Comments worth reading
If you haven't done so already, take a look at the interesting comments in the "Gotcha pregnancy" thread, they are worth a read.
posted by Helen at 3:02 PM
Monday, April 13, 2009
Contributors
Previous Posts
- Gadgets that work
- Drudge linked to a Rasmussen report today with the...
- PJTV: Gotcha pregnancies and men's rights
- Bill Whittle has a brilliant piece up at PJM: A me...
- New book on boys
- Amazingly, Britain will cut off funds to domestic ...
- "We are now a Nation filled with overgrown adolesc...
- John Hawkins: 50 things every 18-year-old should k...
- Narcissism and victimhood: A deadly combination?
- Complex analysis: Men are slobs!
53 Comments:
What is that saying... something about leading a horse to honesty? Nay, my good friend. Some just cannot tell the difference.
I read all this while I am looking for a good woman and wife. For the right one, the money isn't an issue (though trust always will be). For a good family, money cannot compare. But to be cheated... And they wonder why some men become violent.
Then again, I will stay celibate until I am married, so trickery isn't available. I got "lucky" in my earlier "conquistador" era. I found out about a woman who was poking holes in a friend's condoms, I caught a girlfriend doing her own little tricks, and I know that scene. As I said, I lucked out. Perhaps now that I am settled, I can find a good woman as I try to be a right man.
I am not sure what can be done about the bias, however. We cannot seem to elect politicians who are pro-American in the broader sense of the term, perhaps even in the simpler meaning, how can we possibly find politicians who are moral and can engage such issues?
I have given up on the state as a place for hope (long ago). So, it is in my hands and only personal. That is probably as good as it gets. Men are going to have to become chaste. That would change the thing a great deal. I don't know, however, if we can do it. I do know, if things keep going as they are, we will continue to decline as a society. Then again, I think that is what the gov wants. It gives the gov an excuse to butt into things it shouldn't.
Just some thoughts.
The next time I read about the gender wars, I promise not to listen to songs about prostitutes (Lili Marleen, Marlene Dietrich).
On topic though, it seems to go around arguing the same points over and over.
To me it seems more about intense emotional reactions when someone has a different viewpoint. Not all of the posts, but certainly more than a few.
Trey
Doom wrote: "I can find a good woman as I try to be a right man."
Outstanding, I wish I had said it that well.
Trey
I just can't get over how some focus all their animosity for the duped father and not the scheming mother.
Was the father foolish? Yes. But the mother was far worse.
Fraud is indeed far worse than foolishness in my book. It is a willfull choice to deceive and profit from that deceit.
We need a good Catholic here to parse it better.
Trey
There are only two solutions to the issue of "oops" paternity fraud.
1. Make it equal. If these women thought that the men they trick would have a 40-50% chance of getting custody and child support themselves, they would probably use the donor clinic or pick a willing partner for the arrangement.
Or
2. Give women all the responsibility, which would be the price they pay for having all the power. Child support would have to be a mutual arrangement tied to visitation, but he would not be legally obligated.
Our society isn't ready for either option. Too many votes to buy otherwise. But the plain and ugly truth is that as long as custody and financial support for the woman are automatic, it will continue to happen. Unless, of course, men write off women altogether, which may be a reality that the feminists have set up for their daughters.
This is also why women are divorcing their husbands at such high rates--if getting the house, kids, and money weren't automatic --indeed, if they were as big a risk for the woman as the man--there would be more effort to make it work. People who have all the options have less tolerance and effort.
Trust, are you seeing animosity towards duped fathers in that thread? I'm seeing a few people suggest that if men don't want to be duped they take responsibility for their reproduction, or lack thereof. Is that really animosity?
@Laura(southernxyl) said... "Trust, are you seeing animosity towards duped fathers in that thread? I'm seeing a few people suggest that if men don't want to be duped they take responsibility for their reproduction, or lack thereof. Is that really animosity?"
__________
Not all. But yes, I saw some animosity.
I did see animosity from a couple male posters against women in general, which I found unnecessary as well. But I ignored them because they were off topic.
Insofar as taking responsibility for their reproduction, the question is not whether they know the risk and were willing to take it, it is that they did not know the risk--they were foolish enough to trust reproductive prevention was in place. There is a difference. More to the point, why should the person who schemed them get so richly rewarded for it?
I guess there wasn't the animosity you wanted to see toward the women b/c no one was really defending the fraudulent pregnancy thing. How could that be defended? I think everybody took it as given that tricking someone into something as significant as parenthood is pretty wretched.
I don't know what they teach in sex ed these days. For a man to have sex with a woman between the age of consent and, I don't know, 45 or so, and not realize that there is a risk of pregnancy - well, I don't know what to say about that.
Allow me to give this analogy as well...
Let's say a woman has sex with a man who says he had a vasectomy then turns up pregant. He admits he lied to her because he wanted a child, or because he liked it better without, would that be a failiing on the part of her "responsibility for reproduction or lack thereoff?"
What if she made him wear a condom and got pregnant. She may think "I knew the risk" initially, but what if after the fact he had the gall to admit he poked a hole in the condom because he wanted to impregnate her. Again, a failing on the part of her "responsibility or lack thereoff"?
Think about it. He likely knew the risks, but he was given deceptive information in regards to how much risk he was taking. Worse, we reward the person who deceived him with 20% of his money for a couple decades.
I can't believe how many women talk about "his responsibility" and "him keeping it in his pants" (on the other thread) but if either of the two scenarios i described took place they wouldn't blame the woman who was lied to.
Of course, the mother could in those cases legally kill it for her own convenience and no one would call her a 'dead beat mom'.
@Laura(southernxyl) said... "realize that there is a risk of pregnancy - well, I don't know what to say about that."
___________
They all know there is a risk, they were just lied to about how great the risk was.
Maybe I'm a bit more sensitive to this since it happened in my family.
My wife's brother was tricked. His girlfriend was on the pill, and he always wore condoms because he did not trust the pill alone. She got pregnant anyway, and admitted to my wife that she went off the pill and poked needles through his condom. She was hoping he would marry her pregant.
He not only knew the risks, he took his own precautions, and still got duped. I'm sure she regrets it every time she cashes his check.
"Let's say a woman has sex with a man who says he had a vasectomy then turns up pregant. He admits he lied to her because he wanted a child, or because he liked it better without, would that be a failiing on the part of her 'responsibility for reproduction or lack thereoff?'"
Abso-damn-lutely.
"What if she made him wear a condom and got pregnant. She may think 'I knew the risk' initially, but what if after the fact he had the gall to admit he poked a hole in the condom because he wanted to impregnate her. Again, a failing on the part of her 'responsibility or lack thereoff'?"
No, the condom-hole-poking is a whole different ballgame, on both sides. I wouldn't blame the duped man or woman there - except - I wonder how a person gets in the position of having sex with someone they either know so little of as not to realize they would do such a horrible thing, or know they'd do it and don't care. But I'm of the rapidly-dwindling school of "wait for marriage" thought so I guess I just don't get the casual sex thing at all.
Am opposed to abortion.
Cross-posted with your last two.
People believe what they want. Had a man tell me on a newspaper comment thread that a woman should know when she's fertile, so if she tells him she's not fertile he shouldn't have to wear a condom. And he didn't want to wear one if she told him that, b/c he didn't want to hurt her feelings - but was terrified that he'd get "caught". Did nobody pay attention during sex ed?
Laura, I enjoy the dialogue.
I'm opposed to abortion as well, but the fact remains, after conception, women have rights and men don't. Before hand, we are in agreement, it is a different situation.
Insofar as the condom poking, we were all stunned that his girlfriend did that. We never dreamed it was intentional until she confided in my wife. What is worse is that she actually admitted it.
@Laura(southernxyl) said... "People believe what they want. Had a man tell me on a newspaper comment thread that a woman should know when she's fertile, so if she tells him she's not fertile he shouldn't have to wear a condom. And he didn't want to wear one if she told him that, b/c he didn't want to hurt her feelings - but was terrified that he'd get "caught". Did nobody pay attention during sex ed?"
That was foolish on his part. Even honest people mess up with the rhythm method (or pills), not to mention the failure rate.
I won't give too much detail, but I always insisted on at least two protections, usually three, before I was married.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
@mark hays said... "Of course you're all little pussies that won't do anything about it so things just continue to get worse."
________________
The last guy who kept throwing the pussy word around so much here got into a nasty argument with me. I turned out to be wrong about the guy and regretted it ever since (sorry Jeff), so I won't fire back now.
But I will say this about the "pussy" argument...
A woman I used to work with made a comment about how women in some middle east countries have to cover their hair and walk behind their men, and she proclaimed "I'd never put up with that." Yes she would. With the law of the land on the men's side in those countries, making it legal for her husband or the authorities to beat and prosecute her, she would submit to it.
Though it is not violent, yet, men get jailed and punished severely in this regard, and laws like this are hard to reverse or fight in the current political climate, court mentality, and media. The pendelum will likely swing back, if we survive, but it won't be tomorrow.
mark hays said...
Currently the laws are 100% PURE EVIL and work from a basis of PURE FRAUD. Isn't that really interesting? And children grow up fatherless in 50% of American homes because women are evil selfish scumbagrs.
Of course you're all little pussies that won't do anything about it so things just continue to get worse.
Here's something funny about to bite women in the ASS - what goes around comes around bithches- I'm not making this up- it was in the news- GOOGLE IT- of course this isn't TV star trash talk so that isn't something you read:
The Woman's Act:
A sweeping government policy for all new births in the United States has just passed the House of Representatives and is now headed to the Senate. The Mother's Act, if passed, will mandate that all new mothers be screened by means of a list of subjective questions that will determine if each mother is mentally fit to take their newborn home from the hospital.
Just imagine that after your child is born, you are told that you can't take them home since a multiple choice questionnaire wasn't answered correctly. Just imagine being told that the only way you can take your child home is if you or your spouse goes into treatment or on anti-depressants which we know causes psychosis, delusions, and even homocidal thoughts.
It just doesn't make sense. Unfortunately, this bill is on a fast track--No public debate, no public disclosure of the broad impact on our society and that is why we need you to act now!
The Mother's Act violates our Constitutional right to privacy and your right to liberty and it is just outright dangerous. That is why we need you to help stop this. We urgently need you to call and email each Senator on the HELP Committee and tell them you STRONGLY OPPOSE the MOTHER'S ACT and that you are OUTRAGED that there was NO public debate or disclosure on the impact this would have on our society as a whole."
Ha ha of course you won't do anything about it bcause you're all idiots and you don't even believe in freedom. You don't even know what I'm even talking about retards- do you? That's really scary.
Trust,
Look around you - this isn't the Middle East.
@mark hays said... "Look around you - this isn't the Middle East."
______
A few points...
1. I know that.
2. Thank God.
3. It was an analogy. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to give a parrallel of something similar against women to get some women to have a speck of empathy towards men.
Why are you even talking? you don't even make any sense.
I'm talking for the same reason you are, albeit with more civility.
If anyone besides mark here thinks I make no sense, please let me know and I'll apologize to him. Otherwise, I'm just going to ignore his rants from here on.
Probably best not to feed the trolls.
I spent an hour talking to a homeless man yesterday. He was telling me about his ethics. His attitude was that if one doesn't lock their bicycle, they can expect it to be taken. If one leaves their expensive digital camera on a bench, they've pretty much donated it to whoever finds it.
I don't exactly see things that way, but the man had his opinions and he has a right to them. Everybody's ethics are different. But I find it interesting that some men think that all women everywhere should possess a particular set of ethics, their very specific version of right and wrong. This would be a set of ethics which allows a man to have sex with whomever he wants whenever he wants leaving the woman the job of raising any offspring that results or shouldering the entire burden of birth control.
I'm not convinced that men are that calloused and uncaring, so I am willing to think about this a little further. I'm starting to develop the idea that sex is so important to a man causing him to him feel whole, complete and personally satisfied that the very idea that a woman might become pregnant, that the feeling of satisfaction from the sexual experience could be turned into long-term drama and unexpected personal responsibility is emasculating, horrifying, repugnant, potentially humiliating and must be stopped at all costs.
Yeah, Cham, and the idea of getting money is so important to women that rules can be bent and personal responsibility is emasculating, horrifying, repugnant, potentially humiliating and must be stopped at all costs.
Don't women get enough money out of men that they maybe shouldn't be given free run to also get it by fraud?
Or are you willing to use any argument that is even borderline plausible (or not) to try to keep this "freedom" for women?
And with your snotty attitude about men, Cham, you damn well better be fully self-supportive. If you have all that venom but are also getting money out of men (as are MOST women in some way or another), your worth is approaching zero in my eyes.
I think a bunch of folks are talking past each other.
Can we all stipulate that it's wrong for a person to trick another person into pregnancy? Whether it's the man getting tricked, or the woman?
Because that actually is a separate issue from a man getting his pleasure and then walking away from his responsibility.
Laura,
Reading between the lines, you are saying: "Let's hurry up and stipulate that what the women did is wrong and get that over real real fast, so we can focus more time on talking about the man."
What about a woman "getting her pleasure" and walking away (more like killing it)? You seem like a decent person, but have quite the double standard in your criticism. Probably don't recognize it--decades feminist indoctrination has done this to men and women alike.
I'm not saying men should have no responsibility, I'm saying that we shouldn't reward the women in cases like this with big fat checks for two decades. Maybe the men should have equal shot at custody and child support, and incidents like this would quite happening so much.
Wow!I have absolutely nothing in common with any of you! Your ramblings make absolutely no sense and you're all psych drugged out. Sad really. See I have to be at work in an hour- I'm what is called 'employable.'
Is there is anyone on this blog who isn't completely worthless?
Re: Men and responsibility.
As a side note, do you all know that although women are ordered to pay far less child support in the same circumstances as men, their default rates are FAR higher (around double) those of men.
Most women simply don't pay. Somehow "what about the children" doesn't apply when it's women.
What sometimes happens is that there is money flowing from the woman's new husband or boyfriend to her, so she may not work as much or not at all. The court will base her child support on that amount (sometimes it won't even do that), but her REAL lifestyle is actually a lot higher.
The situation is frequently reversed for the man. The court will base child support payments on his actual earnings (in fact, sometimes on what the court "thinks" he could earn if he puts his nose to the grindstone - that's "imputed income"), but his real lifestyle may be lower because he may be supporting a new girlfriend or wife.
That's certainly not how it is in all cases, but money statistically flows from men to women in a relationship.
And women have much higher default rates even with THAT setup (something like 28% for men and over 50% for women). Women on the whole (not all, of course) just don't seem to feel much of a sense of responsibility or shame.
That's right- that's because a woman's love is measured on a CALCULATOR. A woman is incapable of feeling real love or anything real for that matter.
Want some good advice? Keep your distance away from all of them.
"Trust said...
Laura,
Reading between the lines, you are saying: 'Let's hurry up and stipulate that what the women did is wrong and get that over real real fast, so we can focus more time on talking about the man.'"
Well, no. I think nobody is trying to defend deceptive people here. I think it's a given for everyone here that it's wrong to lie and get a person trapped with an unwanted responsibility. If you want to spend time talking about how baaaaad it is, oh it's baaaaad, well, go ahead.
"What about a woman 'getting her pleasure' and walking away (more like killing it)? You seem like a decent person, but have quite the double standard in your criticism. Probably don't recognize it--decades feminist indoctrination has done this to men and women alike."
The post was about men and gotcha pregnancies. If we want to talk about women getting screwed over, that's fine and I'll talk about their responsibilities regarding taking care of themselves. Kind of funny to focus on how men get the shaft and then complain about a double standard. To be clear - I think it's OK to focus on one problem. You don't have to be an equal-opportunity disapprover. But then don't complain when the response is mirrors the one-sidedness of the original complaint.
"I'm not saying men should have no responsibility, I'm saying that we shouldn't reward the women in cases like this with big fat checks for two decades. Maybe the men should have equal shot at custody and child support, and incidents like this would quite happening so much."
No argument here.
Actually, the point of my comment was that when Cham said that about men not doing as they pleased and walking away from responsibility, Tether took that as a defense of gotcha pregnancy. Once again, these are two (2) separate issues.
Laura - "Cham said that about men not doing as they pleased and walking away from responsibility, Tether took that as a defense of gotcha pregnancy. Once again, these are two (2) separate issues."Indeed, they are definitely two separate issues.
Yet, I doubt the (Christian) feminists and their mangina supporters can find anyone here who would support a deadbeat like this guy:
http://www.theweeklyvice.com/2009/04/man-wanted-for-owing-half-million.html
And while you (just for one example, not to single you out) do acknowledge that the women who have duped men have behaved badly, there still seems to be something of a consensus that men (first and foremost) are the ones who need to take precautions.
Despite the extensive use of shaming language towards that ends, I actually do agree. Men ought to wise up to the potential outcomes of their foolish decisions.
Thus, in the interest of "equality" why is it that "slut shaming" seems to be no longer in vogue (if tolerated at all)?
Why don't we complain that the 13 women who had children by this one dead-beat "Should have known" that he was a untrustworthy "bad boy" type. They should have know that there was a very high probability that if he got them pregnant, he would abandon them. Shouldn't we, as a society, be loudly and repeatedly denouncing the women who put out, unprotected, for the bad boys?
Given that people like Mary are so keen on protecting the tax-payer from the fallout of having to pick up the tab for children who's fathers don't, you'd think we'd hear a lot more condemnation of women who choose their sex partners (and lack of protections) so very foolishly.
Wouldn't making women be more responsible (financially) when they make foolish decisions benefit every one in the long run, protecting tax-payers and forcing women to be more thoughtful about who they have sex with, and under what conditions?
Oops! My bad! In this modern era of womens sexual freedoms we aren't suppose to question womens choices in the men they prefer to f*ck.
"And while you (just for one example, not to single you out) do acknowledge that the women who have duped men have behaved badly, there still seems to be something of a consensus that men (first and foremost) are the ones who need to take precautions."
No. Once again, the post was about men and gotcha pregnancies. If we're going to talk about men being tricked, then yes, it's relevant to say that men need to take precautions. If a woman doesn't want a baby, then the burden is on her to protect herself, first and foremost. That's not what this post is about.
Laura - "No. Once again, the post was about men and gotcha pregnancies."So, you're saying that men getting duped into fatherhood is NOT the same thing as a "gotcha pregnancy"?
Silly me! I thought the post about "Gotcha pregnancies and men's rights" was what gave us this notions (brought up by posters on that thread) that men are still financially responsible for children they father even if they were tricked; and, that in order to avoid such resultant obligations, they would need to always take all necessary precaution (which, from the case linked near the end of that thread, would include not passing out in a location where a women could rape you).
At least, that was what I had gotten out of it. I don't know how I could have gotten it so wrong.
So, seeing as how I'm so hopelessly confused, maybe you could explain to me how men being tricked into fathering children that they did not intend are not "gotcha pregnancies"?
And, where does the stuff about "If a woman doesn't want a baby, then the burden is on her to protect herself, first and foremost" come from?
I was suggesting that if women don't want to have to deal with dead-beats, they shouldn't have unprotected sex with known bad boys. I really don't see that suggestion as being so very different from telling guys not to have sex with women they do not know that they can trust.
How do you see the two suggestion differing?
[note - personally, I think the women who have had babies with bad boy's just wanted to have babies; but they knew that the tax-payers would end up being on the hook for their support, so they didn't bother to apply any meaningful criteria as to whether those bad boys would be able or willing to provide any support before allowing themselves to be impregnated by them. Perhaps you view it differently?]
This comment has been removed by the author.
Good job, slwerner. You were on the mark when you shouted out 'All women sluts and whores." Good times.
There is nothing more than I like than a good stupid POS whores like you who applaudes the SUICIDE of our people. Hey! Abortions- Good Times! 50% Divorces- Let's Party! Oh course you know you're going straight to Hell!
Oh - I forgot you're a feminist so you don't believe in GOD. You'll just end up going nowhere when you die. You're a scumbag and a freak.
"Laura - 'No. Once again, the post was about men and gotcha pregnancies.'So, you're saying that men getting duped into fatherhood is NOT the same thing as a 'gotcha pregnancy'?"
Well, I'm kind of baffled here. I would have said that a man getting duped into fatherhood is the same thing as a "gotcha pregnancy" (unless you are specifically excluding women who may have been duped into motherhood) and I don't know how you could read anything I've written as saying otherwise.
"Silly me! I thought the post about "Gotcha pregnancies and men's rights" was what gave us this notions (brought up by posters on that thread) that men are still financially responsible for children they father even if they were tricked; and, that in order to avoid such resultant obligations, they would need to always take all necessary precaution (which, from the case linked near the end of that thread, would include not passing out in a location where a women could rape you)."
I'm not Mary.
I don't want to see the taxpayers stuck with raising somebody's kid either, but I suspect that the offspring of "gotchas" are a tiny fraction of the total number of children who suffer from irresponsible, improvident behavior on the part of adults. But I will say that men ought to take responsibility for their reproduction, to exactly the same extent that women ought to take for theirs, no more and no less; and I have little patience or sympathy for anybody who passes out anywhere unless they are ill or poisoned. Make of that what you will, but there it is.
"And, where does the stuff about "If a woman doesn't want a baby, then the burden is on her to protect herself, first and foremost" come from?"
Well, it comes from you saying this: "And while you (just for one example, not to single you out) do acknowledge that the women who have duped men have behaved badly, there still seems to be something of a consensus that men (first and foremost) are the ones who need to take precautions." I was telling you that I don't subscribe to this supposed consensus. You keep arguing with arguments I am not making.
"I was suggesting that if women don't want to have to deal with dead-beats, they shouldn't have unprotected sex with known bad boys. I really don't see that suggestion as being so very different from telling guys not to have sex with women they do not know that they can trust.
How do you see the two suggestion differing?"
I don't. Please point out where I have ever, ever said that I do.
"[note - personally, I think the women who have had babies with bad boy's just wanted to have babies; but they knew that the tax-payers would end up being on the hook for their support, so they didn't bother to apply any meaningful criteria as to whether those bad boys would be able or willing to provide any support before allowing themselves to be impregnated by them. Perhaps you view it differently?]" No. I don't.
Are we straight now?
These threads are among the most idiotic I've ever read. Like another thread on Althouse, it appears that many men believe that women have some sort of obligation to give them consequence free sex.
Men, if you are having sex with a woman you don't trust completely, then you are a fucking asshole who deserves pretty much anything you get. And don't give that bullshit about how you can't trust a woman; there are millions of men married to women they do trust for reason.
And what about STDs? You meet a partner and jump right in the sack without protection on their say-so of being healthy?
And what kind of complete moron of a man doesn't supply their own condoms?
I fully expect some of these misogynistic, clueless assholes to come up with some twisted response about how I don't understand that this type of woman TRICK and MANIPULATE men. Yeah, and a certain percentage are completely psycho. So the fuck what? Beyond the idiot rhetoric of woman as temptress and man as innocent victim, whatever happened to NOT HAVING SEX IN THE FIRST PLACE?
You morons remind me of people who find that shiny new car, buy it without an inspection and then complain when it turns out to be a lemon. (Yeah, I did that once only I didn't complain and turn myself into a victim. I accepted responsibility and learned. The guy selling me the car may have been dishonest, but I KNEW BETTER and bought anyway.)
Above all, I surprised at how many whiny, pansy ass misogynistic men there are out there (and aren't the least bit surprised that the only women you attract are skanks and whores.)
Joe sez:
"And don't give that bullshit about how you can't trust a woman; there are millions of men married to women they do trust for reason."
----------
A lot of those married men (statistically) are going to get divorced. From the women they trust. And not all of those divorces are going to be all flowers and baby ducks and happiness.
I had a relative who was similar to you, Joe. He went on and on about how you keep a marriage together for 20 years and what a great, smart guy he was.
And I hope the same thing happens to you as happened to him - because then you'll join the human race and gain some empathy for people.
Women don't have a big sign on them that says "Caution: Manipulative Person".
-----
Why don't you and TMink get together and ponder your reciprocal greatness?
After reading Joe's post, one of the few memories I have from early childhood bubbled up into my consciousness:
When I was in kindergarten (like 40 years ago), we had to all line up to get a hefty vaccination shot in the arm. It was fairly painful.
I was way in the back of the line with a big-mouth named Billy. Billy bullied lots of kids, but I was fairly big even as a kid, so we had an uneasy truce and I even talked to him.
A couple of kids in the front of the line started crying about their shots. Billy was making fun of them. Haw-HAW little baby has to cry.
As the line moved on, Billy was making fewer comments about the cry-babies. When we were in front, he got downright silent.
And then he got his shot and burst out in tears - far more than the other kids. He had to be calmed down by the teachers.
--------
And that's the type of guy Joe seems to be. He thinks he's absolutely invulnerable to anything on the part of women, but if it happened to him (and it COULD), he would be wailing the loudest. Because it happened to HIM, not to all of these people who are lesser than him.
In summary: What an idiot. I'm starting to really get a disgust for "tough guys" and "real men".
Tether wrote: "Why don't you and TMink get together and ponder your reciprocal greatness?"
OK, that was really funny. Touche.
What I was thinking is I REALLY appreciate Joe saying things about responsibility and being careful in an abrasive and completely insulting way because it would serve as a nice contrast to my saying similar things in a far less abrasive and insulting way.
My bad, I was obviously hoping for too much. This is was too emotional an issue for that to happen.
For the record, I should never have insulted anyone. That was BS on my part, I was wrong and I appologize. I will try hard to not do that again.
Also for the record, I am divorced and have a 14 year old daughter from a pregnancy that I was told could not happen. After $49,000 in legal fees and being a part of the fathers' rights case law in Tennessee, she lives with me and my wife and other kids half time. So I have first hand experience of how this can work.
But the insult stung a bit and made me laugh, so good job there.
Trey
TMink - "For the record, I should never have insulted anyone. That was BS on my part, I was wrong and I appologize."Thanks for "Man-ing up" Trey:)
But, getting back to the genesis of this discussion, Dr. Helen (along with Amy Alkon) raised the issue of just what "rights" should men enjoy in cases where they have, in fact, been tricked into biological fatherhood (they are often completely shut-out of the lives of those children.
From the ensuing discussion, two issues have emerged for me:
1) Given that typical child support, as in cases of divorce, is well-know to be intended as de facto alimony; it is wholly inappropriate to use the same formula to derive the financial obligation for a man who has never been married to the mother, and has never, nor will ever, play any personal role in that child's life.
&
2) Since we can (I believe justifiably) insist that men take responsibility to avoid being thusly duped, and given that "keep it in your pants" style shaming language is felt to be appropriate - then just why is it that similar shaming language seems to have become verbotten when used towards women who have children that they cannot afford, with men who they should be fully aware ARE NOT likely to be able or willing to provide support?
My desired outcomes:
Child support being based on 1/2 of the actual costs of rearing the child, with an itemized accounting of those expenses required.
And, a whole-sale return to "slut shaming" and a lessening of tax-payer derived benefits to women who willfully have children with bad boys.
Would you happen to have an opinion on either of these?
Laura asks of me - "Are we straight now?"I believe so, Laura.
I think after a fraudulent gotcha pregnancy the man should be considered for primary custodian and the person who committed fraud, the woman, should pay the child support and get every other weekend visitation.
I think that the state taxing people to provide for illegitimate (remember that word from the past?) children is doing us all a disservice. The children grow up to be basically wards of the state at ALARMINGLY higher rates than children from intact families.
Where I get stuck is what the government can do about it. Not supporting the children makes it less likely for women to have children they cannot afford, but would hurt the innocent children as well. Providing money for the children provides a racket for people who want to have enough children to live on the doll.
Social pressure against illegitimate children would help a lot. There is basically none now. So I am all for some shaming of girls who get pregnant, women who are not married that get pregnant, and the men who knowingly make them so.
The fact is they are birthing kids who do not have a chance.
I can't wrap my head around what the government should do.
Oh, and I did not mean the "keep it in your pants" as shaming, though I accept that it sounded that way. That was a funny phrase that was often used in my redneck childhood. I thought is was funny!
Thanks for accepting my apology. Very manly of you! 8)
Trey
TMink - "Thanks for accepting my apology."Trey,
The apology wasn't mine to accept, as I wasn't actually ever offended. I was just giving you the "business", even though I don't know if it was you who was one of those using the "Man up" phrase.
I'm actually interested in hearing other peoples positions, even those That I do not agree with. It's part of having an open dialogue and meaningful exchange.
Hey, I even though that Mark Hays might have been a legitimate poster, and encouraged him to tone down his approach so as to make his arguments more palatable.
While I may not quite agree with all of your positions, but I actually do respect you for your Christian faith - you seem quite sincere, unlike another poster who seemed to me to merely be "using" Christianity to conceal her feminist ideology. I have a particular "issue" with such behavior - but that's a rather long story.
Anyway, I hope that you an I can continue with more civil dialogue than what seems to happen too often on forums such as this one.
Slwerner wrote: "I have a particular "issue" with such behavior - but that's a rather long story."
Me too. Wolves in sheeps clothing and all.
And the things I posted are certainly not well thought out positions, more reactions and thoughts.
And it is complicated by my personal involvement in a similar situation. My eldest daughter (that is her in Helen's post titled "Nashville Protesters Don't Feel Stimulated" amazingly enough) was born from, well, not exactly a gotcha pregnancy, but in the same neighborhood. Another long story. 8)
So many people fought and prayed and paid for me to stay in her life and her in mine, that it is perhaps impossible for me to be a clear thinker on the matter.
Writing this now, I am certain that is where my rudeness came from, well at least that time, from my own struggle to keep my child and protect her from or at least amerliorate a bad situation for her.
So I am not the best person to comment in a dispasionate manner about this issue. But, thank God and lots of wonderful people, including my mother and father and sister and current wife, she lives with us half time.
And that is a good, a very good thing. That I can comment upon with authority. 8)
Thanks pal.
Trey
Post a Comment
<< Home