Any more stupid questions you wanna ask?

This morning I saw this question asked in /r/feminism, and reading the comments, I stumbled across a discussion on gender rolls and parenting. Contained therein was the accompanying comment on the balance and even-handedness of the courts.

The commenter's opinion about "what should be" notwithstanding (because honestly, if feminists really believe that, why are they not fighting for it?) I decided to address the denial of the discriminatory way family court and government agencies handle fathers. Fed up with hearing so many variations on the lies, "courts don't favor mothers" and "courts don't discriminate against fathers" I decided to speak up.

I knew there were a couple of possibilities. There could be debate... kind of. I could have come back later to find a cascading procession of angry retorts, rhetoric, and other renditions of the company line. I could have been told off for posting something the commenter didn't like, or even dismissed as irrelevant because (as you'll see from my comment) I'm somewhat bitter about the shit sandwich my family was handed by the system this commenter claims doesn't do what it did to us. However /r/feminism is not known for being able to handle genuine debate. They certainly can't handle the knowledge that advocacy of the ideas and ideals they express in their vacuum of communal validation and emotional appeal is actually damaging to others. The denizens of /r/feminism do not have big girl panties, and I did question the validity of their beliefs. I suspected I would be banned from the sub, but if so, that would simply make my point all the more. Feminists throw women like me under the bus to get and maintain their social power.

In the end, that is what happened, though not as I expected. I was not banned. I was a little surprised to return and find the comment deleted without communication. No message was left in my inbox to explain why. In fact, I would not have known about the delete at all, had I not asked a friend to read it, because when I'm logged into reddit, it still shows. It's interesting to learn that, because it means /r/feminism's mods can censor without the cut commenters knowing unless we visit the thread while logged off, or someone else tells us. I wonder how many voices they've silenced that way.

I decided not to be silenced by some self-important twit who can't handle making the choice to either counter what I said, or accept it and let it stand, so I'm posting it here. In response to the above commenter's glowing praise of our nation's broken legal system, I wrote the following.

If you want evidence of how family courts look at gender roles, I have an example for you: My husband.

His ex-wife wanted a career. She wanted to be unfettered by the role of primary caregiver. She was earning $40,000/year in a full-time management position in 1997. She was rarely at home, and did not spend much time at all with the kids because when she wasn't working during the week, she was partying with friends on the weekend, often 100 miles from home (living in the northern part of Ohio, driving to the southern part.) Her (then) husband was a stay at home Dad, in part because he lost his job from having to call in on weekend days when she was supposed to come home, but he couldn't find her.

When she left - breaking up her family for the other man with whom she was cheating - she was still deemed the primary caregiver, still deemed the victim in the divorce, still treated as having full custody of the kids despite a shared parenting agreement... and still awarded child support based on a fictional income applied to his end of the equation, defined by what a social worker thought he should be making so he could support his poor, helpless, (middle-class) ex-wife. After years of barely even paying attention to the kids, she decided she must keep them with her, because it would look bad for her new man, a lay preacher, if his wife's kids not only were not his, but lived with her ex... and even though the actual, factual primary caregiver was the husband, the state treated the wife as holding that right and responsibility merely because she is a woman.
 
I have been with him since about 8 months after the divorce, which occurred in 1997 while she was middle class and he was not a wage-earner (by her design.) Prior to dating him, I watched with our other friends as he tried everything he could to save a marriage the other partner had stopped wanting, then to salvage at least his relationship with his kids in the face of her selfish efforts to cut him out of their lives (but keep his wallet in hers) to facilitate her new lifestyle. There has never once, in the entirety of the relationship between my husband, the ex, and the legal system... not once been equal treatment under the law. Government agencies and the courts have bent over backward for her at every turn, allowing her to extort additional money from him for every lifestyle decision she's made, from quitting her $40,000 a year job, to having more babies who were not even his, to fleeing across the state to keep his children from him so could she try to hide her past by forcing them to falsely use their stepfather's name.

Excuses given for the discrimination ranged from the simply sexist (the tender years doctrine, the assumption that he had abandoned her, treatment of him as a deadbeat for not making more money than she did, treatment of him as irrelevant to the children's well-being aside from money, because he is a man) to the outright antagonistic ...the child support case worker screamed at him on the phone so loud that when he pulled it away from his ear, I could hear her from across the room... shouting that he had no right to interfere with his ex's "new life" by attempting to stay close enough to her kids (yes, hers, and only hers, because he was the irrelevant father) by daring follow her when she fled with them to an isolated little berg near the southern border of the state. She called him a stalker and an abuser for the heinous act of attempting to avoid losing all contact with his own kids... not because he had actually done anything violent or even inconsiderate to his kids or even his ex, but simply because he had the gall to be there for his family.

How dare he.

I listened to this same woman castigate my husband for "making" me pay the overflow of his child support while she simultaneously threatened that if I didn't do it, he'd go to jail.

Then she made me sign a paper saying I wasn't coerced... also under threat that if I didn't, the man I love would go to jail.

Because, you know. That isn't coercion at all.

And the excuse? She needs the money, because she's a mom.

Meaning that I am not a mom.

Because, you know, my son does not count as a child.

I'm the second wife.

I am married to the father of my child.

As such, my son and I don't count for anything to these people, so that case worker was willing to break my back to prevent the ex having to even use hers.

Even if my husband's case were isolated, even if I'd never seen the same treatment handed to other men in my life... friends, relatives, coworkers... I'd still say this is a symptom of the larger issue caused by feminist advocacy. Laws governing family court and policies followed by health and human services agencies are based on the idea that women in divorce, and unwed mothers, are the victims of the fathers of their children. For 25 years, I have watched laws and policies treat efforts of fathers to remain active in their children's lives as an intrusion on the mother's life, while simultaneously facilitating mothers in using the child support system to fund their own life choices. Stories I could tell you range from being just like my husband's experience to many times worse.

Women who don't take advantage of that system and don't marry divorcees with kids don't see it happening.

Women who do take advantage, don't admit it.

Women like me, who see it, are often afraid to speak up because when we do we are beaten down by other women for our trouble.

That doesn't mean it isn't happening.

It means most women aren't invested in trying to fix it.

If someone among the readers and commenters here wants to tell me how the system as it works now constitutes equal treatment, how if he were a woman, the case would have gone exactly the same way, I would be interested to hear your
reasoning excuses.

You might even be able to offer me some case or another, an exception to the 25 years of discrimination I've witnessed, and treat that as the counterbalance for the many, many cases which go the opposite way.

If someone wants to tell me how justified and reasonable it was to take away the focus of my husband's life because his female ex wanted to look respectable to church people after cheating and breaking up her family to run off with another man, I would be interested in that 
argument  propaganda, too.

If you want to tell me how women are victimized by the consideration given them by this system, by all means, go ahead and tell me all about it. How terrible it must be to have an entire network of judges and government workers think you're so incapable of backing up your own decisions that you have to be supported by someone else. What a burden it must be to have to constantly play victim in order to make part of your living.

Maybe someone who supports the system could explain to me how child support workers who take sides are unbiased, who accuse men without knowledge are reasonable, who presume guilt without evidence are benevolent.

Why, after 25 years of watching the family law and family government systems and the people who run them show searing hatred and angry disdain for men, should I have any sympathy for women who walk out on their husbands and then cannot support that decision on their own?

Why should a second wife, who has seen the damage that so-called "pro-woman" advocacy does to everyone but the selfish and the heartless, give a rat's ruddy ass about defending the innocence of your ideology?

Modern feminist advocates of victimology and sex-politics may be able to bullshit younger women and many men, but what do you think you can present that is going to bullshit someone like me, who has had the wool ripped from her eyes by experience? Do you have anything besides rhetoric? Anything I haven't already heard? Anything besides opinion, ancient history, cheesy catch-phrases and twisted terminology? Anything real, solid, and current?

I got my answer to those questions with the deletion of the comment: no. No, they can't present anything to justify the presented position. They cannot demonstrate balance in the courts. They cannot back up the commenter's denial, and they cannot even defend their general ideology.

As for the original question, "Is there a reason why Men's rights and Women's rights can't coexist and produce equal rights?" the answer is feminists. Feminists cannot accept the reasons behind the MRM, because many, if not most of those reasons trace right back to their own house. You cannot work together with another group for a cause you've been fighting against throughout your entire history. You can claim to be interested in cooperating on gender issues, but in reality, you are more interested in pushing your own agenda than in working with anyone else, particularly if working with others means having to question the validity of the agenda you've been pushing. Why? Because you'd rather be confident than right.
And confident you are. You go, girl!
Go right on spouting feminism's company line, while more and more women see through your bullshit and either leave, or like me, never join your ranks in the first place.

Effeminition: Feminist Logic, an editorial piece on reproductive rights and child support

Due to the number of choices possessed by women, the graphic could not be sized to fit this blog. To better read the text, right click on the image below and select "view image" from the menu. Use the magnifier to see the full sized image, or feel free to download by dragging it from the page to your desktop. My only stipulation for use is that it remain unaltered. This image is my work. If you want an altered version, make your own.

For those who do not understand why the male flowchart has no "yes" option for abstinence, click here.

Feminists tell me that the movement and its advocacy are about promoting female autonomy, independence, and strength... our right to make our own choices and live by them...

...until we get pregnant. Then, all bets are off. We're not autonomous. We're not independent. We're not strong, and our choices are meaningless. Instead of living by them, we're to demand that others pay for our decisions. We're to hold others responsible. Cry victim, and let loose the dogs of court!

The mental process behind this apparent change of heart is one of twisted and self-serving rationalization. How else can anyone, after making a broad series of choices, each along the way requiring the confrontation of an unwanted possibility, taking the path of greater risk with no preventative measures, ignoring the opportunity to eliminate the outcome, passing up multiple avenues of escape, then demand restitution from the person she left behind six or seven decisions ago?

Frequently, I'm confronted with the argument that if a man doesn't want to be saddled with a support order, he shouldn't have sex, should have his genitals surgically altered for birth control purposes, or should wear a condom. Feminists make these arguments as if the man somehow miraculously impregnated the woman without her participation. There she was, blithely going about her business, walked past the wrong horny asshole, and BAM! Where the heck did this baby come from?

My objection to the responsible man argument is one which I think should be readily apparent, but recent discussion has demonstrated to me that to many, it is not. In deciding to write about it, I struggled to come up with an artistic representation of how I see this, without graphic depictions which I see as unnecessary to the discussion. Huge thanks to my friend Mitschu for reminding me that flow charts exist and for the link to Lucidchart.com, where the charts in the graphic for this entry were made.

As the graphic shows, the process by which we arrive at the situation used to justify a court-ordered payment from the father to the mother is one which is predominantly controlled by the mother. By no means is the circumstance of being the primary caregiver for a child an involuntary circumstance for her. It is certainly not one which can reasonably be considered to be inflicted by the father, given the series of steps taken between the moments prior to participating in sexual intercourse and the moment when the mother files a support claim. How, then, do those who oppose the idea of a paternal parental surrender equal in effect to maternal "safe-haven" abandonment justify their position?

They resort to the same series of logic fails used to justify other feminist positions.

This begins with the Gatekeeper to Consent argument, which considers the pursuit of sexual gratification to be one directional. Men are assumed to have only the option of pursuit. Women are assumed to have only the option to refuse or relent, with relent being an inflicted condition rather than a voluntary one, as indicated by the perception not that the woman decided she was interested, but that the man talked her into it. This is the basis for beginning the debater's argument, "If a man has sex," rather than "If a couple has sex." The wording is designed to limit responsibility to the man right from the beginning.

It continues with the Appeal to the Helplessness Charge. The Helplessness Charge is the feminist requirement of assumption that during any given experience, the woman has no alternative option to letting events progress unchallenged. If options are acknowledged, feminists accuse the debater of blaming the victim. What they really mean by this accusation is that the debater is threatening the status of victim, as having viable alternatives to suffering a condition or experience moves the individual from the status of victim to the status of participant. No one feels sorry enough for a participant to give her any power or restitution for any suffering she might claim as a result of her participation.
The point at which the debater in this argument appeals to that charge is in only offering the admonition that the male should have used either surgical or prophylactic birth control. This is the use of misdirection to limit the perception of options. It focuses on the few options available to the male participant, while ignoring a wealth of more effective options available to the female.

Further, it ignores the very arguments in the debate over the feasibility and potential value of a male form of ingestible hormonal birth control. The idea of hormonal birth control for men was protested and dismissed under the thin argument that men would lie about being on it or forget to take it, and in doing so trick women into having unprotected sex. The proposal of a male pill has been treated as an attack on female reproductive control. Bloggers and commenters even discussed the topic as if the addition of a male birth control pill to the mix would somehow eliminate women's concurrent use of birth control. In the course of discussions on the topic, the thought that women shouldn't be expected or required to leave birth control up to men has been repeatedly expressed. 

In hypocritically stark contrast to that is the discussion on pregnancy, support, and parental surrender, where it's only the man who is considered responsible. This ignores the variety and effectiveness of available forms of female birth control in order to support the treatment of pregnancy as a malady inflicted upon hapless, helpless women by heartless, domineering men.

Arguing for male responsibility in the event of birth, but against it in the event of birth control options, is more than slightly hypocritical.

This takes us to the culmination of the sex act, when both sexes have had equal opportunity to prevent pregnancy. Each partner could have abstained. Each partner could have used birth control. Each even had the chance to make the use of more than one method a condition upon which consent was contingent. For the sake of argument, let's say that it doesn't matter what choices were made, because pregnancy can happen in spite of birth control. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that birth control was used and failed. It can reasonably be argued that at the moment of conception, neither partner is any more or any less at fault for the situation. Neither party is exempt from responsibility. If the options stop at this point, with no other chance to alter the situation, then it would be reasonable to expect both parties to bear equal culpability, and equal rights. Neither parent should be considered more or less responsible based on gender. If this was the circumstance being addressed, arguments against paternal parental surrender would have merit.

Since that is not how things are, they do not.

After the moment of conception, the father's options stop. Under the feminist "My Body, My Choice" argument, the father is given no right to decide whether the pregnancy may progress, or must be terminated. To this end, she has immediate options, short-term options, and surgical options. The father has no say in these options. He cannot prevent them, and he cannot enforce them. He may not make even minor decisions related to the impending birth of his offspring. The purpose of stating that fact is not as an indictment of it, but simply the establishment of an important understanding: The statement does not judge or condemn. It only points out that this is how things are.

Any decision made after the conception of a baby, whether that is to continue or not, is made by the mother, and only by the mother. The feminist argument "My Body, My Choice" deserves to be answered with, "Your Choice, Your Responsibility." If the father chooses to be in agreement with the mother in her decision, it's reasonable to expect him to back that up by offering equal support, sharing the expense and effort involved in whatever mutual choice is made, whether it be abortion or birth. If the two parties are in opposition, however, the mother's choice legally trumps that of the father. It is therefore unjust to assign him responsibility for that choice. If the mother chooses to be in disagreement with the father in his wishes regarding the pregnancy, it is reasonable to expect her to back that up by supporting that choice on her own. She should not have the right to demand assistance financing her choice from an individual who is in opposition to the choice she is making.

There are those who argue that not awarding the mother a child support payment would force her to have an abortion if she fears that she will be unable to financially support herself and the baby. This is a false argument, which depends on the person to whom it is presented being distracted by feelings of sympathy.

Having the right to make a choice does not equal having the right to have someone fund that choice. Lack of funds does not equal force. The legal choice is still there. No one is telling the mother that she is required to travel to an abortion clinic, go through the pre-op precess, sign her consent, pay for the procedure, and have it done. No one is telling her that she is not permitted to make a different selection from the available options following birth: claiming full custody, shared custody with or custodial surrender to family, open or closed adoption, or safe-haven abandonment. Feminist arguments in this area can be simplified to the following: But those choices are hard. Making those choices is emotionally challenging and can be emotionally painful. Backing that choice up financially will be hard work. A woman shouldn't have to go through all of that. You only want to punish her for having sex.
The same advocates who argue that men should be saddled with a potentially crippling, often arbitrary financial burden as punishment for their lack of forethought in having insufficiently protected sex with a fertile woman actually argue that women should be exempt from the emotional consequences of our actions despite an equal lack of forethought in having insufficiently protected sex with a fertile man.

Women are not entitled to force anyone to pay for our choices just because we are women.

Choice extends beyond pregnancy, after childbirth, when the mother's choices include four possible ways of not accepting caregiver status. The first possibility hinges on whether the father wants custody. Certainly, if the mother feels burdened by the circumstance of parenthood, and the father wants to step in and take responsibility, he should have that right. In fact, in a truly gender equal legal system, even if there is a custody dispute because both parents want to take responsibility, then from birth, both parents should start out with an equal chance of being awarded custody, and an equal burden of proof in determining which living arrangement would be more beneficial for the baby. In a situation like that, following a situation in which birth control and abortion choices were equal, and in which expectations and enforcement of support would be equal regardless of who had custody, it would be reasonable to expect a father who declines to take custody of his child to back up that choice with support.

Since that is not the case, as the mother does not have to recognize the father's choice related to birth, that is not a reasonable expectation. Further, the father is given little or no say in who does act as a caregiver. By creating a series of hoops for him to jump through, states limit the rights of fathers to challenge adoption or safe haven abandonment if the mother chooses to exercise either option without his consent. The father's rights are further limited if he and the mother are not married, and the mother chooses not to even tell him about the pregnancy. Under the My Body, My Baby fallacy, some women feel entitled to bypass fathers' rights to choose to take a caregiving role in their children's lives.

Even if the first two (relinquishing custody to the father or to family) are not available due to lack of willing participants, that still leaves two other choices. Given the removal of "relinquish custody to the father" as an option, there should be no challenge from him should she opt for adoption or "safe-haven" abandonment. In fact, even a father who wants custody may find it difficult to prevent adoption. Regardless, the mother is not legally required to claim custody and financial responsibility after birth. There is no outside entity which will make her choice for her. As with the decision to carry and give birth, the decision of the mother to retain or relinquish custody following birth is a unilateral personal choice. The making of such a choice does not entitle one to demand supporting funds from an individual who had no part in the decision.

Under today's system of medicine, law, and policy, a woman's condition of custodial motherhood is a not just a choice, but a step-by-step series of choices, for the majority of which the father does not have anything even close to an equivalent. A woman's reproductive and custody options far outnumber those of a man. In addition, some of her rights are considered greater than his, and some trump or eliminate his. Men have traditionally had little recourse when their reproductive or custody rights have been violated by women. It is therefore inexcusable to assign blame to the man for the results of the woman's decision, and even more so to enforce upon him a financial payment to her for making that decision. This is why, in an unwed parenting situation, there needs to be an option for fathers who truly wish to walk away, have nothing to do with the mother or the child, and not pay any restitution to the mother. If true equality is what feminists seek, they should have no problem with the concept of parental surrender applied to paternity, where from any point prior to conception to the moment he decides whether or not to sign a custody and/or support agreement, the father could sever all paternal ties, rights, and responsibilities the same way a woman can when allowing adoption or using a safe-haven drop-off location.