this auld wan that's up the duff (2 Viewers)

[krystal]

about 3 out of every 4 of mine were ignored too, I kept saying the same thing and getting no response. I don't think it's deliberate but more to do with the speed of debate really and how quickly the thread grew.

I find this troubling, too. I've just had a read through of the thread, and noticed that you were consistently ignored. And there were lots of other people who were ignored, and most of them were women and Glen.

While I'm perfectly happy to have my voice heard, I would hope that people would recognise that it's not only my voice being aired on the side of reproductive rights. In fact, most people who have posted have been on the side of legal reproductive rights, but it keeps being framed as if it is only between me and Ro. YEs, I've posted a lot, and I apologise if my lengthy posts have caused some people screen exhaustion. But really, I generally assume that people read shorter posts more easily, and so it doesn't explain why mazzyianne's posts, or those of many others, have been ignored.

 

[jane]

about 3 out of every 4 of mine were ignored too, I kept saying the same thing and getting no response. I don't think it's deliberate but more to do with the speed of debate really and how quickly the thread grew.

That's true. I imagine, like you said above, that part of it is that I have been trying very hard to fight my corner. But why should it take such extremes of effort to be heard at all? I know there is some degree of the thread growing quickly, and lots of ideas being thrown out at once, but I still find it a little troubling.

 

[pete]

as it stands now, a man can walk away the second the pregnancy test comes back positive and never pay a penny. that's the reason men are legally required to pay up, where they have a name on the birth certificate.

well i just checked on oasis.gov.ie & it seems to be a bit different here in the free state

... if you have had a child outside of marriage, you may apply to the court to order the other parent to pay child support. In most cases, it is the parent with main custody of the child that makes such an application.
(You and your ex-partner may, of course, be able to come to an agreement about maintenance without having to go to court.)
If the court decides that the parent of a dependent child has failed to provide such maintenance for the child as "is proper in the circumstances", it may order that parent to make periodical maintenance payments to support the child. The court may also order a parent to pay a lump sum.

So the question stands.... if in a hypothetical situation it would be 'grossly unfair' to expect a woman to support a child she did not want to have, then does it not automatically follow that to force men to do so here and now in the real world is also grossly unfair?

a woman isn't allowed to abort, but for her maternity is a certainty, whereas paternity is just an idea.

I'm sure any fathers reading this really appreciate that comment.

 

[krystal]

ah I think it's just we swamped ro with the weight of our disagreement and he ended up mostly debating with you is all. Lots of us, only one of him!

That's true. I imagine, like you said above, that part of it is that I have been trying very hard to fight my corner. But why should it take such extremes of effort to be heard at all? I know there is some degree of the thread growing quickly, and lots of ideas being thrown out at once, but I still find it a little troubling.

 

[pete]

That's true. I imagine, like you said above, that part of it is that I have been trying very hard to fight my corner. But why should it take such extremes of effort to be heard at all? I know there is some degree of the thread growing quickly, and lots of ideas being thrown out at once, but I still find it a little troubling.

don't take it personally. nobody ever responds to me.

 

[mazzyianne]

And there were lots of other people who were ignored, and most of them were women and Glen.

glen has been fantastic comic relief and no one thanked him
Thanks glen

While I'm perfectly happy to have my voice heard, I would hope that people would recognise that it's not only my voice being aired on the side of reproductive rights. In fact, most people who have posted have been on the side of legal reproductive rights, but it keeps being framed as if it is only between me and Ro. YEs, I've posted a lot, and I apologise if my lengthy posts have caused some people screen exhaustion. But really, I generally assume that people read shorter posts more easily, and so it doesn't explain why mazzyianne's posts, or those of many others, have been ignored.

My main point wasn't supposed to be that I was being ignored, coz I dont think it was purposely anyways, (except maybe by Ro, and in order to avoid a difficult challange to his view) but that you got kind of attacked for being angry and strong and maybe that girls aren't meant to act like that and maybe that's why. That it turned into a personal thing towards you.
(ok take away all my lovely rep)

Women apparently use 'I think', and 'maybe', and other qualifiers more than men. I'll check if I was doing that. I do it a lot. I've been meaning to stop.

 

[jane]

don't take it personally. nobody ever responds to me.

Did somebody say something?

 

[oh shit]

well i just checked on oasis.gov.ie & it seems to be a bit different here in the free state

i'd like to see stats on how often men who simply walk away are actually caught up with and actually made to consistently pay. i know that on paper they're supposed to. but if a woman doesn't have the name to put on the birth cert...

So the question stands.... if in a hypothetical situation it would be 'grossly unfair' to expect a woman to support a child she did not want to have, then does it not automatically follow that to force men to do so here and now in the real world is also grossly unfair?

it is unfair. but unfortunately no one gets paid for being a mother (or a father for that matter).

I'm sure any fathers reading this really appreciate that comment.

why? they chose to be fathers. i'm sure it never once entered their minds to walk away from their partners, but the fact is that men do it all the time. women don't have that choice. people can take that personally if they want.

 

[oh shit]

just to clarify: i'm talking about in early pregnancy when i say 'paternity is just an idea'.

 

[pete]

i'd like to see stats on how often men who simply walk away are actually caught up with and actually made to consistently pay. i know that on paper they're supposed to. but if a woman doesn't have the name to put on the birth cert...

The name being / not being on the birth cert is irrelevant. Refusal to take part a paternity test (by either party) can be considered evidence enough when deciding parenthood by the district court when arriving at their decision in the maintenance claim (the assumption being if the man refuses, he's the father; if the woman refuses, the man requesting paternity test is not the father)

it is unfair. but unfortunately no one gets paid for being a mother (or a father for that matter).

Actually, strictly speaking they do.

why? they chose to be fathers. i'm sure it never once entered their minds to walk away from their partners, but the fact is that men do it all the time. women don't have that choice. people can take that personally if they want.

Women don't have that choice? I can only assume you're mixing up "partner" with "parental responsibilities". In any event, in both cases they do have that choice. You'll note that the stuff i quoted regarding pursuing maintenance is gender-neutral.

 

[jane]

well i just checked on oasis.gov.ie & it seems to be a bit different here in the free state


So the question stands.... if in a hypothetical situation it would be 'grossly unfair' to expect a woman to support a child she did not want to have, then does it not automatically follow that to force men to do so here and now in the real world is also grossly unfair?


I'm sure any fathers reading this really appreciate that comment.

Actually, I think this is an important issue, but I do think it isn't the same as a woman's reproductive rights. I absolutely want to distinguish what I'm about to say from an argument that suggests that some children should never be born (because once a child is born, even if it was unplanned, I would hope it would be treated as if it was wanted, and treated with the full respect afforded a human being on this earth, and many children are), but I do think a lot of women go through with unwanted pregnancies because of the shame surrounding abortion, or the cost, or the lack of access, or whatever million reasons that are directly related to the illegality of abortion in Ireland.

But, that aside, the issue of children who already exist is another issue, and it's possibly even stickier, and even with legalised abortion, it won't mean that every unwanted pregnancy will be terminated, nor should it -- reproductive rights mean freedom TO reproduce as well as freedom NOT to. I mean, we will eventually have to acknowledge that what is in a woman's womb is her final decision, whether or not she keeps it. Personally, I would not have a child on my own unless I could support it on my own, but that's easy for me to say because, as much as I moan about my current finances, I will probably someday be in a position to support a child as well as myself. Not everyone does, nor will they.

It's a different issue, though some of the points people might make about it, and some of the sub-issues will collide with that of reproductive rights. And I also think that, like with the abortion issue, the uniqueness of each person's situation means that legislation is extremely difficult, being general by nature. It's different because it deals with a child who is already living and breathing and in the world, as opposed to a foetus or child (depending on how someone sees it) that/who is inside a woman's body and is completely reliant on its host/mother.

Once a child is born, the focus should be on what is best for the child. The best way to legislate to ensure maximum fairness all around is not going to be the same approach taken for reproductive rights. They are different things. I don't think there's an easy answer, but that's not what we're talking about here anyway.

 

[oh shit]

The name being / not being on the birth cert is irrelevant. Refusal to take part a paternity test (by either party) can be considered evidence enough when deciding parenthood by the district court when arriving at their decision in the maintenance claim (the assumption being if the man refuses, he's the father; if the woman refuses, the man requesting paternity test is not the father)

i stand corrected

Actually, strictly speaking they do.

strictly speaking that's a benefit, not a working wage.

Women don't have that choice? I can only assume you're mixing up "partner" with "parental responsibilities". In any event, in both cases they do have that choice. You'll note that the stuff i quoted regarding pursuing maintenance is gender-neutral.

no, a woman cannot walk away from a pregnant man.

 

[jane]

no, a woman cannot walk away from a pregnant man.

Especially if he's coated with his own man glue.

I just want to say that word.

Man glue. Man glue.

I'm off to the favourite words thread.

 

[taubstumm]

So the question stands.... if in a hypothetical situation it would be 'grossly unfair' to expect a woman to support a child she did not want to have, then does it not automatically follow that to force men to do so here and now in the real world is also grossly unfair?

there seems to be an assumption in the question - that forcing an absent father to pay child support is equivalent to forcing a mother to have a child against their will. unless i'm taking you up wrong. but if that is what you're saying, then i suppose the obvious riposte would be that what a woman would go through is several orders of magnitude removed from what a man would go through.

in many instances, a woman goes through twenty years of pregnancy, childcare, rearing and support. and a man might only have been involved in the first half an hour of that twenty years - and that half an hour is the fun bit! so, if we are to assume that ratio of involvement, then, yes, you have a theoretical, philosophical point, but in real-world terms there is such a colossal and obvious gender difference that it's almost embarassing to have to point it out.

again, i'm not exactly sure if you're actually arguing that - i might have got the wrong end of the stick. maybe clarify a bit?

(also, i'd noticed that some posts were getting ignored but i'd assumed that it was down to the speed of the growth of the thread - maybe not)

 

[pete]

strictly speaking that's a benefit, not a working wage.

You said "no one gets paid"! Quit moving the goalposts you goalposts mover.

Are you now suggesting that women caring fulltime for their children don't deserve to be paid?

WOMANHATER

 

[jane]

the first half an hour of that twenty years -

Half hour?

(You can't expect anyone to resist that.)

 

[pete]

there seems to be an assumption in the question - that forcing an absent father to pay child support is equivalent to forcing a mother to have a child against their will.

Not at all. The question was based on the hypothetical situation put forward by the Wormo lass a few pages back

Would women who didn't want their child but were forced to give birth to it be obliged in the same manner, and if not, is that not grossly unequal to men who are fathers to children they don't want

all i did was rephrase it a bit to suit my nefarious patriarchal misogynistic ends.

 

[taubstumm]

Half hour?

(You can't expect anyone to resist that.)

including the time it takes to get from the pub to the chipper to the bedsit

 

[jane]

including the time it takes to get from the pub to the chipper to the bedsit.

Wait, I'm supposed to get chips, too? Deadly.

 

[pete]

including the time it takes to get from the pub to the chipper to the bedsit.

fancy