James Caruthers wrote:Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood. I find most people's hypocrisy on this issue absolutely infuriating. Nobody on this board would suggest that a woman who accidentally got knocked up consented to be a mother when she had sex. But I think many people of all persuasions political would say that a man who had sex with a woman consented to be a father when he had sex. Ugh. I've encountered this sentiment (that men consent to fatherhood and the financial liability of fatherhood every time they have sex) from conservatives, liberals, libertarians, christians, atheists, feminists of ALL stripes (so much for gender equality, but I guess the money has to come from somewhere!) and everyone in-between. :snooty: YOU'RE NOT A REAL MAAAAN! :naughty:
¹ Knows it can happen + Wants it to happen + Carries on
v
² Knows it can happen + Doesn't particularly care + Carries on
v
³ Knows it can happen + Doesn't want it to happen + But carries on
v
...
× Thought it could't happen (+ Doesn't want it to happen) + Takes precautions
- When determining (criminal) liability, we usually only punish 1,2 (deliberate/eventual intent), as long as neglience (starting with conscious neglience in 3) isn't also punishable.
- When determining (civil) monetary liabilities, we ~usually~ don't make that distinction between 2 and 3, and we usually don't let that person off the hook, even if he/she reasonably believed his/her actions couldn't lead to a certain outcome (x).
That's where the inequal treatment of men/women comes from.
A man's forced participation is primarily considered one of monetary commitment = liable for damages (=unwanted loss of wealth on the woman's side), no matter what.
A woman's forced participation, or the cancellation thereof, is primarily considered a violation of bodily autonomy when mandated by the state, which can only be justified if towering public interests demand it. In most western countries, the state has no legitimate interest in enfocing/preventing procreation (although that MIGHT change, if demographics get worse). That's why a woman can say
"I quit" even IF she initially consented to it - UNTIL the point where her decision might transgress into the realm of other rights (which is the point where the abortion debate starts).
What's special about this:
In ever other civil case, a respondant could reject a plaintiff's claim for compensation (child support), if the plaintiff delibaretly used the respondant's actions to cause loss of wealth on his own side, because the resulting loss of wealth couldn't be seen as "unwanted" anymore, and therefor not be considered "damage". No damage, no compensation.
How does socialist legislation get around this ?
With a trick - by claiming that the child is a "third party", which has a claim against both parents to satifsy its needs. The father must satisfy that claim by being the primary moneygiver, the mother by being the primary caregiver. If a parent cannot be held liable, for whatever reason, the state (=everyone) steps in and pays the bills.
Needless to say, that feminist influence is responsible for sending men to prison for failing to pay up, while there are virtually no sanctions against women who neglect their duties (unless the child endures physically harm).
All of that is part of
"social justice", the enforced redistribution of wealth from the fit to the unfit. Some aspects of it are useful, others are severely detrimental - the way SJ handles questions of poverty and parenthood, has produced an evergrowing underbelly of underclass people who pop out the most children, but who can't neither support themselves, nor their children. A long-term recipe for disaster.
The simplest fix to this whole problem (imo) would be to allow men to renounce parental rights without the woman's consent. Currently, all decisions a man makes about being or not being a father are at the discretion of the woman. This parental release form would be signed by the man and witnessed by the court. The man would lose his parental privileges over the child, but would no longer be financially liable to provide money to this child. A "financial abortion."
Never going to happen, because it would have a huge impact on demographics. Illegitimacy rates in certain parts of the population would probably closing in to 100%, the state's expenses to support single mothers would go through the roof, as well as the number of abortions, while general birth rates would be plummeting.
Letting men have a say in these affairs is a form of equality that society cannot stomach, because the current system is almost entirely built on the involuntary participation and payment liabilities of men.
Also, paternity testing should be available on-demand to EITHER parent and the results should be admissible in court as evidence for either side. This would prevent a woman who falsely accuses a man of being the father from forcing the court to throw out paternity results, which women currently do. No man should ever have to pay, I think we can all agree, for a child which is not his.
See what I wrote above. In a perfectly reasonable and just world, paternity tests would be mandatory some time after a child's birth, but we're
NEVER going to see that - quite the opposite, some western countries have made it a
crime for a man to get a paternity test done without the consent of the mother.
So ... "Patriarchy" ? Nope. By no stretch of the imagination are western societies built around the needs of men.
That's not only wrong, it's the opposite of true. :hand:
