Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't have a problem with that, given that the paternity is established and the pregnancy wasn't the result of rape.
But I don't think this rises to the level of male oppression. Not even close.
I'm glad that you "don't have a problem with that". Question for you: let's say that tomorrow, someone in congress decides to change the gender in the present system. So from now on, unwed Dads get full custody and unwed Moms get 0 rights, meaning they are not allowed to see their children at all unless authorized by Dad. Would you say that women (and children) in this predicament would not be oppressed? Would you say that they would not even be close to oppressed?
I'm glad that you "don't have a problem with that". Question for you: let's say that tomorrow, someone in congress decides to change the gender in the present system. So from now on, unwed Dads get full custody and unwed Moms get 0 rights, meaning they are not allowed to see their children at all unless authorized by Dad. Would you say that women (and children) in this predicament would not be oppressed? Would you say that they would not even be close to oppressed?
from another poster:
The fact is that there is a huge biological disparity between the mother's and father's cost of producing a baby, the man's contribution being essentially nothing. Less than nothing, really, since men happily give it away.
The logical thing would be for the law to recognize the mother as the sole guardian of her child. If a man wants to share the rights and responsibilities of parenthood he should enter into a legally-binding contract with the mother in which they both agree to the terms of a shared guardianship.
Of course a marriage is the natural venue for signing this contract, but an unmarried couple could draw up and sign one as well. In the absence of a contract the biological father would have no legal responsibilities towards the child and, conversely, no right to interfere in the mother's decisions - including her options to abort or put up for adoption.
I realize this scheme flies in the face of current attitudes but I believe it's consistent and makes sense.
Impregnating a woman is no accomplishment; a man who wants to be a real father should put up or shut up: declare his commitment before the law and the world or get out of the away and let the mother do her job.
Dad get full and equal rights in court. He does not get instant custody as we do have the pragmatic default to the mother. At least a couple of different references indicate this is the case in at least some states.
In general the parents are inherently separated. That is what this is all about. If the parents are successfully cohabitating there is not a problem.
No, Dad does not get full and equal rights in court. That is just not true.
The paper does give a small nod that what I was getting at is still a small part of the equation, but you're right re your second sentence in this post, and the paper is quite convincing proof of that. Thanks for posting this .
I also agree with the discussion in the article re fatherhood and responsibility.
On an anecdotal note, the quote in the Brookings paper from the New York Times from 1993 made me chuckle:
"In the olds days of the 1960's, 50's, and 40's, pregnant teenagers were pariahs, banished from schools, ostracized by their peers, or scurried out of town to give birth in secret".
The teenage sister of a roommate would have been one of those 'pariahs' in a very affluent California town in the mid 1980's. The sister had spend her freshman year in high school at an east coast boarding school. She came back to California for her Sophomore year at the local very well regarded public high school. She got pregnant. The family didn't want to face the local social stigma of her pregnancy and, being devout Catholics, they didn't want to consider an abortion. They sent the sister to live with a friend of the matriarch of the family, and the pregnant sister also continued her studies. We had dinner with them at the mother's friend's house a few times. The family told the people in the community that the pregnant sister (no one in the community knew she was pregnant) had returned to the boarding school on the east coast. The sister gave birth, put the baby up for adoption, and returned to the well regarded public high school for her junior year.
The fact is that there is a huge biological disparity between the mother's and father's cost of producing a baby, the man's contribution being essentially nothing. Less than nothing, really, since men happily give it away.
The logical thing would be for the law to recognize the mother as the sole guardian of her child. If a man wants to share the rights and responsibilities of parenthood he should enter into a legally-binding contract with the mother in which they both agree to the terms of a shared guardianship.
Of course a marriage is the natural venue for signing this contract, but an unmarried couple could draw up and sign one as well. In the absence of a contract the biological father would have no legal responsibilities towards the child and, conversely, no right to interfere in the mother's decisions - including her options to abort or put up for adoption.
I realize this scheme flies in the face of current attitudes but I believe it's consistent and makes sense.
Impregnating a woman is no accomplishment; a man who wants to be a real father should put up or shut up: declare his commitment before the law and the world or get out of the away and let the mother do her job.
IMO this is a really weak argument for gender privilege on one side and oppression on the other.
It's not complicated- giving one gender full custody and parenting rights and giving the other 0 rights by default is blatantly discriminatory.
When parents are unmarried, Mother has custody of any child born out of wedlock. Furthermore, Father has ZERO parenting rights by default. What that means is that Dad is not allowed to see the child at all- not even 15 minutes- if Mom does not allow it. In fact, Dad will be arrested if he tries. The only way Dad can get any parenting rights at all is to file in court, which usually results in some small token amount. Almost never does Dad get custody in this situation.
So you have a situation where one gender is given 100% full rights, and one gender is given 0 rights. Nothing, zip, nada. Imagine if you will a scenario where the script was flipped, and it was decided that moving forward Dad was granted 100% parenting rights (Mom zero) when parents are unmarried. That story would be on the cover of every newspaper, it would be the lead on every news show, and it would be discussed on every radio show. Yet this subject is rarely if ever discussed now.
I believe that this policy rises to the level of a large scale human rights violation (remember, not only are Dads rights being trampled on, but also all children born out of wedlock). It's really not that dissimilar to slavery, or anti semitism, or discrimination against people that are handicapped. Perhaps the best analogy would be many decades ago when women were not allowed to vote. Of course that was wrong, why should one gender be given full rights and the other 0? How is this policy any different then women being prohibited from voting?
By the way, I have never been personally effected by this policy. I do have one child from a previous marriage, but I was married to Mom at the time so this has nothing to do with me being effected personally.
You also forgot divorce courts are extremely biased towards women.
If a married couple gets divorced, the ex-wife gets all the benefits (alimony, child support, rights of the property, etc) even though if she dumped her husband for some other guy or got bored and departed for greener pastures. The ex-husband would get hung out to dry and has to pay monthly or go to jail, even though he did nothing wrong and there was no evidence of abuse, rape, etc.... These laws were designed for women and the court system to exploit men. Yet I don't hear anyone fighting this.
Stuff like this is why men shouldn't marry unless they want to end up in financial and/or emotional ruin. Not to mention the divorce rate is like 50-60%.
Father's have no legal rights to either prevent an abortion or to force a mother to submit to one. The mother alone has the right to choose whether to abort the child. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that a woman's right to have an abortion is not outweighed by a father's desire to prevent it. A woman is not even required to notify the father that she is having an abortion.
If the default upon birth were 50/50, it would extend to the embryo.
Father's have no legal rights to either prevent an abortion or to force a mother to submit to one. The mother alone has the right to choose whether to abort the child. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that a woman's right to have an abortion is not outweighed by a father's desire to prevent it. A woman is not even required to notify the father that she is having an abortion.
If the default upon birth were 50/50, it would extend to the embryo.
That would not be good.
I'd rather not get into the abortion thing, that's more subjective than what we are discussing. Once the baby is born, surely we can agree that the child has 2 parents, right?
I asked you a question in a previous post that you haven't answered. I'd like to ask again, and respectfully ask that you answer.
If the law changed tomorrow and the genders were reversed, meaning unmarried Moms could legally be totally barred from seeing their babies by Dads once they were born, would this rise to the level of being a human rights violation? Would this 'not even be close' to a human rights violation?
But I wouldn't be surprised if this thread was shut down claiming "gender bashing".
Despite the provided evidence to support the premise.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
