Abortion? Yep, it’s a men’s issue, too.
On the October 13th, the GOP-led House of Representatives passed a bill with the truly perverse name of “Protect Life Act”. Folks such as the United States Council of Catholic Bishops and extremist religious groups like the Family Research Council cheered, as the reproductive and women’s rights activist looked on in horror along many ‘regular’ people. I don’t live in America so even if it got past the Senate (unlikely) and President Obama signed it (thankfully, he basically said ‘no way!’) this law wouldn’t affect me personally. However, when I read the news in the morning I felt as if someone punched me in the stomach. In this vote, American congressmen (yes – mostly white, middle aged men) essentially said that women’s lives really don’t matter that much. 251 democratically-elected representatives from the “land of the free and the brave” believe that government money should not be spent on saving American women’s lives. Because this bill isn’t even about abortion per se – I understand how this is a difficult issue for some – it’s (among others) about providing emergency obstetric care to women who will die if they do not receive an abortion. The majority of members of the American House of Representatives think a woman’s life is not worth saving if it involves sacrificing that of a fetus (which will die anyway with the mother). Please read that again. I strongly believe that whatever you think of abortion, your (or a politician’s for that matter) opinions shouldn’t condemn women to death.
There’s more to this bill. According to the representatives who voted it through, ‘protecting life’ involves more than not allowing for abortions – it actually includes coercing women into having children they do not want/ cannot afford to raise by allowing health plans to refuse to cover birth control and other women’s preventive services. And whatever else these guys are doing, they are not representing the will of the American people — 66 percent of Americans think contraception should be fully refunded! There’s a great analysis of this bill and its consequences at RH Reality Check and I won’t go into more details here. Rather, I want to take a closer look at why is it that at a time when unemployment, the deficit, and the economical downturn should perhaps be the issues legislators are worried about, instead they come up with grand-named pieces of potentially lethal, bigoted, and hugely misogynistic legislation (I admit that I sometimes have the tendency to exaggerate, but that’s definitely not what I’m doing in this sentence).
Going to bed on the 13th (time change – I’m in London) I really hoped I’d wake up and breathe a sigh of relief that all these people in their fancy suits had come to their senses. My bad – they haven’t. It actually got worse as the day progressed because on my own national front (Poland) things aren’t so dandy either – Catholic pharmacists are petitioning for the right not to sell contraceptives because they’re against their morality (my question is: would they ask a man coming into to buy Viagra to produce a marriage certificate? Surely premarital sex must be against their beliefs.)
♦◊♦
What is it with reproductive rights that politicians think they can just legislate away? Well, maybe there are too many people who fondly remember the days before Roe vs. Wade and sort of miss the time when women were forced into getting unsafe back-alley abortions (because study after study shows that de-legalizing abortions does just that – it doesn’t stop women from getting them, it just makes it more dangerous). And how did we get talked into believing that reproductive rights (including the right to abortion and refundable contraception) are somehow exclusively “women’s issues” (which are obviously less important than non-women’s issues, such as economy, although women constitute over 50% of American society – and yes – they actually care about the economy as well). Well for starters, the reason women even need contraceptives or an abortion is because men are very much in the picture. Somehow, the discourse around these issues has managed to completely ignore the reality of the situation – we get pregnant and worry about getting pregnant because we have heterosexual sex. Perhaps this is just stating the obvious but let me remind y’all – heterosexual sex involves men. Men who may – or may not – want to become fathers. Men who have mothers, wives, partners, sisters, friends, aunts, female colleagues…you name it. Men who care about their sexual partners and about other sexually active women who are not their partners. The majority of these men really would not like women to die a completely preventable death in a public hospital because it was policy to not provide emergency abortions.
However, we shouldn’t oppose barbaric laws and support basic human rights just because they may affect people we know and love.
So why do politicians go on legislative hate-trips and busy themselves passing bills, which have no chance of becoming the law of the land? I suppose they’re making a statement – to their rich super conservative donors mostly, and right-wing radicals who are listening closely. There are still people who believe that women should fall pregnant just about every time they have sex (and they’ll explain it either as a blessing or punishment for slutiness) and then stay at home with their ‘little ones’ tending the hearth and house. Men, on the other hand, should bring home the bacon, never show too much emotion (if they’re not watching a football game) and be appropriately praised for ‘helping their wives’ and changing the occasional diaper or watching over the kids while she goes to the hairdresser. The H.R. 358 (oh so inappropriately called) “Protect a Life” Bill is about more than abortion and respecting women – it’s about respecting individuals’ choices and letting them live their lives as they choose, and not as politicians think is appropriate. I’m just a gal from the former Soviet block, but this looks like an American value to me if I ever saw one.
—Photo internets_dairy/Flickr
This is addressed to all the people suggesting that men should have some kind of veto or unilateral vote over whether a woman has an abortion: Besides the impossibly horrible human rights issues with this, there are alternatives that protect male rights. The proposed legal “Male Abortion” would give men the legally garanteed right to choose whether or not they wish to take part in bringing up a child, including financial responsibility. This solution not only allows women free agency over whether or not to have a child, it also frees them from the doubt regarding whether or not she… Read more »
Sounds like a fair and just proposal, Peter. It will be interetsting to see how many feminists vocalize their strident opposition to it, on the grounds that it might inconvenience a woman at some point.
Yes i fully agree
And for pure self intrest too.
Quite often an abortion is a family decision, meaning a decision a woman discusses with her partner (mostly men, right?)
So if women loose the ability to family plan, so do men.
oh yeah.. and that compassion stuff ;P
Unfortunately, there isn’t available male birth control out there yet, but there are a few options that men could take to prevent pregnancy and have a little more control over it. If you’re having a short term fling, use a condom. If it happens to break for some reason, offer to take or go with the girl to the local pharmacy to get the morning after pill. Offer to split the cost of it. If you’re in a long-term relationship, help your wife/girlfriend take her birth control on time every day (text her, set an alarm, take a placebo mint… Read more »
In general, I think abortion should be safe and legal. There are some ironies that I think we really have to wrestle with, though. In China, and there is some evidence this is happening in Asian-American families as well, abortion has been used as a form of sex selection of children. Female embryos and fetuses are substantially more likely to be aborted than males, because so many people want sons more than they want daughters. There has been some movement in China towards not telling the parents the sex of the child at all, to prevent this very practice. In… Read more »
This discussion is further proof that feminists care about women less than they hate men. Every feminist goal concerning the personal autonomy of women would have been achieved absolutely by now if they would have just joined the fight for liberty and rights for all people. Instead, the concept of a truly liberated man is so repugnant to them that they risk having women live under conservative, Republican mores. Choice for men is the obvious morally correct way to deal with reproductive rights, but instead of making the correct moral choice, feminists have instead chosen the path that will make… Read more »
Well, I will be pro-choice when someone show me the march of the “I wished I was aborted” society. But It is inmature to force women to take care of a life if they cant (If they dont want to then they cant, is the same), be Pro-Life should sooner or later be pro gay-adoption. A mother that wants to abort is not a good mother (not that she wanted to be one), a gay couple that strugle to adopt a kid is guaranteed to offer the kid a better LIFE, thats is what is all about: LIFE. Both mother… Read more »
I wonder how many boomer aged women who support abortion would have been aborted had it been legal when they were conceived. If you are woman over age 36, you were conceived when abortion was illegal. So you had a nearly 100% chance of surviving abortion. If you were conceived after 1973, your odds of being aborted were about 30%.
If you are over age 36, there is a 30% change you would have been aborted had it been legal.
I can’t tell, but are you assuming that women did not get abortions before 1973? Even before the Roe v Wade decision, there were states where forms of abortion were legal, and in the 19th century a lot of states simply had no laws on the books about it one way or another. The Roe v Wade decision was not an absolute revolution from one policy to a completely different one. Most of the laws that Roe v Wade invalidated were only a few decades old, actually. Sure, I am here because my mom did not abort the pregnancy that… Read more »
When abortion was illegal there were just a few hundred (illegal) abortions in the US each year. There is no way that 30% of pregnancies were terminated before it became legal.
And there is a big difference between an actual live fetus who would grow into a specific individual person, and is then killed, as opposed to the whole random happenstance of who would have met who.
Each abortion kills a specific living human being.
“When abortion was illegal there were just a few hundred (illegal) abortions in the US each year. There is no way that 30% of pregnancies were terminated before it became legal.”
Since it was ILLEGAL there were no reliable stats for the numbers of abortions.
So there’s no way to know this.
I really love how anti-feminists and misogynists (like their political equals, right-wing religious nutbags) just MAKE UP STUFF and expect it to be accepted.
Is that not the ultimate in arrogant male privilege? LOL
Plus I love the way you just IGNORE wellokthen’s points that abortion WAS legal in many states.
Really, you should write your own blog and then read it. It’s the only way anything you read or write is going to make sense to the audience.
Bottom line: Men have no reproductive rights in nations where gender bigots (mainstream feminists) rule. Men need to be able to force women to have an abortion so women cannot force men to pay child support for 18 years. OUR bodies our right TOO.
I really love how feminists and misandrists (like their political equals, left-wing ‘progressive’ scumbags) just MAKE UP STUFF and expect it to be accepted.
Is that not the ultimate in arrogant female privilege? LOL
I do concede that we could make a distinction between choices made before fertilization and choices made after fertilization. I don’t think it’s as black and white as that, but I can see your point. I would also concede that there were probably fewer abortions before 1973 than afterwards. That seems perfectly plausible to me, though I wonder how easy it would be to get reliable statistics. Ironically, a conservative might argue that it doesn’t matter how many people do something – it’s right or wrong no matter how many do it. If the concern is the *number* of abortions… Read more »
Thanks for a well reasoned response. A opposed to some others. I think we agree on the basic facts: true abortion rate before 1973 is unknowable – but all reasonable people would have to conclude that it was much lower back when it was illegal and dangerous. One can even assume it was very low, given that illegal abortions had a significant mortality rat. If the abortion rate was high the mortality rate for women from abortions would show up in mortality statistics before 1973. I’m glad that we both recognize that there is a distinction between decisions made pre… Read more »
Men should have the right to an obligation abortion if they so choose. Consider that at the moment, legally, only women can decide if they have an abortion or not. If they choose not to, the man is then liable for child support. Since it is considered unreasonable for the women to be forced to change her mind if the man disagrees, men should be able to state they wish no contact and no responsibility for the child if the women decides not to abort.
If it is her body her choice then it should be his body his choice.
OR *we* could just recognise that the very FIRST freedom ANY free society must recognise is the freedom to one’s own body, and acknowledge that women have that and that women CANNOT in a free society be forced to carry a child.
Women have been aborting fetuses since we figured out what they were. Even non-human animals abort fetuses. Anti-choice laws and rhetoric is simply patriarchal control of women’s bodies.
Nothing else.
“Morgaine” You sound like a sexist. To you, only women have the right to do what they want with their own body. Women should not be “forced” to carry a child, but nor should men be “forced” to subsidize the choices a woman makes with her own body, including the decision to have a baby. I repeat: just because a man consents to sex does not mean he consents to the woman using his sperm to have a baby. I support abortion rights because the more poor people and dirtbags use it, the better we are as a society. Single… Read more »
“the more poor people and dirtbags use it, the better we are as a society. ”
Well, with that statement you remove any obligation on my part to treat you or your ideas with respect.
“Single mothers are the number one reason we have the crime rates we have.”
LMFAO. There are many, many societies in the world with many, many single mothers that don’t have NEARLY the crime rate the US has.
No, I’m not sexist. But you’re misogynist, classist, bigoted and ignorant.
@ Dude…
Sounds like someone needs to man up. If you don’t want a woman to do what she wants with your sperm uhhh… don’t give her any?
Is that really so hard to understand?
@ Demohidu
And if the woman didnt want a baby, she shouldnt have accepted any sperm.
Does that sound like a decent statement? No?
Then why would it be a decent statement when applied to men?
Don’t get me wrong, Dude sounds a bit like a douche, but don’t take this particular point to lightly because of it. It is a real concern of a real person.
@ Dude
And you sound a bit too easily offended.
I didnt see Morgaine say we need to force men to subsidize unwanted children, you just assumed that didnt you?
You have a decent point in my eyes, make it like a decent person.
Don’t follow with:
“poor people and dirt bags use it”
JEZUZ you come across judgmental as fuck!
@Morgaine: Trouble is, there may be more than one body involved: where and when does life begin etc? There has to be a line drawn somewhere, I’m guessing you would agree that 9 months is probably a little late? If not there, then when? “Dude” makes a good point, even though he did go on to sully it with his classism and misogyny. Men should have some input in the matter, if not over the woman’s choice to give birth or not (personally I’d consider this hers and hers alone provided the child is still probably incapable of suffering pain)… Read more »
I take a pragmatic view about the legality of abortion. I think to make it illegal and to enforce that law would require an incredibly invasive government and some very extreme forms of law enforcement. The cost just isn’t worth whatever benefit there would be. I’m not just talking about women turning to “back alley” providers. We would also need to regulate the dozens of substances sold in your local Wal-Mart that could be ingested to induce a miscarriage. Will you need a license to buy carrot seeds, for example? We would need to treat every miscarriage as a possible… Read more »
Waaaait, theres a huge difference between balancing moral and fiscal demands on a nation’s exchequer and relegating human life as an inconvenience to be dispensed with at will. Don’t get me wrong: I have 0 issues with the termination of pregnancies that don’t even have a nervous system, but some abortions are carried around the point my dad was born (premature birth, wasn’t initially expected to live). This isn’t a case of massive public expenditure vs. one human life (in which case there are many other human lives to consider). Its a case of human lives vs. someone elses quality… Read more »
An article that those interested in the subject of parity of reproductive rights between both genders:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/a-modest-proposal-for-male-reproductive-rights/
Do leave a comment.
IWhy is my voice only being heard when it comes to what i can do to help woman ?, rarely is it the other way around.
While i do have a problem is someone choices being taken away from them, i don’t see the call for men to support woman’s issues succeeding.
By the way, Maria, all this makes you look like a HUGE hypocrite.
As predicted, you avoided the question choosing instead to whine about my “declarations about what feminist believe in” and then you decided to posit a made up and irrelevant scenario that has nothing to do with the question or whether or not men should have any reproductive rights. Maria, it doesn’t matter what is said before sex. All that matters is that if she gets pregnant a woman has all the choice in the matter as to what to do while the man has no choice, save the choice on whether or not to pay child support or go to… Read more »
The second to last paragraph should read:
“Fourth (and this is the only one Maria has not done yet), is demonize the opposition by calling them sexists.”
To her credit, Maria has not pulled the “sexist” card.
Yet.
Quite frankly, I have issues with your sweeping decelerations about what feminists believe in or don’t believe in, but putting that aside. Let me ask you one practical question: how exactly do you see this panning out in real life? Should people sign a contract every time before they have sex: “I hereby declare I was informed that Mr. XYZ does not want children and therefore if we conceive a child I will not sue him for alimony” or “Ms. ABC has informed me she is on birth control and therefore if we fall pregnant I have the right to… Read more »
Assuming universal access to abortion as a prerequisite to any such scenario, wouldn’t such a contract only be necessary for those women for whom abortion is %100 out of the question?
One proposed solution is to give fathers a month’s period of time after learning of the pregnancy to make their decision. Those men who relinquish parenting responsibilities would still be responsible to provide reasonable compensation for related medical expenses and lost income due to pregnancy.
Dr. Sen, How is this fair? Would you apply the same logic to a woman, thereby giving her a one month time limit after learning of the pregnancy on whether or not to have an abortion? If not, why does a man only get one month to decide whether or not he wants to terminate his parental rights and obligations? Shouldn’t men and women have the same reproductive rights? If not, why not? I thank you for putting forward a solution that isn’t totally biased against men . . . at least it’s something. That said, it is still unfair… Read more »
Bottom line: Men do not have choice when it comes to whether or not the baby is brought to term. Because they have no choice in the matter, they should not have any coerced obligations from the choice made by the woman to bring the baby to term. If your really care about equality, then men should have the same choice women have . . . whether or not to have responsibility for bringing a baby into this world. As it stands now, the game is one sided and discriminatory . . . another word might be sexist. In order… Read more »
Maria, Your avoidance of the question shows your hypocrisy and what I suspect is your bigoted attitude towards men. You’re a women who likes double standards, aren’t you? But, like so many feminists, only when they are in your favor. When you perceive it to be otherwise, you get hysterical and write articles and have marches and try and have legislation passed to enforce your preferences. This is part of the reason why so many men hate feminists and see them as scum. Let me try and explain it to you as simply as possible. While both men and women… Read more »
I’m sorry but I just fail to understand how men don’t supposedly have a choice: don’t they have a choice to use a condom, to pay for the pill, to discuss potion with their partner and finally to not have sex? These are about the same option that women have? Except usually it is the women stuck paying for the contraception and somehow there are way more single mothers than fathers worldwide. When contraception fails they are the ones who have to deal with the consequences. Yes, adoption is an option – but it takes a lot of guts to… Read more »
Maria,
Do you read English? He said that the 70% figure is about PUBLIC FUNDING of abortions, not whether or not people believe it should be legal or not. He even gave you a link.
If you can’t comprehend, or bother to answer fairly the responses of your commentators, then you probably shouldn’t bother answering at all.
For the record, I believe abortion should be legal, but I don’t think my tax dollars should go to subsidize the preventable medical conditions of others. Pay for a condom, birth control, or don’t have sex. Don’t force me to pay for your bad choices.
Dude: You do realize condoms and birth control are not 100% right? To cast every unexpected pregnancy as a consequence of irresponsible actions is short-sighted. And incorrect.
Also, our tax dollars subsidize people’s bad choices all the time. Our tax dollars fund alcohol and drug treatment programs, prisons, etc. Why are you drawing this arbitrary line in the sand at abortion?
Maria and others like her need to listen carefully. Religious conservatives will never support abortion; they would rather die than do so. So the only way to keep the majority in this country pro-choice is by making sure that the pro-choice movement is synonymous with personal liberty and bodily sovereignty FOR EVERYONE. The number of men who are realizing that they have no reproductive rights is growing and one day their support or lack thereof will determine whether or not women have access to safe abortion, but their demand, in return, will be that their liberty is treated with the… Read more »
As other commentators mentioned, I’ll give a shit about women’s issues and reproductive rights the day they start caring about mine. As some of the hypocritical feminist commentators expressed, they don’t care about men’s rights. A women can get pregnant and do anything she wants with the baby. If she chooses to have it an not tell me, I have no recourse. If she chooses to abort it, I have no say. But once she wants a check, I pay the bill, or go to jail. Maria, do you care about men’s reproductive rights? I doubt it. If so, please… Read more »
Maria,
You may not like it, but the vast majority of Americans agree with this law. In a recent poll, 72% of Americans said they don’t want any public funding of abortion:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1408
You’re casting the public’s rejection of public funding of abortions as a men vs. women issue – but the reality is that 70% of American women don’t want public funding of abortion either.
You’re part of a very rapidly shrinking minority.
The reason restrictions on abortion are coming up all over the country is that the majority of the nation – men and women – are turning against abortion. Ultrasound technology gets better every year. Whenever a family has a wanted pregnancy, these days the proud parents circulate ultrasound scans. The new 3d ultrasounds are very lifelike and give a clear picture of what an unborn child looks like. Each of these images changes peoples minds about abortion – one family at a time. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=0AI&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=3d%20ultrasound&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=22157l32792l0l33696l9l8l4l0l0l0l160l587l0.4l4l0&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1039&bih=523 Abortion supporters are trying to make these images illegal. They have restricted parent’s access to 3d… Read more »
Maria –I am not a proponent or opponent of the legislation in question. There may be very rare cases where abortion is the only alternative to preserve the mother’s life. However, this aspect of the issue is routinely dramatized because the cases where abortion is the only option to save the mom’s life are extremely rare – not unheard of but very rare indeed. Certainly, where an emergency abortion is truly the only option to save the mom’s life, there shouldn’t be any impediment to her making that choice but to claim that such scenarios are anything but an extremely… Read more »
Eric: I disagree with you. Last year my wife was 16 weeks pregnant with our second child when we were told there were major complications. Mermaid Syndrome. Legs fused together, no kidneys, no bladder, no anus and some of the best doctors in the country told us there was a zero percent chance of survival. My wife’s life was not in danger at the moment, but complications could very well have arisen if we waited. So we made the incredibly difficult decision to have an abortion. There was nothing trumped up about our scenario and I heard from hundreds of… Read more »
“Do some people abuse this? Yes, I’m sure they do. But I don’t think they’re in the majority either. And that’s why I believe abortion should not be restricted.”
That is where you are wrong. Your case is the kind of difficult tragic circumstance where abortion – as difficult as it is – is the only humane option. But the vast majority of abortions are on healthy, viable children – killed as a form of last ditch birth control.
My sincere sympathies to your and your wife. I had a child who was accidentally killed. So, I understand the pain of losing a child.
To be clear, I am not claiming that situations like yours don’t exist or should be dismissed or minimized. If that’s how my comments sounded, I apologize; that was not my intent. However, such situations are statistically rare.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, which is strongly in favor of unrestricted abortion, the vast majority of abortions are elective, having nothing to do with the health of the baby or mother.
Eric: I didn’t think your comments were malicious. No worries. And I understand cases like mine are the vast minority. But whether a woman can’t have a viable pregnancy, is raped or simply made a poor choice and doesn’t have the means or desire to raise a child, abortion should be an option. I fail to see the wisdom of putting the rights of living cells over the rights of a grown person. Telling women to give kids up for adoption and forcing women to have babies is not the answer either. Basically if you’re against abortion that’s fine. Don’t… Read more »
Like I said, I am not a proponent or opponent of elective abortion rights. Although I know what’s right, try to always do what’s right (with mixed success), teach my children what’s right and why, I don’t get involved in forcing legislation one way or the other. At the same time (this is not meant to be directed exclusively to you) it’s wholly unscientific to claim that an unborn Homo Sapiens fetus is merely a collection of cells whereas a newborn preemie is anything more than that. If one is a just a collection of cells, so is the other.… Read more »
Eric: Obviously it depends on what point in the pregnancy the woman is at. I have mixed feelings about late-term abortion and quite honestly, I haven’t made up my mind on that front. But in the first trimester I do not believe that fetus is a person yet. I do not believe it has rights (and it certainly doesn’t have more rights than the woman carrying it). I never claimed the arguments to support abortion are scientific. They’re not. Or at least I’m not presenting a scientifically-backed argument and never claimed to be. I’m saying the rights of the woman… Read more »
DF, Thanks. I personally never talk in terms of “personhood” because it is philosophical term with no fixed meaning. As such, it is open to debate and interpretation, and continues to change over time. Parsing rights based on what is considered a “person” at the time, as opposed to acknowledged scientific reality of what is a Homo Sapiens, has historically lead to legislated conclusions that African and Native Americans weren’t “persons”, and were thus not deserving of basic human rights accorded to “persons.” Similarly, women formerly weren’t considered equal “persons”, at least as compared to white men. All… Read more »
“where it is 100% legal to obtain an abortion up until the moment of birth for no reason other than that the child is unwanted.”
Rubbish. Provide proof.
Do they not have Google where you live? If you can get to a county that has Google, feel free to do a search on “abortion law Canada” or something similar. You will find that, despite opposition, there is absolutely, positively no law that prevents a woman from getting an electove abortion a split second before birth or instead of live birth, for no reason other than because she can. “Hey doc, I changed my mind. Make that an abortion instead of a birth.” As distasteful (to some) and extreme as that scenario seems, it is absolutely legal, and… Read more »
Eric, nice shutdown! No response from the activist to the facts, as usual.
Kathy, most fathers who actually look into history of the feminist movement would never thank feminism. Feminism has played a very active role in fighting fathers equal parenting rights.
NOW is always a vocal opponent of all shared parenting laws. Cynical hypocrisy.
I’d really like to see some peer-reviewed documented proof of both of these assertions.
Neither Feminism nor NOW has EVER opposed shared parenting laws. Provide evidence.
“Neither Feminism nor NOW has EVER opposed shared parenting laws.”
…except when they do.
Here is NOW’s anti-shared parenting laws stance, supported by outright falsehoods:
http://www.nownys.org/fathers_resp.html
Hah. I love seeing ignorance nailed.
What part of “peer-reviewed documented proof ” do you not understand? That article is neither; but in fact, that article does NOT support any of your assertions: “We agree that joint custody can work in financially secure families when the parents live near each other, have flexible work schedules, and neither has remarried. But when parents are forced into a custody arrangement they don’t agree to, and when parents don’t get along – as is often the case when relationships end – studies show joint custody can be disastrous for the children. “Under current law, any separating couple in NY… Read more »
“What part of “peer-reviewed documented proof ” do you not understand? – Why would you need peer-reviewed proof of a group’s position when they themselves wrote it? Do you even know the meaning of the phrase? We’re not talking about a scientific report. The quotes you cite DISPROVE your own defense of NOW. Let’s look at them one-by-one: “We agree that joint custody can work in financially secure families when the parents live near each other, have flexible work schedules, and neither has remarried.” – When it is convenient (for the mother), NOW supports joint custody. FYI, raising a child… Read more »
Maria: I agree with you on all fronts regarding the proposed legislation and the fact that men should care about this issue. And largely, I think they do. On both sides. I know I do and I’ve (unfortunately) had unpleasant experiences with this issue that have been well chronicled on this site. So to all your valid points on the issue, I say bravo. But honestly, you could’ve resisted the unnecessary swipe at the men you’re trying to win over. You write: “Men, on the other hand, should bring home the bacon, never show too much emotion (if they’re not… Read more »
Thanks for reading the post! I absolutely agree we should praise fathers for stepping up (my Dad was one of the first people in Poland to take paternity leave and I am pretty emotionally invested in this cause). What I was saying is that generally people who don’t ‘believe’ in reproductive rights are warring advocates for ‘traditional family values’ which limit and constrain men and women. I don’t think women should be forced into being the caregiver the same way I don’t believe men should be assumed to be primary breadwinners. I strongly believe that every couple (hetero- or homosexual)… Read more »
Maria, there’s one issue with every couple deciding to work out what’s best for them. If the mother makes no money and the father makes all the money, that’s a huge power imbalance. We need to develop an economy that expects everyone to take equal responsibility for caregiving tasks. Yes, it’s a radical idea and it probably won’t ever be realized, but we need to say it anyway.
Thanks for your post.
How about letting adults decide for themselves what they believe is best for their lives rather than being dictated to by feminists? What a radical concept?
Kathy: Are you kidding? It’s impossible—I repeat, IMPOSSIBLE—to have equal responsibility for caregiving tasks across the board. I have a shitty commute and I work full time. My wife does not. I have to sacrifice time with my son to pay the bills, put food on the table, etc. Therefore my wife handles the bulk of domestic responsibilities including childcare, cleaning and chores. Sure when I’m home I do what I can, but it’ll never be on par with what my wife does. Nor should it be. I find it highly amusing how you advocate for men to do 50%… Read more »
I ditto this! I also find it curious that feminists what no talk of 50/50 default custody judgements after divorce with no money being exchanged for child support. We know that children of divorced parents do best when there is a maximum involvement of both biological parents so this is the way that it should be right? Ahh true equality; feminists hate it.
Kathy- you’re right. There is a power imbalance, BUT it goes the opposite way: “Of the 1,260 men and women whom Pew pollsters surveyed over the summer, 43% responded that the woman makes most of the major decisions for the family, with 31% saying that the couple makes most decisions together. There was a small difference (within the margin of error) between the control exerted by wives who earn more than their husbands and those who earn less (46% versus 42%). But in both cases, women wielded sole decision-making power far more than men did, indicating that what “father knows… Read more »
Why don’t we praise fathers for stepping up . . . ? Because most fathers are just helping out with the housework and childcare, they’re not taking equal responsibility. When most fathers do take equal responsibility, we will praise them. And we will also praise the feminist movement for providing the impetus, the challenge and the inspiration.
I don’t think this website disproves stereotypes about men. Most of the time, it perpetuates them.
Kathy, in most two parent households, the father is the primary (and sometimes only) breadwinner and so spends more time at work and less time at home. If you really want 50-50 parenting, the mother should get a full-time job as well and be responsible for half of all expenses. Then the parents can drop the kid off at daycare all day and spend equal time with her/her in the limited evening hours while they are also doing 50-50 housework. Sounds like an ideal way to raise a child!
Kathy: Where is the appreciation for the work outside the home men do? Men are 95% of on-the-job deaths, and 80% of all suicides. It seems silly to sound out a clarion call for more child-care for men, without a similar call for women to work outside the home. To my mind, the power imbalance for non-working SAHM and full-time working dad is that the Stay At Home Mom has the power. For all the talk about the father earning all the power, that is pretty meaningless. Why? Because the law states the mother has an equal share in the… Read more »
That’s a good point. In divorce, the wife will likely get 50% of all the marital assets, but the husaband will likely NOT get 50% custody of the kids.
I guess Kathy is just fine with that double standard.
You’re ridiculous Kathy.
So you fault men for not taking half the responsibility. Then, if they do meet your lofty expectations, you’re going to give the credit for their actions to the feminists instead of the men who stepped up? That is laughable.
Thanks for perpetuating a stereotype of your own on this site about misguided ultra-feminists.
“I don’t think this website disproves stereotypes about men. Most of the time, it perpetuates them.” At least many of the male commenters do. These MRA-type misogynists really make me long for How to Be a Lesbian 101. Thank the Lorde that there are men like Hugo who show they aren’t the only– or even the majority of– men. “in most two parent households, the father is the primary (and sometimes only) breadwinner ” Wow, Smiley, I don’t know what decade YOU’RE living in, but this hasn’t been true for 30 years and for the working poor has NEVER been… Read more »
Morgaine, welcome to the 21st century where in households with both a mom and dad (that’s what two parent means), the dad still earns more money than the mom (in most cases) and sometimes the dad is the only parent working outside the house.
Rightly or wrongly, that is the current state of reality in America on planet Earth. I don’t know what planet YOU’RE living on.
“These MRA-type misogynists really make me long for How to Be a Lesbian 101.”
– Sorry to burst your bubble, but like men, lesbians also have standards. You might be better off with How to be A-sexual 101.
Maria, great post, and from a POV outside America. I will stay tuned to this thread. Surely we will see more comments that reveal compassion, intelligence, understanding of the nuances of this bill, and enlightened thinking. If that does not happen, it will confirm exactly why we are in deep shit in America. A lot of other countries are looking pretty good to me right now. Come on, folks–anybody out there really “get” this issue?? Please comment.