Get PJ Media on your Apple

Dr. Helen

July 9th, 2013 - 12:30 pm

Neo-Neocon: Should men* be allowed to opt out of child support?:

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
I'll take Ms. neo-neocon at her word when she insists (as she does in her comments) that what she's writing isn't an advocacy piece, but an honest reflection on the notion of parity in male and female reproductive rights. But, even if that's true, it makes the blind spots in her analysis all the more striking in the extent that they assume female supremacy.

She assumes women's greater authority in the decision to have or not have children is an inherent state of nature, a "sad fact of life", rather than what it is - a particular political and legal order that assigns women decision making power and men responsibility for those decisions.

In questioning whether a father could force a mother to carry a pregnancy to term or have an abortion, she insists that the outcome would be "terrible" and ceases the line of inquiry there. Yet, she offers no such inquiry-breaking claim with regard to the consequences of having a man held responsible for said child despite his wishes.

She argues that society has an interest in holding fathers responsible for the financial cost of the child, yet evades the very possibility of holding mothers responsible for this cost.

She draws the example of married men "opting out" of child support (odd in that the simple solution of making opt out cease at the time of birth is overlooked) but gives no consideration to the fact that married women have precisely this recourse under the claim of her body, her choice.

She claims that drawing a distinction between married and unmarried men would disincentivize marriage, yet even after recognizing the host of other marriage disincentives for men, her only answer is to disincentivize non-marriage for men, rather than remove the disincentives.

In the name of "simplifying things" she totally dismisses all of the considerations that paternity fraud raise for her discussion.

I'm not trying to "trash" neo-neocon. But, her "facts of life" inevitably seem to boil down to the supremacy of women's interests and dismissal of the man's.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (15)
All Comments   (15)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
In response to TheMooCow, when I said child, I meant child, which assumes birth. A fetus is not a child until birth.

In this culture, under this legal system, men have no reproductive rights. It is solely up to the woman whether she wants to bear a child.

I'm simply saying that men have a responsibility to support every child they conceive. If he doesn't want that responsibility, well then he shouldn't have conceived that child. But since he did, he's on the hook.

Sperm is money. Be careful where you deposit it, boys. Because if a child is the result, you're out 20% of every paycheck for 18 years. That's a high price to pay for a fling.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Since it is the law that determines who pays child support, the discussion is strictly academic or moot. What obligation does any biological or legal parent owe a child? Is that the question? If the child is born out of wedlock, it should not be the biological father's obligation to provide anything for either the child or his mother. The woman has all the power in any sexual relationship. As we are reminded by the feminists, "It is the woman's body." The child born within a marriage, assuming that the father is the child's biological father, should be supported by the father, unless the mother decides to end the marriage. If the child stays with the father, which what should happen, the father is obligated to support the child. If the child goes with his mother, the child is on his own. Any woman that divorces her husband is owed nothing by her former husband.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
As a male single parent, who's owed $20k in back child support, I've got a pretty cynical view of women, feminism, and family law.

Federal OCSE is a scheme to reward State Attorneys General to for things that happen without their involvement, and present a OxygenTV ready horror stories about deadbeat dads for public consumption. The ugly reality is that has created a conflict of interest that makes the 'problem' worse.

We have a problem with single moms because we pay women to be single moms. We have a high divorce rate and 85% of the time custody goes to women because we pay for that outcome.

Every rabid feminist who yells "my body my choice you patriarchal bastard!" and "babies are not punishment for sex" will immediately turn around and state that yes, babies are just punishment for men having sex. They'll demand every form of birth control at public expense, including abortion, and then pontificate that reliable male birth control will make men even more irresponsible, and must be quashed.

And, likely, give a wink and a nod to the gross disregard that women have for men's 'contribution' to the informed consent when women unilaterally decide to stop taking birth control.

Men must register for putative father registries, but imagine the hue and cry should someone demand women disclose their sexual partners to the state. Women can decide after years of no contact that they suddenly desire child support, and a man must pay retroactive support, regardless of weather or not he has obligations to another family.

At every turn, "whatever the hell she wants, whenever the hell she wants it, and forget what ever the hell she said yesterday" trumps every other party, including the children, the father, her husband, and taxpayers who keep their dick in their pants.

Its high time that unilateral tyranny stopped, and that women are held to the financial costs of their own reproductive and medical decisions.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Bingo Gretz. I'm in the same situation, chained to the same state that reallocates my resources for my kids.

My question is this:

Why are we not advocating / demanding that men have the same choice in reproductive rights? Why are we not demanding from Big Pharma an effective form of birth control (other than condoms) for men?

Think about how different our son's worlds would be if we were able to do that.

50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Should men be allowed to opt out of child support?"
Ha. Should men be allowed...?
Should we be allowed?

Men are pigs. Cut their "allowance."
Nothing to see here. Move along.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I'll take Ms. neo-neocon at her word when she insists (as she does in her comments) that what she's writing isn't an advocacy piece, but an honest reflection on the notion of parity in male and female reproductive rights. But, even if that's true, it makes the blind spots in her analysis all the more striking in the extent that they assume female supremacy.

She assumes women's greater authority in the decision to have or not have children is an inherent state of nature, a "sad fact of life", rather than what it is - a particular political and legal order that assigns women decision making power and men responsibility for those decisions.

In questioning whether a father could force a mother to carry a pregnancy to term or have an abortion, she insists that the outcome would be "terrible" and ceases the line of inquiry there. Yet, she offers no such inquiry-breaking claim with regard to the consequences of having a man held responsible for said child despite his wishes.

She argues that society has an interest in holding fathers responsible for the financial cost of the child, yet evades the very possibility of holding mothers responsible for this cost.

She draws the example of married men "opting out" of child support (odd in that the simple solution of making opt out cease at the time of birth is overlooked) but gives no consideration to the fact that married women have precisely this recourse under the claim of her body, her choice.

She claims that drawing a distinction between married and unmarried men would disincentivize marriage, yet even after recognizing the host of other marriage disincentives for men, her only answer is to disincentivize non-marriage for men, rather than remove the disincentives.

In the name of "simplifying things" she totally dismisses all of the considerations that paternity fraud raise for her discussion.

I'm not trying to "trash" neo-neocon. But, her "facts of life" inevitably seem to boil down to the supremacy of women's interests and dismissal of the man's.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
And the irony is that she probably thinks of herself as a wonderfully caring and giving person who only wants the best for others, including men.

"Humans aren't a rational species, we're a rationalizing species."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
My thought, voiced elsewhere but inevitably ignored: First, if we want to claim that child support is for the benefit of the child, then the amount has to be determined by a more-or-less fixed, sufficient level across all cases, not to be capriciously raised if the father happens to have more income. Second, if the father is forced to pay this amount, then the mother should be forced to repay it after the child is grown, with all the same force of law -- garnishing wages, threat of jail. Fair?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I like the way Illinois does it (as I understand it from my friends who have to deal with it). Child support is automatically 20% of your income. If your income goes up, so does child support. If your income goes down, so does child support. Adjustments still require a court order, but I'm told it's much easier than under other systems. It's basic math, so you're just asking the court to verify your math.

No comment on the actual percentage, I'm just saying I like the way it's an absolute percent of your income. If you make zero, you pay zero.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Probably not exactly fair. It strikes me that the proper repayment would be half of the cost of the child less the value of the mother's labor plus the value of the father's labor.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
No, I don't think men should be allowed to opt out of paying child support for any and every child they conceive. He wanted to have sex and a child was the result. If he didn't want the responsibility of paying child support, he shouldn't have had sex in the first place. This rule applies only to biological fathers.

The real problem is with presumptive paternity. Once married, a woman can cuckold a man and legally forced him to pay for as many children she wants, even if none of them are his. There are literally millions of men in this country paying court sanctioned child support for children they did not conceive. That is the essence of inequality and the central problem with the marriage contract.

There is no remedy for this, other than changing the law. Determinitive paternity--a mandatory paternity test after every birth to determine the biological father, and he should be legally forced to pay child support. The betraved husband should also be able to sue him and her for destroying his marriage.

But I seriously doubt you could pass a law like that, because a majority of women would not vote for it. 1/3 of the paternity performed in this country prove the husband is not the father of the child, and that's only for the married men who were smart enough to ask for a paternity test. We really have no way of knowing how many women have cuckolded their husbands, but I would suspect it's in the tens of millions. So this is a widespread problem.

There's an old Jewish saying. You always know who the mother is. You never know who the father is. This has been going on for millennia, and it's way past time to put an end to it.

We can debate abortion, divorce law, family courts, parental rigts, visitation rights, and the whole littany of abuses men must suffer in this culture and legal system till we're blue in the face. But we would be missing the point. For a long as presumptive paternity remains the law of the land, marriage is not an option for a man.

Women are not going to give up their perceived right to have sex with whomever they want. A husband and wife have an argument. She gets upset and goes down to a bar and gets knocked up by a boy. Now she has her revenge, because she has guaranteed child support. She doesn't even care if her husband knows the child is his or not. There is absoulutely nothing he can do about it. The majority of women are not about to give up that kind of power.

In any organized men's movement, changing the law from presumptive paternity to determinitive paternity should be the priority. Everything else will fall into place after that.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
<>

No, a fetus was the result. The woman can choose to have an abortion. If she chooses not to on religious grounds, that's her choice. The government has no right to force her religion on me. My religion has no problem killing children. Actually, my religion has no problem killing anyone who isn't me, but that's not the point.

Now, if society chooses to outlaw all abortion, regardless of reason for conception or mother's health, then we can talk about a moral position where the man is responsible for child support. As long as the choice to carry the child to term rests with the mother, so does the entirety of the financial burden. As some wise men once said, "No Taxation without Representation."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1) This woman needs to take a tip from William Strunk Jr. and learn to 'omit needless words'. My God she blathers on.

2) The answer to the question is 'yes'. Women have babies, they should be responsible for them. The dirty little secret of American life? Men aren't really part of the family. They are just part of an income redistribution scheme.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
In any situation where the woman is legally allowed to have an abortion without consulting the sperm donor, yes, that man should be able to allowed to opt out. Furthermore, if she is able to have the abortion in secret, the fact that he opted out should also be confidential, unless he allows its disclosure. A couple points, saying that out loud to women is guaranteed to elicit a self-righteous, hypocritical and hysterical response, take my word on this. Second, if my proposal were the law of the land, how long do you think it would be before the SCOTUS made up some reason to change Roe v Wade?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Women's Rights: FULL SPEED AHEAD AND DAMN THE TORPEDOES!!!!11!11!!1!1

Men's Rights: Whoa, whoa, let's consider the unintended consequences...
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All