Parental Rights Questions: why does the mom seemingly always win.

Started by Callie Del Noire, June 13, 2012, 10:01:01 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Trieste

Quote from: Sure on June 30, 2012, 12:15:49 PM
By this logic, we should just make abortion illegal to induce a parity in rights. After all, that's what men have effectively right now: you lose all right to control over such things the moment you consent to sex (or even if you don't). Women obviously need to be brought down to this low standard. Who cares if it's wrong? It's what men have, so we obviously need to have it for women too! This is called negative equality, and it's not an argument you want to make, particularly because women, at the moment, have more rights than men and thus would lose more by both genders losing any claim to them.

Do not put words in my mouth in order to grandstand, Sure.

Quote from: Trieste on June 30, 2012, 10:09:15 AM
I don't support limiting peoples' choices in any way, but if you're going to do it, that would be a fair way to do it, in my estimation. Shit happens and if you're going to tell the woman she shoulda kept it in her pants, you have to tell men the same thing.

I find your reductio ad absurdum particularly frustrating because we've talked about this.

Iniquitous

To my knowledge, unless they've changed things in the past 17 years, there is no 'father signing' of the birth certificate. When I had my children they asked me what I wanted to name the child, who the father was and then I signed it. My ex husband certainly never signed the birth certificate and I know my dad never signed my birth certificate. I also know that a friend of mine had to pay to have DNA test done to prove that the child his ex wife had was not his so the courts would stop trying to get child support out of him.
Bow to the Queen; I'm the Alpha, the Omega, everything in between.


Sure

Quote from: Trieste on June 30, 2012, 03:18:05 PM
Do not put words in my mouth in order to grandstand, Sure.

I find your reductio ad absurdum particularly frustrating because we've talked about this.

I find someone who says, "Because the state of women's rights is not where I want it to be, I don't support rights for your gender" both reductive and gynocentric. And I have met people who have made such arguments. If you are not among them, I am utterly misinterpreting your words. If so, please clarify what you are saying so I can understand better. Because as I understand it, you said something along those lines. Specifically this:
QuoteBecause if there are going to be limits on what women can do with their bodies, there should also be limits on what men can do as well.

Another example:
QuoteShit happens and if you're going to tell the woman she shoulda kept it in her pants, you have to tell men the same thing.

I see both these quotes, basically, as saying, "Because the state of women's rights is not where I want it to be, I don't support rights for your gender". Which in of itself, I find a false equivalence, because in truth we give women more rights. To wit: I singled out abortion not to grandstand but because it is one of the places where the inequality is most explicit. Equal rights for men has been argued to require they be given similar options, but the courts returned the ruling that "the Fourteenth Amendment does not deny to [the] State the power to treat different classes of persons in different ways." (Dubay V Wells). So, in effect, the legal standard is admitting inequality. If nothing else, perhaps you will agree that this is unequal, at least, if not that it puts men at a disadvantage?

And once again, if that is my misinterpretation of what you said, please tell me how. I genuinely believe I might be misunderstanding you utterly, but accusing me of grandstanding and putting words in your mouth makes me come no closer to that understanding.

Trieste

No, what I said was that I support the right of each individual to choose what they do.

If a woman chooses to abort, she should be able to.

If a man would prefer not to abort, he should be able to (for example) arrange for a surrogate to carry his child to term.

If a woman chooses not to abort, the man should be allowed to sign away all rights, or have first dibs if the child is slated for adoption.

I think that the nature of pregnancy makes it difficult to give men equal choice in the matter, and that the father of an unborn child should be given as many choices as possible provided that it doesn't essentially turn the woman into a living incubator.

And I think that if restrictions are going to be imposed on women, they should be equally imposed on men for the same reason. Currently, there is no walk of shame in front of clinics for men seeking to end their parental rights. There are no invasive ultrasounds. There are no 'concerned' health professionals prodding at the father to ask him if he was coerced into ending his rights. There are no real consequences aside from those of conscience for men whose conceived material is aborted. That is what I would also like to see for women. It's not that I want men punished; it's that I want to see either a lack of punishment for both genders or an equal application of legal consequences to both genders. Preferably the former.

It's similar to Selective Service registration. I don't want to see women required to sign up for it, because I don't want to see men required to sign up for it either. But if there's going to be a requirement for registration, it should apply equally to both sexes. I oppose the movement that agitates for registration requirements for women because I think that they're going the wrong way with it.

If you want to believe that it makes me gynocentric, there's nothing I can do about that - but I vehemently question the validity of the label, if so.

Caela

Quote from: Zakharra on June 30, 2012, 03:01:30 PM
What if the mother put his name on it?

I only know how that works in my state. Here the mother can put any name she likes on the birth certificate, but if he doesn't sign it than he's not legally bound as the father. I did a lot of looking into that when I had my daughter and found the easiest way to simply bypass any "rights" her DNA donor might think he has was to just put no name on the birth certificate and make him jump through a lot of hoops to prove paternity. Luckily he doesn't want to do that so it works out well for both of us.


Sure

QuoteIf a woman chooses to abort, she should be able to.

If a man would prefer not to abort, he should be able to (for example) arrange for a surrogate to carry his child to term.

If a woman chooses not to abort, the man should be allowed to sign away all rights, or have first dibs if the child is slated for adoption.

I think that the nature of pregnancy makes it difficult to give men equal choice in the matter, and that the father of an unborn child should be given as many choices as possible provided that it doesn't essentially turn the woman into a living incubator.


I agree with this. Men should have all rights in the matter ending exactly where women's rights on the matter begin, which is specifically control of their own body but not the child (or the fetus) once it exits it. It does not include a right to child support, or things such as that, with which she is currently furnished, though.

Notice, however, that of these things you list, only the first is actually guaranteed and protected. It's under attack but it's also the only one that exists as a national law.

QuoteAnd I think that if restrictions are going to be imposed on women, they should be equally imposed on men for the same reason. Currently, there is no walk of shame in front of clinics for men seeking to end their parental rights. There are no invasive ultrasounds. There are no 'concerned' health professionals prodding at the father to ask him if he was coerced into ending his rights. There are no real consequences aside from those of conscience for men whose conceived material is aborted. That is what I would also like to see for women. It's not that I want men punished; it's that I want to see either a lack of punishment for both genders or an equal application of legal consequences to both genders. Preferably the former.

It's similar to Selective Service registration. I don't want to see women required to sign up for it, because I don't want to see men required to sign up for it either. But if there's going to be a requirement for registration, it should apply equally to both sexes. I oppose the movement that agitates for registration requirements for women because I think that they're going the wrong way with it.

If you want to believe that it makes me gynocentric, there's nothing I can do about that - but I vehemently question the validity of the label, if so.

The point of disagreement is here: These things do not exist because men have no ability to do such things. There is no walk of shame because there are no such clinics (presumably legal clinics, in this case). I have no doubt there would be an equivalent if men could end their parental rights, people agitating for the reverse of such things, and so on. I know for a fact many of the same factions that have an issue with abortion take issue with men giving up such rights. I actually have (albeit in paper form so I can't link it) a form from a Catholic charity explicitly saying such.

To my mind they only do not exist now because men have no ability to end their parental rights, which they do not (again, Dubay V Wells is illustrative, which has an amicae curiae against giving men such rights from the NOW, actually). I agree these things should be ended: men must be given these rights and made capable of using them without repercussion. Women only need to be made capable of using them without repercussion, and thus are a huge step closer. There's certainly nothing stopping me from supporting both (except when I am asked to support an organization which only supports one of the two, such as the NOW). Both are quite serious, but...

Well that's why such opinions seem gynocentric to me: They seem, to me, to see only the punishment women suffer, not a man's lack of rights. They see men's lack of punishment compared to women, which does exist, but ignore the reason for it. It's because they are not given such choices in the first place. Just as I imagine there would be a great drop in that pressure not to choose abortion if women couldn't abort. There would be no walk of shame without abortion clinics.

And, as I said, bringing men up to the standard of legal equality women have would be an improvement of rights, even with all the ultrasounds and shaming.

And the difference between this and the Selective Service is that we're talking about giving men rights/freedoms, not imposing new obligations on them, as adding women to Selective Service would be for women. Obligations have a higher threshold to meet than freedoms do: Obligations need a justification to exist, freedoms need a justification to be taken away.

WhiteTigerForever

I haven't read the entire thread, so forgive me for that.  I have experience in this situation and it is horrid.  Going through another one atm too.  Trust me, it may just be an out dated urban myth, but no, the mother doesn't always win. It is a 50/50 chance and they take many things into account and do many things like family studies, etc.  What seems to matter most is if you have more money, employment (not a stay at home mom), and transportation they seem to consider more than anything.  After the social worker leaves, they can do anything they want.  My ex didn't give a crap about our shared 7 year old, but when I wanted to go visit my husband in Germany, his family raised hell, slammed me with a custody battle like she was an object to be possessed and a pissing contest.  He played his part well, like he cared to save face in front of his family, who are really fueling this.  I could very well lose my daughter just because I'm damn poor, so no, again, imo, females don't always win. :( 
Not accepting new roles but Photoshop riches await you instead.

Oniya

You are correct, there would be no 'walk of shame' if there were no abortion clinics.  There would be women dying of sepsis and poisoning from the back-alley quacks that would spring up to fleece, wait, prey on, sorry, 'provide service' to the desperate women that would still exist.

Because until society changes to insist that both parties are responsible for creating a baby, there will be those desperate women.  As long as men are taught 'be a stud' instead of 'parenthood can mess up your life', and the attitude towards sexual assault is 'Girls, don't get raped' and not 'Guys, don't commit rape, and girls are made to feel like a slut if they buy birth control, while a guy with a pack of condoms is assumed to be 'getting lucky'.

Once you've fixed that, then get back to me about how 'women have would be an improvement of rights, even with all the ultrasounds and shaming' as long as men were allowed to cut their parental rights and responsibilities with a signature.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

WhiteTigerForever

Quote from: Oniya on June 30, 2012, 09:05:14 PM
You are correct, there would be no 'walk of shame' if there were no abortion clinics.  There would be women dying of sepsis and poisoning from the back-alley quacks that would spring up to fleece, wait, prey on, sorry, 'provide service' to the desperate women that would still exist.

Because until society changes to insist that both parties are responsible for creating a baby, there will be those desperate women.  As long as men are taught 'be a stud' instead of 'parenthood can mess up your life', and the attitude towards sexual assault is 'Girls, don't get raped' and not 'Guys, don't commit rape, and girls are made to feel like a slut if they buy birth control, while a guy with a pack of condoms is assumed to be 'getting lucky'.

Once you've fixed that, then get back to me about how 'women have would be an improvement of rights, even with all the ultrasounds and shaming' as long as men were allowed to cut their parental rights and responsibilities with a signature.

Well said!

Not accepting new roles but Photoshop riches await you instead.

Chris Brady

Quote from: Oniya on June 30, 2012, 09:05:14 PM
You are correct, there would be no 'walk of shame' if there were no abortion clinics.  There would be women dying of sepsis and poisoning from the back-alley quacks that would spring up to fleece, wait, prey on, sorry, 'provide service' to the desperate women that would still exist.

Hate to break it to you, but these exist NOW.  And they're just as common as legal abortion clinics.
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

Oniya

And the fact that there are currently women desperate enough for them to stay in business is a symptom of the whole mess I talked about in the rest of my post.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

WhiteTigerForever

Not accepting new roles but Photoshop riches await you instead.

Vekseid

...so, it's been made rather abundantly clear from several friends of mine that there are a few misogynists on this forum whose perception of the burden that pregnancy places on women is roughly zero. Nine months of having another living being grow within your belly, feeding on your food, making you ill, changing your habits, eventually causing physical debility and impairment, capped off with several hours of intense physical trauma in which your body is ripped open for your child to come out.

Fearing this.. not wanting to go through with this... gets treated with the same emotional levity as looking down at the sort of person who walks away from their responsibility for creating another life for no other reason than fearing actual responsibility and commitment.

What

the

fuck.

Fearing extended physical trauma and suffering is not the same as fearing responsibility. If for some reason you think they are, perhaps you should take some time to reflect on why.




People keep on posting anecdotes after another member has posted actual, raw data. Fine, here are my anecdotes: In every single situation where the 'mom has won' that I've seen, it's because she deserved to. I've seen plenty of cases where the mother did, in fact, lose. Including one case where a friend of mine had custody stripped by a feminist judge, and had her decision fully overturned on appeal. Not just 'a little bit', the mother didn't even get unsupervised visitation rights. Wonders for that judge's reputation, for sure.

The one friend of mine whose child support was single-handedly paying for another person's living expenses... was a woman paying child support to a perpetually unemployed father.

Are there fucked up things about the child support system? Yes. Yes there are. Men are not the sole group suffering from its flaws.

In the mean time, I've had enough complaints from my friends about this thread. It's running in circles, the same cognitive dissonance keeps cropping up, and I'm tired of the whining being spewed by people who don't feel their penis is getting them enough respect in life.

You want respect? Do things worth respecting. Build something. Master a skill. It's your own conscious choice whether you do that or not.

Not fair that a woman's vagina gives her a built-in respect token? Maybe. Technology might even that ground someday, but that's not going to change jack about how much respect you are getting. Your penis still won't bring you respect, even in that day.

Thread may be reopened in 24 hours if people wish it, but for now, some reflection would be nice.

Vekseid

The thread originator has asked that this thread not be reopened.

You may feel free to open your own thread about a topic of discussion raised here.

I would like it to be kept in mind that there are a number of posts in this thread that begin with the assumption that what men and women go through to create a child is 'equal', or otherwise treat matters in that vein.

At best, it's ignorant. At worst, it's pure trolling. It's no more civil than making homophobic, transphobic, or racist arguments, no matter how much you believe them. They will be treated accordingly.