Deadbeat Dads

[Mr. Skittles]

So when you write long responses it's fine, but when I make a long response to you (shorter than what you wrote fwiw) I'm being an emotional block paragraph writing blogger? :sarcastic Whatever. And again, I haven't gotten "emotional" throughout this whole thing. Unless you count shaking my head, rolling my eyes, and the occasional chuckle as getting "emotional". I don't know. You know us women-folk so much better than me I guess. Our "emotions" getting the better of us and all.

Like I said nothing much to read. Your the one firing shots. I don't need to write a dissertation to respond to someone. What have you said that is relevant? Absolutely nothing. I await for your dissertation like response.

 

[Debater Slayer]

So, in other words (said in the most stoic way I can manage)....

If a woman is behaving badly toward a man, he is being victimized and women should know better than to treat a man like crap. Hence, it's her fault.

If a man is behaving badly toward a woman, she isn't being victimized and should know better than to date bad men. Hence, it's her fault.

Gotcha.

QED: If a woman is behaving badly toward a woman, they both aren't being victimized and should know better than to treat a man like crap.

My.Logic.Rocks.So.Much. :faint:

 

[Mr. Skittles]

Mr. Skittles, you began a thread that focused on a particular podcast with the subject of "deadbeat dads." It was a show specifically on the issue of "deadbeat dads" NOT including "deadbeat moms." It seems that the callers on that show would be focused upon the "deadbeat dads" issue.

The female posters on this thread that were responding to the topic of this thread, did so including RL experience on the subject at hand.

To accuse them of being emotional on the issue because they discussed their RL experience and/or because they did not include or focus upon a rather separate topic of "deadbeat moms" or women (or men) that use deception (poking holes in condoms, etc.) comes across to me as an emotional response on your part.

There is definitely room for a discussion of the same sorts of negative behavior being present for both men and women. I don't think anyone here was disputing that. I don't think it is fair to assume that women posters on this thread are excusing or ignoring the fact that other women do sometimes exhibit faulty behavior in these areas. I do not think anyone was exempting bad behavior on the part of women.

A simple way to have included the issue of "deadbeat moms" (or women with the deceptive intent of "trapping" a man) would have been to include it in the opening post. Since you did not, it is not valid to offer it as any sort of evidence against the female posters on this thread.

(Takes a deep breathe)

If anyone cared to read the subject I spoke heavily on the subject in relation to Gabby Douglas and her calling her father a deadbeat dad....You might want to read the first post.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

QED: If a woman is behaving badly toward a woman, they both aren't being victimized and should know better than to treat a man like crap.

My.Logic.Rocks.So.Much. :faint:

:biglaugh:

Awesome. :clap

 

[Shadow Wolf]

While I hate being fair, this time, I have run into a few lesbians that very dearly hate men. But they had their reasons, and it wasn't just because "he" was a man. And when I say "a few" I mean like one, maybe two lesbians in the 50-100 I have met in my life time to date.
Finding a male homosexual who hated women was harder to find.
I found more straight men who hated women than I did homosexual men.
The same could be said of heterosexual women. You will find more straight women hate the female population than you will lesbians.

I was meaning to make a general statement. But sense you mentioned it, I've known some man-hating lesbians, and certainly plenty of women hate each other, but I don't think I've met a gay man who hated women. I'm sure they're out there though; but to indulge in an over generalization, it's like women and gay men were naturally meant to be friends. It's a man, so it's not another woman, but a man who doesn't shy away from emotions and can also help you keep you looking good.

 

[Mathematician]

Ok, if I poke the hornets' nest, so be it.

Mr. Skittles, I don't recall anyone here saying that women can't be deadbeat parents as well. Either gender can be lax as parents, but let's face it shall we? Statistically the "deadbeats" do tend to fall more in the category of fathers than in mothers. That's not to say that some mothers can't be complete losers and shouldn't even have wombs to begin with. I think we've all met women like that. We've also all met wonderful men who outshine their counterparts in the parenthood department as well. Doesn't change the general statistics though now does it? Now, I know you tend to like to get your hate on for women in general, your post history has shown that quite well. No use in denying that one. I don't know what your purpose is in accusing any woman who has anything to say on this subject of being "emotional" though. I think there have been several women here, myself included, who have spoken very calmly and rationally on the matter. In fact, I haven't found anything to get "emotional" about here at all. I do wonder though, just what is your problem?

Oh, and how many mind readers and fortune tellers do you know anyway? I was just wondering as you seem to have this idea that someone can foresee the future coming with someone before they even get involved with them. That they should know how a relationship is going to play out beforehand so that they never get involved with them. to my knowledge...that is easier said than done. Unless you have some crystal ball that I am not aware of.

Statistically women are far more likely to be deadbeats than men, actually. It's not misogynistic to say that women are more often given a "free pass" by the legal system: from criminal procedures to legal mandates (child care, custody), courts typically favor women. As I mentioned earlier, upwards of 85% of men who owe child care payments are deemed non-negligent, while less than 10% of women can claim the same level of responsibility.

 

[Mathematician]

In your opinion, then, if a man chooses not to be a father to a child, does he have the right to impose a court ordered abortion on the mother?

Turn it around on the man who wants to be a father, but the mother doesn't, should he enforce a measure that keeps her pregnant?

You have a tendency to speak of men's rights quite a bit, Gene, but I fail to understand where you draw the line of legality and ethics on the personhood of the woman as well as of the man.

No, I don't believe in court-ordered abortions or mandated pregnancies. I already stated my position extends from the idea that freedom entails responsibility. Men have no freedom during those nine months.

If the laws were changed, what would happen? More abortions? Oh well. Financing your personal decision with another person's money when he stated he does not want to care for a child in any way is unethical, in my opinion.

 

[Rakhel]

I was meaning to make a general statement. But sense you mentioned it, I've known some man-hating lesbians, and certainly plenty of women hate each other, but I don't think I've met a gay man who hated women. I'm sure they're out there though; but to indulge in an over generalization, it's like women and gay men were naturally meant to be friends. It's a man, so it's not another woman, but a man who doesn't shy away from emotions and can also help you keep you looking good.

G-d I miss Paul

 

[MysticSang'ha]

No, I don't believe in court-ordered abortions or mandated pregnancies. I already stated my position extends from the idea that freedom entails responsibility. Men have no freedom during those nine months.

If the laws were changed, what would happen? More abortions? Oh well. Financing your personal decision with another person's money when he stated he does not want to care for a child in any way is unethical, in my opinion.

Still not following you. Let's try this:

1) An unintended pregnancy occurs. Who's responsible for it?
2) The man and woman disagree on having the pregnancy continue, the man wants her to have an abortion, the woman wants to carry the child to term and give the baby up for adoption. What is ethically the best decision?
3) The woman wants to have an abortion, but the man wants to keep the baby. What is the ethical decision here?
4) The woman wants to keep the baby, but the man wants to give the baby up for adoption. Best decision?

My take is that these situations are far from simple, since both the man AND the woman are finding themselves in unintended pregnancies in compromised positions, and that choosing to continue in a pregnancy is nothing like choosing to keep a pet when your partner doesn't want it.

And, sorry....I had to laugh at your sentiment that choosing a pregnancy for a woman is total freedom. You try being free when you're gestating a fetus for nine months. You know....like morning sickness 24/7, mammory glands getting out of control, stretch marks, swollen ankles, gestational diabetes, severe mood swings from the hormone roller coaster, backaches, headaches, heartburn, constipation....and then being REALLY constipated.

That's the face of freedom? Hilarious.

 

[Rakhel]

The weird cravings, the kid kicking you in the butt for the last trimester, dehydration, needles, catheters, and if you Rh don't match... talk about an allergic reaction from hell!!!(or that's what I called it.) Loss of appetite, being forced to eat even though you want to throw it back up.

 

[kai]

people are people, Some Fathers do "opt out" and are useless, some mothers use the kids as weapons or bargaining chips.

I used to pay my ex "unofficially" every month on the dot , it was an informal arrangement between us .When i found someone else she took me to court for child support saying i didn't pay anything, and i had no proof i paid her, it didn't matter much though the judge ordered i pay the same amount i was already paying.

The whole court experience was nothing but a tit for tat slanging match, not a good experience and for some reason i felt like people were viewing me as "deadbeat dad" just by being there.

In my case it was ,if i didn't have my daughter when she said , i didn't get her at all. So all in all her taking me to court all worked out in my favour in the end ,and back fired on her.

I ended up with official paperwork stating contact days etc which ended the emotional blackmail.

for years here in the UK the courts were unevenly balanced in favour of the Mother,and everyone knew it. but its getting better now slowly.


In my experience men and women are both capable of being selfish, vindictive, and controlling when it comes to children.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

people are people, Some Fathers do "opt out" and are useless, some mothers use the kids as weapons or bargaining chips.

I used to pay my ex "unofficially" every month on the dot , it was an informal arrangement between us .When i found someone else she took me to court for child support saying i didn't pay anything, and i had no proof i paid her, it didn't matter much though the judge ordered i pay the same amount i was already paying.

The whole court experience was nothing but a tit for tat slanging match, not a good experience and for some reason i felt like people were viewing me as "deadbeat dad" just by being there.

In my case it was ,if i didn't have my daughter when she said , i didn't get her at all. So all in all her taking me to court all worked out in my favour in the end ,and back fired on her.

I ended up with official paperwork stating contact days etc which ended the emotional blackmail.

for years here in the UK the courts were unevenly balanced in favour of the Mother,and everyone knew it. but its getting better now slowly.


In my experience men and women are both capable of being selfish, vindictive, and controlling when it comes to children.

EXACTLY.

To say that one gender is more selfish, more vindictive, or more controlling when it comes to children is the very definition of sexism.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

So, in other words (said in the most stoic way I can manage)....

If a woman is behaving badly toward a man, he is being victimized and women should know better than to treat a man like crap. Hence, it's her fault.

If a man is behaving badly toward a woman, she isn't being victimized and should know better than to date bad men. Hence, it's her fault.

Gotcha.

*ahem*

Oh, and I'm reposting this with an unemotional facial expression. I am so channeling the spirit of Epictetus.

 

[Draka]

No, I don't believe in court-ordered abortions or mandated pregnancies. I already stated my position extends from the idea that freedom entails responsibility. Men have no freedom during those nine months.

If the laws were changed, what would happen? More abortions? Oh well. Financing your personal decision with another person's money when he stated he does not want to care for a child in any way is unethical, in my opinion.

Then he should not have made the personal decision to do something which could have resulted in a possible child. That was his personal decision. He should not expect her to have an abortion just because he doesn't want to care for a child. He should have thought about that beforehand. Pregnancy is always a risk of sex and anyone who has sex should be prepared to deal with the consequences attached to it. Isn't this why we tell our kids to wait until they are old enough to handle the consequences?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

from criminal procedures to legal mandates (child care, custody), courts typically favor women. As I mentioned earlier, upwards of 85% of men who owe child care payments are deemed non-negligent, while less than 10% of women can claim the same level of responsibility.

Criminal proceedings depends more on the specific crime. There are certain crimes that women are more likely than men to commit (such as property damage), and there are crimes that men are more likely to commit than women (such as violence). When you commit a crime that is more normal for your sex, then you are more likely to be punished.

No, I don't believe in court-ordered abortions or mandated pregnancies. I already stated my position extends from the idea that freedom entails responsibility. Men have no freedom during those nine months.

If the laws were changed, what would happen? More abortions? Oh well. Financing your personal decision with another person's money when he stated he does not want to care for a child in any way is unethical, in my opinion.

Why is it a man should be able to freely have sex, and not have to assume the responsibility should one of his sperm join with an ovum and produce a baby? But yet the woman is just stuck with all the responsibility just because she is the one that has to carry and deliver the baby? Why is it that having a penis gives you an excuse to abandon the responsibility of taking care of the child that you are 50% responsible for making, but the woman must carry the entire burden even though she too is 50% responsible for making the child?

 

[Mathematician]

Er, a small correction: men aren't more likely to commit violent crime. Countless studies demonstrate women abuse their partners just as often as men. In most domestic violence relationships both partners are guilty (for example Rihanna and Chris Brown - Rihanna admited to hitting men with blunt objects until they bruised as a "joke," etc.). Usually less damage is inflicted by women due to size difference and the legal/penal system are more lenient, but the idea men are typically more violent is simply untrue. Our society just laughs off violence against men and beholds them to remain silent.

Why is it a man should be able to freely have sex, and not have to assume the responsibility should one of his sperm join with an ovum and produce a baby? But yet the woman is just stuck with all the responsibility just because she is the one that has to carry and deliver the baby? Why is it that having a penis gives you an excuse to abandon the responsibility of taking care of the child that you are 50% responsible for making, but the woman must carry the entire burden even though she too is 50% responsible for making the child?

I said a man is ethically responsible for half of the cost of an abortion, not completely free to wash his hands. Retaining the child is completely the choice of the woman and requires more medical supervision than a first or second trimester abortion (even if it's natural and not a C-section). She can use that money however she wishes, but after that, it's her responsibility. He didn't want the child. She did. If she didn't, she would have opted for an abortion or adoption. If you need to rely on an unwilling father to finance a child, you shouldn't have a child. Single parenthood is more often than not a bane on society. The current state of affairs just subsidizes a huge bureaucratic machine that targets men and lets women off the hook. Refer back to my two posts on how women get away with child support. There's nothing immoral about abortion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I said a man is ethically responsible for half of the cost of an abortion, not completely free to wash his hands.

This is the difference between getting off free and getting off cheap. You're splitting hairs.

And in a place like Canada, where abortion is funded by our public health care system, you are talking about letting the man off the hook completely.

Retaining the child is completely the choice of the woman and requires more medical supervision than a first or second trimester abortion (even if it's natural and not a C-section). She can use that money however she wishes, but after that, it's her responsibility. He didn't want the child. She did. If she didn't, she would have opted for an abortion or adoption.

And if the man didn't want a child, he would have opted for contraception. How is there any ethical difference at all? I've asked you this before, but AFAICT, you never really addressed it.

I kind of see what you're getting at here, but I think you're being wrong-headed: mitigation of damages is the legal principle that says that a person who has been wronged has an obligation act in a reasonable way to limit the amount of damages that occur... for instance, if you discover that your ceiling is dripping water because of a problem with the plumbing of the apartment above, you still have to do things like let the superintendent know, move your valuables out of the way, and put a bucket under the drip. If you don't do these things, then the guy upstairs is still only liable for the amount that would have been damaged if you had acted reasonably.

It seems to me that the implicit message in your argument is that abortion is the "reasonable" thing to do in the case of a pregnancy that the man doesn't want... or rather, that if the man doesn't want the pregnancy, it's unreasonable for the woman not to get an abortion. Just as we consider you to be acting unreasonably if you don't move your antique whatsit up off the floor before the water dripping from upstairs hits it, you're implying that we should consider a woman to be acting unreasonably if she doesn't get an abortion.

Like I said, I think this is wrong-headed. I think both having an abortion and not having one are reasonable approaches to the situation, and therefore neither one should be used as some sort of trigger to end the man's responsibility.

If you need to rely on an unwilling father to finance a child, you shouldn't have a child.

And if you don't want a kid but need to rely on the woman to make sure that contraception is taken care of, then you shouldn't be having sex.

Single parenthood is more often than not a bane on society. The current state of affairs just subsidizes a huge bureaucratic machine that targets men and lets women off the hook. Refer back to my two posts on how women get away with child support. There's nothing immoral about abortion.

The issue isn't with the morality of abortion itself; the issue is with the morality of creating a financial penalty to push women into abortion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I said a man is ethically responsible for half of the cost of an abortion, not completely free to wash his hands. Retaining the child is completely the choice of the woman and requires more medical supervision than a first or second trimester abortion (even if it's natural and not a C-section). She can use that money however she wishes, but after that, it's her responsibility. He didn't want the child. She did. If she didn't, she would have opted for an abortion or adoption. If you need to rely on an unwilling father to finance a child, you shouldn't have a child. Single parenthood is more often than not a bane on society. The current state of affairs just subsidizes a huge bureaucratic machine that targets men and lets women off the hook. Refer back to my two posts on how women get away with child support. There's nothing immoral about abortion.

Even half of the abortion is still refusing to "man up" and take the responsibility of your own actions. If he didn't want the child, he shouldn't have been having sex.
But I can say, you may not be a deadbeat, but I surely would not want to have a child with someone with your mentality, that is of being only responsible for covering half of an abortion which is something I do not consider an option. Actually I think I'd prefer the deadbeat because they may feel they are powerless when it comes to being forced to accept responsibility. Actually trying to pass off responsibility like you seem to think is acceptable is, in my books, one of the characteristics of a dead beat.
I know drug dealers that don't exactly qualify for a dad of the year coffee mug, but even they realize it is their child and thus they have a responsibility towards their child.
And you can be assured, if some man tried to throw me money to get the baby aborted that would be the quickest way to ensure I do go after him in court, and for everything I could get out of him.

 

[Draka]

And if you don't want a kid but need to rely on the woman to make sure that contraception is taken care of, then you shouldn't be having sex.

:clap Exactly!

The issue isn't with the morality of abortion itself; the issue is with the morality of creating a financial penalty to push women into abortion.

:clap And again!


Also, perhaps it might be a good idea to actually find out about a woman and how she feels about abortion before one starts knockin boots with her in the first place. Even many women who are pro-choice wouldn't have an abortion themselves. Even though they may support the right of a woman to choose that option doesn't mean it is something they would do for themselves. Therefore, their way of "taking responsibility" for a pregnancy is to do just that...have the child. Whether or not they keep the child or put it up for adoption is something to be worked out.

 

[Mathematician]

Why is it assumed that the male failed or even complicity rejected use of a contraceptive? Most unintentional pregnancies occur because contraceptive's inherent statistical failure rate or the woman was negligent with her pill/patch schedule. Until the male birth control becomes widely available it's really hard for a man to be negligent without the woman's implicit consent. Condoms are visible to both partners. And why is it accepted fact that a man must accept whatever decision a woman decides regardless of the repercussions to his financial and emotional well-being?

Even half of the abortion is still refusing to "man up" and take the responsibility of your own actions. If he didn't want the child, he shouldn't have been having sex.

Again I reiterate: this line of reasoning is dissociated from reality and can be reversed in statements such as women shouldn't be having sex willy-nilly if she wants a reliable father figure.

But I can say, you may not be a deadbeat, but I surely would not want to have a child with someone with your mentality, that is of being only responsible for covering half of an abortion which is something I do not consider an option. Actually I think I'd prefer the deadbeat because they may feel they are powerless when it comes to being forced to accept responsibility. Actually trying to pass off responsibility like you seem to think is acceptable is, in my books, one of the characteristics of a dead beat.

I'm not offended by your remark, but your mindset is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It's also a logical fallacy many women use on men to make them feel guilty, as if they're betraying their role. I'm not susceptible to such feelings anymore. I don't regularly have sex with pro-life women. If the discussion of what would occur in case of a pregnancy progresses, I straight-up tell my partners that I would be emotionally and financially supportive of an abortion or adoption, but nothing more. The decision to retain a child would have been completely hers. I didn't want a child. I wouldn't have paid for her decision.

As a sidenote: I'm at a point where I would support my partner retaining a child. I purposely used past tense. But that would be my personal decision.

Users are insisting that the man is rejecting his responsibility. I reject that notion entirely. It's not even an example of natural distinction.

Penguin:

And in a place like Canada, where abortion is funded by our public health care system, you are talking about letting the man off the hook completely.

No, the woman doesn't have to provide for financial service either in such cases.