I never go there unless linked for a reason, and this time, I feel the need to respond. Amanda Marcotte, writing over at Pandagon, writes out a list or 'requirements' for Feminist support for male reproductive rights.
Somehow, I managed to hold back my grateful relief that Feminists will allow 'would-be Deadbeat Dads' (as opposed to Pro Choice, or Pro Adoption, women) to finally lay claim to rights equal to those of women:
If her personal beliefs make abortion or adoption untenable, then the consequences of the choices she makes, based on those personal beliefs, are hers alone to bear. One might make the case the innocent child should not suffer. To that end I make a counter proposal:
Should a single mother prove unable to financially support her children, the State should take custody of them, and she should be chemically sterilized until such time as she can prove to be able to support her children.
There you go, no more child poverty, no huge Welfare rolls, the promotion of responsible parenting is inherent...it's all great sounding...nevermind the hideous totalitarianism... it's for the children after all..
This Pandagon article is just one more illustration of the fact that Feminists wouldn't know equality if it smacked them in the face. The hypocrisy is astounding, and there's good reason I avoid these places most days...who can take that much cognitive dissonance?
But, to Amandas credit, she IS one of the first '3rd wave' Feminists to suggest men might have a point when they demand equal reproductive rights. Too bad she does it in such a stupid way.
Somehow, I managed to hold back my grateful relief that Feminists will allow 'would-be Deadbeat Dads' (as opposed to Pro Choice, or Pro Adoption, women) to finally lay claim to rights equal to those of women:
Sure, I can get behind that.
- He has to sign away all rights before the baby is born. He does not get his name on the birth certificate. The child’s father will be registered as “unknown”. If someone else—say his ex’s new husband—wishes to adopt and coparent the child, he cannot interfere.
Some kind of time limit, preferably equal to that amount of time to decide that women would have, sure. This seems reasonable enough.
- The only exception to this is if the mother did not alert the father to the pregnancy beforehand. He should be able to provide witnesses to testify that he hadn’t seen her in at least six months prior to the birth.
Agreed. You can't unmake the decision to adopt out...oh, wait, you can. Well, I can agree to this anyway.
- He never contacts the child. As far as his child knows, he’s a ghost. No visits, no toys, no pictures, nothing. He should also not be allowed to contact the mother. If he reaches out to the mother, she has full rights to sue him for child support, using that as evidence that he actually does want a relationship with his ex and his biological child.
Nope. Can't see why this should be in place. What if the contact is accidental? What if it is for legitimate, or emergency purposes? Not to mention this treats Child Support as a punishment (which it surely is, but is almost never presented that way). I CAN agree if said contact is in order to establish a relationship, but only if the exact same requirements are laid on parents who contact their post-adoption children later. See, it's not about punishing men for having sex Amanda, no matter how much you want to.
- This is for life. If you contact the child on her 18th birthday, you owe 18 years of back child support. If you contact the child when she’s 30, same thing: All 18 years of child support, with interest.
Sorry, can't get behind this either. The issue is whether or not the man wants to be a parent, not whether or not the woman is sane to stay with him. Her choices remain the same, whether he is Ward Cleaver, or the Terminator. This is simple invitation for more intervention by the State, when the intention of such right is the opposite.
- If the court determines you were abusive to your ex, all the above is invalidated and you will pay child support with no visitation rights if the judge so determines.
I got a better idea. Why don't we hold women accountable for their own choices? No one forced them to have sex (presumably). No one forced them to CHOOSE to keep the child. No one forced them to do so in circumstances where she is unable to care for the child.
- While we’re at it, let’s say children who don’t have child support get a special stipend from the government, much like the Social Security payments they’d get if you were dead.
If her personal beliefs make abortion or adoption untenable, then the consequences of the choices she makes, based on those personal beliefs, are hers alone to bear. One might make the case the innocent child should not suffer. To that end I make a counter proposal:
Should a single mother prove unable to financially support her children, the State should take custody of them, and she should be chemically sterilized until such time as she can prove to be able to support her children.
There you go, no more child poverty, no huge Welfare rolls, the promotion of responsible parenting is inherent...it's all great sounding...nevermind the hideous totalitarianism... it's for the children after all..
This Pandagon article is just one more illustration of the fact that Feminists wouldn't know equality if it smacked them in the face. The hypocrisy is astounding, and there's good reason I avoid these places most days...who can take that much cognitive dissonance?
But, to Amandas credit, she IS one of the first '3rd wave' Feminists to suggest men might have a point when they demand equal reproductive rights. Too bad she does it in such a stupid way.
No comments:
Post a Comment