What has happened to us?

[Chris Brady]

Here's something someone sent to me.  She was obviously disturbed by it, but wondered what I thought of it.

And honestly, I'm not entirely sure what to make of it, myself.  Some of this I have seen, some of it sounds conspiracy theory crackpot rantings, and some of it is just plain unfathomable to me.  And so I post this link here and wonder what other people make of it.

http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

For the record, the only real thing I agree with is media aspect.  Namely this line in the blog post:

Modern entertainment typically shows businessmen as villains, and husbands as bumbling dimwits that are always under the command of the all-powerful wife, who is never wrong.

Most popular comedies follow this formula almost to a T.

[Jude]

At this point, you might be feeling a deep inner emptiness lamenting a bygone age, as the paucity of proudly, inspiringly masculine characters in modern entertainment becomes clear.  Before the 1980s, there were different masculine characters, but today, they are conspicuously absent.  Men are shown either as thuggish degenerates, or as effete androgynes.  Sure, there were remakes of Star Trek and The A-Team, and series finales of Rocky and Indiana Jones.  But where are the new characters?  Why is the vacuum being filled solely with nostalgia?  A single example like Jack Bauer is not sufficient to dispute the much larger trend of masculinity purging.

Dr. Cox and Turk (Scrubs), Jim (The Office), Ron Swanson and Andy (Parks and Recreation), Jack Donagee (30 Rock) -- the list basically goes on and on, and I've only touched manly figures from shows I like.  Some of them are hilariously manly as both a parody of masculinity's most stubborn and ridiculous qualities, yet terribly effective, interesting, compelling characters in spite of it.  I haven't touched on movies, because I don't typically enjoy testosterone flicks, but I am tangentially aware of Jason Statham Transporter series (though he was actually good in Snatch, which was a much more low key role for him).

Are there more diverse celebrities and cultural icons than in the past?  Yes.  Does that mean there is a manliness vacuum?  No.

This trains women to disrespect men, wives to think poorly of their husbands, and girls to devalue the importance of their fathers, which leads to the normalization of single motherhood (obviously with taxpayer subsidies), despite the reality that most single mothers are not victims, but merely women who rode a carousel of men with reckless abandon.  This, in turn, leads to fatherless young men growing up being told that natural male behavior is wrong, and feminization is normal.  It also leads to women being deceived outright about the realities of the sexual market, where media attempts to normalize single motherhood and attempted 'cougarhood' are glorified, rather than portrayed as the undesirable conditions that they are.

blahblahblah assertions without statistics blahblahblah in my days ranting blahblahblah social conservatism.

The Primal Nature of Men and Women : Genetic research has shown that before the modern era, 80% of women managed to reproduce, but only 40% of men did.  The obvious conclusion from this is that a few top men had multiple wives, while the bottom 60% had no mating prospects at all.  Women clearly did not mind sharing the top man with multiple other women, ultimately deciding that being one of four women sharing an 'alpha' was still more preferable than having the undivided attention of a 'beta'.  Let us define the top 20% of men as measured by their attractiveness to women, as 'alpha' males while the middle 60% of men will be called 'beta' males.  The bottom 20% are not meaningful in this context.

I'm gonna stop here.  This is complete fantasy.  Applying sociological observations of wolves on human nature has repeatedly shown to be an absurd detraction from reality.

This article just may be the most insane thing I've ever read.

EDIT:  The few stats that he gives are lies.  There is no evidence that backs up a 90% divorce initiated by women rate.

[Revolverman]

I'm getting sick of hearing about "Rising Crime" When its clearly been falling long term for about 20-30 years. Jude has covered everything else well.

That 80% of woman and 40% of man thing is really fucking hilarious when he JUST talks about having a Father and a Mother.

[DarklingAlice]

I'm gonna stop here.  This is complete fantasy.  Applying sociological observations of wolves on human nature has repeatedly shown to be an absurd detraction from reality.

Specially when those observations were incorrect in the first place. (I really despise the alpha myth and its persistence in pop-consciousness. But that's off topic.)

As for the article itself, it's an exercise in lies or misconceptions born out of a nostalgia/confirmation bias soup. It doesn't even earn the distinction of being the most insane thing I have ever read. It strikes me as the rambling of someone with personal dissatisfaction trying to shift blame onto a perceived, counterfactual version of society.

[Noelle]

I couldn't finish this article.  It sounds to me like one long lament of "the good old days" when men were the head of the household, called all the shots, filled all the executive positions, and played the lead role in every movie. You know what else happened in those days? Institutionalized sexism that barred women from taking any position of prominence, societal expectations that shunned feminine autonomy from her husband, and a perpetual role of subservient home/babymaker.

The slut-shaming in his article is horrifying, among other things, and his targeting of things like female contraception is practically dripping with latent misogyny. The statistics are incredibly dishonest; for instance, maybe men have had a higher rate of unemployment in the short term, but statistics have also shown that they are having an easier time finding jobs as well as moving into jobs traditionally held by women (such as nursing) during the latest recession.

In short: this man doesn't appear to give a shit about equality and I hope no self-respecting woman comes within a hundred feet of this guy. Well, wait, that would probably make you a frigid, controlling bitch...but getting too close would make you a loose homewrecking hussy. Sigh.

[Trieste]

Haven't read other comments. Am going to answer the OP before reading them.

The first thing I notice about this article is that I cannot find an author's name. I cannot read about the author, I cannot google him and see what rebuttals people have made to him (I'm not really willing to wade into the comments section for it, either). Even clicking on "main" and going to the footer doesn't give me a pen name or a screen name. A domain whois gives me no information. I don't have any idea who is writing this, what their background is, or what their biases may be. That, for me, is a little hinky. I like to know something about an author before I read his views. Is he published? If so, what kind of books does he write? Articles? Who does he write for? What education does he have? What about political leanings? Is it a political website I've been linked to? Is it some random person in the middle of Iowa who is obsessed with mathematics? This makes it difficult to take what the author says in context, because there is no context.

Secondly, I don't watch television and I can come up with modern-day analogues of nearly every one of those entertainers the author showed in that nifty little collage, there. Jean-Luc Picard, meet Horatio Caine. Randy Savage, meet John Cena. And while the author might point out modern roles like that of Charlie Harper from Two and a Half Men as an example of the 'degeneracy' in modern media, I'd like to answer it by pointing out that Grease's Danny Zuko was also kind of scummy. So, in fact, was Indiana Jones. Discounting modern media as writing men off as evil or bumbling also ignores the wonderful portrayal of Professor Xavier in X-Men: First Class. Not only was he reminiscent of Picard's character in his willingness to gently teach and guide, but he is a new take on an old character that I've personally never seen before. I'm sure someone could dig up an early comic or something and say that Professor X doesn't really count as this decade, but I could also answer that by pointing out that the creator of Indiana Jones wasn't exactly renowned for his originality, either.

I'm not even going to address the load of bullshit about women's earning power as compared to men's, because if you really want the numbers on that, go look up the census data and draw your own conclusions. And Oprah Winfrey is to talk shows what Jerry Springer was to family unity. Puh-lease.

In short, it's really easy to write the author off as bitter and overly nostalgic. Because s/he is.

For the record, the only real thing I agree with is media aspect.  Namely this line in the blog post:

Modern entertainment typically shows businessmen as villains, and husbands as bumbling dimwits that are always under the command of the all-powerful wife, who is never wrong.

Most popular comedies follow this formula almost to a T.

Since you're only addressing the media aspect, that is the only aspect I've commented on. (And read, because I could feel my brain cells dying.)

[gaggedLouise]

You'll get to hear sometimes that Fight Club represented a kind of rough satire mixed with a "coming of age story" about young men from the lower rungs of society who feel they have been made to grow up in a feminized world where women wield most of the power, a soft-coated power but hard to evade, in school, at home, in the courts and at work. Fathers seem to have gone absent or bent to their wives, men are despised and there is no acceptance of "acting like a man". I think that element of satire and an attempt to reinvent manhood is in the book (never saw the film) though I do not agree about there being that kind of broad rejection of masculinity going on in the real world: to a large degree Pahlaniuk is fighting windmills.

What makes me sorry though is that the image of a "restored male" that comes across in Fight Club is a man stripped of honesty, long-term dependability, intellect, nuances, generosity, education. The guys in the fight club want to be men but they're reduced to thugs, or wannabe thugs, who think it's masculine not to step aside to anyone, not for one moment, except to the guy who can knock you out. They're not the kind anyone would want to marry, at least not for life. They are pictured as if it would be girly to think before you talk, to hold back, to weigh what you'll do, to be interested in anything beyond the last ten years. And I think it has reinforced that kind of image of what masculinity is about to not a few people (men and women) since it appeared.

[Oniya]

Except

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

at the end of the movie, the guy who started the club is reduced to an impotent shadow, not even possessing his own identity any more.  So

it leaves the impression that 'Fight Club' is something that will eventually destroy you and leave you with nothing.

[Trieste]

Regarding Fight Club:

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

I took it to mean that the aggressive, don't give a fuck, don't yield to anything personality is really only possible as part of a person. This, in turn, might seem to support the article's point, that entertainment cannot bear to let a manly man stand alone and unchallenged.

[gaggedLouise]

Agree, Oniya - in the book they kind of symbolically become alike, they are all gruff, muscular men dressing alike and each one of them can be read as the double of the others. Especially when two of them are in the ring of course. Fighting becomes a ritual that they hope will define them, a bit like the army in the old days, or football.

It doesn't leave them with a lot of chhoices really. Can't help wondering what would have happened to the founder if towards the end of the film he'd magically lost his mojo instead...

[Oniya]

I see what you mean, Trie.  Louise - I haven't read the book.  I only caught the movie because Mr. Oniya was channel-surfing and decided to stop there (I think I enjoyed it more than he did because of the weirdness aspect. XD)

I think, though, that the message that the blogger missed is that one-dimensional depictions of masculinity are boring, just like one-dimensional depictions of anything are boring.

[Violence]

Regarding "Fight Club"

I always felt that the ending of the book was pretty clear about the whole "Tyler's way isn't a good thing" issue.  By the end, the narrator makes it pretty clear that Tyler is the bad guy and not an example by which to live.  Obviously just my interpretation, but the point always just seemed to me: this might have been fun for a while, but nothing good comes from trying to live like this.

Regarding the article:

I read some of the comments others made before me before and thought to myself, "My... such reactions, surely they're all just blowing it out of proportion.  It can't be that bad, right?"

... then I clicked the link. @_@

It was, if anything, far worse than I was anticipating.  I almost want to say that it had to have been trolling.  I wasn't able to get any further than most others seemed to have bothered, but it felt like any time he might have had something close to a point he then buried it as quickly as he could under what could only be described as a misogynistic temper tantrum.

Even the entertainment part seemed pretty ill-informed to me.  I watch a lot of TV and I'm pretty sure that the range of male characters I'm familiar with is far more diverse than "bumbling husband" or "evil business man".  Hell, I can think of at least 3 pretty strong masculine roles from Firefly, by itself.

[Oniya]

I skimmed a few of his other blog posts, and that guy must have stock in Reynolds Wrap, considering how many layers of tinfoil he's got on his hat.

[Sure]

EDIT:  The few stats that he gives are lies.  There is no evidence that backs up a 90% divorce initiated by women rate.

That statistic comes from American Law and Economics Review, which stated not that 90% of divorces are initiated by women but that 90% of divorces among college educated couples are initiated by women. Same study said women overall file a bit more than two thirds of all divorces in the US. If I recall.

Here's the full citation:
Brinig, Margaret F. and Allen, Douglas W., 'These Boots are Made for Walking': Why Most Divorce Filers are Women ( 2000). American Law and Economics Review, Vol. 2, pp. 126-169, 2000. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=713110

But a lot of what s/he says is poppycock. S/he does occasionally stumble across legitimate points (exempli gratia, unfair family courts), but still couches them in ways that make them unlikely to be well received.

[Oniya]

Considering the misogynistic slant of the blog, I think we're probably not dealing with a 'she' - in the same way that I've never seen the same level of misandry coming from a male writer.

[Missy]

It would seem probable that the subject in question is a male, however it is not impossible for a person to become a female misogynist or a male misandrist. If it does seem oddly improbable.

[Trieste]

There is no way to tell what gender the author is, so in my post I resorted to using 'he', because English lets me do that and my practicality overrides my feminism. :P

I actually got significantly far into the article. I got down to 'Feminism' as Genuine Misogyny and decided I would rather watch some porn.  ::)

What struck me as amusing was the fact that this author talks about the institution of marriage as a trap whereby women can extract financial support from men even after they get bored with them, while still indulging their "hypergamy". His description of early marriage is factually inaccurate, talking about how men were men and women were virgins. His dismissal of the engagement ring totally ignores the fact that giving something of value to a so-called 'intended' goes much, much farther back than the De Beers cartel. And on, and on, and on, and on. I found it especially enlightening that he put so much emphasis on women's beauty and retaining it through marriage. It's as if he hasn't even heard of the fact that we have an obesity problem in the US. His reference to a 'fatocalypse' was especially adorable.

I have to agree with Oniya with regard to the tin foil.

[gaggedLouise]

Beg to differ, Trieste. Sometimes it's possible to say with 99.5% certainty "that's a man writing" or "that's got to be a woman". Even in the absence of a name that would provide any clues, and even when the content is not linked to anything about gender, the sheer load of testosterone in some pieces - dry or fuming - gives away the male gender.

It's amazing how much energy some misogynist bloggers can put into hunting down offenders, proving that "science" shows the supremacy of real men in thinking, strength, endurance and sense of responsibility, and arguing their cause. Week in and week out, posting hundreds of blogs and industrious replies. Obviously some of them don't really have anything else to do in order to kill time, but the sight is kind of captivating.

[Reagan]

I have two words for the person who wrote that article and they are: -

Jack Bauer.

There are plenty of positive male role models in entertainment today, you just have to look for them. 

I've recently started watching the Castle series, which is more comedy than it is drama.  Richard Castle, just as an off-the-top-of-my-head example, is portrayed as a successful novelist, intelligent and somewhat maverick investigator, a man of honour and integrity who greatly values the women in his life; daughter, mother and the detective he's shadowing/pining after.  Not only that, he's a successful single father with a well adjusted teenage daughter, on whom he dotes.  And while I'm waving the Fillion Flag here, part of Castle's journey, a character who has taken full advantage of the access his fame gives him to pliant women, is accepting Det Beckett's status as a cop and watching her take her gun and life into her hands every day while he stands back and observes... mostly. 

But even that works both ways.  The respect he has for women is earned, it therefore doesn't apply to the gold-digging pneumatic sluts who cast themselves in his path.  There's a lot of balance in the show that I think is to be applauded.

I suppose you could argue that Beckett's two male subordinate detectives are portrayed as less intelligent as she is but the show has a lot of comedy and their bromance as partners lends itself well to the little spats and competitions they have with one another.  It's a counterpoint to the deeper and unrequited tension between Castle and Beckett.

So yeah, first two shows I thought of and they're both really good examples.

As for the rest of it, well this is clearly a guy who needs to be assessed for the male menopause because he reads like a sack of testosterone.  People like that just pick a scapegoat and see everything through that skewed bias.  If his blatant dysfunction as a man wasn't the fault of every woman on the planet it would no doubt be something equally implausible.

Sometimes you have brave a mirror and realise that the only common denominator in your interactions with others is you.

[gaggedLouise]

Being Nordic here, I would cite the films Let the Right One In, its U.S. "remake" Let Me In and the Swedish Millennium trilogy (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo etc) as a bunch of pictures showing interesting, non-standard relations between men and women with the guys being neither outright thugs, nor effeminates, nor stupid and snubbed. Michael Nyqvist has this very appealing ladies' man character in the trilogy; he's both handsome, tricky, boyish, practical and dependable. He's clearly not for sale - and those character traits mirror the actor behind the part too.

And in the second of those films, boxer Paolo Roberto, playing himself (this flamboyant Swedish-Italian champ boxer, actor & trainer is a real person and every bit as "Aww...shucks" as he comes across in the film and book; he's gleefully parodying his own manners a bit in the stride) shows that real men don't have to go 100% serious and insist on being taken as muscular men all the time.

[Utopia]

I really want to believe that this article / so called movement is the invention of a group of highly organized trolls, but that actually seems to come from people who are serious about the nonsense they're sprouting. I think there needs to be some sort of Social Darwin Award invented for stuff like this.

But casting aside the fact that we have one fine specimen of paranoia and delusion here, the very way of proving things in this article is off. The author all to often uses extreme cases in his proofs. That would be fine if he a) marked them as extreme cases (which he does not) or b) was discussing extreme cases (which he does not). (Example? Example. At the very end of the article the author writes: "[...] note that I have provided links to 'feminists' openly calling for slavery, castration, and murder of men without proving him guilty of anything", but instead of pointing out that this is an extreme position that is not shared by the majority of feminists, the author just sweepingly generalizes that every feminist is that way and that feminists therefore are sadistic and can't be reasoned with.)
Lots of the author's statements are not backed up by anything, as it has been pointed out before. And the sites he links to... oh my. I didn't click on any link because at some point my brain imploded from the sheer ridiculousness of this all, but linking to blogs that in turn link a) nowhere or b) nowhere scientific does not equal a proof in any way. Admittedly, I haven't checked the sources for his statistics, but the rest was ridiculous enough.

On the subject of the gender of the author: I am inclined to think that he is male. Others have already pointed out reasons, but I'd like to add some of the sites he links to. I somehow can't imagine that a woman (and any reasonable man) would be able to take things like that seriously, besides the majority of them is more or less clearly written for males.
Articles like "The M3 Model - The Easiest Way To Pick-up" (the old "women don't need respect because deep down they don't want it" myth re-enacted / men sharing ways on how to get her laid over the course of the first date), "Wedded Abyss" (which re-tells exactly what the article does, namely that marriage is used by women to torture men) and "Avoiding the Fate of the AMC" (some sort of "how to keep a 50's relationship with your wife" 101) seem to be constructed for men rather then for women, sometimes even blatantly so ("This article is intended for those of us suckers, fools, naive idiots and morons that either got married before we knew better (such as myself), or are dumb enough to sign on the dotted line for Marriage 2.0. despite knowing better. Yes, we get it, all you MGTOW-ers and PUA-ers  [sic] – getting into Marriage 2.0 with a Western Woman is dumb, crazy and foolhardy." from "Avoiding the Fate of the AMC").

(Fixed a typo.)

[Missy]

The subject does seem to want to be able to replace his older "model" for a younger one judging from some statements. This does seem to be indicative of a masculine individual.

[DarklingAlice]

Speculation about the sex or gender of the author seems just about as irrelevant as trying to figure out what kind of toon Judge Doom was. He's obviously a self-deluded nutjob and I am not sure we are going to be able to say much more than that with certainty.

[Oniya]

Speculation about the sex or gender of the author seems just about as irrelevant as trying to figure out what kind of toon Judge Doom was. He's obviously a self-deluded nutjob and I am not sure we are going to be able to say much more than that with certainty.

True enough, and I think 'nutjob' is probably the best category to leave this blogger in.  Like many things wrapped in tinfoil, 'could be meat, could be cake.  Meat-cake!'

However, in the 'just for grins' department, I went and ran the one article through the 'Gender Guesser' (had to strip out the tables, but otherwise just copy-pasted)

Results:

Total words: 15738

Genre: Informal
  Female = 15416
  Male   = 36786
  Difference = 21370; 70.46%
  Verdict: MALE

Genre: Formal
  Female = 15026
  Male   = 25953
  Difference = 10927; 63.33%
  Verdict: MALE

So, not 99.5%, but this particular widget suggests 'male'.

[Caela]

I didn't get far into this article before being totally offended. S/he paints single mothers as whores who simple got tripped up riding the meat-merry-go-round and then suck off the gov't tit making everyone else pay for their mistakes.

Being a single mother I wanted to reach through my screen and throttle the hell out of this person. I'm not a single mother because I'm promiscuous, I'm a single mother because the male who helped create my daughter CHOSE not to be a father in her life. I made the choice to respect that decision on his part and I leave him alone so long as he leaves us alone. I'm educated and have a job that allows me to support the both of us in, relative, comfort though we're far from being "wealthy" lol and I've never had to ask a dime from Uncle Sam to do it.

I closed it after that. If I was already that pissed in the first few paragraphs I couldn't imagine my temper cooling if I read further.

@Reagan, Castle is an excellant show! Love him and the tension the writers keep between him and Beckett. I don't see her subordinate detectives as less intelligent then her, but not as driven which is for personal reasons relating to why she became a cop in the first place. They're more laid back and are the comic relief to her seriousness.

[meikle]

I closed it after that. If I was already that pissed in the first few paragraphs I couldn't imagine my temper cooling if I read further.

I closed it at "socialism and tyranny are becoming malignant".

[gaggedLouise]

Should have borrowed the title from Sigmund Freud: "A Conversation with the Wolf-Man"  ::)

[Chris Brady]

Yeah, that's what I thought.  The article sounds too...  Pat, too angry to actually be serious, but he did bring up some interesting points.  I personally know of several women (Two of which I worked for) who have done, or are doing, things this blogger claimed.

Thing is Caela, you're a rarity, most women who get divorces, WILL nail the guy for as much as she can for several reasons.  Often the split is not amicable, so one side will want to screw the other side.  Sadly, custody will be the easiest for the woman to do so.  As is alimony.  (Now that isn't to say that the man can't also screw over his Ex-wife, but from what I've seen it's usually more 'immediate'.  Like moving out and cleaning out the house of objects.)  I had a friend who went through a messy divorce, got to see his son for one weekend of a month, and his ex-wife moved away on him.  And she didn't have to tell him.  So not only does he not know where his little boy is (Whom he had the right to see) he's getting nailed as a 'dead beat' because he doesn't know where to send the alimony.  And her lawyer hit him with a restraining order, to keep him from being able to get the information to be able to both pay and see his son.

Of course, this was just one side, his.  Maybe the ex-wife saw something that we didn't, but from what I saw, that seemed a little unfair.

Another woman was hitting on a former friends of mine, while I was working, and it turned out she was staying with her 'boyfriend' because he was loaded.  As in she and her young daughter were living with the guy.  But that didn't stop her from trying to get into the pants of my friend.  That was a bit much.

Those were the two biggest things that I can see (which means that there's a good chance this sort of behaviour isn't unique) where this crackpot could have gotten his ideas from.  Thing is, they seem rather extreme, no?  And frankly, those are the type of things I'd see on T.V. not on people I knew personally.

[Oniya]

I probably watch too many court shows, but you'd think that her lawyer would be able to act as an intermediary to get the support check to her, and that would give the guy leverage to petition the judge for some kind of visitation arrangement.

[Reagan]

@Reagan, Castle is an excellant show! Love him and the tension the writers keep between him and Beckett. I don't see her subordinate detectives as less intelligent then her, but not as driven which is for personal reasons relating to why she became a cop in the first place. They're more laid back and are the comic relief to her seriousness.

I agree with you.  I could just see a guy like the one who wrote that article immediately arguing that Ryan and Esposito were examples of henpecked males in the media.  I don't see them that way but then I'm not a guy and a (hetero chauvinist) male perspective might be different.

[gaggedLouise]

I'd admit that courts are not always impartial versus the parents in a legal feud over custody rights and settlement. In many places, the mother will get the main custody rights almost by default, and there's a good deal of baggage in this from the view that only a woman/only the biological mother is able to care for the kids at home. On the other hand a man is very rarely faulted over the kids he is bringing up and few people will take issue openly and say "you're not making the right kind of serious effort to bring those children up, you are not making it a priority". Women (single mothers) are much more targeted with that kind of talk.

Then again, all sorts of odd things can happen in court sometimes. I remember reading of how Norman Mailer literally bought over his ex-wife's lawyer in the course of a divorce settlement feud. The legal of course knew a lot of the ex-wife's personal and professional situation, things she had told him and shown him in confidence, people and papers from her past, and went on to lambast her in front of the court as a gold-digger: "she tries to pass herself off as a successful professional, but this woman has no career". Amazingly, the court accepted both the heavy personal slander and the fact that the lawyer changed sides between two sessions (this was in the late seventies: would it have worked today?).

[Caela]

Thing is Caela, you're a rarity, most women who get divorces, WILL nail the guy for as much as she can for several reasons.  Often the split is not amicable, so one side will want to screw the other side.  Sadly, custody will be the easiest for the woman to do so.  As is alimony.  (Now that isn't to say that the man can't also screw over his Ex-wife, but from what I've seen it's usually more 'immediate'.  Like moving out and cleaning out the house of objects.)  I had a friend who went through a messy divorce, got to see his son for one weekend of a month, and his ex-wife moved away on him.  And she didn't have to tell him.  So not only does he not know where his little boy is (Whom he had the right to see) he's getting nailed as a 'dead beat' because he doesn't know where to send the alimony.  And her lawyer hit him with a restraining order, to keep him from being able to get the information to be able to both pay and see his son.

Actually this is very different from my situation. I wasn't married so there was no divorce to contend with and those are often acrimonious because there are so many other issues around them other than just the children. In my case I got pregnant unexpectedly and he didn't want to be a father. Sort of kills seeing him again since I was going to keep the baby. I got any pertinent medical background from him (luckily he has a very healthy family) and left it at that. When my beautiful daughter was born I didn't put him on the birth certificate and so, from a legal standpoint, she simply doesn't have a father.

Granted I still could have nailed him for child support. Could have gone to court, demanded a DNA test (though he didn't argue when I told him he was the father, some guys would have), and then tried to force him to give me money for her. I just never saw the point in putting myself, and my daughter, through the stress and strain. I have enough money to take care of us so I don't need his and, around here, making him pay would give him rights to MY child and I'm not having that. He made his decision so as far as I'm concerned, she simply doesn't have a father, she has a sperm donor.

Now if he ever decides to show up on my doorstep thinking he's just going to get to play Daddy, he'll find out that I have no problem with getting a lawyer and taking him to court...but that's a whole different can of worms and I don't see it happening lol.

Even in my position though I seem to be a bit of a rarity. Most of the women I talk to look at me like I've sprouted a second head when I say I'm not taking him for everything he's got. I've just always thought that if a woman can say she doesn't want to be a mother, that a man should be able to say he doesn't want to be a father. Now if you're married, or you sign the birth certificate that puts you on the hook legally so you're stuck but barring either of those a man should have just as much right as a woman to say he doesn't want to be a parent. So I've respected that decision on his part and left him alone.

[Caela]

I'd admit that courts are not always impartial versus the parents in a legal feud over custody rights and settlement. In many places, the mother will get the main custody rights almost by default, and there's a good deal of baggage in this from the view that only a woman/only the biological mother is able to care for the kids at home. On the other hand a man is very rarely faulted over the kids he is bringing up and few people will take issue openly and say "you're not making the right kind of serious effort to bring those children up, you are not making it a priority". Women (single mothers) are much more targeted with that kind of talk.

Then again, all sorts of odd things can happen in court sometimes. I remember reading of how Norman Mailer literally bought over his ex-wife's lawyer in the course of a divorce settlement feud. The legal of course knew a lot of the ex-wife's personal and professional situation, things she had told him and shown him in confidence, people and papers from her past, and went on to lambast her in front of the court as a gold-digger: "she tries to pass herself off as a successful professional, but this woman has no career". Amazingly, the court accepted both the heavy personal slander and the fact that the lawyer changed sides between two sessions (this was in the late seventies: would it have worked today?).

I don't know if this would work today or not. I would think the lawyer that flipped would be in serious breech of lawyer/client confidentiality and that the harmed party could sue him into the ground for it these days.

[Reagan]

Granted I still could have nailed him for child support. Could have gone to court, demanded a DNA test (though he didn't argue when I told him he was the father, some guys would have), and then tried to force him to give me money for her. I just never saw the point in putting myself, and my daughter, through the stress and strain. I have enough money to take care of us so I don't need his and, around here, making him pay would give him rights to MY child and I'm not having that. He made his decision so as far as I'm concerned, she simply doesn't have a father, she has a sperm donor.

...a man should have just as much right as a woman to say he doesn't want to be a parent. So I've respected that decision on his part and left him alone.

Do you think you would still feel like that if you didn't have enough money to run your home?  If you were really struggling to make ends meet?  I mean obviously I hope that you would but I think there's a big difference between choosing not to fight for money you don't really need versus making harsh financial sacrifices in pursuit of a man's right not to be a father.

I'm not trying to be judgemental or combative here, I just feel that your circumstances may have shaped your viewpoint.

[Caela]

Do you think you would still feel like that if you didn't have enough money to run your home?  If you were really struggling to make ends meet?  I mean obviously I hope that you would but I think there's a big difference between choosing not to fight for money you don't really need versus making harsh financial sacrifices in pursuit of a man's right not to be a father.

I'm not trying to be judgemental or combative here, I just feel that your circumstances may have shaped your viewpoint.

Circumstances always shape out viewpoints. I don't know how I would feel if I didn't have enough money to keep my daughter fed. In truth I watched my mom spend a lot of time, and money, trying to make my ex-stepfather make payments he owed and when he finally did, she had to use it to pay the lawyer instead of for us. I'm lucky enough to have a VERY helpful family, if I couldn't make ends meet on my own I could likely have stayed with one of them and gone back to school to improve my situation so I like to think I would still feel the same because I would have help.

I think it's one of the larger double standards in our society that a woman, with almost no input from the man, can decide she doesn't want to be a mother and there's nothing he can do about it, but a man isn't supposed to have that same right. He screwed her so he's on the hook if she chooses to keep it. I personally believe that, unless your married (which already makes you legally responsible), until the birth certificate is signed a man should be able to sign away his rights and walk away.

[Reagan]

Circumstances always shape out viewpoints. I don't know how I would feel if I didn't have enough money to keep my daughter fed. In truth I watched my mom spend a lot of time, and money, trying to make my ex-stepfather make payments he owed and when he finally did, she had to use it to pay the lawyer instead of for us. I'm lucky enough to have a VERY helpful family, if I couldn't make ends meet on my own I could likely have stayed with one of them and gone back to school to improve my situation so I like to think I would still feel the same because I would have help.

I think it's one of the larger double standards in our society that a woman, with almost no input from the man, can decide she doesn't want to be a mother and there's nothing he can do about it, but a man isn't supposed to have that same right. He screwed her so he's on the hook if she chooses to keep it. I personally believe that, unless your married (which already makes you legally responsible), until the birth certificate is signed a man should be able to sign away his rights and walk away.

I agree with you to a certain extent.  The problem I have with the whole double standard thing is that it requires a guy to be honest about what his intentions were when he went to bed with a woman.  Plenty of unmarried couples plan children only for the father to get cold feet once his girlfriend's lost her figure and he's about to be eyeball deep in nappies.  I think that many men are already feckless enough without giving them the option to sign away all responsibility the moment they get buyer's remorse.  There are plenty of men also, who will do anything to avoid barrier contraception because it detracts from their enjoyment.

Then there's the issue of consent and cases where consent may have been dubious, e.g. following a drunken one night stand when a woman may have been taken advantage of only to wind up pregnant, not to mention victims of rape and/or domestic abuse.  Or where a married man is sleeping with a mistress who believes him to be single.  Teenage girls would pay a high price for a failure of contraception, whereas teenage guys would have no incentive to take responsibility for contraception and use condoms.

Not every woman can have an abortion and live with herself afterwards.  It's against many women's religious beliefs.  Adoption is also a hard choice to make and to see through.

I do of course agree that many women seek to entrap men and that many women believe any sperm donor should be made to haemorrhage cash.  I don't condone that behaviour but neither do I think there are enough honourable men for such a system of signing away rights to work.  You wouldn't have much more than the word of a guy regarding whether a pregnancy was the result of a one night stand, brief fling, longer relationship or whether it was in fact planned.

So I admire your independence and your decision not to burden someone who clearly had no interest in fatherhood but I don't see how it could ever really become legally workable for a guy to sign away parental responsibility on a whim.

I completely understand your need for the father not to have any rights over your daughter but at the same time, I wouldn't want to see a system where once a father signed away his rights there was no way back from that.  There are few enough men with an interest in raising children from previous relationships.  I think there would definitely have to be a process through which he could apply for visitation, on the understanding that he would have to start supporting the child financially.

[Oniya]

So I admire your independence and your decision not to burden someone who clearly had no interest in fatherhood but I don't see how it could ever really become legally workable for a guy to sign away parental responsibility on a whim.

And yet, with the adoption system, men and women sign away their parental rights, since most are 'closed'.

[Reagan]

And yet, with the adoption system, men and women sign away their parental rights, since most are 'closed'.

Yes but that's hardly comparable to signing away rights and responsibilities to a child that will then be raised by a single mother, knowing the mother and child will likely experience hardship as a result.

[Caela]

So I admire your independence and your decision not to burden someone who clearly had no interest in fatherhood but I don't see how it could ever really become legally workable for a guy to sign away parental responsibility on a whim.

I completely understand your need for the father not to have any rights over your daughter but at the same time, I wouldn't want to see a system where once a father signed away his rights there was no way back from that.  There are few enough men with an interest in raising children from previous relationships.  I think there would definitely have to be a process through which he could apply for visitation, on the understanding that he would have to start supporting the child financially.

Snipped your post a bit to bring it down to what I wanted to address.

I personally think that if you sign away your rights (male or female) there shouldn't be a way to come back from that. I know it's harsh but people that try to give away a child and then a few years later suddenly want to be a part of their life tend to do nothing but wreak havoc on that child's life. It's not what they intend but it is the consequence of the action. Children need security and safety and a sense that this is their world, not to have adults coming and going as they please and cocking that up.

I can't speak for anyone else but if my daughter's SD tried to come knocking on my door, I'd be sorely tempted to start calling friend to help me dispose of a body. There is no amount of financial resources that can make up for the fact the had had NO interest in being a part of her life for YEARS. And now suddenly thinks he can play Daddy. Nope, sorry, not in my world. She is nearly and is one of the happiest, most well adjusted children you could hope to meet. She has Uncles and her Papa for male role models and sees them all the time. She recognizes that other kids have Daddy's but is so happy in the way her life is arranged that it hasn't occurred to her yet to ask why she doesn't. She doesn't feel the lack of a father figure in her life in the least and I won't let someone try to come in and disrupt her happy little world without a knock-down, drag-out, over my dead freaking body fight.

[Missy]

I agree, my "old man" decided to actually take an interest in me after years of not caring and only sending child support when it was convenient for him to do so. I figured he made his choice when he cheated on my mother, repeatedly, failed to take any interest in holding a proper sense of loyalty to the partner whom he chose, then left after a divorce taking with him the tax exemptions for the kid's who he wasn't financially supporting.

Honestly I thought the old man might have been good for the chain gang seeing as he wasn't much good for anything else. In any case while I agree some women are going to be bitches about divorce I think we need to keep a much much much tighter leash on pathetic men who fail to pay the most basic of child support to the children they created.

Though not everyone's experience is quite like mine however.

[Caela]

I agree, my "old man" decided to actually take an interest in me after years of not caring and only sending child support when it was convenient for him to do so. I figured he made his choice when he cheated on my mother, repeatedly, failed to take any interest in holding a proper sense of loyalty to the partner whom he chose, then left after a divorce taking with him the tax exemptions for the kid's who he wasn't financially supporting.

Honestly I thought the old man might have been good for the chain gang seeing as he wasn't much good for anything else. In any case while I agree some women are going to be bitches about divorce I think we need to keep a much much much tighter leash on pathetic men who fail to pay the most basic of child support to the children they created.

Though not everyone's experience is quite like mine however.

What actually got my own mother her child support (from my brother's dad not mine, mine paid his) was that he finally got a job at a place that garnished his check before he ever got it. I actually wish more businesses did this. It would make it much harder for men who have orders to pay to run away from it if their jobs got the paper work from the courts and yanked it from their checks before they ever saw them.

[TheGlyphstone]

I think it's one of the larger double standards in our society that a woman, with almost no input from the man, can decide she doesn't want to be a mother and there's nothing he can do about it, but a man isn't supposed to have that same right. He screwed her so he's on the hook if she chooses to keep it. I personally believe that, unless your married (which already makes you legally responsible), until the birth certificate is signed a man should be able to sign away his rights and walk away.

Since no one's addressed this point yet, I'll highlight it, because I do think it's important . I'm solidly pro-choice personally, but it shouldn't be like it is now where the sole voice in deciding to have an abortion, give it up for adoption, or keep a child is the mother's. It may not be possible for years, until we've developed artifical womb technology capable of sustaining a developing embryo till birth, but half of that baby is the dad's, and he should have some say in its fate. For all that single fathers is more frequent in comedy movies than serious discussion, they're out there, and have to fight significant cultural bias (ever heard of a 'deadbeat mom' on TV?)

[Reagan]

Snipped your post a bit to bring it down to what I wanted to address.

I personally think that if you sign away your rights (male or female) there shouldn't be a way to come back from that. I know it's harsh but people that try to give away a child and then a few years later suddenly want to be a part of their life tend to do nothing but wreak havoc on that child's life. It's not what they intend but it is the consequence of the action. Children need security and safety and a sense that this is their world, not to have adults coming and going as they please and cocking that up.

I can't speak for anyone else but if my daughter's SD tried to come knocking on my door, I'd be sorely tempted to start calling friend to help me dispose of a body. There is no amount of financial resources that can make up for the fact the had had NO interest in being a part of her life for YEARS. And now suddenly thinks he can play Daddy. Nope, sorry, not in my world. She is nearly and is one of the happiest, most well adjusted children you could hope to meet. She has Uncles and her Papa for male role models and sees them all the time. She recognizes that other kids have Daddy's but is so happy in the way her life is arranged that it hasn't occurred to her yet to ask why she doesn't. She doesn't feel the lack of a father figure in her life in the least and I won't let someone try to come in and disrupt her happy little world without a knock-down, drag-out, over my dead freaking body fight.

As I said I do completely understand your feelings and choices.  It's fantastic that your daughter has lots of love, support and even other male role models around her.  I have to say though, that I think the reality for a lot of kids with single mums is very different.  I also don't think that a father being re-introduced to a child's life at a later stage can only have negative repercussions.  Of course everything must ultimately be weighed firmly in the child's best interest and nobody else's but to suggest that no man should ever be able to initiate a relationship with his child is too severe in my opinion.  There are a lot of guys who react in a knee-jerk way through terror at the end of their status-quo on becoming parents who wind up deeply regretting opting out of a child's life.  Yes, that's entirely their own fault but if they become mature and responsible enough to want to be a force for good in their kid's life and to be consistent in that, to brush them aside and say they've had their chance is to nobody's benefit.

[Reagan]

Since no one's addressed this point yet, I'll highlight it, because I do think it's important . I'm solidly pro-choice personally, but it shouldn't be like it is now where the sole voice in deciding to have an abortion, give it up for adoption, or keep a child is the mother's. It may not be possible for years, until we've developed artifical womb technology capable of sustaining a developing embryo till birth, but half of that baby is the dad's, and he should have some say in its fate. For all that single fathers is more frequent in comedy movies than serious discussion, they're out there, and have to fight significant cultural bias (ever heard of a 'deadbeat mom' on TV?)

I totally get this and I know there are deadbeat moms.  There are also plenty of moms with custody of their kids who are doing a far lousier job of raising them than their fathers would.  I think most fathers deserve some say in a kid's fate but while women bear children they will always have the final word.  And despite the fact that there are plenty of good single fathers and so on, the overwhelming experience of women is that their life is irrevocably changed by a baby while fathers' are not.  I think the percentage of fathers who would raise a child from birth alone, dealing with the feeding regime, the nappies and all that stuff is pretty low.  There are plenty of guys who are prepared to support a child financially and have him/her over at weekends etc but the majority still expect the mother to be the primary care giver, which is a far greater commitment.

[TheGlyphstone]

I totally get this and I know there are deadbeat moms.  There are also plenty of moms with custody of their kids who are doing a far lousier job of raising them than their fathers would.  I think most fathers deserve some say in a kid's fate but while women bear children they will always have the final word.  And despite the fact that there are plenty of good single fathers and so on, the overwhelming experience of women is that their life is irrevocably changed by a baby while fathers' are not.  I think the percentage of fathers who would raise a child from birth alone, dealing with the feeding regime, the nappies and all that stuff is pretty low.  There are plenty of guys who are prepared to support a child financially and have him/her over at weekends etc but the majority still expect the mother to be the primary care giver, which is a far greater commitment.

Is it the fathers who expect the mother to be the primary, though, or the courts? It's true that most divorce settlements end up with the mother as primary caregiver, but I'm talking about the ones where rather than raise the child, the mothers have it aborted or given up for adoption. Fathers who feel strongly enough about their offspring that they would be willing to raise them from birth - not just pay money for them - are screwed because of society's bias against 'bad dads' and assuming that no parent at all is better than not having a mother while growing up. A woman's life is changed by a baby for a minimum of nine months (on average), assuming she carries it to term and then never sees it again - hardly an irrevocable change. You even said yourself that the percentage of fathers who would take on that burden is low...but one of America's original guiding principles, at least, is the idea that the minority should not suffer for the benefit of the majority, and in the current state of the laws and courts, those potentially great single fathers are never given the chance.

[Anjasa]

Since no one's addressed this point yet, I'll highlight it, because I do think it's important . I'm solidly pro-choice personally, but it shouldn't be like it is now where the sole voice in deciding to have an abortion, give it up for adoption, or keep a child is the mother's. It may not be possible for years, until we've developed artifical womb technology capable of sustaining a developing embryo till birth, but half of that baby is the dad's, and he should have some say in its fate. For all that single fathers is more frequent in comedy movies than serious discussion, they're out there, and have to fight significant cultural bias (ever heard of a 'deadbeat mom' on TV?)

Pregnancy and birth, though, is a painful, dangerous experience for many women. One of the women at work is pregnant and she's spent the past few months in near constant pain between the migraines, the lack of sleep, the morning sickness that lasted for 3 months. She's missed a lot of work because of it and will likely be off early on sick leave because of it. That's a lot to ask a woman to go through if she's dead set against having a child and the father wants it.

I understand your point - and I agree in THEORY - but in practical, daily sense, the final decision has to rest with the woman. I believe that, in a healthy relationship, the man should definitely have a say and if the reasons she doesn't want the child can be rectified by the man (i.e. she doesn't want to raise the child alone, she doesn't know how she'll provide for it, etc.), then it's up to him to convince her that he'll be willing and able to help her in that regards.

But if the problem is she doesn't want to go through pregnancy or doesn't want to give birth, then that's not really something he can really argue with.

[Zakharra]

Pregnancy and birth, though, is a painful, dangerous experience for many women. One of the women at work is pregnant and she's spent the past few months in near constant pain between the migraines, the lack of sleep, the morning sickness that lasted for 3 months. She's missed a lot of work because of it and will likely be off early on sick leave because of it. That's a lot to ask a woman to go through if she's dead set against having a child and the father wants it.

I understand your point - and I agree in THEORY - but in practical, daily sense, the final decision has to rest with the woman. I believe that, in a healthy relationship, the man should definitely have a say and if the reasons she doesn't want the child can be rectified by the man (i.e. she doesn't want to raise the child alone, she doesn't know how she'll provide for it, etc.), then it's up to him to convince her that he'll be willing and able to help her in that regards.

But if the problem is she doesn't want to go through pregnancy or doesn't want to give birth, then that's not really something he can really argue with.

I definitely agree with that. As you said, the theory is sound. AS a theory, but in practice it falls apart because pregnancy is a dangerous, painful and life changing process for the woman. The man isn't the one carrying the baby, feeling it move within her, nor is he the one to give birth. All he provided was 5-10 minutes of pleasure and his part was basically done. The woman is the one to always carry the consequences of pregnancy by being the one to carry the child.

[TheGlyphstone]

Pregnancy and birth, though, is a painful, dangerous experience for many women. One of the women at work is pregnant and she's spent the past few months in near constant pain between the migraines, the lack of sleep, the morning sickness that lasted for 3 months. She's missed a lot of work because of it and will likely be off early on sick leave because of it. That's a lot to ask a woman to go through if she's dead set against having a child and the father wants it.

I understand your point - and I agree in THEORY - but in practical, daily sense, the final decision has to rest with the woman. I believe that, in a healthy relationship, the man should definitely have a say and if the reasons she doesn't want the child can be rectified by the man (i.e. she doesn't want to raise the child alone, she doesn't know how she'll provide for it, etc.), then it's up to him to convince her that he'll be willing and able to help her in that regards.

But if the problem is she doesn't want to go through pregnancy or doesn't want to give birth, then that's not really something he can really argue with.

Which is also why I recognize this sort of equality will never see daylight until it's medically possible to bring a child to term outside of a woman's body. It's a dream to hope for, though.

[DarklingAlice]

A woman's life is changed by a baby for a minimum of nine months (on average), assuming she carries it to term and then never sees it again - hardly an irrevocable change.

This comes off as ignorant and dismissive, even if it wasn't intended that way. There can be medical consequences of undergoing a pregnancy that persist for the entirety of the mother's life (including maternal mortality during delivery the rate of which has risen in the past decade). And the rest of this conversation seems to have jumped off into a combination of anecdotal narratives and really poor and really broad generalizations.

[Zeitgeist]

I wouldn't defend the author of this article. It goes too far and is conspiratorial. But as with all conspiracies there is a vein of truth. Masculinity is not analogous to misogyny. I hope we can all agree on that? Given the number of noncustodial and absent, delinquent fathers out there, perceived or otherwise, and given the number of violent crimes perpetrated by men, there is cause for concern.

[Oniya]

Masculinity is not analogous to misogyny. I hope we can all agree on that?

Quoted for emphasis.  When I was in college (I went to a 'women's college'), one of the administrators taught a class on Issues of Women and Leadership.  I had a friend who took the class the year before me, and I found out that the course was horribly biased to the extremes: women were either supposed to trample over men on their way to the top, or take a completely supportive role to ensure their husbands' successes.  The middle ground of working alongside men wasn't even an option.

I arranged a class conflict.

[Torch]

  pregnancy is a dangerous, painful and life changing process for the woman.

Could we not paint pregnancy with the same brush as throwing oneself on a landmine in Afghanistan?

Pregnancy is a normal, healthy state for a woman with a working uterus. Her body is doing what it is designed to do. Let's not exaggerate, please.

[Oniya]

It does require a bit more commitment on the woman's part than on the man's.  I suspect that if both parties had to go through nine months of symptoms, we'd have fewer people demanding that every conception be carried to term.  (We'd probably also have a lot more men insisting on birth control.)

[Trieste]

Yeah, biologically noooot quite a normal, healthy state for a woman with a working uterus (and that's ignoring the fact that uteruses and hormone levels seem to play by their own rules a lot). There is a significant risk involved, and a good amount of discomfort if you have a normal, healthy pregnancy. Now think about how likely it is that someone who cannot afford birth control is going to have a normal, healthy pregnancy.

While it's certainly not the same as throwing oneself on a bomb (really, Torch?  ::)) it does remain true that the female in a relationship bears the burden of child-bearing more than the male. I have to agree with above posters that I will be all about equal consent laws for men and women in the case of abortion - when it's possible for men to take on the embryo and carry it to term.

[Torch]

Yeah, biologically noooot quite a normal, healthy state for a woman with a working uterus (and that's ignoring the fact that uteruses and hormone levels seem to play by their own rules a lot). There is a significant risk involved, and a good amount of discomfort if you have a normal, healthy pregnancy. Now think about how likely it is that someone who cannot afford birth control is going to have a normal, healthy pregnancy.

Sorry, I have to disagree. Especially with the "risk" part. Ten times the number of women sustain death or injurious complications from automobile accidents than women who carry a pregnancy to term. Should we then ban women from driving?  Yes, I know, sounds silly and irrational, but tossing around a term like "dangerous" when referring to pregnancy is just as silly and irrational. A normal, healthy pregnancy is not in any way, shape, or form, dangerous. Inconvenient? Certainly. Painful? It can be, although pain is subjective, and as a person who has given birth twice without the benefit of so much as a Tylenol, I can state unequivocally that labor was far less painful than the bout of appendicitis I endured when I was in college.

But dangerous? No. Just....no.

While it's certainly not the same as throwing oneself on a bomb (really, Torch?  ::)) it does remain true that the female in a relationship bears the burden of child-bearing more than the male. I have to agree with above posters that I will be all about equal consent laws for men and women in the case of abortion - when it's possible for men to take on the embryo and carry it to term.

Oh, I'm not disagreeing on that point at all, in fact I am in total agreement. But equating pregnancy to a "dangerous" condition is not the way to prove that point. Because if we normalize pregnancy as "dangerous", then we slide on a slippery slope to taking away a woman's choice to carry on her pregnancy as she sees fit, her choice to birth as she sees fit, her choice to choose her healthcare provider as she deems appropriate...because of the *gasp* DANGER!!!

[Trieste]

Not so, although it's possible that you're taking it in a more alarmist manner than I meant it. Pregnancy is dangerous, just as surgery is dangerous, just as, yes, driving is dangerous, and just as taking strong medications is dangerous. Does it mean we should restrict choices? Of course not. However, it does mean that women - and men - need to be made aware of their methods of preventing, managing, and terminating it. As with any medical procedure, the result of calling pregnancy dangerous is not to scare or limit choices, but to stress the importance of information and education. It is our ethical responsibility to make sure our young men and women are educated and can make informed decisions.

It's not an attempt to prove the point that women are more affected by pregnancy than men, because that is a fact that need not be proven. Someone who denies it has no idea what he or she is talking about. However, the original point was that pregnancy is "hardly an irrevocable change" and that's a generalization that should not be made.

Having explained myself as well as I can and, in the process, moved pretty far off-topic, I'm going to pretty much have to agree to disagree on this one and refrain from hijacking further, though.

[Zakharra]

Sorry, I have to disagree. Especially with the "risk" part. A woman is far more likely to sustain death or injurious complications from an automobile accident than from carrying a pregnancy to term. Should we then ban women from driving?  Yes, I know, sounds silly and irrational, but tossing around a term like "dangerous" when referring to pregnancy is just as silly and irrational. A normal, healthy pregnancy is not in any way, shape, or form, dangerous. Inconvenient? Certainly. Painful? It can be, although pain is subjective, and as a person who has given birth twice without the benefit of so much as a Tylenol, I can state unequivocally that labor was far less painful than the bout of appendicitis I endured when I was in college.

But dangerous? No. Just....no.

Oh, I'm not disagreeing on that point at all, in fact I am in total agreement. But equating pregnancy to a "dangerous" condition is not the way to prove that point. Because if we normalize pregnancy as "dangerous", then we slide on a slippery slope to taking away a woman's choice to carry on her pregnancy as she sees fit, her choice to birth as she sees fit, her choice to choose her healthcare provider as she deems appropriate...because of the *gasp* DANGER!!!

UUmm.. for the longest time, pregnancy was about the most dangerous thing a woman could have happen to her. A LOT of women died in childbirth, as did children. A woman was more likely to die in childbirth than to pretty much anything else. So don't say it's not dangerous. Even now with modern medicine, it's not an easy task for a woman to undergo.  Is it easier than it was 100 years ago?Yes, but it's still not easy.  To dismiss it as not being dangerous is ignoring the millions of women who have died in childbirth related problems and the women even now that have problems with it.

[TheGlyphstone]

While it's certainly not the same as throwing oneself on a bomb (really, Torch?  ::)) it does remain true that the female in a relationship bears the burden of child-bearing more than the male. I have to agree with above posters that I will be all about equal consent laws for men and women in the case of abortion - when it's possible for men to take on the embryo and carry it to term.

Would you support them instead if it becomes possible not if the burden was added to men, but if it was removed from women? Etopic male human pregnancy is, by totally unscientific research, likely impossible without significant surgical modifications and extremely likely to kill the host, but thy're actually making (slow) progress on construction of artifical wombs - more than they are for male-born fetuses, at least.

[Vekseid]

Sorry, I have to disagree. Especially with the "risk" part. A woman is far more likely to sustain death or injurious complications from an automobile accident than from carrying a pregnancy to term. Should we then ban women from driving?  Yes, I know, sounds silly and irrational, but tossing around a term like "dangerous" when referring to pregnancy is just as silly and irrational. A normal, healthy pregnancy is not in any way, shape, or form, dangerous. Inconvenient? Certainly. Painful? It can be, although pain is subjective, and as a person who has given birth twice without the benefit of so much as a Tylenol, I can state unequivocally that labor was far less painful than the bout of appendicitis I endured when I was in college.

On a lark, I just ran the math for this.

17 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in the United States, as of the most recent estimates.

11 auto deaths per 100,000 citizens of the United States.

Those numbers used to be reversed.

Being pregnant is now 50% more likely to get you killed than your traveling habits, in the United States.

[Oniya]

Just as a bit of medical trivia - if the embryo implants in the right place (i.e., not just outside the uterus, but in specific areas of the abdominal cavity), there have been very rare cases of ectopic pregnancy in women that have been brought to term and delivered by modified C-section.  Some attach to the outside of the uterus, or to benign fibroid tumors, which doesn't help the 'seahorse' situation, but one in particular had attached to the omentum (a layer of tissue that provides blood to the intestines), which is notable as it's a structure that both men and women have.

[Caela]

Sorry, I have to disagree. Especially with the "risk" part. A woman is far more likely to sustain death or injurious complications from an automobile accident than from carrying a pregnancy to term. Should we then ban women from driving?  Yes, I know, sounds silly and irrational, but tossing around a term like "dangerous" when referring to pregnancy is just as silly and irrational. A normal, healthy pregnancy is not in any way, shape, or form, dangerous. Inconvenient? Certainly. Painful? It can be, although pain is subjective, and as a person who has given birth twice without the benefit of so much as a Tylenol, I can state unequivocally that labor was far less painful than the bout of appendicitis I endured when I was in college.

But dangerous? No. Just....no.

Oh, I'm not disagreeing on that point at all, in fact I am in total agreement. But equating pregnancy to a "dangerous" condition is not the way to prove that point. Because if we normalize pregnancy as "dangerous", then we slide on a slippery slope to taking away a woman's choice to carry on her pregnancy as she sees fit, her choice to birth as she sees fit, her choice to choose her healthcare provider as she deems appropriate...because of the *gasp* DANGER!!!

To say pregnancy, and childbirth, aren't dangerous is disingenuous at best. I work in a Labor and Delivery unit and see firsthand the complications that can come with pregnancy. Do they happen to most? No, of course not. Most pregnancies fall in the mild - severely uncomfortable range not into dangerous territory but you never what you're going to have when you get pregnant.  Modern medicine has made it safer and so that we have treatments now for many complications that used to kill both mother and child but you can never make it entirely "safe" and I've had to help in complications ranging from fetal death, to post Cesarean hysterectomies, to hemorrhages etc.

None of that means you shouldn't get to determine your own care (it does mean some healthcare professionals may think some of you choices are moronic but we won't say that to your face) up to, and including, having your child at home with a midwife if that's what you want. Women have been giving birth for millions of years, it's something our bodies are designed to do, but some women's bodies to it better than others and a woman should keep her pregnancy history (if she has one) or that of her mother and grandmother in mind when she is making those choices.

Oh, just a random FYI, if you show up at the hospital with a six page birth-plan, expect to get a c-section, Murphey's Law just loves to mess with those!

[Torch]

Being pregnant is now 50% more likely to get you killed than your traveling habits, in the United States.

According to the CDC, the leading causes of death for women of childbearing age are unintentional injuries, cancer, heart disease, stroke, homicide, suicide, and HIV.

Maternal death from complications of pregnancy is less than 3% in any age group.

This is from the 2006 Mortality tables, the first one I could pull up. I'm sure there are newer ones, but I doubt the numbers have changed all that much in five years.

[Torch]

To say pregnancy, and childbirth, aren't dangerous is disingenuous at best. I work in a Labor and Delivery unit and see firsthand the complications that can come with pregnancy. Do they happen to most? No, of course not. Most pregnancies fall in the mild - severely uncomfortable range not into dangerous territory

That's really my point. Taking the position that EACH and EVERY pregnancy is dangerous is inaccurate.

[Vekseid]

According to the CDC, the leading causes of death for women of childbearing age are unintentional injuries, cancer, heart disease, stroke, homicide, suicide, and HIV.

Maternal death from complications of pregnancy is less than 3% in any age group.

This is from the 2006 Mortality tables, the first one I could pull up. I'm sure there are newer ones, but I doubt the numbers have changed all that much in five years.

You made a specific claim:

A woman is far more likely to sustain death or injurious complications from an automobile accident than from carrying a pregnancy to term.

This is, as of roughly 2009, completely false.

[Caela]

That's really my point. Taking the position that EACH and EVERY pregnancy is dangerous is inaccurate.

Each one carries a certain level of risk. For most, that risk comes to nothing. The problem is that a lot of the more dangerous risks don't show up until a woman is in labor which then gets her rushed back for an emergency c-section which is major abdominal surgery and carries it's own risks. To not treat every pregnancy as if it could be dangerous, is to make light of something that can, in a worst case scenario, actually kill you. Is it likely to? No, I'll admit that, but just disregarding the dangers inherent in pregnancy and childbirth simply because they're "natural" is as foolish as trying to make it sound like every pregnancy WILL kill you. Both are extreme attitudes that ignore the truth.

[Jude]

I'm having a hard time finding those stats Vekseid.  Could you cite your resources?

EDIT:  Keep in mind Torch, that even if only 1% of women who give birth die in a year, you have to normalize that for the percentage of women that give birth in a year.  I'm willing to bet fewer than 20% of women do this, so if 1% of women die and 20% of women give birth, then 5% of women that give birth die.

The percentage of women who drive is much higher than the percentage of women who give birth, so you can't really access risk in pure percentages related to the general population.

I'm still agnostic on which is greater until I see the stats for myself, though.

[Torch]

You made a specific claim:

This is, as of roughly 2009, completely false.

Not false.

Less than 600 women in the US die from childbirth complications every year - CDC, National Center for Health Statistics

Approximately 5000 women of childbearing age die in automobile fatalities every year - NHTSA

[Vekseid]

You made a statistical claim, not a numeric one. Nearly every woman in the United States has to deal with road traffic, from birth to nursing home. Not every woman in the United States is pregnant.

[Torch]

You made a statistical claim, not a numeric one.

Ahh, I see what you mean. I'll amend my post.

Numerically, the number of women in the US of childbearing age who die or are injured in automobile accidents is ten times the number of women in the US who die in childbirth.

[Torch]

I'm having a hard time finding those stats Vekseid.  Could you cite your resources?

EDIT:  Keep in mind Torch, that even if only 1% of women who give birth die in a year, you have to normalize that for the percentage of women that give birth in a year.  I'm willing to bet fewer than 20% of women do this, so if 1% of women die and 20% of women give birth, then 5% of women that give birth die.

The percentage of women who drive is much higher than the percentage of women who give birth, so you can't really access risk in pure percentages related to the general population.

I'm still agnostic on which is greater until I see the stats for myself, though.

Yeah, I know, I've been trying to find a good table that explains rates of pregnancy by age, but even the one I can find from Guttmacher is from 2002. :P The rates for women ages 20-34 (under 20 and over 35 fall off the charts dramatically) average out to about 25%.

[Zakharra]

Numerically, the number of women in the US of childbearing age who die or are injured in automobile accidents is ten times the number of women in the US who die in childbirth.

That's true, but the number of women pregnant is what you need to take from to get the % that die to childbirth complications.

[CmdrRenegade]

I agree with you to a certain extent.  The problem I have with the whole double standard thing is that it requires a guy to be honest about what his intentions were when he went to bed with a woman.  Plenty of unmarried couples plan children only for the father to get cold feet once his girlfriend's lost her figure and he's about to be eyeball deep in nappies.  I think that many men are already feckless enough without giving them the option to sign away all responsibility the moment they get buyer's remorse.  There are plenty of men also, who will do anything to avoid barrier contraception because it detracts from their enjoyment.

Then there's the issue of consent and cases where consent may have been dubious, e.g. following a drunken one night stand when a woman may have been taken advantage of only to wind up pregnant, not to mention victims of rape and/or domestic abuse.  Or where a married man is sleeping with a mistress who believes him to be single.  Teenage girls would pay a high price for a failure of contraception, whereas teenage guys would have no incentive to take responsibility for contraception and use condoms.

Not every woman can have an abortion and live with herself afterwards.  It's against many women's religious beliefs.  Adoption is also a hard choice to make and to see through.

I do of course agree that many women seek to entrap men and that many women believe any sperm donor should be made to haemorrhage cash.  I don't condone that behaviour but neither do I think there are enough honourable men for such a system of signing away rights to work.  You wouldn't have much more than the word of a guy regarding whether a pregnancy was the result of a one night stand, brief fling, longer relationship or whether it was in fact planned.

So I admire your independence and your decision not to burden someone who clearly had no interest in fatherhood but I don't see how it could ever really become legally workable for a guy to sign away parental responsibility on a whim.

I completely understand your need for the father not to have any rights over your daughter but at the same time, I wouldn't want to see a system where once a father signed away his rights there was no way back from that.  There are few enough men with an interest in raising children from previous relationships.  I think there would definitely have to be a process through which he could apply for visitation, on the understanding that he would have to start supporting the child financially.

Sorry to derail but I feel I have to answer this.  If a man had made a similar generalization about women, there would be many women saying that it's unfair to women as a whole because not all women are like that (to henceforth be referred to as NAWALT).  I can simply respond with NAMALT (Not All Men Are Like That), but that's not really a sufficient argument. 

Reagan has mentioned how she would be reluctant to allow a man to sign away his rights and obligations to the child.  She is saying that a "paper abortion" would leave a woman too vulnerable to male caprice.  The thing is that we men would in turn like to be protected against female caprice.  As the law stands right now, any male is vulnerable to whatever decision she chooses to make.  If you want to know more check out these links that speak on it more eloquently than I can.

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2000/10/19/mens_choice

http://www.salon.com/life/mothers/2001/02/06/farrell

If a man and a woman are married, it's a very reasonable assumption that they one day want to have at least one child.  Outside of marriage, it gets more complicated.  Both people are likely having sex for the thrill and pleasure of it only to discover that whatever birth control method they were using had failed.  Federal and state law as it is now has stated that a man lost the right to decide for himself to be a father the moment he engaged in sexual activity, vaginal or not.  Whatever his intentions or state were is considered irrelevant. 

A 12 year old male who has sex with an older female (age of consent varies between 14-17 by state) is considered a victim of statutory rape, but is still held liable for child support if the act resulted in a pregnancy.  A woman who has sex with a drunk/unconscious man has committed rape, but said man will still be held liable for child support from the resulting crime.  They have no way out and the woman and the courts have the full authority to any and all of his assets for "the best interests of the child".  This can range anywhere from 35%-60% of his income and the courts will take more if she demands it, regardless of what her true intentions are.  If the man can't pay, he will be thrown in jail and have all his legal privileges taken away. 

Why would any woman do such a horrible thing? She wants to tie the man to her, she wants the income she thinks child support will bring her, or most likely, she just really wants a child and doesn't care how she gets it. 

My point is that the law still assumes that women are all innocent things that will be taken advantage by evil men out for nothing but a thrill.  In this modern age, that simply isn't true.  Everyone knows how reproductive biology works.  Yes it takes "two to tango", but allowing only one to decide how to end the dance isn't legal equality.  Men also have to deal with the emotional pain of knowing a life they could have raised was snuffed out at an abortion clinic or is off somewhere else being raised by someone else.  The woman has no obligation to consider him for these choices either. 

My point is that just like women don't want to be treated as dispensers of food and sex, men don't want to be treated as dispensers of sperm and money.  That is why I would support a 'paper abortion'.  Some of you may ask,'What about the child? What about what's best for the child?' My answer, as harsh as it is, is that it's irrelevant.  If this question is not allowed to be asked when a woman heads to the abortion clinic, the adoption agency, or the hospital to give birth than by fair and equitable ethical standards it should not be asked to men.  Equality, for those who can handle it, can be incredibly harsh. 

That's my two cents.

[meikle]

You know what else isn't equal?

Anatomy.

Abortion rights aren't about taking choices away from men.  They're about guaranteeing female biological autonomy.

I'm not sure where the idea that a woman can put a kid up for adoption without the father's input comes from.  I'm fairly certain that unless you don't pursue your rights as a parent, if a mother wants to put a child up for adoption, the father can choose not to terminate his rights as father.

[Sure]

I believe we're talking about a strawman anyway: The assertion as I understand it is not that men should have a say in whether women get an abortion but rather that women should not have a say in whether the man takes on a fatherly role. It should be his choice to reject it (for the same window a woman has to reject it), and he should be able to do it without her consent. To argue against this is to effectively argue men should have less legal rights than women, as they currently do.

By the way, don't just talk about deadbeat dads, please: Non-Custodial Women are significantly worse in virtually every child support metric by percentage, yet by using the term Deadbeat Dads you are implicitly excusing them and implying the problem is inherently male. There are about ten times more men than women paying child support, but that doesn't change the fact Deadbeat Moms need to be cracked down on as well.

You know what else isn't equal?

Anatomy.

Pithy and completely irrelevant to the fact you are asserting men should have less rights than women, that men should be forced to support financially a decision he had no hand in making.

[meikle]

Nope.  Men should have rights to their anatomy, as well.

Both parents should be responsible to a child when it is born.  That the decision to carry a child to term comes down to the mother (remember, bodily autonomy) is just a function of anatomy and nature.

Any time a child is born out of a consensual sex act, that is a decision that a man had a hand in making.

Neither men nor women have the right to 'opt out' of caring for a child, except insofar as they might abandon the child at a hospital or put them up for adoption, which are cases in which both parents have the right to make a choice (and must make that decision in unison.)

[Sure]

So, you are asserting that women should lose their ability to put children up for adoption. That if they chose to carry the child to term they are obligated to raise it? Because that is in no way the current situation. It appears your assertion ignores the current situation and breaks from it, wishing for a complete overhaul in a different direction, but applies that wish unequally by opposing rights for men without actively campaigning for a reduction in women's rights.

Further, if you assert that parents have a duty to invest time, money, emotions, and so on into a child, I do not see how that does not work as an argument against abortion. Human or not how does a woman not have a similar absolute duty to the fetus if she has an absolute duty to the fetus's result?

And despite all this, the basic inequality that the woman has a choice and the man does not remains.

[meikle]

Wow, are you not even reading what I'm saying?

I'm not going to let you tell me what my argument is (hint: it's not that) and then defend the shit you're making up.

[Caela]

Nope.  Men should have rights to their anatomy, as well.

Both parents should be responsible to a child when it is born.  That the decision to carry a child to term comes down to the mother (remember, bodily autonomy) is just a function of anatomy and nature.

Any time a child is born out of a consensual sex act, that is a decision that a man had a hand in making.

Neither men nor women have the right to 'opt out' of caring for a child, except insofar as they might abandon the child at a hospital or put them up for adoption, which are cases in which both parents have the right to make a choice (and must make that decision in unison.)

*Bolded for emphasis added by me.

This is just patently untrue. Women have every right to opt out with no input from the man at all. They can abort or put a child up for adoption (in some places no paternal input is needed for the adoption) as well as things like abandoning them at a hospital or firestation or other designated "safe zone". If she ever tells him she was pregnant in the first place. A man might have had a hand in the conception of a child, but ALL the decisions surrounding it being born and kept, are the woman's to make and the man's to just sit back and deal with.

[Sure]

Wow, are you not even reading what I'm saying?

If you would be so kind, could you explain how I have misunderstood you rather than just asserting that I have misunderstood you? It will help me understand your points better.

And since you edited: what I said still applies to the first half of your post. The second half of your post:

That argument is quite similar to the argument against birth control that, by choosing to have sex, they forfeit their right to protect themselves from the consequences. This is bunk. How is your argument different?

Are you suggesting, therefore, that a man can choose to take care of a child and a woman can choose not to and then the woman should be subject to child care measures? As is, from my understanding, this is not how it works currently. In that case you are still depriving men of choice but you are equally depriving women of choice. I would say that's not ideal but it is equality.

[meikle]

Unless the father keeps the child from being left at a hospital.  Or interferes with the adoption proceedings.  Essentially, so long as the man asserts his rights as the father, they will be enforced.

Abortion is not opting out of the rights of a child.  Abortion is choosing to exercise your right to choose what you do with your own body.

Sure: Your points aren't well considered and are kind of senseless.  Unless you try harder, I'm not going to respond to you any further.

[Sure]

Sure: Your points aren't well considered and are kind of senseless.  Unless you try harder, I'm not going to respond to you any further.

Ah, I see you have nothing to say. Well, one can lead a camel to water but it can't make it drink.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well, the argument being made then is that a man has the right to make medical decisions for a woman.  Essentially a man, by virtue of impregnating a woman, has the right to make decisions regarding her medical care until such a time as the child is born.  Note, this is not always her husband or even necessarily her boyfriend making these decisions.  Her rapist could come forward and deny her access to an abortion even if the abortion is to save her life because by this argument he has just as much claim to the fetus.  Also note that legally there is no child until the second trimester because by law life does not begin at conception.  So legally the statement would be that the man has claim over the woman’s body because he impregnated her.  Do we want to go that route?

On the flip side, a woman can go to court and sue for child support.  Legally a person can sue anyone for anything.  A man can just as easily sue for child support.  There are obviously certain obligations that go with receiving child support such as supporting the child. Note a woman does not have a “right” to child support, but instead has a claim to child support.  If she is taking care of the child and providing proper care and shelter for the child then she has a claim to some assistance.  The man, in this case, is being held accountable for his actions in participating with this child’s conception.  Child support was not created to punish men but to help children.

[Sure]

Well, the argument being made then is that a man has the right to make medical decisions for a woman.  Essentially a man, by virtue of impregnating a woman, has the right to make decisions regarding her medical care until such a time as the child is born.  Note, this is not always her husband or even necessarily her boyfriend making these decisions.  Her rapist could come forward and deny her access to an abortion even if the abortion is to save her life because by this argument he has just as much claim to the fetus.  Also note that legally there is no child until the second trimester because by law life does not begin at conception.  So legally the statement would be that the man has claim over the woman’s body because he impregnated her.  Do we want to go that route?

As I said, I do not believe anyone here has made the claim that men should have such control. I believe that is a straw man. If you could point to where they have in this discussion, preferably a quote, I will denounce it.

On the flip side, a woman can go to court and sue for child support.  Legally a person can sue anyone for anything.  A man can just as easily sue for child support.  There are obviously certain obligations that go with receiving child support such as supporting the child. Note a woman does not have a “right” to child support, but instead has a claim to child support.  If she is taking care of the child and providing proper care and shelter for the child then she has a claim to some assistance.  The man, in this case, is being held accountable for his actions in participating with this child’s conception.  Child support was not created to punish men but to help children.

If children were the primary concern women would not have the right to give them up for adoption or abandon them at safe zones. Such places care for them much worse than anyone but a purposefully abusive woman could.

Further, because women have the option of putting up or surrendering the baby without the man's consent or even information men generally do not even have so little as the right to take a child which a woman has chosen to carry to term but does not want. If he does it is generally through adoption, and when a child is put up for adoption the mother loses liability. Because of this cocktail of rights a woman has but a man does not child support outside of divorce proceedings and the like is almost always a woman forcing a man to financially support her decision. Further, fathers who take care of their children born out of wedlock rarely have a right to child support.

And as I have said: The argument about men being held accountable is effectively the same argument used against abortion, adoption/abandonment options, and contraceptives: That by having sex a woman has accepted responsibility for what follows and must be forced to follow through. This is a bad argument, as I think you will agree, but I don't see how its different from what you're asserting. Or do you agree with it?

[Oniya]

If children were the primary concern women would not have the right to give them up for adoption or abandon them at safe zones. Such places care for them much worse than anyone but a purposefully abusive woman could.

Stats please?  The safe zones are generally at a hospital, or fire department (possibly churches - don't know if they still do that one), and are provided as an alternative to so-called 'dumpster babies'.

[CmdrRenegade]

Sure is correct in that there is a strawman here and also summed it up at the end of his post right above this one.  I did not say that women should be denied abortion or that a man has complete claim over a woman's body.  What I was saying is that many are in denial that an abortion has no impact whatsoever on the man who fathered the child.  Perhaps, a better solution can be found in artificial wombs as has been said, but that technology doesn't exist yet.  Caela is also completely correct.  Many jurisdictions do not require a woman to inform a man that she is pregnant at all.  Although there is difference in each state, legally, the child is only the man's in terms of providing monetary support.  In every other respect the child belongs to the mother and any objections by the father, despite how good or bad they might be, are automatically trumped by the mother's decision. 

Also look at these statistics

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/reasonsabortions.html

There's an obvious trend that most women who get abortions are getting them simply because they want to avoid motherhood for one reason or another.  Men don't have the same choice to avoid fatherhood.  Some food for thought.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

First I will give a short response to the comment regarding child safety.  The safe abandonment acts were created for the safety of the child.  Women, when under stress and feeling trapped, would abandon the children at random locations in the hopes that someone would find the child.  This law and practice was established so that a woman could safely give the child away to qualified workers that could tend to the baby and properly care for the child.  From there the child could go through the proper legal channels.  So in fact the child abandonment locations were setup specifically for the benefit of the child.  The Safe Haven Law is actually a massive step forward in child protection and welfare.

A woman has the ability to put a child up for adoption, but the father can also assert his parental rights to claim the child.  I do acknowledge that a father has to actively assert his paternity of the child by taking an active role in the care of the mother and the unborn child.  This is achieved through helping with medical bills, actively participating in the prenatal care and being there at the birth of the child.  From there a father can petition the courts to negate the adoption proceedings and care for the child himself.

http://adoption.about.com/cs/adoptionrights/a/unwedfath.htm

Do notice that the father, if he can be located and determined, has a right to be notified of adoption proceedings.  Ones that did not assert their paternity prior to the birth may actively look for the adoption proceedings and attempt to have them negated.  Meaning that a man that has had no involvement with the mother since conception may still petition the courts to block the adoption proceedings.  He may not win, but he certainly has the ability to try.

I also fail to see how a woman giving a child up for adoption or electing to have an abortion is somehow failing to take responsibility for their action.  Women are forced, regardless of the law, to take responsibility in some way, shape or form.  Men do not face such enforcement without legal intervention unless they desire to support the child.

Also, if a woman has a legal abortion that is often not enough time for medical problems in the mother to develop or be properly documented.  This is especially true if the woman is having her first child.

[Caela]

Well, the argument being made then is that a man has the right to make medical decisions for a woman.  Essentially a man, by virtue of impregnating a woman, has the right to make decisions regarding her medical care until such a time as the child is born.  Note, this is not always her husband or even necessarily her boyfriend making these decisions.  Her rapist could come forward and deny her access to an abortion even if the abortion is to save her life because by this argument he has just as much claim to the fetus.  Also note that legally there is no child until the second trimester because by law life does not begin at conception.  So legally the statement would be that the man has claim over the woman’s body because he impregnated her.  Do we want to go that route?

I've seen more of your writing and I can only think that this is deliberately obtuse. No one has argued that man should have the right to say that a woman HAS to carry a child to term. The argument has been that a man should have as much right to negate his responsibilities as a woman does. A man can't go get an abortion or put a child up for adoption but he should be able to say he's no more ready to be a father than a woman who chooses those option is to be a mother.

As it stands the system is incredibly unfair. A woman doesn't even need to tell a man he got her pregnant in the first place and she can abort or give the child up for adoption without his ever having a chance at stepping up to the plate but if she chooses to keep it he damned well better step up or he faces spending the next 18 years in and out of court if she wants to keep him there and he has no real recourse there either. She had sex just as surely as he did, but all the choices are hers (as some of them should be) and he just has to suck it up and deal. It's a system in which there is no fairness or equality as it stands.

[Sure]

Stats please?  The safe zones are generally at a hospital, or fire department (possibly churches - don't know if they still do that one), and are provided as an alternative to so-called 'dumpster babies'.

There is no statistical claim there, though I'm curious what sort of statistics you would want. How does one objectively measure 'worse'? That bad mothers are superior to such facilities is my opinion from personal experience with the infrastructure surrounding orphans and abandoned children. My apologies for any confusion, I probably should have couched that.

As to dumpster babies, something sticks in the craw about basically making the argument 'if you don't do it then people will start committing crimes!'. It seems like the proper way to deal with crime is to prevent it, not to appease people. But I understand the argument, and agree that is adequate justification for their existence. But I would argue that in no way detracts from my point that if children were the primary concern society would prefer to force women to not give them up rather than condoning it. Of course, the idea that society condones a woman's right to give up their child rather than raise it might simply be my point of view and one might believe adoption exists only as a mechanism to save children's lives.

First I will give a short response to the comment regarding child safety.  The safe abandonment acts were created for the safety of the child.  Women, when under stress and feeling trapped, would abandon the children at random locations in the hopes that someone would find the child.  This law and practice was established so that a woman could safely give the child away to qualified workers that could tend to the baby and properly care for the child.  From there the child could go through the proper legal channels.  So in fact the child abandonment locations were setup specifically for the benefit of the child.  The Safe Haven Law is actually a massive step forward in child protection and welfare.

A woman has the ability to put a child up for adoption, but the father can also assert his parental rights to claim the child.  I do acknowledge that a father has to actively assert his paternity of the child by taking an active role in the care of the mother and the unborn child.  This is achieved through helping with medical bills, actively participating in the prenatal care and being there at the birth of the child.  From there a father can petition the courts to negate the adoption proceedings and care for the child himself.

http://adoption.about.com/cs/adoptionrights/a/unwedfath.htm

Do notice that the father, if he can be located and determined, has a right to be notified of adoption proceedings.  Ones that did not assert their paternity prior to the birth may actively look for the adoption proceedings and attempt to have them negated.  Meaning that a man that has had no involvement with the mother since conception may still petition the courts to block the adoption proceedings.  He may not win, but he certainly has the ability to try.

This article begins with the following sentence:

An unwed father has no absolute right to veto an adoption, but must take action to preserve his right to veto an adoption.

It asserts that the father MIGHT get the child. The right to 'try' is in no way what we are talking about and at the very least less rights in a sphere where the woman has no biological argument to defend her: we are talking about an already born child the woman does not want. And yet the man only has a chance to get it while the woman would definitively get it. This is not equality.

Much of the rest is covered above, I think?

I also fail to see how a woman giving a child up for adoption or electing to have an abortion is somehow failing to take responsibility for their action.  Women are forced, regardless of the law, to take responsibility in some way, shape or form.  Men do not face such enforcement without legal intervention unless they desire to support the child.

Also, if a woman has a legal abortion that is often not enough time for medical problems in the mother to develop or be properly documented.  This is especially true if the woman is having her first child.

I'm not sure what the last sentence is supposed to mean. I do not deny abortion is a medical procedure or that a woman undergoes more biological stress. But I also do not see how that suffering gives her the right to force a man to support a decision of hers or force him to do anything with his consent. On top of that, I do not see how taking responsibility by abortion or putting the child up for adoption is legally different from signing away the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood. Biologically it is but the law should not be used to compensate women for their biological suffering, which is no less the man's 'fault' than the woman's, by giving them special rights and depriving men of their rights.

In other words, I do not track the argument: "I suffered biologically in having this child, therefore the law should force the man to impregnated me to help me financially to raise the child."

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The argument is that if a woman can give her child up for adoption or abortion, then a man is able to likewise abort his responsibilities.  I am merely showing, by that logic what would be required for a woman to enforce the man’s responsibilities.  So if a man can abort his responsibilities because a woman can abort hers, then if a woman is not allowed her right to privacy as per Roe v Wade then a man cannot relinquish his responsibilities.  There is no straw man here except to point out that the argument is there.  Consequences to decisions are often not foreseen by the people making the initial argument. 

For instance the consequence of forcing a woman to tell a man that she is pregnant.  First off, she may not know who the father is specifically.  That would require a physician to properly set the gestational age of the child.  Secondly, this is forcing a woman to give up her legal right to medical privacy.  Notice a woman does not even have to reveal her pregnancy to her parents if she is underage and they are her legal guardians.  Medical workers must, by federal law, respect a woman’s right to privacy.  People with STDs do not even have to notify people they slept with of the potential danger, but a woman must notify a man of pregnancy.  Is he then under any obligation to restrict that knowledge?  By law he is not which means the right to privacy does not truly exist.

Also, if you notice the article talks about the difference between an actively participating father and one that does not.  I am sorry if a man must actively demonstrate interest in the welfare of the mother of his child and of the child in order for the courts to consider that man's care to be in the best interest of the child.  According to the article the courts judge what is in the best interest of the child.  A man that shows up at the end of the proceedings after giving no money, time or effort to the birthing process with a sudden cry of, “I want my baby” is probably not in the best interest of the child.

Keep in mind that child support is not the mother's right, but the child's right.  The child has the right to support by both parents.

My last sentence was actually in reference to another poster that presented statistics.  Sorry for the confusion.

[meikle]

Ah, I see you have nothing to say. Well, one can lead a camel to water but it can't make it drink.

Sure, you said that my claim -- 'People should be held responsible for the consequences of their actions' -- is the same as claiming that people should not be allowed to attempt to avoid consequences.

I've got nothing to say to someone whose entire approach is misrepresenting my points.  It's intellectually dishonest at best and stupid at worst.

Now you can make a pithy remark (the same kind you accused me of making) and feel good about having the last word.

[Sure]

The argument is that if a woman can give her child up for adoption or abortion, then a man is able to likewise abort his responsibilities.  I am merely showing, by that logic what would be required for a woman to enforce the man’s responsibilities.  So if a man can abort his responsibilities because a woman can abort hers, then if a woman is not allowed her right to privacy as per Roe v Wade then a man cannot relinquish his responsibilities.  There is no straw man here except to point out that the argument is there.  Consequences to decisions are often not foreseen by the people making the initial argument. 

I would actually agree with this, if I understand it correctly: If woman cannot give up children then men shouldn't be allowed to either. But they can, Roe v Wade IS in effect last I checked as well as a few other options, while men generally can't. That's the issue.

For instance the consequence of forcing a woman to tell a man that she is pregnant.  First off, she may not know who the father is specifically.  That would require a physician to properly set the gestational age of the child.  Secondly, this is forcing a woman to give up her legal right to medical privacy.  Notice a woman does not even have to reveal her pregnancy to her parents if she is underage and they are her legal guardians.  Medical workers must, by federal law, respect a woman’s right to privacy.  People with STDs do not even have to notify people they slept with of the potential danger, but a woman must notify a man of pregnancy.  Is he then under any obligation to restrict that knowledge?  By law he is not which means the right to privacy does not truly exist.

While a a bit of a scummy thing to do, I would understand why women might want to keep it secret from the man. The caveat would be she can not then make the man who impregnated her responsible for her child. In other words, she deprives the man of his choice but foists no responsibilities or duties on him. In this case I know some people have implicitly made a contrary argument here, but between two imperfect options I could support the current situation in regards to not telling men if they could not later hit him for child support payments for a child he didn't know they had. If she wants to demand he be a father he at the very least owes him the knowledge that he is one, and to give him the option of saying 'no'.

Also, if you notice the article talks about the difference between an actively participating father and one that does not.  I am sorry if a man must actively demonstrate interest in the welfare of the mother of his child and of the child in order for the courts to consider that man's care to be in the best interest of the child.  According to the article the courts judge what is in the best interest of the child.  A man that shows up at the end of the proceedings after giving no money, time or effort to the birthing process with a sudden cry of, “I want my baby” is probably not in the best interest of the child.

The impartiality of the family courts is... questionable, in my opinion. And the issue is that women are presumed to have an active interest and don't have to prove it. So, yes, that is wrong. If there were a standard bar for both men and women which they could meet that would be a different issue, but we are effectively talking about men having perhaps a chance while women have a guarantee.

It's kind of a principle, reality thing: In principle I understand that any party should be forced to demonstrate their capability and what you're saying, but in reality it too often ends up working in a sexist way.

Keep in mind that child support is not the mother's right, but the child's right.  The child has the right to support by both parents.

Money that children have a right to is generally legally regulated, child support generally goes straight to the custodial parent. It's quite different. And there is no right to financial security or financial support in general, particularly not from other individuals. Why should this be a special case?

My last sentence was actually in reference to another poster that presented statistics.  Sorry for the confusion.

My apologies for the misreading as well.

Sure, you said that my claim -- 'People should be held responsible for the consequences of their actions' -- is the same as claiming that people should not be allowed to attempt to avoid consequences.

I've got nothing to say to someone whose entire approach is misrepresenting my points.  It's intellectually dishonest at best and stupid at worst.

Now you can make a pithy remark (the same kind you accused me of making) and feel good about having the last word.

I said that because you asserted that holding men responsible involved not allowing them to avoid the consequences of a child's existence. Is that a wrong interpretation? How so?

[Callie Del Noire]

UUmm.. for the longest time, pregnancy was about the most dangerous thing a woman could have happen to her. A LOT of women died in childbirth, as did children. A woman was more likely to die in childbirth than to pretty much anything else. So don't say it's not dangerous. Even now with modern medicine, it's not an easy task for a woman to undergo.  Is it easier than it was 100 years ago?Yes, but it's still not easy.  To dismiss it as not being dangerous is ignoring the millions of women who have died in childbirth related problems and the women even now that have problems with it.

Case in point.. my great-grandmother (who died like 12 years ago) told me once what it was like growing up in the 19th century (the tail end of it). She was one of 22 children in her family. (Lots of twins/triplets). Of the children her father had with his two wives (first one had like 8 and the 2nd had the rest) only FOUR survived and both her mother and step mother were considered LUCKY. It was very easy for a woman in the 1800s to die due to preganancy related issues that to us today would be considered stange to die of. We've, as a society, have gotten VERY good at tending to the issues of preganancy.

That being said, it's a very delicate condition and only an idiot assumes that everything is going right.

[Lilias]

Actually, maternal mortality was mostly due to complications in labour, not pregnancy itself. 'Childbed fever' (puerperal sepsis) was appallingly frequent before antibiotics and effective disinfectants - we're talking the 1920s at the earliest - and a C-section was tantamount to a death sentence before the combination of effective hygiene and blood transfusion made abdominal surgery relatively safe.

In the 19th century, childbirth was the cause of death of nearly 50% of women. We've come a long way, but not nearly enough.

[LustfulLord2011]

As a man who firmly believes in the value of traditional masculine mores, even I found this article to be ridiculous, misogynistic, and narrow minded. First off, the quoted statistics are things I could not find any reference to ANYWHERE else, even after a while of heavy net searching, so I am going to go out on a limb and say that the employment and income and divorce statistics presented by the author were either grossly misquoted or outright fabrications. Second, if we mourn the loss of traditional masculine values, well... that's OUR fault, as men. Women haven't taken anything from us, or demeaned us in any way... Well, except for some HORRIBLY abusive laws that I won't get into here because even thinking about it makes me sick... but even in that instance, it happened because we, as a nation, allowed it. Men shouldn't feel threatened by strong or successful women, either in actuality or in media portrayals. What they SHOULD do is either learn to appreciate those qualities in a woman (as I have), or strive to be even more strong and successful themselves (as I also have). My lover is physically my equal... she's as strong as I am, and can probably kick my ass in the cardio department (I have been a smoker for too many years). She is more successful than I am financially, as well, and has more formal education (though in terms of actual knowledge I believe I outstrip her). Rather than feeling emasculated by these facts, they push me to want to be a better man. This article is clearly written by someone who is afraid of and offended by modern women. His loss, not theirs.

[Callie Del Noire]

http://www.personhoodusa.com/

http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20111009/NEWS/110090349/Weighing-Personhood-Initiative-s-effects-could-profound

These people scare me in the openendedness of their proposal. It would essentially give the government the right to ban birth control in addition to abortions and would make ANY miscarriage a criminal investigation.

[Vekseid]

Considering 70% of pregnancies end in miscarriage...

[Callie Del Noire]

Considering 70% of pregnancies end in miscarriage...

And the number of 'dangerous practices/habits' that MIGHT induce a miscarriage. (Smoking, PAST smoking/drugs/drinking, ect). I find myself wondering how long it is before some poor woman is sent to jail for 'murder' because she smoked or worked around smokers (insert other vice as appropriate)

[LustfulLord2011]

Actually, in Utah, such legislation was already PASSED. It's scary. Miscarriage is traumatic enough for women, now they might risk going to jail over it? Have we completely lost our damned minds? I am still waiting for the day (soon, the scientists assure me) when a safe male chemical contraceptive is found... It adds another layer of protection, and also, because our bodies are less subject to inherent rhythm's than women's bodies, we could probably use birth control with less potential negative side effects as well.

[Oniya]

Or slipped in the tub, or on the ice and landed wrong.  I remember feeling clumsy once I passed the halfway point, and a face-plant isn't out of the question.

[LustfulLord2011]

The ignorance and unfairness of these kinds of laws just boggles the mind.

[Callie Del Noire]

Considering how some birth control pills work.. by preventing the fertilized egg from clinging to the uterine (sp?) wall, that would violate the 'Personhood' conception of life right off the bat. Reminds me of what my mom told me about getting birthcontrol for herself in Ireland back in the 70s.

"I had to find a doctor willing to write the perscription, and a druggist wiling to fill it'."

[LustfulLord2011]

I'm sorry, but given the gross and ever-accelerating overpopulation problem in this country, I am actually in favor of, rather than legally trying to challenge the right to birth control, MANDATING it's use, legally, until one has reached a certain age, and even then, reinstating it's use after one has borne/sired two children.

[TheGlyphstone]

Personally, I'd rather see, instead of funds being used to mandate birth control, take all those millions/billions of dollars and throw them at NASA and space development initiatives. The world's getting overpopulated? Let's go find another one, and live there too.

[Zakharra]

I'm sorry, but given the gross and ever-accelerating overpopulation problem in this country, I am actually in favor of, rather than legally trying to challenge the right to birth control, MANDATING it's use, legally, until one has reached a certain age, and even then, reinstating it's use after one has borne/sired two children.

Good luck trying to enforce that restriction without a civil war.   I'm not sure why you would want to enact it anyways. The entire Western (First) world is in a population decline. The US's population has only grown because of immigration. China and India are not in the First world status yet (they are getting there).

Besides, there's still plenty of space left in the US.

[LustfulLord2011]

I'm not talking our country... I am talking globally. We are in trouble. Our food production capabilities are one day comparitively soon fall far short of our need, on a global level, both due to a lack of arable land, and due to political instability in the global food baskets (such as Egypt, which produces 1/6th of the world's grain in that one little river valley). Plus, overcrowding is what makes plagues like the bubonic plague, and smallpox, and other pandemics throughout history possible.

[TheGlyphstone]

Heck, same situation. Instead of wringing our hands and passing ineffectual resolutions against global warming and pollution that developing countries (the ones contributing the most to said problems) either ignore or get written-in exclusions for, assemble a true multinational space development initiative. Private industry is pulling ahead of government space programs by now, and by increasing margins...if we had the motivation and desire to actually cooperate, I could see humans with extraplanetary colonies in fifty years, and extrasolar colonies in a hundred.

[LustfulLord2011]

The problem is that by now, it's already too late. Currently accepted estimates in the scientific community place our global population at ~12 billion by 2030, or even sooner. And what's worse, any worlds we colonized now, without some kind of population control in place, would be just as crowded as Earth within a couple generations. I agree that space colonization needs to be a priority for us (instead of, say, dropping bombs on civilians across the globe), but by itself, it will only delay the problem by a couple of decades, not cure it.

[Zakharra]

The problem is that by now, it's already too late. Currently accepted estimates in the scientific community place our global population at ~12 billion by 2030, or even sooner. And what's worse, any worlds we colonized now, without some kind of population control in place, would be just as crowded as Earth within a couple generations. I agree that space colonization needs to be a priority for us (instead of, say, dropping bombs on civilians across the globe), but by itself, it will only delay the problem by a couple of decades, not cure it.

So.. population control is necessary for a modern society? Even though Europe, Russia and the other Western (First world) nations are having a falling population problem now?  I'm sorry, but any society that feels it's -necessary- to control the population of it's citizens, is not one worth following. That is a very totalitarian type of government I would not be comfortable with.

Do the estimates take into account where the population will be exploding?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Third world countries and populations with lower socioeconomic standing in the world community are the sources for large populations primarily.  Much of these societies still benefit from larger family units as they are agricultural based and rural.  So having five or six children on hand to help at home is a boon for them, rather than an economic hindrance as found in more urban and wealthy areas.  While the birth rate is falling, major urban areas are experiencing larger populations from the influx of people coming in and fewer people leaving.  The issue is not so much the birth rate as it is the death rate.  We are living significantly longer lives now.

[LustfulLord2011]

That is a valid point. However, the "where" doesn't matter. I'm not talking about something that affects just one country. I am talking about the quality of life GLOBALLY. The norm for most people, percentage wise, is living in packed, filthy conditions that help to breed disease and promote starvation. We here in the western world take our lifestyle as the norm, but it isn't... More than half of the world is still so shockingly behind our standard of living that it's unbelievable to those who haven't witnessed it first hand (I haven't, but a friend who toured Africa, southern Asia and the Pacific Islands brought me lots of pictures and videos that would give a grown man nightmares). The more people there are in any given area, the more impossible it becomes to feed them EXCEPT through outside sources, because there simply isn't enough arable land within their territory to support them. Also, the more people there are GLOBALLY, the faster and easier diseases spread. These aren't new ideas; the correlations had already been clearly detected by the time of the Renaissance, and yet somehow people still think that it's okay to continually improve global food production without improving food distribution and finding more room for the resulting people.

[Zakharra]

These aren't new ideas; the correlations had already been clearly detected by the time of the Renaissance, and yet somehow people still think that it's okay to continually improve global food production without improving food distribution and finding more room for the resulting people.

That though is a political, economical and sometimes religious issue preventing food and medicines from flowing in. 

[LustfulLord2011]

To an extent, you're right. But in the end, the fact remains that there are too many people, and soon, really soon, it's likely to make pandemic disease, starvation, and bloodshed across the globe common.

[Zakharra]

 Too many people? Where?  China and India have a population problem and parts of the Third world, but other places not so much.  The First World definitely does not have a population problem.

Who determines how many is too many people?   If I remember right, it was once thought, not too long ago, that the world could not sustain 6 billion people, yet it does fairly easily.

[LustfulLord2011]

Are you aware of the concept of an event horizon? Here is what WILL happen... guaranteed... unarguably... very very soon. We will hit the point where our population growth becomes not just uncontrolled (as it is now), but UNCONTROLLABLE. At that point, it's just a matter of time. The world population is expected to double in the next twenty years. Doublings of the global population have been happening regularly, and the time intervals REQUIRED for them has been decreasing. Once we hit that point... Where population growth in uncontrollable... a collapse is inevitable. A bad one. Famine, disease, and unhealthy, undersirable living conditions will become the norm across the globe. Just because the planet supports us now does NOT mean it always will. In fact, it CAN'T. Any time uncontrolled growth occurs in any system, eventual collapse is assured. It's as consistent as gravity. More so, because while you can't BREAK the law of gravity, you can bend it and play with it a little. This one can't be. Both history and science have shown us that it's one of the very few certainties in the universe. The grim future I have painted is not just a possibility, but a certainty if the current trends continue, and if not within my lifetime, certainly within my children's.

[Jude]

Currently accepted estimates in the scientific community place our global population at ~12 billion by 2030

Current UN estimates (which are the scientific consensus) put our population at 9 - 11 billion by 2050, not 12 billion by 2030.  The rest of the stats and information you give are equally as spurious.

Add to this the fact that the amount of offspring that each individual woman on the planet is producing has been gradually declining (it was like, 5 at around 1920, reached 2.5 in 2000, and is already close to 2), and we will eventually hit a statistical point where we're losing people, not gaining.

This trend is all about industrialization and increased lifespan, and it will eventually balance itself out as the world moves in the direction of Industrialized Nations which have hit a very good population stasis point.

That isn't to say that overpopulation is not something to be mindful of, but the doom and gloom here is quite blatantly inaccurate.

[LustfulLord2011]

Actually, I get my figures from projections of what has ALREADY happened. Also, admittedly the figures that I quoted do not include attrition, which the study mentioned in it's footnotes (which admittedly, I only JUST read), so your numbers probably ARE more accurate in that sense. However, we also have all of the evidence of history to tell us that, whatever may be happening NOW, in terms of contraction of birth rate, it will A) stay above two, and B) continue to rise, on average, over time. We are not talking the patterns of millenia here, but nor are we talking the pattern of years... we are talking the pattern of decades. Contraction may be happening NOW, but it's a temporary wave. It won't stabilize, because people will continue to live longer, and to produce MORE offspring than people who die, and to have more offspring who, thanks to good medical care, nutrition, and comparative (I stress that word) safety live to reach breeding age themselves.

[Jude]

Could you give us links to your evidence?

[LustfulLord2011]

I can give you one... I cleared my history, so it will take me a while to find it again. Also, I need to do some source verification on the numbers... I am not entirely convinced, after hearing your figures, that the ones I found were necessarily meticulously calculated. For example, I have checked four different sources since you quoted your figures, and ALL give me different projections, ranging from the numbers I quoted to 7.5 billion by 2050 (which I believe is absurd, even if you ACCOUNT for attrition). Instead of trying to focus on specific numbers (since it appears no sources I can find agree), lets stick with concepts for a bit.

My first postulation is that continued population growth is inevitable. That it will not stabilize, but that even if it is only .0001 percent annually, it WILL continue to rise. My second postulation is that our current pattern of agriculture depends upon decidedly finite resources (oil). My third is that more people leads to more crowded living conditions, which promotes the spread of disease. Are there any of these points on which we disagree? If so, I would like to hear which, and why.

[Oniya]

Out of curiosity, are the projections based on a purely increasing function (blue line), or an asymptotic one (red one)?


Source: Population Biology 'e-handout', apparently from the University of Winnipeg

[LustfulLord2011]

None of the curves I have seen resemble either of those, but seem rather to range between them. I mean, first off, there is also an uncertainty principle involved because of factors we can't POSSIBLY reasonably predict (such as unnatural large numbers of deaths due to war, natural disasters, or other things). Also, there is the relative reproductive potential of men versus women... A woman can only POTENTIALLY bear a certain number of children in her lifetime, whereas a man can sire ten children a day, or even more, if he has that many fertile women to play with (in fact, one Moroccan Emperor is thought to have sired around 800 children in his lifetime, and is suspected to have potentially sired another 500 that are less certain).

[Oniya]

Those are, of course, idealized curves, but the critical distinction is that one continues to increase at an increasing rate (blue - unrestrained growth) and the other increases at a decreasing rate (red, indicating an eventual leveling off).  I suspect that one major reason that the human population isn't closer to the red curve is that we continue to make advances to make better use of what resources we have.  That change in efficiency sort of 'resets' where the potential maximum would fall.

[Callie Del Noire]

The 'fun' will be seeing how the next few decades affect China.. given some of the gender disparity in some regions is very tilted towards males. (Some regions going as 5 male:1 female by 2050 if it isn't changed)

[Oniya]

The phrase I've heard is that in 20 years, there won't be a single undesirable woman in China.  :P  Either that, or the ethnic diversity in China is going to take a shift.

[LustfulLord2011]

Male-weighted populations (such as that in many areas of China, where the disposal of female children at birth was not an uncommon practice for a very long time) have a naturally more limited reproductive capacity than those that are balanced, and a MUCH more limited one than those that are female heavy. I expect an eventual decline in birth rates in those areas (though not necessarily population, due to potential for immigration from other nearby areas, etc) until the gender balance stabilizes.

As to the curves, I don't think we have really hit unrestrained growth, because TRUE unrestrained growth is the point beyond which no control is possible. We haven't hit it yet, but I see the potential, for a couple of reasons. 1) We continue (globally, if not locally) to overproduce food, so while some populations are starving, globally, we have the food production (currently) to comfortably feed about double the amount of people we have (and that capacity will, at least for a while, continue to improve). 2) expanded capacity for health care, particularly of the preventative variety, means people are living longer and men, in particular, are reproductively viable for many more years than in the past. 3) most modern forms of birth control, for some women, anyway, are getting less reliable, EVEN IF USED CORRECTLY. I have a close friend who has never had unprotected sex in her life, and has religiously taken the pill since she was sixteen... She is currently nursing her sixth son. She's an extreme case, but I hear of more and more "accidents" all the time. I am not sure to what extent this phenomenon is taking place globally, nor it's rate of acceleration if indeed there IS one (I don't even know of any studies that have been done on the topic), but it's a factor, to whatever small degree.

[Zakharra]

3) most modern forms of birth control, for some women, anyway, are getting less reliable, EVEN IF USED CORRECTLY. I have a close friend who has never had unprotected sex in her life, and has religiously taken the pill since she was sixteen... She is currently nursing her sixth son. She's an extreme case, but I hear of more and more "accidents" all the time. I am not sure to what extent this phenomenon is taking place globally, nor it's rate of acceleration if indeed there IS one (I don't even know of any studies that have been done on the topic), but it's a factor, to whatever small degree.

We're going to need to see a link for that. Modern contraceptives becoming -less- effective? That had better have some solid proof backing that statement up.

And you seem to be ignoring that nations that have a First world level of technology, the birth rate has dropped off. Dropped off a lot in some nations, they are going into a population decline. As more of the world reaches the First world status, birth rates seem to fall off as people put off having children for a later time.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Contraception is getting better, not worse.  If your friend has had six children on birth control then she is doing something wrong and/or should have had a serious discussion with her doctor some time ago.  You are hearing more about contraception failing because 1) more women are on it and so there is a greater pool of critics and chances for something to go wrong and 2) there are a lot of new options with different instructions and “fits” for lifestyle so there is once more a greater chance for mistakes to be made while a woman adjusts to their contraception.

Before giving medical opinion please verify your facts and have more than the hearsay of the media and an example of your friend. 

[LustfulLord2011]

@ Pumpkin: I stated in the initial post that it was based only on personal observation. Those observations are facts. As to what they MEAN, I don't have the medical knowledge to verify. However, all of the women I know who have had this happen were told, basically, that there wasn't a verifiable explanation. Translation: We don't know WHAT the hell is going on, but we aren't going to tell YOU that." Other forms have been just as ineffective for others. We aren't talking isolated incidents here. Nevertheless, that's why I used the word SOME.

I made that statement just based on the evidence right around me. Some women don't seem to be getting any benefit out of birth control. I don't know to what extent this is happening, though... Actually read the following sentences, and it becomes clear that it's based on personal observation, and conversations with women, NOT any scientific study. Hence the, "I am not sure to what extent this phenomenon is taking place globally, nor it's rate of acceleration if indeed there IS one (I don't even know of any studies that have been done on the topic)" part.

As to First World countries... What matters is GLOBAL rates. Now, in the short term, things look like this: The population is continuing to grow, at a declining rate. In a larger time context, it looks like this: The population is continuing to grow, at an expanding percentile rate (doublings are taking place in a faster and faster time, a trend which only seems to have recently receded somewhat. If you count forward from the end of the Hundred Year's War, when the global population was about 300 million estimated, you get a couple of centuries to hit 600 million, then a century or so to hit 1.5 billion, then about fifty years to hit 3 billion, then a scant 35 years to hit 6 billion. Now it seems to be tapering off, but I don't think it likely to completely level out ever. The problem is that there are too many factors that seem to go into it for accurate prediction; the best we can do is look at the evidence of the past. The evidence of the past tells us that, at whatever rate, our population is going to continue to expand.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

A common misconception by the general public is that their observations are indeed fact.  People often feel that what is laid before them is the truth.  Variables that cannot be accounted for by a casual observer are not seen and interpreted.  That is the fault of the untrained observer and of personal experience in debate.  One humorous example is about storks bringing babies.  By looking over the patterns of storks it is found that place with low incidents of birth are not in their migration pattern.  Someone can infer that storks are the cause of the low birth rate.  Yet, if one notices the variable that urban centers are the places with low birth rates and that storks avoid urban centers then this makes more sense.

A woman that has six unintended pregnancies is an obvious case of “user error.”  There comes a point when she would stop wasting her money on birth control and move back to condoms and/or simply stop.  Birth control, like any medication, has multiple variables each of which is individual with a woman’s body.  People believe that medicine is a universal pill but that is not the case.  She could have been taking antibiotics, not waited a correct amount of time, been taking the medication wrong, might not have been the right medication for her body, etc. etc.  Women rarely read the long list of things that come in the box in regard to these birth control options.  A doctor will respond with ignorance about what happened in regard to the pill, because the doctor is not aware of what the person taking the medication did.  This is a big reason pharmacist, doctors and nurses desperately encourage people to READ the directions. 

You, as a casual observer and not a researcher, do not have access to her medical record or the ability to do a structured interview.   You as the casual observer do not have the ability to draw on anything more than personal experience and her words.  One of the first things my teacher told me in statistics is that “people lie.”  Not always intentionally, but people omit, mislead and obfuscate based on a variety of reasons. 

I have not seen any research to indicate birth control is becoming less effective.  Women have more options now, more convenience and more support in taking birth control. 


(Sidenote: I realize this is off topic.  I want anyone reading this thread that may be thinking of birth control for themselves or their children to see what is there and find the facts.)

[LustfulLord2011]

I'm not disagreeing with you. I am merely pointing out that WHATEVER the cause, it isn't working. Whether due to errors in usage, or potency of the method, or anything else. People do lie... people also make mistakes. Causes are not so important as results. So whatever the cause of all the stories I am hearing from women (most of whom have more than one child, and half of whom have more than two... as I mentioned, Shannon is the most extreme case, however), the fact remains it isn't working. Even if that's due to them screwing it up somehow. I was merely pointing out the result: in some verified cases, it's not controlling the birth rate. Also, I mentioned that the mother of six DOES use condoms... That one I can't really explain, that part MUST be user error or someone tampering with them, or perhaps a bad batch.

[LustfulLord2011]

If it IS due to user error, than we need a method that is user-error free, that near as possible needs no input from the user at ALL. There are some things that shouldn't be left to chance in ANY capacity.

[Oniya]

There is one - unfortunately, it's rather permanent, and most doctors won't consider it for a woman who hasn't had at least one child already.

[LustfulLord2011]

I am still waiting for a safe, effective male contraceptive... Our bodies tend (in general) to be less finicky than women's, and since we wouldn't have to stop to allow for menstruation, and don't (from the few clinical trials of progestrin-based BC for men) seem to have as many problems or side effects with it, it could be a real boon for people who don't want kids, or not at the current time, anyway.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Men do have the option of wearing condoms, which any casual intercourse should use regardless of other birth control options in place.  The problem with male birth control is that the man’s body does not already have a mechanism in place to prevent pregnancy.  A woman’s body does which is what birth control utilizes to accomplish the desired effect.

[LustfulLord2011]

Condoms are great, but I prefer the option of double stacked protection. There is a chemical form of male birth control which has been in clinical trials for a few years now... so far, it seems to be very successful, with minimal instances of failure or side effects, but it's still probably at LEAST five years away from FDA approval, if it ever gets it due to the social concerns some ignorant tools have raised. *rolls eyes*

[Zakharra]

@ Pumpkin: I stated in the initial post that it was based only on personal observation. Those observations are facts. As to what they MEAN, I don't have the medical knowledge to verify. However, all of the women I know who have had this happen were told, basically, that there wasn't a verifiable explanation. Translation: We don't know WHAT the hell is going on, but we aren't going to tell YOU that." Other forms have been just as ineffective for others. We aren't talking isolated incidents here. Nevertheless, that's why I used the word SOME.

I made that statement just based on the evidence right around me. Some women don't seem to be getting any benefit out of birth control. I don't know to what extent this is happening, though... Actually read the following sentences, and it becomes clear that it's based on personal observation, and conversations with women, NOT any scientific study. Hence the, "I am not sure to what extent this phenomenon is taking place globally, nor it's rate of acceleration if indeed there IS one (I don't even know of any studies that have been done on the topic)" part.

Pumpkin Seeds already did a good case against this viewpoint.

As to First World countries... What matters is GLOBAL rates. Now, in the short term, things look like this: The population is continuing to grow, at a declining rate. In a larger time context, it looks like this: The population is continuing to grow, at an expanding percentile rate (doublings are taking place in a faster and faster time, a trend which only seems to have recently receded somewhat. If you count forward from the end of the Hundred Year's War, when the global population was about 300 million estimated, you get a couple of centuries to hit 600 million, then a century or so to hit 1.5 billion, then about fifty years to hit 3 billion, then a scant 35 years to hit 6 billion. Now it seems to be tapering off, but I don't think it likely to completely level out ever. The problem is that there are too many factors that seem to go into it for accurate prediction; the best we can do is look at the evidence of the past. The evidence of the past tells us that, at whatever rate, our population is going to continue to expand.

First world nations DO matter because more nations are reaching that status and statistics are showing that  when it is reached, the birthrate goes down. Before the 1920s, pretty much all of society was agricultural. It took lot more labor to produce food. Now it takes very little of the labor force to produce enough food to feed people. The percentage of people on the farms has fallen drastically, and as society modernized (better food, medicine, travel, labor saving devices and communication), the birth rate has fallen.

The population is only expanding in Third world/developing nations, and it makes sense that as they modernize, the modern areas will see a corresponding drop in birthrates.   

What you are suggesting is that even in a modern society we'll be overpopulated. Which doesn't seem to be true.

[Oniya]

As to First World countries... What matters is GLOBAL rates. Now, in the short term, things look like this: The population is continuing to grow, at a declining rate. In a larger time context, it looks like this: The population is continuing to grow, at an expanding percentile rate (doublings are taking place in a faster and faster time, a trend which only seems to have recently receded somewhat. If you count forward from the end of the Hundred Year's War, when the global population was about 300 million estimated, you get a couple of centuries to hit 600 million, then a century or so to hit 1.5 billion, then about fifty years to hit 3 billion, then a scant 35 years to hit 6 billion. Now it seems to be tapering off, but I don't think it likely to completely level out ever. The problem is that there are too many factors that seem to go into it for accurate prediction; the best we can do is look at the evidence of the past. The evidence of the past tells us that, at whatever rate, our population is going to continue to expand.

From this bit here, and taking into account the fact that advances have increased longevity (everything from medicine to better resource management), it sounds like we're reaching the so-called 'critical point' where the exponential growth (rapid doubling) shifts into the leveling part of the curve.  IF advancements continue to be made, then the population can continue to increase - but there's still an upper limit.  Land area is finite.  Oxygen is finite.  At some point, the population will bump up against that limit and the growth rate will have to either stop or reverse.

[LustfulLord2011]

My problem is that, before we hit that point, we are likely to experience economic collapse and a serious cut in our potential food production. Or be swept with more diseases, due to the presence of more people. Disease especially will be a concern. The Black Death will be NOTHING compared to pandemics of the future, simply because they will spread so far before their incubation period is up due to the widespread, close contact of humans on a global level. Most illnesses take a few days to incubate... but in the past few days, I have literally been in four different states. And I'm not even that heavily traveled. Some rich executive who makes a lot of cross continental business deals catches something, they'll spread it to four different CONTINENTS before they even know they're sick.

[Callie Del Noire]

Lustful, google Spanish influenza. That was a century ago

[TheGlyphstone]

Or more recently, swine flu/bird flu. That's the most modern official pandemic we've seen, and it was for all of its media hype rather underwhelming.

[Callie Del Noire]

Or more recently, swine flu/bird flu. That's the most modern official pandemic we've seen, and it was for all of its media hype rather underwhelming.

Both were proven to be H1N1.. the origin of the 1918 pandemic was never consistently proven but one culprit was China. Of note was an estimated 3% of the planet died.

[TheGlyphstone]

Both were proven to be H1N1.. the origin of the 1918 pandemic was never consistently proven but one culprit was China. Of note was an estimated 3% of the planet died.

3% of the planet died from swine flu?

[Callie Del Noire]

3% of the planet died from swine flu?

An estimated 3% of the planet died from the 1918 pandemic. In some regions (such as parts of the pacific it was as high as 20%). Entire towns in Alaska died out.

[Oniya]

It was a different strain of H1N1 than we were used to in 2009.  It also seemed to result in an excessive immune response according to some - the people that got taken out by it tended to be the ones with stronger immune systems.  Normally, flu deaths are mostly small children, the elderly, and the immuno-suppressed, and there was a much higher percentage of young adult to middle-aged deaths during that pandemic.

I still get to read lab reports about it every week or so, because everyone wants to make sure that their cleanser/disinfectant works to kill it.  On a really good data package, I'll see Avian A, regular H1N1, H3N2, B (Hong Kong), and the 2009 Swine H1N1.  (Might even have another one in tonight's load.)  I can look up the exact strain if anyone's interested.

[Callie Del Noire]

It was a different strain of H1N1 than we were used to in 2009.  It also seemed to result in an excessive immune response according to some - the people that got taken out by it tended to be the ones with stronger immune systems.  Normally, flu deaths are mostly small children, the elderly, and the immuno-suppressed, and there was a much higher percentage of young adult to middle-aged deaths during that pandemic.

I still get to read lab reports about it every week or so, because everyone wants to make sure that their cleanser/disinfectant works to kill it.  On a really good data package, I'll see Avian A, regular H1N1, H3N2, B (Hong Kong), and the 2009 Swine H1N1.  (Might even have another one in tonight's load.)  I can look up the exact strain if anyone's interested.

Yeah my mom told me about it.. it really screwed up those with strong immune systems. It's been a study in 'what could happen' and with the increase in transportation since then has made folks in the projection business make some truly scarey predictions.

[LustfulLord2011]

Okay, but percentage of infection wise, none of these technically met the requirements to be considered a true pandemic. Heck, the Bubonic Plague was only an epidemic, and it wiped out way, WAY more people than H1N1 ever did. I am well familiar with the more recent history of pathogens, but the problem looks like this...

In any given population, any potentially fatal disease will kill (A) people, infect and inoculate (B) people, infect (C) people who will carry it as a host, and not be contracted by (D) people. What relative numbers those variables represent can vary widely. But lets take a worst case kind of disease... septicemia.

Speticimea, even with immediate medical treatment (within 24 hours of contraction) has a fatality rate averaging at 10%. If it is NOT treated immediately (and keep in mind, it's not uncommon for people to die on the same day they were infected, before any symptoms even appear), the fatality rate rises to 99-100%. It has an incredibly short incubation time, and is highly infectious. So... for such a disease, group A will be very large, even in a place where proper medical treatment is possible, group B will be either tiny or large, depending on access to medical treatment, group C will be nonexistant in any case, and group D will likely be infinitesimally small, because it spreads so easily.

Released into a small, self contained population, it will quickly run it's course: the survivors will be fine within three days, and everyone else would be dead. That's kind of how things went in the Middle Ages, but even then, it swept half the length of the globe, though in a fairly narrow channel. But were an outbreak of septicemia to happen TODAY, the results would be, literally, apocalyptic. Back then there were three hundred million people, MOST of whom had never even left the villages they were born in. NOW, we have 6 billion, and many of us travel across continents in a matter of hours on a daily or weekly basis. The same holds true with any deadly, easily transmittable disease. And if it should happen to have a longer incubation time or less obvious symptoms than the disease I have mentioned? Well... kiss your ass goodbye. Of course, most infections are not nearly so virulent... but my point is that, with so packed a planet, the first one that IS that comes along is likely to kill the vast majority of us, simply because of how easily people in large, mobile groups spread illness.

[Callie Del Noire]

You are saying a disease that according to some figures infected upwards of 30% of the worlds population isn't a pandemic? (1918). The black death killed more percentage wise and is thought to have taken decades to fully spread.

[Oniya]

The origin of “The Black Death” dates to an outbreak in China during the 1330s. During this period, China was an important trading nation, and international trade via the Silk Road helped create the world's first pandemic. Plague-infected rats on merchant ships spread the disease to western Asia and Europe. In the fall of 1347, Italian merchant ships with crewmembers dying of plague docked in Sicily, and within days the disease spread to the city and the surrounding countryside. The disease killed people so quickly that the Italian novelist Giovanni Boccaccio, whose father and stepmother died of plague, wrote that “its victims ate lunch with their friends and dinner with their ancestors in paradise.” By August, the plague had spread as far north as England.

Read more: Epidemics of the Past: Bubonic Plague — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/cig/dangerous-diseases-epidemics/bubonic-plague.html#ixzz1ae6KH1vA

I think the difference is semantic hair-splitting.

[Caehlim]

Both were proven to be H1N1.. the origin of the 1918 pandemic was never consistently proven but one culprit was China. Of note was an estimated 3% of the planet died.

Although both are H1N1 influenzas they are not the same bug. H1N1 is an extremely broad category and includes many strains, some of which aren't even human influenzas.

It's a bit like being worried about housecats because lions are known to eat people. They may both be cats, but they're not the same species.

Edit: Oh sorry, someone already mentioned this and explained it better than I did. Never mind.

[LustfulLord2011]

I think part of what made H1N1 so scary for some people is the fact that most common strains of influenza are only really life threatening to people whose health is compromised in other ways (concurrent illness, age, etc). H1N1 was not very scary in terms of total deaths compared to many diseases, but it was killing even people in their prime, who were otherwise in perfect health. Plus, all varieties of influenza spread rather easily, and have incubation periods long enough that it's possible to infect many other people before one even knows they are sick. That said, H1N1, and influenza in general, are of comparatively small concern these days. Wait and see what happens the first time someone contracts something REALLY lethal, that spreads that easily.

[Oniya]

I think part of what made H1N1 so scary for some people is the fact that most common strains of influenza are only really life threatening to people whose health is compromised in other ways (concurrent illness, age, etc). H1N1 was not very scary in terms of total deaths compared to many diseases, but it was killing even people in their prime, who were otherwise in perfect health. Plus, all varieties of influenza spread rather easily, and have incubation periods long enough that it's possible to infect many other people before one even knows they are sick. That said, H1N1, and influenza in general, are of comparatively small concern these days. Wait and see what happens the first time someone contracts something REALLY lethal, that spreads that easily.

Yes - and the symptoms of a benign flu aren't really that different from the symptoms of a 'killer' flu during those early stages.  We actually did have a bit of a panic a while back with Ebola - there was a research facility in Reston, VA where the transmission route not only went from 'contact with body fluids' to 'airborne', and it jumped the species gap.  Thankfully, that particular strain was only lethal in monkeys, and didn't produce symptoms in humans. 

[Torch]

Yes - and the symptoms of a benign flu aren't really that different from the symptoms of a 'killer' flu during those early stages.  We actually did have a bit of a panic a while back with Ebola - there was a research facility in Reston, VA where the transmission route not only went from 'contact with body fluids' to 'airborne', and it jumped the species gap.  Thankfully, that particular strain was only lethal in monkeys, and didn't produce symptoms in humans.

[Oniya]

Yup.  Said to be one of the more terrifying books out there.  I actually worked in the Reston area a bit after the monkey house incident, and when we were moving the call center from Vienna, there were jokes that they were going to put us there.  (Techies can have some morbid senses of humor.)  That was sort of when I started getting interested in pathogens - my next job was at an HIV lab (Tech support.  Some scientists suffer from serious PEBCAK.), and then after the little Oni came around, I ended up working in my current job, which still involves things that make people sick, just at a few more arms' lengths distance.

[DarklingAlice]

3% is a low-end estimate for Spanish flu. And look at how little the modern person even thinks of it. It's pretty impressive the level of death that can be swept under the rug of history. Accounts from the day report that there was a strange sort of refusal to accept Spanish flu at the time (probably helped by the vast conspiracy of silence due to political manipulation of the press during WWI), and as soon as ten years later people had basically put it out of mind.

As for populations reaching a limit, the curve you are looking for goes a bit a like this (presumably eventually leveling off the match the logarithmic population curve of a population living efficiently within its capacity):

The reason that current population growth does not already look like that is due to continued scientific advancement (most notably advancements in nitrogen fixation developed during WWI).

Are we heading for a dieback? Almost certainly yes. But it is by no means guaranteed. We adapt to our situations quite well through technology, we always have. And even if we don't, while the moral tragedy of the loss of that many individual human lives is staggering, we will adapt to the situation the old fashioned way through selection. Regardless, the species is not at great risk and I wonder if there would even be a great or sustained reaction to such an event.

Emerging infectious diseases are a greater concern, but the worst case scenario is 97% mortality (a figure derived from the failed extermination attempt of Australian rabbits). Again, enough to destroy all of society as we know it, but humanity itself may yet prevail.

[LustfulLord2011]

Actually, in many ways I think that such a tremendous culling could actually do our species more good than it would harm... so long as there were enough survivors with actual survival skills to ensure our species didn't die out entirely. We've kind of made the world dependent on us, it's primary detractors, in a weird way, though. Were that many people to die in any appropriately short timespan, a lot of things we have built that need us to regulate them (for example, power plants) are going to break down in rather nasty ways, making the areas around them unsuitable for human life (and probably most other kinds, as well).

[Oniya]

You might want to check out the show 'Life After People' (or maybe it's 'Life After Humans').  It actually goes into all of these things - I've seen pictures from a town a few miles from Chernobyl, and you can see that the plant-life is very present 25 years later, which suggests that animal life (at least pollinators) ventures into the area.  Hiroshima's population had returned to pre-war levels by 1955, after all.

[LustfulLord2011]

I will check it out, Oniya; thanks a lot for the recommendation.

[Caehlim]

a lot of things we have built that need us to regulate them (for example, power plants) are going to break down in rather nasty ways, making the areas around them unsuitable for human life (and probably most other kinds, as well).

Actually the vast majority of modern power plants, especially nuclear ones are designed to shut themselves down automatically without human intervention.

Chernobyl should never have happened, it was one of those freak combinations of unlikely events. If political considerations hadn't trumped the safety concerns, the reactor hadn't been left running at minimal power for several days, there hadn't been a design flaw in the RKMB reactor's control rods or if the firefighters had been allowed more information on what they were dealing with... well, history would be different.

The Fukishima reactor was another example. It was an exceptionally well designed system and could stand up to just about any natural disaster. Then it got hit by the most powerful earthquake ever to hit japan (one of the fifth most powerful in scientific history). We are talking an earthquake so severe that the entire planet literally moved off its axis (by 10cm but still).

Most plants around the world would be reasonably safe.

[LustfulLord2011]

It's not the modern ones that worry me, so much as the old ones that are long overdue for being shut down or at least having their equipment and operational systems upgraded. Like the one near my town, LOL. Then again, in the case of a genuine lethal pandemic, the odds are way better than even that I would be taking off for other places (if, in fact, I survived), so it wouldn't directly effect me anyway.

[Oniya]

The reason I brought up Chernobyl was actually because it was a fairly 'worst-case scenario', and I was reasonably certain I'd seen information about it being an 'extreme touristing' destination.  Not my idea of a fun time, but *shrug* eh.   :D

[LustfulLord2011]

Chernobyl has actually, in recent times, become a rather lush environment, and due to the lack of people living there, it's becoming sort of a modern day primeval forest. I've seen some pictures; it's actually beautiful there now, though evidence of the disaster still lingers heavily in some places.

[Oniya]

Just caught an ad on PBS for an upcoming show about wolves that are living in the Chernobyl area.  As an alpha predator, that means there's got to be a decent amount of animals further down the food chain.  Check your local affiliate for 'Radioactive Wolves'.

[gaggedLouise]

Pictures and videos from the Chernobyl abandoned zone, and from the plant itself, can be seen here: http://elenafilatova.com. Great pictures, very unnerving some of them.

The film Stalker (1979), by Andrey Tarkovsky, where three men are journeying into a mysterious barred-off zone, created by some kind of mishap or a UFO landing, has sometimes been read as a nod to an earlier Soviet nuke accident - at a reactor in the Ural mountains region. It had happened in the late fifties, and it was known in an underground way, in very limited circles, but completely hushed up by the authorities. IMO Stalker wasn't really inspired by that, but there were lots of rumours around things in the Soviet era, it was a whisper culture, so the idea of a secret zone fit into the atmosphere. That film is a fave of mine, not much happens outwardly during the middle section of the reel but what does happen never ceases to amaze you, not least visually.

Stalker with the dog

The Ukrainian video game STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl and its follow-up games were inspired both by Tarkovsky's film and by the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown and the rumours of strange muitant creatures in the zone though. It's one I'd really like to try, though I'm not much of a video gamer; too bad my present PC wouldn't near handle it.

[gaggedLouise]

Speaking of alpha predators, I see you've had Tigers and Lions and Bears on the loose in Ohio. Most of them killed or pacified by now though.

[Oniya]

They actually took some alive?  That would make me very happy.  Word on the local news station's Facebook page is that the owner was solely responsible for the whole incident.  He probably could have called the Columbus Zoo instead of flinging the cages open and they wouldn't have had to kill any.

[gaggedLouise]

Well, I heard on the news that the animals they encountered during the night had mostly been killed - in the dark it was too risky to try to sedate them - but those that are yet unacounted for are "supposed to have stuck themselves in hiding" wherever that is, probably dark places as big cats are night animals, and if they are found during the day and aren't very violent it just might be possible to tranquilize them.

[Oniya]

There are only three animals currently unaccounted for:  a mountain lion (cougar, puma, same thing), a grizzly bear, and some kind of monkey.   The cougar is likely to find some local venison on the hoof - it's a 'normal food' for it, and deer are abundant in the area right now.  The monkey is probably one of the smaller varieties, and not too terribly dangerous to the public (assuming the cougar didn't get it).  If it doesn't get found, though, it's not likely to last the winter.  The bear is the one I'd be concerned about, since it's a little on the late side for getting ready for hibernation.  It's going to look for 'easy food', which could include local garbage cans.