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.
MRAs are so tiresome and they never fail to reveal their misogyny.
Sad thing is they hurt men and groups who are actually working to improve fathers rights and roles in parenting. There has been some positive changes family law over the past couple decades.
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.
I will say this...
If the father isn't listed on the birth certificate, AND the father is NOT paying any kind of child support, AND a DNA test hasn't been done...you're legally, not the father and will have to prove that you are, otherwise.
The bottom line is that men are facing an uphill battle in family court, regardless of what how bad the mother is or how good the father is.
Yes they have been and for centuries women were fighting that battle. Not all that long ago women and children were legally considered the property of their husbands and had no rights to their children and no means of securing any financial assistance for their children.
As I said there have been positive changes in family court in the last few decades and if men would continue that battle in a logical and reasonable manner instead of complaining they dont have total control and trying to punish women instead of improving the parental relationship with their children and amending some of child support services policy we will see more positive changes.
Remedy that. Marry before reproducing. Dont reproduce indiscriminately. That way you will know if there is a pregnancy and you will be there to be listed on the birth certificate.
Now regardless of marriage and care there are some who will be bond to still find themselves in a position of having no clue they are a biological parent but we have laws that everyone has to abide by, we have to prove we are who we are all the time and if we dont have that proof we have to jump through hoops to satisfy the powers that be. That is not exclusive to fathers.
Ah, responsibility. I wish it were that simple, but I argue for the same, whether its in this case or by telling women to give their unborn children up for adoption (or to just use a condom or other birth control) if they don't want children vs. having an abortion.
Still, this doesn't change the reality that many people are having children out of wedlock and men, as a result, are often faced with greater hardships to assert their rights over their children.
Ah, responsibility. I wish it were that simple, but I argue for the same, whether its in this case or by telling women to give their unborn children up for adoption (or to just use a condom or other birth control) if they don't want children vs. having an abortion.
Still, this doesn't change the reality that many people are having children out of wedlock and men, as a result, are often faced with greater hardships to assert their rights over their children.
No its not that simple because people are human and fallible and influenced by their emotions. I think I said some people will not be responsible that is why we have laws to sort outs peoples flaws. And having to abide by those laws often causes hardships. We have adoption laws, we have abortion laws, and we have paternity laws. We have ways to avoid having to use those laws but we still need them and apparently always will.
Why do you expect that when a person does not take responsibility for whatever it is that it will not create a hardship for them.
Because it's in the state's best interest. They don't want to pay either (welfare) but the state has the power to make you pay.
But if the woman chose to have the kid and it is from infidelity, why should the husband who is not the father be forced to pay?
Another words, the woman is the culprit X2, and yet the man who did nothing wrong and did not father the child is being held accountable for her choices.
Sad thing is they hurt men and groups who are actually working to improve fathers rights and roles in parenting. There has been some positive changes family law over the past couple decades.
The best thing for fathers to do to improve their rights post-split up is to do more parenting pre-split up. It's still the fact that in most cases it's the mother doing most of the childcare which is why it's the mother getting most of the custody in those cases. Biology does get in the way of that in infancy to a certain extent (if mum breastfeeds) but there's plenty more they can do.
No its not that simple because people are human and fallible and influenced by their emotions. I think I said some people will not be responsible that is why we have laws to sort outs peoples flaws. And having to abide by those laws often causes hardships. We have adoption laws, we have abortion laws, and we have paternity laws. We have ways to avoid having to use those laws but we still need them and apparently always will.
Why do you expect that when a person does not take responsibility for whatever it is that it will not create a hardship for them.
Whether or not a person who does not take responsibility for whatever should expect hardship is besides the point for me here. Rather, all I'm saying is that under our current system, men who are not married and who are not on their children's birth certificates, have to jump through additional hoops to enjoy similar rights over their children as the mother. Perhaps, this is a fair solution, but the inequality still exists.
Whether or not a person who does not take responsibility for whatever should expect hardship is besides the point for me here. Rather, all I'm saying is that under our current system, men who are not married and who are not on their children's birth certificates, have to jump through additional hoops to enjoy similar rights over their children as the mother. Perhaps, this is a fair solution, but the inequality still exists.
Inequality always exists especially biologically. And yes one may have to jump through hoops because of irresponsibility. The mother also gets the burden of pregnancy and birth and parenting. Why would you even think nothing more than a night of sexual gratification gives you the same automatic rights. It is known the child belongs to the mother, it came out of her, yes. Without the commitment of marriage, which gives you that same automatic right as parent, or signing an acknowledgement of paternity and sometimes a DNA test there is nothing proving or establishing you as the father of the child. "I've had sex with this woman" therefore I should have all the same rights to that child she pushed out her hooha doesn't cut it. There must be some establishment of parentage. Even in biblical days disputes and claims of parentage came before the authorities. King Solomon was about slice an infant in half to establish maternity.
But if the woman chose to have the kid and it is from infidelity, why should the husband who is not the father be forced to pay?
Another words, the woman is the culprit X2, and yet the man who did nothing wrong and did not father the child is being held accountable for her choices.
`
Because a husband is assumed the father. Its not about punishing the mother, its is about the best interest of the child.
See you guys are arguing to have it both ways. You want the same automatic rights to parentage (that being married gives you) on one hand but dont want the automatic responsibility. You cant have it both ways.
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.
