No one said anything about forcing anyone to do anything.
They want to abdicate their responsibilities because "I took all precautions and am not able to fulfill this obligation."
Exactly. And all I asked for was a reason why they should be able to do so. And financial strain is certainly a completely valid one.
Got nothing to do with gender equality though.
Because women can use abortion as a means to remove financial liability. If we want fair, there it is. But we can't grow children in test tubes, so, there exists some natural discrepancies there.
I would rather the financial reason for abortion be removed entirely, as it is, but I don't feel comfortable putting modifiers on having abortions and someone will get their knickers in a twist because I'm impinging on autonomy.
If it's a health reason, okay, sure. But if you put your vagina on a penis, you should take responsibility for your actions, even if an oops happens.
That's how crazy this whole debate is. You're agreeing that the opposite is perfectly acceptable. Not because of bodily autonomy, but because you're, for lack of a better word, slut shaming men.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Also, saying "women can pay child support too so there is no gender equality issue" leads me to counter with:
There are women doctors, engineers, astronauts, CEO's, televangelists and senators.
ergo there is no gender equality issue in employment in this country.
Please refute my statement without applying a higher standard of logic than what you're using for yourself.
Um, these two statements have nothing to do with one another. WTF are you on about?
Child support is not a gendered issue and has nothing to do with gender equality. Where is the connection people? Cause all the reasons you've given (like financial burden) are gender neutral.
Child support is money owed the child by the parents, regardless of gender.
The only way gender has anything to do with this is the whole "but women can get an abortion" part of the argument that's already been hit on many a time.
Because child support is pretty damn close to always paid by the man.
It can, technically, be paid by the mother, but in practice that is not the case. So that's a gender equality issue in the exact same way that "there aren't enough woman scientists" is a gender issue.
Because there's no rule that says women can't be scientists.
Child support is disproportionately a financial burden for men. And while the payments vary from place to place and person to person, they can absolutely lock a young person into a lifetime of poverty.
Obviously, having a kid can lock you into a lifetime of poverty too.
But you'll never see me arguing that a woman should be forced to accept that either.
I absolutely fail to see how child support is anything other than punitive regardless of the gender of the person paying it and those receiving it.
It's meant to ensure that a child has the bare minimum living standard provided for them. Any other time a person is in need of the absolute bare necessities plenty of us would agree the government should provide them. Yet for some reason when it's in regards to a child we demand an individual regardless of their ability to pay all costs up front which is blatantly unfair to the child, the willing parent, and the unwilling one.
If both parents are unwilling or unfit to raise a child the state steps in. If one parent is unwilling to do so it should do the same.
Unfortunately right now it generally doesn't and instead forces unwilling individuals to raise children whether or not they are capable solely for the reason that they decided to have sex. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with. Not that I expect to see that happening when half the country wants to strip away basic welfare altogether.
The problem here is a practical one. If the parents aren't gonna raise him, who will?
Our non-parental-child-rearing attempts are not exactly beacons of quality.
Also, saying "women can pay child support too so there is no gender equality issue" leads me to counter with:
There are women doctors, engineers, astronauts, CEO's, televangelists and senators.
ergo there is no gender equality issue in employment in this country.
Please refute my statement without applying a higher standard of logic than what you're using for yourself.
Um, these two statements have nothing to do with one another. WTF are you on about?
Child support is not a gendered issue and has nothing to do with gender equality. Where is the connection people? Cause all the reasons you've given (like financial burden) are gender neutral.
Child support is money owed the child by the parents, regardless of gender.
The only way gender has anything to do with this is the whole "but women can get an abortion" part of the argument that's already been hit on many a time.
Because child support is pretty damn close to always paid by the man.
It can, technically, be paid by the mother, but in practice that is not the case. So that's a gender equality issue in the exact same way that "there aren't enough woman scientists" is a gender issue.
Because there's no rule that says women can't be scientists.
Child support is disproportionately a financial burden for men. And while the payments vary from place to place and person to person, they can absolutely lock a young person into a lifetime of poverty.
Obviously, having a kid can lock you into a lifetime of poverty too.
But you'll never see me arguing that a woman should be forced to accept that either.
If that's your connection, then your problem is not child support. It's that women are the default care-givers for children.
Which is, you know, a HUGE issue in feminism.
This is a good argument, but it's not an argument against child support, it's an argument against gender roles in child rearing.
I absolutely fail to see how child support is anything other than punitive regardless of the gender of the person paying it and those receiving it.
It's meant to ensure that a child has the bare minimum living standard provided for them. Any other time a person is in need of the absolute bare necessities plenty of us would agree the government should provide them. Yet for some reason when it's in regards to a child we demand an individual regardless of their ability to pay all costs up front which is blatantly unfair to the child, the willing parent, and the unwilling one.
If both parents are unwilling or unfit to raise a child the state steps in. If one parent is unwilling to do so it should do the same.
Unfortunately right now it generally doesn't and instead forces unwilling individuals to raise children whether or not they are capable solely for the reason that they decided to have sex. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with. Not that I expect to see that happening when half the country wants to strip away basic welfare altogether.
The problem here is a practical one. If the parents aren't gonna raise him, who will?
Our non-parental-child-rearing attempts are not exactly beacons of quality.
Which would be a reason to improve resources for parentless or single parent children, not declare X person has to provide for the kid and then cover our ears when they can't/won't and now the kid's going hungry every other day.
Also, saying "women can pay child support too so there is no gender equality issue" leads me to counter with:
There are women doctors, engineers, astronauts, CEO's, televangelists and senators.
ergo there is no gender equality issue in employment in this country.
Please refute my statement without applying a higher standard of logic than what you're using for yourself.
Um, these two statements have nothing to do with one another. WTF are you on about?
Child support is not a gendered issue and has nothing to do with gender equality. Where is the connection people? Cause all the reasons you've given (like financial burden) are gender neutral.
Child support is money owed the child by the parents, regardless of gender.
The only way gender has anything to do with this is the whole "but women can get an abortion" part of the argument that's already been hit on many a time.
Because child support is pretty damn close to always paid by the man.
It can, technically, be paid by the mother, but in practice that is not the case. So that's a gender equality issue in the exact same way that "there aren't enough woman scientists" is a gender issue.
Because there's no rule that says women can't be scientists.
Child support is disproportionately a financial burden for men. And while the payments vary from place to place and person to person, they can absolutely lock a young person into a lifetime of poverty.
Obviously, having a kid can lock you into a lifetime of poverty too.
But you'll never see me arguing that a woman should be forced to accept that either.
If that's your connection, then your problem is not child support. It's that women are the default care-givers for children.
Which is, you know, a HUGE issue in feminism.
This is a good argument, but it's not an argument against child support, it's an argument against gender roles in child rearing.
I'm quite clearly not the one waving the rah rah banner for "the woman is automatically the caregiver".
Rather that's society and our crappy court system.
Also, saying "women can pay child support too so there is no gender equality issue" leads me to counter with:
There are women doctors, engineers, astronauts, CEO's, televangelists and senators.
ergo there is no gender equality issue in employment in this country.
Please refute my statement without applying a higher standard of logic than what you're using for yourself.
Um, these two statements have nothing to do with one another. WTF are you on about?
Child support is not a gendered issue and has nothing to do with gender equality. Where is the connection people? Cause all the reasons you've given (like financial burden) are gender neutral.
Child support is money owed the child by the parents, regardless of gender.
The only way gender has anything to do with this is the whole "but women can get an abortion" part of the argument that's already been hit on many a time.
It's because the miracle of childbirth is a legal headache. One legal entity appears out of nowhere, like a You Are the Ref comic where the ball sprouted legs and started jumping at players' hands. Despite that, the process is done with with a grossly negligent minimum of paperwork for what is a three-pipe, cross the i's and dot the t's legal dilemma. It is unsurprising that unfairness abounds if people are unwilling to put in the documentation.
The law does not protect people with a wanton disregard for proper procedure. Unless they are children.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
FYI: Court ordered child support is NOT extracting payment for bare necessities, but instead is "designed to as closely approximate the standard of living of the custodial parent (read: "mother") and child as they enjoyed while during the familial relationship with the father."
Judges also enjoy nearly unlimited latitude in determining child support, spousal support, and alimony, and any payment allocated to those three follows no strict nomenclature - the money is basically fungible between those three names/allocations.
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
- Women choose whether or not a child comes to term, as it should be, and also have a choice at birth not to be responsible for a child
- Men, having no choice on whether or not a child comes to term, should also have a choice at birth not to be responsible for a child
Simple
Which means that women alone are forced to bear the responsibilities and consequences of an unplanned pregnancy.
Unless you think that bringing a child to term, or getting an abortion, counts as "not being responsible", in which case you're wrong.
I'd certainly love to have our current flawed system of child support (and I'd consider the primary flaws to not be some moral violation of the presumed paternal right to abandon one's biological children at will with no consequences, but how it's often difficult or impossible to collect) with a much wider and deeper social safety net.
But we don't have that yet.
So talking about eliminating child support in the name of paternal rights before that happens is basically telling single mothers (and single fathers) to go fuck themselves.
Also, saying "women can pay child support too so there is no gender equality issue" leads me to counter with:
There are women doctors, engineers, astronauts, CEO's, televangelists and senators.
ergo there is no gender equality issue in employment in this country.
Please refute my statement without applying a higher standard of logic than what you're using for yourself.
Um, these two statements have nothing to do with one another. WTF are you on about?
Child support is not a gendered issue and has nothing to do with gender equality. Where is the connection people? Cause all the reasons you've given (like financial burden) are gender neutral.
Child support is money owed the child by the parents, regardless of gender.
The only way gender has anything to do with this is the whole "but women can get an abortion" part of the argument that's already been hit on many a time.
Because child support is pretty damn close to always paid by the man.
It can, technically, be paid by the mother, but in practice that is not the case. So that's a gender equality issue in the exact same way that "there aren't enough woman scientists" is a gender issue.
Because there's no rule that says women can't be scientists.
Child support is disproportionately a financial burden for men. And while the payments vary from place to place and person to person, they can absolutely lock a young person into a lifetime of poverty.
Obviously, having a kid can lock you into a lifetime of poverty too.
But you'll never see me arguing that a woman should be forced to accept that either.
If that's your connection, then your problem is not child support. It's that women are the default care-givers for children.
Which is, you know, a HUGE issue in feminism.
This is a good argument, but it's not an argument against child support, it's an argument against gender roles in child rearing.
Except, of course, that in many cases the woman defaults as caregiver because she made the unilateral decision to allow a child to be born that needed care.
Hypothetically, a man who made the same decision should shoulder the same burden.
And the financial welfare of children in need, as with anyone in need, should be something we address as a society. I'm with Quid, there's a strong punitive streak when talking about child care.
Edit: basically I don't see any benefit in extracting support from noncustodial parents that isn't a throwback to fiscal conservatism or punishing sex.
But the principle of equality in gender roles - both parents have an equal opportunity for custody and equal responsibility to care / provide for the child is a good principle. It doesn't have anything to do with bodily autonomy, and there are certainly places the law can be improved or doesn't live up to that principle, but the principle itself is sound and an ideal to pursue.
What do you mean by "equal"?
That is one of the perennial problems of this conversation. Literal equality is impossible. Some measure of similarity with respect to particular social / legal mechanisms seems possible.
With procreation, the problem is there is a literal difference: Lady has a fetus growing inside of her.
Trying to manifest social / legal "equality" around a gigantic biological difference is a big fucking problem. I think both sides of this conversation are ignoring that.
The process of pregnancy is fundamentally different for each biological sex. So, there will probably be some differences within the social / legal framework of pregnancy.
Complete equality is a fool's errand. General similarity with respect to general welfare is a much better ideal.
I absolutely fail to see how child support is anything other than punitive regardless of the gender of the person paying it and those receiving it.
It's meant to ensure that a child has the bare minimum living standard provided for them. Any other time a person is in need of the absolute bare necessities plenty of us would agree the government should provide them. Yet for some reason when it's in regards to a child we demand an individual regardless of their ability to pay all costs up front which is blatantly unfair to the child, the willing parent, and the unwilling one.
If both parents are unwilling or unfit to raise a child the state steps in. If one parent is unwilling to do so it should do the same.
Unfortunately right now it generally doesn't and instead forces unwilling individuals to raise children whether or not they are capable solely for the reason that they decided to have sex. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with. Not that I expect to see that happening when half the country wants to strip away basic welfare altogether.
The problem here is a practical one. If the parents aren't gonna raise him, who will?
. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with.
Our non-parental-child-rearing attempts are not exactly beacons of quality.
Which would be a reason to improve resources for parentless or single parent children, not declare X person has to provide for the kid and then cover our ears when they can't/won't and now the kid's going hungry every other day.
Yes, I agree it's a reason to improve support for them and have not argued otherwise.
But I was specifically referring to comments of yours like "forces unwilling individuals to raise children whether or not they are capable solely for the reason that they decided to have sex. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with." by pointing out that a large part of the reason we force them to raise those kids is because we've got no other way to deal with them. We've yet to build anything close to a good system for non-parental child rearing.
That's why parents end up with kids that may not have wanted them because the alternatives are usually worse for the child.
So talking about eliminating child support in the name of paternal rights before that happens is basically telling single mothers (and single fathers) to go fuck themselves.
No one's even suggested that so you can unwedge your knickers.
The only suggestion that has been proposed is replacing one system (child support) with another (glorious socialism ie: wellfare).
Also, saying "women can pay child support too so there is no gender equality issue" leads me to counter with:
There are women doctors, engineers, astronauts, CEO's, televangelists and senators.
ergo there is no gender equality issue in employment in this country.
Please refute my statement without applying a higher standard of logic than what you're using for yourself.
Um, these two statements have nothing to do with one another. WTF are you on about?
Child support is not a gendered issue and has nothing to do with gender equality. Where is the connection people? Cause all the reasons you've given (like financial burden) are gender neutral.
Child support is money owed the child by the parents, regardless of gender.
The only way gender has anything to do with this is the whole "but women can get an abortion" part of the argument that's already been hit on many a time.
Because child support is pretty damn close to always paid by the man.
It can, technically, be paid by the mother, but in practice that is not the case. So that's a gender equality issue in the exact same way that "there aren't enough woman scientists" is a gender issue.
Because there's no rule that says women can't be scientists.
Child support is disproportionately a financial burden for men. And while the payments vary from place to place and person to person, they can absolutely lock a young person into a lifetime of poverty.
Obviously, having a kid can lock you into a lifetime of poverty too.
But you'll never see me arguing that a woman should be forced to accept that either.
If that's your connection, then your problem is not child support. It's that women are the default care-givers for children.
Which is, you know, a HUGE issue in feminism.
This is a good argument, but it's not an argument against child support, it's an argument against gender roles in child rearing.
I'm quite clearly not the one waving the rah rah banner for "the woman is automatically the caregiver".
Rather that's society and our crappy court system.
I never said you were. I'm saying the problem is societal attitudes about gender roles in rearing, not the idea of child support payments (who's issues are financial for the most part and not gender related)
And, of course, to point out that contrary to the original contentions by other posters, this is an issue that feminism is all about. Like HUGELY fucking about. Feminism is all up in this shit trying to tear down gender roles in child rearing. This is considered by most the most important issue for feminism since it's the root of alot of/most inequality.
You won't find a group more dedicated to the issue then feminism.
I absolutely fail to see how child support is anything other than punitive regardless of the gender of the person paying it and those receiving it.
It's meant to ensure that a child has the bare minimum living standard provided for them. Any other time a person is in need of the absolute bare necessities plenty of us would agree the government should provide them. Yet for some reason when it's in regards to a child we demand an individual regardless of their ability to pay all costs up front which is blatantly unfair to the child, the willing parent, and the unwilling one.
If both parents are unwilling or unfit to raise a child the state steps in. If one parent is unwilling to do so it should do the same.
Unfortunately right now it generally doesn't and instead forces unwilling individuals to raise children whether or not they are capable solely for the reason that they decided to have sex. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with. Not that I expect to see that happening when half the country wants to strip away basic welfare altogether.
The problem here is a practical one. If the parents aren't gonna raise him, who will?
. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with.
Our non-parental-child-rearing attempts are not exactly beacons of quality.
Which would be a reason to improve resources for parentless or single parent children, not declare X person has to provide for the kid and then cover our ears when they can't/won't and now the kid's going hungry every other day.
Yes, I agree it's a reason to improve support for them and have not argued otherwise.
But I was specifically referring to comments of yours like "forces unwilling individuals to raise children whether or not they are capable solely for the reason that they decided to have sex. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with." by pointing out that a large part of the reason we force them to raise those kids is because we've got no other way to deal with them. We've yet to build anything close to a good system for non-parental child rearing.
That's why parents end up with kids that may not have wanted them because the alternatives are usually worse for the child.
I absolutely fail to see how child support is anything other than punitive regardless of the gender of the person paying it and those receiving it.
It's meant to ensure that a child has the bare minimum living standard provided for them. Any other time a person is in need of the absolute bare necessities plenty of us would agree the government should provide them. Yet for some reason when it's in regards to a child we demand an individual regardless of their ability to pay all costs up front which is blatantly unfair to the child, the willing parent, and the unwilling one.
If both parents are unwilling or unfit to raise a child the state steps in. If one parent is unwilling to do so it should do the same.
Unfortunately right now it generally doesn't and instead forces unwilling individuals to raise children whether or not they are capable solely for the reason that they decided to have sex. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with. Not that I expect to see that happening when half the country wants to strip away basic welfare altogether.
The problem here is a practical one. If the parents aren't gonna raise him, who will?
. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with.
Our non-parental-child-rearing attempts are not exactly beacons of quality.
Which would be a reason to improve resources for parentless or single parent children, not declare X person has to provide for the kid and then cover our ears when they can't/won't and now the kid's going hungry every other day.
Yes, I agree it's a reason to improve support for them and have not argued otherwise.
But I was specifically referring to comments of yours like "forces unwilling individuals to raise children whether or not they are capable solely for the reason that they decided to have sex. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with." by pointing out that a large part of the reason we force them to raise those kids is because we've got no other way to deal with them. We've yet to build anything close to a good system for non-parental child rearing.
That's why parents end up with kids that may not have wanted them because the alternatives are usually worse for the child.
Everyone knows why we do it.
They're saying it's stupidly unfair.
And they're right.
how can it be made better without making something else way worse?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Even in cases of shared custody, child support is usually paid for by men.
I'm sure I could drag up statistics on that.
"Gender Wage Gap"
Is a farce, yes.
Women typically give up raw salary for better benefits (edit: which isn't measured in those statistics, surprise!)
They typically leave the workforce for 1-10 years and fall beyond
They often work less dangerous jobs
They often only work part time
The type of jobs they take are not measured in properly granularity (we can see this with the "doctors" field -- surgeons are typically male, only about 15% or so are female, yet they're all lumped together with PCPs and OBGYN which make markedly less than surgeons)
So when someone says that women earn 75 cents to the dollar less than men, they are lying to you. The real value is only about 95 cents to the dollar. But when you leave the workforce for a decade, I'm sorry you're going to not make as much as the person who didn't.
Yes I've seen that raw salary report being passed around a dozen times. I went over it with as much scrutiny as I did with the Zimmerman/Martin 911 call where people were absolutely positive Zimmerman was racist as the head wizard of the KKK.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I absolutely fail to see how child support is anything other than punitive regardless of the gender of the person paying it and those receiving it.
It's meant to ensure that a child has the bare minimum living standard provided for them. Any other time a person is in need of the absolute bare necessities plenty of us would agree the government should provide them. Yet for some reason when it's in regards to a child we demand an individual regardless of their ability to pay all costs up front which is blatantly unfair to the child, the willing parent, and the unwilling one.
If both parents are unwilling or unfit to raise a child the state steps in. If one parent is unwilling to do so it should do the same.
Unfortunately right now it generally doesn't and instead forces unwilling individuals to raise children whether or not they are capable solely for the reason that they decided to have sex. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with. Not that I expect to see that happening when half the country wants to strip away basic welfare altogether.
The problem here is a practical one. If the parents aren't gonna raise him, who will?
. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with.
Our non-parental-child-rearing attempts are not exactly beacons of quality.
Which would be a reason to improve resources for parentless or single parent children, not declare X person has to provide for the kid and then cover our ears when they can't/won't and now the kid's going hungry every other day.
Yes, I agree it's a reason to improve support for them and have not argued otherwise.
But I was specifically referring to comments of yours like "forces unwilling individuals to raise children whether or not they are capable solely for the reason that they decided to have sex. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with." by pointing out that a large part of the reason we force them to raise those kids is because we've got no other way to deal with them. We've yet to build anything close to a good system for non-parental child rearing.
That's why parents end up with kids that may not have wanted them because the alternatives are usually worse for the child.
Everyone knows why we do it.
They're saying it's stupidly unfair.
And they're right.
how can it be made better without making something else way worse?
What's worse about the hypothetical socialist alternative, other than higher taxes?
So talking about eliminating child support in the name of paternal rights before that happens is basically telling single mothers (and single fathers) to go fuck themselves.
No one's even suggested that.
The only suggestion that has been proposed is replacing one system (child support) with another (glorious socialism ie: wellfare).
In the larger discussion of child support and parental rights, the idea that child support should be abolished as being unfair to men without being replaced by a larger social welfare net has been very much suggested.
I would say that dwelling on how morally unfair it is that men cannot abandon their biological children at any age, at any time, for any reason, without any legal or economic repercussions is a really petty and pointless thing to be concerned about in comparison to, say, the incredibly negative impact of children being raised in poverty.
Again, my issue with child support is that it's a crappy way of actually supporting children.
Edit: And also, the implication that a biological mother having an abortion or bringing a child to term are the same level of "taking responsibility" as a biological father simply abandoning that child remains a silly standard of comparison.
I absolutely fail to see how child support is anything other than punitive regardless of the gender of the person paying it and those receiving it.
It's meant to ensure that a child has the bare minimum living standard provided for them. Any other time a person is in need of the absolute bare necessities plenty of us would agree the government should provide them. Yet for some reason when it's in regards to a child we demand an individual regardless of their ability to pay all costs up front which is blatantly unfair to the child, the willing parent, and the unwilling one.
If both parents are unwilling or unfit to raise a child the state steps in. If one parent is unwilling to do so it should do the same.
Unfortunately right now it generally doesn't and instead forces unwilling individuals to raise children whether or not they are capable solely for the reason that they decided to have sex. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with. Not that I expect to see that happening when half the country wants to strip away basic welfare altogether.
The problem here is a practical one. If the parents aren't gonna raise him, who will?
. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with.
Our non-parental-child-rearing attempts are not exactly beacons of quality.
Which would be a reason to improve resources for parentless or single parent children, not declare X person has to provide for the kid and then cover our ears when they can't/won't and now the kid's going hungry every other day.
Yes, I agree it's a reason to improve support for them and have not argued otherwise.
But I was specifically referring to comments of yours like "forces unwilling individuals to raise children whether or not they are capable solely for the reason that they decided to have sex. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with." by pointing out that a large part of the reason we force them to raise those kids is because we've got no other way to deal with them. We've yet to build anything close to a good system for non-parental child rearing.
That's why parents end up with kids that may not have wanted them because the alternatives are usually worse for the child.
Everyone knows why we do it.
They're saying it's stupidly unfair.
And they're right.
how can it be made better without making something else way worse?
What's worse about the hypothetical socialist alternative, other than higher taxes?
When did this forum become fiscally conservative?
I think the practical question of implementation it makes it worse.
I mean, if we're just making shit up, I think males having uteruses is more likely than the U.S. turning to socialized child raising.
Also, saying "women can pay child support too so there is no gender equality issue" leads me to counter with:
There are women doctors, engineers, astronauts, CEO's, televangelists and senators.
ergo there is no gender equality issue in employment in this country.
Please refute my statement without applying a higher standard of logic than what you're using for yourself.
Um, these two statements have nothing to do with one another. WTF are you on about?
Child support is not a gendered issue and has nothing to do with gender equality. Where is the connection people? Cause all the reasons you've given (like financial burden) are gender neutral.
Child support is money owed the child by the parents, regardless of gender.
The only way gender has anything to do with this is the whole "but women can get an abortion" part of the argument that's already been hit on many a time.
Because child support is pretty damn close to always paid by the man.
It can, technically, be paid by the mother, but in practice that is not the case. So that's a gender equality issue in the exact same way that "there aren't enough woman scientists" is a gender issue.
Because there's no rule that says women can't be scientists.
Child support is disproportionately a financial burden for men. And while the payments vary from place to place and person to person, they can absolutely lock a young person into a lifetime of poverty.
Obviously, having a kid can lock you into a lifetime of poverty too.
But you'll never see me arguing that a woman should be forced to accept that either.
If that's your connection, then your problem is not child support. It's that women are the default care-givers for children.
Which is, you know, a HUGE issue in feminism.
This is a good argument, but it's not an argument against child support, it's an argument against gender roles in child rearing.
Except, of course, that in many cases the woman defaults as caregiver because she made the unilateral decision to allow a child to be born that needed care.
Right, so you are actually making the asinine spool32 argument that because women can abort, the child is her responsibility. I already covered this.
The women did not make a unilateral decision unless she spontaneously conceived.
Edit: basically I don't see any benefit in extracting support from noncustodial parents that isn't a throwback to fiscal conservatism or punishing sex.
Or both.
I've already given them. Right frmo the start. Someone directly above you gave them again (in more specific legal terms). In fact, no one here and not the law either are arguing from either of those positions. Child support is money owed to the child.
Though I guess you can try and argue this fall sunder a ridiculously broad definition of "fiscal conservatism" that covers any attempt ever to lower costs.
Even in cases of shared custody, child support is usually paid for by men.
I'm sure I could drag up statistics on that.
"Gender Wage Gap"
Is a farce, yes.
Women typically give up raw salary for better benefits (edit: which isn't measured in those statistics, surprise!)
They typically leave the workforce for 1-10 years and fall beyond
They often work less dangerous jobs
They often only work part time
The type of jobs they take are not measured in properly granularity (we can see this with the "doctors" field -- surgeons are typically male, only about 15% or so are female, yet they're all lumped together with PCPs and OBGYN which make markedly less than surgeons)
So when someone says that women earn 75 cents to the dollar less than men, they are lying to you. The real value is only about 95 cents to the dollar. But when you leave the workforce for a decade, I'm sorry you're going to not make as much as the person who didn't.
Yes I've seen that raw salary report being passed around a dozen times. I went over it with as much scrutiny as I did with the Zimmerman/Martin 911 call where people were absolutely positive Zimmerman was racist as the head wizard of the KKK.
The 95 cents statistic applied to women who didn't leave the workforce for child related reasons.
I absolutely fail to see how child support is anything other than punitive regardless of the gender of the person paying it and those receiving it.
It's meant to ensure that a child has the bare minimum living standard provided for them. Any other time a person is in need of the absolute bare necessities plenty of us would agree the government should provide them. Yet for some reason when it's in regards to a child we demand an individual regardless of their ability to pay all costs up front which is blatantly unfair to the child, the willing parent, and the unwilling one.
If both parents are unwilling or unfit to raise a child the state steps in. If one parent is unwilling to do so it should do the same.
Unfortunately right now it generally doesn't and instead forces unwilling individuals to raise children whether or not they are capable solely for the reason that they decided to have sex. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with. Not that I expect to see that happening when half the country wants to strip away basic welfare altogether.
The problem here is a practical one. If the parents aren't gonna raise him, who will?
. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with.
Our non-parental-child-rearing attempts are not exactly beacons of quality.
Which would be a reason to improve resources for parentless or single parent children, not declare X person has to provide for the kid and then cover our ears when they can't/won't and now the kid's going hungry every other day.
Yes, I agree it's a reason to improve support for them and have not argued otherwise.
But I was specifically referring to comments of yours like "forces unwilling individuals to raise children whether or not they are capable solely for the reason that they decided to have sex. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with." by pointing out that a large part of the reason we force them to raise those kids is because we've got no other way to deal with them. We've yet to build anything close to a good system for non-parental child rearing.
That's why parents end up with kids that may not have wanted them because the alternatives are usually worse for the child.
Everyone knows why we do it.
They're saying it's stupidly unfair.
And they're right.
how can it be made better without making something else way worse?
Actually improving the welfare state for children with single parents or none. So the usual stuff.
Ensuring wherever the child is at that they're provided with everything we think a child should have either directly by the government or through payments to the single parent, better schools, government provided/subsidized child care, mentorship programs, etc. Loads of ways to achieve it really.
This could all easily be provided for via an increase in taxes.
I absolutely fail to see how child support is anything other than punitive regardless of the gender of the person paying it and those receiving it.
It's meant to ensure that a child has the bare minimum living standard provided for them. Any other time a person is in need of the absolute bare necessities plenty of us would agree the government should provide them. Yet for some reason when it's in regards to a child we demand an individual regardless of their ability to pay all costs up front which is blatantly unfair to the child, the willing parent, and the unwilling one.
If both parents are unwilling or unfit to raise a child the state steps in. If one parent is unwilling to do so it should do the same.
Unfortunately right now it generally doesn't and instead forces unwilling individuals to raise children whether or not they are capable solely for the reason that they decided to have sex. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with. Not that I expect to see that happening when half the country wants to strip away basic welfare altogether.
The problem here is a practical one. If the parents aren't gonna raise him, who will?
. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with.
Our non-parental-child-rearing attempts are not exactly beacons of quality.
Which would be a reason to improve resources for parentless or single parent children, not declare X person has to provide for the kid and then cover our ears when they can't/won't and now the kid's going hungry every other day.
Yes, I agree it's a reason to improve support for them and have not argued otherwise.
But I was specifically referring to comments of yours like "forces unwilling individuals to raise children whether or not they are capable solely for the reason that they decided to have sex. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with." by pointing out that a large part of the reason we force them to raise those kids is because we've got no other way to deal with them. We've yet to build anything close to a good system for non-parental child rearing.
That's why parents end up with kids that may not have wanted them because the alternatives are usually worse for the child.
Everyone knows why we do it.
They're saying it's stupidly unfair.
And they're right.
Any way you cut it, it's going to be stupidly unfair.
That's not going to change until - at minimum - we have 100% effective birth control for both gender's that's widely available. Even then, not really.
The question then becomes what is the least stupidly unfair to the child. Because - quite simply - it's better to be stupidly unfair to the two adults (or near-adults) who created the child than it is to be stupidly unfair to the child. Sucks being stuck shelling out for 18 years, but life isn't fair.
Society? Would be nice, but I'm not delusional enough to think that's going to happen. I'll be the first to advocate for welfare though! In a perfect world, financial considerations should never play a part in family planning / child rearing.
Caring for your young is one of the most basic things out there, so if the choice is making the kids suffer or the parents, I'll choose the parents every time. It's the least-shitty of a bunch of shitty options.
I absolutely fail to see how child support is anything other than punitive regardless of the gender of the person paying it and those receiving it.
It's meant to ensure that a child has the bare minimum living standard provided for them. Any other time a person is in need of the absolute bare necessities plenty of us would agree the government should provide them. Yet for some reason when it's in regards to a child we demand an individual regardless of their ability to pay all costs up front which is blatantly unfair to the child, the willing parent, and the unwilling one.
If both parents are unwilling or unfit to raise a child the state steps in. If one parent is unwilling to do so it should do the same.
Unfortunately right now it generally doesn't and instead forces unwilling individuals to raise children whether or not they are capable solely for the reason that they decided to have sex. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with. Not that I expect to see that happening when half the country wants to strip away basic welfare altogether.
The problem here is a practical one. If the parents aren't gonna raise him, who will?
. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with.
Our non-parental-child-rearing attempts are not exactly beacons of quality.
Which would be a reason to improve resources for parentless or single parent children, not declare X person has to provide for the kid and then cover our ears when they can't/won't and now the kid's going hungry every other day.
Yes, I agree it's a reason to improve support for them and have not argued otherwise.
But I was specifically referring to comments of yours like "forces unwilling individuals to raise children whether or not they are capable solely for the reason that they decided to have sex. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with." by pointing out that a large part of the reason we force them to raise those kids is because we've got no other way to deal with them. We've yet to build anything close to a good system for non-parental child rearing.
That's why parents end up with kids that may not have wanted them because the alternatives are usually worse for the child.
Everyone knows why we do it.
They're saying it's stupidly unfair.
And they're right.
how can it be made better without making something else way worse?
What's worse about the hypothetical socialist alternative, other than higher taxes?
When did this forum become fiscally conservative?
But a welfare system doesn't cover alot of what Quid is talking about. What happens when neither parent wants the kid? That's what was being pointed out in this quote tree.
0
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
I absolutely fail to see how child support is anything other than punitive regardless of the gender of the person paying it and those receiving it.
It's meant to ensure that a child has the bare minimum living standard provided for them. Any other time a person is in need of the absolute bare necessities plenty of us would agree the government should provide them. Yet for some reason when it's in regards to a child we demand an individual regardless of their ability to pay all costs up front which is blatantly unfair to the child, the willing parent, and the unwilling one.
If both parents are unwilling or unfit to raise a child the state steps in. If one parent is unwilling to do so it should do the same.
Unfortunately right now it generally doesn't and instead forces unwilling individuals to raise children whether or not they are capable solely for the reason that they decided to have sex. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with. Not that I expect to see that happening when half the country wants to strip away basic welfare altogether.
The problem here is a practical one. If the parents aren't gonna raise him, who will?
. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with.
Our non-parental-child-rearing attempts are not exactly beacons of quality.
Which would be a reason to improve resources for parentless or single parent children, not declare X person has to provide for the kid and then cover our ears when they can't/won't and now the kid's going hungry every other day.
Yes, I agree it's a reason to improve support for them and have not argued otherwise.
But I was specifically referring to comments of yours like "forces unwilling individuals to raise children whether or not they are capable solely for the reason that they decided to have sex. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with." by pointing out that a large part of the reason we force them to raise those kids is because we've got no other way to deal with them. We've yet to build anything close to a good system for non-parental child rearing.
That's why parents end up with kids that may not have wanted them because the alternatives are usually worse for the child.
Everyone knows why we do it.
They're saying it's stupidly unfair.
And they're right.
how can it be made better without making something else way worse?
This wasn't directed at me, but I'll take a swing at it:
For starters, I'd argue for some kind of codified Federal law that would govern support obligations between parents using mandated percentages.
As it is right now, there is a TON of latitude built into the system for Judges to take matters into their own hands. The idea was that the system would be flexible, the reality is that you really have no idea how support obligations are going to turn out between two sets of parents at the same judge, let alone two sets of parents at different judges, let alone different States...
Some states have adopted no-fault, some haven't, some have percentage amounts, some don't, in every case if a judge decides the numbers don't work out in a way they'd like for child support they make it up on spousal support or alimony.
We've kind of poisoned the well because of it. The whole thing is (rightly) viewed with suspicion and anxiety.
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
Also, saying "women can pay child support too so there is no gender equality issue" leads me to counter with:
There are women doctors, engineers, astronauts, CEO's, televangelists and senators.
ergo there is no gender equality issue in employment in this country.
Please refute my statement without applying a higher standard of logic than what you're using for yourself.
Um, these two statements have nothing to do with one another. WTF are you on about?
Child support is not a gendered issue and has nothing to do with gender equality. Where is the connection people? Cause all the reasons you've given (like financial burden) are gender neutral.
Child support is money owed the child by the parents, regardless of gender.
The only way gender has anything to do with this is the whole "but women can get an abortion" part of the argument that's already been hit on many a time.
Because child support is pretty damn close to always paid by the man.
It can, technically, be paid by the mother, but in practice that is not the case. So that's a gender equality issue in the exact same way that "there aren't enough woman scientists" is a gender issue.
Because there's no rule that says women can't be scientists.
Child support is disproportionately a financial burden for men. And while the payments vary from place to place and person to person, they can absolutely lock a young person into a lifetime of poverty.
Obviously, having a kid can lock you into a lifetime of poverty too.
But you'll never see me arguing that a woman should be forced to accept that either.
Men are also treated more harshly when it comes to child support by the legal system.
Women are much less likely to owe child support in the case the Father is the primary caregiver.
Women are much less likely to go to jail if they fail to make payment on child support.
Custody is typically awarded to the mother, at a rate of 82%, fathers sit at 18%. according to the US census.
Males make up 95 to 98% of the population of individuals incarcerated for failing to provide child support in Massachusetts, even though mothers are less likely to make child support payments in full.
Even in cases of shared custody, child support is usually paid for by men.
I'm sure I could drag up statistics on that.
"Gender Wage Gap"
Is a farce, yes.
Women typically give up raw salary for better benefits (edit: which isn't measured in those statistics, surprise!)
They typically leave the workforce for 1-10 years and fall beyond
They often work less dangerous jobs
They often only work part time
The type of jobs they take are not measured in properly granularity (we can see this with the "doctors" field -- surgeons are typically male, only about 15% or so are female, yet they're all lumped together with PCPs and OBGYN which make markedly less than surgeons)
So when someone says that women earn 75 cents to the dollar less than men, they are lying to you. The real value is only about 95 cents to the dollar. But when you leave the workforce for a decade, I'm sorry you're going to not make as much as the person who didn't.
Yes I've seen that raw salary report being passed around a dozen times. I went over it with as much scrutiny as I did with the Zimmerman/Martin 911 call where people were absolutely positive Zimmerman was racist as the head wizard of the KKK.
The 95 cents statistic applied to women who didn't leave the workforce for child related reasons.
Making five percent less isn't some tiny amount.
Way better than 25%, for sure.
But again, with biology being the way it is, that's often the reason for that discrepancy.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Even in cases of shared custody, child support is usually paid for by men.
I'm sure I could drag up statistics on that.
"Gender Wage Gap"
Is a farce, yes.
Women typically give up raw salary for better benefits (edit: which isn't measured in those statistics, surprise!)
They typically leave the workforce for 1-10 years and fall beyond
They often work less dangerous jobs
They often only work part time
The type of jobs they take are not measured in properly granularity (we can see this with the "doctors" field -- surgeons are typically male, only about 15% or so are female, yet they're all lumped together with PCPs and OBGYN which make markedly less than surgeons)
So when someone says that women earn 75 cents to the dollar less than men, they are lying to you. The real value is only about 95 cents to the dollar. But when you leave the workforce for a decade, I'm sorry you're going to not make as much as the person who didn't.
Yes I've seen that raw salary report being passed around a dozen times. I went over it with as much scrutiny as I did with the Zimmerman/Martin 911 call where people were absolutely positive Zimmerman was racist as the head wizard of the KKK.
Yeah, no. There's been work done controlling for alot of these factors and though the gap shrinks, it does not disappear.
It also ignores how many of those factors are functions of social inequality.
Even in cases of shared custody, child support is usually paid for by men.
I'm sure I could drag up statistics on that.
"Gender Wage Gap"
Is a farce, yes.
Women typically give up raw salary for better benefits (edit: which isn't measured in those statistics, surprise!)
They typically leave the workforce for 1-10 years and fall beyond
They often work less dangerous jobs
They often only work part time
The type of jobs they take are not measured in properly granularity (we can see this with the "doctors" field -- surgeons are typically male, only about 15% or so are female, yet they're all lumped together with PCPs and OBGYN which make markedly less than surgeons)
So when someone says that women earn 75 cents to the dollar less than men, they are lying to you. The real value is only about 95 cents to the dollar. But when you leave the workforce for a decade, I'm sorry you're going to not make as much as the person who didn't.
Yes I've seen that raw salary report being passed around a dozen times. I went over it with as much scrutiny as I did with the Zimmerman/Martin 911 call where people were absolutely positive Zimmerman was racist as the head wizard of the KKK.
The 95 cents statistic applied to women who didn't leave the workforce for child related reasons.
Making five percent less isn't some tiny amount.
Way better than 25%, for sure.
But again, with biology being the way it is, that's often the reason for that discrepancy.
But even when accounting for all that, you still have a large discrepancy. I don't see how that is a farce.
Edit: Women being the ones that take off from work is also partly the result of sexist thoughts that says women should be the one that has to give up their career to raise the child.
Also, saying "women can pay child support too so there is no gender equality issue" leads me to counter with:
There are women doctors, engineers, astronauts, CEO's, televangelists and senators.
ergo there is no gender equality issue in employment in this country.
Please refute my statement without applying a higher standard of logic than what you're using for yourself.
Um, these two statements have nothing to do with one another. WTF are you on about?
Child support is not a gendered issue and has nothing to do with gender equality. Where is the connection people? Cause all the reasons you've given (like financial burden) are gender neutral.
Child support is money owed the child by the parents, regardless of gender.
The only way gender has anything to do with this is the whole "but women can get an abortion" part of the argument that's already been hit on many a time.
Because child support is pretty damn close to always paid by the man.
It can, technically, be paid by the mother, but in practice that is not the case. So that's a gender equality issue in the exact same way that "there aren't enough woman scientists" is a gender issue.
Because there's no rule that says women can't be scientists.
Child support is disproportionately a financial burden for men. And while the payments vary from place to place and person to person, they can absolutely lock a young person into a lifetime of poverty.
Obviously, having a kid can lock you into a lifetime of poverty too.
But you'll never see me arguing that a woman should be forced to accept that either.
If that's your connection, then your problem is not child support. It's that women are the default care-givers for children.
Which is, you know, a HUGE issue in feminism.
This is a good argument, but it's not an argument against child support, it's an argument against gender roles in child rearing.
Except, of course, that in many cases the woman defaults as caregiver because she made the unilateral decision to allow a child to be born that needed care.
Right, so you are actually making the asinine spool32 argument that because women can abort, the child is her responsibility. I already covered this.
The women did not make a unilateral decision unless she spontaneously conceived.
Consenting to intercourse is not consenting to procreation.
1) If I consent to ride in an airplane, I do not consent to it crashing. If I consent to have a surgery, I do not consent to having the doctor fuck up. If I consent to walk across the street, I do not consent to being hit by a car.
"Doing X may cause Y, therefore you consent to Y when you do X." is a really, really shitty rule. And we hardly ever actually use it.
2) If you want to argue that intercourse has some super-special relationship to procreation, so the causal link is tighter, or something, you're going to need a God in your ontology. Sex is not "for" procreation any more than it is "for" pleasure. Intent results from intenders. If you have a God intending that intercourse is for procreation that's fine. But the two teens fucking in a truck are not intending procreation.
So, no. If I have sex with a lady, I am not consenting to the possibility of her getting pregnant.
Edit: For starters, one of the many problems with the "Doing X may cause Y, therefore you consent to Y when you do X." rule is that every act involves an individual consenting to infinite hypotheticals and possibilities.
Even in cases of shared custody, child support is usually paid for by men.
I'm sure I could drag up statistics on that.
"Gender Wage Gap"
Is a farce, yes.
Women typically give up raw salary for better benefits (edit: which isn't measured in those statistics, surprise!)
They typically leave the workforce for 1-10 years and fall beyond
They often work less dangerous jobs
They often only work part time
The type of jobs they take are not measured in properly granularity (we can see this with the "doctors" field -- surgeons are typically male, only about 15% or so are female, yet they're all lumped together with PCPs and OBGYN which make markedly less than surgeons)
So when someone says that women earn 75 cents to the dollar less than men, they are lying to you. The real value is only about 95 cents to the dollar. But when you leave the workforce for a decade, I'm sorry you're going to not make as much as the person who didn't.
Yes I've seen that raw salary report being passed around a dozen times. I went over it with as much scrutiny as I did with the Zimmerman/Martin 911 call where people were absolutely positive Zimmerman was racist as the head wizard of the KKK.
The 95 cents statistic applied to women who didn't leave the workforce for child related reasons.
Making five percent less isn't some tiny amount.
Way better than 25%, for sure.
But again, with biology being the way it is, that's often the reason for that discrepancy.
But even when accounting for all that, you still have a large discrepancy. I don't see how that is a farce.
Edit: Women being the ones that take off from work is also partly the result of sexist thoughts that says women should be the one that has to give up their career to raise the child.
It makes it even LESS of a farce actually, since you've controlled for all these huge number of factors and it's still not equal.
That's like the biggest sign of a big inequality problem you could have.
Even in cases of shared custody, child support is usually paid for by men.
I'm sure I could drag up statistics on that.
"Gender Wage Gap"
Is a farce, yes.
Women typically give up raw salary for better benefits (edit: which isn't measured in those statistics, surprise!)
They typically leave the workforce for 1-10 years and fall beyond
They often work less dangerous jobs
They often only work part time
The type of jobs they take are not measured in properly granularity (we can see this with the "doctors" field -- surgeons are typically male, only about 15% or so are female, yet they're all lumped together with PCPs and OBGYN which make markedly less than surgeons)
So when someone says that women earn 75 cents to the dollar less than men, they are lying to you. The real value is only about 95 cents to the dollar. But when you leave the workforce for a decade, I'm sorry you're going to not make as much as the person who didn't.
Yes I've seen that raw salary report being passed around a dozen times. I went over it with as much scrutiny as I did with the Zimmerman/Martin 911 call where people were absolutely positive Zimmerman was racist as the head wizard of the KKK.
The 95 cents statistic applied to women who didn't leave the workforce for child related reasons.
Making five percent less isn't some tiny amount.
Way better than 25%, for sure.
But again, with biology being the way it is, that's often the reason for that discrepancy.
Ok, yeah, it's not all the gender wage gap.
How many of those factors that you're adjusting for are the result of gender roles associated with child rearing? At least three of the five are directly related to the expectation that women work less / take care of the kids while the man's role is to provide.
A lot of the gap in support payments comes from the same gender roles / expectations I've been arguing against for five pages!
Equality - both parents have equal access and equal responsibility. Some biological aspects are going to be intractable, but the ideal should be equality in parenting.
+1
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Even in cases of shared custody, child support is usually paid for by men.
I'm sure I could drag up statistics on that.
"Gender Wage Gap"
Is a farce, yes.
Women typically give up raw salary for better benefits (edit: which isn't measured in those statistics, surprise!)
They typically leave the workforce for 1-10 years and fall beyond
They often work less dangerous jobs
They often only work part time
The type of jobs they take are not measured in properly granularity (we can see this with the "doctors" field -- surgeons are typically male, only about 15% or so are female, yet they're all lumped together with PCPs and OBGYN which make markedly less than surgeons)
So when someone says that women earn 75 cents to the dollar less than men, they are lying to you. The real value is only about 95 cents to the dollar. But when you leave the workforce for a decade, I'm sorry you're going to not make as much as the person who didn't.
Yes I've seen that raw salary report being passed around a dozen times. I went over it with as much scrutiny as I did with the Zimmerman/Martin 911 call where people were absolutely positive Zimmerman was racist as the head wizard of the KKK.
The 95 cents statistic applied to women who didn't leave the workforce for child related reasons.
Making five percent less isn't some tiny amount.
Way better than 25%, for sure.
But again, with biology being the way it is, that's often the reason for that discrepancy.
But even when accounting for all that, you still have a large discrepancy. I don't see how that is a farce.
Edit: Women being the ones that take off from work is also partly the result of sexist thoughts that says women should be the one that has to give up their career to raise the child.
-Actually, 5% is just outside of the margin of error.
-Baby Boomers are still in the labor force and likely represent massive outliers.
I absolutely fail to see how child support is anything other than punitive regardless of the gender of the person paying it and those receiving it.
It's meant to ensure that a child has the bare minimum living standard provided for them. Any other time a person is in need of the absolute bare necessities plenty of us would agree the government should provide them. Yet for some reason when it's in regards to a child we demand an individual regardless of their ability to pay all costs up front which is blatantly unfair to the child, the willing parent, and the unwilling one.
If both parents are unwilling or unfit to raise a child the state steps in. If one parent is unwilling to do so it should do the same.
Unfortunately right now it generally doesn't and instead forces unwilling individuals to raise children whether or not they are capable solely for the reason that they decided to have sex. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with. Not that I expect to see that happening when half the country wants to strip away basic welfare altogether.
The problem here is a practical one. If the parents aren't gonna raise him, who will?
. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with.
Our non-parental-child-rearing attempts are not exactly beacons of quality.
Which would be a reason to improve resources for parentless or single parent children, not declare X person has to provide for the kid and then cover our ears when they can't/won't and now the kid's going hungry every other day.
Yes, I agree it's a reason to improve support for them and have not argued otherwise.
But I was specifically referring to comments of yours like "forces unwilling individuals to raise children whether or not they are capable solely for the reason that they decided to have sex. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with." by pointing out that a large part of the reason we force them to raise those kids is because we've got no other way to deal with them. We've yet to build anything close to a good system for non-parental child rearing.
That's why parents end up with kids that may not have wanted them because the alternatives are usually worse for the child.
Everyone knows why we do it.
They're saying it's stupidly unfair.
And they're right.
Any way you cut it, it's going to be stupidly unfair.
That's not going to change until - at minimum - we have 100% effective birth control for both gender's that's widely available. Even then, not really.
The question then becomes what is the least stupidly unfair to the child. Because - quite simply - it's better to be stupidly unfair to the two adults (or near-adults) who created the child than it is to be stupidly unfair to the child. Sucks being stuck shelling out for 18 years, but life isn't fair.
Society? Would be nice, but I'm not delusional enough to think that's going to happen. I'll be the first to advocate for welfare though! In a perfect world, financial considerations should never play a part in family planning / child rearing.
Caring for your young is one of the most basic things out there, so if the choice is making the kids suffer or the parents, I'll choose the parents every time. It's the least-shitty of a bunch of shitty options.
But why is it delusional? Because even in theoretically fiscally and socially liberal circles you have people falling for parents to "take responsibility" for choosing to have sex.
Absent that, it's actually possible time could shift politics in that direction. But we have plenty of liberals who are firmly in the "fuck me paying to care for your kids, just don't have sex" camp. To varying degrees.
0
Options
wiltingI had fun once and it was awfulRegistered Userregular
So talking about eliminating child support in the name of paternal rights before that happens is basically telling single mothers (and single fathers) to go fuck themselves.
I would say that dwelling on how morally unfair it is that men cannot abandon their biological children at any age, at any time, for any reason, without any legal or economic repercussions is a really petty and pointless thing to be concerned about in comparison to, say, the incredibly negative impact of children being raised in poverty.
Except you are making that up, because we are specifically talking about right of legal paternal surrender at birth only.
Women have the right to give up children even when they take them to term, so why shouldn't men? Why should women get all the choices and men none?
Nobody is saying single parents shouldn't be supported. Giving men the right to surrender parental rights and responsibilities at birth only would arguably reduce instances of single parenthood by changing behavior, thus benefiting children.
Forcing responsibilities on someone who doesn't want them is not a good model for raising children. It does not serve their interests. Nor does unequal treatment of men make the biological realities of pregnancy, termination and/or birth magically disappear for women.
Even in cases of shared custody, child support is usually paid for by men.
I'm sure I could drag up statistics on that.
"Gender Wage Gap"
Is a farce, yes.
Women typically give up raw salary for better benefits (edit: which isn't measured in those statistics, surprise!)
They typically leave the workforce for 1-10 years and fall beyond
They often work less dangerous jobs
They often only work part time
The type of jobs they take are not measured in properly granularity (we can see this with the "doctors" field -- surgeons are typically male, only about 15% or so are female, yet they're all lumped together with PCPs and OBGYN which make markedly less than surgeons)
So when someone says that women earn 75 cents to the dollar less than men, they are lying to you. The real value is only about 95 cents to the dollar. But when you leave the workforce for a decade, I'm sorry you're going to not make as much as the person who didn't.
Yes I've seen that raw salary report being passed around a dozen times. I went over it with as much scrutiny as I did with the Zimmerman/Martin 911 call where people were absolutely positive Zimmerman was racist as the head wizard of the KKK.
The 95 cents statistic applied to women who didn't leave the workforce for child related reasons.
Making five percent less isn't some tiny amount.
Way better than 25%, for sure.
But again, with biology being the way it is, that's often the reason for that discrepancy.
But even when accounting for all that, you still have a large discrepancy. I don't see how that is a farce.
Edit: Women being the ones that take off from work is also partly the result of sexist thoughts that says women should be the one that has to give up their career to raise the child.
It makes it even LESS of a farce actually, since you've controlled for all these huge number of factors and it's still not equal.
That's like the biggest sign of a big inequality problem you could have.
Like I said, that has issues laid out in the biological difference.
The 95 cents to the dollar didn't account for the benefits, IIRC. But I really can't be assed to go digging for the source on it at the moment.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I absolutely fail to see how child support is anything other than punitive regardless of the gender of the person paying it and those receiving it.
It's meant to ensure that a child has the bare minimum living standard provided for them. Any other time a person is in need of the absolute bare necessities plenty of us would agree the government should provide them. Yet for some reason when it's in regards to a child we demand an individual regardless of their ability to pay all costs up front which is blatantly unfair to the child, the willing parent, and the unwilling one.
If both parents are unwilling or unfit to raise a child the state steps in. If one parent is unwilling to do so it should do the same.
Unfortunately right now it generally doesn't and instead forces unwilling individuals to raise children whether or not they are capable solely for the reason that they decided to have sex. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with. Not that I expect to see that happening when half the country wants to strip away basic welfare altogether.
The problem here is a practical one. If the parents aren't gonna raise him, who will?
. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with.
Our non-parental-child-rearing attempts are not exactly beacons of quality.
Which would be a reason to improve resources for parentless or single parent children, not declare X person has to provide for the kid and then cover our ears when they can't/won't and now the kid's going hungry every other day.
Yes, I agree it's a reason to improve support for them and have not argued otherwise.
But I was specifically referring to comments of yours like "forces unwilling individuals to raise children whether or not they are capable solely for the reason that they decided to have sex. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with." by pointing out that a large part of the reason we force them to raise those kids is because we've got no other way to deal with them. We've yet to build anything close to a good system for non-parental child rearing.
That's why parents end up with kids that may not have wanted them because the alternatives are usually worse for the child.
Everyone knows why we do it.
They're saying it's stupidly unfair.
And they're right.
Any way you cut it, it's going to be stupidly unfair.
That's not going to change until - at minimum - we have 100% effective birth control for both gender's that's widely available. Even then, not really.
The question then becomes what is the least stupidly unfair to the child. Because - quite simply - it's better to be stupidly unfair to the two adults (or near-adults) who created the child than it is to be stupidly unfair to the child. Sucks being stuck shelling out for 18 years, but life isn't fair.
Society? Would be nice, but I'm not delusional enough to think that's going to happen. I'll be the first to advocate for welfare though! In a perfect world, financial considerations should never play a part in family planning / child rearing.
Caring for your young is one of the most basic things out there, so if the choice is making the kids suffer or the parents, I'll choose the parents every time. It's the least-shitty of a bunch of shitty options.
Hey I agree. I doubt very much that it's a situation likely to change anytime soon and it's certainly better than literally nothing.
My issue was those claiming that it's not punitive in nature when that's pretty much the exact nature of it.
Posts
Because women can use abortion as a means to remove financial liability. If we want fair, there it is. But we can't grow children in test tubes, so, there exists some natural discrepancies there.
I would rather the financial reason for abortion be removed entirely, as it is, but I don't feel comfortable putting modifiers on having abortions and someone will get their knickers in a twist because I'm impinging on autonomy.
If it's a health reason, okay, sure. But if you put your vagina on a penis, you should take responsibility for your actions, even if an oops happens.
That's how crazy this whole debate is. You're agreeing that the opposite is perfectly acceptable. Not because of bodily autonomy, but because you're, for lack of a better word, slut shaming men.
Because child support is pretty damn close to always paid by the man.
It can, technically, be paid by the mother, but in practice that is not the case. So that's a gender equality issue in the exact same way that "there aren't enough woman scientists" is a gender issue.
Because there's no rule that says women can't be scientists.
Child support is disproportionately a financial burden for men. And while the payments vary from place to place and person to person, they can absolutely lock a young person into a lifetime of poverty.
Obviously, having a kid can lock you into a lifetime of poverty too.
But you'll never see me arguing that a woman should be forced to accept that either.
The problem here is a practical one. If the parents aren't gonna raise him, who will?
Our non-parental-child-rearing attempts are not exactly beacons of quality.
If that's your connection, then your problem is not child support. It's that women are the default care-givers for children.
Which is, you know, a HUGE issue in feminism.
This is a good argument, but it's not an argument against child support, it's an argument against gender roles in child rearing.
Which would be a reason to improve resources for parentless or single parent children, not declare X person has to provide for the kid and then cover our ears when they can't/won't and now the kid's going hungry every other day.
I'm quite clearly not the one waving the rah rah banner for "the woman is automatically the caregiver".
Rather that's society and our crappy court system.
I'm sure I could drag up statistics on that.
It's because the miracle of childbirth is a legal headache. One legal entity appears out of nowhere, like a You Are the Ref comic where the ball sprouted legs and started jumping at players' hands. Despite that, the process is done with with a grossly negligent minimum of paperwork for what is a three-pipe, cross the i's and dot the t's legal dilemma. It is unsurprising that unfairness abounds if people are unwilling to put in the documentation.
The law does not protect people with a wanton disregard for proper procedure. Unless they are children.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Judges also enjoy nearly unlimited latitude in determining child support, spousal support, and alimony, and any payment allocated to those three follows no strict nomenclature - the money is basically fungible between those three names/allocations.
Which means that women alone are forced to bear the responsibilities and consequences of an unplanned pregnancy.
Unless you think that bringing a child to term, or getting an abortion, counts as "not being responsible", in which case you're wrong.
I'd certainly love to have our current flawed system of child support (and I'd consider the primary flaws to not be some moral violation of the presumed paternal right to abandon one's biological children at will with no consequences, but how it's often difficult or impossible to collect) with a much wider and deeper social safety net.
But we don't have that yet.
So talking about eliminating child support in the name of paternal rights before that happens is basically telling single mothers (and single fathers) to go fuck themselves.
Except, of course, that in many cases the woman defaults as caregiver because she made the unilateral decision to allow a child to be born that needed care.
Hypothetically, a man who made the same decision should shoulder the same burden.
And the financial welfare of children in need, as with anyone in need, should be something we address as a society. I'm with Quid, there's a strong punitive streak when talking about child care.
Edit: basically I don't see any benefit in extracting support from noncustodial parents that isn't a throwback to fiscal conservatism or punishing sex.
Or both.
What do you mean by "equal"?
That is one of the perennial problems of this conversation. Literal equality is impossible. Some measure of similarity with respect to particular social / legal mechanisms seems possible.
With procreation, the problem is there is a literal difference: Lady has a fetus growing inside of her.
Trying to manifest social / legal "equality" around a gigantic biological difference is a big fucking problem. I think both sides of this conversation are ignoring that.
The process of pregnancy is fundamentally different for each biological sex. So, there will probably be some differences within the social / legal framework of pregnancy.
Complete equality is a fool's errand. General similarity with respect to general welfare is a much better ideal.
"Gender Wage Gap"
Yes, I agree it's a reason to improve support for them and have not argued otherwise.
But I was specifically referring to comments of yours like "forces unwilling individuals to raise children whether or not they are capable solely for the reason that they decided to have sex. Which is an archaic attitude and needs to be done away with." by pointing out that a large part of the reason we force them to raise those kids is because we've got no other way to deal with them. We've yet to build anything close to a good system for non-parental child rearing.
That's why parents end up with kids that may not have wanted them because the alternatives are usually worse for the child.
No one's even suggested that so you can unwedge your knickers.
The only suggestion that has been proposed is replacing one system (child support) with another (glorious socialism ie: wellfare).
I never said you were. I'm saying the problem is societal attitudes about gender roles in rearing, not the idea of child support payments (who's issues are financial for the most part and not gender related)
And, of course, to point out that contrary to the original contentions by other posters, this is an issue that feminism is all about. Like HUGELY fucking about. Feminism is all up in this shit trying to tear down gender roles in child rearing. This is considered by most the most important issue for feminism since it's the root of alot of/most inequality.
You won't find a group more dedicated to the issue then feminism.
Everyone knows why we do it.
They're saying it's stupidly unfair.
And they're right.
how can it be made better without making something else way worse?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Is a farce, yes.
So when someone says that women earn 75 cents to the dollar less than men, they are lying to you. The real value is only about 95 cents to the dollar. But when you leave the workforce for a decade, I'm sorry you're going to not make as much as the person who didn't.
Yes I've seen that raw salary report being passed around a dozen times. I went over it with as much scrutiny as I did with the Zimmerman/Martin 911 call where people were absolutely positive Zimmerman was racist as the head wizard of the KKK.
What's worse about the hypothetical socialist alternative, other than higher taxes?
When did this forum become fiscally conservative?
In the larger discussion of child support and parental rights, the idea that child support should be abolished as being unfair to men without being replaced by a larger social welfare net has been very much suggested.
I would say that dwelling on how morally unfair it is that men cannot abandon their biological children at any age, at any time, for any reason, without any legal or economic repercussions is a really petty and pointless thing to be concerned about in comparison to, say, the incredibly negative impact of children being raised in poverty.
Again, my issue with child support is that it's a crappy way of actually supporting children.
Edit: And also, the implication that a biological mother having an abortion or bringing a child to term are the same level of "taking responsibility" as a biological father simply abandoning that child remains a silly standard of comparison.
I think the practical question of implementation it makes it worse.
I mean, if we're just making shit up, I think males having uteruses is more likely than the U.S. turning to socialized child raising.
Right, so you are actually making the asinine spool32 argument that because women can abort, the child is her responsibility. I already covered this.
The women did not make a unilateral decision unless she spontaneously conceived.
I've already given them. Right frmo the start. Someone directly above you gave them again (in more specific legal terms). In fact, no one here and not the law either are arguing from either of those positions. Child support is money owed to the child.
Though I guess you can try and argue this fall sunder a ridiculously broad definition of "fiscal conservatism" that covers any attempt ever to lower costs.
The 95 cents statistic applied to women who didn't leave the workforce for child related reasons.
Making five percent less isn't some tiny amount.
Actually improving the welfare state for children with single parents or none. So the usual stuff.
Ensuring wherever the child is at that they're provided with everything we think a child should have either directly by the government or through payments to the single parent, better schools, government provided/subsidized child care, mentorship programs, etc. Loads of ways to achieve it really.
This could all easily be provided for via an increase in taxes.
But, well, good luck with that last bit.
Any way you cut it, it's going to be stupidly unfair.
That's not going to change until - at minimum - we have 100% effective birth control for both gender's that's widely available. Even then, not really.
The question then becomes what is the least stupidly unfair to the child. Because - quite simply - it's better to be stupidly unfair to the two adults (or near-adults) who created the child than it is to be stupidly unfair to the child. Sucks being stuck shelling out for 18 years, but life isn't fair.
Society? Would be nice, but I'm not delusional enough to think that's going to happen. I'll be the first to advocate for welfare though! In a perfect world, financial considerations should never play a part in family planning / child rearing.
Caring for your young is one of the most basic things out there, so if the choice is making the kids suffer or the parents, I'll choose the parents every time. It's the least-shitty of a bunch of shitty options.
But a welfare system doesn't cover alot of what Quid is talking about. What happens when neither parent wants the kid? That's what was being pointed out in this quote tree.
This wasn't directed at me, but I'll take a swing at it:
For starters, I'd argue for some kind of codified Federal law that would govern support obligations between parents using mandated percentages.
As it is right now, there is a TON of latitude built into the system for Judges to take matters into their own hands. The idea was that the system would be flexible, the reality is that you really have no idea how support obligations are going to turn out between two sets of parents at the same judge, let alone two sets of parents at different judges, let alone different States...
Some states have adopted no-fault, some haven't, some have percentage amounts, some don't, in every case if a judge decides the numbers don't work out in a way they'd like for child support they make it up on spousal support or alimony.
We've kind of poisoned the well because of it. The whole thing is (rightly) viewed with suspicion and anxiety.
Men are also treated more harshly when it comes to child support by the legal system.
link: https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/20429-shocking-data-on-incarceration-of-fathers (keep in mind this article is biased and pro father, but the data is what I'm talking about here)
Women are much less likely to owe child support in the case the Father is the primary caregiver.
Women are much less likely to go to jail if they fail to make payment on child support.
Custody is typically awarded to the mother, at a rate of 82%, fathers sit at 18%. according to the US census.
Males make up 95 to 98% of the population of individuals incarcerated for failing to provide child support in Massachusetts, even though mothers are less likely to make child support payments in full.
Way better than 25%, for sure.
But again, with biology being the way it is, that's often the reason for that discrepancy.
Yeah, no. There's been work done controlling for alot of these factors and though the gap shrinks, it does not disappear.
It also ignores how many of those factors are functions of social inequality.
But even when accounting for all that, you still have a large discrepancy. I don't see how that is a farce.
Edit: Women being the ones that take off from work is also partly the result of sexist thoughts that says women should be the one that has to give up their career to raise the child.
Consenting to intercourse is not consenting to procreation.
1) If I consent to ride in an airplane, I do not consent to it crashing. If I consent to have a surgery, I do not consent to having the doctor fuck up. If I consent to walk across the street, I do not consent to being hit by a car.
"Doing X may cause Y, therefore you consent to Y when you do X." is a really, really shitty rule. And we hardly ever actually use it.
2) If you want to argue that intercourse has some super-special relationship to procreation, so the causal link is tighter, or something, you're going to need a God in your ontology. Sex is not "for" procreation any more than it is "for" pleasure. Intent results from intenders. If you have a God intending that intercourse is for procreation that's fine. But the two teens fucking in a truck are not intending procreation.
So, no. If I have sex with a lady, I am not consenting to the possibility of her getting pregnant.
Edit: For starters, one of the many problems with the "Doing X may cause Y, therefore you consent to Y when you do X." rule is that every act involves an individual consenting to infinite hypotheticals and possibilities.
It makes it even LESS of a farce actually, since you've controlled for all these huge number of factors and it's still not equal.
That's like the biggest sign of a big inequality problem you could have.
Ok, yeah, it's not all the gender wage gap.
How many of those factors that you're adjusting for are the result of gender roles associated with child rearing? At least three of the five are directly related to the expectation that women work less / take care of the kids while the man's role is to provide.
A lot of the gap in support payments comes from the same gender roles / expectations I've been arguing against for five pages!
Equality - both parents have equal access and equal responsibility. Some biological aspects are going to be intractable, but the ideal should be equality in parenting.
-Actually, 5% is just outside of the margin of error.
-Baby Boomers are still in the labor force and likely represent massive outliers.
But why is it delusional? Because even in theoretically fiscally and socially liberal circles you have people falling for parents to "take responsibility" for choosing to have sex.
Absent that, it's actually possible time could shift politics in that direction. But we have plenty of liberals who are firmly in the "fuck me paying to care for your kids, just don't have sex" camp. To varying degrees.
Except you are making that up, because we are specifically talking about right of legal paternal surrender at birth only.
Women have the right to give up children even when they take them to term, so why shouldn't men? Why should women get all the choices and men none?
Nobody is saying single parents shouldn't be supported. Giving men the right to surrender parental rights and responsibilities at birth only would arguably reduce instances of single parenthood by changing behavior, thus benefiting children.
Forcing responsibilities on someone who doesn't want them is not a good model for raising children. It does not serve their interests. Nor does unequal treatment of men make the biological realities of pregnancy, termination and/or birth magically disappear for women.
Like I said, that has issues laid out in the biological difference.
The 95 cents to the dollar didn't account for the benefits, IIRC. But I really can't be assed to go digging for the source on it at the moment.
Hey I agree. I doubt very much that it's a situation likely to change anytime soon and it's certainly better than literally nothing.
My issue was those claiming that it's not punitive in nature when that's pretty much the exact nature of it.