Forced Fatherhood

[Kramanica]

Oh you are both feminists now go be feminist in a room together.

HISSSSSSSSSSS

[Kramanica]

Yes, a man should be able to get an abortion in the same manner a woman can.

That was not the question of the thread, but thanks anyway. I'll abort the food I had last night.

[Edreland]

If a paternity test proves that a man is not the father of a child, but they are still considered to be the "presumed father" under the law and are held to legal obligations because of this, then this is a serious ethical issue. One that is, unfortunately, ignored.

[Ostroeuropa]

Oh you are both feminists now go be feminist in a room together.

I am not a feminist, because I recognize that I have no right to call myself one and enter spaces where men victimized by toxic feminist campaigns and ideas are, and then pretend to care about their feelings or comfort. Because I see the historical gynocentrism of the movement, and the arrogant and sexist conflation they pulled that led them to call themselves an equality movement through total ignorance and hostility to mens issues.
(It's a womens movement + it's an equality movement, because we're feminists and think all that's needed to reach equality is to work on womens issues. In some dictionary definitions they like to throw about, this conflation is still hinted at.)

Feminists who go around calling themselves feminists despite believing in misandry and working on mens issues too are a modern aberration, and are ignoring the hisotrical gynocentrism of the movement and pretending "It's an equality movement" was based on sincere egalitarianism rather than self-centered and hateful gynocentrism that pervades the movements history and actions, such as the duluth model and such. It is of a similar substance to holocaust denial. It was never an equality movement. It was a womens movement that acted like that was all we needed to be an equality movement.

For example, their campaigning on child support. We can lay this injustice against men at their movements door, including the forcing of male rape victims, because they were simply not sincere, and were not concerned with considering how sexism impacts men, nor how their demands would. Even the barest level of effort would have revealed these problems, and yet uniformly, across the world, this oversight was made. Almost like literally noone involved in the lobbying said "What about male rape victims?". Know why? Because their worldview led them to ignore them. It's not like people weren't aware of the possibility. They just never considered them or their needs.

By calling me a feminist, you're ignoring a substantial amount of my criticism of the movement and my practical reasons for avoiding the term.
By calling yourself feminist, if you believe in misandry and mens issues, you're ignoring the history of the movement.

[Ethel mermania]

Yes, a man should be able to get an abortion in the same manner a woman can.

That was not the question of the thread, but thanks anyway. I'll abort the food I had last night.

People are responsible for their mistakes. You get into a car accident even though you didn't mean too, you still pay. Intention has nothing to do with responsibility. Unwilling to take a risk don't play the game.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Oh you are both feminists now go be feminist in a room together.

I am not a feminist, because I recognize that I have no right to call myself one and enter spaces where men victimized by toxic feminist campaigns and ideas are, and then pretend to care about their feelings or comfort. Because I see the historical gynocentrism of the movement, and the arrogant and sexist conflation they pulled that led them to call themselves an equality movement through total ignorance and hostility to mens issues.
(It's a womens movement + it's an equality movement, because we're feminists and think all that's needed to reach equality is to work on womens issues. In some dictionary definitions they like to throw about, this conflation is still hinted at.)

Feminists who go around calling themselves feminists despite believing in misandry and working on mens issues too are a modern aberration, and are ignoring the hisotrical gynocentrism of the movement and pretending "It's an equality movement" was based on sincere egalitarianism rather than self-centered and hateful gynocentrism that pervades the movements history and actions, such as the duluth model and such. It is of a similar substance to holocaust denial. It was never an equality movement. It was a womens movement that acted like that was all we needed to be an equality movement.

By calling me a feminist, you're ignoring a substantial amount of my criticism of the movement and my practical reasons for avoiding the term.

*leans in real close like so i do*







joke

[Ostroeuropa]

I am not a feminist, because I recognize that I have no right to call myself one and enter spaces where men victimized by toxic feminist campaigns and ideas are, and then pretend to care about their feelings or comfort. Because I see the historical gynocentrism of the movement, and the arrogant and sexist conflation they pulled that led them to call themselves an equality movement through total ignorance and hostility to mens issues.
(It's a womens movement + it's an equality movement, because we're feminists and think all that's needed to reach equality is to work on womens issues. In some dictionary definitions they like to throw about, this conflation is still hinted at.)

Feminists who go around calling themselves feminists despite believing in misandry and working on mens issues too are a modern aberration, and are ignoring the hisotrical gynocentrism of the movement and pretending "It's an equality movement" was based on sincere egalitarianism rather than self-centered and hateful gynocentrism that pervades the movements history and actions, such as the duluth model and such. It is of a similar substance to holocaust denial. It was never an equality movement. It was a womens movement that acted like that was all we needed to be an equality movement.

By calling me a feminist, you're ignoring a substantial amount of my criticism of the movement and my practical reasons for avoiding the term.

*leans in real close like so i do*







joke

Mostly just addressing the point others made.
Mostly.

[Chestaan]

That was not the question of the thread, but thanks anyway. I'll abort the food I had last night.

People are responsible for their mistakes. You get into a car accident even though you didn't mean too, you still pay. Intention has nothing to do with responsibility. Unwilling to take a risk don't play the game.

So then women should not be allowed to give up their children after birth?

[Kramanica]

That was not the question of the thread, but thanks anyway. I'll abort the food I had last night.

People are responsible for their mistakes. You get into a car accident even though you didn't mean too, you still pay. Intention has nothing to do with responsibility. Unwilling to take a risk don't play the game.

Would you apply the same standard to a woman who wants to have an abortion because she doesn't want to be a parent?

[Ethel mermania]

People are responsible for their mistakes. You get into a car accident even though you didn't mean too, you still pay. Intention has nothing to do with responsibility. Unwilling to take a risk don't play the game.

Would you apply the same standard to a woman who wants to have an abortion because she doesn't want to be a parent?

I am anti-abortion, so sure.

[Ethel mermania]

People are responsible for their mistakes. You get into a car accident even though you didn't mean too, you still pay. Intention has nothing to do with responsibility. Unwilling to take a risk don't play the game.

So then women should not be allowed to give up their children after birth?

A kid should not be put up for adoption without both parents consent. If the father decides to keep the child the mother should be forced to pay child support.

[Chestaan]

So then women should not be allowed to give up their children after birth?

A kid should not be put up for adoption without both parents consent. If the father decides to keep the child the mother should be forced to pay child support.

That sounds pretty reasonable to me. I wonder are there many cases where women at the moment pay child support to a father?

[Republic of the Cristo]

People these days expect to be able to act as they please and face no consequences. If you really, really don't want to be a father, there is a very easy way to avoid impregnating women. If you choose to take the risk of conceiving a child, then you should be prepared to deal with the consequences; you don't get to abandon a woman to deal with them alone.

No one should be able to "opt out" of raising a child they conceive just like that. The modern cult of convenience should be thoroughly dismantled, and people forced to accept responsibility for the decisions they make.

We should get rid of ambulances too. Bloody cult of convenience. People these days, think they can just go and fall off a ladder and expect someone else to carry them to a place of treatment. Enough of that. You drag yourself into hospital. Actually, don't bother with hospitals. Blooming cult of convenience, they are. Stitch yourself back together.

You don't abandon a child when you fall off a ladder.

[Republic of the Cristo]

Is this really the point to which we have come? What is considered here are simply the feelings of the father, a fully grown and presumably independent adult - not the needs of the child. Some might find it regrettable that the father be forced to take care of their child's financial needs ( such a thought being regrettable seems despicable to me, but that's the society we live in now ) but it would be far more regrettable that a child, completely helpless and not at all responsible for their situation, should go impoverished. I don't like it much either - I would prefer that ever child get two parents in their lives, but that's not the society we live in anymore.

Would you support the repeal of drop off centers that allow women to abandon children at firestations, hospitals etc, when they don't want them?
Bare in mind this was passed specifically because women were murdering their unwanted and born children at rates that made it seem like a preferable option.

Would you support jailing women who refuse to name the father because they're denying the child the resources to which it is apparently entitled?

Would you support repealing social infrastructure measures relating to womens reproductive biology like maternity leave and such?

I do support off centers - but I deplore that they must exist. That a child should be given away from it's parents is almost always a shame ( unless of course the parents were simply unfit ). Though certainly there are many cases were adoption and giving these children away is the far better option, many children are given away simply because of apathetic parents. The people who brought you into the world not really caring about you. I support measures to protect children from these apathetic parents - though I do find the whole matter regrettable.

[Questers]

You're more of a feminist than I am, questers.

No.

[Bienenhalde]

Well, what's the alternative? Abstinence from the day you hit puberty until the day you can afford children? You do realize you're talking more than a decade on average, right?

Well, that is a responsible decision to make, and I would absolutely support it.

[Bienenhalde]

So what is the point of making a man a father who can't afford to support his child and doesn't want to? What is the point?

If a man conceives a child, it is his duty and obligation to support that child. If he does not want that obligation he should not be having unprotected sex.

[Questers]

So what is the point of making a man a father who can't afford to support his child and doesn't want to? What is the point?

Since you still haven't figured it out:

You don't "make a man a father." A father is the male parent of a child. The mother is a female parent of a child. Creating a child makes you automatically the father and that is not a relationship that can ever be abrogated (although it can be substituted for another man, for all intents and purposes) since it's a direct biological link.

I don't make people fathers. People make themselves fathers by having children. It's their responsibility to carry out the obligation imposed on them. If they don't, they should be punished.

[Kramanica]

So what is the point of making a man a father who can't afford to support his child and doesn't want to? What is the point?

Since you still haven't figured it out:

You don't "make a man a father." A father is the male parent of a child. The mother is a female parent of a child. Creating a child makes you automatically the father and that is not a relationship that can ever be abrogated (although it can be substituted for another man, for all intents and purposes) since it's a direct biological link.

I don't make people fathers. People make themselves fathers by having children. It's their responsibility to carry out the obligation imposed on them. If they don't, they should be punished.

Biology and legality are two different things. I'm talking about the process of forcing people into becoming the legal parent of a child that they didn't plan on having and had by accident. And I don't think people should be forced into such a predicament.

[Sicaris]

Well I mean, Uruk-Hai hordes would help Lord Sauron...

[TURTLESHROOM II]

If a man conceives a child, it is his duty and obligation to support that child. If he does not want that obligation he should not be having unprotected sex.

For the purpose of my argument, all examples and scenarios I provide below assume that the sex that conceived a child is consensual.

I am strongly in favor of enforced fatherhood. If you don't want to pay for the child, keep it in your daggum pants. You reap what you sew. Neither motherhood nor fatherhood should be an option: if you conceive a child, the child takes precedence over you because it is innocent cannot defend itself. If you don't want to risk having a child, do not have sex. Period.
(Now, I fully agree that you should only be compelled to pay for the child if the child is your biological offspring. That there are cases where this happened when they were not the father is absolutely nuts.)

Abortion should only be lawful in the case of rape or the mother's life being in danger. Our society is too selfish to care about anyone but themselves: they kill the child for the sake of being "inconvenient". I will make one concession, though: I support the existence of contraceptives because they are the number one preventing factor of abortion. You can't murder a fetus that is never conceived, and I will always take a world of easy sex and the aura of invincibility that contraceptives bring over murder.


If you want to talk about problems facing men, tackle a bigger one. Right now, it is possible that an adulterous wife gets the better half of a divorce, and the kids, and forces the failthful ex-husband to pay for her. That is an abomination. In all cases of divorce-with-fault, except in extenuating circumstances where it is proven the unfaithful party would be superior, the faithful spouse should have first choice in all proceeds, all custody, and all reparations. Furthermore, adulterous parties should be required, without exception and in all circumstances, to pay alimony to the faithful party.

If you want to tackle societal double standards and legal cruelty against men, start by ending the reward system for unfaithful women and give the faithful partner preference in a divorce-with-fault. (On that note, end no-fault divorce. A divorce should need a valid reason, like desertion, adultery, drunkeness, abuse, neglect, and so on. The Bible calls it "marital unfaithfulness".)

[Kramanica]

So what is the point of making a man a father who can't afford to support his child and doesn't want to? What is the point?

If a man conceives a child, it is his duty and obligation to support that child. If he does not want that obligation he should not be having unprotected sex.

Having a child can happen even if you do have unprotected sex.

And what if a man is raped and the woman who raped him ends up having a child?

[Trumptonium]

Yes and no.

It's immoral but necessary. Single-parent families tend to result in lack of educational attainment and perpetuation of poverty, while growing up in care homes tends to result in crime or suicide.

The breaking of the two-parent nuclear family is the single largest cause of underattainment and poverty in the modern world and the last thing we should be doing is moving away from that.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

Well, what's the alternative? Abstinence from the day you hit puberty until the day you can afford children? You do realize you're talking more than a decade on average, right?

Well, that is a responsible decision to make, and I would absolutely support it.

What bothers me about this is that it insinuates that people can't abstain from sex until marriage and/or until they can afford children. It's not a matter of can't: it's a matter ofwon't.

Abstinence until marriage is one hundred percent effective in preventing all unwanted pregnancies, all sexually transmitted diseases, and all unwanted consequences of sexual intercourse, without fail. The fact that people do not have the discipline to control their bodies and restrain their libido until the time is right is one of the greatest ills that infects a First World society. People simply refuse to keep it in their pants or keep their legs closed, and then they wail and moan when there are (GASP!) CONSEQUENCES FOR THEIR ACTIONS.

If you can't feed your baby, then don't have a baby. -and if you can't feed the baby, then don't have a baby.

[Kramanica]

Yes and no.

It's immoral but necessary. Single-parent families tend to result in lack of educational attainment and perpetuation of poverty, while growing up in care homes tends to result in crime or suicide.

The breaking of the two-parent nuclear family is the single largest cause of underattainment and poverty in the modern world and the last thing we should be doing is moving away from that.

You're talking more about a kid having parental figures in their lives more than you're talking about providing child support. You can't force someone to be there for a child if they don't want to. It just won't happen.