Forced Fatherhood

[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.

You're talking more about a kid having parental figures in their lives more than you're talking about providing child support.

Not really, the two are inherently linked. Plenty of families stick around because of the cost and reputation associated with going it alone and paying child support. This idea would break that apart and make it cost-free get out of jail card.

You can't force someone to be there for a child if they don't want to. It just won't happen.

No but you can bulldoze their life to the point it becomes their only option.

Though to be absolutely honest, I'd rather see forced abortions in the situation of father not present and single mother is already in poverty. That's unnecessary suffering for the child.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

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

There are three types of rape: forcible rape, date-rape, and statutory rape. Rape is defined as sex without consent. Molestation is a subset of this, but IIRC, is its own crime.

A fully grown, able-bodied, adult male cannot be forcibly raped by a woman if he is conscious. He can be molested and he can be date-raped by sedation through alcohol or roofie-pills, but he cannot be raped in the same sense he can forcibly rape a woman. A woman has neither the physical strength nor the ability (unless sex toys are involved) to penetrate. Forcible rape always requires penetration. A woman cannot pin down a fully grown, able-bodied, adult, male peer and force him to penetrate her.

That is impossible and claiming that it happened is the male equivalent of a woman regretting consensual sex and saying she was raped to get back at the man who was stupid enough to screw her.

[Ostroeuropa]

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

There are three types of rape: forcible rape, date-rape, and statutory rape. Rape is defined as sex without consent. Molestation is a subset of this, but IIRC, is its own crime.

A fully grown, able-bodied, adult male cannot be forcibly raped by a woman if he is conscious. He can be molested and he can be date-raped by sedation through alcohol or roofie-pills, but he cannot be raped in the same sense he can forcibly rape a woman. A woman has neither the physical strength nor the ability (unless sex toys are involved) to penetrate. Forcible rape always requires penetration. A woman cannot pin down a fully grown, able-bodied, adult, male peer and force him to penetrate her.

That is impossible and claiming that it happened is the male equivalent of a woman regretting consensual sex and saying she was raped to get back at the man who was stupid enough to screw her.

This isn't true. For one thing there's the freeze response where they can't do anything at all, for another there's threats of a non-physical nature that can force someone to capitulate, for another there's not physically resisting despite telling someone to stop and being too confused/shocked to physically resist, for another there's not wanting to harm someone (Most rapes occur from someone you know) and all societies constant insistence that harming women is wrong (Because society doesn't portray women in situations like being rapists or abusers these exceptions aren't part of the indoctrination men undergo) which is tantamount to society-wide grooming not to resist in this context which should also be viewed from the lens of keeping the fact men are told they're lucky to be raped by women in mind, as well as the stats showing men have sex they don't want to keep up with the expectations of that grooming culture, there's plenty of examples, including if you go by some definitions contraception sabotage that renders conditional consent invalid.

You're also ignoring armed threats, and rape of restrained captives.

Beyond that, you're overestimating many mens willingness to inflict harm in general, even to attackers. Most people don't fight back in situations like this, male or female. Violence just isn't in most peoples nature. If it's in the nature of the rapist then that's that, and most of the time they won't come up against resistance.

[Ethel mermania]

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

And after reading this thread, that is looking like a better option all the time.

[Ethel mermania]

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?

I think an exemption for a rape victim would be reasonable. However I would require that the rape be reported to the police.

[Kramanica]

You're talking more about a kid having parental figures in their lives more than you're talking about providing child support.

Not really, the two are inherently linked. Plenty of families stick around because of the cost and reputation associated with going it alone and paying child support. This idea would break that apart and make it cost-free get out of jail card.

No. Getting a court order to pay child support won't make someone want to be a parent.

You can't force someone to be there for a child if they don't want to. It just won't happen.

No but you can bulldoze their life to the point it becomes their only option.

Though to be absolutely honest, I'd rather see forced abortions in the situation of father not present and single mother is already in poverty. That's unnecessary suffering for the child.

Forcing child support won't make being in their life their only option.

[Kramanica]

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

There are three types of rape: forcible rape, date-rape, and statutory rape. Rape is defined as sex without consent. Molestation is a subset of this, but IIRC, is its own crime.

A fully grown, able-bodied, adult male cannot be forcibly raped by a woman if he is conscious. He can be molested and he can be date-raped by sedation through alcohol or roofie-pills, but he cannot be raped in the same sense he can forcibly rape a woman. A woman has neither the physical strength nor the ability (unless sex toys are involved) to penetrate. Forcible rape always requires penetration. A woman cannot pin down a fully grown, able-bodied, adult, male peer and force him to penetrate her.

That is impossible and claiming that it happened is the male equivalent of a woman regretting consensual sex and saying she was raped to get back at the man who was stupid enough to screw her.

You are full of shit. Doping someone is forcible rape.

[Ors Might]

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

There are three types of rape: forcible rape, date-rape, and statutory rape. Rape is defined as sex without consent. Molestation is a subset of this, but IIRC, is its own crime.

A fully grown, able-bodied, adult male cannot be forcibly raped by a woman if he is conscious. He can be molested and he can be date-raped by sedation through alcohol or roofie-pills, but he cannot be raped in the same sense he can forcibly rape a woman. A woman has neither the physical strength nor the ability (unless sex toys are involved) to penetrate. Forcible rape always requires penetration. A woman cannot pin down a fully grown, able-bodied, adult, male peer and force him to penetrate her.

That is impossible and claiming that it happened is the male equivalent of a woman regretting consensual sex and saying she was raped to get back at the man who was stupid enough to screw her.

As a short and frankly physically weak male, I couldn’t disagree with you more. There are more than a few women that could manhandle me, though in my case those women tend to be ones I find attractive, and do whatever the hell they want. Me being a male has nothing to do with that.

[Conserative Morality]

Forcing a person into being a parent isn't going to create more responsible parents anyway.
If anything we should build a society where motherhood, especially single motherhood, and also fatherhood and single fatherhood, aren't handicaps for the parents. This means more welfare for parents and minors (which includes job security, affordable daycare and kindergartens 24h 365/365, affordable high-quality education, healthcare and housing).

^this

[Conserative Morality]

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

There are three types of rape: forcible rape, date-rape, and statutory rape. Rape is defined as sex without consent. Molestation is a subset of this, but IIRC, is its own crime.

A fully grown, able-bodied, adult male cannot be forcibly raped by a woman if he is conscious. He can be molested and he can be date-raped by sedation through alcohol or roofie-pills, but he cannot be raped in the same sense he can forcibly rape a woman. A woman has neither the physical strength nor the ability (unless sex toys are involved) to penetrate. Forcible rape always requires penetration. A woman cannot pin down a fully grown, able-bodied, adult, male peer and force him to penetrate her.

That is impossible and claiming that it happened is the male equivalent of a woman regretting consensual sex and saying she was raped to get back at the man who was stupid enough to screw her.

Are you fucking kidding me?

How many women have you known over the course of your life? Or do you only know men who are olympic level athletes?

[Trumptonium]

Not really, the two are inherently linked. Plenty of families stick around because of the cost and reputation associated with going it alone and paying child support. This idea would break that apart and make it cost-free get out of jail card.

No. Getting a court order to pay child support won't make someone want to be a parent.

Nobody cares. That's not the purpose.

Forcing child support won't make being in their life their only option.

It will if it is incredibly damaging to their lifestyle.

[Kramanica]

No. Getting a court order to pay child support won't make someone want to be a parent.

Nobody cares. That's not the purpose.

I said:

You're talking more about a kid having parental figures in their lives more than you're talking about providing child support.

To which you responded:

Not really, the two are inherently linked.

If this isn't backpedaling then I don't know what is.

Forcing child support won't make being in their life their only option.

It will if it is incredibly damaging to their lifestyle.

No, it won't.

[Xeng He]

By shilling for the status quo, you shill for sexism

Yes I am pro sexism. I am pro sexism against men and pro sexism against women. Meanwhile you are in favour of feminism for men and feminism for women.

A drop-off centre is not the same thing. A drop-off centre is a recognition that you are not able to look after a child financially or maternally, so you pass it off for someone else to do: the end result is that the child is supported.

By backing out of your natural obligation to support your own child, youre not allowing the end result to happen. It's not the same thing at all.

Arguably, by backing out of parenting you are allowing the woman to look for a better parent.

[Trumptonium]

It will if it is incredibly damaging to their lifestyle.

No, it won't.

So making a guy's life hell if he won't commit to his spawns will not?

[Senkaku]

is in fact reactionary to suggest.

Has it ever occurred to you that people think this for a reason? When we see men's rights activists primarily defining themselves by an opposition to feminism, rather than a simple commitment to fighting for men's issues alongside women's issues, it comes across as reactionary, especially when we see the topic so frequently broached after incidents like high-profile rapes or sexual assaults against women.

When you define yourself by opposition to something and the things associated with it (in the case of reactionary MRAs, feminism and policies put forward to promote women's rights to varying degrees), you're reacting to it.

[Questers]

Yes I am pro sexism. I am pro sexism against men and pro sexism against women. Meanwhile you are in favour of feminism for men and feminism for women.

A drop-off centre is not the same thing. A drop-off centre is a recognition that you are not able to look after a child financially or maternally, so you pass it off for someone else to do: the end result is that the child is supported.

By backing out of your natural obligation to support your own child, youre not allowing the end result to happen. It's not the same thing at all.

Arguably, by backing out of parenting you are allowing the woman to look for a better parent.

Ok, that's actually kind of woke, and I don't disagree, but in the mean time...

[Wallenburg]

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.

Or, instead of forcing people who are neither knowledgeable nor wealthy nor mature enough to raise a child into the role of a parent, we can provide means for willing parents to support their children, and look to improve our seriously deficient foster care system.

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.

It's delusional to believe that there has ever been a society in which every child grew up in a dual-parent household.

[Kramanica]

No, it won't.

So making a guy's life hell if he won't commit to his spawns will not?

That's not what fucking child support does or is meant to do. It's meant to provide the child with financial assistance. It doesn't require the father to be involved in their life.

[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.

Or, instead of forcing people who are neither knowledgeable nor wealthy nor mature enough to raise a child into the role of a parent, we can provide means for willing parents to support their children, and look to improve our seriously deficient foster care system.

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.

It's delusional to believe that there has ever been a society in which every child grew up in a dual-parent household.

Where did I state either item? If you had read a few posts further in you would see that I support adoption programs for children of apathetic parents. I just said that it was regrettable that so many children who are given up today are done so not because their parents are not capable of taking care of them, but simply because they don't care for them. And of course their has never been a society were every single child had both parents. But certainly there have been societies were the average was higher.

[Ors Might]

is in fact reactionary to suggest.

Has it ever occurred to you that people think this for a reason? When we see men's rights activists primarily defining themselves by an opposition to feminism, rather than a simple commitment to fighting for men's issues alongside women's issues, it comes across as reactionary, especially when we see the topic so frequently broached after incidents like high-profile rapes or sexual assaults against women.

When you define yourself by opposition to something and the things associated with it (in the case of reactionary MRAs, feminism and policies put forward to promote women's rights to varying degrees), you're reacting to it.

Weird, I’m a MRA and I define myself by arguing for better treatment for men within society and an end to discrimination based on sex. The only times I oppose feminism, or rather feminists, is when they’re in opposition to those things.

[Katganistan]

In very few circumstances are guns put to men's heads and they are forced to procreate.

Don't have unprotected sex with anyone. Don't have drunk sex. Or have a vasectomy. That will reduce your chances of being involved in an unexpected pregnancy to nearly nil.

Child support is not for the mother. Child support is, surprisingly enough, to feed, clothe and shelter the result of that pregnancy.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

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.

Generally, no.

[Republic of the Cristo]

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

Generally, no.

So the two aren't comparable.

[Kramanica]

In very few circumstances are guns put to men's heads and they are forced to procreate.

Don't have unprotected sex with anyone. Don't have drunk sex. Or have a vasectomy. That will reduce your chances of being involved in an unexpected pregnancy to nearly nil.

Child support is not for the mother. Child support is, surprisingly enough, to feed, clothe and shelter the result of that pregnancy.

Men can still, as I showed in my OP, be forced to provide child support for children that are not theirs. So I don't see how that helps.

[Conserative Morality]

Generally, no.

So the two aren't comparable.

You aren't understanding the point being made.