Equality and equal rights are great, unless they through logic grant more rights to men.
Equality and equal rights are great, unless they through logic grant more rights to men.
Well... I gotta say I am a fan of feminists being so clearly SEXIST yet that is considered acceptable. "Men are Misoginists" <- Used in context which basically says ALL men are Misoginists. "Men are stronger than women" <- While... Positive? That's still steriotyping and therefore sexist. Talking about domestic abuse then ignore the fact that men don't get taken seriously AT ALL when it comes to them making such claims. And - From personal experience - My little brother said he wanted to live with our Dad when my father and his ex split up. They both had solicitors. My little brother said this to the solicitor. He was completely ignored because he wasn't 16. Guess what? He hates his mother with a passion, and they've been split up for a good 8 years now. Go figure. He may have been young (still is at 13), but nothing has changed since then. He still wants to live with his dad. So yeah, I call bollocks on the child actually having a say. That system works completely for women.
Rape is an issue, but you do realize SEVERAL rape cases get found out to be false before even going to court, and the vast majority of statistics are based around the ones that go to court. Heck, one of my friends was accused of rape at a party he wasn't even at. Simply because the woman in question didn't like him. Don't get me wrong, women do have more than a right to complain about certain aspects, but don't sit there putting all men in a single fucking cupboard because you're too ignorant to believe that not all men are the same.
Then it doesn't matter, since child support is income dependent. You're still claiming that letting men walk away is better for women because at least they'll get to know if he's going to bail earlier, even though they'd now be out child support.
Its frankly a little misogynistic.
---------- Post added 2012-11-28 at 02:08 AM ----------
I love how you do your best to ignore the fact there is a child that needs to be supported. Nope its just them crazy bitches draining your bank account.
The decision effects her because it changes her decision from "share burden or abort" to "raise alone or abort" if he decides to walk away. His decision directly changes the outcomes of her available options.
But you do remove a choice. As I said, one choice is to raise the kid with bio dad (person or money). You took that choice and gave it to the father. That's it. There's no compromise. You took something from one side and gave it to the other.
To your other question, no I don't think there is a good solution. I don't think anyone will come up with a good solution. In this circumstance you can not possibly make everyone happy. But to rearrange the situation so men have an out and call that equal rights or compromise is just wrong.
I've said it before and I'll say it till it sinks in.
You don't get to campaign for a mother's right to kill a child just because it's unborn and then throw a hissy fit when its quality of life is in jeopardy. Biology of the situation be damned, that's exactly what you're advocating and trying to sugarcoat it by saying "A fetus isn't alive" or "I don't support late term abortions" doesn't change that fact.
Do you really think no men (or even a majority of men) would abandon their child? No. The decision doesn't become "raise alone or abort" unless he actually takes the option. Most men would still take care of their kid. Most guys aren't half as shitty as you seem to think. You know, just like how most women aren't out to be deceiving men. Right? Right.The decision effects her because it changes her decision from "share burden or abort" to "raise alone or abort" if he decides to walk away. His decision directly changes the outcomes of her available options.
The option isn't there for guys who have no sense of responsibility. It's there for guys who legitimately are not in a place to support the child. Just like abortion is there for women in a plate to legitimately not support the child.
she cant depend on his wages to help her raise the child, as opposed to having a willing partners. so those who would think "id prefer to give my child the best possible life" are left with one solution. Abort. those who dont want a kid are reaffirmed in their decision.
making the burden greater is in fact harmful to those who wish to accept it.
So, if the man doesn't have to pay for the child, but the child needs more than what the mother can provide, who helps pay for it?
I don't buy that. Currently the only time a man can ever be happy with the outcome of a pregnancy is if he's in lockstep with the woman.
That seems wrong, to me.
---------- Post added 2012-11-28 at 02:16 AM ----------
And what about women making median or higher wages? Do you think their best possible solution to an unwanted pregnancy is to abort?
No. Of course it isn't. Stop pretending women need a man.
How else to you compromise when one side has all the decision making power and the other has none? At least this way it's upfront and before birth, as opposed to a down the road deadbeat.
The compromise is, telling the woman honestly what your intentions are so that she can better plan HER decision. Does she still have to make a shitty decision? Ya, but this way there is no surprise. I'd have a lot more sympathy for both parties if pregnancy wasn't so damn easy to prevent in the first place.
Don't compare a fetus and its supposed right to life (that does not legally exist) to the needs of a living human being that is unable to sustain itself. You know that's a bullshit comparison.You don't get to campaign for a mother's right to kill a child just because it's unborn and then throw a hissy fit when its quality of life is in jeopardy. Biology of the situation be damned, that's exactly what you're advocating and trying to sugarcoat it by saying "A fetus isn't alive" or "I don't support late term abortions" doesn't change that fact.
No shit, if he doesn't take the option nothing changes. The point stands. His new choice directly effects the outcome of the mother's options. It effects her, as you have denied.Do you really think no men (or even a majority of men) would abandon their child? No. The decision doesn't become "raise alone or abort" unless he actually takes the option.
Child support is income dependent. If you think child support specifics need to be tweaked I'm all ears.The option isn't there for guys who have no sense of responsibility. It's there for guys who legitimately are not in a place to support the child.
Stop pretending the child isn't worse off with less money available to raise it.No. Of course it isn't. Stop pretending women need a man.
Then come up with a solution that doesn't just reorganize the problem in a more personally beneficial manner. I don't see a way around it. Currently in the situation that will cause the most strife (mom wants the kid, dad does not) the mother has four choices:
1. Keep the kid, sue for child support. Gives dad the chance to change his mind and sue for custody later.
2. Keep the kid, have dad sign a waiver of parental responsibility (or whatever your state calls it.) No child support (again state dependent) no custody mess later.
3. Adoption
4. Abortion
Your solution just takes the first one and gives it to the dad. That's not helpful because she already knows he isn't on board. She doesn't get anything in exchange for losing that option. The man gains a huge shift in power in his favor and the woman lose it. That's not compromise in any sense of the word. Want to make it work? Come up with compensation.