Gender pay gap and men getting to choose if a woman gets an abortion drama in /r/worldnews (self.SubredditDrama)
SubredditDrama
18 ups - 0 downs = 18 votes
yea maternity leave is the only real reason men get paid more than women.
Women aren't usually the ones trying to skirt parental responsibility.
99 comments submitted at 15:24:06 on Aug 7, 2014 by 75000_Tokkul
You could almost write two competing bots to write these threads. I feel like I've read this exact exchange a thousand times:
"financial abortion for men!"
"no, take responsibility for child"
"no abortion for you. Take responsibility for child"
"you have no right to force women to remain pregnant. Abortion for women!"
Repeat. Flip the comment scores for each bot depending on which sub it's in and the time of the day.
Abortions for some! Miniature American flags for others!
and that's why I voted for Kang!
I have no idea why it causes so much drama- the situation isn't really fair but it's not fair as a result of us being a sexually dimorphic species rather than any malice.
>the situation isn't really fair but it's not fair as a result of us being a sexually dimorphic species rather than any malice
Thus the never ending drama-churn. The gender wars will never end.
I think part of the reason it causes so much drama is simply that there are two diametrically opposed, and nearly as ridiculous veiwpoints competing with one another. Normally I try to avoid doing the whole 'I don't agree with either side' thing because it tends to come across as smug and superior, but its hard not to do that when one group has a reasonable complaint, but makes an unreasonable demand, while the other group, rather than respond to the unreasonable demand uses completely hypocritical arguments to pretend that its the complaint that is unreasonable.
Personally, I think its an issue that can only be solved by fixing a wider problem; that is, reforming child support or child maintenence or whatever other name is given to the money paid by one ex-partner to cover the expenses of the other in looking after their children. As it stands it is more a punishment for absentee parents than a method of supporting children, like it purports to be; otherwise it likely wouldn't be based on the income of the absent parent but rather a formula intended to support the needs of a child. Unfortunately, while there is a relatively simple solution (two infact), to the problem, they both involve scrapping child support altogether in favour of either a universal child benefit system or a means tested one, which would likely be called too socialist in Britain, never mind America.
We should raise children in communal nurseries. It would solve the whole 'parent responsibility' issue.
I genuinely can't tell if this is a serious suggestion, a humourous one, or if you are trying to take the piss.
If its the latter, then yes, I do think that the concept of 'parental responsibility' does create a large problem here. Not because I don't think that parents shouldn't be responsible, but because I don't believe that we should punish their children if they aren't. Also, because the current system is entirely wealth based, so theres more than just an issue with responsibility; its an outdated system of support based more on concepts like vengence and 'responsibility' than it is on the child's welfare.
Another problem is that its so seperate from other child-based benefits, depending how well organised the system in question is its either entirely seperate from other welfare or you have a mess of complex interactions. If it truly is support for a child's welfare it should simply be merged in with the rest, and child's welfare should be treated as either a supplement for those who need it, or a universal benefit for everyone (or some mix thereof) rather than a revenge based system limited by wealth.
Raising kids in communal nurseries would sort out a lot of the problems that come with individual responsibilities for babies and children in general.
(But no, I wasn't trying to be serious and I don't disagree with you. My father owed my mother child support but we never saw a dime of it, so it is definitely a little outdated.)
Fair enough; it can be hard to tell intent from text, so I wasn't sure if you were one of those 'personal responsibility' types who seem to think we live in a meritocracy or something. You're right in that communal nurseries could sort out certain problems but I doubt it would really be feasible, at least in our current society. It would also require people to work together towards a common goal, and I'm not sure thats actually possible; we are having this discussion in a thread about financial abortion, and if the existance of that concept isn't enough proof that people can't agree on anything, I don't know what is :P
too socialist... Britain? I haven't heard anyone cry about socialism over here.
It pretty much is fair though when you consider which party has to actually physically be pregnant
Right, that's what:
>but it's not fair as a result of us being a sexually dimorphic species rather than any malice
means.
Women are the ones who get pregnant and there's nothing any of us can do at this point.
Does it suck that a man can't decide that he isn't financially or emotionally prepared for a child? Of course it does.
> Does it suck that a man can't decide that he isn't financially or emotionally prepared for a child?
He can, though? I mean, the procedure for creating a child is pretty well-documented. It's difficult to do without willing participation on the part of the man.
Not everyone who has sex is willing to have a child, that is why the whole "why don't you just not have sex to prevent pregnancy" is seen as stupid.
So use protection then?
Even with protection it's not 100%, sometimes it fails. Also sometimes people are just idiots and risk it.
Yes, well, that's life. If you're not willing to run the risk, you've got an option.
Yeah that's life and it sucks. That was the point, he can't really decide after the fact he isn't emotionally or financially ready.
Also you could say the same about abortion, why need it when you can just be celibate and that's your option. There is a reason that idea is ridiculed, because sex is great and people like having it without wanting children.
That sounds very hypocritical does is not? This is the same argument the anti-abortion side makes.
Here's my issue with this attitude, we create protections in all kinds of situations where there's a gender imbalance. People get pissed when an employer doesn't want to hire a woman for fear of her getting pregnant, which is simply a gender imbalance. But, we create protections for women to balance out that imbalance.
Because there are so many non-invasive birth control methods for males?
TIL condoms are invasive. jesus christ
I am no native speaker, so maybe invasive may be too strong. But they definitely influence how sex "feels" like.
In an ideal world, pregnancy would always be intentional. I don't think it's fair to tell people "Don't have sex if you don't want kids!" when so many people have sex without having kids.
And very few birth control options are fool proof or perfect.
For every 100 sexually active women who use condoms as their sole method of birth control, about 18 will get pregnant. That number drops to 2-3 with perfect use, but in a lot of areas, sex education is lacking. Either way, it's a number greater than zero.
> I don't think it's fair to tell people "Don't have sex if you don't want kids!" when so many people have sex without having kids.
That's how life works, though. You pays your money and you takes your chances. Shit happens. You can mitigate the risk but it's always going to be there.
Right, and for a lot of women, even if an accident happens, they have the option of aborting the fetus. Men do not have this option. That sucks, but there's no way around it. That's my entire point.
You make it sound like getting an abortion is some easy thing. Also no matter what the woman has to do something about the pregnancy. What you are wanting is for the guy to able to do nothing while the woman has to do something. That is not very fair
No, I didn't say that it's easy to get an abortion. I said it's an option for a lot of women.
>What you are wanting is for the guy to able to do nothing while the woman has to do something. That is not very fair
No. No, it's not, and there's literally nothing I've said that should lead you to that conclusion. I don't want anything because biologically there is no solution.
But if you want me to tell you what I want - then ideally, it'd be like the Sims, and you'd have a button to push for "Woohoo!' and a separate button for "Try for baby!" which would allow both people to decide if they wanted just sex, or if they were ready for a baby.
But that's not going to happen because this is the real world, not a video game. There's no solution I "want" because there is no solution.
The man would pay for the abortion.
Are you trying to come off as folksy or some shit?
Exactly. It could always happen and one should be prepared to deal with the consequences.
How about if we allow companies to fire pregnant women? Being fired would be a consequence of pregnancy after all.
That's....not the same thing.
Sweet Jesus people don't read any of the comments below this, you can literally save yourself the trouble and reread the parent comment because the exact same thing happens in the exact same progression and you'll save yourself at least one minute of time better spent doing literally anything else.
Oh wow it gets pretty bad down there
That's what she said and is why we broke up.
Totes submitting this to SRD^2
> So men should rely only on condoms or cutting their seminiferous tubes? What if we told women "You don't need abortion, just get your tubes tied or insist he wear a condom!"? Why don't men deserve choice and reproductive rights?
I am a staunch defender of every man's right to exercise free choice over his own pregnancy.
I've always really hated the false equivalence that guy is using. Women have the right to bodily sovereignty. Men do not have the right to not get someone pregnant when they have sex.
I've felt this way ever since seeing the movie Junior.
But didn't he have a glow?
No that's The Last Dragon.
So many people don't actually get the arguments about abortion. The argument for abortion is not about taking responsibility. The argument for abortion is the women have the right to abortion from the right for them to control their own bodies through the right to privacy.
Thus why people balk at financial abortion is because the implication comes then that either men have a right to a women's body/woman's right over her body is the equivalent of to a man's right over his money.
Yes, it's unequal and yes it sucks but that's cause one gender gets pregnant and the other doesn't
> Thus why people balk at financial abortion is because the implication comes then that either men have a right to a women's body/woman's right over her body is the equivalent of to a man's right over his money.
So much for strong independent women and respect for autonomy
Once men can get pregnant I would be happy to see this an equal issue... But since men cannot if you have sex you have to understand that pregnancy could be an outcome. Getting an abortion is not easy matter and having and carrying a child is very difficult. For the sake of the child at least one parent paying child support is important if the parent won't have anything else to do with the child. It is not about the woman having more rights than a man (which they should when it comes to pregnancy and birth because duh) but what is best for the child.
If you really really don't want kids there are ways to prevent it but one has to always understand that pregnancy could very well happen and should be prepared if it does.
Plenty of ways exist for a woman to either avoid pregnancy or not have a child. I get that pregnancy and abortion can be very hard on a woman, and as a result the ultimate choice about wether or not to keep the baby should be totally hers, but I fail to see how a financial abortion system in which the father provides the mother with enough money to get an abortion if she so chooses is unfair to anyone. In that situation the mother would have both the choose and resources to get an abortion if she chose too, and if she wanted to keep the baby and raise it/give it up for adoption then she could do that as well. I just don't get why it's okay to say "men need to take responsibility for pregnancy and pay child support", when we all acknowledge that it is wrong to say "women need to take responsibility for pregnancy and carry pregnancies to term unless it was rape or pregnancy threatens the mother" when they have just as many ways of preventing or ending pregnancies as men.
But we have to also understand that even with all the methods out there to prevent pregnancy, it can still happen. It is not fair for a man to be able to cut off all contact with a woman and the child while she has to take action. She has no choice. She has to either get an abortion, give up the child for adoption, or raise the child. Abortion is not always an option and accidental pregnancies happen. Both should have to take responsibility for what happens and at the end of the day, the woman should get the ultimate say as to what happens.
Abortion is not easy. It really is not. I think a lot of men downplay it. It is in no way fair to the woman who has to raise and keep the child if the man can just cut all contact. The adoption system is terrible and emotionally it is very difficult to not only get an abortion but to give up the child. Asking for honestly small monthly payments for the consequences of a man's actions is nothing compared to raising a child.
My dad left my mom with three children all under 4. He left because he did not want her to keep my youngest sister as she was an accident as well as some reasons. He paid 400 dollars a month for the three of us. That is honestly nothing compared to what my mom had to go through. If not for that child support, he would have had nothing to do with us for almost 8 years and that was not fair to us. Child support benefits the child. It is not right to just leave a woman high and dry because biology made her the one to get pregnant.
I feel like your situation isn't really what most people have in mind when discussing this issue in the context of financial abortion - your father would still be liable for the other three children.
Mind you, I don't support financial adoption. I think it's a fairly simplistic solution to the problem it addresses in order to achieve some sort of perceived fairness. More research into male birth control and better welfare support for young mother could make it into a non-issue.
>but I fail to see how a financial abortion system in which the father provides the mother with enough money to get an abortion if she so chooses is unfair to anyone
It's considered unfair to the child who is the party being protected by child support laws.
Outside of legal abortion the laws are to protect the kids more than the parents. As such both parents are required to support a kid if it's not aborted or adopted out.
I has nothing to do with favoring mothers or punishing fathers, it's about providing for children 100%. So yeah. Perhaps it's unfair to dads, tough shit, the laws are there to be as fair as possible to the child. The parents don't even enter into it. If men could also get pregnant, guess what. It'd still be the same.
You make good points, but people like me aren't satisfied with the "tough shit" position. The fact is things could be made more fair, so we're trying for it.
It can't be made more fair in regards to the child though who is the only one the law is aiming to protect with child support.
So no. It can't be made more fair.
Funds dedicated to children with only one parent would be far better than the current system. Please don't pretend things couldnt be better.
So everyone pays for their kid instead of them paying for their kid.
Yup. That sounds more fair.
(As an aside, I'm in favor of social safety nets like that, but saying that's the more fair solution is kinda off base).
How is that not more fair to the child? It would eliminate instances of a child suffering from impoverished parents and guarantee they have a minimum level of support.
Assuming the minimum level of support is enough to support the child. Odds are it'll be poverty level support anyway.
Support from the father first supplemented by social safety nets is far more equitable and less of a burden on the tax base. Sounds like win win.
To what degree is the man required to contribute before the supplement kicks in?
(mirror | open source | create your own snapshots)
if you don't want to worry about getting a women pregnant then wear a fucking condom, it's not rocket science mras.
Female condom and other female contraceptives exist too, but we all recognize that it is wrong to tell a woman that if she didn't want to carry a baby to full term then she should have used a diaphragm. I'm not an MRA, but I fail to see why financial abortion is a bad idea.
In an abortion, the child is killed. There is no longer any child to be supported. The supreme court ruled that this was acceptable because she has a right to privacy (while still balancing this right to privacy with the protection of prenatal life).
In a "financial abortion", the man just neglects a living and breathing child. Its child neglect, and this has yet to be ruled as acceptable for women or for men. Its not even a matter of "privacy".
Abortion rights have nothing to do with consequence-free sex. No such right exists.
> In a "financial abortion", the man just neglects a living and breathing child.
How do you feel about mothers or parents dropping their baby off at a fire station? Or, adoption in general?
>How do you feel about mothers or parents dropping their baby off at a fire station? Or, adoption in general?
They've ensured their children can be taken care of, and fathers have access to the same adoption rights that mothers do including safe haven laws in most places. Some parents are unable to care for their children.
A noncustodial parent of either gender doesn't need to take care of their children, so safe havens are a moot point. All a noncustodial parent has to do is contribute towards their child's needs. Deliberately neglecting a child, especially while pressuring the mother to kill her own child, is going to be awfully controversial and there's no reason to compare it to abortion.
>especially while pressuring the mother to kill her own child
Let's be fair, no one is talking about killing children. That's not what abortion is.
>Deliberately neglecting a child
I'd put the neglect on the person with the child they can't support, not the person who made it clear that they would prefer any of the other options - safe haven, adoption, or abortion. Once their decision is made, it would be on the woman to support or choose another option.
> Let's be fair, no one is talking about killing children. That's not what abortion is.
That is exactly what abortion is.
>I'd put the neglect on the person with the child they can't support,
That's not "neglect". That is poverty, which is an ugly circumstance on its own. We ought to have more programs to help out those women.
Neglect I think is that willful refusal to support their own child. That is a "financial abortion".
>That is exactly what abortion is.
Are you pro-life? There's no child being aborted because no child exists yet. A fetus is not a child.
Turn back now, arguing abortion with this one is not worth your time.
>Are you pro-life? There's no child being aborted because no child exists yet. A fetus is not a child.
Yes, a fetus is a child. A child is any human under the age of majority.
Child: "a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority"
The legality of abortion has nothing to do with the definition of the word 'child'. You can acknowledge the meaning of the word 'child' and be pro-life or pro-choice. If you need to deny the meaning of the word "child" or avoid certain words in order to call yourself a choicer, I don't think your "pro-choice" position is very stable.
The idea would be that a decision on a financial abortion is made before the child is born to give time for the mother to reconsider whether she possesses the means to raise a child without the biological father and his support.
Child neglect in a financial sense, or in the sense that the child would be lacking one parent? If you're talking financial child neglect then I would say that if the woman can't pay to support the child then she should either give it up for adoption or not have it. If the father is making something like minimum wage then child support is a pretty small amount anyways. If we're talking parental neglect then I would just say that there is absolutely nothing keeping the father from never seeing that child anyways.
> Child neglect in a financial sense, or in the sense that the child would be lacking one parent?
Child neglect in a financial sense, in the sense that you aren't providing for a child. It's abusive. If you want to pretend that parents have some "right" to neglect their children, that is one thing, but it is not comparable to abortion at all.
(And don't forget that abortion itself is one of the most controversial supreme court decisions in the nation's history, the fact that you would recommend mothers kill their children if they don't want their fathers to abuse them is beyond me).
> the fact that you would recommend mothers kill their children if they don't want their fathers to abuse them is beyond me
Please do not twist my words. We are having a discussion and you are making some very good points, but don't act like I said "Well just kill the baby if you can't support it". If a mother, or a mother and a father paying child support, or even a couple can not support their children then I believe they should not have those children. Wether it's through abortion, or willingly giving up their child for adoption, or state intervention I don't really care, but if you can't feed, cloth and shelter your children then in my eyes they don't belong with you.
> but we all recognize that it is wrong to tell a woman that if she didn't want to carry a baby to full term then she should have used a diaphragm.
That's because we think that it's a very, very bad idea to extract a non-consenting person's kidney even to save their child's life. Forcing a person to pay money to cover the consequences of their decisions is a much lesser evil.
It's an easily preventable problem, also like someone said before me it's just complete neglect of a child.
It's easily preventable on both the mother and father's part, I don't see how that matters in the least. The idea that it's could hurt the child is one that I think has a lot of pull to it, but the fact that men can wear a condom or get a vasectomy, and women can wear diaphragms and use birth control in my mind has absolutely no bearing on wether or not people, male or female, should be forced into parenthood.
because the last thing society needs is more single moms without anyone supporting them.
Isn't that the reason that abortion and adoption are both options? Why not make part of the agreement for financial abortion be that the mother receives enough money to pay for an abortion if she so chooses? That way if she wanted to get rid of the child then she could, and if she felt that she wanted to keep it then it was her choice?
Just for the record, many MRA's already believe that component to be necessary to any parental abortion concept.
Serious question: Do those MRAs actively help fight to make sure medical abortion is legal and accessible?
I am genuinely curious, not trying to be sarcastic here.
As actively as any other pro-choice individual I believe. The MRA's I know in person and can speak for have done everything from sign petitions for legislative issues to donate directly to facilities that provide abortions.
Good on them for ideological consistency. (Again, not being sarcastic.)
No worries. I'm with ya, a consistency in postion is always appreciable.
Well good on them then. I think that's a fair and balanced way to set things up. Everyone involved gets their own choice in parenthood (except for if the man wants the child, but the woman doesn't, although I think that's the one situation where the man's opinion is absolutely overruled).
And there too most MRA's agree with you.
That isn't exactly going to be enough to help the child as it grows up.
If the mother doesn't think she can handle raising a child then she has the option to. If she chooses to have the child and can't support/raise it then why shouldn't that be on her? Like I said, adoption and abortion are very real options.
A depressing number of women do not have access to safe medical abortion, even in countries (like the USA) where it is nominally legal.
This is a very valid point but I would hope we make progress on it in the coming years as abortion loses even more stigma.
It's not meant to. The money mentioned above is to pay for an abortion.
I don't understand this whole argument, it's both sides assuming a basically libertarian point that the state shouldn't interfere.
I think that, like in several European countries the state could provide support for the parent and child, then I think people would care a whole lot less about 'financial abortions' and there would be no single mothers without any help.
Just checked New specifically to see if this had appeared yet.