve probably felt screwed over by at least one woman. You’ve likely seen her/them encouraged by friends, family, society to be flighty and follow her “happiness” or some mystical bullshit to your detriment. Likely at the same time, as a man, you are told to be responsible and sent contradicting messages by society and your loved ones. When this happens once, maybe she was a “bad one.” When it happens a few times, you probably develop a profile of “a woman” based on your history and then apply this a THE profile of all women, because it’s been your total experience with them.
Sure plenty of guys are complete assholes and neglect and abuse their GFs/wives, but there are also plenty of “good guys” who don’t cheat, are respectful, and work hard to provide for their families. I’m sure we’ve all heard about guys who “went out for milk and never came back” or had 2 families or similar things, but I’m not sure men have really ever been encouraged and paid to abandon or destroy their families. Women, on the other hand, are often encouraged to leave their faithful husbands, break up their families, and receive payment for it, for the slightest bit of spoiled princess “logic.”
I’ve had 2 significant relationships with women that ended terribly and let me see that these women were not “who I thought they were,” and they felt supported and emboldened by their family and media/society to be awful people and treat others terribly. FWIW, in both cases I did not chose the women based on finding the most sexually attractive mate. In each case I honestly valued what I thought were their great personal traits ( caring, love of family, intelligence,etc) and loyalty. And to be honest, my experiences with choosing women for reasons other than looks/sexiness make me now believe I was doing it all wrong and that IS the best way. Because women who are not attractive and have good BFs/Husbands seem just as likely to believe that they “deserve” much better at some point and would rather chase some delusions than be in a loving family with men who attempt to have one. When you are “nice guy” and you get shit on multiple times by what you perceive as “good women”, who then want to punish you and receive residual income for their shitty behavior, what’s the point? I don’t hate women, but it’s gotten to the point that there’s nothing that shocks me when it comes to female behavior. But just as I know that I am not a “typical male,” I guess it makes sense that there are non-typical females still out there somewhere.
Where did you get such an idea?
No, she can put up the child for adoption or just abandon it at a designated place with no repercussions, and with the father having no right to stop it. So we’re dealing with a situation where women choose whether the child comes into the world, and choose whether they will then have any responsibility for it, while men have no choice after the sex act and will be given as much responsibility as the mother chooses.
So, as women were once told, when abortion was illegal, they should keep their legs shut if they didn’t want to be mothers, men are told the same now. The law used to be the same for both sexes, if a pregnancy results from sex you’re fucked. Now abortion is legal, because it’s her body and her choice. But when it’s his body, it’s not his choice, even though as nature gave her the control of the foetus nature gave him the ability to walk away.
Cite? A father has to consent for an adoption to go forward: a woman might lie and claim the father is unknown, but that’s perjury. Babies have been returned to fathers when it was discovered that they were not notified about their fatherhood. It’s a nightmare most adoptive parents have and why they tend to insist that a father is named and volunteers to relinquish his rights.
It’s true that “safe haven” laws allow a person to abandon an infant without legal repercussions, and if no one steps forward later to claim that infant, the infant will be adopted out. However, taking advantage of “safe haven” laws is not something only a woman can do: if a father snuck out at night and dropped the newborn off at the hospital, and the mother, for whatever reason, did not go to the police or otherwise go retrieve the baby (say, she was stationed overseas for a year), you’d have all the same legal issues when she asserted her claim to the child that you would have if the sexes had been reversed.
The father has exactly the same right as the mother to do those things - the mother has no right to put the child up for adoption if the father objects ,acknowledges paternity and wants custody , and if either legal parent abandons a child at a safe haven there are no criminal repercussions and the other parent can obtain custody.
The difference between men and women is in the practicalities, not the legalities. Yes, it’s easier for a woman to conceal the existence of a child or dropping it off at a safe-haven. But she won’t be able to conceal it if he knows she’s given birth and knows she doesn’t have the child . At that point, he can choose whether to obtain custody and file for child support , consent to an adoption, or just stay out of it and let things continue without his involvement.
I don’t know about the US-based MRA groups, but I do get a feeling that whenever men complain about gender issues, it is typical for people (men and women) to label them misogynist or just ridicule them for not being “manly”.
I would not claim that men overall have it worse than women, but there are legitimate issues and they do tend to get dismissed derisively.
Having several types of inequalities that hit different genders does not make things “even” as if this is some zero-sum game. The logical conclusion of that would be, if there are too few inequalities facing men, better artificially introduce some, in order to make things fair!
No, it would be better to reduce all inequalities. If there are ones you cannot reduce as much, eliminating the ones that you can is better than not doing anything at all, even if this leads to a perceived imbalance.
It would only be a real comparison if the men who get hit with unfair custody or payment awards are the same ones who harass or attack women.
Like, say, balancing the “inequality” of women having the option to abort by giving men the option to walk away from child support obligations but not giving women that same option? Because that seems to be blindboyard’s thinking.
I do agree with your wider point, but there is always something a little chaffing about someone acting as if the inequality that might affect them someday is the greatest threat, even if it’s relatively minor in the grand scheme of things. Which is not to say that people shouldn’t advocate for things in which they have a personal interest: of course they will, and of course they should. But it’s hard not to roll ones eyes a bit when the advocacy takes on a tone of “You have no idea how terrible it is”, as if white men are facing a unique level of discrimination that others just can’t recognize or understand. It’s the whole “Yes, yes, rape’s bad. But false rape accusations? There’s a fucking travesty. That’s a god damn epidemic. There has to be a way to punish these whores because this is a problem that just might someday affect me.” Saying “Lots of things in our society are fucked up and we need to move toward greater equality and fairness on all axes” and I will totally agree with you. But when people start saying things like “White men are the last persecuted group in America”, it’s hard to take them seriously.
…and then they probably wouldn’t be unfair, anyway.
This is starting to look like a gun-control thread. “Why should we worry about X, when so many more people are killed by Y?”
Since the subject of rape has been introduced, one concrete example of anti-male discrimination is that a woman who accuses a man of rape is entitled to anonymity in the U.K. But the accused is not.
Hey guys, first post here.
I don’t think that it is as much an anti-woman sentiment as it is the fervor and zeal found within a new convert to any movement. I’d compare it to a new born again Christian being “on fire” for the Lord.
IMHO the truth is that most men don’t realize the importance of men’s rights until they are personally damaged by the family court system and it’s divorce/child support/custody laws, one sided reproductive rights, or until they are raped and ignored by law enforcement or they are displaced (arrested and/or jailed) over false accusations of domestic abuse or rape.
In my experience it was the family court stuff. I fully support men’s rights however I don’t hate women. I think that true men’s rights activists and feminists want the same thing… equality in all things good, bad, or otherwise. Its the extremists that put out that hateful vibe.
Let’s look at some reality.
In reality, men can and do take advantage of birth control. It is 100% possible, and not particularly difficult, for a man to choose to only have protected sex when they are not trying to conceive. Failure rates for double-protection are statistically insignificant. This is what most people do want they do not want children, and it generally works.
Abortion is not a parallel here. Abortion is not about giving women a pass on raising children, but rather giving women the autonomy to make their own medical decisions. It has nothing to do with responsibility or children. It’s about what goes on between a woman and her doctor.
In reality, child support rarely is a factor in one night stands and casual sexual relationships, as most people take care to use reliable protection with strangers. Child support actually is most likely when a committed couple divorces or breaks up. Quite often, this is after the child is born. Not surprisingly, this often happens after the novelty of having a baby wears off, the work begins, and one partner decides they are no longer interested in being a parent.
In reality, joint custody is the norm in most areas. It is normal for men to have custody of their child and not have to pay child support. Men can and do hold sole custody. Usually, to do so, you must be the primary caregiver, which many men prefer not to do. But there is nothing to stop men from taking days off work to care for sick children, dressing kids, preparing and serving their food, and otherwise doing the things that primary caregivers do. When men lose custody battles, it’s most often a situation where they man has previously contributed very little to the child’s daily life.
In reality, in most cases, when a non-custodial parent is paying child support, it is because they actively do not want custody and prefer to pay child support. This is not surprising. Being a custodial parent is more expensive than paying child support, and many people prefer the lifestyle options available to non-custodial parents.
We can make up scenarios until the day is done. And I’m sure that sometimes they happen. But in actual real life reality, child support happens when a parent decides they’d rather not have to deal with a kid they played a willing role in making.
Anonymity in what sense? He still has the right to face his accuser, no? And do male sex crime accusers enjoy the same protection?
That’s true but it’s more than that.
In our society, being helpless and powerless and a pathetic victim is not something that men are comfortable with. Nor is society comfortable with or accepting of men in that role.
Therefore you will have a lot of men who will willfully deny - or at least refuse to face - the reality of inequities which break against them. It’s in order to project the confident aura of strength that society expects from and values in men.
It’s only guys who have been really really screwed over who are willing to break this taboo, for the most part.
I imagine this also answers the OP’s question, in part.
Can I play too?
In reality most women are not raped. Therefore rape is no big deal.
Or are you saying something different?
i am pretty sure that male rape victims are afforded the same protection. It’s not about protecting women, but rather about protecting rape victims from common and well-known threats to their safety and happiness. We do the same thing in other situations where a witness to a crime may be putting themselves in danger by testifying.
We don’t generally protect the anonymity of people accused of crime, unless they are minors. It doesn’t really matter if it’s assault, sexual assault, or whatever. It’s not something our legal system generally does.
So it’s not a tit-for-tat man vs. woman thing. It’s just one of the many, many things that are different about being a defendant versus a plaintiff. It’s not surprising that our legal system treats plaintiffs and defendants differently.
Actually, that’s a great parallel. Our legal system sucks at finding justice for rapists. If you rape someone, it is quite likely you will get away with it. If you are raped, your assailant will most likely not face any consequences for their crime.
But it’s the best we’ve got, given our constitution and the realities of sexual assault. It doesn’t create justice in every situation. Indeed, its not even close. But our current sexual assault laws do a reasonable job of discouraging sexual assault and otherwise maintaining public order. Sexual assaults are far from perfect, but they basically do what they set out to do given the various constraints. There is probably some fine tuning to do to make the laws more just, but basically it’s on the right track and there may not be much that can be legally and morally done to make them better.
Likewise, our child support laws do not create perfect justice in absolutely every contingency. But they do a reasonable job of making sure our country’s children are taken care of without an undo burden on bystanding taxpayers, who after all didn’t even get the fun of that one night stand.