Forced Fatherhood

[Questers]

We need to re-evaluate the whole damn system.

Sure.

But most of the problems you're describing are related to liberalism.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

We need to re-evaluate the whole damn system.

Sure.

But most of the problems you're describing are related to liberalism.

How so?

[Chestaan]

Foster parents get paid money to look after kids. Also not all kids can get fostered.

Mmm.

There are obviously some necessary public costs for making sure there are no legions of abandoned children running around. I am not talking about abandoning all public support for children. I'm only saying that absolving fathers from mandatory duty to children and replacing it with community-funded family support is a suboptimal choice (which it is in most cases, and in the cases it isn't then it shouldn't be done.)

Your opposition to fathers abandoning their kids is based on the fact that the state will then have to foot the bill. If mothers abandon their children then the state will also have to foot the bill. Hence, the only consistent positions are that neither parent can abandon their child, because the cost to the state is too high, or that both parents are given the same opportunity to abandon their child.

[Questers]

I don't understand how to explain this to someone who does not understand opportunity cost.

Don't be ridiculous. The issue isn't that we don't understand opportunity cost. The issue is that men who were considering being fathers (hence not getting a vasectomy) are going to have their careers wrecked by these child support bills, harming not just themselves, but everybody else as well.

No-one's career is getting wrecked by child support bills.

You are just shifting the cost onto people who are responsible to the public.

Neither option is really perfect, but that's because our form of social organisation pushes people into anti-perfect outcomes.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

There are obviously some necessary public costs for making sure there are no legions of abandoned children running around.

Theoretically, you could avoid this almost as effectively by requiring paternity testing at birth, and making child support mandatory after the second child instead of the first. I doubt many fathers who impregnated one woman during college are going to risk impregnating another before they graduate.

[Durzan]

I am against forcing men into the roles of being a father. Equal rights between the Sexes is something I wholeheartedly support.

With that being said, a man should also have some legal say over the fate of a fetus (as well as the woman), as his DNA was used in the formation of said fetus, alongside the Woman's. While the Woman carries the fetus, it takes two to tango, so to speak. That potential child is just as much his child as it is hers, and while she may or may not care about its fate, the man might care about is as much or more as she potentially could.

Besides, Childbearing is a complicated issue, and one person's mind can change. I know several parents who had an unplanned child and would've had an abortion or put them up for adoption, only for them to change their mind and never regret the decision to have the child.

Therefore, any decision regarding care of the child should require joint consent of the parents by default, with a few legal accommodations for situations where joint consent is not probable, viable, or desirable (Think absentee father, rape victims, etc).

If the child is birthed successfully, and the parents have separate custody, then whoever will have primary custody of the child should receive child support from the other. However, as stated previously, there should be an opt out option.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

No-one's career is getting wrecked by child support bills.

O RLY?

You are just shifting the cost onto people who are responsible to the public.

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?

Neither option is really perfect, but that's because our form of social organisation pushes people into anti-perfect outcomes.

What's that supposed to mean?

[Questers]

Mmm.

There are obviously some necessary public costs for making sure there are no legions of abandoned children running around. I am not talking about abandoning all public support for children. I'm only saying that absolving fathers from mandatory duty to children and replacing it with community-funded family support is a suboptimal choice (which it is in most cases, and in the cases it isn't then it shouldn't be done.)

Your opposition to fathers abandoning their kids is based on the fact that the state will then have to foot the bill. If mothers abandon their children then the state will also have to foot the bill. Hence, the only consistent positions are that neither parent can abandon their child, because the cost to the state is too high, or that both parents are given the same opportunity to abandon their child.

Hmm.

If someone is abandoning their child to foster care that's overwhelmingly because they're simply unable to care for them. Yes, it's unfortunate. Yes, it should be punished. But it would have happened anyway, just later on, when social security come round and take the baby because it's covered in poo or hasn't eaten in eight days or something. It's just not the same thing as a father deciding he doesn't want to pay any bills.

Also yes if anyone is goign to mention mothers who walk out and fathers who stay I am in favour of punishing the former. but I shouldn't try to up my egalitarian views too much: I am, in fact, a sexist.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Don't be ridiculous. The issue isn't that we don't understand opportunity cost. The issue is that men who were considering being fathers (hence not getting a vasectomy) are going to have their careers wrecked by these child support bills, harming not just themselves, but everybody else as well.

No-one's career is getting wrecked by child support bills.

You are just shifting the cost onto people who are responsible to the public.

Neither option is really perfect, but that's because our form of social organisation pushes people into anti-perfect outcomes.

At forty years old, my uncle had to move back in with his parents because his wife, who was the breadwinner of his family, won like 60% of his income in child support.

[Questers]

O RLY? The tools are bad. Im not saying they don't need to be reformed.

Anyway prison in America for blacks is modern plantation slavery. It's heavily focused around that. I'd like to see some figures in the UK.

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?

It's really NOT hard to not have a child.

Women can take protection that is almost 100% functional. They're only fertile for about one quarter or one third of the time anyway.

Neither option is really perfect, but that's because our form of social organisation pushes people into anti-perfect outcomes

So here's the real problem, and I will try to be concise.

To unintentionally have a child when you can't afford it you basically have to be dumb, or at least bottom half of the population intelligence-level. Many, many people have active sex lives for years and don't have children by taking proper precautions. Our system allows dumb people to make whatever mistakes they want and then it imposes rules on everyone else to clean it up and live with the consequences. I propose a system which does not allow people to make mistakes but instead pushes them in the proper direction, strictly and rigorously.

[Ostroeuropa]

Don't be ridiculous. The issue isn't that we don't understand opportunity cost. The issue is that men who were considering being fathers (hence not getting a vasectomy) are going to have their careers wrecked by these child support bills, harming not just themselves, but everybody else as well.

No-one's career is getting wrecked by child support bills.

You are just shifting the cost onto people who are responsible to the public.

Neither option is really perfect, but that's because our form of social organisation pushes people into anti-perfect outcomes.

Failure to pay results in prison, and in some cases the system has refused to take into account changing circumstances and places the burden on the man to prove they can't afford them, often involving challenging in court. (Something people strapped for cash can't really do.)

A man who worked at mcdonalds and was forced to pay may struggle to be able to go to university, both because it's harder to save up, and because the system is often hostile to a man "Giving up" his income in this manner when he "Owes it" to the child.

Men who become unemployed or are fired can also face prison unless they can prove they didn't do it on purpose, which for "fired" is basically impossible.
This puts a massive amount of power in the hands of their bosses too.

[Questers]

No-one's career is getting wrecked by child support bills.

You are just shifting the cost onto people who are responsible to the public.

Neither option is really perfect, but that's because our form of social organisation pushes people into anti-perfect outcomes.

At forty years old, my uncle had to move back in with his parents because his wife, who was the breadwinner of his family, won like 60% of his income in child support.

I think it's more fucked up in America than in Britain. I have also read some bad stories.

But my general position will not be swayed by anecdotal examples of some injustice here or there.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

So here's the real problem, and I will try to be concise.

"Concise" doesn't mean "true." Condoms break, slip off, or overflow. Birth control fails. Shit happens.

And yet, the vast majority of voters, who have unflinchingly protected women's right to abort when this happens, somehow cannot bring themselves to find a way to prevent men from being trapped in a vicious cycle of poverty that harms everyone else in the process when this happens.

Our system allows dumb people to make whatever mistakes they want and then it imposes rules on everyone else to clean it up and live with the consequences. I propose a system which does not allow people to make mistakes but instead pushes them in the proper direction, strictly and rigorously.

Then how do you propose someone who made the same mistake everyone else with an active sex life could have made if circumstances were the slightest bit different?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

At forty years old, my uncle had to move back in with his parents because his wife, who was the breadwinner of his family, won like 60% of his income in child support.

I think it's more fucked up in America than in Britain. I have also read some bad stories.

But my general position will not be swayed by anecdotal examples of some injustice here or there.

Take the notion of anecdotes out of your mind for a minute. What of the actual article I linked to just a few posts ago?

[Questers]

I think it's more fucked up in America than in Britain. I have also read some bad stories.

But my general position will not be swayed by anecdotal examples of some injustice here or there.

Take the notion of anecdotes out of your mind for a minute. What of the actual article I linked to just a few posts ago?

Yes I agree it's dumb to make unemployed men play child support. It in no way leads me to conclude fatherhood should be optional, because I am not a feminist.

[Kramanica]

Take the notion of anecdotes out of your mind for a minute. What of the actual article I linked to just a few posts ago?

Yes I agree it's dumb to make unemployed men play child support. It in no way leads me to conclude fatherhood should be optional, because I am not a feminist.

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?

[Kramanica]

Take the notion of anecdotes out of your mind for a minute. What of the actual article I linked to just a few posts ago?

Yes I agree it's dumb to make unemployed men play child support. It in no way leads me to conclude fatherhood should be optional, because I am not a feminist.

And enough of this feminist shit. I sincerely doubt optional fatherhood is something most feminists would advocate for.

[Questers]

"Concise" doesn't mean "true." Condoms break, slip off, or overflow. Birth control fails. Shit happens.

And yet, the vast majority of voters, who have unflinchingly protected women's right to abort when this happens, somehow cannot bring themselves to find a way to prevent men from being trapped in a vicious cycle of poverty that harms everyone else in the process when this happens.

Concision with qualification is always better than writing out huge walls of text.

Honestly, shit doesn't happen. Even amongst children (16-19) the vast majority of pregnancies are planned. And even when shit does happen, it can also happen to people who are in a position to accept it and even think it's a good thing. The idea that there's a big number of people who take all precautions but end up saddled with a kid the dad doesn't want so he ends up having to pay out of his nose for it is just false. In Britain, anyway - I don't know about other countries.

Voters are stupid. Are you surprised?

Our system allows dumb people to make whatever mistakes they want and then it imposes rules on everyone else to clean it up and live with the consequences. I propose a system which does not allow people to make mistakes but instead pushes them in the proper direction, strictly and rigorously.

Then how do you propose someone who made the same mistake everyone else with an active sex life could have made if circumstances were the slightest bit different?[/quote] sorry, what?

[Questers]

Yes I agree it's dumb to make unemployed men play child support. It in no way leads me to conclude fatherhood should be optional, because I am not a feminist.

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?

Oh, modernity, what have you spawned.

[Questers]

Yes I agree it's dumb to make unemployed men play child support. It in no way leads me to conclude fatherhood should be optional, because I am not a feminist.

And enough of this feminist shit. I sincerely doubt optional fatherhood is something most feminists would advocate for.

Meninism takes the methodology and premise of feminism and takes a different conclusion.

I have to say, if you agree with the premise, meninism may be closer to the right conclusion than feminism: at least it's more fair. The problem is the feminist methodology and premise is just civilisation-destroying garbage.

[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?

Oh, modernity, what have you spawned.

Wouldn't kill you to actually answer the question.

[Ostroeuropa]

And enough of this feminist shit. I sincerely doubt optional fatherhood is something most feminists would advocate for.

Meninism takes the methodology and premise of feminism and takes a different conclusion.

I have to say, if you agree with the premise, meninism may be closer to the right conclusion than feminism: at least it's more fair. The problem is the feminist methodology and premise is just civilisation-destroying garbage.

Meninism is a parody of feminism that does that, and consequently produces sexist results. It takes the framework of feminism and flips it to show how it would disadvantage women to act that way.

The MRM is not meninist, it is a non-ideological issues based movement. There is a proto-ideology there, but it is explicitly not feminist, in that it rejects the notion of a panacea resulting from one genders viewpoint being asserted as fact on the nature of sexism.

*shrug*
Destroy civilization, build a new one. We're a resilient and adaptable species. The problem with feminism isn't that it wrecks shit, it's that it's a supremacist and self-centered viewpoint that disadvantages half the population and does not utilize them to their fullest, keeping them, their desires, their interests, subject to womens, and leaves them in a perpetual state of being demonized and denied protection from female abusers, rapists, etc.
That demonization and casting men as superfluous or useless or dangerous also has effects on the family unit and stable families, as well as male role models and such.

The problem with feminism isn't that it destroys traditionalism. It's that it replaces it with a toxic and repugnant status quo that results in a dysfunctional society and social stratification. The notion that feminism destroying traditionalism is a bad thing is based on the same one dimensional view of sexism that many feminists use.

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

[The Huskar Social Union]

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

[Ethel mermania]

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

[Ifreann]

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

lewd