It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by rusethorcain
Why do you keep grouping Women with Children?
Children are Minors, Women are grown Adults.
Children should be treated like Children and Women should be treated like Adults.
If Adults cannot function in an environment without feeling inadequate and frightened then they should try functioning in a different environment where they are at ease.
I am a sexist male. I take no great pride in saying this. I am merely stating a fact. It is not that I was born this way; rather, I was born into this male-dominated society, and, consequently, from the very moment I began forming thoughts, they formed in a decidedly male-centered way. My "education" at home with my mother, at school, on my neighborhood playgrounds, and at church all placed males at the center of the universe. My digestion of 1970s American popular culture in the form of television, film, ads, and music only added to my training, so that by as early as age nine or ten I saw females, including my mother, as nothing more than the servants of males.
I simply want society as a whole to acknowledge that women ALSO have a responsibility when it comes to preventing pregnancy.
Originally posted by Jenna
When a woman gets pregnant and didn't want to be, society already views it as her fault because she 'should have been on the pill' or 'shouldn't have spread her legs if she didn't want a baby'. If a woman gets pregnant and isn't married she's called all manner of names and society declares it's all her fault. Women are the only ones seen as having any responsibility when it comes to preventing pregnancy while men aren't expected to do anything more than send money every month if he's not married to the mother of his child. Even in threads like this one you'll find many a poster who sincerely believes that preventing pregnancy is solely the woman's responsibility and that he can be 'trapped' by a woman who lies about being on the pill ignoring the fact that he has options to prevent unwanted pregnancy as well.
Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
I don't know which country you are in but here in the UK you can't simply sign away your parental rights and walk away. I think you'll find women can pretty much cut the father out of the childs life and then demand money and the government will make sure he pays. Worst of all if the father doesn't think he is indeed the father he needs the permission of the mother to get a genetic test. If she doesn't give it he has to go to court and very often they won't grant the test.
Texas
(a) An affidavit for voluntary relinquishment of parental rights must be:
(1) signed after the birth of the child, but not before 48 hours after the birth of the child, by the parent, whether or not a minor, whose parental rights are to be relinquished;
(2) witnessed by two credible persons; and
(3) verified before a person authorized to take oaths.
Indiana
IC 31-35-1-4
Petition; verification and contents
Sec. 4. (a) If requested by the parents:
(1) the county office of family and children; or
(2) a licensed child placing agency;
may sign and file a verified petition with the juvenile or probate court for the voluntary termination of the parent-child relationship.
(b) The petition must:
(1) be entitled "In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of ______________, a child, and _____________, the child's parent (or parents)"; and
(2) allege that:
(A) the parents are the child's natural or adoptive parents;
(B) the parents, including the alleged or adjudicated father if the child was born out of wedlock:
(i) knowingly and voluntarily consent to the termination of the parent-child relationship; or
(ii) are not required to consent to the termination of the parent-child relationship under section 6(c) of this chapter;
(C) termination is in the child's best interest; and
(D) the petitioner has developed a satisfactory plan of care and treatment for the child.
If they are not a part of the decision then what exactly would be the point of hearing the mans opinion? What is there to consider if he can't change the decision?
If the guy doesn't want it he should have the right to sign a piece of paper stating he has no intention of being a part of the childs life. He then gets to walk away. This would be a far more equal system.
Originally posted by Dark Ghost
More double speak from Feminism. "Yes, fathers are important. But the decision is with the woman. The man can comment but it is her choice that counts. What she chooses is all that matters because it is her body. When men can go through 9-months of labour then they can comment. Up until then, they are sperm banks that need to keep their snakes in their cages." (and so on continues the same old recycled garbage).
And what about the sperm? Well, it's only good for establishing when Child Support payments should be made. Otherwise, the man has lost control of his seed and apparently all the rights that come with that seed. Is it really any wonder why less and less men are eager to marry and have kids? The system is set up to screw them either way.
Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Yeah only those women who lie about the pill are often in long term relationships with said man and therefore he trusts her not to lie.
Should he not have the right to forfeit any parental rights and be financially released from his servitude?
You think it's a minor think a man has to have a good chunk of his income taken to pay for a child he never wanted?
Originally posted by Jenna
[And he should be able to trust her not to lie. There are some really awful women out there who'll lie about being on the pill just as there are some really awful men who'll lie and say they've had a vasectomy because they don't want to wear a condom. Liars exist and both men and women should take responsibility for preventing unwanted pregnancy even if their partner is too. No method is 100% foolproof except abstinence and it doesn't hurt to take extra precautions if you don't want children.
Originally posted by Jenna
I covered this in another post directed at you, but I'm pretty sure it hadn't been posted yet when you typed this so I'll leave this alone for now. No sense creating duplicate posts on the same page.
Originally posted by Jenna
No I don't. I've seen some men go broke because of child support and I've seen others lie about their income so they have extra cash for their toys while their kids have to make do on very little. It's wrong either way.
Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Ok so i understand now about your laws in the USa to do with relinquishing rights, does that mean the father would not have to pay for the child? Or can the mother still chase him down and force payments? If the man doesn't have to pay then quite simply i think that's a very good law as it enables men to have more equal rights in the entire situation. Your laws on paternity tests i did know about and are truly more fair. The laws in the UK are disgusting when it comes to paternity.
I agree absolutely a man shouldn't have veto power over a woman and force her into an abortion, that would be utterly disgusting, but tbh a man shouldn't have any say at all in whether a woman has an abortion, none at all.
Thing is that under the law obtaining goods or money by deception is an actual crime, we don't tell the victims of con men/women that it is their fault and they should be responsible for it.
I agree with extra precautions, i intended to get a vasectomy however after discussing it with a doctor there are some rather unpleasant side effects in 70% of cases.
Yeah sorry about that.
Is it? Sorry but if a guy doesn't want the kids and wants absolutely no part of their lives then why would it be wrong for him to lie about his income? The woman chose to have the kids without the man being able to have any say and she knew he would probably try and get out of paying so in the end it's up to the woman.
Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by riley
My point was that if a man takes precautions and they dont work and the woman chooses to keep the child then the man is treated unfairly. The man can be responsible 50/50 for conception but the woman chooses to keep the child and therefore takes the burden of responsibility.
I'm not excusing men who sleep with some random woman and don't use protection, they're morons but even so their choices are only 50/50 at the start, when the woman discovers the pregnancy the responsibility changes.
Originally posted by riley
What.. so you would expect a woman to either go through the trauma of choosing abortion so you can have the choice to walk away.. or take the risk of having the baby where you still might walk away at any time cuz being a daddy is too difficult? Do you really think thats fair? :shk:
Originally posted by riley
Manning up and taking responsibilty for your own offspring is not an unfair obligation.
Originally posted by Jenna
When a parent terminates their parental rights they are relieved of all rights, responsibilities, and obligations as to the child. So the father no longer pays child support and the mother can't legally demand anything of them, but they also no longer have any say in the child's medical care, education, etc., and have no legal right to see the child. It's a trade off really but it's an option for those who don't want to pay child support or be responsible for a child.
Originally posted by Jenna
I think they should at least be able to give their input on it simply because they did help create the fetus in question and it is a huge decision. The only exception I place on that is rape simply because it's none of his business what she chooses to do.
Originally posted by Jenna
But this is a child, not goods or money. The child shouldn't be punished because of the actions of the parents, they're innocent of any wrongdoing. Money from child support isn't supposed to go to the custodial parent, it's for the care of the child. Granted it doesn't always get used that way, but it's supposed to be. If the noncustodial parent, whether it's mom or dad, doesn't want to pay support then they should either seek custody of the child or sign away their rights. Doesn't help in the UK or other countries where they won't let you sign away your rights, I know, but I'm of a mind that maybe those countries should be reconsidering their laws.
Originally posted by Jenna
It can also reverse itself on occasion and some men don't go in for their followups to make sure they're not still capable of impregnating someone. Doctors have also been working on birth control for men, but it's been awhile since I've heard anything about it so I don't think they ever got it working right.
Originally posted by Jenna
Yes it is. In the case of a man going broke over it, it's wrong because he shouldn't be forced into poverty over it. In the case of a man lying about his income so he has extra money for toys, it's wrong because the kids are the ones who suffer for it. If he wants nothing to do with them, then he should sign away his rights if he lives here or come to whatever arrangement the law will allow if he lives elsewhere.
Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Now that right there is a fair and equal law.........................how the hell is that going on in america and not the UK? Men are given more options it seems in various states in the USA.
A man can air his views sure but there should never be any legal ability for a man to influence what a woman does or does not do with her body, the reverse of course should be the same.
Some (note i said some!) women get the child so they can be financially tied to the man, therefore if they lie about the pill to get the child they are undertaking a crime as they are gaining financial rewards by deceit. Their lives will be improved by the financial support, sorry but that's a crime, of course our court systems in the UK won't even dare to say such a thing.
The birth control for men thing is coming along however i utterly dislike the pill for women due to the rather negative effects it can have so i am dubious about a pill for men. An ex of mine took the pill for about 3 months and had to come off it because she suffered terrible depression, to the point of near suicide, soon as she quit she was back to normal, it was pretty scary.
It can also make some women aggressive, now imagine what a male pill might do! Hormones just aren't something that should be messed with. I'm kind of hoping for a better form of vasectomy.
See this is my issue, someone like yourself is offerring a good and sensible option and yet others would think your opinion here is deeply unfair, anti-feminist and a number of other labels i could throw at you.
Originally posted by Jenna
Is it bad that the Incredible Hulk saying "You won't like me when I'm angry!" flashed through my mind?
Originally posted by Jenna
Eh, I'm used to it. I can see the issue from both sides since I deal with it daily, and there are options that would give each side a little of what they want if they'd just compromise. The problem is no one wants to compromise, they want what they want and to heck with everyone else.edit on 2-11-2010 by Jenna because: Forgot a word.
Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Can you imagine the first murder case where a guy says he was influenced by the pill? I've seen guys flip out on steroids so i know that danger.
I haven't agreed with someone this much the entire thread. This is my problem, people won't look at the other side and compromise. To look at something evenly is difficult but whenever someone even dares to tread a middle path or point out any part of the opposing movement that is unfair they are deemed sexist.
This is what prevents the debate, certain people who have an agenda and are basically hiding behind well meaning organisations and labels as a way to avoid criticism of their sexist views.
Originally posted by Jenna
Tell you what some of you guys think a weepy woman is hard to deal with, I'm at a loss when it's a guy unless there's been a loss in the family. I don't know how to fix that. Of course, I don't know how to fix weepy women either but I think you get what I mean.
Originally posted by Jenna
Odd isn't it? Betcha thought we'd disagree more than we have. I try to walk down the middle most of the time because I can usually at least understand where both sides are coming from. People are just too quick to take offense to anything that they don't 100% agree with. It's rather irritating really.
Originally posted by Jenna
In fairness, it happens on both sides. There are some women who truly are man-haters and would love nothing more than for men to be subservient. There are some men who are members of the Heman Woman Haters Club and want to take us back to when women were property. There are also a wide range of people between those two extremes and if you're female you tend to get lumped into the man-haters group even if you don't belong there as evidenced here and in similar threads. The same happens to men, though here it seems to be women who are more often lumped into a group they don't belong to. Or maybe I just notice it more when it's directed at me.