Modern Feminism - What's the deal?

[Dezerte]

Here's how I imagine the ideal system would work;

After unprotected sex, it's the duty of the woman to check for pregnancy within a reasonable amount of time & inform the male.
The male is now presented with the choice whether he wants to be part of the child's family, the male must make a decision before it's too late for an abortion.
The woman is informed that the male don't want to be a part of the family, the woman is now asked if she wants to proceed with the pregnancy knowing that she has to support the child herself.

[Deleted]

Has this theory ever been tested. Has anyone tried having a woman sign a paper expressing no interest in child support in the event the person is knocked up. Again I'm not a expert on these matters. I'm not saying things as factual statements. I'm offering my own humble point of view. If you have a better one. I am open to suggestions.

How do you prove you didn't coerce the woman into signing the papers if she claims you did?

[Dezerte]

LOL my mentioning affirnative action was because it was another style of forced equality.

Honestly i want equality no one should be forces into being a parent and a child should always go to the best parent for them.

Ah, was not familiar with the term.

[Kasierith]

Has this theory ever been tested. Has anyone tried having a woman sign a paper expressing no interest in child support in the event the person is knocked up. Again I'm not a expert on these matters. I'm not saying things as factual statements. I'm offering my own humble point of view. If you have a better one. I am open to suggestions.

Yes. There have been plenty of court cases where one party has asserted that it should not be expected to uphold a contract because they were compromised by external factors (like ability to get sex) as well as lacked the full and cognizant legal knowledge of all that the document entailed. It has not been done specifically with child support cases, but trying to assert that such practices that area already upheld in a number of areas in law might not apply to child support is an incorrect stance to make.

[FusedMass]

I'm not sure you know what coercion means.. If you were forced to sign the paper, you surely would be forced to sign the part that says you were not coerced into signing it aswell.

Yes I did understand the Irony of my statement..it means forced. I know. Only after I wrote that did I realize. He could have forced her to write she was not forced. Again my idea is not bullet proof theory. Its a small simple suggestion. I'm very open to hearing other proposals being suggested. I keep hearing men should not have to be forced into paying child support.

I'm not hearing any proposals expect mine on how to counter this.

To poster above me. Then I stand corrected. I repeated that I'm not an expert of these cases. And I honestly have no passointe views on this situation. I have more emotional passion on the Gun Control Thread. It does not ruffle my feathers one way or the other. However I am against forcing a person to do something barbaric that is against their will.

That's why I'm pressing for details about a proposal to counter this.

[seta-san]

Yes. There have been plenty of court cases where one party has asserted that it should not be expected to uphold a contract because they were compromised by external factors (like ability to get sex) as well as lacked the full and cognizant legal knowledge of all that the document entailed. It has not been done specifically with child support cases, but trying to assert that such practices that area already upheld in a number of areas in law might not apply to child support is an incorrect stance to make.

they never hold up.

The right to child support is the child's... not the mothers... therefore the mother cannot actually sign away the right.

[Xanjori]

they never hold up.

The right to child support is the child's... not the mothers... therefore the mother cannot actually sign away the right.

Indeed. As with the case on my family the mother could not refuse to give my fathers name to the CSA, no matter what she wanted my father had to pay child support.

[Kasierith]

they never hold up.

The right to child support is the child's... not the mothers... therefore the mother cannot actually sign away the right.

The child does not assume control over his or her own rights until 18 or legal emancipation, correct?

[FusedMass]

How do you prove you didn't coerce the woman into signing the papers if she claims you did?

Simple. You cant.

[Deleted]

Yes I did understand the Irony of my statement..it means forced. I know. Only after I wrote that did I realize. He could have forced her to write she was not forced. Again my idea is not bullet proof theory. Its a small simple suggestion. I'm very open to hearing other proposals being suggested. I keep hearing men should not have to be forced into paying child support.

I'm not hearing any proposals expect mine on how to counter this.

To poster above me. Then I stand corrected. I repeated that I'm not an expert of these cases. And I honestly have no passointe views on this situation. I have more emotional passion on the Gun Control Thread. It does not ruffle my feathers one way or the other. However I am against forcing a person to do something barbaric that is against their will.

That's why I'm pressing for details about a proposal to counter this.

Allow men to within a certain time limit after pregnancy abdicate their financial 'responsibility' to the child. What's your argument for compelling men to pay financial support for 18 years for something they didn't want and accidentally caused?

[Kasierith]

Simple. You cant.

So how could it possibly be upheld? I understand that you said you aren't that knowledgable in legal matters, but let me emphasize that the possibility of coercion is a very significant matter in law. It's why large companies have separate branches to handle hiring and such, to establish legal oversight and standardization of contracts.

[Speaknoevil]

That's even worst:
open the door for a woman, get called a sexist.
don't open the door for a woman, there are no more gentlemen.

Treat a woman to erotic massage...

[FusedMass]

So how could it possibly be upheld? I understand that you said you aren't that knowledgable in legal matters, but let me emphasize that the possibility of coercion is a very significant matter in law. It's why large companies have separate branches to handle hiring and such, to establish legal oversight and standardization of contracts.

My suggestion was just that. I hear about "Men being forced into slave labor etc forcing them to pay child support" I keep hearing the repeated argument that its wrong. That some men should have a way to opt out. I have yet to hear anyone expect me and that one mod offer any slight suggestion on a way to fix this situation. I understand the emotion..they feel its incorrect.

I am asking..for suggestions on peoples own proposals or ideas that would solve this situation in a peace full manner. As in suggest a way or a plan that would be effective that make sure you do not have to pay child support. I repeated I am open to hearing suggestions on a way to resolve this but it seems to fallen on deaf ears by people simply repeating its unfair and they want a way to opt out.

Okay but explain how that would work. As to answer your suggestions. Normally when two party s sign a legal document. (i.e. a cop getting you to sign an admission of guilt) is not contested that often. The way it would be upheld if both party's mutually came to a third party a lawyer but that's already proven void and moot since the person can claim they were forced into signing it.

Does anyone have a better suggestion?

[capitano666]

To poster above me. Yes but condoms are not 100 percent effective. To best of my information most people get knocked up on accident not purpose.

That's not the point.
The point is that if a guy is having sex with a girl and they are using a contraceptive (condoms, pills, whatever...yes even calendar based methods, for the sake of the argument it doesn't really matter how valid they are, it matters that they both believe it will work) it is a clear intent of both to not get the woman impregnated.

Now, shit happens (or people is just play stupid) and she's pregnant, what happens now? Here are the possibilities:

1. The girl decides to go with the original plan and have an abortion
   
   • The guy also wants to stick with the intent of not having a kid => everyone is happy.
   • The guy changes his mind and wants the kid after all, well too bad because she has (justifiably) the last word. (I'm ok with that)
2. The girl changes her mind and decide to keep the baby
   
   • The guy also changes his mind, they decide to raise a family together => everyone is happy.
   • The guy doesn't want the kid, well sucks to be him as he'll have no way out. (I'm not ok with that)

The point is that while I agree it is the right of the girl to decide whether to keep the baby or not the man not only have no say about the abortion, but also has to hope really hard she makes the same decision he does.
He has no way out and is at her mercy, she can do whatever she wants without caring of him. And if she decides to keep the baby he's going to be forced to pay money for 18 years...

[Deleted]

Allow men to within a certain time limit after pregnancy abdicate their financial 'responsibility' to the child. What's your argument for compelling men to pay financial support for 18 years for something they didn't want and accidentally caused?

If it's accidental due to broken condom or such things I have no problems with it. Letting men go around and intentionally getting women pregnant without any repercussions for it on the other hand I do have a problem with.

[Raiju]

Does anyone have a better suggestion?

Allowing men to declare they aren't responsible for the child before the abortion window. As was suggested 943859435834985 times before. It is a suggestion whether you agree with it or not. Plenty of exceptions were played with as well for every argument you may have against it.

[Deleted]

My suggestion was just that. I hear about "Men being forced into slave labor etc forcing them to pay child support" I keep hearing the repeated argument that its wrong. That some men should have a way to opt out. I have yet to hear anyone expect me and that one mod offer any slight suggestion on a way to fix this situation. I understand the emotion..they feel its incorrect.

....

Allow them to opt out? I don't expect a solution nor do I propose a solution. All I would like is to see you say "Okay, compelling all men to pay child support based on their responsibility is sexist if you do not impose the same demands on women." I wholeheartedly agree with most of what you say: Women should be allowed to abort. Women should be allowed to put their child up for adoption. Women should be able to have the child and raise it. I though, unlike you also say that Men should be allowed to (within a reasonable time frame) be able to abdicate their involvement with a potential child. I fail to see how that is a controversial statement.

I am asking..for suggestions on peoples own proposals or ideas that would solve this situation in a peace full manner. As in suggest a way or a plan that would be effective that make sure you do not have to pay child support. I repeated I am open to hearing suggestions on a way to resolve this but it seems to fallen on deaf ears by people simply repeating its unfair and they want a way to opt out.

...Why are you against men in all circumstances opting out of child support in the event of a pregnancy?

---------- Post added 2013-02-23 at 05:43 PM ----------

If it's accidental due to broken condom or such things I have no problems with it. Letting men go around and intentionally getting women pregnant without any repercussions for it on the other hand I do have a problem with.

Yes, well that would be completely different (and often require ignorance on the woman's behalf or the man forcing/manipulating the woman).

[Kasierith]

Okay but explain how that would work. As to answer your suggestions. Normally when two party s sign a legal document. (i.e. a cop getting you to sign an admission of guilt) is not contested that often. The way it would be upheld if both party's mutually came to a third party a lawyer but that's already proven void and moot since the person can claim they were forced into signing it.

Does anyone have a better suggestion?

A police officer is specifically designated to hand out such contracts. The difference here is that you are having random people with no background in the subject at hand having people sign contracts. As for a lawyer, yes that would uphold the document, but then.... I hope you see how absolutely ridiculous that is.

Your solution is not legally valid.

[Elim Garak]

Does anyone have a better suggestion?

"I do not want to be involved with this child, your honor"
"Very well, you are hereby relieved from Child Support payments"

[methodik]

There is one thing about this whole feminism argument that pisses me off to no end. Yes women are paid less, I agree with that. However, thats about all I agree with. If we are so concerned with equality, then I would like some women to chime in here.

I believe EVERYONE should be equal. That being said, I also believe that I should be able to birth a child. When am I going to receive that right?

The point here is, men have some rights and privileges that are unique to them, as do women. Thats how it was meant to be, and no one has the upper hand unless you perceive it to be so.