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.
You are talking about men that don't want the responsibility. The only responsibility they have lawfully is financial. I'm not sure how else to get that across to you. Men cannot and are not forced to be fathers. Please explain to me what other responsibilities you are talking about.
You are not conveying your point clearly. Perhaps, if you answer my question above, I'll get it. What legal responsibility does any man have other than finances?
Im communicating my point clearly enough...you may be having trouble comprehending here. But no we're not going to get into ultimatums in order to shift my stance (that the physiology of both sexes are equally important, and should therefore not be a decisive factor in parental obligation) to one of attempting to disprove your own bias (that women's physiological experiences as a female entitles their physiology to be held in a higher esteem, merely due to biological differences)... Im not buying into that bias...
"legal responsibility" and males dont even belong in the same sentence/question in this context...Men who are custodial fathers have the same legal responsibilities that women who are custodial mothers have towards the child.
Thats like asking what legal responsibility does any woman have other than her finances? one is a social construct ("man" "legal responsibility") and the other is a natural biological disposition (a biological male or female). Naturally a male, including human males, dont have ANY responsibility, including financial, to his offspring and should be able to exercise that right... of course, legally our society only chooses to hold men financially responsible for their children...however if abortion were perceived to be what it is, which is a woman abandoning her financial responsibilities to a child as well, she would equally be held financially responsible..but as mothers are given this provision, fathers should be given it as well..
Since Im talking about his RIGHTS to abandon his responsibility to his children..Meaning the right to not send anything, monetary or otherwise..the right for his person not to be forced to go to a postal center to send anything to anyone...his right to legally decide for himself whether he wants to contribute anything, financially, phyiscally or emotionally to his child's future, his finances arent anywhere near the crux of my argument...perhaps yours, but not mine...I would feel no different if the system obligated absentee fathers to send free viles of air to their children...His person should not be forced to contribute those free viles of air, because it is his body and his choice...but the reality is that our legal system only enforces the financial aspect of fatherhood because, save for their finances fathers are viewed as less intrinsic to a child's livelihood than its mother.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
Well, it's a comparison between any man and any woman. There will never be physiological equality.
Disagreed...There will never be physiological congruency...equality is acheivable and has been acheived in many arenas.
Last edited by solytaire; 10-10-2009 at 03:51 PM..
This isn’t new. Men have always had the short stick (no pun intended) in my life time. We have limited rights related to child issues. Mothers are always the preferred parent if a separation occurs. We are told we are a majority even though we make up less than half the population (49%); which transfers to jobs, education, promotions, and seats on the train going to the real majority. It seems we are too blinded by the other sex to recognize it. Today the male bashing has reached our children and the result is only 43% of the college students are now male. I am not sure how you correct the problem, but the method now being used sure isn’t working.
Im communicating my point clearly enough...you may be having trouble comprehending here. But no we're not going to get into ultimatums in order to shift my stance (that the physiology of both sexes are equally important, and should therefore not be a decisive factor in parental obligation) to one of attempting to disprove your own bias (that women's physiological experiences as a female entitles their physiology to be held in a higher esteem, merely due to biological differences)... Im not buying into that bias...
Where have I said it should be held to a higher esteem? I don't think I've said anything like that. I'm noting the lack of physiological equality. You want a male to have the same options a female has (birth or abortion). Well, men are not capable of either option. That's obviously not my doing.
Quote:
"legal responsibility" and males dont even belong in the same sentence/question in this context...Men who are custodial fathers have the same legal responsibilities that women who are custodial mothers have towards the child.
Paying child support means that whoever is paying it is not the custodial parent. I'm not sure what your getting at here.
Quote:
Thats like asking what legal responsibility does any woman have other than her finances? one is a social construct ("man" "legal responsibility") and the other is a natural biological disposition (a biological male or female). Naturally a male, including human males, dont have ANY responsibility, including financial, to his offspring and should be able to exercise that right... of course, legally our society only chooses to hold men financially responsible for their children...
Well, that would make sense if it were true. It is not. Custodial fathers receive the same child support from non-custodial mothers. It's the law for both genders. Really, your post here doesn't make any sense.
Quote:
however if abortion were perceived to be what it is, which is a woman abandoning her financial responsibilities to a child as well, she would equally be held financially responsible..but as mothers are given this provision, fathers should be given it as well..
A fetus is not a child. If a fetus were a child, than a child could be called a fetus. That reasoning does not work.
Quote:
Since Im talking about his RIGHTS to abandon his responsibility to his children..Meaning the right to not send anything, monetary or otherwise..the right for his person not to be forced to go to a postal center to send anything to anyone...his right to legally decide for himself whether he wants to contribute anything, financially, phyiscally or emotionally to his child's future, his finances arent anywhere near the crux of my argument...perhaps yours, but not mine...
Men and women pay child support every day without being emotionally involved with their children. I dated a man for a number of years that paid support but had no interest in seeing his kid, so he didn't. If finances are not your concern, than you have little to worry about. There is no law that forces anyone to be a parent.
Quote:
Disagreed...There will never be physiological congruency...equality is acheivable and has been acheived in many arenas.
Not when it comes to birth and abortion. There is no equality becaue there is no comparison.
Where have I said it should be held to a higher esteem? I don't think I've said anything like that. I'm noting the lack of physiological equality. You want a male to have the same options a female has (birth or abortion). Well, men are not capable of either option. That's obviously not my doing.
No I dont...where are you getting this stuff?...again, you are just putting words in my mouth, period..if not outright lying on me...feel free to continue doing so, but as I said, my tolerance for such is low...unfortunately I will have to abstain from any further exchange with you until you are ready to address the actual comments I am making, rather than reconstructing my statements to conform to your outlook. Call this what you like, but I have honestly tolerated more of it than I should have even tolerated up until this point... I will be more than happy to resume dialogue with you when you are ready to do this.
What I will say for now is that: I am noting the absolute and undeniable presence of physiological equality, and acknowledging the absolute lack of physiological congruency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
Paying child support means that whoever is paying it is not the custodial parent. I'm not sure what your getting at here.
Unfortunately you wont understand what I am getting at because you have chosen to continue arguing about finances, and then you accuse me of being focused on finances...whereas I have made it clear that financial responsibility is not any integral part of my stance...equal rights are at the center of my rights. Once more this is the end of my part in bickering within this intense focus on finances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
Well, that would make sense if it were true. It is not. Custodial fathers receive the same child support from non-custodial mothers. It's the law for both genders. Really, your post here doesn't make any sense.
Im not understanding what's so hard to make sense of here..physiologically no human is financially responsibility for anything, I cant state it in any more elementary terms than that ...perhaps you can expand your comprehension of what I am stating: in nature there is no corallary to financial responsibility...despite that you have stated that a woman's physiology/biology entitles her to preferencial consideration regarding her rights to her body...however as a man asserts that his biology is equally entitled to consideration then all of a sudden his physiology is unimportant...none of my posts will make any sense to you and you will have a hard time comprehending any of them, if you choose to view the rights of each sex with an arbitrary bias towards one or the other, based on their physiology (whether they are man or woman).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
A fetus is not a child. If a fetus were a child, than a child could be called a fetus. That reasoning does not work.
A fetus is not a child..I never said that it was...but a fetus is a life...and that reasoning does work where yours undoubtedly falls short.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
Men and women pay child support every day without being emotionally involved with their children. I dated a man for a number of years that paid support but had no interest in seeing his kid, so he didn't. If finances are not your concern, than you have little to worry about. There is no law that forces anyone to be a parent.
Exactly so why choose to punish people for withdrawing only one part of being a parent -- the financial aspect?..thats silly
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
Not when it comes to birth and abortion. There is no equality becaue there is no comparison.
Fair enough...that is your opinion...mine is that there is a strong comparison to me made and even an equalization (not congruency) to be drawn...you have your outlook and I have mine, I can respect that.
Last edited by solytaire; 10-10-2009 at 10:11 PM..
This isn’t new. Men have always had the short stick (no pun intended) in my life time. We have limited rights related to child issues. Mothers are always the preferred parent if a separation occurs. We are told we are a majority even though we make up less than half the population (49%); which transfers to jobs, education, promotions, and seats on the train going to the real majority. It seems we are too blinded by the other sex to recognize it. Today the male bashing has reached our children and the result is only 43% of the college students are now male. I am not sure how you correct the problem, but the method now being used sure isn’t working.
this is largely a result of financial responsibility/compensation being the SOLE focus of the legal system's role in obligating a father to his children...in actuality, if the welfare of the child were truly an issue to this society and if men were truly to be held responsible for neglecting their role in a child's life, the presiding legal system would enforce punishment for more than just financial neglect.
Last edited by solytaire; 10-10-2009 at 10:03 PM..
this is largely a result of financial responsibility/compensation being the SOLE focus of the legal system's role in obligating a father to his children...in actuality, if the welfare of the child were truly an issue to this society and if men were truly to be held responsible for neglecting their role in a child's life, the presiding legal system would enforce punishment for more than just financial neglect.
Many people learn to their dismay that court orders in divorce cases are not "self executing". Action has to be taken to enforce these orders if one party refuses to owe up to their responsibilities.
The court's do enforce visitation orders when non-custodial parents take the time and trouble to go to court to have them enforced. Custodial parents can be and sometimes are held in contempt of court for failing to honor the terms of these orders. I have seen it on numerous occasions.
Suggesting that enforcing financial responsibilities is the sole focus of the legal system portrays a sad misunderstanding. Even with all this "focus" that exists 50% of custodial parents do not collect the full amount of child support awarded. Another reality that your complex, theoretical, and obtuse discussion overlooks is the importance of financial support in a cash economy like the USA. What can you get in America without money? Very little. You need it for food, shelter, clothing, and medical care. Society's insistence that non-custodial parents (I didn't say fathers) pay child support reflects this reality. Kids growing up without adequate financial support in America will grow up poor and deprived.
I'm of the opinion that both parents in these situations are less important than the children are. I'd rather see the system impose too much responsibility on divorcing parents rather than too little. That is in the "best interests of the children".
No I dont...where are you getting this stuff?...again, you are just putting words in my mouth, period..if not outright lying on me...feel free to continue doing so, but as I said, my tolerance for such is low...unfortunately I will have to abstain from any further exchange with you until you are ready to address the actual comments I am making, rather than reconstructing my statements to conform to your outlook. Call this what you like, but I have honestly tolerated more of it than I should have even tolerated up until this point... I will be more than happy to resume dialogue with you when you are ready to do this.
I'm sorry you're getting so frustrated. I'm responding in the best way I can with how I understand your posts.
Quote:
What I will say for now is that: I am noting the absolute and undeniable presence of physiological equality, and acknowledging the absolute lack of physiological congruency.
This doesn't make sense to me. Maybe you can discuss in more detail.
Quote:
Unfortunately you wont understand what I am getting at because you have chosen to continue arguing about finances, and then you accuse me of being focused on finances...whereas I have made it clear that financial responsibility is not any integral part of my stance...equal rights are at the center of my rights. Once more this is the end of my part in bickering within this intense focus on finances.
You have not discussed any other responsibility that can be enforced by law. What I am supposed to do with that?
Quote:
Im not understanding what's so hard to make sense of here..physiologically no human is financially responsibility for anything, I cant state it in any more elementary terms than that ...perhaps you can expand your comprehension of what I am stating: in nature there is no corallary to financial responsibility...despite that you have stated that a woman's physiology/biology entitles her to preferencial consideration regarding her rights to her body...however as a man asserts that his biology is equally entitled to consideration then all of a sudden his physiology is unimportant...none of my posts will make any sense to you and you will have a hard time comprehending any of them, if you choose to view the rights of each sex with an arbitrary bias towards one or the other, based on their physiology (whether they are man or woman).
Again, I've never stated anything about a man's physiology when it comes to birth or abortion because there is nothing to state. It's a non-issue.
Quote:
A fetus is not a child..I never said that it was...but a fetus is a life...and that reasoning does work where yours undoubtedly falls short.
You are the one that used the term child. Specifically..."however if abortion were perceived to be what it is, which is a woman abandoning her financial responsibilities to a child as well"
That statement is incorrect. A woman is doing no such thing if a child does not exist. And one doesn't if it's a fetus.
Quote:
Exactly so why choose to punish people for withdrawing only one part of being a parent -- the financial aspect?..thats silly
Who is punished for not choosing to parent outside custodial parents? Nobody. Not in the US at least. Please show me a law intended to enforce non-custodial parents to parent.
Quote:
Fair enough...that is your opinion...mine is that there is a strong comparison to me made and even an equalization (not congruency) to be drawn...you have your outlook and I have mine, I can respect that.
You have not presented any comparison.
What I am reading from your posts are the following points.
A. It's not about finances.
B. It is about the rejection of parenting responsibility.
C. You're under the impression that non-custodial parents are forced to parent.
I've had a hard time accepting A, but I'm calling uncle. I'll accept it. IRT B and C, while society at large may frown upon non-custodial parents for not parenting, and that these people may suffer due to that, they are not legally punished.
this is largely a result of financial responsibility/compensation being the SOLE focus of the legal system's role in obligating a father to his children...in actuality, if the welfare of the child were truly an issue to this society and if men were truly to be held responsible for neglecting their role in a child's life, the presiding legal system would enforce punishment for more than just financial neglect.
I look at a larger picture than just child support. The issue of discrimination against men bridges all facets of life in the US. Acceptance to schools, Jobs, promotions within the work environment, and custody issue are just a few to check out. Men are placed in a separate category because we work, not because we are a majority. Such laws would be wrong if they were made against females, and they are just as wrong when made against males. It still looks like a double standard to me.
this is largely a result of financial responsibility/compensation being the SOLE focus of the legal system's role in obligating a father to his children...in actuality, if the welfare of the child were truly an issue to this society and if men were truly to be held responsible for neglecting their role in a child's life, the presiding legal system would enforce punishment for more than just financial neglect.
Many people learn to their dismay that court orders in divorce cases are not "self executing". Action has to be taken to enforce these orders if one party refuses to owe up to their responsibilities.
The court's do enforce visitation orders when non-custodial parents take the time and trouble to go to court to have them enforced. Custodial parents can be and sometimes are held in contempt of court for failing to honor the terms of these orders. I have seen it on numerous occasions.
Suggesting that enforcing financial responsibilities is the sole focus of the legal system portrays a sad misunderstanding. Even with all this "focus" that exists 50% of custodial parents do not collect the full amount of child support awarded. Another reality that your complex, theoretical, and obtuse discussion overlooks is the importance of financial support in a cash economy like the USA. What can you get in America without money? Very little. You need it for food, shelter, clothing, and medical care. Society's insistence that non-custodial parents (I didn't say fathers) pay child support reflects this reality. Kids growing up without adequate financial support in America will grow up poor and deprived.
I'm of the opinion that both parents in these situations are less important than the children are. I'd rather see the system impose too much responsibility on divorcing parents rather than too little. That is in the "best interests of the children".
nothing is obtuse or complex about my stance, if anything the rolling inconsistencies contained within the argument of yourself and others are being overlooked...the importance of financial support is being overlooked by me because again it is not an integral part of my argument that: We use physiology to assert that a mother's natural physiology as a woman, entitles her to a right to make decisions as she sees fit, regarding abortion and childbearing decisions. Yet we overlook the fact that a father's natural physiology as a man doesnt dictate that he must accept responsibility for his offspring either (label it financial, spiritual, physical, emotional -- whatever -- physiology does not dictate that a father must accept any responsibility for his offspring). If natural physiology is the criteria that we use to allow one sex their rights to make decisions regarding their person, then natural physiology too needs to be the criteria that we use in order to allow the other sex his rights to abandon his 'responsibility'...physiologically (naturally), a father has no financial (social construct) obligation to a child...nor any other obligation. The 'reality' is that natural physiology is selectively only taken into consideration when we are weighing women's/mothers' rights.
Last edited by solytaire; 10-11-2009 at 02:02 PM..
I look at a larger picture than just child support. The issue of discrimination against men bridges all facets of life in the US. Acceptance to schools, Jobs, promotions within the work environment, and custody issue are just a few to check out. Men are placed in a separate category because we work, not because we are a majority. Such laws would be wrong if they were made against females, and they are just as wrong when made against males. It still looks like a double standard to me.
While Im a proponent of equality between the sexes, there are indeed double standards, biases and contradictions that our society makes in order to accommodate the female sex in issues involving the legal system's role in parental rights and custodial issues...What I am also a proponent of however is using consistent parameters for the basis of our decisions..
In other words, if naturally occurring physiological aspects (childbearing, periods, etc. as a result of being born female) are the reason that a mothers rights should be extended to include making decisions about abortion, childbirth, childbearing, etc..then physiology should also be the reason that a father's rights should be extended to include the right to make decisions about aborting his offspring and the responsibilities involved, if he so chooses, or the right to involve himself in the lives of his offspring -- because if natural physiology (and all that is included: childbirth, menstrual cycles) is truly the basis for a mother's rights..then natural physiology should too be the basis for a father's rights to exercise his natural option to be or not to be involved in his child's lives... --- as naturally occurring physiology doesnt automatically dictate that a father accept responsibility for his offspring . And because finances are a social construct, not a physiological one, it too is of no importance in determining a father's rights.
Last edited by solytaire; 10-11-2009 at 02:03 PM..
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.
