PJTV: Gotcha pregnancies and men's rights
Amy Alkon and I discuss women who accidentally get pregnant on purpose and whether men have any rights in this situation at all in this week's segment on PJTV.
You can watch here.
You can watch here.
Labels: men's rights (or lack thereof), PJTV
posted by Helen at 4:01 PM
218 Comments:
The only problem of absolving men of the responsibility when they are played by tricky women ... now there's a third party whose needs also have to be reckoned with -- the baby.
I hope in your discussion not to reward the women who do this, somehow the care of that child -- conceived by both the mother and the father, even if unwittingly -- now passes to men who haven't been tricked, and women who maybe have no children themselves.
I might feel bad for the guy too, but not to the point of excusing him for supporting that child and turning over his responsibility to the taxpayer. Not fair for the "careful" guys who make sure not to get tricked, nor for the innocent baby.
Dr. Helen:
Linked you here, somewhat critically, though not too over the top.
I wonder what would be said if a man swore to a woman that he had a vasectomy, which was a lie to get her pregnant. Then after the birth, he got a lawyer, got custody, and gutted the woman for child support for 18 years. Nevermind for a moment that the courts would never do that. Imagine what would be said about it. Would the answer be "she should have kept them shut" (parrallel to "he shoulda kept it zipped")? Of course not.
I get the "what's best for the baby" and "it takes two" arguments, I really do. But the fact remains, when we provide this profitable an incentive for deceit, we'll get deceit. We had much, much less of this when there were more consequences for the women. That's not to say there should be no consequences for men, but we are talking about deceit and not the mutually accepted risk.
I wonder what would be said if a man swore to a woman that he had a vasectomy, which was a lie to get her pregnant. Then after the birth, he got a lawyer, got custody, and gutted the woman for child support for 18 years.
I know nobody want to have their feelings hurt nowadays, but let's not pretend that once the baby is on the scene, people in the past have never confronted issues like this, man or woman.
I kind of think maybe we should harken back to the old days in our societal response: "You made your bed, now sleep in it."
Smitty is on to something in her/his link above: before the sexual revolution where premarital sex somehow became an "entitlement", people didn't formicate until they had a piece of paper spelling out allegiances and accompanying responsibilities.
If young men want to get lucky, then they are also taking the risk they might be unlucky. And taxpayer's somehow are obliged to step up and support his offspring.
In the past, with no social nets, it was the impetus of the woman to remain chaste. Because if the man ran, there were no legal holds to make him pay to raise that child.
Now, maybe it's evened out, or perhaps the burden has now passed to the men not to have premarital sex until they know the character of the woman they are committing to sleep with, and all the consequences on the line for what happens to their sperm if it ends up in the wrong place and another life is created.
I mean really, what so many of you men and helen too, are finding so unfair: the idea that the man has to be responsible for his actions, even if the woman tricked him. Just like the naive young women tricked into copulating in years past.
Life isn't fair, but if you choose wisely, or wait, then you'll never find yourself in such a position.
Maybe it's time to call for higher standards and admit that maybe both men and women were losers in the looser sexual revolution and its aftermath. And the children both parties never planned to make -- well that goes without saying.
No more collateral damage to the taxpayer who never even got that fleeting 90 seconds of pre-ejactulation pleasure, but ends up paying to feed and shelter the end product.
@Mary: "I mean really, what so many of you men and helen too, are finding so unfair: the idea that the man has to be responsible for his actions"
_____
No, what we are finding so unfair is that women are not being held responsible for their actions. In fact, many are rewarded richly for deceit and for trashing marriages and tearing apart their families.
Let's leave the taxpayer out of this. That's a problem with socialism that makes it worse. Illegitimacy and divorce would not be so out of control right now if the laws didn't make them so profitable at the expense of taxpayers.
Of course, I think it is unrealistic that we could let a man off the hook because of a woman's deceit. Women will then just lie about the deceit and it will be unprovable. In fact, it should speak volumes that they feel comfortable freely admitting their lies without shame or fear.
Throughout history, in any relationship, the unreasonable side is often the side that has the power. They don't compromise, don't put forth as much effort. And laws have so empowered women, and men are victimized in the process, as are the children who don't have good fathers around.
My suggested solution is not to let men off the hook, it is to make things fair. Wives initiate 75% of divorces--that would change if they knew there was a 50/50 chance the father would get custody, if there was a 50/50 chance they would have child support, and if there wasn't a paid for house and a big chunk of cash and alimony for them and their new boyfriends to live on. Even a 60/40 chance for that matter.
If we want to argue that "it takes two" and that the father is equally responsible, perhaps fathers of "oops i'm pregnant" children should have a better shot at custody. How many women would trick men in to concieving if they knew there was even a 30 or 40, let alone 50 percent chance that it would be the man who got custody, perhaps even child support. After all, both are responsible and the goal is equality, right?
Note, I'm not saying let either side off the hook, and i'm not saying make women fully responsible. I'm just saying make it equal. I have a feeling many feminists wouldn't like true equality.
And I'll just say it--your 90 second pre-ejaculation (stupid and immature) comment speaks volumes for your bias. What about that orgasms women get? Oh, I forgot. You only care to take cheap shots at men. It's worse for a guy to enjoy an orgasm than for the woman to INTENTIONALLY tunr his life upside down by lying about her tubes tied.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The simple reality it this.
Once a man enters puberty he is in a reproductive state for the rest of his life. A man cannot enter into a sexual relationship in a nonreproductive state, absent sterilization or infertility of course.
Once a woman enters puberty she is in a reproductive cycle. That is, she is reproductive for a few days, then nonreproductive for the rest of the month. This cycle continues until she exhausts her eggs and enters menopause, after which she in nonreproductive for the rest of her life.
This is elementary biology. But it reveals the salient point. A man is always held responsible becuase he is always reproductive. A woman is not held responsible because she is not always reproductive. It's as simple as that.
Do you know her?
Is she honest?
Can you trust her?
These are the questions you ask. After the fact, no one is going to listen and no one is going to care.
He knew what he was doing. He did not know what she was doing. That's his problem, and it's going to cost him.
Is that fair? Fair has nothing to do with it. It's simply the reality of the situation.
Naturally, fraud, deception, misrepresentation, and theft are crimes, which ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Except when it is women perpetrating the crime. I mean, we can't hold women responsible for the behavior, can we?
Tell it to Paul McCartney.
The legal 'responsibility' we're talking about here is the responsibility to tell the truth. Only in the presence of 'informed consent' can responsibility genuinely be shared. This is not about sex, it's about deceit. And to me the issue not about the moral obligations to the child (a separate issue), it's about using the law as a club.
Now, if you want to say "Well, if it can be shown that the woman lied, we TAKE AWAY THE BABY and hold both parents financially responsible, we can achieve equity. Brutal equity, but still equity.
But that's not how the law works. And that, ultimately, is the consistent inequity that everyone seems to want to make excuses for.
It's morally bankrupt for a society to play legal favorites when the "favored one" is the deceiver. And that's what ours does.
"Well, I lied and got myself knocked up. Now he must support me because I'M GONNA' BE A MOTHER."
Like killing your parents and asking for mercy because you're an orphan.
I agree that thinking sex is without consequences is stupid for a man. But from a woman's point of view -- thanks to our legal system and strident "feminists" it does come with a get-out-of-jail-free card. If she wants to abort it, the man has no say. If she wants to raise it, he must support it.
And people wonder why I counsel my sons:
"DON'T fool around before marriage. And NEVER marry without the strongest prenuptial you can buy."
Hunh.
After my 1st marriage was over, I decided I had already had all the kids I wanted, and had a vasectomy. It took, too. A couple years later I got involved with a woman who vowed and declared she was on the pill, and "never, ever, ever" wanted children. Never wanted to be married, either.
So, I said nothing.
A few years later one of her friends told me she had stopped taking her pills, and was trying to trick me into getting her pregnant to force me to marriage. Told her "Jokes on her...."
Somehow I wound up the sonofabitch there.
I am envisioning a world where a male pill exists, and men can decide for themselves whether they will be fathers or not. Somehow I don't see women accepting this with aplomb, nor wanting such things handed out at Planned Parenthood.
@Pete: "A few years later one of her friends told me she had stopped taking her pills, and was trying to trick me into getting her pregnant to force me to marriage. Told her "Jokes on her.... Somehow I wound up the sonofabitch there."
_________
Funny. She told you she was on the pill, so the fact that you could not get her pregnant should not have been a factor. No pregnancy sex, just like she offered.
Yet, you're a sumbitch for not telling her, but she's a victim for not telling you about her plot to turn your life upside down and take your money
Unlike what sometimes some people (yes Mary, that includes you and some of your other posts about having to be defensive here) say, we don't think all women are this way, nor more than we think all men are violent. We just think it's absurd to give women a pass for it because they are women, which contradicts the women are superior and more mature dogma of feminists.
Ooooh Trust, you totally had me up until that last line. (So I didn't include an eqivalent line for the ladies, it really wasn't meant as a male slam, more a "quick cheap pleasure" slam aimed at both participants.)
I really liked this, and agree with you here:
If we want to argue that "it takes two" and that the father is equally responsible, perhaps fathers of "oops i'm pregnant" children should have a better shot at custody.
And hopefully enough men would offer to stop up. Really, I think the women doing the early baby-raising are overexaggering the job. Men could do just as well, when you break it down to the basics (and forgiving the breastfeeding option):
1) Put food in the child. Enough food. At plenty of intervals thoughout the day. Don't worry about messes. Just get good honest food (no prepackaged crap) into the child. Feed them when they get moody, if it's not sleep they need.
2) Put them on a schedule, or know their cycles enough to be flexible, to get enough sleep and rest.
3) Keep them clean. Especially the rear end, when they are very young. Otherwise, wipe the hands and mouth/face often.
4) Know how to keep them entertained, distracted. Know their schedules enough to properly time your public interactions and need to efficiently get things done.
5) Keep enough warm clothes clean so they can be changed as needed. (as needed meaning when wet, not necessarily "messy". a model baby is not needed outside of picture time)
That's about it, and I do think men could step up just as well as some women I see currently doing the job. Men tend to be better at the food part, imo, and getting them out in the air -- not so much "babying" or worring about soiled things or worrying about spilled milk. Some women seem to see a baby as a toy or model child too much.
Do you really think we could sell fatherhood, and the need for stability if the child support is provided, enough to make enough young men realize its in their interest too to ask for custody? I agree, absent the financial incentives there for the plucking for pregnant women (free insurance, food stamps, eventual child support), they probably would be less likely to get pregnant. And that -- not childhood custody for fathers as an end in itself if I understand you correctly -- would be the policy goal. Yes, more custody for young, single fathers -- it definitely would help our current female-dominated single-mother raising society's children.
(On an off note: it sounds terribly sexist of me, but am I the only one who has noted that the past 3 presidents have never been fathers to sons? I wonder what it would be like to have say, a Mitt Romney as our national leader -- a father of the country to all types, so to speak.
Best.
The legal 'responsibility' we're talking about here is the responsibility to tell the truth.
Now since when have we made lying -- hell that's the key basis for pillowtalk -- a legal basis for not taking consequences for the results of your actions? Think of all the young women over the years who were lied to, yet good luck trying to find any legal remedy for that after the fact.
I feel sorry for someone who trusts like that, especially if they are young and naive (but how many young men are sleeping first time w/women who tell them they've tied their tubes anyway?) but we don't give legal remedies for being a fool, or fooled, to either gender. Or we shouldn't anyway.
@Mary: "Ooooh Trust, you totally had me up until that last line. (So I didn't include an eqivalent line for the ladies, it really wasn't meant as a male slam, more a "quick cheap pleasure" slam aimed at both participants.)"
___________
If I misunderstood you, I apologize. Please disregard, and if I misunderstood you when I brought up your defensive comment, please forgive that as well.
I never noticed the last three presidents never had sons, but that is a good observation. I don't hold it against the, it was not their choice, but it is more typically of fathers of daughters to think more of protecting girls from men.
Interestingly, there was a survey done where they asked men if they were accused of rape, and women if they were victims of rape, if they would rather have an all male or all female jury. The men accused said "all male" and the women victimized said "all female." More interestingly, both would be toast. The men on the jury would be thinking of their wives and daughters, and the women would be thinking "what was she thinking."
I guess we all misunderstand things at times.
@Mary: "Now since when have we made lying -- hell that's the key basis for pillowtalk -- a legal basis for not taking consequences for the results of your actions?"
____________
Lying to get one in bed is bad. Laying to get pregnant and make someone pay you money for 18 years is far worse. It's pretty much fraud.
The difference is that in regards to the man who lies to get sex, the government doesn't reward him for his deceit.
Personally, I think it is evil to lie a girl into bed. It is also evil to lie a man into fatherhood.
And hopefully enough men would offer to stop up.
Meant STEP up.
and re. "We just think it's absurd to give women a pass for it because they are women"
Don't assume that women who don't play those games want any free passes issued either, on basis of gender solidarity. I sure don't. No children should be conceived as a result of "trickery" and I agree the percentages are going to be tilted here very often to women doing the tricking, by nature of the biology.
Mary,
I think I misjudged you based on an off handed comment you made. I sincerely apologize for that.
That's not to say I agree with everything you say (I agree with some of it), but I think I misjudged your intent.
Lying to get one in bed is bad.
My point was, in the years before birth control and widespead knowledge about sexual consequences, imagine how many cads lied to get someone into bed, and ended up participating in a pregnancy, leaving the girl and her family to bear the costs.
Hence leading the family to protect the female's modesty and chastity because they couldn't afford the consequences of being tricked.
Same end results, and you can't really say the desired result was only sex, if he knew and didn't care to take any precaution to prevent her from bearing the cost.
The difference is that in regards to the man who lies to get sex, the government doesn't reward him for his deceit.
Totally agree. One way or another, you've got to take away the financial incentive to reproduce out of wedlock. To me, the government incentives are what is leading that high rate, even for middle class white young adults. Wait 3 years to get married until the state has picked up her birth costs and paid the kids insurance, regardless of how much daddy is making if the two are in cahoots together, getting the insurance tab picked up, banking his salary, keeping up the relationship, and marrying years later. Heck now with SCHIP, even middle and upper class youngsters are eligible for government kids health insurance. It happens.
Thanks Trust. Sometimes our upbringings more than our genders influence how we stand on issues.
"I wonder what would be said if a man swore to a woman that he had a vasectomy, which was a lie to get her pregnant. Then after the birth, he got a lawyer, got custody, and gutted the woman for child support for 18 years. Nevermind for a moment that the courts would never do that. Imagine what would be said about it. Would the answer be "she should have kept them shut" (parrallel to "he shoulda kept it zipped")? Of course not."
Speaking for myself only - yes, actually.
When my dad was teaching me to drive, he told me that if I was behind the wheel of the car then I was responsible for whatever the car did. And if I was pulling out of the driveway and everybody else was telling me the way was clear and I could go, I must not pull out until I had satisfied myself that there weren't any cars coming; because if anything happened it would be on me, and not on them. Excellent advice that carries forward into all kinds of situations.
I think what many posters seek to convey is that regarding women and the 'gotcha' pregnancy is the sick perversion of justice that occurs when you not only pay someone for fraud, you allow them to get the funds for 18+ years tax-free from the innocent party.
When you look at how the law operates, several undercurrents come to mind...
Of these undercurrents, other posters keep harping on the notion that he was there too, the whole "two to tango" argument. However, if he's lied to, his ability to make an informed decision is gone, no? The legal undercurrent here is comparative negligence. In many states, the notion of who's at fault more is how damages are awarded. If there's an auto accident with both people suffering $100 damages, the one who is only 10% at fault will get $90 and the one 90% at fault will get $10. There is Nothing of the sort approximating fairness in the case of a gotcha pregnancy.
Another concept is fraud. Being lied to to get you to do something or give something up you probably wouldn't have done if you knew all the facts is the essence of fraud. Think Bernie Madoff. His investors had no idea it was a Ponzi scheme. If they did, they wouldn't have given him their money. They (investors) at least have recourse against Madoff's assets, insurers and possibly the auditors.
However, only in family law (I gag at the term) does one get to lie to someone to give them in something (in this case, sperm) AND they get paid for it, for at least 18 years, in tax free dollars, in the form of child support. Lie to me. Defraud me. And I get to pay you? It's the sickest perversion of justice imaginable.
I hear the arguments above - the baby's innocent, blah, blah. So is the unwilling, duped 'father.' Is he not innocent? i don't advocate 'harm the baby.' I advocate to not enrich the mother at the victim's expense. I think the assumptions that mom automatically defaults to (& gets) government assistance are premature and likely the minority.
Perhaps if there were a consequence to the liar it wouldn't occur as frequently.
Of course, after the fact, it's a he said/she said problem....
I'll leave you with a final, true story I experienced personally.
So I met this woman about a year or so ago. Very attractive, and looked about 6-7 years younger than her real age of 39.
We go to a place I know of to have a glass of wine. Nice patio, good ambience. Over the course of conversation, she proceeds to tell me that she wants kids. In my mind, I am already thinking the zipper will stay closed based upon this, not only that night but on any others.
But wait, it gets better. She then proceeds to tell me that she had a boyfriend she parted company with about 6 months prior. I asked why. She then proceeds to tell me that he didn't want kids since he already had one with his ex, and that this was okay when they got together. However, over time she decided SHE wanted one. So *poof* guess who turned up preggers? She then goes on to tell me that he wasn't very supportive during her pregnancy, which resulted in a miscarriage, and this is why they broke up (being unsupportive).
I then suggested in a not so subtle fashion that they broke up because SHE lied to him, and tried to defraud him. I further suggested that he was lucky to have dodged that bullet, and that if she's willing to decieve him over something so major, it is a good indicator for what I can expect with her. I further said that isn't something I could not possibly condone or tolerate in my life. With that, I left.
And people wonder why I and others will not (1) marry; (2) cohabitate; and (3) give sperm away. Sheesh.
However, if he's lied to, his ability to make an informed decision is gone, no?
As commenters up thread have pointed out, not in this context. You have to let the lover beware.
If you're not sure of their intentions or trustworthiness, don't sleep with the other person -- man or woman.
You can't sue in court for breach of pillowtalk -- "No baby. It's ok. I'm safe. Just this one time. For me. Please??" whether male or female.
You wrote, "you allow them to get the funds for 18+ years tax-free from the innocent party."
Innocent? That's his sperm or his egg creating his offspring. You may want to argue after the fact that you were tricked into how it got there.
But you are on the line -- not the taxpayers anymore; we're spent out -- for feeding, clothing, and providing for the product of the coupling.
I repeat -- not the taxpayer.
You see, in your effort to defend these innocent men, who have had fraud perpetrated against them, and have had to reproduce against their will ... well, can you see the sick incentives you are breeding there?
Just like women once wrongly lied rape, if she found herself pregnant out of wedlock because she had that kind of incentive -- imagine how many men would have the incentive to claim they were "tricked" into copulation based on verbal fraud.
No thanks. Truth be told, so many of these personal bitter stories are the results of a fool (male or female) being naive and trusting the wrong person. Sad, maybe even have some pity for you if that's what you're looking for, but not for too long.
9 months later, there's your genetic offspring demanding to be fed, held, and raises. As many men and women who have found themselves in that situation and resented it, you grow up. You provide for your own. Maybe you even start seeing it as an "investment" rather than a responsibility.
And if you're a good man, and hate the woman for tricking you and realize you were played once, you vow never to let yourself get in that situation again. (ditto pregnant young women -- plenty of whom go on to outstanding and productive lives, after finding themselves unexpectedly pregnant. But she learns from the mistake)
And as someone above suggested, you can work for custody if you can prove stability, geographically and financially. If men take on the childrearing responsibilities directly, they can at least try and avoid the child support and subsidizing the tricky woman, right?
But at some point, the free-ride entitlement days from the sexual revolution really are over, for both sexes. Those coming of age in the days of AIDS got that -- you can whine all you like about pregnancy, but imagine the legacy of AIDS that if you got "tricked" you got the potential for getting.
Maybe tight financial times, and if we could ever get the govt to curtail some of these social programs that give young people the financial incentive to have children out of wedlock, will bring about greater gender equity amongst heterosexual sexual partners, if only based on the potential consequences of teh bawling needy results when one party is "tricked" or otherwise acts against their own long-term interests.
But we want to take care we don't reward these men double (triple?): advancement of their genetic seed into the next generation; no costs paid for the care of that child; easy quick sexual pleasure. That's wrong for women as the system is set up now; it would be wrong to "reward" male victims in the same way, and probably would only encourage more tales of people being tricked into parenthood.
@Mary: "I repeat -- not the taxpayer."
________
I'll say it again. The issue is not the taxpayer. Do we stop prosecuting murderers because the crime costs the taxpayer?
The issue is how richly the system rewards women when women were in the wrong. It shouldn't. And I would take the same position if it rewarded men in the wrong.
I don't see how we can create such powerful incentives for any group, male or female, to behave in an inappropriate--dare I say evil--way, and then think it won't promote the behavior.
The best real-life parrallel I can think of is back in cultures where if a man raped a woman, she would have to marry him because she was spoiled and no one else would want her. He does something evil, then basically owns her. That'll teach him. How much would you bet that there were more rapes because some men would want to be the one to marry the girl? (Not to say all men would, just like all women wouldn't, you get the drift...) One, in that case, could also argue the "taxpayer" since the woman then would not be allowed to work or marry and someone would have to take care of her...
@Mary: "probably would only encourage more tales of people being tricked into parenthood."
I'll give that point. It's a fair point and the "out" would probably lead to men lying, just as some women would lie about birth control or rape, to get their way.
The issue is not the taxpayer. Do we stop prosecuting murderers because the crime costs the taxpayer?
Sorry Trust. That's an easy out.
The taxpayers no longer want to pay for the babies that two people joined themselves together to make. Period. There's just no sympathy for the "I WUZ TRICKED!" once there is a wailing, hungry baby to feed.
The government taxpayers -- me and you -- are fed up, in case you haven't noticed. If you play, you pay, even if you got in on a cheater's game. As it was in the beginning, so shall it be in the end.
Sex makes babies. Period. The sexual revolution, birth control technologies may have disguised that fact by making it avoidable, but sex causes children. And the taxpayers don't want to pay for these illegitimate out of wedlock children of somebody else. Heck we don't want to pay for the children conceived IN marraige of somebody else.
You're going the wrong way on this battle, in trying to find some special protections from the law of nature for me. OK, assume that every woman who agrees to lay with you out of wedlock, is looking for your child. Then what do you do? Get out of there as fast as you can? Wear 3 rubbers? Look for a more trustworthy partner?
Either way, think of those things before your baby is growing inside of her.
Cant you make the argument that it is MEN who are rewarding women in this way? They know how the system is set up nowadays (if we identify via DNA it is your child, you can't escape responsibility by claiming you don't like how your sperm got up in there).
If they take the risk, why should the taxpayers have to bail out their poor decisionmaking and bad judgment? Sure, work to change the custody and child support system, but until then, don't make a baby out of wedlock because no matter what your age or educational level, then that child of yours is going to need you to provide for it. Not the taxpayer.
Wait until you are married to have sex and make babies and can afford their hospital delivery and 18 years of related expenses. We don't put families in the poor houses to pay their debts anymore, and we don't sell unwanted children into slavery. Maybe if we did, less men would be careless enough to spread their sperm with women they don't know, can't trust, who have ulterior motives.
Damn, now you really are getting me made here, because if only some didn't think they were entitled to easy sex, then there wouldn't be so many nutsy women walking around as mothers. I often wonder, who the heck did she marry that thought she'd be a decent mother.
Then I realize, it's often the whiney irresponsible guys who procreate people like her (thanks fellas!) who should have just left that piece alone in the first place. But a few minutes of pleasure -- next thing you know, my taxes are going up to provide Breakfasts in School (not just lunch... breakfasts!); vaccines and all free healthcare for the kid; educations that are quickly turning into parenting, since mom is too dumb to do that and there's no father in the house, because he was "tricked" into creating his family, dontcha know.
Men are being rewarded for irresponsible procreation. Their children get to live, and get a free ride paid by others. Some baby daddies have 20+.
If you want the problem to end, call for stricter morality for men and women, boys and girls. You are responsible for your seed, like it or not, tricked or not. Get a vasectomy if you don't want to procreate, and don't trust your women.
special protections from the law of nature for meN
Women should have abortions if it is an unwanted child.
Period.
That is their right by the law.
They do not actually become "pregnant" until AFTER the egg has been fertilized - and it is the WOMAN's choice whether it is a useless piece of tissue to be flushed, or a valuable future human life that recieves the full protection of the law. (That is why if I were to cause the death of a pregnant woman, I could be charged with TWO counts of first degree murder.)
Sorry, Mary. Your argument falls flat because of abortion.
She has ALL of the choices, including whether to "become" pregnant after the egg is fertilized.
That makes it ALL her responsibility.
ALL!
It is little different than a woman CHOOSING to become pregnant by artificial insemination.
Don't ask me, you, the taxpayer's or ANY MAN to pay for the CHOICE another individual makes.
Feminism has attacked and marginalized men & fathers as unneccessary, stupid, corrupt, evil, and even somewhat illegal. Women like you who wish to bring "balance" failed your act in that regard, didn't you? Now you want more "balance" to again fall upon men. Fact is, "balance" won't be achievable until women give up their ill gotten privileges er... rights.
Hitler and many other dictators used the "best interest of the child" crapola too.
But really, the best interest of the child is to inherit a society that is safe, functional, prosperous and has a reputable legal system that ensures justice - void of emotion.
Btw, I am opposed to abortion, but, women fought for this "right" and with rights comes responsibility.
Also, "lying" during pillow talk IS becoming illegal... note how people who knowingly pass on STD's are either being criminally charged or sued for their misrepresentations? Also, back when women were oppressed, a man could be held legally liable for "promising to marry" a woman and then going back on his promise. That too seems like making pillow talk illegal. (Sammy Davis Jr. was once charged with this).
Women have no reason to complain unless they are also willing to give up some of their "rights."
Plus, aside from abortion, who should BEST know when she is ovulating? The woman or the man?
This is just more of women pushing "traditional" values upon men while women are failing to "woman up," make us a few sandwiches, and leave the politics to men.
Again Helen (& all the rest of you along with 'Self' magazine) this is 2009 not 1989... "oh I'm so shocked that women would be doing this."
Welcome to the 21st Century. This is the norm. Go to Amazon.com and put in 'Single Mothers' under 'books.' There are literally FORTY THOUSAND titles. Half of them 'celebrating' single motherhood. The other half in the tone of 'oh well, a father doesn't matter anyway.'
Since you have all been living under rocks or bridges or whatever (???) here is the new set up now in the 21st Century: Woman meets man. One way or another either through marriage or a one night stand she has sex with man. Woman tricks man into unprotected sex & has baby against his will- dumps man- men today are viewd by women as nothing more than turkey basters/ATM machines who are used and discared like a Kleenex (50% divorce rate/75% iniated by women) either the next day of 3 years later. She legally forces man out of children's and her life and forces man to pay for her lifestyle that SHE chooses: the life of a single mother or 'quasi' single mother (finds older better financially off sucker to marry her or remarries just has perpetual 'successful' boyfriends) who, like most women today, creates what is known as an 'oribital' support system.
This is made up of a whole cast of characters including well meaning in-laws who are exploited, father through child support, governement handouts, neighbors, lonely rich men who will give them money even without sex in return, charities- any and everything but a real live father and a real live home.
Because that would impose on the the American 21st century female's 'independent' lifestyle (which ironically is 100,000% dependent on 1000% of society) independent only of the most important man in the child's life: the father, who cannot be replaced by 400 social workers.
All of this is regardless of scoial status, education, etc. This is the 'new' woman.
The biggest part of the problem with you Helen is that you like so many women are still viewing the U.S. female as this soft, ethereal being of 50 years ago who is so delicate and feminine as also reflected in your women's magazines.. as in this not so ironically entitled 'Self' magazine.
The only ones you are deluding are yourselves. We as men are far, far more grounded in reality and see the 21st Century American female as she really is- a venereally diseased, grizzled road whore who is a cheap con artist and a monster of a human being whether she is in a traler park or the Hamptons (because after all, we all know she conned her way in there- the one in the traler park is just not as talented as a con artist).
The family died somewhere back in the 90's & women killed it. It's 2009 & you're just now catching up? What the HELL?!?
Mary wrote: "maybe both men and women were losers in the looser sexual revolution and its aftermath."
Indeed, we were.
What has happened since the revoloution? Men and women are more disparate and suspicious of each other than ever. Marriage is faltering. Feral children are in jail. The work ethic is endangered. pedophiles are organizaing and asking for their rights too.
I see no evidence that the so-called sexual revoloution was any type of boon to anyone. People are having sex with more partners, but at what cost and is that cost anywhere near worth it?
Trey
The sticking point is that the mother has the kid as leverage - not awarding her child support would hurt the child.
If you're going to award child support, then at least have a SEPARATE case with regard to fraud. The man still has to pay the child support, but when the child becomes an adult, and the father is no longer paying child support, the entire amount he paid over the years becomes due and payable by the mother. She gets a judgment against her that is suspended until the child is an adult.
I know full well that it will probably be hard to collect from most of these women, but on the day the judgment goes into effect, give her a minimal amount to live on and everything over that amount will be taken. For the rest of her life until the full debt is paid.
I think it would at least make manipulative women think twice.
You could also throw in other things: Have a registry of women who trick men with regard to pregnancy, who lie about paternity and who have filed false accusations in general. Men can look up a woman to see if she's on the list at the beginning of a relationship.
Secondly, maybe even make the debt for child support part of marital property if the woman (hereinafter known as the "manipulative cunt") gets married down the road. That would also put a crimp in her plans to marry for money if the guy knows he will be on the hook for this debt.
In any case, there are things that you can do that don't involve taking money away from the child. I don't think society WANTS to do anything to these women, frankly. And I just don't get it.
She has ALL of the choices, including whether to "become" pregnant after the egg is fertilized.
Ah, but ask any good man if the responsibility for turning over your sperm is under her control too.
NOT!
Them's the breaks of biology, boy. Once you pull the trigger, you're responsible for where the bullet ends up. No blaming the girls on that one.
Maybe it would help, if some of you hunters understand the first rule of gun safety:
KNOW YOUR TARGET AND BEYOND
Because as the Cheney incident demonstrated, it is the responsibility of the gun holder to know that he has a safe shot -- no blaming someone nearby who walked into the picture, you always need to know who is around you, and the BEYOND distance where the bullet or shot might also travel.
KNOW YOUR TARGET AND BEYOND
otherwise, hold your fire. Because you can never take that bullet back, and the ultimate responsibility lies with the person firing the shot.
Number one rule taught in hunters' safety classes. With good reason.
And for the ladies, we might concentrate on the rules that follow the primary one above:
Treat every gun as if it is loaded.
Rob Fedders:
No wonder the nanny state is becoming so prevalant with views like yours advocating every body run from responsibility, and that you have no control over anything that happens to your life.
Poor victim. (Is that what you really want? Does it in some way make you feel better? Really worth turning over some chance at personal freedom, if only you'd accept that you DO have plenty of control in such a situation, if you'd only wait to act until you had good judgment, or took responsibility for your mistakess after the fact? I don't think we need to kill the children just because Daddy (and Mommy) made a mistake and were irresponsible in their actions.
Keep your powder dry, and keep track of where your sperms end up. That's really not so hard, is it rob? Maybe some of the more mature men here can give you some tips?
Rob and Mark:
If I could wave a magic wand and turn you both into women with the accompanying biological parts, would you feel better about your role in society?
Then YOU'd have all the power, and could have MEN bend to your little whims, according to your thinking displayed here.
Really, is that what some of these complaint threads really boil down too? It's too hard for you guys to be men these days, so you secretly wish you were born girls?
Cuz that's really what these collective rants are starting to sound like, on a variety of issues. "We want to be girls, they have it soooo much easier. Wah wah. I'm just a victim of society because I was born a baby boy."
Poor little victims. (and I'm not saying this to get your goat. Hopefully you both hear how you're coming across out, and stop already with the whining. Unless you want us to think of you as defenseless little girls, for some odd reason... ?)
Mary, you're not providing an argument, you are simply taunting people.
Your taunting doesn't persuade anyone, it probably doesn't have much effect on your targets (Rob and Mark right now), and it makes you look like a twit.
So why are you doing it?
Ha ha, typical 21st century female con artistry- divert attention away from me as a woman (another instrument in your cache of fraud) & let's point the finger at you as a man. YAWN. That only works on stupid men, 'Mary.'
You've just proven my point of con artistry- it's really creepy when you think about it, just as YOU are extremely creepy devious. Uhhh- gives me the shudders.
before the sexual revolution where premarital sex somehow became an "entitlement", people didn't formicate until they had a piece of paper spelling out allegiances and accompanying responsibilities.
I hate to respond to any comment by Mary "I'm not at troll I just play one at DrHelen," but this reminded me of a funny story that refutes this statement.
My in-laws, married in 1946, in order to hide the fact that she was pregnant with their oldest son before marriage, always told their children that their wedding anniversary was on a particular day. However, they lived in a small town with a newspaper that ran an "on this date 25/50/75 years ago" type column.
On the 50th anniversary of their real wedding date, the newspaper included this in the column. My in-laws' oldest son's wife saw it and told him. He promptly called his mother and offered her a happy anniversary greeting.
Sex outside of marriage has always been and will always be. The frequency of it occurring varies due to cultural/societal mores of the time.
Oh yea, & Mary- you're not too bright. Let me teach the ABC's of reproduction BY LAW.
A. It takes TWO to get a woman pregnant.
B. But only ONE person can decide LEGALLY if that baby is born or not. That is a woman's choice and there is NOTHING a man can do about it. He is COMPLETELY SHUT OUT. YOUR body, remember? Hmm?
C. Therefore the single greatest cause of single motherhood? SINGLE MOTHERS.
It's deeply disturbing how women cannot even comprehend the most basic aspects of reproduction. Don't you know ANYTHING?
before the sexual revolution where premarital sex somehow became an "entitlement", people didn't formicate until they had a piece of paper spelling out allegiances and accompanying responsibilities.
That's not true. That was never true. As my dear, sweet, 85 year old mother told me the first child can come at any time, the second always takes 9 months.
What has changed is that people no longer feel the need to get married once they get pregnant. There's little-to-no stigma attached with being a bastard in this day and age.
Mary - "No wonder the nanny state is becoming so prevalant with views like yours advocating every body run from responsibility, and that you have no control over anything that happens to your life."
What stands out to me in all of your commentary is that you still refuse to put the primary onus on the one most responsible - the woman who tricked a man into getting her pregnant.
You want the man to "step up" and take responsibility because, "Them's the breaks of biology, boy". To a certain extent I can agree.
But nowhere do you ever concede that it would be just for the woman to suffer the consequences of her actions. If her "lifestyle" isn't all it could be, the father of her children should not be forced to subsidize any of her extravagant ways.
In fact, a more just system would be based not on a man turning over a no-strings-attached monthly check, but rather being given an itemized bill for one-half of all the direct expenses for the care of the child. This would include food, clothing, and other items related to the safety and rearing of the child. The calculated cost of an additional room for the child (Note - the man should only have to pay half of the difference of the cost between a one bedroom and a two bedroom apartment, for instance - not half the cost of her total housing expense, as she would still need to live somewhere if there were no child involved).
The problem, as it stands, and as you defend, is that women tend to be financially rewarded for tricking men into getting them pregnant. In addition to direct child support for him, they typically qualify for substantial taxpayer subsidized benefits (even if they do get child the support that your so concerned come from the father and not the taxpayers).
As single mothers, they have access to support systems that even single fathers (let alone anyone else) do not.
And, should they manage to "hook" some other man into supporting their lifestyles, the father is still financially responsible for a significant portion of his income (which often has little to do with the costs associated with his child). Such a woman could literally marry a multi-millionaire, be living in the lap of luxury, and have a nanny raising the child; while all the while still collecting 1/3 to 1/2 of the mans salary - and still be able to get his support obligation modified upwardly as he advances (of course, the reverse in not nearly so easy to achieve - downward changes in such obligations are not so readily granted to men).
Well, Mary, since it was me posting, I'm sure that you simply skipped down to the end hear, so as to remain untainted by my "hate" and "poison". You can just ignore the rest, and go on believing that women have no blame in these matter.
But only ONE person can decide LEGALLY if that baby is born or not.
Right, but back up a bit...
Until we get the medical ability to allow men to carry a baby inside them, you fellas just drew the short end of the stick for baby carrying. I'm sorry, but that's just human nature. Even if you were to get a sex change at this point, the technology is just not there yet for you to be the one to carry the child, and make the accompanying decisions of whether you want to kill it via abortion, or not.
LUCKILY, men still do have control over if the woman even gets to DECIDE whether to kill off your baby or not. If you don't impregnate her, she never gets to step 2.
I can't control that for you, unless you are suggesting that our nannygovernment assign you a companion to make sure your penis doesn't get anywhere near a single woman to empower her like that?
Wish I could be there to help you out. But only you as a man have power over where the sperm from your sac ends up ... don't blame that on womankind in general please.
If you don't think you'll ever be responsible enough, or have enough character judgment to keep your sperms and future trouble out of the way of single women like that, why not look into a vasectomy then for yourself? (I think most men stop up to the biological responsibility about pulling the trigger and don't need the safetynet of that suggestion.)
If you're afraid the vasectomy won't take, you could always control the outcome of where your sperm ends up via castration. It works magically for farm animals.
Short of that, until I get that magic wand to turn you into a biological lady, you'll just have to accept the (to you) curse of being born male, I guess. Either that, or wise up and stay away from the ladies. Luckily, I'm sure there are many gay men who would love to meet you and commiserate, and from what I hear, you don't even have to qualify as gay yourself to participate.
So either stick to cougars too old to get pregnant, or masturbate if the celibacy/vasectomy/castration thing is not viable. Short of taking control of your body parts that way yourself, I'm at a loss of how to help you gain back control of accidentally passing on your offspring to live for another generation.
So why are you doing it?
Because I simply don't buy the "mommy, she got me pregnant!" pity party being offered up here by the men in line to play male victim.
It sickens me actually.
In case anyone missed it above:
Whenever I see a single, poor, pregnant woman who looks like she's got a few screws loose and is having taxpayers support her children (you know, even if you pay child support for your kids, I'm still feeding them breakfast in the schools somehow from my tax dollars -- go figure), I always think: what man thought it would be a good idea to get his sperm anywhere near to this person??
Now I know. Whiny men!
For those who said I was wrong about premarital sex, why of course people always broke the rules. Difference is, those men knew they had made the baby, and married her and raised the family. The burden was on him -- and if he ran, on her.
Now, with the single women not taking responsibility, and the men seemingly thinking it's to their advantage to play victim, all the responsible men and women are supporting the little bastards.
No thanks. Know your target and beyond, and if you misfire, well that's on you two.
Mary, to Rob and Mark ”Then YOU'd have all the power, and could have MEN bend to your little whims, according to your thinking displayed here.”
Mary,
There is a critical disconnect in your arguments here.
While I’m sure that you are actually quite well intentioned, you make the same mistake as did Marybeth Hicks in assuming that in order to cure the ills of society that we need to teach men, and men alone, to be more “moral” and to be better husbands and fathers.
This line of thinking, this misguided attitude, fails to recognize that a significant proportion of what ails us has been brought about by the free choices made by women. It also fails to take into account the reality that many of men’s behaviors are “dictated” by the demands of woman. Guys tend to adapt to whatever behaviors will be “successful” with women.
To put it simply, many of the woes of today’s women have come about by their own hand.
Now, many people can relate tales of heartbreak and betrayal, both men and women. Perhaps the most common story one will hear from a man is the one about how he had been cultivating a relationship with a young women he fancied, treating her properly, like a lady, and not “pressing” to “close the deal”; only to find one day that some socio-sexually aggressive lothario has stepped in, and swept her off her feet and into his bed; leaving the man heartbroken and jaded.
Likewise, it seems the most common such story one hears from women is the one about how some socio-sexually aggressive lothario tricked them into bed, then dumped them.
What these two all-too-typical stories have in common is that they are based on a woman making a bad choice – often, the same women in both stories.
And, to make matter even worse, a woman who has been the seminal character in both stories will find that when she’s been dumped by the guy she had thought so exciting, and then tries to “go back” to the man she has dumped, that he too now rejects her. But, having been raised in a feminist dominated culture, she will not she that she is to blame for the hurt that she has caused him (she was just enjoying her sexual freedoms, and he should learn to accept that), and she will simply resort to considering him to also be a “jerk” – another man to also be blamed for any subsequent unhappiness she experiences.
Well, since you like will not have read my rant anyway, let me simply conclude that if we are to “turn” society around, the focus need to be on the bad choices and behaviors of young women as much as (or even more so than) it needs to be on the same of young men.
Obviously if you think that men should just keep it ziped if they dont want to spend the next 18+ years paying child support you agree that there is no need for abortion to be legal and available since the women should just keep there legs closed if they dont want a kid.
Same argument.
vivictius – ”Obviously if you think that men should just keep it ziped if they dont want to spend the next 18+ years paying child support…”
As far as men having the ultimate responsibility for NOT getting a woman (who may well be trying to trick them) pregnant, I actually DO agree with Mary. Keep it zipped is perhaps a hopelessly outdated notion, but one could substitute “keep it covered” (diseases are also a very big problem amongst young women today, something on the order of 1 in 4 having and STD, according the to CDC), or “don’t unload inside”, or even “get snipped”.
But, where I (and I assume most others) part ways with Mary is in the idea that the men alone need to bear the blame and the burden for having been so tricked into fatherhood. She expresses a deep concern for the “tax payer”, and I can also readily agree with her on that: as well as a concern for the welfare of the child. But what she consistent choose to not address is the financial burden/lifestyle adjustment that the woman should have to bear herself for HER unilateral decision to have a child.
Mary like to call for the men to “step up” so as to alleviate the tax-payer. Where does she ever call for the women to do likewise.
As I see it, the problem with Mary, as it is with so many other women imbued with edicts of modern Christianity, is that they tend to see the Lion’s share of blame for society’s ills resting with the choices and behaviors of men – remaining ignorant to the culpability of the women.
before the sexual revolution where premarital sex somehow became an "entitlement", people didn't formicate until they had a piece of paper spelling out allegiances and accompanying responsibilities.
And even now, you hear very little talk of pre-marital ant generation.
Obviously if you think that men should just keep it ziped if they dont want to spend the next 18+ years paying child support you agree that there is no need for abortion to be legal and available since the women should just keep there legs closed if they dont want a kid.
Same argument.
Complete agreement here. Neither party should be able to kill off or abandon their responsibilities to the child they create, nor should that responsibility fall to the taxpayers.
Mary like to call for the men to “step up” so as to alleviate the tax-payer. Where does she ever call for the women to do likewise.
As I see it, the problem with Mary, as it is with so many other women imbued with edicts of modern Christianity, is that they tend to see the Lion’s share of blame for society’s ills resting with the choices and behaviors of men – remaining ignorant to the culpability of the women.
Oh boy, you folks need a good biology lesson. The reason I'm not calling for the woman to "step up and accept responsiblity" is she has no where to run. That little responsibility is growing inside of her, and is going to come out of her one day.
Now if she then runs, without legally signing over her child, then of course I would say, "Step up loser and take responsibility for the child you created." Based on biology, the women never seem to run though.
Now if the boy had the baby growing in him, and the woman was running and decrying she was tricked, and trying to evade responsibility, then sure, I'd tell her to step up and be responsible for her actions too.
But see in the KNOW YOUR TARGET AND BEYOND, she is the target. And her responsibility continues to grow after his misfire. You fellas just don't like this newfound DNA procedure that can place you at the scene of the crime, so to speak, and hold you responsible for your gun handling.
Maybe the tables truly have turned, and it's our boys would should keep under lock and key until we can be sure they are mature enough to head out in society able to steer clear of the women who would trick him into the sack, and early parenthood.
You can argue with biology and DNA and blame other womenkind in general, or you can acknowledge that you fired without knowing your target and beyond, and therefore you're responsible for all the damage your bullet does.
Again, maybe I should log in under a male name and post this and it might go down easier...
Mary - "Again, maybe I should log in under a male name and post this and it might go down easier..."
Or, how about...
Stop playing "dodge ball" and actually address some of the actual issues present to you.
The implication that women “step up” also has nothing to do with them not running away from their babies, but rather it’s the rather reasonable notion that they accept the consequences of unilaterally opting to have a baby. If they end up living in near poverty – well, tough. If they can’t go out partying - again, tough. They shouldn’t be expecting the tax-payers to subsidize them living as well off as all their contemporaries who did not choose to trick a man into inseminating them.
And, in the same vein, they should be expecting nothing more from the man they tricked than one-half of the actual expenses associated with that child.
Yet, what is much more often the case is that what is supposedly the “best interest of the child” morphs into “what does momma want”. And, sadly, radical feminists, bleeding-heart liberals, and chivalrous Manginas have all worked to ensure that this is exactly what happens. A check gets handed over, with no oversight on what the woman actually chooses to do with that money. She can dump the kid’s off at her mothers and go out partying and drinking spending the entire amount; and, she can rest assured that “we” as a society will not let her child suffer for her bad acts. No, there are services and charities set up and funded to “fill-in” those gaps (even when created by the mother herself).
And, just what happens to that tricked man should he loose his job. Well, if he falls behind in HIS obligations to his child(‘s mother), he facing the very real possibility of going to jail – who said we got rid of “debtors prison”?
From what I gather of your thoughts, Mary, it seems to me that the only burden you’d see placed on the deceptive women is that of raising the child – the child she unilaterally chose to have in the first place. How nice.
And, it seems that society is still poised to let them have it just that way.
That’s why I do whole-heartedly agree with you that men should be the ones who choose to take precautions so as to not get women pregnant if they do not want to be held hostage/responsible.
Yet, I’d take it a step further still. Men should also protect their financial interests vis-à-vis children by always having any children claimed to be theirs tested (another one of those “newfound DNA procedures”, only this one women seem to be the one’s that hate it). If a man let’s himself be tricked into agreeing to paternity, there’s no chance of him getting let off the hook. And, this goes for husbands as well. Modern women are not to be trusted anymore. This is especially true of Christian women – they are some of the worst out there (way too much personal experience there).
Mary, you are right! Men need to take responsibility.
Not so much because they are the “bad actors” in society, but rather because women are, and should not be trusted.
Let me reiterate…Mary is right about this!
Stop playing "dodge ball" and actually address some of the actual issues present to you.
So that leads me to say what I've said for a long time. Once a women get pregnant which takes "TWO" not one. Women have ALL the choices as they see fit if a child is born or not they can say yes or no. Men have no choice at all if a child is born NONE at ALL. Which a men is still made to pay for most or ALL of the expenses for her and the child. All because of her choice.
So to put it simply A man is held totally responsible for a womans choices. A man has no choices in anything. Sound like one hell of deal to me.
I'm seeing more and more women with Mary's attitude lately.
I think 50 years ago, women at least had an inkling that men pretty much create the world around them and make their life for them. Today, because of more and more legislation that delinks men's contributions to women's gain - for instance through taxation and support payments to women under draconian penalties and the creation of lots of bullshit jobs for women and all the rest of the structures that society uses today to increasingly hide the fact that men are the grunts who keep the world running - women don't even realize it anymore.
Mary doesn't realize that if tomorrow men formed a cohesive unit and just said "what are you going to do about it"? when they cut off all of the fruits of their labor to women, then she couldn't do a damn thing about it. All of a sudden, all of her haughty, privileged, entitled positions would go up in a puff of smoke.
That will never happen, but it would be amusing to see even a temporary destruction of the massive shield that men have erected between women and reality. But carry on with your bullshit makework jobs, women. I don't see many women pouring steel or designing microprocessors or up on a roof nailing in tiles or under a sink with a wrench. But I see lots of women as Associate Executive Directors of the Women's Coalition or professor of women's studies or lazy housewife.
Sad_Dad - ”So that leads me to say what I've said for a long time. Once a women get pregnant which takes "TWO" not one”
In the traditional sense, anyway.
But, what this brings up is something that Mary either does realize, or (as with some many other things) simply refuses to address – the women who engage in “sperm trapping” are overwhelmingly women who could afford to pursue in-vitro fertilization for the purposes of getting pregnant.
They are typically successful career women nearing 40, who already squandered away their chances of a marital relationship with a man they love, who now, with their biological clocks ticking, just want to have a baby.
And, while many, if not most, could well afford to have IVF and to raise the child on their own, they made the callous and selfish decision that it would be to their financial advantage to have someone else on the hook for the additional costs. And, as intelligent educated women, they know full well that the state – through it’s (Anti-)Family Courts - will back her play 100%.
If she plays her cards right and picks a well-off enough guy, his court-ordered support might even exceed the total amount of actual child-rearing expenses she incurs.
Where Mary see’s the issue as being between whether father or state will be picking up the tab, the truth is that it was really always an issue of whether a man or a woman would be picking up the tab for her choices.
Under your scenario, Mary, I'd call any woman who accepts a nickel of government aid, or hires a babysitter for more than a couple hours guilty of "not stepping up."
How about this - they both pay into a child support account. And they both agree how the money is spent. That account may be audited at any time.
Which is besides the point. It's the blocked visitation. Having to hire an attorney to see school records because she refuses to co-operate. Notification of plays, etc, the night of them - as in "Your son's concert is in 30 minutes - are you going to be here?" Refusal to consult on discipline - but expecting to be backed up. Trying to return new clothes bought my daughter to the store, buying cheaper ones and pocketing the money. Sending court paperwork to an address known to be bad when she has my correct address. Having to hear from my son's stepfather when he has to get stitches, and then only because he can't sign the consent. Not getting first option for visitation that same weekend when the ex went out of town. Support paid in full, new car in the driveway and full liquor cabinet - and a new bag of pot - but somehow she needs money for clothes and glasses and schoolbooks.
Of course, I'm a sonofabitch when I make her take me to court so that extra money is credited towards my support. Becayuse I learned after I paid her $4,000 in support that unless it goes through the clerk, it doesn't count, and spending two days in jail for that. Having her try to stick me with support for a child that couldn't be mine because she got knocked up before we were divorced.
And somehow there is nothing wrong with any of this in the eyes of the court. Nothing wrong with her defying visitation orders. Nothing wrong with her not carrying the required insurance. I can get laid off in a restructuring and have to take a lesser job, but I can't get my support lowered. She can go to part time, and have it raised, though.
My daughter's mother moving away for two and a half years and not leaving a forwarding address and returning every bit of mail, every present I sent my daughter, in that time.
Every effort I made to be an involved father was met with not only interference from her, but it was done with the collusion of the system.
So sod the frak off with your "Men need to step up" bullshit. Women need to get the hell out of the way and let men be fathers. And that is what I am - Dad. Not the frakking "Assistant Mom."
Though, now that my daughter is grown, I get both a Mother's Day and Father's day card from her - seems her mother's girlfriend molested my daughter when she was 14, and her mother sided with the girlfriend. And then when T found out about the returned letters and cards - because I kept them and showed them to her when she demanded an accounting of me.
She calls herr mother "Ms B_______" when she's in a good mood. Other days, it's "My Incubator."
It worked out for me in the end - but in reality I got lucky. For most guys it doesn't. And it shouldn't be that hard.
So as far as I am concerned, if you're unwilling to let the father be a father - and this is on the terms of him and his children - you lose any right to claim the right to an ATM. All or nothing, baby. All or nothing. He's Dad 24-7, and when his kids want or need him - not just when you're short of cash.
Pete - "It worked out for me in the end - but in reality I got lucky. For most guys it doesn't. And it shouldn't be that hard."
Hey, Mary!
This is the reality you seem to want to deny.
Men don't just always choose run away.
Often they are "run-off" - against their wishes and against their will.
It's high time you Christian Feminists got over your smug piety and woke up to reality.
Mary: ”Maybe it would help, if some of you hunters understand the first rule of gun safety...”
“But see in the KNOW YOUR TARGET AND BEYOND, she is the target. And her responsibility continues to grow after his misfire. You fellas just don't like this newfound DNA procedure that can place you at the scene of the crime, so to speak, and hold you responsible for your gun handling.
You should stop using gun analogies if you don't know that much about guns.
“Know your target and what is beyond it” is not the first rule of gun handling.
A “misfire” is a round that fails to fire, not an errant bullet. Using your "guns = phallus" analogy, a misfire would be more like failing to ejaculate during sex, or ejaculating without sperm.
Mary's rhetoric is just a very subtle version of the 20-year-old feminist's blatant victimhood.
Mary has apparently been around the block. Like, a lot.
The young 20-year-old feminist will get sympathy from men her age by declaring that she's been oppressed for 10,000 years (and she's only 20!). But men her age will still nod their assent and want to make it up to her (in an attempt to get into her drop-drawers).
Mary probably recognizes the silliness of all that (and probably no male in real life wants to nod assent in an attempt to get into her dried-up, crusty drop-drawers), so she gets more subtle.
But she is still casting the man as the PREDATOR. The innocent girl is the HUNTED. How AWFUL! REAL MEN better STEP UP TO THE PLATE and give women lots of money. Or something. In any case, if they don't give women lots of money, they will be appropriately shamed by Mary and all self-respecting women who know that money is easier to get out of men than really producing something for society.
Shame, shame, shame.
And men cow their heads and give women money. Or force other men to give women money if the Unreal Men don't do it voluntarily.
Who invented this system?
I don't think women are getting the short end of the stick like they claim. Men do the dirty, dangerous or stressful jobs and turn most of their free money (and money in the form of taxes) over to women, who have either easy, fun jobs or who have no jobs at all, sitting on their ever-widening butts watching Oprah and the View.
Men are smart enough to produce things, but are stupid enough to have it manipulated away from them. Women, on the other hand, can't be called "gifted" with regard to repairs or engineering or producing products and food etc., but they sure are smart about getting these things away from men.
It's just the natural order, like the host and parasite.
@JG: "But she is still casting the man as the PREDATOR. The innocent girl is the HUNTED. How AWFUL! REAL MEN better STEP UP TO THE PLATE and give women lots of money."
_______________
Yeah, the one who seeks out the man and convinces him she can't pregnant to use him as a billfold is a victim, and the man who believed her is the predators. RRRIIGGHHTTT.
I'm sure that is what would be said if a woman had to pay child support to a man who lied about a vasectomy, got her pregnant, got her custody, and gutted her in the courts. He would be the victim and she would bet told its her fault for not keeping them shut. Yup, I'm holding my breath for that one.
It's amazing how blind people are to the fact that incentive effects behavior.
Notice how, in this recurring theme of "the taxpayer," it is about how "the man" pushes his responsibility off to "the taxpayer" as if the women had no part in the decision.
If the government never would have started making this the taxpayers problem, we'd have far fewer illegitimate children and divorces, that is for sure. The government, under the guise of "strengthening families" created a powerful fiscal incentive for women to destroy them, and they are doing a great job. (And before I'm called a sexist, if the incentives were reversed, men would be messing it up too. but, everyone would see the problem and address it rather than further reward men.)
I agree with JG's "Mary's rhetoric is just a very subtle version of the 20-year-old feminist's blatant victimhood" although I don't find it so subtle. Here's why...
Mary --
Think of all the young women over the years who were lied to, yet good luck trying to find any legal remedy for that after the fact.
Like many in the various victim movements, she's hung up on the past while everyone else is talking about the now. Sins of the father is a very real concept to her.
Mary, if a woman is a fraud, let her raise the kid without taxpayer support. If you pity the kid, remove it from her custody. Don't however, attempt to justify making the victim of a fraud the brunt of it's correction.
Sins of the mother - not so much.
I don't see how anyone could say, with a straight face, that a man lying a woman into a (or a few) night(s) of sex is as bad as a woman deceiving a man into fatherood and decades of being in her fiscal servitude.
Is lying someone into sex horrible? Yes. But is it really worse than deciving someone into fatherhood and taking his money for 20 years?
Friends who do not want to be regal, with a divine body to be the envy of the girls, I am 6 kilos overweight and already started a diet that met me and here in websiteswww.dietas-efectivas.com as a result I get 2 weeks and already kgs. I think in two weeks will be 10 points, they count more in 2 weeks, lucky.
Basically this is all just another form of FRAUD. Fraud, fraud, fraud, fraud, fraud, and more fraud - that's all women do.
Which begs the question.. now that we can all see through women so clearly for the frauds they are.. let me ask you.. what is there to even TALK ABOUT anymore?
I meet a woman & what? Talk about her area of 'expertise' - defrauding men? Oh oh I know we could talk about gossip/celebrity trash culture because virtually ALL women today are EXPERTS on TRASH culture. Is this because women today ARE trash? I mean why else would someone be interested in trash? No, I'm not interested in trash culture- so strike two.
I have actual interests in concrete subjects- I've never even heard of a woman who does likewise- just titles.
Plus I have principles and I am trustworthy- the EXTREME opposite of an American woman. That's why I give all women I meet that look like I'm going to throw up.. because, well, I feel like I'm going to throw up especially when they open their mouths.
Fraud & trash. I suppose that's the sum total of women today.'You will know them by their fruits' as the Bible says.
If we as men all started judging women by their character, they would be BEGGING us to start judging them by their gender again.
And I am sure Mary won't even touch except with a "Yeah, but..." the couple I know who got married and stayed married for 12 years under the agreement that neither wated children. And she had no problem with taking the pill because it helped regulate her period.
Until she changed her mind, and got busted when she miscarried after just unilaterally not taking her pill. Because she felt she had a "Right" to be a mother if she chose.
Which of course lost trust and destroyed the marriage. And now he is the big mean sonofabitch for refusing to have sex without a condom, then for leaving her, and then for getting a vasectomy. They live in a state where if she gets knocked up, he's stuck with the support even if it could be proven he's not the father, and she wonders why he divorced her.
He refused to "talk" with her, and "work things out," which is short for "You sit there and listen until I can verbally wear you down into doing what I want.
And come to think of it, I am also personally aware of a couple other instances where it was "Say I want children to hook and land me this man, and secretly take the pill," and they, too, wondered why their husbands left them when it was found out. And one where when the last child turned 18, he left after being suckered into a third and unwanted child through subterfuge.
It's like I said earlier in this thread - i there was a form of birth control marketed for men that was unobtrusive and eminently reversible - say, a shot a few times a year - women would for the most part HOWL. For all the talk about men "being responsible" (To use Our Mary's tortured Gun Analogy) the minute such men insured they were loading blanks, the goalposts would shift for Mary and Co. To give men a concrete and real equal power and control over reproduction (Through a meaningful veto which didn't involve a painful and likely irreversible surgical procedure)would send them into a tizzy.
Thing is, it is coming.
There has been a lot of roadblocks thrown in the way, for precisely the above reasons, a lot of FUD spread (Gee, doesn't that run the risk of impotence, futzing around with hormones?), a lot of pooh-poohing and denial (Not worth the research. Our biased "studies" show men will never go for it.), and predictably, talk of regulating it to require permission or notification because suddenly it is someone's business what someone else "does with their own body," or "Concerned Christian Women" claim "Well, I have *never* made that argument for women." (MmmHmm. Never argued against it, either, but...)And you can be sure the "Keep Women in Charge of Reproduction" crew will be at work trying to find dangers in it to ban it - but men; Educate your sons.
The societal change this will produce will boggle the mind.
Solution:
Give women welfare for 1 kid born out of wedlock. After that kid, she's on her own. The illegitimate birthrate will drop by 50% in a year. If we stop rewarding bad actions, people will stop doing those actions?
Starving kids? struggling single mother? Tough s___t. Deal with it. Her choice, her responsibility.
As far as arguing with feminists; it's a waste of time. Better to let them rot in the hell they've created.
Mark Hays,
Don't get mad about it, simply realize what women are. The only thing they're holding that you want from them is sex, and you should look up terms like PUA and seduction to learn how to achieve that goal. Otherwise, don't enter into a relationship or certainly not a marriage with a woman who is questionable in terms of morals and who also has a huge sense of entitlement. And, sadly, that's many or most American women.
Just play the game. If you feel compunctions about it, realize that THEY are (trying to) manipulate you. That takes away some of the guilt that many men have about being manipulative. THAT'S WHAT WOMEN ARE - you can either ignore them or manipulate back. Engaging with them and simply being manipulated by them in a one-way fashion is silly and shouldn't happen - but it unfortunately does bedause men are simply direct.
I'd modify that with "Don't feel guilty about manipulating manipulative people."
My last marriage was my last. Period. I'm not worried about whether some busybody matchmaker thinks I need a keeper, I ain't having it. And I have never advertised otherwise in the past 12 years.
Those women who took me at my word and wanted marriage moved on, and more power to them. The ones who thought they could "change" me or otherwise trick or manipulate me into it found out quite differently, and I don't lose a win of sleep over them.
It's not like they have even had to put much work into being careful who they slept with. I'd say any man who says routinely an hour into every first date "If I am ever tempted to get married again, I'll just find a woman I don't like and buy her a house" is a big whack with the clue-by-four.
Oh yeah - "Well I'd never date/sleep with/ be in a relationship with you." Okay. Bloody good. I never seem to have a problem with female companionship, so out of the three billion women on this planet I will move your name into the "You won't get to have sex with them" column.
Hang on ... nope, tried real hard, but I can't seem to give a damn. Sorry.
Well, the rule/law is still "her body, her choice."
This is what Mary refuses to acknowledge, and this is the point that destroys all of Mary's blathering.
Her body, her choice.
As in, NO woman - anywhere - is FORCED to have a baby against her will.
NO WOMAN!
ANYWHERE!
EVER!
IS FORCED TO HAVE A BABY!
Her body, Her CHOICE!
And she makes this choice AFTER sex and AFTER the egg has been fertilized.
The issue of the morality of abortion is completely irrelevant - as far is the law is concerned.
This is a woman's RIGHT! Feminists fought for it, and non-feminist women kept their mouths shut.
Her body, her choice quite DIRECTLY means that after she has had sex and has a fertilized egg in her, SHE STILL GETS TO CHOOSE.
That is the point that Mary misses here.
It is a 100% female choice to "be pregnant" AFTER conception - in fact, it is her unilateral right - BECAUSE it is her body.
Men have zero "choice" and therefore zero rights, and that extends to ZERO RESPONSIBILITY!
The only way to go to court and get ANY money from a man is to prove that he is legally liable for "damages"/responsibility for HIS actions... and since IT IS HER BODY, HER CHOICE, he as ZERO responsibility in creating a child.
If he did, then it would be "Their body, their choice."
No woman is FORCED to have an unwanted child.
Not one single woman in the Western World is FORCED to have a child - even after getting pregnant.
A man should not be FORCED to finance the CHOICE of another person.
Should women no longer have this "choice" AFTER becoming pregnant (making abortion illegal), then there would be some merrit to holding the man equally responsible. But, since it is a gender-specific RIGHT of women to choose AFTER sex to remain pregnant... nah uh. The responsibility for her CHOICE is 100% hers, and hers alone, and so is the responsibility for the outcome of that CHOICE which ONLY she makes.
It is really quite simple, and is not different in any way than a woman CHOOSING to have a fertilized inside her via fertility clinic/artificial insemination. She is also 100% liable for that CHOICE.
And yes, Mary, I suffer from Vagina Envy. Lol! This from a woman who talks like a toothless hooker at a truck stop.
Our choice as men is where we choose to put it. Once a child is conceived, our choice is whether we act like a man and face our consequences or not.
Putting it in a woman we cannot trust to tell us the truth is foolish. Very foolish. Especially in a legal environment that will tell us how far to bend over and how often.
Be careful where you put it. Be very careful.
Trey
TMink - "Putting it in a woman we cannot trust to tell us the truth is foolish. Very foolish. Especially in a legal environment that will tell us how far to bend over and how often."
Just as when Mary made the same point, I do have to agree.
Still, there is something so very unjust in the way men are currently being treated when they are tempted into such foolishness.
Perhaps what needs to happen is that the asinine canard that a woman who has had either drugs or alcohol cannot have given “consent”, even if she was the one who initiated subsequent sexual activities, be turned on it’s head for the sake of providing relief to men.
I’d like to see a case in which a man who’s been duped into giving up his sperm makes the case that, being under the influence of mind altering substances, he cannot have given consent for her pilferage, adding that under the Constitutional provision of equal protection, he had, in fact been “raped” – a second crime, a felony, committed coincidently with theft.
Obviously narrow-minded chivalry and even narrower-minded feminist thinking would prevail and the suit would be tossed. Still, I’d like to see the issue pushed into the public arena in some way.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mary (quite contrary) said: "Ah, but ask any good man if the responsibility for turning over your sperm is under her control too.
NOT!
Them's the breaks of biology, boy. Once you pull the trigger, you're responsible for where the bullet ends up. No blaming the girls on that one."
Ahh yes, the biology train of thought. Well then, lets follow that line to its final stop shall we?
Its all about biology. Blame God, Gaia, Jesus, whatever. Thems the breaks, right? Ok. Women cops, firemen, soliders, construction etc. etc.. Equality for those jobs? GONE. If you don't meet the physical qualifications to do the job, you dont get one. You don't get the cushy office job either in that department. "Thats not fair!", you say. Sorry, thats the breaks of biology.
Slw wrote: "Still, there is something so very unjust in the way men are currently being treated when they are tempted into such foolishness."
I agree with you brother. That part is not fair or just.
The other side of the advice is of course for women to be careful who they let in.
The state tries to make that less of an issue, but they fail miserably. The state raises boys who go to prison. Fathers raise boys who go to work.
Having the state serve as father is a sweet poison that tastes good at the first sip. The worst poisons do.
Trey
Since the topic was interesting, I decided to investigate the Finnish debate. I found two chat Forum. One forum was for women and another for men. Both Forum was the consensus that this type of chicanery is wrong. The following quote represents the Finnish "male perspective".
"Byzantine woman is a difficult force to do the abortion, when the damage has already occurred. The tubes may be broken only when the woman meets the 30 yo. Psychopath woman's plot has been able to succeed even before that."
TMink said "Our choice as men is where we choose to put it. Once a child is conceived, our choice is whether we act like a man and face our consequences or not."
I take issue with the 'act like a man' language. you act like a man by taking control of your life before sex.
Here's how you act like a man - have a very direct conversation before any sex. In this conversation, you simply inform her that unless you can confirm that she's taking birth control, and you use a condom ( a condom is a man's birth control, not a woman's), you absolutely will not have sex with her. It's her responsibility to use birth control. You tell her you will use a condom every time and do not want to be a father under any circumstances. You further tell her that if, after all of this, she stops any birth control and your condom slips/breaks/leaks she's on her own. You then verify she's on birth control - get a note from her Dr.
I know this sounds like a bit much, but is it really? I've had women who want to see STD test results before sex. Apply the same logic.
But, if after informing her you want nothing to do with her or her bastard child, she has a cow, you know she cares more about her control & wants and less about you.
Oh sure she can get a child support order if things go awry. You should do what is legally required, and no more. Stay away from her & the kid.
"Our choice as men is where we choose to put it. Once a child is conceived, our choice is whether we act like a man and face our consequences or not."
Same old, same old. Conflate what the law is with what it should be. Conflate biology with legality. Totally ignore, like the pig-headed, know-it-all, asshole ignoramus, mangina that you are, Rob Fetters' impeccable argument about choide and resonsibility. And top it all off with shaming language about "acting like a man."
Forget fairness, forget logic, forget justice, just put on your blinders and harness and do what Mary and "Trey" say you have to do, or else you're not a "man."
"I take issue with the 'act like a man' language. you act like a man by taking control of your life before sex."
We agree. Do you disagree that a real man provides for his children?
Trey
Ruddy, do you put your dick in strange women that you do not know very well? If so, you are a fool. Stop the foolish behavior and you will lower your risk of unplanned consequences.
And I will not appologize for saying that a real man supports his children. Are you saying that a mature man of good moral character impregnates a woman and then abandons his child?
If so, then you are a cad as well as a fool.
I am speaking neither of biology nor legality. I am speaking of morality. The child is the only innocent victim in this sorry equation. Evidently you can't see that, but I am quite happy to stand up for the children and moral behavior. I hope you will some day as well.
Trey
"Stay away from her & the kid."
I was in complete agreement till you abandoned your son or daughter. That is reprehensible behavior. Someone of your intellect should see that.
Trey
Actually, Trey,
I am gonna oppose you here.
Stop putting "the child" in front of everything, for crying out loud. That is blatant manipulation - and as a psychologist, you ought to be able to see that.
Furthermore, if you want to stick up for "the child" then we can go quite a bit further, by doing things like FORBIDDING divorce (which is proven detrimental to children). Or how about lowering all speed limits to 20mph? How about all children wear helmets when they play in the backyard? How about allowing social service workers the right to enter any child's home without a warrant? How about forcing Grandparents to live in the same home as children? That is in a child's best interests too. I don't need to go further, like I pointed out earlier, Hitler and other dictators enslaved people with the same shifty argument... in fact, it is the same argument used to empower women over top of men. I wonder how well that turned out?
The MORAL decision is something YOU make of your own accord. If you are tricked into a pregnancy, your own morality will lead you into doing the right thing. The law should not compel you to, though. As in, if a woman tricked me into getting pregnant, I would likely care for the child OF MY OWN ACCORD, and according to what I deem proper, and no one else.
Somewhere, sometime, people are gonna wake the hell up and start realizing that the healthiest "herd" is the one that lets the sick and weak get taken by the wolves.
This is how society works best as well.
Too many people - ESPECIALLY those in the social service industry - are too quick to suggest widesweeping morality such as you do. The problem is that people who advocate for this is that they are willing to disadvantage the many to "save" the few. So, in a system where 90% of the people operate at 100% capacity while 10% of the people operate at zero capacity, your argument leads to the ideology that 90% of the people should be disadvanted to 75% of capacity so that the 10% can be brought up to 50% capacity... do the math, which is a better, stronger society.
Also, there comes a point where "the best interests of the child" is "the best interests of the adult." This is always lost in this manipulative argument. People who argue this are like the greedy farmer who believe that "the best interests of the farmer" is to keep all the food for himself... but, there comes a point where if he doesn't feed and care for his horses and oxen properly, he is damaging himself. The same goes for the "best interests of the child" argument. Aside from the manipulation, the "best interests of the child" argument is INCREDIBLY short-sighted.
One wonders why "the best interests of the child" was not argued for England surrendering to the Nazis during the Blitz... I mean, innocent children died then... but, the idea was that it was best to take some sacrifices so that MORE children would inherit a better future. In the modern day, we seem to have lost this clear and morally righteous logic... much of it due to feminism and political correctness.
By the way, ALL MEN ARE REAL MEN. Even manginas.
"I take issue with the 'act like a man' language. you act like a man by taking control of your life before sex."
We agree. Do you disagree that a real man provides for his children?
A definition, then, please.
Andy marries Betty. Betty has an affair with Charlie. Betty Keeps Charlie out of the loop after she gets pregnant, passing off the child as Sam's.
Five years later, Andy finds out about it and leaves Betty.
You're the judge. Which "man" should provide for "His Child?" They both make the same money, and are similarly situated in life, however, whichever one you assign paternity to, the other winds up with no rights at all. And also, by extension, the child has either no Rights to "the only father (s)he has ever known for five years" or to his/her biological father.
More so - It is within your power to sanction Betty, who in many people's opinion caused the whole mess with lies to Andy, Charlie, and the child. Do you? What sanctions do you enact by judgement?
I can give answers to these questions. If you can't, your assertions as to what a "Real Man" is are meaningless.
I just laugh when there is this air to articles like these of 'oh my god a woman would actually do that?' It's like saying, 'oh my God, you mean women are having sex?'
Get it through your thick skulls:
ALL women do this. It's mind bogglingly SICK & psychotic (there is no word in the English language for it really) the way women play with people's entire lives so casually with zero guilt of any kind because they are incapable of understanding ethics.
The worst part is that our legal system & society facillitates them.
When I look at our sick, sick mokery of a society today, I wonder, "why am I so scared that our economy and all the rest is collapsing? What are we losing? What would I possibly miss about it? THIS?!?" Good riddance.
"We agree. Do you disagree that a real man provides for his children?"
RRRRRRRRN. Wrong. What says they are "his children?" As far as
I can tell, 2 things.
One is the law. We already know that. And that is what we are talking about. What the law SHOULD be. So, it is not a proper answer to say "they're his kids cuz the law says so." There was a time when women couldn't vote "cuz the law said so," but that was no answer to their arguments either.
The other thing saying that they are "the man's" children is the opinion of folks like you and Mary. As RF demonstrated, the woman chose them, so they're her kids. Let her pay for them. What's that you say? What about biology? Yeah, what about it? "Biology" doesn't present a man with a bill for child support, the law does. The same law which gives Ms. Thing all of the Choice.
In fairness, in justice, in logic, Choice comes with Responsibility. But, in the emotion-driven, fellow-man hating, false consciousness having, shaming language using, world of little pussy whipped manginas like yourself, Responsibility is always on the "Real Man." Tell me, candy ass, do you growl when you say the "r" sound in "real man" like one of those guys who do the voice over for the pickup truck commercials?
"Real man" my ass.
"Ruddy, do you put your dick in strange women that you do not know very well? If so, you are a fool. Stop the foolish behavior and you will lower your risk of unplanned consequences."
You are just repeating what the law says here. I know full well what the legal consequences are. But, to spell it out again it for you, dumbshit, we are discussing what the legal consequences should be, not what they are.
"And I will not appologize for saying that a real man supports his children. Are you saying that a mature man of good moral character impregnates a woman and then abandons his child?"
I will not be baited or shamed into adopting your conclusory language. First of all, you can just take that "real man" shit and stick it up your fucking ass.
The point is that the woman has all of the choice. She is not simply, as you would have it, a passive, impregnated entity. She chose to have sperm enter her. She fully and freely participated in the sexual act. And then she refused to avail herself of a safe, cheap, legal and painless procedure which would have ended the pregnancy. A procedure which she, as a woman in my country, at least, has a full constitutional right to have, and which no one can stop from her having.
No matter what you say, in those circumstances, it is not "my" child, it is her child. Her body, her choice, her child, and, therefore, her responsibility.
"If so, then you are a cad as well as a fool."
Neither either, actually. On the one hand, I obviously know what the law is, so you can just STFU on the "fool" thing.
On the other, yeah, let's go back to 1789 and reenact the chivalric code root and branch, let's force women to act like ladies. Do that, and I'll happily do my part in acting the role of the gentleman. As things stand now, your "cad" bullshit is just more shaming language.
"I am speaking neither of biology nor legality. I am speaking of morality."
Um, no you're not. Nothing you have said up to this point has anything to do with morality.
"The child is the only innocent victim in this sorry equation."
Boo-hoo. Cue the violins.
First of all, don't impose your Puritanism on me. I don't see anything "sorry" about the "equation."
Secondly, again, let's take a look at some simple morality. No one raped Ms. Thing. She chose to have sex. Ms. Thing had no reason in the world to think that I wanted a baby, or the bill for a baby. Ms. Thing had the option of aborting the baby, or, if that offends her sensiblilities, of putting it up for adoption or legally abandoning it. Yet Ms. Thing has chosen, all on her own, without asking me for word one, to have and keep the baby. That being the case, I see absolutely nothing wrong, morally, with insisting that she pay 100% of the freight for the baby. RF spelled it out for you as plainly as it can be spelled out. I have no more say in whether the baby is born than the man in the moon, so, it is no more my moral duty to pay for the little bundle of joy than it is the duty of the man in the moon.
"Evidently you can't see that, but I am quite happy to stand up for the children and moral behavior. I hope you will some day as well."
Yeah, you're quite the hero, aren't you? The white knight riding to the rescue of all the abandoned babies by posting his drivel on the internet. Yes, someday I hope I can be a "real man" like you are.
"and as a psychologist, you ought to be able to see that."
Rob, as a psychologist, I see the children 5 days a week. I see the adults who were damaged by mothers who kept the fathers our of the children's life, by the fathers who disappear. I see it. It is a sad sort of job security.
There is no manipulation here Rob. I am speaking of morality, that is the force, not my manipulation. The innocence speaks volumes.
The other stuff you say, 20 mph speed limits etc, is abject silliness. I am talking about the moral obligation to provide for one's offspring.
"The MORAL decision is something YOU make of your own accord."
We agree to a point. As a Christian, my morality is pretty well spelled out for me though. Still, I was not addressing law. I think nanny laws are ridiculous.
I lose your argument at the end there, where you talk about the nanny state. I hate the nanny state. Please try me again so I can respond.
Trey
Pete asked: "Which "man" should provide for "His Child?""
There are two important issues here as I see it. First, the genetic father is the father and has those obligations until they are legally discharged.
But, if I found out that one of my children was not mine genetically, I would still love and support my child. I am comanded to. I would give the "other" father access to his child as well. The child would have two daddies, but not in the way that is often meant. 8)
Interestingly, I am in a situation that is vaguely similar to the one you pose. I pay child support to my previous wife, the mother of our child, who lives with me half time. I pay more than I am required because anything that reduces the stress on my child's mother is good for my child. I trust God to reward my faithfulness rather than look at the dollars and cents.
And my triplets were a miracle of donor embryos. They are not genetically mine. We just got back from Target on a shoe buying adventure. I paid the bill. I love these four children with all my heart. They are a good gift from God. I would die for them.
It is about love in the final analysis.
Trey
Ruddy, YOU are talking about the law. I am talking about love and morality. I believe in love and morality more than the law.
The law allows unborn children to be murdered for the convienence of the mother without any input from the father. That is immoral. The law allows fathers to be forced to provide for children that they are not allowed to spend time with and love. That is immoral. I could go on, but you get the point.
The legal consequences are set against us as men. The moral consequences are more fair.
Oh, I prefer to not take it up the ass. I am funny that way. 8)
"The point is that the woman has all of the choice." And that is wrong. We agree. But it is as it is. Only the foolish ignore that. I have been active in the men's movement since 1982, I am aware of the legal inequities. But as I have aged, I focus more on my moral responsibilities. The law has remained outside my influence, but attempts at growing in love and self-control have paid real dividends. I recommend that to you as well. I have found that by focusing on my morality, the law pretty much leaves me alone.
"First of all, don't impose your Puritanism on me."
I cannot, nor have I tried to impose. I have stated my position, at least somewhat effectively based on your passionate refutation, and will continue to. But I will recommend my approach to you as something that has blessed me and given me peace. And good catch, I have been reading a lot about the Puritans lately. I think they went wrong in trying to force their morality on others instead of using persuasion and a loving example. But I do try to live a morally upright life. I am called to by my God.
"Yeah, you're quite the hero, aren't you?"
Actually, yes, I am in a small way, a hero. I have helped hundreds of people, adults and children, deal with horrid abuse and neglect. I have testified against people who rape children and helped put them in jail. I have helped terminate the rights of horrid people who did not deverve to be called parents. I am proud to be a part of that though I do not often speak of it. But the credit belongs to God who is responsible for anything decent or good I have ever done.
You could do much more heroic things than I. It is nothing great about me. I bet we agree on that!
And there is no need to call me names, put that energy into critiquing my ideas. And maybe take some time to think about what hurt you as a son or a father, and how you will do better than was done to you.
Trey
"Ruddy, YOU are talking about the law. I am talking about love and morality. I believe in love and morality more than the law."
OK, first of all, let's talk about love.
It would be great if all children grew up with tons of love. Of course, if women would only choose to have children when they knew that they, and the bio fathers, wanted them, that might be the case more often. As it stands now, a woman can have a kid even though she knows the bio father doesn't want it. What are the chances that that child is going to grow up with a father's love? Women, under the current regime, are empowered to have children that they knew the fathers won't love, because they get the fathers' money anyway, whether he wants the children, whether he loves them, or not.
Women need a disincentive to have children that their father doesn't want or love. And that disincentive should take the form of financial liability. Yes, society should say to them, you can have a child that only you want, but you, and only you, are the one who is going to have to pay for that child. This will lead to fewer unloved, or underloved, children.
As for morality, you still have to confront RF's first post head on. As a commenter on a previous thread put it, choice without responsibility is tyranny, and responsibility without choice is slavery. And that's where we stand now, morally. Women can impose their choice without responsibility; men have to take the responsibility without choice. Unless you can show how this is moral, you have no argument. And no amount of emotionalism, shaming language, or stories about your personal good deeds is going to change that. So, I beseech you, please focus on this in any response to me that you make.
"The law allows unborn children to be murdered for the convienence of the mother without any input from the father. That is immoral."
You think so. I don't, actually. I am all for reproductive freedom. And I object to the word "murdered," as it it is loaded and conclusory. To "murder" is to kill illegally, but the way you use the word, you put the cart before the horse. Because you want the killing to be illegal, you call it "murder." I also object to the term "unborn children," as I think it is unscientific and is designed to appeal to the emotions. Frankly, I'm not all that concerned about zygotes and embyros and their alleged "rights."
But all of this is neither here nor there,and you and I are not going to resolve the abortion question. The fact of the matter is that abortion is legal, and I don't see that changing any time soon. That being the case, the real question, it seems to me, is what should the law look like in terms of gender egalitarianism, of giving men as much reproductive freedom as women have, within the limits of biology to do so. Again, this is what we should be focusing on, if our exchanges here are to be at all productive.
"The law allows fathers to be forced to provide for children that they are not allowed to spend time with and love. That is immoral. I could go on, but you get the point."
Yes I do. But I would go further. The law also forces men who have no desire to be fathers at all into playing at least the financial part of that role. And this, as well as cutting fathers who want to be part of their kids' lives out of the picture, is what I want to change. Men should not have the responsibilities of fatherhood foisted on them. And men should have equal parental rights with mothers for the children they do want.
"The legal consequences are set against us as men."
Clearly.
"The moral consequences are more fair."
No. Again, until you have a persuasive response to the argument based on choice and responsibility, you have no moral case. You simply want to foist the financial responsiblity for children on men who did not choose to be fathers and who were not, ultimately, responsible for the child's existence. Again, this is the key moral issue here. Not whether or not children should be "loved."
me:
"The point is that the woman has all of the choice."
you:
"And that is wrong. We agree."
Good.
"But it is as it is."
Of course it is as it is. But, again, what we are talking about, what we are discussing, is what it should be. It was no answer to Dr. King in 1960 that the law in Alabama "was as it was," so he and his fellow African Americans would always have to move to the back of the bus. The law is at is and was as it was, and is and was immoral and unfair on both occasions.
"Only the foolish ignore that."
Again with this "foolish" business. We all know what the state of the law currently is. None of us here is so foolish as to think, or more importantly, to act, otherwise. What purpose does it serve to repeat this over and over?
"I have been active in the men's movement since 1982, I am aware of the legal inequities."
And that is what the MRM needs to stay focused on, changing the law.
"But as I have aged, I focus more on my moral responsibilities. The law has remained outside my influence, but attempts at growing in love and self-control have paid real dividends."
Frankly, I am not in the least concerned with your "moral" journey. Nor am I impressed with your self congratulations with regards to your "growing in love and self control."
"I recommend that to you as well. "
Your sanctimony knows no bounds, does it?
"I have found that by focusing on my morality, the law pretty much leaves me alone."
Well then, I guess we don't a MRM do we? Let's all just follow your example of "growing" our morality and I'm sure the law will leave us alone.
"I cannot [impose a Puritan morality], nor have I tried to impose."
Not true. With your "real man" and "cad" and "sorry equation" and "murdered unborn children" and so on, almost everything you say is couched in terms of your personal morality, which you attempt to force on others.
Think differently than me? Then you are a cad and not a real man. That's your game, don't try to deny now.
"I have stated my position, at least somewhat effectively based on your passionate refutation, and will continue to."
My passion has nothing to do with your persuasiveness. To the extent that I am not already passionate about this issue, your obtuseness only infuriates me further. It is not necessarily a good argument that calls forth a passionate response. In your case, it is quite the opposite.
"But I will recommend my approach to you as something that has blessed me and given me peace."
More sanctimony. Do you never stop preaching?
"And good catch, I have been reading a lot about the Puritans lately."
(1) Thanks for the patronizing.
(2) I couldn't care less what you claim to be reading.
"But I do try to live a morally upright life. I am called to by my God."
Preach away.
Don't you get it? This is an internet discussion aboard about political and social issues. No one gives a damn about your personal life. We are here to discuss public issues. And to do so using publicly available facts and logic. Not to compare virtuosity.
Moreover, the whole thing is, by design, anonymous. I don't know who you really are. For all I know, you could have fathered 47 kids by 45 different mothers and never paid a dime for any of them.
And that has nothing to do with it anyway. Either your arguments hold up or they don't. Whether you are a nice, happily married psychologist who likes to take your triplets to buy shoes, or are, instead, a drunken bum with illegitimate children all over the country, none of whom you've ever even seen, makes no difference whatsoever to the discourse here.
me:
"Yeah, you're quite the hero, aren't you?"
you"
"Actually, yes, I am in a small way, a hero. I have helped hundreds of people, adults and children, deal with horrid abuse and neglect. I have testified against people who rape children and helped put them in jail. I have helped terminate the rights of horrid people who did not deverve to be called parents. I am proud to be a part of that though I do not often speak of it. But the credit belongs to God who is responsible for anything decent or good I have ever done."
Wow, you are too much!
First of all, my comment about you being a hero was in response to your boast about coming to the defense of "the children" by posting your comments on this board. Not about your personal life. And, it hardly needs to be said (although I guess it does to you), nothing you post here can possibly make you a "hero."
Secondly, as I just said, I have no way of knowing who or what you really are.
Thirdly, even assuming you are what you say you are, you are PAID to do all of those things, aren't you? How does that make you a hero? You are paid to go into court and testify, and so that's what you do. No risk to you whatsover, unlike, say, as with a fireman. You don't even get your hands dirty. That hardly seems heroic.
Fourthly, you call yourself a hero, but then turn around and give God the credit. You can't have it both ways. Either you really (unbelievably!) think that you are a hero, or you don't. Whether God made you one or not is irrelevant.
"You could do much more heroic things than I. It is nothing great about me. I bet we agree on that!"
More of the same. Patronizing. And calling yourself a hero while being self deprecating at the same time. No sale.
"And there is no need to call me names. . ."
That's true. But you open yourself up for that line of attack when you come right out of the box with the "not a real man" and "cad" language. Those are also insults. And, while less colorful than the ones I used, they are actually worse in this context, because they are designed to create shame and cut off discourse.
".. .put that energy into critiquing my ideas. . . "
The problem is that you don't have any actual ideas. You just combine bromides with chivalry and unctiousness, stir thoroughly, add a dash of irrelevant content about your personal life, and voila, treacle a la Trey.
"And maybe take some time to think about what hurt you as a son or a father, and how you will do better than was done to you."
You know, you tried to do this the last time we tussled. And it is really creepy and sleazy. I'm not one of your patients, shrink. I did not ask you for any free "therapy." Moreover, it is totally unprofessional for you to dispense this kind of comment over the internet to someone you don't even know. Furthermore, it is patronizing to the nth degree. "There, there, you just disagree with the all-wise doctor because you've been hurt, let me try to make it all better."
You are completely wrong about me and where my views come from. And you have no right to speculate about my personal life, which, unlike you, I choose to keep private. In short, get off of my cloud, doc.
Now, you've managed to do it again. With your sanctimony and patronizing and faux freindliness and concern and your meaningless jousting you have got me going into a lot of things that don't really matter. If you respond to this post, I would really appreciate it if you would attempt to show why RF's argument re choice and responsibility is not dispositive. And to do so without relying on an "abortion should be illegal" argument. If you can't do that, then you can't do anything that really matters. We can spar back and forth all night, but, again, unless you address the real issue, we will just be spinning our wheels.
TMink said "We agree. Do you disagree that a real man provides for his children?"
It's a BS paradigm as you stated it. First, this subject is about 'gotcha' pregnancies.
Secondly, as I stated it, a man who tells a woman up front she's on her own, takes his precautions, and due to her choices and actions (read:deceptions) becomes pregnant, engages in no deceit whatsoever. He tells her in advance what the consequences are. If she chooses those consequences, that is her voluntary choice.
"I was in complete agreement till you abandoned your son or daughter. That is reprehensible behavior. Someone of your intellect should see that."
That's a load of BS on several levels. First, don't personalize it to me, calling me and my behavior reprehensible. As I've set forth, it's completely up front and honest. If a woman chooses the 'gotcha' route (which you minimize by doing as I suggest), SHE chooses to be pregnant ,and the consequences of it, with full knowledge of the consequences. But I'm reprehensible? Put the rose-colored glasses and crack pipe down (metaphorically speaking).
Secondly, you both ignore and make one of my points (no small feat) - Men have legal liability for child support. Nothing more. I did say do what you are legally required (child support). Nothing more. By telling her in advance you won't be involved if pregnancy occurs (again - her CHOICE), you remove at least in part, an impetus to be connected via a child. Someone of your intelligence should understand that. That isn't reprehensible. It's rational. more importantly, it open and honest.
Thirdly, it's not my son or daughter. It's hers. Since I told her in advance I don't want one or will be involved in one. That is her choice (in 2 stages- before birth control and post-insemination), not mine (fully supported by the law). I know someone of your intelligence understands this, but love how I am reprehensible for being up front about it.
I don't advocate personalization of posts too much, but in this case I feel compelled to point out TMink uses zero logic and reason to refute my post, just that I'm somehow 'reprehensible' for being honest and direct in advance (vis-a vie) gotcha pregnancies). As if it is okay to defraud someone without consequences...I advocate being perfectly clear in advance so there is not fraud. Of course, Tmink seeks to answer with logic and rational thought with shame. Not an effective tactic. I'd call it insulting, quite frankly, given the open disclosure as I've stated it.
Lastly, if, as other posters have indicated, Tmink is a psychologist, I find answering upfront honesty and logic with back-end shame reprehensible, and can only hope I never end up in front of someone with similar (lack of thought) patterns. Surely there is more in the psychological quiver in answer to honesty than shame....
"It is about love in the final analysis."
-BS. Go to "Family Court" (oxymoron). It's about anything but love.
Sorry to readers for the hard directness of this post, but to these eyes, but calling someone reprehensible for being honest and later being lied to, is disingenuous and a perversion of justice on the most basic level.
Wow.
Now THAt was some excellent discourse.
Well, smack-down might be a better term. :)
It is just amazing to me, in cases like this, that since the perpetrator is a woman and the victim is a man, that the severity of the situatin is completely disregarded by so many. They argue best for children and best for taxpayer, or anything else, but still won't explain how rewarding the perpetrator and punishing the victim is just.
Abortion is not "best for child" but that is just fine because "convenient for women" overrides it.
Adoption would be "best for child" but disregarded because what the mother wants overrides it.
This "best for child" and "best for taxpayer" argument is a sham. It is just a noble sounding cover for the true agenda--transferring wealth from men to women.
It is not best for the child to trick someone into being a father for financial reasons that are designed to benefit the person who tricked him.
We all agree that one takes the risk of pregnancy when having sex. Even the man in this situation knew that. The real question is whether or not the person who tricked him should be rewarded.
Backwards incentives are all over the place. A jerk at the office may get the promotion. Women tend to reward bad men with sex (then complain there are no good men). Men tend to reward conceited women by taking them on expensive dates (few arrogant jerks or stuck up bitches have problems with the opposite sex). But I can't think of many examples where such outright deceit/fraud and breach of responsbility/vows etc. are promoted by laws. It's one thing if people make a choice to reward those who do them wrong, it is quite another when the law provides such an incentive.
Now, women get the house, kids, and huge financial kickbacks almost automatically. And then we wonder, why oh why, do women intiated 75% of divorces.
We wonder why women would trick a man into getting her pregnant. Let me see... Go to the clinic and pay to be a single mom, or find a rich man and Uncle Sam makes him pay you to be a mom. Why would we even ask that question?
If you want to stop behaviors, cut off the incentives. Perhaps if we stopped tax funding poor choices, people would put children they can't handle up for adoption, and quit using the taxpayer as an excuse to perpetuate fraud against men.
I know, dream on.
"A couple years later I got involved with a woman who vowed and declared she was on the pill, and "never, ever, ever" wanted children...
So, I said nothing.
...
Somehow I wound up the sonofabitch there."
The pill is not free of consequence and side effect. Letting her take years of unnecessary medication is ... scuzzy.
That's no excusing her behavior (predictable and scuzzy as well) there's plenty of blame to go around.
@michael farris said... "Letting her take years of unnecessary medication is ... scuzzy."
_____
I guess you missed the part when she declared "she was on the pill." She was taking it before she met him, so how he is scuzzy for "letting her" is beyond me.
TMink,
Your sanctimonious preaching about Real Men (TM), your constant bragging about what a hero you are - saving the little wimmin, and your steady use of compliments to people that seem false (although your vast psychological wisdom - far more than the people beneath you here - probably pushes you do make these glib compliments) are frankly kind of sickening.
Can't you just sit in a corner somewhere and ponder your utter hero-ness and greatness without constantly writing about it.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.
k thx
If you think you are making psychologists look good with yourself as an example - believe me, you're not. Embarrassing.
You're dodging the question, trey. Real incidents. But let me get my understanding straight.
From the aforementioned situation, then, in order to be "Real Men" (tm) Andy and Charlie both - though you hold that only Charlie would have a legal obligation - would pay support to Betty, and she would have no consequences to her direct lie to Andy (This is your child), her lie by omission to Charlie, and her direct lie to the child (This is your daddy). Because, yanno, it reduces stress and is better for the child.
And I guess, points off to Andy for leaving her, and increasing "stress," no?
And I s'pose that even though Andy always wanted his own children, since he can't afford them now that he's paying support for some other guy's kid - to be a Real Man(tm) he just needs to suck it up.
If I am wrong, pray correct me by answering the direct questions:
What should Andy's legal obligation be?
What should Charlie's legal obligation be?
What, if any, sanctions should Betty recieve for her fraud?
What are Betty's moral obligations?
Until all these direct questions are answered, again, your definition of "Real Man" is too nebulous to be of value.
And my triplets were a miracle of donor embryos. They are not genetically mine. We just got back from Target on a shoe buying adventure. I paid the bill. I love these four children with all my heart. They are a good gift from God. I would die for them.
Well, good for the triplets, but an apples and oranges irrelevance. You knew very well going into it - even before they were concieved - that they would not be yours genetically.
@michael farris said... "Letting her take years of unnecessary medication is ... scuzzy."
_____
I guess you missed the part when she declared "she was on the pill." She was taking it before she met him, so how he is scuzzy for "letting her" is beyond me.
He also missed where many women take the pill for reasons other than Birth Control, like regulation of their period.
What happens when a sanctimonious asshat offers a glib judgement without knowing all the facts.
I'm so glad I somehow became the topic under discussin in this thread. I stopped reading when y'all began mischaracterizing.
I am in agreement that no more taxpayer money to women or men who conceive out of wedlock. None.
If the child is born, then both biological parents should be on the hook to pay off the hospital delivery bills, and pay for the costs of caring for the child until it's 18.
Not the taxpayer.
If the DNA determined father comes up with the "she tricked me excuse!!", he will still be on the line for paying 1/2 the care of his child. "Buyer be ware."
I'm sorry so many of you disagree with this conservative viewpoint. It's just -- most men, and women, out here do not want to continue paying for other people's children. You make em, you take em.
Under my policy, I suspect if there's no government support amd no "I bin tricked!" excuses giving men incentives to evade their biological child, and women incentives to continue breeding them w/the foolish men's help, then you'd have a lot more parents surrendering custody of their children under Termination of Parental Rights.
It's not that I am not sympathetic to the naive and foolish man who got tricked into parenthood, it's that I suspect we'll have even more their little bastards running around out there for other family-oriented working people to support, if the "I bin tricked, so I don't have to pay her!" excuse takes hold in society.
Lots of men manage not to breed out of wedlock, and believe it or not, not all virgins. Be smart, and don't give foolish men the same incentives foolish women currently have. Otherwise, the results of what you're calling for here with more unaccountable illegitimate children running around is even MORE NANNY STATE.
Better to put the personal responsibility back on the two individuals who have some control over the situation before the third party is created and biological realities take over.
Because one born, somebody has to feed that crying hungry mouth.
That's a biological reality too.
Mary, even if I accept your scenario and proposals (... and I don't), why do you not want to hold a woman guilty of fraud liable in any way?
And that can be done without "hurting the children" (which is the woman's leverage).
If, as I stated above, she is found guilty of fraud, suspend the judgment until the kid is an adult. Then give her a minimum to live on and take away everything else from her, month after month, year after year, until the entire amount of fraudulently obtained child support is paid off. I realize that most leeching, manipulative women are "judgment proof" and it would be hard to get all the money back, but it may deter other enterprising women and ... it's a start.
But you don't want to hold women responsible in any way, you want to push it all on the man. The woman is the final arbiter of whether she has a baby or not. It's 100% in her hands.
Society in general does not want to hold women responsible - even today. Although (surprisingly!) there ARE responsible women despite that, I have met women who were just off the scale in terms of responsibility (men with that same attitude would have long since been in prison) - these women look around for the nearest plausible man and blame everything on him. Society and people like Mary are fostering this irresponsibility on the part of women.
Why?
Èither women are children or they are adults.
If society (including Mary) wants to let them be children in terms of responsibility, then let's not let children do other adult things. Like vote.
"so how he is scuzzy for "letting her" is beyond me"
Okay, maybe 'scuzzy' isn't exactly the right word. But I can't imagine not mentioning the vasectomy in a years-long intimate (presumably monogamous) relationship. Why not? Was he secretly ashamed? Afraid she'd dump him if she knew? What's the motivation for puposefully keeping something like that a secret?
And, yes, the woman stopping taking the pill without telling her partner is dishonest and manipulative. What a good thing that couple will never reproduce!
Èither women are children or they are adults.
If society (including Mary) wants to let them be children in terms of responsibility, then let's not let children do other adult things. Like vote.
LOL. Not me. I still get to vote. Even if you Nanny-State encouragers don't like to hear an equal opportunity:
MEN AND WOMEN WHO MAKE BABIES HAVE TO PAY FOR THEM.
Now, continue falling into the "men are victims" trap that so many feminists have already softly bedded for you fools. Heck, women get such a good deal for themselves and their kids playing victims nowadays, I can see why it is so tempting for all the irresponsible non-hunting fellas too.
BOO MOMMY STATE. SHE MADE ME GET HER PREGNANT, I HAVE NO CONTROL, I'M JUST A VICTIM. BOO HOO.
If that's the argument you all want to stick with, I pity you and your sons. "And a feminist -- under the banner of societal victimization -- will lead them." Luckily, that's not the case everywhere.
I'll let it go at that...
Mary, your argument style chiefly consists of Telling Others How It's Going to Be.
You can most likely terrorize men around you in real life (by manipulating the Chivalrous Real Men to back you up), but you are not as convincing here with that style of argument.
Repeat what someone has said and then - as an "answer" - put taunting statements in capital letters and then tell them how it's going to be according to Mary.
If men ever lost their chivalry and deference for women, you would be in a very sorry spot, Mary.
You can't 'prove' that a woman committed fraud by telling you she was on the pill and wasn't- there are too many backdoors- too vague- this is why women love this type of thing & despise facts, concrete reality, principles and ethics.
The only way women will stop behaving like feral alley cats is through deep societal shame. That is the way it worked before and that is the only way it can work again.
We now live in a society that not only condones but praises women for being diseased whores and 'heroes' for being single mothers that are paid for & raised by everyone else because she is too busy out collecting more diseases.
Women control the the vagina and the womb. It is up to them to tell a man 'no.' It is up to them to take responsibility and protect it-that is their role. A man has his own role.
Don't even argue with this Social Security Disability alcoholic hag Mary- she represents the mindset of the early 1980's- 'we'll fix this problem by putting all the blame and responsibility on the men!' Well, we can can all see how that worked out- ha ha.
Take all the responsibilty off of women and you get an entire generation of incredibly dumbed down, diseased, tatooed teenage road whores with less moral fiber than a Hell's Angels biker who breed like fruit flies... in other words what we have today (who will grow up to become unemployable SSD alcoholic hags by the way).
Mary, your argument style chiefly consists of Telling Others How It's Going to Be.
You don't like what I'm saying because I'm a woman, telling you some of the basic realities of life.
1) Babies need care
2) Men and women make babies
3) Foolish women are just as tricky as men in getting what they want
4) US government currently subsidizes women w/children out of wedlock
5) Foolish men think short term
6) Do I have to spell it out?
7) Baby of foolish man and foolish woman is here needing care as foretold by told-you-so Mary in line
8) Government steps in and people like Mary begin paying for baby of foolish man and foolish woman (remember -- alone, neither foolish man nor foolish woman can make their (likely foolish) child
9) Foolish women whine they are victims of the system and tag foolish man to pay
10) Foolish man recognizes he too is a foolish victim of system, and gets a gang of buddies to take it out on ... the innocent "Mary's" busy paying for his foolish offspring (with no thanks sadly).
Why? Because she too is a woman, though very much not a foolish tricky one, who understands that if you play with fools in a foolish system, you're likely be committing your foolish self -- PLUS your innocent foolish child -- to a continued system of fools (see the Prison Daddy comment above.)
Silly fools! But a fun diversion while the laundry is tossing, I can tell you ... Please, keep it up. Oddly, I find some sick part of me enjoys hearing "men victims" whine about their lack of control in this foolish foolish, biologically cruel world ! It kind of ... empowers me. Poor JG: it sounds as though ... he'd like to punch my lights out. Foolish little man.
Hi Mark,
I'm so sorry to hear you momma drank herself to death. Good thing she had that social safety net to fall back on (SSDI did you say it was?) Personally, those programs will never be there for the independent "Mary's" of the world -- luckily, we've not all crippled ourselves with the "victim" meme that seems to be catching around here!
Cheerio -- my Saturday chores are only 1/2 done. Keep up the whining fellas -- it's probably therapeautic in some non-outdoors way ?
PS. Come over to my blog later boys, and you can see what I did today. If you don't get played for a fool and conceive a baby out of wedlock, and work independently to support yourself, sometimes you can even afford a few toys of your own. Play Galt on a Saturday, at least.
I know ... life is unfair. Luckily, if you're not too foolish and control what you can, it kind of rewards good decision making. I like that -- you make your own luck. (or, you lay with fools, you get babies.)
Easter blessings, and belated Passover greeting to our friends of faith!
All the best, commenter Mary.
Ha ha. Tell it to someone stupid, Trailer Queen. I know so much about your type because there are so many millions of you - aging whores who took too many drugs & drank too much- the forerunners of the beasts we have today- mothers of what are now horribly dysfunctional adults- (getting too close for comfort here, hmmm?) utterly unemployable and parasites on society- the last person on Earth who needs to be telling anyone how they should conduct their lives.
Oh & btw, my mother is a Bible-thumping hardcore Christian who's never drank in her life- a detective/psychologist you're definately not. Ha ha- I'm always amazed at how consistently wrong women are at second guessing anyone or anything- I guess they just suck at it like they suck at everything else besides VD collection.
Mary's definition of 'independent' is that the government pays her rent/ or she's gotten a house off the back of some poor old schmuck who keeled over from looking at her toothless mug.
"Poor JG: it sounds as though ... he'd like to punch my lights out. Foolish little man."
---
Well, don't worry, TMink and other Real Men would come to your rescue. You could even make a false accusation.
Maybe you misunderstood, though - I was trying to get the idea across that the power of bossy, menapausal bitches (and they are legion) is on loan from men. And although it doesn't appear likely at this point, men can also take it away. In any case, the era of these dominatrixes is coming to a close in some form.
This comment has been removed by the author.
All I see Mary doing is patting herself on her back for ignoring the solidly logical arguments put in front of her.
She still does not address that the law of the land is HER BODY, HER CHOICE.
That occurs BEFORE the baby is born, which Mary continues to ignore.
What Mary is describing is pure Blackmail.
It is like saying, "I'm gonna set your house on fire, and then charge you $1,000 a minute to borrow my garden hose... because your house is on fire and you have no choice."
This is what she is doing... "ONCE THE CHILD HAS ARRIVED blah, blah, blah..."
She neatly sidesteps, OVER AND OVER AGAIN, that the WOMAN had the RIGHT to CHOOSE whether or not to be pregnant, AFTER SEX! Completely independent of the man.
This quite simply negates all of the man's responsibility, because the woman chose, INDEPENDENTLY OF THE MAN, whether to carry to term or to terminate.
If it didn't, he would have a legitimate course of action by taking a woman to court and FORCING her to have a baby against her will... but he doesn't, does he?
That is because the ONLY babies born in the Western World are the ones women CHOOSE to have - Her body, HER CHOICE.
Good grief.
Is this so difficult?
Apparently so.
Mary - "If the child is born, then both biological parents should be on the hook to pay off the hospital delivery bills, and pay for the costs of caring for the child until it's 18."
Mary,
The face of it, I can well agree with you in this position.
Yet, this (as do most all of your postings on the matter) still has a distinctly “hollow” ring to it.
I have the sneaking suspicion that it you were asked direct, just who would have the primary responsibility for the financial cost of the child, that your position would be, “Why, the man, of course”.
I had tried to bring up earlier the observation that a significant number of these women who seek to unilaterally have a child are, in fact, woman of sufficient means to be able to sustain the entire cost on their own (it’s likely that an overwhelming majority of such women fall into this category).
These are women who could opt to have in-vitro fertilization, pay all of the medical costs, and still have plenty to raise the child.
They simply make a selfish callous decision to involve another person to be held liable for some, if not all, of the associated costs.
They plan to have a child, one way or another. It is their primary motivation. They may have sex with dozens of men, looking for the one who’s foolish enough to not take precautions. There are even cases wherein a man HAS taken what he believed to be proper precautions, only to have her retrieve the used condom from the trash, and perform her own artificial insemination on herself.
They have “zero” intent of the man being anything other tan a sperm donor. But, unlike the anonymous donated sperm from an IVF clinic, the origins of his are known, and he can thereby be legally obligated.
And, to be blunt, these women are not seeking ½ of the total cost – they are looking for a direct income enhancement for themselves.
As I’m sure you are well aware, child support obligations are not based on the actual costs of raising a child, but rather on a percentage of the mans income. You do mention the man paying ½, but yet you must know the actual wealth transfer will be much larger (I assume you are in happy agreement with the general notion of wealth-transfer from men to women?).
It’s hardly any secret that “child support” is intended as de facto alimony for women. But, these women were never married to these men.
But what we actually have is a system under which an intelligent educated career woman who makes $100k/yr who wishes to have a child, yet doesn’t want to have her lifestyle reduced to the level of, say, a woman making only $70k/yr, need only find a man of good income (say, for instance $70k/yr) to get drunk and seduce into one-time meaningless sex.
She saves herself the costs of IVF. She can hit up his healthcare insurance of the medical costs., and then she can have the courts confiscate 1/3 of his take-home pay.
She gets to have HER child, and keep her $100k/yr lifestyle. Frankly, it’s a good, solid, logical choice.
The only “problem is that some poor man ends up paying for her choice.
In the end, society gains one more child who will be raised by a single parent (of dubious character, who will be unlikely to raise that child to be a good, upstanding citizen), as a replacement for one that the man will not be able to have and raise in a loving home with a wife and mother, as well as a father present.
Your primary concern seems to be that these selfish women NOT cost you anything (make the man pay); but the reality is that they costs us all – often in ways that go way beyond money alone.
Foolish is having casual sex with a woman trusting that she is on the pill or had her tubes tied.
Foolish does not describe a woman that lies about her fertility to extort money from a man fro 20 years. Evil and fraudulent are better descriptors. No one would use the term "foolish" to describe a man who lied about a vasectomy, nor would anything think it fit to give him money.
"for the child" usually means "for the woman." Child support payments often get spent more on the mother's wants than the child's needs.
Someone has to take care of a child. Good candidates are the father (through a shot a custody, support tied to visitation, etc.), family, benefactor, church, philantroper, and, best of all, an adoptive two parent family that is actually mature enough to handle a child.
If we stopped this nonsense of financing illegitmacy, we'd have less of it and/or more adoption. If someone intentionall gets pregnant with a child they can't afford, then they need to find a way to afford the child or give the child to someone who can.
Incentive and options encourage behavior, or misbehavior.
The government either needs to get fair, or butt out. Fewer women would do this if:
A) There was a 40-50% chance the father would get custody and they would be the ones paying support or
B) They had no legal right to make economic demands and had to either arrange it mutually beforehand or negotiate help in conjunction with visitation after. Some men may say "your problem," but if women want 100% of the power over the child (abortion, adoption, or birth) this is the price they pay. Otherwise, the father should have equal opportunity for custody.
Not a popular solution, especially among women, but the one ones that will work. Anything else provides the wrong incentives.
Men as donut bakers not responsible for the women who eat too many donuts and get fat? Oh, penalty flag. To be analogous the donut baker would be the one getting the pleasure from eating the donuts while the women got fat. LOL
Men seem surprised that sex makes babies. They should not have sex with any woman they don't want to impregnate and either marry or pay child support to for the next couple of decades.
Science fails. All forms of contraception have a failure rate. The sexiest women are in their most fertile years. Mother Nature rigged the female sex drive to coincide with ovulation.
Men pay child support because government realized it couldn't afford to be the daddy and keep incentivizing single parenthood. Now at least the government is trying to inspire better results by having men have a stake in the game, as it should be. A child isn't a jerk and a dribble.
Since the sexual revolution and the pill, the delicate balance in male-female relationships has changed. The way things are now is the price of that. Welcome to the brave new world.
The redheaded chick in the video needs a longer cut shrug sweater. Her rack is hanging out below her sweater and it looks hoorish and nasty. I also bet that if she had an oopsie pregnancy with a man she loved, she'd keep the baby regardless of what he decided and all her airy ethics utterly unconnected from the real world would just fly out the window.
A child is not a tragedy.
@kentuckyliz: "Men seem surprised that sex makes babies. They should not have sex with any woman they don't want to impregnate and either marry or pay child support to for the next couple of decades."
I don't know any man surprised by that. Should not have sex with anyone they dont' want to impregnate? Give me a break. Women should not marry men they don't want to have sex with...oh wait, that's not politically correct.
Why are you surprised men don't like being tricked and extorted? Most would understand if they had to pay due to failure rate, but to be deceived? Why should they feel any different than a woman whose man lied about a vasectomy?
__________
@kentuckyliz: "Science fails. All forms of contraception have a failure rate. The sexiest women are in their most fertile years. Mother Nature rigged the female sex drive to coincide with ovulation."
This isnt' about failure rates. It is about deceit, fraud and extortion. Funny how it's okay when a woman does it to a man.
________________
@kentuckyliz: "Men pay child support because government realized it couldn't afford to be the daddy and keep incentivizing single parenthood. Now at least the government is trying to inspire better results by having men have a stake in the game, as it should be. A child isn't a jerk and a dribble."
This isn't about man's obligation to their offspring, it is about women benefiting from fraud. No where is there anything to match a man geting 20 years of money because he dupes a woman into motherhood, certainly not state sponsored.
A child isn't a jerk and a dribble, that's true. So why isn't their any sort of outrage towards a woman who creates a situation intentionally where they child does not have a father who wanted it? Accidents are one thing, but fraud is something totally separate.
________________
@kentuckyliz: "Since the sexual revolution and the pill, the delicate balance in male-female relationships has changed. The way things are now is the price of that. Welcome to the brave new world."
Basically true. Men are foolish enough to believe women who say they are infertile, and the government supports this fraud.
_____________
@kentuckyliz: "The redheaded chick in the video needs a longer cut shrug sweater. Her rack is hanging out below her sweater and it looks hoorish and nasty. I also bet that if she had an oopsie pregnancy with a man she loved, she'd keep the baby regardless of what he decided and all her airy ethics utterly unconnected from the real world would just fly out the window."
Nice, intellectual, non-personal argument there. I bet you're one of those kind and tolerant liberals.
________
@kentuckyliz: "A child is not a tragedy."
No one said they were. The tragedy is what is done to the child. Are you brave enough to hold the woman who did this with intent accoutnable and not just the man who was stupid enough to believe her? Or are you afraid to not toe to liberal line?
There is no picture of me to see, so if you dont' like what I have to say you'll have to attack something other than my hair color or outfit.
Thank you, kentuckyliz. You said it. Otherwise you were right, but a person shall not be infringed. Today the relationship is just sex. People are afraid of commitment. In my emotional relationship is much better than a one night stand. Relations may be disappointed, but it increases the life experience. I'm not religious, but the behavior must be the ethical principles. One must remember that your actions also affect other people. If the relationship following the birth of a child, the responsibility has to bear. The child must have a father and mother.
Pete wrote: "Well, good for the triplets, but an apples and oranges irrelevance."
Thanks for blessing my kids! It is good for them, and good for me and my wife as well.
And "vaguely similar" does not mean exactly the same, now does it?
Trey
@Godless Finn
You're right that relationships should be more than just sex and the child must have a mother and a father. I also agree about ethical principles, which is why I am so bothered by so many posts (such as kentuckyliz who you praise) that focus solely on the foolish man without even flinching about the deceptive woman who created the situation intentially (largely because it is profitable).
"Your sanctimony knows no bounds, does it?"
You are confusing testimony with sanctimony. Testimony is when I share something that has worked for me and given me peace and blessings. You will note that I gave the credit to God instead of taking it for myself. Read it again to see that. I would love for you to have the same in your life, so I recommend it to you. That is a gift.
Sanctimony is when I say that you are a worse person than I. Instead, I suggested that you could be BETTER than me. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
How is your life working Ruddy? Are you blessed and at peace and happy? If so, rock on. If not, it is Easter, time for new beginnings.
Sadly, it will be later before I can respond more. I have a little more work, then I will be at home having fun with the wife and kids as we get ready for the best day of our year.
We will talk later.
Trey
OK now that I have read the comments, I will add two things:
1. A verbal contract is not enforceable in a court of law (at least in the Commonwealth of Kentucky--check the laws in your own state)
2. I forgot to add, it's not just 18 years of child support, it's a legal right to a proportionate inheritance for all natural children.
Now that doesn't matter to poor men Johnny Appleseeds who have nothing to lose.
However, it does matter to families like my sister's, who has a family owned farm, undivided inherited property with ever greater number of co-owners as the generations have ticked by, since his ancestors settled that land. They had a serious talk with their fornicatin' teenage son about this, because they don't want some skank's bastard child and his/her descendents claiming part ownership of the farm.
Again, check your states' laws. It doesn't matter what the will says, all natural children are guaranteed their fair share of your estate (in my state anyway).
Bastardy isn't a moral concept, it's a legal concept, and an outdated one at that, especially since the advent of DNA testing.
One more thing I'd like to add--something I learned about within the last year and I have told my sibs and teen nephews about this.
A friend of mine who is an RN in an OBGYN practice has told me about how some young women (late teens/early 20s) have totally unselfconsciously shared what their plan was (as they are coming for their prenatal appointments). They looked for a young man who had a high paying job and no previous children (whether ever married or not). Why? Whoever is first in line gets the biggest child support award from the judge. They don't date men who are already babydaddies. Some of these women have managed to be first in line with more than one babydaddy.
It's perverse but that's the system you get as a result of the sexual revolution and the destruction of the delicate balance between men and women.
People will make families however they're able to. If men don't want to marry and raise their kids, due to perpetual adolescent selfishness or money-greed or a bitter hater attitude towards women, fine. I don't think the current situation is doing any favors for the men...or the women. Nobody is liberated, they are ever more enslaved and have less freedom than before, and adopt a hard-edged, don't-care casual attitude as a psychological defense against being used and thrown aside so much. Everyone is too high mileage and miserable. When everyone's a hoor, noone's a hoor.
It will contribute to the decline of this civization, on short order.
Trust, you are right. Yes, the mother is also responsible for the child. In my opinion, 50/50 is a fair deal. But there are men who flee from responsibility. And also mothers. I know a woman who immediately after delivery, gave the baby to the father and moved to the other side of the country. The woman has not been any contact with the child. Weard, huh?
A society that puts emotion before principle is one that is doomed to commit suicide.
Children should never lead adults, and women should never lead men.
I must be this way because empathy flows from men to women to children, in order of human value, according to our human nature. It does not flow equitably in the other direction, and wishing it to be so is no more beneficial than wishing for wings and gills to make you a better human.
People can rant and rail all they want, but in the end, the only true solution comes back to a proper hierarchy.
Wise books like the Bible put forth the way things work for humans... and even Christians themselves seem to be rebelling against the word of God by putting Secular Humanist ideology above God. God is the Truth, according to the Bible. It is Absolute Truth - the kind of truth that never changes. The 10 Commandments directly state that man is not too put false gods (false truths) above him.
That's what it says. Plain as day.
All of these arguments and blaming everything on men is just bullshit.
Either restore the natural hierarchy, and demand of males that they accept the increased responsibility that goes along with it, or watch as society self destructs itself under female created, emotionally manipulated "Double Standards" that destroy civilization.
Children live under the standards of adults, women live under the standards of men, and men live under the standards of God.
Men give more of themselves to women, and women give more of themselves to children, and children take the most because they are the most valuable.
Never can the parasite lead the host, or the system collapses.
All of this "blame the man" is crap and rebellion against nature, because it is based upon the double standard.
Even men prefer to blame the man and ignore the woman, as is evident from many of the men (often Christian men) in this thread.
Where, exactly, is the "point" where we say that emotion cannot lead principle. It MUST be principle leading emotion in order for society to function? Exactly, where is that "line in the sand" when we let emotion lead principle.
Can one of the "man blamers" here point out exactly where that line is? Emotional pleas about the child tend to erase that line, exactly how emotional pleas about women tend to erase the lines of principles.
Placing the weak over the strong necessarily invites the double standard, and that is HIGHLY dangerous territory.
There is a reason why dictators manipulate society through "the best interests of the child," and it is similar to how society manipulates chivalrous men through "the best interests of women."
Principle must lead emotion, and it must never, ever be allowed to go the other direction.
(1) Trey, just because you call it "testimony" doesn't make it any less sanctimonious.
(2) Stay out of my personal life, as it is none of your business.
(3) If you have anything to say to me, pleas address the moral argument about choice and responsiblity in Rob Fetters' comment upthread. And please do not do so in terms of (1) men should just keep it in their pants, because that objection is already accounted for and disproven in RF's post or (2) abortion should be illegal (as that is not going to happen and the only real question is how to shape the law in light of that political reality).
If you can't do number (3), just leave me alone, as I have no desire to discuss your personal life, or my own, with you.
Thanks in advance.
"Again, check your states' laws. It doesn't matter what the will says, all natural children are guaranteed their fair share of your estate (in my state anyway)."
The last part of that sentence being the most important. I'd also hazard a guess that there are plenty of ways around that law in KY, as there are. Namely trusts. Those aren't fullproof either. My drunken father thought his live in girlfriend would do right by me in managing his estate. Here's a hint, its 4 days from tax day and I still don't have the estate's taxes. Depending on whats gone on, taxes I'm legally liable for. Not that I've been told much the past year (or years really). The great kicker being I may owe CA taxes despite not living there.
Ruddy, you are confused. I have never said that abortion should be illegal or that men shoud just keep it in their pants. You are confused.
sanctimonious - making a hypocritical show of religious piety, righteousness, etc.:
At no time have I said that I am better than you. That is beacuse I do not think I am better than you.
I do indeed think I have a better idea of how to deal with the gender inequity we both face. I would love it if you would comment on that or things I actually write. It goes better that way.
I will look at the post you refer to and comment on it later. I hope that will be more constructive.
I am not in your personal life, I do not know you. I have shared things from my personal life and ASKED you about yours. I am sorry that feels coercive to you.
Trey
Kentuckyliz: “Men pay child support because government realized it couldn't afford to be the daddy and keep incentivizing single parenthood. Now at least the government is trying to inspire better results by having men have a stake in the game, as it should be.”
No. The government realized that there are a lot of votes in this. Our government is not very good at understanding what it (we?) can afford. It is not trying to inspire “better results”, unless by that you mean “better results at the polling station”. It is pandering to a voting block, while purporting to “fix” society. That is the government in a nutshell: imposing horrible solutions to terrible problems they usually created in the first place. That is their standard operating procedure.
Kentuckyliz: “...some young women (late teens/early 20s) have totally unselfconsciously shared what their plan was... They looked for a young man who had a high paying job and no previous children (whether ever married or not)."
"It's perverse but that's the system you get as a result of the sexual revolution and the destruction of the delicate balance between men and women.”
So, before the sexual revolution, women were never particularly interested in childless, successful young men?
Kentuckyliz: “People will make families however they're able to. If men don't want to marry and raise their kids, due to perpetual adolescent selfishness or money-greed or a bitter hater attitude towards women, fine.”
“People”? Don't you really mean women? Women will make [dysfunctional] families come hell or high water, even if they have to drag those asshole men into it, kicking and screaming the whole way?
Kentuckyliz: “I don't think the current situation is doing any favors for the men...or the women. Nobody is liberated, they are ever more enslaved and have less freedom than before... It will contribute to the decline of this civization, on short order.”
On this, we are mostly in agreement, but I am having difficulty understanding why you think that perpetuating fraud is going to rescue civilization.
I don't care if I'm deleted:
TMink, you are one self-righteous asshole. Psychologists are known in general for having big egos with little brainpower, but you take the cake.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Women and Children (by Angry Harry)
The old sod, Mr. AH, is correct once again. This is something that has been pointed out over and over again since the beginning of time.
Allow me to be politically incorrect one who states the obvious:
Women have zero desire to be treated equal. There are enough Mary's in the world to prove this.
They truly do exist somewhere in the realm of between a teenager and an adult.
The old guys used to say that the woman was the most responsible teenager in the house.
Were they terribly wrong?
Women maturate faster than males - as feminists often point out as some sort of superiority. What they fail to mention (as always) is that males catch up to women by about the age of 28 and continue to mature (in most cases) for the rest of their lives, while women stop maturing by around the age of 26. A woman of 26 will be very much the same at 45, whereas a 28 year old man will often be entirely different by middle age and beyond.
Women are entirely incapable of empathizing with men. They are very good at pretending they are able to empathize better, but women prove they aren't empathetic whatsoever, time and time again.
(See Mary's posts above for examples of female-->male empathy... read the plethora of manginal blathering for examples of male-->female empathizing. They are entirely different in their sympathies and motivations. The same works for adults-->children. But at least with children we wink and understand that we are kidding).
At the end of all of this gender war, this is where we will return, the same as every other civilization who has had to deal with these exact same issues since the beginning of time.
Even God himself indicates this is correct.
As the old guys said: The best way to prove that women don't want equality is to try and give it to them.
The same can be said of children.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"They are very good at pretending they are able to empathize better, but women prove they aren't empathetic whatsoever, time and time again."
--
I absolutely agree with that. Look at their actions over time, not at what they say or are trying to represent themselves as.
Look at their actions over a long time frame. It's almost not funny.
I've personally burned out any natural chivalry that was in me. I really have.
My personal theory is that I would not hit a woman (in fact ... I would not put myself in any kind of accusation position with a woman today ...) but I really, truly don't care if OTHER men hit women. I would not interfere. I will only follow the law and not lift one further finger for women.
I know other men who are getting that way. Women's haughty entitlement doesn't even allow them to see that something might be subtly changing under their noses.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
So if I understand the arguments of ruddy, jg et al, a man's dick is not under his control at all. It is actually an autonomous entity that is willing to give the man pleasure, but it is not under his control at all. It's pretty pathetic that you try and swing the consequences of sleeping with a venereal disease infested slag on her, rather than on both of you. You guys really need to cut the apron strings, believe it or not, there is a world where adullts live their own lives, make their own choices, and own up to the consequences of the choices, but you'll have to stop clinging to the notion that mommy is responsible for your life in order to see that. What is really pitiful to me is that some of you are in your 50's, yet you still cling to the childish notion that your mom is in control of everything, and if things go wrong, it's her fault. Pretty fucking pathetic.
Welcome Sock Puppet Reason!
Your shaming language is duly noted, and I have felt the appropriate amount of shame.
We're talking about women who intentionally and deliberately commit fraud, and they are coddled by society. Like, really.
And all "the other side" can apparently come up with is talk about apron strings and mommy and you men aren't responsible and blah, blah.
Either women are adults and grown-up people who can be held liable for fraud ... or they aren't. I see the same "well, it's this way when women get an advantage, but the other way when they have a disadvantage" that I see all throughout society.
JG: “... I really, truly don't care if OTHER men hit women. I would not interfere. I will only follow the law and not lift one further finger for women.”
A person is really putting themselves at risk by interfering in a situation like that. Ask any police officer who has been involved in a domestic violence call.
JG: “I know other men who are getting that way. Women's haughty entitlement doesn't even allow them to see that something might be subtly changing under their noses.”
A few years ago, a friend and I were involved in a situation where we intervened on behalf of a woman (a stranger) who was being menaced by a scumbag (also a stranger). The thing that struck me most about that event is that after the scumbag left, I looked around and the woman was nowhere to be seen. It's not like I expected the key to the city or anything, but I thought “Hm. How's that for gratitude?”
Trey:
"Ruddy, you are confused. I have never said that abortion should be illegal. . ."
Wrong. See the following:
"The law allows unborn children to be murdered for the convienence of the mother without any input from the father. That is immoral. . ."
"Trey
"10:23 PM, April 10, 2009"
Unless you think the law should allow for the "murder of unborn children" at the mere "convenience of the mother," and should be "immoral," you are saying that abortion should illegal.
". . .or that men shoud just keep it in their pants. You are confused."
Wrong. See the following:
"Our choice as men is where we choose to put it. Once a child is conceived, our choice is whether we act like a man and face our consequences or not.
"Putting it in a woman we cannot trust to tell us the truth is foolish. Very foolish. Especially in a legal environment that will tell us how far to bend over and how often.
"Be careful where you put it. Be very careful.
"Trey
"1:01 PM, April 10, 2009"
Here, you are telling men to "keep it in their pants" or face the legal consequences, disavowing any notion that the law can be changed. A disavowel that you made even more explicit later by saying that we men should focus on "growing" our morality and self-control, and the law will "leave us alone."
So don't even try to tell me what you did or didn't say. I have it wired. But, you have actually managed (if only inadvertantly) to do us a service here. You have repudiated both of these cheap, facile, and simplistic responses to the choice/responsibility moral argument that I have asked you, several times now, to deal with. This should make you response, if you ever present it, all the more interesting.
"I will look at the post you refer to and comment on it later. I hope that will be more constructive."
Please do so. Or else STFU. The main post is by Rob Fetters, at
12:14 PM, April 10, 2009, with a pretty good reprise by him at 10:56 AM, April 11, 2009.
"sanctimonious - making a hypocritical show of religious piety, righteousness, etc."
Congratulations. You can use a dictionary.
"At no time have I said that I am better than you. That is beacuse I do not think I am better than you."
That's not quite accurate, Mr. Self-Styled Hero. But it's not dispositive anyway, not even according to the definition you presented.
What you do precisely is to make a great, hypocritical show of religousness and piety. That fits you to a T. In a secular, anonymous, public setting, where your personal life is not at all in issue, let alone your alleged religous beliefs, you shove said personal life and beliefs in everyone's face, and use them as part of a general presentation of how wonderful you are. How you look after the children in your life. What a great father and husband you are. How in your professional life you ride to the rescue of abandoned children. How you are better than everyone else. You reek of sanctimony. And you do nothing to dispell that reek with your occasional insecere compliments or effots at transparently false modesty.
"I do indeed think I have a better idea of how to deal with the gender inequity we both face. I would love it if you would comment on that or things I actually write. It goes better that way."
You haven't presented any such "idea." All you seem to be saying is that men should just suck it up, act like "real men" (TM), and do whatever it is that women, and the governments they run, tell them to do. That men should not even bother to try to change an unfair legal regime, but should focus instead on "growing" their morality and self control. In short, that men should act like manginas/ATMs, and happily, and with "love," dispense money to any woman with a baby in her hands and a demand for cash.
I'm afraid there really isn't too much to say to that.
"I am not in your personal life, I do not know you. I have shared things from my personal life and ASKED you about yours. I am sorry that feels coercive to you."
First of all, we have tangled before. And both then and now I have asked to stay out of my personal life. And, on both threads, you have ignored my requests. You are in my personal life. At least, you are tyring to be. And you have no right to be. I have a perfect right to complete biographical anonymity on this site, and your attemtpts to breach that anonymity are not only coercive, but are also creepy, sleazy, unprofessional, prying and disgusting. Please stop them. Please do not make any further speculations about my life, nor make any more inquiries into how I'm enjoying the holidays and so forth. Sufficed to say, the answers to all of these, and similar, questions are none of your business.
As to your "sharing" of your own personal life, I have tried, in every way I know how, to convey to you that I don't want to hear about it. I don't care about you as a person. To me, you are just a screen name and the comments that appear under them. And your personal life is not germaine to the public issues being discussed. So, please, spare me the self-valorizing tales of your wondrous deeds, and the details of the religous beliefs that you claim underlie them, which make up the details of your life, at least as you present it.
Again, we are sidetracked. I implore you, for the umpteenth time, to respond to RF's moral argument, or not at all. I have no desire to go round and round with you on these peripheral issues.
Dude, you don't know the difference between immoral and illegal?
Trey
Reason: “So if I understand the arguments of ruddy, jg et al...”
I think you really do understand, which is why you set up the flimsy straw man.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a woman secretly obtained a man's sperm from a used condom she fished out of the trash and used it to artificially inseminate one of her eggs, which was then implanted into a surrogate mother. Who is responsible for the child and why?
Ruddy, which of Rob's posts is floating you rboat so I can respond to it?
"Here, you are telling men to "keep it in their pants" or face the legal consequences, disavowing any notion that the law can be changed."
Again, you are not a cery careful reader. I never said the law should not change, the law will never change. I am talking about the law as it stands. Today. Things as they are. Can and should they change" Absolutely. But I try to live in the world as it is.
"A disavowel that you made even more explicit later by saying that we men should focus on "growing" our morality and self-control, and the law will "leave us alone.""
Not a disavowel at all. I can change me. Nobody else can. You can yell and scream about the law, but you are subject to it as am I. I am a conservative, I believe in things like self-control, patience, hard work, etc. I hope and pray the law changes, I have given money to do so, I have voted to do so. But here we are. Live here and now.
"do whatever it is that women, and the governments they run, tell them to do."
Gross misunderstanding and projection there Ruddy. I think you are unhinged.
Trey
"P.S. You're really a swell guy and a REALLY smart psychologist!!!!"
Thanks. You know a lot about economics. I enjoy your posts about that.
Trey
"Men give more of themselves to women, and women give more of themselves to children, and children take the most because they are the most valuable."
When it works correctly, I think that is absolutely right. "Husbands, love your wives" comes to mind.
"Either restore the natural hierarchy, and demand of males that they accept the increased responsibility that goes along with it, or watch as society self destructs itself under female created, emotionally manipulated "Double Standards" that destroy civilization."
I am close to agreeing with you Rob, very close. We disgree about HOW to get that going. I think it starts with men being more responsible. That is what I am trying to do in my life. To show my wife that I am worthy and dependable and to show her I am trustworthy. How would you accomplish the goal of men showing more leadership in our culture?
And I am less distrustful of women than you I think.
"Emotional pleas about the child tend to erase that line, exactly how emotional pleas about women tend to erase the lines of principles."
Let me try to make my point better. It is logical and reasonable and Christian to provide for our offspring. I love my kids. I bet you love yours too, or would if you had them Rob. I do not get what you are saying that I am appealing to emotions in saying that it is important for our culture that men raise their children.
I bet you know what happens when the courts take men away from their children. The children are typically ruined, especially the boys. That is why I fought and paid for half custody of my eldest daughter, I would not abandon her to ruin. Now I love her, and that emotion is part of my relationship with her, but it defies reason to abandon my offspring. I helped make them, I must help raise them.
Trey
"That is reprehensible behavior."
This is a different sentence from "You are a reprehensible person."
See, they are different. They mean very different things. You can see that when you think about it, can't you?
Trey
I've made this comment before on related posts on this site. Now that abortion is safe and legal, we have changed the facts of our existence. It is only fair that we change the law to reflect this.
Once upon a time, pregnancy led inexorably to childbirth. It does no more. Childbirth is a choice, and it is 100% the woman's choice.
Outside of marriage, a woman should bear 100% legal responsibility for children born, since the birth is 100% her right. As they say, with rights comes responsibility, yes? Well, as the man has no rights over the birth, he should bear no responsibility.
This wouldn't stop a man from "stepping up," as people like to put it, and societal pressures might still work on men to do so. But the law should have no power to force him to support the child.
A law like this would reflect the reality we now live with.
Trey, I don't think that was the argument Ruddy was referring to. He listed the dates and timestamps in his post I think.
But, as per your comments on those particular issues, what I mean is that there is a "bigger moral issue" and that is that "the best interests of the child" is ultimately the best interests of the father having rights.
It is also in the best interests of women. And, it is not that I distrust women per say out of disgust, but rather that I distrust them rationally, and from sound observances of how the world around me operates. The fact that virtually every philosopher, or type of philosophy and religion believes almost the identical things as me fortifies my beliefs greatly.
I distrust women in the same way that I distrust that a 13 year old is not qualified to stay at home for the weekend alone.
However, I do not mean that women are less intelligent. Indeed, they are far craftier than men. This is why women, throughout all of recorded history, are the main perpetrators of crimes of deceit - ie. perjury/fraud. (Even though more men spend more time in prison for these crimes than women, women commit these types of crimes with more frequency than men.)
As a psychologist, you understand how the human brain functions better than I do. But, I do know that the spinal/reptilian brain is where our sexual instinct is controlled. The spinal/reptilian brain is very primitive in its functions and has very few (like fight or flight - and sex etc). and that even those are primitive functions, they are/often are powerful enough to control the more advanced mammalian/emotional brain, and furthermore, those two levels of "brain" directly influence the thoughts of the cortex/rational brain. As in, a human often uses his/her rational brain to justify (to herself anyway) the activities happening in the emotional and instinctual brain.
Women are designed, by nature, to get resources from men. They are also designed by nature to look yummy to men, and to appear as victims to men. They are designed by nature to evoke responses in men's emotions that make them want to protect women.
The fair maiden being rescued by a knight in shining armor or a dashing prince, does not exist in one form or another throughout human storytelling history for no reason at all.
Women are designed by nature to get the mangina response out of men, in exactly the same way that children are designed by nature to evoke sympathetic responses out of adults.
It is purely instinctual, and women are no more "wrong" for doing what they do than children are "wrong" for getting the attention of momma for some milk.
It is how we work as human beings.
But, women also behave like children in the way that they MUST get attention - no matter what - or they won't feel loved.
A child of a multi-millionare feels just as "oppressed" that his parents are being unfair by buying him a Chevy Cavalier instead of a Porsche as a middle class teenager feels oppressed that Dad won't buy him a $1,000 junker.
No matter where your class, or how good you have it, you will always push against the limits to get more. Children are like this with adults, women are like this with men, and men are like this with the world about them.
Therefore, the BEST overall society will be the one that guarantees the rights of MEN... because that will pass down to women and on to children.
When you start placing women above men, you are taxing the system horribly, because you are taxing ALL MEN, therefore, things get worse for women and children. When they place children's rights over top of adults (which is fast happening), it will again degrade in fast fashion, until society collapses.
So, the best interests of the child argument, really, is at a much higher and more abstract level than any individual child.
The best interests of the child become the best interests of the man.
The same as women. Since so much of women's "rights" are derived either directly or indirectly from the labours of men, the best interests of women is that men are not impeded with their bullshit.
It doesn't matter how much men grant favourable treatment to women, they will ask for more tomorrow. It is what biology designed them to do - the same as biology designed children to do to parents. And, like children, they are happiest in a setting where when they push up against those boundaries, that they DON'T get their way. The same is true of women. Sorry ladies, your biology indicates that you do, indeed, wish to be ruled. Weak men are despised by women, and they take great joy in disliking weakness in men. Women demand confident, strong men... as in, ones that are better than themselves.
And so they should. It is better for all of society. Just like the Bible says.
But, that means protecting the RIGHTS OF MEN, and not placing the best interests of women, or the best interests of children, over men.
Every "right" of women placed overtop of men, is a tax on men, disadvantaging men, women and children all together.
It's just the way it is.
The "morally just" argument is not "the best interests of the child." That is a personal morality. The "morally just" argument is to protect the rights of men in this situation, so that men have a reason to feel that they are indeed a precious part of the system.
Men have only the law to protect them.
Women have the law AND men to protect them.
Children have the law AND men AND women to protect.
The law had better protect the hell of men first and foremost, even over and above the best interest of the child. If it puts emotion before impartial logic, well... shit runs downhill, so making sure the top of the hill is not covered with shit is probably the best course of action.
It's not much different than the best way for society to treat the type of children you deal with, ***from a societal perspective*** is to strengthen families and the male role within them, leading to less problems overall.
There again, is another direct example, where in order to restore the family, MEN'S rights will have to take precedence over "the best interests of the child." The man will take care of the women and children of his own accord. It is in his freaking nature!
But, in order for this to be restored, there is gonna be some pain. We've caused a lot pain to a lot of people to get here, and there's no easy way out.
The best interests of the child is really the best interests of his caretakers further, and then furthest up the ladder.
Nobody's ever gonna see it unless there is some pain.
"Dude, you don't know the difference between immoral and illegal?"
(Sigh) Here's what you said:
"The law allows unborn children to be murdered for the convienence of the mother without any input from the father. That is immoral. . ."
Here's what I said:
"Unless you think the law should allow for the 'murder of unborn children' at the mere 'convenience of the mother,' and should be 'immoral,' you are saying that abortion should illegal."
Do you see that? Do you see that I am fully conversant with the difference between illegal and immoral, and specifically and explicitly accounted for that differnce in my explication of your comment? Do you see it? Or are you illiterate? Or just stupid? Or, more likely, being evasive?
"Ruddy, which of Rob's posts is floating you rboat so I can respond to it?"
(Sigh) I have referred to it a half dozen times now. And last time I gave you the cite by name and time and date, Mr. Careful Reader. But, just to play along, just to pretend that you are not being evasive, I'll repeat.
"The main post is by Rob Fetters, at 12:14 PM, April 10, 2009, with a pretty good reprise by him at 10:56 AM, April 11, 2009."
Got it now?
"Again, you are not a very careful reader. I never said. . ."
No, I refuse to play along with your game of equivocation any further. Answer the moral argument put forward by RF in the posts I indicated, or trouble me no further.
"Gross misunderstanding and projection there Ruddy."
Everything I claimed you said, you did say. I quoted you chapter and verse. I "misunderstood" nothing. And, as for that "projection" bullshit, as I already stated, I want no part of your unethical, over-the-internet pyschological evaluation.
Again, make a substantive, moral argument in response to the one presented by RF re choice and responsiblity, or STFU.
We know that birth control is not 100% effective, but we CHOOSE to take that risk anyway, because we can always murder any offspring afterwards.
It is my understanding the argument for the legalization of abortion was to terminate pregnancies in instances of incest, rape, or to save the life of the woman carrying the child should that pregnancy prove life threatening. Anyone with half an ounce of courage to admit it, knows full well those reasons, while they may be legitimate, are the least used reasons. It is used as a legalized murder of convenience.
If a woman loosened the bolts on her husband's car tires so they would come off and he would wreck, would we say "he knew the risks of accidents when he drove" and let her off the hook? What if it was his wife and he died, would we use that logic to justify giving her the life insurance? What if they had kids, wouldn't that be in their best interest?
The logic is no different--you don't reward someone for fraud, and using children as an excuse doesn't change that. If anything, it causes more children to be created for this very purpose. Children don't need to be created for these situations. Hell, it could very well be considered abuse and grounds for putting them up for adoption.
It is amazing that more has been said about the victimized male than the perpetrating female who causes this mess. It would not be that way if the genders were reversed.
Every man who has sex knows there is a risk of pregnancy, as does every woman, unless of course the lie is about tubes tied or vasectomy. Everyone knows birth control fails. However, and I sound like a broken record here, but this is NOT i repeat NOT NOT NOT about an accidental pregnancy. It is fraud, theft, and a whole host of other things.
If anyone here truly believes that every penny in child support is being spent on the child in a situation tike this, I have some beachfront property in northern Alaska I'd like to sell you for cash.
If the interest is truly "what's best for the child," then adoption is the way to go.
And I'll say it yet again, if our concern is the taxpayer, then that is actually a case for changing the system. All our policies with the (stated*) intent of protecting the taxpayer hurt the taxpayer because it provides incentive to create the very situation that the taxpayer ends up paying for.
*stated is not the real intent. Listen to the absolute focus of so many who defend this. Their real intent is to transfer wealth from men to women. You know when they always advocate the SAME solution to a problem regardless of whether or not it helps the problem. their goal ISN'T solving the problem, it is implementing the solution. The "problem" is just a noble sounding cover.
And why don't we just admit that this mess is caused largely by government pandering to a large voting block by promising them someone elses' cash.
Accidental pregnancy was NEVER what this thread was talking about.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Yes, trust. What you are saying is the woman has all the rights, all the choices, almost all the power.
That is, unless you keep it in your pants and otherwise avoid situations where you can be accused. I prefer wood working tools, speaking only with happily married, safely unavailable women, from a physical distance, and trips to Vegas.
That works for me. Less than what is truly desirable, but works none the less.
Well, back to my game of solitaire.......
br548,
It's not that I'm in disagreement with you. Especially under current circumstances, men would be wise to not believe women who swear they can't get pregant or are on birth control. That isn't the issue here. The issue here is if the woman who scammed him should get 20% of his pay for the next two decades.
There are two issues at hand. Best parrallel I can think of is rape. It is wise for a woman not to put herself in a situation to get raped, but that does not alleviate the rapist from his responsibility, nor would that mean that rape should be legal because women shouldn't go to home with strange men.
Even without the laws, it is wise for men to to risk creasting offspring they do not want. Legal aspects aside, morally, it is just not wise. That, however, does not mean that laws providing incentives to perpetrators should not be changed.
Two issues. The issue here is the law. Which, coupled with men's generally cluelessness about women, makes it worse.
Rob wrote: "what I mean is that there is a "bigger moral issue" and that is that "the best interests of the child" is ultimately the best interests of the father having rights."
Well said, I could not agree with you more.
"Therefore, the BEST overall society will be the one that guarantees the rights of MEN... because that will pass down to women and on to children."
Again, I concur. But for that system to work, men must be good. We must be moral, loving, and thoughtful. That is our responsibility as I see it. What do you think?
"Men have only the law to protect them. Women have the law AND men to protect them. Children have the law AND men AND women to protect (them).
An interesting point I had never thought of. Are you a Conservative Christian? In some ways, you certainly think like one. (I mean that as a compliment this Easter.) Again, I think that works where men love and protect their family and are willing to sacrifice for the family. That is where my emphasis on responsibility comes in. Even good and equitable law is undone by wicked or selfish people.
Trickle down justice, from the man to the wife to the child, certainly does not work in situations in which men have kids with women they do not love and stay with, or when they are prevented from raising their children by a court system that is more interested in the growth of the state than in the health of intact families. So I see danger from both sides of the equation.
"where in order to restore the family, MEN'S rights will have to take precedence over "the best interests of the child."
I think you are responding to the manipulation and slander of the phrase "best interest of the child" rather than the bona fide best interests of the child as I meant the phrase. Research is clear in showing that it is in the best interest of the child to have an active and loving father in his or her life. When I spoke of the best interest of the child, I meant it literally, not in some PC BS newspeak. My bad for not picking a phrase that had not been polluted, I see where I goofed and caused confusion there.
A court system that really works in the best interest of the child will indeed champion the need of the child to have equal access ot their father. Few do that, but that is part of what children, especially boys, need.
I think I have a more positive view of women than you do. I see myself as a partner with my wife. She would say (and the kids as well) that I am the head of the family, but it is so rare for me to feel the need to lay down the law, that it is accurate for me to see us as partners. In conversations, she sees me as the head of the family, but that is not an active part of our marriage very often at all.
But then I am blessed by God with a fantastic wife, among so many other things.
So aside from the differences (if you agree that they are there) in our view of women, where else do we disagree?
And thanks so much for the conversation. You can imagine how much I appreciate it.
Trey
Trust wrote: "Best parrallel I can think of is rape."
A cogent argument. Rape is one of the places where I can support abortion because the pregnancy is the result of an assault, not a choice. In the parrallel you mention, the man has no choice to procreate.
My worry goes back to the child. Perhaps the thing to do is to offer the child to the father, and if he demures, to put the child up for adoption. Would the fraud be dealt with while the child is protected in that way Trust.
Funny thing, I made a type on your name and spelled in Tryst! Old Freud was right about some things.
Trey
typo rather.
@Tmink: "A cogent argument. Rape is one of the places where I can support abortion because the pregnancy is the result of an assault, not a choice. In the parrallel you mention, the man has no choice to procreate."
___________
I probably should have been more clear. I did not mean parrellel in the relationship of "oops I'm pregnant" to the crime of rape itself, those are two different issues.
The parrallel I meant was in the "poor judgment on the part of the victim" does not lessen the "actions by the perpetrator."
I didn't mean to make it sounds like I thought the crime itself was equivalent to rape. Just the mindset of putting oneself in circumstance (versus what to do with the perpetrator).
I care very much for children, which is where I come to the difficult position that things that are intended to help on surface have resulted in more children being in the circumstance. Sort of like how the authorities do not pay kidnappers ransom demands--not because they do not care about that individual child, but because doing so would result in more kidnappings because of the incentive.
We do agree, as well as two individuals can.
I have seen entrapment. My oldest brother (at 18) married his girlfriend (also 18), because she told him she was pregnant. She wasn't, and just wanted out of her parents' house and saw no other way. Since then, I've lost count of how many similar situations I've seen - and variants. It is what started my case of beer - one way bus ticket to Seattle offer to friends deciding on marriage. After four days on a bus and a case of beer to think it through, if they still want to do it, they have to pay their own way back. And the beer and bus ticket then become my only wedding present.
Honestly, it is my belief many, maybe most women aren't wrapped tight. The ones who are, are married, stay married because they chose good partners and are themselves good partners. Or, aren't married, and don't wish to be married - at all, if just not at this particular juncture in their lives - having other priorities. Self sufficiency perhaps being one of them. One of my daughters is like that. Her goal in life is a PhD, not a wedding band or a sugar daddy, or a man forced to pay her way through a child.
I have been a good father because those best able to judge it have told me so. My grown kids. Alas, I am a poor judge of spouse and will not repeat that mistake. Life is too short, getting shorter every day.
What little is left, I intend to spend as happily as possible.
Although it is not the topic of this thread, abortion is murder. Of that opinion I will not sway.
Hell, maybe boys and girls should be able to play team sports together in school. They sure as hell don't understand team work in marriage. It just might help.
Well, I think you hit the nail on the head that rape is similar to a fraudulent pregnancy in some ways. By that I mean a "gotcha" pregnancy in which the woman lies with the purpose of having a child with an unwilling and defrauded partner whom she will then force to support monetarily while keeping the man out of the child's life.
It also has some similarities to welfare fraud. I get patients who are seeking disability for things like ADHD while other patients, who truly are disabled, do everything they can for themselves. It is a character issue in that instance, and involves trying to get something that you are not due through fraud.
Now, certainly there are important differences betwee gotcha pregnancies and rape in terms of physical violation and other areas, but both situations can involve pregnancies based on a crime.
"The parrallel I meant was in the "poor judgment on the part of the victim" does not lessen the "actions by the perpetrator.""
Agreed.
Trey
Junior Samples wrote: "One of my daughters is like that. Her goal in life is a PhD, not a wedding band or a sugar daddy, or a man forced to pay her way through a child."
Congratulations! I hope I can be as succesful with my girls.
Trey
@br549: "They sure as hell don't understand team work in marriage."
_______________
I blame many of the divorce and marriage laws for that. Judges often give the excuse "so she can maintain the same standard of life" when they shell a husband in court, not to mention the "children need a mother" and "he makes more" mentality. What I think an intended consequence was is that wives no longer try as hard to make their marriage work because they get a pretty good deal if it doesn't.
I doubt women would be as quick to divorce if getting the house, kids, and money wasn't as automatic. if they stood even a 40%, let alone 50% chance of not getting custody, the house, or being the ones to pay alimony, the would work harder at it. And I only say women because it is them who the laws favor. Men would be less tolerant if the law of the land was so overwhelmingly on their side.
Wives see their friends divorce, and they get the house, the kids, money, the freedom, now a great new boyfriend living in the house and the ex-husband is paying for it. So they decide to throw in the towel rather than work, because they don't lose their "standard of living." Next thing you know, it happens so often that it is acepted and not stigmatized.
Options effect behavior. As we all know, people with great options are less tolerant. (This is why a man is more likely to stand up for himself against a small guy than a big biker, and why men put up with so much out of their wives--so they don't lose their house and kids).
Rant over. :)
Trey, if I tried to say that I am not really like Jr. Samples, I'd probably be accused of lying through my tooth.
trust, your "rants" are more reserved and civil than most regular blog conversations. I wish you would insert some ad hominem attacks and personal insults, though. It just doesn't seem "bloggy" enough, you know? Humor!
Losing house (and home), kids and income, certainly does affect decisions for quite some time in ones life. It lowers everyone's standard of living. I guess what gets us off the spot we're standing on is when it hurts more to remain than it does to move on. Even when we know the courts are gonna shred us. My kids and I were lucky. I ended up with, and have devoted my life to them. "I love you daddy" still melts me into a puddle on the floor.
so how he is scuzzy for "letting her" is beyond me"
Okay, maybe 'scuzzy' isn't exactly the right word. But I can't imagine not mentioning the vasectomy in a years-long intimate (presumably monogamous) relationship. Why not? Was he secretly ashamed? Afraid she'd dump him if she knew? What's the motivation for puposefully keeping something like that a secret?
She don't want children, I don't want children.
She don't want marriage, I don't want marriage.
She declares "I'm on the pill because it gives me a regular period anyway, so we're safe!" and just how does that make it any of her business whether I have a vasectomy or not? What, she has some fucking right to unilaterally change her mind on kids without discussing it with me anyway?
Yeah, that's exactly what you are saying, "Oh, you're a scuzzbucket for not letting her know she couldn't just go off the pill and get knocked up without asking you!" - Exactly what she tried to do.
But somehow, the Chivalrists make it all about Teh Wimminz.
Sorry - three years of being fuckbuddies gives her no claim on me until we BOTH sit down and reach that agreement together.
Maybe this is a clue as to why your first marriage failed.
Normal people don't keep secrets like this.
When she says "I'm on the pill ...." it's a _clue_ to man up and say "Hey, no problem, I'm sterile!"
There is no such thing as 'three years of being fuckbuddies'. Figure it out.
"... to man up ..."
----
I think watching twits continually saying "man up" is a _clue_ that they should man up.
Michael Farris: Why don't you step up to the plate and quite saying "man up". Usually women or manginas who would be the last to "man up" in real life are behind that saying.
I see that though Trey has commented several times since I last posted, he still has not addressed the moral issue based on choice and responsibility. Apparently, he has no real answer to the central question, and would rather just post over and over again about how wonderful he is in IFL. Even assuming that his account his true, it is irrelevant and I couldn't care less about it. Or about any of the other evasive and sanctimonious garbage that he writes. That being the case, I am done with him and this thread.
"I am done with him and this thread."
Praise God! Happy Easter.
Trey
Pete wrote: "three years of being fuckbuddies gives her no claim on me until we BOTH sit down and reach that agreement together."
We agree. I do not see how anyone thinks that conceiving a child in fraud could lead to anything good.
Trey
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
You're all idiots just waiting to get played. Ask yourself- "What can I possibly gain from talking to any woman at any time?" Get laid? OH OH OH Remember child support?
What is a woman going to help you acheive? That's right.. nothing. Women are bizarre and squirrly and the only advice they can give you is how to F over men as a woman.
Forget illegal immigrants- you're worst enemy is a white woman.
I have completely shut down any & all communication with women and you have NO IDEA how wonderful it is! Peace- remeber that word? Yea.. that's what you'll acheive.
I have a 24 year old daughter too -what did she ever give me? Misery.
Try it - I PROMISE it is HEAVEN- no women at all- cut off completely. If you don't find 100% complete HEAVEN then there is something wrong with you.
Mark, you're commenting on a woman's blog.
I'm just saying. Not trying to provoke you to violence, or anything.
There is no such thing as 'three years of being fuckbuddies'. Figure it out.
I never let anybody see my hole cards until they pay to see them. It's what made me able to retire before fifty and do what the fuck I want. Assuming people were honorable and paying for it later only ever cost me money until I wised up; it's how the world works.
Anyone else is a sucker and victim waiting for a victimizer.
I have mine, and then some. And I sleep like a fucking baby at night.
Money don't buy happiness? What the hell ever. I lease it, and take the tax write off.
Have fun eating your empty "honor." I know a hundred people like you, and they all called me "boss" and "sir." I'll be sure to note your opinion on the back of my bank statement, and giggle all the way to drop it off at my accountant, sucker.
"Mark, you're commenting on a woman's blog.
I'm just saying. Not trying to provoke you to violence, or anything."
Laura,
I don't have violence in my life. Why? Because there is no woman in my life to cause it.
Now I know you're very slow & the elevator doesn't go all the way to the top floor- but YOU are the cause of pain and violence. Do you have any IDEA how happy I am without some cockroach like you in my life?
Pay attention guys.. One million dollars worth of advice about to come your way..
Tell ALL the women in your life to F off. It's easy and you will NEVER know how wonderful it is until you try it. American women are are utter shit and not even worth your valuable time or even a second glance. 1 out of every 4 American women are VD infested. Why? Because they are all sleeping with the same 20% of guys- sharing the VD. This is the information women will kill you over to keep secret.
Married? Your wife is CHEATING ON YOU DUMBASS. Plus she is going to divorce you and make your life a living HELL. Get it through your head DUMBASS.
I know some of you are religous & I respect that.. but the church turned it's back on you in the 90's with the retarded 'Promise Keepers.' It put ALL the blame on men and opened up the full blown feminist 'I'll do whatever the F I please.'
The church turned it's back on you- fathers and family - and you STILL keep going? You are a FOOL. Where was the church when false accusations of violence became the song of the day? Nowhere. Where was the church there for you and your family.. that's right.. nowhere.
The church has now become shit, rotted out by Feminism. Get it through your thick skull, Dumbass.
Ever wondered why when you cum inside of a woman you IMMEDIDIATELY lose all interst in her? There's a reason why..
Tips on how to live your life Woman Free:
1. It's all very pleasant - the whole sex thing - but it's over within a matter of minutes and you very well may have forfeited your entire life. The aveage cost of child support is 186,000 today. Is she worth it?
2. American women are DISEADED and wothless shit- where is your self respct?
3. Think about a game show where the prize is a giant turd and a financial RAPE. Not too motivating is it?
Laura(southernxyl) - ”
I'm just saying. Not trying to provoke you to violence, or anything.”
But,
You do seem to have pressed Mark’s “rant” button.
While Mark does seem just a bit over-the-top, I would note that behind the apparent anger, the position of the MGTOW crowd is actually based on rather sound judgment.
When they can remain calm and collected, they can actually lay out a very compelling case as to why men should avoid modern women.
While I personally do not believe that their views apply to “all” women, I do recognize that there are, in fact, a significant number of women around who DO resemble those they speak (err, rant) about.
I guess what I would like to add is that rather than dismissing men like Mark Hays out-of-hand, women (and manginas) would be better served to listen to what they are saying and to try to understand how it is that they’ve come to see things the way they have.
For some, it seems that their approach to correcting societal trends is simply and (gender) selectively to target men and boys for better “training”.
While there are some of the male gender who could stand some “re-education”, what we increasing have (and some of us are not afraid to open our eyes to it) is that it is women and girls who have become the main contributors to the decline of our once well established socio-sexual system.
Yet, as a rule, what we see is repudiations of men for their failing, and plenty of shaming language aimed their way – while women continue to get a “pass” based on hopelessly outdated chivalrous notions regarding the character of the “gentler sex”.
Mark Hays, perhaps you’d care to take another shot a stating your beliefs? Hopefully, less vitriolic, this time.
slwerner, perhaps you didn't see this:
"Laura(southernxyl) said...
"Violence happens when one or the other partner provokes the other." [me quoting Mark, perhaps the deleted comment at 10:34 PM.]
Violence happens when the violent person chooses to lash out physically. End of story.
10:41 PM, April 08, 2009
mark hays said...
Incorrect again. Not too bright are you? I hope you do keep provoking the men in your life & get what you deserve. Good luck... you're going to need it.
10:45 PM, April 08, 2009"
I don't think Mark needs much button-pushing to rant, or whatever. Here's the thread.
WC Fields had some quote like:
Women are like elephants: They are fun to look at, but I wouldn't want to own one.
-------
20 years ago, I would have dismissed Mark's rant as way off base.
I don't anymore. He writes in an inflammatory way, but his basic points are correct. I see a lot of married men who are just worn down by the complaining and nagging and leeching. They won't divorce, they will just die. Another successful marriage.
Tether - ”20 years ago, I would have dismissed Mark's rant as way off base.
I don't anymore. He writes in an inflammatory way, but his basic points are correct.”
I don’t consider Mark’s rant “off base” so much as I do to be “off target”. He seems to be aiming at those who prefer to blame men for any and all ills. He does have valid point to make, but his intended audience will simply not “listen” to a message delivered in the style he chooses here, nor will they carefully consider the substantive issue he would like to raise.
And, this to me, is a real shame.
I’m certainly not a MGTOW type, nor am I a PUA sort – I’ve been happily married to a wonder woman for 25 years. And, I do believe in the institution of marriage. Yet, I can see that the institution is in terrible trouble, and it’s not the doing of men (alone).
Marriage has been turned into a raw deal for many men, and other men can readily observe the fates that have befallen those guys. Shaming men with “man up” an similar derisive language is not going to effectively chase men back into marriage. Nor is systematic “training” of boys on how to become mangina’s. That fate of marriage now rests largely in the hands of women. If women do not accept some of the responsibilities for it’s current sad state, and begin to “train” girls as to how to be worthwhile for a man to want to marry, marriage is going to become a marginal “alternate lifestyle”. Only a select few who are either fortunate enough to find someone who they cannot only love, but also TRUST; or those who are to foolish to understand what they’re entering into will be left willing to exchange vows/sing the contract.
In a way similar to how Laura(southernxyl) crossed paths with Mark Hays on a different thread, I too ran afoul of another (apparently frequent) poster, Mary, when I so much as tried to explain what the MGOTW acronym and lifestyle stood for. She immediately dismissed it as “hatred” and “poison”, and refused to even read any of my posts after that – and I wasn’t (I certainly do not think) being inflammatory in what I present to her, she just isn’t the type who’ll ever consider an alternative point of view.
But, I believe there are many women who will give the proper consideration to arguments which are made in a more reasonable manner.
It’s probably therapeutic (for some) to rant and throw “bombs” at one another, but it will not change minds. And, if we are to ever reach any sort of workable compromise between the sexes, minds are going to have to be first changed.
"He writes in an inflammatory way, but his basic points are correct."
It's an inflammatory situation. Who the Hell are you people? Mr. Rogers? WTF? Who the F cares about soft decorum other than a bunch of nannie-ish bitches and who the F give a crap about them?
They are the Problem! & what got us into this mess- nannie-ish women and their petty nothing concerns.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"It's an inflammatory situation. Who the Hell are you people? Mr. Rogers? WTF?"
------
This is the problem: You have to think about what you are trying to achieve.
If you are trying to blow off frustration, it would probably be better to punch a punching bag or something, but in any case it doesn't matter at all what you write.
If you are trying to convince other people of your position, though, you have to write in a way that convinces other people of your position.
I'll let all you ladies in on a secret.. you have this hysteria bulit up in your minds through daytime trash TV and 1000 tons of garbage women's trash magazines about how all men are predators/rapists and armed gunmen.
You know what? I read your crap & I see your crap and I am FAR, FAR more AFRAID of YOU than you could EVER be afraid of me.
That's right. When I look at you all I see is a one way ticket to trouble and even jail. If I so much as get in a disagreement with you I'm looking at a SWAT team in my front yard, the court system and God knows else what.
And children? Jesus freaking Christ! They're like AIDS to me and all men today- I avoid them like the plague- all it takes is a misunderstanding and my entire life is destroyed. I haven't talked to child in 20 years- around the time my own children were young.
I look in your faces, read your body language and listen to you and you have absolutely NO CLUE.
Here's a case to think about:
S.F. v. Alabama ex rel. T.M., 695 So. 2d 1186 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996).
A guy went to a party at a woman's house. He drank too much and passed out. His brother put him into a bed. Several people testified in the court case that the guy had, in fact, passed out.
In the morning, he woke up with only his shirt on. Two months after the party, a woman who was at the party bragged that she had intended to go to a sperm bank to get pregnant, but he "saved her a trip". She apparently had sex with him while he was passed out. A doctor testified that it was possible, because erection and ejaculation are involuntary body functions. The man had no memory of it, and certainly didn't intend to have sex.
The mother then gave birth and (on top of everything else) sued him for child support. She won.
The guy not only had to pay child support, he had to pay arrears of around $9000 (and he was apparently not a big earner), put her on his medical insurance and pay half of the bills that weren't covered by insurance.
----------------
That's still the law today. SOMEONE doesn't want the laws that bring about these kinds of cases changed. Some are even on this board, but they won't try to defend this case (... Or? Give it a shot, manginas and women-firsters ...) but SOMEONE keeps these laws and attitudes afloat.
"If you are trying to blow off frustration, it would probably be better to punch a punching bag or something, but in any case it doesn't matter at all what you write.
If you are trying to convince other people of your position, though, you have to write in a way that convinces other people of your position."
Who are these 'people?' People like YOU? Unemployed, soft maginas? YOU are the problem- on your psych medications stuffing your faces and dictated to by a load of nannie-ish femarroids.
You need to grow a pair. YOU Are what is wrong with this country today. You wouldn't know a real man if he punched you in the face.
Mark,
Do you know what the "other side" (manginas and women-firsters) sometimes do?
They can't really defend the coddling of women in society and the real slant in terms of fairness between men and women, so they resort to other tricks.
One of them is pretending to be an off-the-wall MRA person.
I'm not saying that's what you are, because you seem sincere, but you are actually WORKING AGAINST the side you purport to be on. I think it's simply frustration on your part, but it is not effective rhetoric.
"I'm not saying that's what you are, because you seem sincere, but you are actually WORKING AGAINST the side you purport to be on. I think it's simply frustration on your part, but it is not effective rhetoric."
Anytime I read someone say 'I'm not really saying' I read 'I'm not saying ANYTHING AT ALL.'
Be a man and say what you think and stop being so pathetic.
Let me see if I can sum things up....
I feel like a ring announcer before the big fight.
In the red (faced) corner, we have outrage. Outrage at the perversion of justice, financially enslaving someone who was lied to, defrauded, and manipulated. Outrage at the laughable inequity before the law, outrage at the hubris of ones who defraud, yet are PAID by the innocent for the privilege of financially raping them by their fraud.
In the blue (balls) corner, we have repetitious platitudes. You can see them warming up, "keep it in your pants," "It's your fault for sleeping with such a women," "Your kid, your responsibility," "A real man takes care of his kids, "It's your fault for being lied to."
(the quotes are a synopsis, not direct ones from posters)
Who wins?
Answer - both.
The reality is that the law allows and encourages gotcha pregnancies (point red corner; also point blue corner).
Yes, it's sickeningly unjust to compensate someone for fraud and unilateral control over the reproductive process.
Is there an answer? Yes. Several. As some in the blue corner have stated, essentially, celibacy is an option. (Not that I advocate it. It is, analytically speaking).
However, perhaps there are more options. Vasectomies, and do not impart that to your potential partners. Shockingly up-front conversations as I indicated above. Condoms every effing time.
Or perhaps the end game is for enough men to actually travel the celibate road. However, not in anticipation of marriage or some relationship, but in anticipation of turning your back on and ignoring the source of the threat, not to return.
Post a Comment
<< Home