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

[egg_]

Actually, I think she does have a point, and that probably explains most of it, but I do wonder why it is that when the challenge was presented by a Known Evil Woman, it was all, "Go away. Shut up." but when a man presented them, it was all, "Ooooh, how articulate of you. Jolly good, sir."

Whatever about everything else, that's still pretty annoying.

I tell you what's annoying - when someone accepts that someone else's explanation was correct, but then slings a little extra mud anyway just in case

 

[Rogue]

But the point was that in a hypothetical situation where a woman is forced to give birth to a child she doesn't want, and she can be forced to financially support it, this would be considered to be a very bad thing indeed.

Yet this is the situation men are currently in right now - once pregnancy occurs they have no choice in the matter, and can be forced to support that child for 18 years. Now I imagine that like me, most people think this is perfectly fair based on the principle of taking responsibility for your actions... So how are the two reconciled?

Like snaky (I think, I can't be arsed checking) said a few pages ago, this is a power issue: by analogy [and for the sake of massive but necessary oversimplification], if two people are in a car only one of them can drive it at any given moment, if they both want to go to the same place then it's all good but if there's disagreement then there'll be dispute and ultimately one side will force the other (passively or aggressively, it's still force) to back down.

1 - Ideally in the situation of sex leading to pregnancy, both parties involved will both want the same thing - no problem.

2 - In a reality of good faith, the parties may disagree and have to decide what is the best thing to do between them and the best possible compromise [in terms of termination, support, maintenance etc] - problematic but resolvable locally.

3 - The remainder of the time is the hard part, where one or both parties want what they want and refuse to compromise. This is the only time the law should come into play and in this situation the options for equitable resolve have been pretty much exhausted. One side will get what it wants [with costs of some sort] and the other will have to put up with it or be penalised.

As it stands currently the weight of the law is on the woman's side [not in all ways of course but in this power equation], if what MDR suggested was in place then the weight would swing the other way. The only balanced situations are points 1 and 2 above, by the time it gets to court there is no longer a fair solution possible. I don't think the law is ever 'fair' because ideally 'fairness' should be built into people's dealings with each other while the law has only ever been there to arbitrate when people can't sort it out themselves; that this is not the way the world works [or if it ever did] is distressing.

In answer to Pete's question, I don't think the two can be reconciled: as kirstie said before, it's the lesser of two evils.

Under current legislation.

Woman wants child - man doesn't = man pays money for 18yrs + emotional burden of having a child he doesn't want (to whatever degree the child is in the father's life).

Man wants child - woman doesn't = man has emotional burden of losing child (presuming woman has abortion).

In both cases the woman has the power and the man gets nothing he wants (obviously I'm ignoring the complexities and obviously the woman is losing out in these also, i'm just trying to focus on the gross power aspect).


Under MDR's suggestion.

Woman wants child - man doesn't = no change as far as I can see.


Man wants child - woman doesn't = woman has both physical and emotional burden of going through unwanted pregnancy

In this case the power lies with whoever wants the child, they force the other to concede.


On paper, MDR's solution looks more 'fair' by balancing the power more evenly between both parties. The side issue is that it's moving the power from a pro-choice view to a pro-life view (again, in simple terms) by forcing the pregnancy if either party wants a child; the end result is likely to be more children without a 'normal' family situation - I don't know if this is a good or a bad thing, that's another debate.

In simple math, the emotional burden of having a child you don't want will be felt by both sides so they cancel out. You're left with the physical burden on the woman vs the financial burden on the man - these are the only enforced consequences, everything else is negotiable. So it's a matter of choice, which is considered worse?

{I've tried to stand back from the whole argument - and most of its tangents - and just boil it down, apologies if I've offended anyone with the simplicity of that kind of argument; not intending to play down the real complexity of the issue just isolating one aspect - scott}

ps - it's not really men vs women, except in legislative terms.

 

[jane]

i'm just suggesting that possibly the framing of the discussion in the context of some particular "right" is causing the pitting of man against woman. which is causing the tension, which is making people lose sight of what they are actually talking about.

i still think bullet points are a good idea.

I suppose framing it in the sense of how we achieve equity in these matters, or how at least we can legislate with equity in mind (since equality has to be produced through social relations, and can't be brought about by law), and how that can work along with real, and meaningful dialogue. I think it also depends how you define 'rights'. I mean, currently, people seem to think that 'rights' to one person remove rights from another, even if that's not true at all.

* Bullet points.

* Are often useful.

* I should remember

* To use them more often.

* Now I swear I have to do work.

* No, really.

 

[jane]

I tell you what's annoying - when someone accepts that someone else's explanation was correct, but then slings a little extra mud anyway just in case

I didn't say I thought it was totally correct, I said that it probably explained most of it. What followed was not a slinging of mud, it was a pointing out of how things worked. I wasn't the only one who noticed it.

 

[snakybus]

Like snaky (I think, I can't be arsed checking) said a few pages ago, this is a power issue:

yeah it was me

and NOBODY LISTENED

 

[Rogue]

yeah it was me

and NOBODY LISTENED

But I remembered 'cos you're a bhoy.!bing

 

[snakybus]

it's cuz I'm a dad

nobody listens to dads

we have much to offer: knowledge about what's "hip", as well as dancing and humour advice

 

[krystal]

you and my dad should get together and talk about rave-ups and drink-ups (and in the context of this thread, fuck-ups) and what else the young folk like to get up to these days.

it's cuz I'm a dad

nobody listens to dads

we have much to offer: knowledge about what's "hip", as well as dancing and humour advice

 

[snakybus]

I'll hang with your dad any time, he sounds cool.

 

[La La]

instead of being borned, i tink dis tread's gonna doi of a broken haert wunce peeple stap pooostin' on ih.

 

[pete]

isn't it more accurate to say that both parents are currently forced to pay for their children - wanted or otherwise? it's not just men.

of course it is. The point is that men have no choice in the matter. Everyone accepts this as being the best outcome, and yet when the roles are hypothetically reversed....

 

[pete]

we can't even begin to talk about that issue until we stop pitting men and women against each other as enemies.

You mean like this sort of thing?

Underneath all the 'sanctity' of life is an underlying attitude, one which bolsters all of Western Christian philosophy, that women are all whores unless they are adequately civilised by men, and that we are liars until validated by a man (or a collective paternalistic unit like a courtroom), and that we will kill our own children if given half a chance.

 

[pete]

hey Pete, can't the kid be given up for adoption? I don't get what you're on about.

Choice.

 

[glen]

Kids are great, even if they stretch your gee, make your tits all flat,
keep you up all night, cost a fortune and write on walls and books.

 

[snakybus]

Choice.

???

Are you saying that a man has to pay for a child he's the father of, no matter what? Or that people have to brign up kids? This is unclear. I'm not arguing - I'm just wondering what exactly the point is that you're making.

 

[pete]

Are you saying that a man has to pay for a child he's the father of, no matter what?

That's the law as it stands.

http://oasis.gov.ie/relationships/civil_relationships/maintenance_and_unmarried_couples.html

 

[classic seanc]

Can I get an update on this?
Thanks

 

[glen]

Are you a Gard?

 

[classic seanc]

Me? Why?

 

[RSJ]

Can I get an update on this?
Thanks

Don't sex whores and liars.