this auld wan that's up the duff (1 Viewer)

[oh shit]

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

i do hate bitches

i think that i'm in danger of making arguments that will being relating to capitalist modes of production again.

*walking away

(i'm totally unprepared for this angle. shall we have another 50 pages on the ethics of child support?)

 

[taubstumm]

actually... vaguely related to that...

it has been pointed out by a lot of people that this question is based on competing rights and responsibilities. there has been a lot of talking about the responsibilities of two people having a ride. like as if we're expecting people who come home from the pub to have a big chat about their legal responsibilities prior to getting it on.

nobody seems to have pointed out yet that everyone, in the context of a situation that they're comfortable with, has a right to sexual pleasure, and that's another aspect to consider in the weighting of rights and responsibilities. sayin. (the fact that their partner might be a dud in the sack is their own fault)

it's something that has been discussed before around here when trianglegrrrl had that thread about contraception cos she wanted to have a ride.

 

[pete]

it has been pointed out by a lot of people that this question is based on competing rights and responsibilities. there has been a lot of talking about the responsibilities of two people having a ride. like as if we're expecting people who come home from the pub to have a big chat about their legal responsibilities prior to getting it on.

i'll put this as delicately as I can - anyone who doesn't relate getting their ride on with the potential for making an unwanted baby needs a slap. i mean, really.

 

[taubstumm]

i'll put this as delicately as I can - anyone who doesn't relate getting their ride on with the potential for making an unwanted baby needs a slap. i mean, really.

i ain't denying that, mista

just sticking up for the 'i like fucking' brigade

 

[nlgbbbblth]

i ain't denying that, mista

just sticking up for the 'i like fucking' brigade

rockin'

 

[classic seanc]

Top Posters List Last 24 Hours Last 7 Days


jane (70) glen (187)


glen (53) jane (166)

 

[Buzzo]

re the maintenance thing- I may not have made myself clear, I'm still pondering on the practicalities of the matter and I think that introducing legislation to criminalise otherwise law-abiding women in a matter pertaining to them being incubators for a man who wants a child that they don't is very very complicated. Testimony to this is the situation we face already where one half of the partnership doesn't want the child and yet is forced to live with the consequences of a ride through the payment of maintenance.

So. If this were ever made law (which I fairly sure any modern liberal society would not allow anyway so this entire thread is probably moot) I'm wondering; if women were forced by law into a situation where they are the half that doesn't want the child, would they be made to pay maintenance? If so, then women are not only being forced into financial punishment, but they have carried a pregnancy to term and given birth against their wishes. Grossly unfair. If they aren't made to pay maintenance and men who didn't want a child that is born are- grossly unfair (I agree Pete).

I think the point that Jane made- that the number women who carry a child to full term that they don't want in this country may be attributable to the shame attached to abortion (and for many people the cost of travelling to England and paying for an abortion)- is valid and should be taken into consideration when considering the consequences of children unwanted by fathers born in this country. Legalising abortion is not the solution to the inequalities faced by men in relation to children and families every day in this country, but it would reduce the magnitude of the problem of unwanted single parenthood.

 

[jane]

i ain't denying that, mista

just sticking up for the 'i like fucking' brigade

Fucking makes the baby jesus cry.

 

[pete]

If they aren't made to pay maintenance and men who didn't want a child that is born are- grossly unfair (I agree Pete)

And here's the problem - I think fathers should be forced to pay maintenance, whether they want the sprog or not...

 

[broken arm]

And here's the problem - I think fathers should be forced to pay maintenance, whether they want the sprog or not...

what if the father was raped.

 

[pete]

what if the father was raped.

 

[broken arm]

what if the mother was psyco and she kept getting pregnant and aborting for art or some shit. without any legal framework how would society stop the slaughter?

woop woop it's the sound of the police

 

[pete]

without any legal framework how would society stop the slaughter?

Slaughter of what?

 

[broken arm]

Slaughter of what?

daughters.

and maybe sons.


actually, nevermind.

 

[pete]

daughters.

and maybe sons.


actually, nevermind.

 

[jane]

And here's the problem - I think fathers should be forced to pay maintenance, whether they want the sprog or not...

I think there should have to be some legal recourse for stuff like this, but there is a big difference between a wallet and a womb. Where I think these issues actually collide is that -- as so many things described using generalisations do -- the maintenance issue treats a man as just a wallet, and the reproductive rights laws treat a woman as just a womb. People are reduced to very clear cut categories that don't reflect the complex realities of people's lives.

The hugest difference, however, is that maintenance involves a child that exists already. It seems best to settle maintenance issues out of court because clearly, the less animosity there is between two parents, the better for the child because the child is alive and breathing and at least somewhat suceptible to the effects of his or her parents' relationship with each other.

The reduction of people to simple gender categories of wallet/womb are bad for everyone, but they are issues to be deal with totally separately in a legal sense. I think that, as a society and as a collection of individuals who make up that society, everyone has a responsibility to facilitate parenting. I mean, it's still widely seen as a woman's issue to balance career and family. The reality is that it's everyone's issue. But just like the active parental duties are often seen as the woman's by default, the breadwinning duties are easily seen as the man's by default.

Which is why I don't just think -- I know -- that we'll never get anywhere until we can actually talk about the ways that nice neat gender categories affect people's realities. Just because I have been talking about how women are perceived as 'whores and liars' (I know that sounds extreme, but if there were a prevailing view of women as full human beings without exception, it would be impossible for the illegal sex trade to exist), there are dangerous perceptions of men that can't be ignored (e.g., that men should have voracious sex drives, that men should be the bigger earners, the horrendous icky thing known as 'presenteeism' that can preclude a healthy 'work-life balance').

But it's not just up to the government to do. Workplaces have to facilitate it, and maybe the government is going to have to force them to do it, but they won't do it until actual people lobby the government for this kinds of change. This is why I think it's disappointing that the fathers' rights groups are often so hostile to women's rights groups. There are a lot of areas in which their/our concerns actually complement each other. But sadly, when you have freaks like John Waters as your misogynist spokestwat, that's not going to be easy.

OH FUCK. I told myself I was going to stay off this thread today. Pete, could you pass a law that I have to be protected from myself so that I don't post on this thread until I've made up for the lost work time that I stupidly did to myself. I am WEAK. JUST LIKE A WOMAN, EH?

 

[Dr Winston Umbogo]

I am WEAK. JUST LIKE A WOMAN, EH?

 

[Lefty Frizzell]

She looks exactly like the singer from manowar.

 

[RSJ]

In relation to people's concerns about their points going attributed to jane and/or people seeing this as Jane Vs whoever: In real life you're talking to people you know and/or watching them say the words, so you remember their points along with other sensory stuff like the tone of their voice, their facial expressions and so forth. When you're reading this stuff online, all you're remembering is what's said, and the font used. You might get initial recognition from the username or avatar (particularly if you know someone or if you respond to the person online a lot) but after that you're just reading text, taking it in, processing it etc. Jane's posts are long. Like very long. So it can happen that you end up bunching different people's posts together when they're making the same argument for the simple reason that you're used to hearing the points with jane's avatar and name at the top and as you read and read and read, and process more and more stuff, then go away and think about it, it can seem like jane was saying it, because all you really remember is the blue screen with the writing on.

Does that make sense? If i've insulted anyone, i'm sorry, i don't mean to downplay your role in the debate, i'm just saying that, at 58 pages of text (and those are some long pages), it can happen that people boil things down a little when replying....

 

[glen]

I take responsibility for my anger at the existence of outrageous attitudes, but I do not take responsibility for those attitudes themse reacted to, and totally dismissed which is what Ro did to me. He hadnot often taken seriously enough, I just don't believe we can conflate them with the issue of a woman's reproductive rights. What Ro proposed is outrageous, and I think most people on here agree. I think it's important to get angry about things like this, and not revert to some attitude that everyone's point is valid. Some simply are not, and when they continue to be asserted in such a simplistic and dismissive faction, and with a refusal to respond to any challenges, I think we not only have a right to get angry, we have a responsibility to do so. I take responsibility for my anger at the existence of outrageous attitudes, but I do not take responsibility for those attitudes themselves.I was referring to my posts in the earlier pages of this thread, before he chose to ignore what I was actually saying and focus on what he wanted me to have said so he could avoid my questions. Tom only joined a few pages ago, and asked the same questions Ro had been avoiding since about page 5, and they were answered immediately. He didn't need to get angry. He was taken seriously immediately and responded to, rather than reacted to, and totally dismissed which is what Ro did to me. He had a chance to respond politely, but he chose not to. I got angry, and so did a lot of people, and then it turned into an accusation that my 'tone' was somehow off, when actually, the real problem is not that I am angry, it is that these objectionable attitudes are rarely challenged because people are too afraid to say anything that might make the person who said them angry, and thus open themselves up to accusations that they are 'just as bad' because they got angry. I take responsibility for my anger at the existence of outrageous attitudes, but I do not take responsibility for those attitudes themselves.I was referring to my posts in the earlier pages of this thread, before he chose to ignore what I was actually saying and focus on what he wanted me to have said so he could avoid my questions. Tom only joined a few pages ago, and asked the same questions Ro had been avoiding since about page 5, and they were answered immediately. He didn't need to get angry. He was taken seriously immediately and responded to, rather than reacted to, and totally dismissed which is what Ro did to me. He had a chance to respond politely, but he chose not to. I got angry, and so did a lot of people, and then it turned into an accusation that my 'tone' was somehow off, when actually, the real problem is not that I am angry, it is that these objectionable attitudes are rarely challenged because people are too afraid to say anything that might make the person who said them angry, and thus open themselves up to accusations that they are 'just as bad' because they got angry. I have actually been answering the questions asked of me, even though it is understandably enraging to have to prove that the underlying reasons for these kinds of laws and perceptions exist. It's hard not to get angry, and I'm angry because they affect me directly. I'm not going to apologise because sometimes I choose not to discuss things with the detached reserve on the internet that is expected in a more 'official' arena. Ro has chosen to ignore just about everything I've said. He has not once acknowledged that I am not just sympathetic to fathers' rights, I am actually concerned that they are not often taken seriously enough, I just don't believe we can conflate them with the issue of a woman's reproductive rights. What Ro proposed is outrageous, and I think most people on here agree. I think it's important to get angry about things like this, and not revert to some attitude that everyone's point is valid. Some simply are not, and when they continue to be asserted in such a simplistic and dismissive faction, and with a refusal to respond to any challenges, I think we not only have a right to get angry, we have a responsibility to do so. I take responsibility for my anger at the existence of outrageous attitudes, but I do not take responsibility for those attitudes themselves.I was referring to my posts in the earlier pages of this thread, before he chose to ignore what I was actually saying and focus on what he wanted me to have said so he could avoid my questions. Tom only joined a few pages ago, and asked the same questions Ro had been avoiding since about page 5, and they were answered immediately. He didn't need to get angry. He was taken seriously immediately and responded to, rather than reacted to, and totally dismissed which is what Ro did to me. He had a chance to respond politely, but he chose not to. I got angry, and so did a lot of people, and then it turned into an accusation that my 'tone' was somehow off, when actually, the real problem is not that I am angry, it is that these objectionable attitudes are rarely challenged because people are too afraid to say anything that might make the person who said them angry, and thus open themselves up to accusations that they are 'just as bad' because they got angry. I take responsibility for my anger at the existence of outrageous attitudes, but I do not take responsibility for those attitudes themselves.I was referring to my posts in the earlier pages of this thread, before he chose to ignore what I was actually saying and focus on what he wanted me to have said so he could avoid my questions. Tom only joined a few pages ago, and asked the same questions Ro had been avoiding since about page 5, and they were answered immediately. He didn't need to get angry. He was taken seriously immediately and responded to, rather than reacted to, and totally dismissed which is what Ro did to me. He had a chance to respond politely, but he chose not to. I got angry, and so did a lot of people, and then it turned into an accusation that my 'tone' was somehow off, when actually, the real problem is not that I am angry, it is that these objectionable attitudes are rarely challenged because people are too afraid to say anything that might make the person who said them angry, and thus open themselves up to accusations that they are 'just as bad' because they got angry. I have actually been answering the questions asked of me, even though it is understandably enraging to have to prove that the underlying reasons for these kinds of laws and perceptions exist. It's hard not to get angry, and I'm angry because they affect me directly. I'm not going to apologise because sometimes I choose not to discuss things with the detached reserve on the internet that is expected in a more 'official' arena. Ro has chosen to ignore just about everything I've said. He has not once acknowledged that I am not just sympathetic to fathers' rights, I am actually concerned that they are not often taken seriously enough, I just don't believe we can conflate them with the issue of a woman's reproductive rights. What Ro proposed is outrageous, and I think most people on here agree. I think it's important to get angry about things like this, and not revert to some attitude that everyone's point is valid. Some simply are not, and when they continue to be asserted in such a simplistic and dismissive faction, and with a refusal to respond to any challenges, I think we not only have a right to get angry, we have a responsibility to do so. I take responsibility for my anger at the existence of outrageous attitudes, but I do not take responsibility for those attitudes themselves.I was referring to my posts in the earlier pages of this thread, before he chose to ignore what I was actually saying and focus on what he wanted me to have said so he could avoid my questions. Tom only joined a few pages ago, and asked the same questions Ro had been avoiding since about page 5, and they were answered immediately. He didn't need to get angry. He was taken seriously immediately and responded to, rather than reacted to, and totally dismissed which is what Ro did to me. He had a chance to respond politely, but he chose not to. I got angry, and so did a lot of people, and then it turned into an accusation that my 'tone' was somehow off, when actually, the real problem is not that I am angry, it is that these objectionable attitudes are rarely challenged because people are too afraid to say anything that might make the person who said them angry, and thus open themselves up to accusations that they are 'just as bad' because they got angry.

Could you summarise that a bit?