Do you consider yourself to be a feminist, and why?

[Galloism]

But, in the case of unmarried couples, mothers receive default custody after birth. There's also no requirement for the mother to identify or acknowledge the father. Paternity may, in the cases of uncooperative mothers, require a protracted legal battle to establish.

Thus, even though, de jure, either parent may relinquish, de facto, in most cases, only the mother has the access and ability to, unless the mother gives the father access to first.

And what is wrong with that, exactly? Shouldn't a man be established as the child's father before he has the right to abandon it at a shelter?

Should a mother be able to abandon a child to a shelter without giving the father a crack at being a father? Should she be able to demolish his parental rights, solely, without legal review, and without any appeal rights?

[Valkalan]

I am meritocratic. I value the skill and character of the individual. I have no concern for groups.

[Forsher]

In the December 2011 quarter the labour force consisted of 1259.2 men and 1117.5 women (000s).

That means 74.9% of men participate and 62.9% of women participate.

The labour force is defined thus:

Members of the working-age population who during their survey reference week are classified as 'employed' or 'unemployed'.

The working age population being:

The usually resident non-institutionalised civilian population of New Zealand aged 15 years and over.

We can break the data down further so that, for example, we can see 15-19 year old range (youngest band).

48.3% of males and 46.9% of females participate. There are 163.0 males and 155.2 females (000s).

The next age band (20-24) is quite different. 168.7 males and 158.7 females (000s) with participation rates of 79.9% and 67.6% respectively. Here it is worth looking at qualifications.

24.1 males and 20.8 females have no qualification (000s). That's 14.3% of males and 13.1% of females but the participation rates are very different. 77.9% of males against 40.1% of females.

And you can keep doing stuff like that all you want.

To see the figures I mentioned, click on "Key measures", select the relevant ones, then go to "sex" and choose "male" and "female", deselect "total" then go to age and choose the relevant ones and then go to qualification and choose the relevant ones.

Finally click the table icon in the top left corner next to Actions.

[Cosmopoles]

And what is wrong with that, exactly? Shouldn't a man be established as the child's father before he has the right to abandon it at a shelter?

Should a mother be able to abandon a child to a shelter without giving the father a crack at being a father? Should she be able to demolish his parental rights, solely, without legal review, and without any appeal rights?

Should a father? Just because in the vast majority of cases its the mother who will do the abandoning doesn't mean that the father has different rights, if he is established as the father.

[Forsher]

Should a mother be able to abandon a child to a shelter without giving the father a crack at being a father? Should she be able to demolish his parental rights, solely, without legal review, and without any appeal rights?

Should a father? Just because in the vast majority of cases its the mother who will do the abandoning doesn't mean that the father has different rights, if he is established as the father.

You're missing the point.

He doesn't even get a chance to be the father in some cases. Which is why the first question was this:

Should a mother be able to abandon a child to a shelter without giving the father a crack at being a father?

[Galloism]

Should a mother be able to abandon a child to a shelter without giving the father a crack at being a father? Should she be able to demolish his parental rights, solely, without legal review, and without any appeal rights?

Should a father? Just because in the vast majority of cases its the mother who will do the abandoning doesn't mean that the father has different rights.

Actually it does.

In practice, where it matters, mothers have the right to deny a father his chance at being a father, and there is absolutely nothing he can possibly do to preserve his rights.

All she has to do is put "unknown" on the birth certificate, and on the way home, drop the child off at a safe haven.

In only 5 states can the father legally petition for custody if that happens.

Meanwhile, the father first has to have the mother place him on the birth certificate, and then surrender the child to his custody, whereupon he can drop off the child at a safe haven.

You do not see how, in reality, they have different rights, even if, by written law, they are the same?

[Forsher]

I am meritocratic. I value the skill and character of the individual. I have no concern for groups.

You should be concerned when certain groups aren't getting off the ground. By which I mean demonstrably leaving worse off. Those are individuals reflected in the results.

[Irrelevant Alarmism]

We'll start with gender. And we'll start by finding previous threads on the subject.

That was how this thread was going to go but now it is, more or less, a discussion of the gender gap as it applies to NCEA.

Search terms "gender," "gap" and "education". Returned a mere 121 results. Here's a list of notable results.

• A crtique of the feminisation of education by Qishi.
  
• GCMG and Zaras on the existence of the gender gap itself, mentions PISA data but is unsourced. Zaras first brings up the need for more research here.
  
• GCMG and MadBasstid, SAT Gender Gap. Sourced PISA data this time from GCMG and MadBasstid's post has an article on the SAT Gender Gap. Part of a post chain, last link.

Right, before we start... the discussion point.

What do we think of gender gaps? Not just in NCEA but in all manner of education systems throughout the world. A good thing to answer would be, why do they exist? Why do they tend to favour female students? (I ignore developing systems.)

Okay, that's enough of that. Those posts are all from the last thread to touch on this and that's really all that's ever happened. Besides, they are here for background. Bear in mind that Year Elevens are expected to turn 16, Year Twelves 17 and Year Thirteens 18 over the course of the year. This will allow those used to K-12 type systems, form types and others to understand the numbers. Remember, the school year starts in January/February.

Calculating percentages of students attaining qualifications using a Tracked Cohort takes account of differences in retention between the demographic groups of interest. For example, in each year, a greater proportion of male students than female students leave school without NCEA Level 1 during Years 11 and 12. Comparing the percentages of male and female students who have attained NCEA Level 1 by the end of Year 12, over just those students who were still at school, would therefore underestimate the Level 1 performance gap between male students and female students. Using the original Year 11 students as a basis for calculating percentages right through to Year 13 avoids this problem, because all students are counted in denominators for the percentages, whether or not they have left school.

In the bold we see that more male than female students are leaving school without the very basic qualifications. In fact, Level Two is seen as the bare minimum. These students have not finished college/high school/their secondary educations.

But is this a bad thing? Yes, it is. But not that more male students are leaving, just that students (more correctly, pupils or candidates) are leaving with such minimal qualifications. That more are male is just a place to start. This is just the first of a number of gaps described in this document.

It is worth noting that, just generally speaking, fewer boys than girls stay in school and this is a societal issue. Why are our schools making more boys want to leave? We would expect that there would be no significant difference (within a few percentage points) between the male and female data. That said, this could be reflecting other factors (yes, fewer women participate in the workforce in NZ than men as a percentage).

Here is the relevant data. (Figure 1 of the report. As an example of the male students who were Year 11 in 2006 55% hung around until Year 13.)

Cohort	2004-2006	2005-2007	2006-2008	2007-2009	2008-2010	2009-2011
Male (%)	53	55	55	59	63	64
Female (%)	62	63	63	66	70	71

Not broken down by gender (i.e. overall figures). Goes into more depth, includes the intermediary Year 12. (Table Two.)

	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009
Year Eleven Enrolment	55,300	56,791	60,132	59,897	59,790	59,855
Year Twelve Retention	80%	82%	82%	82%	85%	86%
Year Thirteen Retention	58%	59%	59%	62%	67%	67%

We now turn to academic performance and as expected we see that boys do worse than girls. Bear in mind these figures are across the board. The table below (Table Three) has the non-broken down data.

	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
NCEA Level One (Yr 11)	66%	66%	69%	73%	71%	72%	75%	77%
NCEA Level Two (Yr 12)	73%	73%	75%	77%	76%	76%	80%	82%
NCEA Level Three (Yr 13)	68%	68%	71%	72%	70%	69%	74%	75%
University Entrance (Yr13)	64%	64%	67%	68%	66%	64%	66%	67%

Note, University Entrance is both part and apart to Level Three (the qualification sat in Year Thirteen). This is outlined by the report itself. (To participate there must be enough available credits for any given candidate to pass in their course, that is at least 80 for Level One and 60 for the other two.)

Table 3. Percentages of participating cohorts attaining NCEA Level 1 in Year 11, NCEA Level 2 in Year 12, and NCEA Level 3 and University Entrance
in Year 13. Note that the participating cohort for University Entrance is defined to be the same as that for NCEA Level 3.

On to the breakdown for Level One.

Year	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Male	60%	61%	65%	69%	66%	68%	71%	74%
Female	71%	70%	73%	76%	75%	76%	78%	81%

Well, it's not that bad. It is quite clear to see and in figure 5 (source on Report) we see that both are increasing quite steadily. So, in other words... whatever is improving the marks is affecting Year Elevens equally... gender isn't an issue there. Why then is there a gap in the first place?

Maybe the gap disappears in Level Two? No, figure six shows us it still exists, and it is about the same size at around 9 percentage points generally. The range as noted in the report is 8 to 10.

Year	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Male	68%	68%	70%	72%	70%	71%	75%	78%
Female	77%	77%	79%	81%	80%	80%	84%	86%

Again, there's an increasing trend for both at roughly the same rate. That said, we are seeing something interesting. There's a dip in the middle that is slightly more extreme for male students. (By the way, I should mention... 2004 was the first year of full NCEA.)

Let's see if the gap is still around at Level Three. Yes, of course it is. In fact, it is larger at times with a peak of 12 but 9 is more usual. (Figure Seven.)

Year	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Male	63%	64%	66%	67%	64%	63%	69%	71%
Female	72%	72%	74%	76%	75%	75%	78%	80%

What about University Entrance? Well, it is still there but then it is a funny pseudo-qualification and is no guarantee of a place at uni... competition does exist hence rank scores at places like Auckland. (Basically, the four marks are assigned a score. I think it's four for excellence and then the credits are multiplied by their score but only the best 80 to generate a rank score... e.g. 235.)

Year	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Male	60%	61%	63%	63%	61%	59%	61%	62%
Female	68%	67%	69%	71%	70%	69%	70%	71%

And that was the data for University Entrance. (Figure eight.)

Okay, the next series of tables give a more accurate idea of the gender gap as it exists for NCEA as explained in that opening quote of the report.

	2009 (Year 11)	2010 (Year 12)	2011 (Year 13)
Male	62.9%	77.1%	78.6%
Female	71.1%	82.6%	83.7%

This one needs some explanation. You see one doesn't have to do NCEA Level One over a single year. For example, a friend of mine did Level Three Spanish while being a year twelve. She, as a result, gained credits towards Level Three while being Year Twelve. Importantly, those credits also counted for Level Two. There's also the option of doing a level below one's year. For example, a Year Thirteen being in a Year Twelve class. As a result it is possible to pass Level One later on.

I've skipped the break downs by ethnicity and decile which is why this explanatory quote of that data is the way it is.

Figure 17. Percentages of enrolled male and female candidates commencing Year 11 in 2009, who had attained NCEA Level 1 by the end of 2009, 2010 and 2011.

However, the important thing is that we are seeing the same sort of gap that we saw with the previous data.

	2009 (Year 11)	2010 (Year 12)	2011 (Year 13)
Male	1.9%	56.6%	64.9%
Female	1.2%	66.7%	73.3%

Which is also seen here. Any discrepancy is because people who left school without Level Two are included here.

	2009 (Year 11)	2010 (Year 12)	2011 (Year 13)
Male	0.2%	0.9%	33.9%
Female	0.2%	0.6%	47.9%

Very considerable gap now. However, look at the smaller numbers: we are not seeing a significant gap (nor signifcant numbers) but we are seeing evidence that supports my belief that male students vary more in terms of academic performance. More of the very top performers are male than female but as a whole female students do better because more of the bottom performers are male as well. That support is suggested (there's nothing worthwhile here) in the absence for Level Three passers in Year Eleven and the leaning of boys by .3 percentage points in Year Twelve.

Speaking of academic ability let us look at those who get endorsements. Here's the report explaining.

Certificate Endorsement for NCEA Levels 1, 2 and 3 was introduced in 2007 to motivate candidates to develop their potential. To qualify for an endorsement with Excellence, candidates require 50 credits or more at Excellence. An endorsement with Merit requires 50 or more credits at Merit (or Merit and Excellence).

Note:

In the Secondary School Statistics published on the NZQA website, only concurrently achieved Certificate Endorsement are reported at present. For clarity this report follows that convention.

The flexibility of NCEA means that one can earn credits towards an endorsement at a level in a different year to many/most/some of the credits they have towards that endorsement. That note says only endorsements from one year's study are counted.

And now, the general endorsement results. (All figures are percentages.)

	Level 1 Year 11 Candidates	Level 2 Year 12 Candidates	Level 3 Year 13 Candidates
No Endorsement	53.7	70.3	69.3
Merit Endorsement	33.0	21.6	23.4
Excellence Endorsement	13.3	8.1	7.3

Table 4. Percentages of Level 1, 2 and 3 NCEA qualifications attained in the typical year for each with endorsements of Merit and Excellence in 2011.

Right, now we know the overall figures, let's look at the breakdown, but only of excellences because, well, you've seen enough tables already. Although these are for all years, not just 2011.

Level One Excellence Endorsements	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Male	4%	5%	5%	6%	9%
Female	9%	10%	10%	12%	17%

Doesn't support my earlier stated belief. In fact, female students are doing twice as well consistently. This isn't the nail in the coffin it may appear to be, as we will see.

Level Two Excellence Endorsements	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Male	3%	3%	4%	5%	6%
Female	6%	6%	7%	8%	10%

It is closer now. However, this is not what I talking about when I said "as we will see". Neither is what is to follow.

Level Three Excellence Endorsements	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Male	4%	4%	5%	5%	6%
Female	5%	5%	6%	6%	8%

Narrowed quite significantly. To be honest this is something that is really tricky to deal with when you set out to defend that statement I made about "higher proportions" of top achievers. But, then, there are few marks in NCEA proper which is a frequent criticism.

And now for Literacy. Seriously, this was made way easier to get for last year. Firstly, some explanation.

Achieving Literacy and Numeracy is a requirement for achieving NCEA Level 1. However, achieving NCEA Level 1 is not a requirement of achieving either Literacy or Numeracy. Consequently a candidate may not be classified as a participant in respect to NCEA Level 1 but will still be considered in the reporting of achievement rates for Literacy and Numeracy. Therefore the denominator for Literacy and Numeracy achievement rates is the enrolment cohort.

Now, this is very interesting.

Figure 35 shows stable Literacy attainment for males andfemales from 2008 to 2010, consistently favouring females by about seven percentage points. In 2011, Literacy attainment rose by 3.5 percentage points for females and five percentage points for males. As a result, the seven percentage point difference in favour of females from 2008 to 2010 narrowed to 5.5 points in 2011. Possibly this narrowing is due to the use of Literacy evidence from standards outside the English learning area being more significant for males than for females.

PE credits can count towards Literacy (which is, one must remember, distinct from English/Te Reo). That explanation is as good as the table in my mind so we'll skip that. That said, 83.1% of male candidates and 88.6% achieved literacy in 2011.

Figure 38 shows a largely stable pattern of Numeracy attainment over recent years. Females outperformed males by 1-2 percentage points over the period. A slight decrease in performance among males in 2011 may be attributed to the reduced range of standards allowed to contribute Numeracy evidence in 2011.

Again, that is satisfactory to my mind in explaning the gap here. 87.5% of male candidates in 2011 got numeracy and 89.9% did the same. You need only a few credits to get either literacy and numeracy but numeracy is actually harder in my mind as there are far fewer credits that count towards it. Pretty much only maths ones.

As a whole the differences here are not significant but they do suggest that variety in NCEA helps males. In other words, if there are more of X that count towards a qualification males are likely to do better. Put simply, more opportunities leads to better outcomes. Makes sense and is really self evident. Importantly it tallies with everything else we are seeing here, male candidates find NCEA more difficult than female ones as a whole.

Welcome to what will demonstrate elements of my statement.

The New Zealand Scholarship awards were introduced in 2004, and the present system for marking the Scholarship examinations in 2006. Scholarship is intended to challenge New Zealand’s most able secondary school students. Therefore, the examinations are very demanding, even for the highest-performing students. Scholarship students are expected to demonstrate high-level critical thinking, abstraction and generalisation, and to integrate, synthesise and apply knowledge, skills, understanding and ideas to
complex situations.

Righto, so this is for the top performing candidates.

Generally, Scholarship candidates are Year 13 students, most of whom are also studying towards NCEA Level 3. Each Scholarship subject assessment carries two passing grades – Scholarship (S) and Outstanding Scholarship (O), not to be confused with the Scholarship Award and the Outstanding Scholar Award which are monetary awards given to high achieving candidates based on overall performance in the Scholarship examinations.

And, they support their statements about being the top.

As a general rule, the number of Scholarships awarded in each subject represents about 3% of the national Level 3 cohort in that subject. The national cohort for each subject comprises the set of candidates who are entered for at least 14 credits in that subject at Level 3.

Top 3% of each subject, so let's find the gender gap. After reading the spoiler, it contains more details on the nature and expands on the monetary nature of Scholarship.

There are six classes of award for Scholarship, including five that carry monetary awards ranging in value from a single $500 payment through to $10,000 per annum for three years.

Premier Awards reward the top 5 to 10 candidates each year. The Outstanding Scholar Awards are given to the next top 40 to 60 candidates. In 2011 ten students received Premier Awards and 51 students received Outstanding Scholar Awards.

In 2011 a total of 34 Top Subject Scholar Awards were given. This is the only award that can be achieved more than once or can be given in addition to another award. In 2011 one candidate was awarded two Top Subject Scholar Awards. There were seven candidates who were awarded a Top Subject Scholar Award in addition to another award.

A total of approximately $3.7 million will be paid over a period of three years to the 2,304 candidates who achieved one or more scholarship subject or awards in 2011. These payments are made to those candidates who are going on to tertiary study and are intended to provide some assistance to support this study.

And here we are the statement. Again it is slight and not very significant but it is there. My statement has such wobbly legs it falls down and gets right back up.

For each gender, 21% of the assessed results produced Scholarship grades. However, the relationship differs at Outstanding grade. At this grade, 3.1% of assessed male results were graded Outstanding, compared with 2.3% of female results. The male/female difference of 63 Outstanding grades in 2011 is similar to 2010, but differs from previous years, where the difference favoured males by only 10 - 20 grades. The difference favouring females in NCEA achievement is not reflected in the Scholarship examinations.

And, of course, a table.

	Candidates	Entries	Assessed[b]results[/b]	Scholarship grades	Outstanding grades
Male	4,620	9,580	7,359	1,540	231
Female	5,649	10,199	7,211	1,508	168

Here's the military, whoops, monetary rewards. In table form, what else?

Year	Females	Males
2006	3	7
2007	3	5
2008	3	7
2009	1	7
2010	1	8
2011	3	7
Total	14	41

And that's 74.5% (1dp) of those in favour of males. And it is limited to the very best. While NCEA isn't used by all schools Scholarship, as a monetary reward it is attractive to those who don't do NCEA.

So, what do we think of the gender gap in NCEA and Scholarship?

Well, clearly I think that some of it can be explained by great variety in the performance of male students... performance that is much more varied than female students'. I also think that there is a degree of bias towards female students given the nature of female students. That's partly from something in that article MadBasstid linked to (there was a reason to including some of the posts from the NSG background).

Because I am really worried about losing this post, the rest will follow. Actually, here it is below. My further reasoning for the gender gap in NCEA.

Right, so let us follow. I know that this isn't strictly NCEA but does demonstrate that questions can be biased in favour of males and, therefore, in favour of females as well.

Biased test questions
A 1989 study by Phyllis Rosser, The SAT Gender Gap: Identifying the Causes, found that the vast majority of questions exhibiting large gender differences in correct answer rates are biased in favor of males, despite females' superior academic performance. Rosser found that females generally did better on questions about relationships, aesthetics and the humanities, while males did better on questions about sports, the physical sciences and business.

This conclusion is supported by an earlier study by ETS researcher Carol Dwyer, who provides some historical perspective on the gender gap in her 1976 report. She notes that it is common knowledge among test-makers that gender differences can be manipulated by simply selecting different test items. Dwyer cites as an example the fact that, for the first several years the SAT was offered, males scored higher than females on the Math section but females achieved higher scores on the Verbal section. ETS policy-makers determined that the Verbal test needed to be "balanced" more in favor of males, and added questions pertaining to politics, business and sports to the Verbal portion. Since that time, males have outscored females on both the Math and Verbal sections. Dwyer notes that no similar effort has been made to "balance" the Math section, and concludes that, "It could be done, but it has not been, and I believe that probably an unconscious form of sexism underlies this pattern. When females show the superior performance, 'balancing' is required; when males show the superior performance, no adjustments are necessary."

NCEA is radically different and, to my mind, far superior to the system discussed here. For example, multiple choice literally doesn't come into it at all. But what this does do is show that gender biases can exist in questions themselves. I think that this is a potential explanation for part of the difference we see in NCEA.

Auckland Grammar [note by Forsher, a boys' school] headmaster John Morris said the NCEA curriculum had contributed to the gender gap, as the internal assessment system favoured girls. He said boys succeeded better in exam-based schooling.

You cannot accuse him of hypocrisy. He has always spoken out against NCEA (many have, it is by no means popular) and, to my mind, masterminded Auckland Grammar's switch to the Cambridge system which is exactly that.

I'm actually inclined to agree with him to an extent. In my experience it is much easier to focus for a single three hour burst than weeks of short sessions on something, which is, strangely, what all my internals are like these days... except maths (by choice). And, of course, "boys can't sit still" is a common idea and the two are linked.

Dr Baker said there was no simple solution the Ministry of Education could provide to close the gap, and felt there was a need for greater research on the topic in New Zealand schools.

He said there was some promise in the new national standards curriculum, because it focused on how to teach, instead of what is taught.

"It is quite boy-friendly. Boys need really good teaching while girls are more likely to do reasonably well regardless of the quality of the teacher."

National Standards are also incredibly unpopular. Labour had NCEA. National has National Standards. ACT has Charter Schools. Only a few parties to go...

The biggest leap in girls' performance, though, occurred in 2002 - the first year that the new syllabus for A-levels, with more emphasis on coursework, was examined. "Boys tend to do better in exams," says Professor Alan Smithers, director of the Centre for Education and Employment Research at Buckingham University. "Girls apply themselves to coursework and work more consistently throughout the year." Many educationalists at that time talked of the curriculum being "girl-friendly". Most observers, for instance, backed Smithers in believing that girls flourish in the more methodical approach needed by coursework - which by then had become the key feature of both GCSEs and A-levels. There is an attempt, now, to turn the clock back. Independent schools, in particular, are opting for the international GCSE, rather than the home product. It is an exam based on the "traditional" values of the old O-level, with a ban on most assessment through coursework and a focus on end-of-year exams.

More on the same general point that exams are better. Different system, but it's that same core point... that boys don't fare so well in the sort of system that NZ and the UK have now.

That said, the bottom paragraph of that article potentially works against this as an explanation. But, here's the thing, there are many factors (as we are seeing) at play here.

Anyway, I've found an article by Dr Baker which I am unfamiliar with... that means something, I feel, I like to think I keep my finger on the pulse.

The next explanation that I think has some bearing on the gender gap in NCEA is that, well, there's this article.

Boys will perform just as you expect them to, it seems. If you tell them they aren't as intelligent as girls and are less likely to do well in tests, that is exactly what will happen. So says the latest salvo in the battle of the sexes that has preoccupied educationalists for decades.

I feel as if there is a knowledge of the gender gap in education amongst students. That said, I am, as a result of looking for this stuff, able to talk about that with any accuracy any more. Perhaps I am wrong. Even so, I'm pretty confident about that.

On the whole, though, it is nowadays the education of boys - particularly white, working-class boys - that most worries educationalists. The accent switched towards worrying about boys' education in the early years of the Labour government that came to power in 1997: a report by Ofsted, the education standards watchdog, said - in uncharacteristically blunt language - that boys were spending more time on the "three Fs" than the three Rs. The three Fs were characterised as "fighting, football and f***king".

If you haven't read that article the accent switch is going from looking at girls to boys when it comes to the gender gap in education. The reason being is that the focus has largely followed the results.

Anyway, that is, to my mind, the biggest factor: boys aren't as interested. In fact, in an article about the "poverty explanation for the long tail of fail (now it rhymes)" had one of the commentators remarking that "parental disengagement" is the main reason for failure in education. Basically, switched off parents have switched off children and a lightbulb without power isn't going to make light.

Note, the Paul Baker article is very long and from 2006 so I'm just going to link to it.

And, of course, if one wasn't careful, the reverse could happen. And at one point, it did.

[Cosmopoles]

Should a father? Just because in the vast majority of cases its the mother who will do the abandoning doesn't mean that the father has different rights.

Actually it does.

In practice, where it matters, mothers have the right to deny a father his chance at being a father, and there is absolutely nothing he can possibly do to preserve his rights.

All she has to do is put "unknown" on the birth certificate, and on the way home, drop the child off at a safe haven.

In only 5 states can the father legally petition for custody if that happens.

Meanwhile, the father first has to have the mother place him on the birth certificate, and then surrender the child to his custody, whereupon he can drop off the child at a safe haven.

You do not see how, in reality, they have different rights, even if, by written law, they are the same?

Which is a consequence of biology, not of different rights. Motherhood is automatically established for rather obvious reasons. Fatherhood is not. However, as far as I am aware every state allows the father to challenge the adoption process if he is established as such. Five states have specific provisions for this to happen while the child is in state custody.

[Galloism]

Actually it does.

In practice, where it matters, mothers have the right to deny a father his chance at being a father, and there is absolutely nothing he can possibly do to preserve his rights.

All she has to do is put "unknown" on the birth certificate, and on the way home, drop the child off at a safe haven.

In only 5 states can the father legally petition for custody if that happens.

Meanwhile, the father first has to have the mother place him on the birth certificate, and then surrender the child to his custody, whereupon he can drop off the child at a safe haven.

You do not see how, in reality, they have different rights, even if, by written law, they are the same?

Which is a consequence of biology, not of different rights. Motherhood is automatically established for rather obvious reasons. Fatherhood is not. However, as far as I am aware every state allows the father to challenge the adoption process if he is established as such. Five states have specific provisions for this to happen while the child is in state custody.

Actually, the link pointed out, by statute

n 16 States and Puerto Rico, the act of surrendering an infant to a safe haven is presumed to be a relinquishment of parental rights to the child, and no further parental consent is required for the child's adoption.

They do not have the right to try to block the adoption. Someone else already relinquished his parental rights.

Even so, this presumes that the father knows that the birth has been given, and that he is the father. As far as I am aware, in only five states do the local authorities even attempt to find the father or provide any notice that this abandonment has been done. In others, the father will remain blissfully unaware unless the mother tells him.



As far as "it's a consequence of biology", we must realize that law and regulation should take biology into account. This is why some branches of the military have slightly lower requirements for female troops vs male troops. Because of biology, more women than men failed the military's physical requirements.

The law should take steps to ensure that children are raised by one or both their parents if either one is available and willing. Saying "it's not my problem, fuck the men" is not even close to acceptable.

[Cosmopoles]

Actually, the link pointed out, by statute

n 16 States and Puerto Rico, the act of surrendering an infant to a safe haven is presumed to be a relinquishment of parental rights to the child, and no further parental consent is required for the child's adoption.

They do not have the right to try to block the adoption. Someone else already relinquished his parental rights.

No, they do not have to give further consent. That does not mean that they cannot request the court give them custody of the child and use their rightful status as the child's father to justify it.

Even so, this presumes that the father knows that the birth has been given, and that he is the father. As far as I am aware, in only five states do the local authorities even attempt to find the father or provide any notice that this abandonment has been done. In others, the father will remain blissfully unaware unless the mother tells him.

If the father is not aware that the mother has given birth, exactly what would be achieved by giving notice that an abandonment has been done?

As far as "it's a consequence of biology", we must realize that law and regulation should take biology into account. This is why some branches of the military have slightly lower requirements for female troops vs male troops. Because of biology, more women than men failed the military's physical requirements.

The law should take steps to ensure that children are raised by one or both their parents if either one is available and willing. Saying "it's not my problem, fuck the men" is not even close to acceptable.

The consequence of biology that I am referring to is the fact that you cannot automatically know who the father of a child is which you can do with the mother. Just because someone claims to be the father of a child doesn't automatically mean they should be recognised as such.

[Galloism]

Actually, the link pointed out, by statute



They do not have the right to try to block the adoption. Someone else already relinquished his parental rights.

No, they do not have to give further consent. That does not mean that they cannot request the court give them custody of the child and use their rightful status as the child's father to justify it.

Ok, give me a source of that being legal precedent somewhere in one of those 16 states or puerto rico. That's a big presumption you have there.

Even so, this presumes that the father knows that the birth has been given, and that he is the father. As far as I am aware, in only five states do the local authorities even attempt to find the father or provide any notice that this abandonment has been done. In others, the father will remain blissfully unaware unless the mother tells him.

If the father is not aware that the mother has given birth, exactly what would be achieved by giving notice that an abandonment has been done?

Allow him to raise his child? It seems like a really simple concept.

As far as "it's a consequence of biology", we must realize that law and regulation should take biology into account. This is why some branches of the military have slightly lower requirements for female troops vs male troops. Because of biology, more women than men failed the military's physical requirements.

The law should take steps to ensure that children are raised by one or both their parents if either one is available and willing. Saying "it's not my problem, fuck the men" is not even close to acceptable.

The consequence of biology that I am referring to is the fact that you cannot automatically know who the father of a child is which you can do with the mother. Just because someone claims to be the father of a child doesn't automatically mean they should be recognised as such.

True enough, but we should not allow the mother to irreversibly destroy his legal parenthood while the question is unanswered or in doubt.

[Forsher]

Actually, the link pointed out, by statute



They do not have the right to try to block the adoption. Someone else already relinquished his parental rights.

No, they do not have to give further consent. That does not mean that they cannot request the court give them custody of the child and use their rightful status as the child's father to justify it.

Even so, this presumes that the father knows that the birth has been given, and that he is the father. As far as I am aware, in only five states do the local authorities even attempt to find the father or provide any notice that this abandonment has been done. In others, the father will remain blissfully unaware unless the mother tells him.

If the father is not aware that the mother has given birth, exactly what would be achieved by giving notice that an abandonment has been done?

As far as "it's a consequence of biology", we must realize that law and regulation should take biology into account. This is why some branches of the military have slightly lower requirements for female troops vs male troops. Because of biology, more women than men failed the military's physical requirements.

The law should take steps to ensure that children are raised by one or both their parents if either one is available and willing. Saying "it's not my problem, fuck the men" is not even close to acceptable.

The consequence of biology that I am referring to is the fact that you cannot automatically know who the father of a child is which you can do with the mother. Just because someone claims to be the father of a child doesn't automatically mean they should be recognised as such.

It's more complicated than that these days.

[Cosmopoles]

Ok, give me a source of that being legal precedent somewhere in one of those 16 states or puerto rico. That's a big presumption you have there.

I shall use the first state on that list, which is Alaska. Using the state statutes search on that site:

Effect on Parental Rights
Alaska Stat. § 47.10.013

When an infant is surrendered as described in this section, the infant's parent is considered to have abandoned the infant safely, and the parent's legal duty to support the infant is extinguished if the parent, without expressing an intent to return for the infant, leaves the infant in the physical custody of a designated safe haven entity.

If patrnity is not registered at birth, then:

Alternate Means to Establish Paternity
Alaska Stat. § 25.20.050

A child born out of wedlock is legitimated and considered the heir of the putative parent when:

The putative parent subsequently marries the undisputed parent of the child.
For acknowledgments made before July 1, 1997, the putative parent acknowledges, in writing, being a parent of the child.
For acknowledgments made on or after July 1, 1997, the putative father and the mother both sign a form for acknowledging paternity under § 18.50.165.
The putative parent is determined, upon sufficient evidence, by a superior court without a jury or by another tribunal, to be a parent of the child. Acceptable evidence includes:
Evidence that the putative parent's conduct and bearing toward the child, either by word or act, indicates that the child is the child of the putative parent
The results of a genetic test that is of a type generally acknowledged as reliable

A genetic test that establishes a probability of parentage at 95 percent or higher creates a presumption of parentage that may be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence.

Allow him to raise his child? It seems like a really simple concept.

How can the father respond to the notice of an abandoned child if he doesn't know the mother has given birth?

True enough, but we should not allow the mother to irreversibly destroy his legal parenthood while the question is unanswered or in doubt.

I don't believe that you have demonstrated that she can irreversibly destroy his legal parenthood.

[Cosmopoles]

It's more complicated than that these days.

Indeed, but that's a separate issue to father's rights.

[Galloism]

Ok, give me a source of that being legal precedent somewhere in one of those 16 states or puerto rico. That's a big presumption you have there.

I shall use the first state on that list, which is Alaska. Using the state statutes search on that site:

Effect on Parental Rights
Alaska Stat. § 47.10.013

When an infant is surrendered as described in this section, the infant's parent is considered to have abandoned the infant safely, and the parent's legal duty to support the infant is extinguished if the parent, without expressing an intent to return for the infant, leaves the infant in the physical custody of a designated safe haven entity.

If patrnity is not registered at birth, then:

Alternate Means to Establish Paternity
Alaska Stat. § 25.20.050

A child born out of wedlock is legitimated and considered the heir of the putative parent when:

The putative parent subsequently marries the undisputed parent of the child.
For acknowledgments made before July 1, 1997, the putative parent acknowledges, in writing, being a parent of the child.
For acknowledgments made on or after July 1, 1997, the putative father and the mother both sign a form for acknowledging paternity under § 18.50.165.
The putative parent is determined, upon sufficient evidence, by a superior court without a jury or by another tribunal, to be a parent of the child. Acceptable evidence includes:
Evidence that the putative parent's conduct and bearing toward the child, either by word or act, indicates that the child is the child of the putative parent
The results of a genetic test that is of a type generally acknowledged as reliable

A genetic test that establishes a probability of parentage at 95 percent or higher creates a presumption of parentage that may be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence.

You have not demonstrated how the father can recover his rights when they've been considered to have abandoned the infant safely.

I want a case which defines legal precedent. That's what I asked for in the beginning.

Allow him to raise his child? It seems like a really simple concept.

How can the father respond to the notice of an abandoned child if he doesn't know the mother has given birth?

By being informed. 5 states have instituted putative father registries, which allow prospective fathers to put themselves in the database in the event that a child is born to them of which they are unaware. I do not know to what extent they are used, mind you, but the states that have instituted such things have made the effort to find the child's father rather than just throwing their hands up in the air and say "screw it, it's too hard".

For that... well, that's what they should have done.

True enough, but we should not allow the mother to irreversibly destroy his legal parenthood while the question is unanswered or in doubt.

I don't believe that you have demonstrated that she can irreversibly destroy his legal parenthood.

Actually, the link I gave you said that there is no process or allowed procedure for a father to assert his parental rights after the baby has been abandoned, even if he is aware of it, in 16 states plus puerto rico.

You have provided no information that this is incorrect, except by attempting to tie two laws together in Alaska that don't tie.

Let's have a case, or a legal precedent, or something that says that childwelfare.gov is wrong.

[Forsher]

It's more complicated than that these days.

Indeed, but that's a separate issue to father's rights.

But considering that one of the main tenets of your argument is that we know who the mother is obviously...

[Cosmopoles]

You have not demonstrated how the father can recover his rights when they've been considered to have abandoned the infant safely.

I want a case which defines legal precedent. That's what I asked for in the beginning.

There's this case from Utah (one of those 16 states mentioned) where a father was able to regain custody fully 18 months after the child was given up by its mother.

By being informed. 5 states have instituted putative father registries, which allow prospective fathers to put themselves in the database in the event that a child is born to them of which they are unaware. I do not know to what extent they are used, mind you, but the states that have instituted such things have made the effort to find the child's father rather than just throwing their hands up in the air and say "screw it, it's too hard".

For that... well, that's what they should have done.

I'm not arguing that its wrong to try and find the father, so long as a register exists.

Actually, the link I gave you said that there is no process or allowed procedure for a father to assert his parental rights after the baby has been abandoned, even if he is aware of it, in 16 states plus puerto rico.

You have provided no information that this is incorrect, except by attempting to tie two laws together in Alaska that don't tie.

Let's have a case, or a legal precedent, or something that says that childwelfare.gov is wrong.

I'm not saying that childwelfare.gov is wrong, I'm saying that you are interpreting it incorrectly.

[Cosmopoles]

Indeed, but that's a separate issue to father's rights.

But considering that one of the main tenets of your argument is that we know who the mother is obviously...

Its my understanding that where surrogacy is legal, motherhood is established prior to birth.

[Thurask]

If "feminist" means gender equality or thereabouts, then yes. But not if the scissor-happy, anal-retentive or Kickstarter-scamming type of feminist is the one in question.

[Galloism]

You have not demonstrated how the father can recover his rights when they've been considered to have abandoned the infant safely.

I want a case which defines legal precedent. That's what I asked for in the beginning.

There's this case from Utah (one of those 16 states mentioned) where a father was able to regain custody fully 18 months after the child was given up by its mother.

So wait, you have a case that a father was able to reassert his rights after a mother used a safe haven law, by citing a case where a mother used a normal adoption procedure? Your position is that safe haven laws can be overridden by fathers based on a case that has nothing to do with a safe haven law?

Well, I'm convinced.

By being informed. 5 states have instituted putative father registries, which allow prospective fathers to put themselves in the database in the event that a child is born to them of which they are unaware. I do not know to what extent they are used, mind you, but the states that have instituted such things have made the effort to find the child's father rather than just throwing their hands up in the air and say "screw it, it's too hard".

For that... well, that's what they should have done.

I'm not arguing that its wrong to try and find the father, so long as a register exists.

And it should, or something like it.

That is a state run program. If it doesn't exist (or something reasonably comparable), then the safe haven law is clearly sexist and wrong.

Actually, the link I gave you said that there is no process or allowed procedure for a father to assert his parental rights after the baby has been abandoned, even if he is aware of it, in 16 states plus puerto rico.

You have provided no information that this is incorrect, except by attempting to tie two laws together in Alaska that don't tie.

Let's have a case, or a legal precedent, or something that says that childwelfare.gov is wrong.

I'm not saying that childwelfare.gov is wrong, I'm saying that you are interpreting it incorrectly.

Uh huh. You have yet to prove it. You link didn't say what you think it does.

[Tahar Joblis]

There's this case from Utah (one of those 16 states mentioned) where a father was able to regain custody fully 18 months after the child was given up by its mother.

So wait, you have a case that a father was able to reassert his rights after a mother used a safe haven law, by citing a case where a mother used a normal adoption procedure? Your position is that safe haven laws can be overridden by fathers based on a case that has nothing to do with a safe haven law?

On paper, a mother unilaterally giving a child up for adoption, rather than using the safe haven law option, is an open and shut case which should end with the father with:

A. Custody.
B. Child Support.

Should he so desire. The fact that A is extremely rare and A+B even rarer is an indication of how heavily the deck is stacked. The editorial slant of the Huffpo article ["a father she hardly knows"] is evidence that sexist attitudes in society support the de facto legal status quo that upholds the well-being of biological mothers, but regularly tramples on biological fathers.

[Rereumrari]

I'm a man who loves being a man, so I probably wouldnt get in the club.

[Forsher]

But considering that one of the main tenets of your argument is that we know who the mother is obviously...

Its my understanding that where surrogacy is legal, motherhood is established prior to birth.

It's complicated. Here it was, only, well, that wasn't legal there.

It is complicated all the same.

[Cosmopoles]

So wait, you have a case that a father was able to reassert his rights after a mother used a safe haven law, by citing a case where a mother used a normal adoption procedure? Your position is that safe haven laws can be overridden by fathers based on a case that has nothing to do with a safe haven law?

Well, I'm convinced.

I'm demonstrating how the rights of the recognised father can be asserted over the claim of potential or actual adoptive parents, adoption typically being the outcome of relinquishment. Feel free to give me a case where a child was relinquished by the mother and the recognised father was not allowed to take custody of the child.

Uh huh. You have yet to prove it. You link didn't say what you think it does.

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but if the child custody system works as you claim it does, how does giving fathers paper abortion rights somehow improve things for fathers?

[Gravlen]

Uh huh. You have yet to prove it. You link didn't say what you think it does.

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but if the child custody system works as you claim it does, how does giving fathers paper abortion rights somehow improve things for fathers?

How
men doesn't automatically get assigned paternity at birth, and that's unfair
is an argument for
men should be able to unilaterally sever any connections with a child after the child has been born
remains unclear to me.