~ archived since 2018 ~

Why isn't it gaining traction...?

silveryfeather208 · 2017-09-13T03:17:06+00:00

I'm not gonna lie, I was never aware of this law. (I'm from Canada) but now that I know, I'm thinking why the fuck isn't this...

silveryfeather208

September 13, 2017

18 upvotes

/r/MensRights

I'm not gonna lie, I was never aware of this law. (I'm from Canada) but now that I know, I'm thinking why the fuck isn't this law being abolished? I don't know just makes me feel helpless and I want a protest or something. (peaceful of course) The law I'm talking about, (I think it's common here, but since I didn't see it on page one on this sub, I'm going to assume it's okay to post) is a man cannot deny 'parenthood'. I think I read in enough detail but if a woman claims a child's father is so and so, the father can deny or confirm. If he denies the judge is allowed to issue a DNA test. IF the test confirms him to be the father, then he MUST pay. Even if you are pro life, a woman can always give the child up for adoption, so why can't a man? I can understand if they were married or made some sort of contract/promise and THEN he walked away, yeah sure maybe pay the bill. But if he said 'no' after finding out she's pregnant, it should be the same as abortion. /end rant Also, I got banned from a few feminist facebook groups/reddit groups for saying 'unfeminist' things... welp

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Why isn't it gaining traction...?
Author	silveryfeather208
Upvotes	18
Comments	46
Date	September 13, 2017 3:17 AM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6zs10m/why_isnt_it_gaining_traction/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/why-isnt-it-gaining-traction.914422 https://theredarchive.com/post/914422

Comments

[–]Mr_MRAnarchist 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pteawesome 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

it has to do with best interests of the child, now not having gone through adoption my understanding is that if the mother gives the child up the father gets priorty and can TECHNICALLY claim support from the mother in the same way. It's looked at like this, both parties took part in creating the life and both parts are responsible for it. The alternative would actually be to force women to abort, or to force babies into foster care or something similar, which negates the right of the child, the right of the child to have loving supportive parents....

It is not a men's right issue to be able to abandon your children at whim... that is an obligation to the child once it enters the world. We have birth control means at our disposal that we can take, condoms, or vasectomy being the only two I know of. Now when it comes to why men why end up paying support it comes down to - mother stops working, claims less income than she would otherwise make, and so the balance of family income and yada yada tends to make the man pay more... I hope that answered what you were asking... and please do not use men's rights as a way to abandon your children... that is the opposite of what we want, we want to be with our children, against a system that tries to push us (but not our wallets) out of it.

[–]RapeMatters 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]Liv47 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]RapeMatters 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Again, he said the "usual case" when a woman puts a child up for adoption is that the father objects and the child goes to the father. I contest that most adoption attempts in Canada fail with the father taking custody and mom paying child support. I think we would have heard about this, and he hasn't provided any evidence of such.

Regarding this:

The only circumstance that a woman can give up her child without consulting the father in Canada is when the father is not present in the child's life

You're only proving my point. You're saying that when a woman cuts the father out of the child's life (as is typical in the United States when she wants to put the child up for adoption or surrender the child to the state), based on her actions he has no rights.

I'm not sure if that's true or not, but that's what you wound up claiming (on accident).

[–]Liv47 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

You're saying that when a woman cuts the father out of the child's life (as is typical in the United States when she wants to put the child up for adoption or surrender the child to the state)

This requires a citation, because I don't believe for one second that the typical action in the US is for the mother to "cut the father out". In the face of overwhelming evidence, my conclusion is that men not wanting to be fathers is a far more common reason for single parenthood. You're going to have to prove your case on this one to convince me otherwise.

I'm not sure if that's true or not, but that's what you wound up claiming (on accident).

No, it is not what I claimed. You cherry-picked my response to make it seem that way. What I said was that when a father is not part of a child's life, the mother is who has the right to decide, just as the reserve is true.

[–]RapeMatters 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

typical action in the US is for the mother to "cut the father out"

The typical action of a mother who intends to give up a child for adoption? Why would she put herself in financial risk by doing that? It makes no logical sense. The notion that mothers who intend to give up their children for adoption intend to randomly put themselves at financial risk for no apparent benefit would imply that women are either stupid or can't think towards the future.

I don't believe this is the case. I think women are just as smart as men.

my conclusion is that men not wanting to be fathers is a far more common reason for single parenthood.

Unlikely. We know women are in the driver's seat when it comes to having children - most contraception is in their control and once conception has happened they have sole right to determine what happens next. We know that about 80% of women have children. Source for that:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5637417/One-in-five-women-stay-childless-because-of-modern-lifestyle.html

We also know about 80% of men want children. Source for that:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/15/poll-most-men-aspire-to-be-dads/2427123/

We also know that, among divorced dads who have children, 75% want more time with their children than was granted by the court.

https://goodmenproject.com/guy-talk/wll-men-receive-equality-court-cases-jvinc/

It's unlikely that men are abandoning women in droves. Men are roughly as interested in having children and caring for them as women are. We just don't let them.

What I said was that when a father is not part of a child's life, the mother is who has the right to decide

Exactly. So when she cuts him out, she gets full decision making capability. If you're planning on giving the child up for adoption, that is THE most rational course of action. That is, unless you're arguing that women are irrational.

I don't think that's true. I think women are rational actors.

In any case, the original claim, which was that the USUAL (common, normal, average occurrence, generally what happens) case was that when a woman puts a child up for adoption the adoption is blocked and the child goes to the father remains unsourced and, according to your claims, untrue.

[–]Liv47 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

The typical action of a mother who intends to give up a child for adoption? Why would she put herself in financial risk by doing that? It makes no logical sense. The notion that mothers who intend to give up their children for adoption intend to randomly put themselves at financial risk for no apparent benefit would imply that women are either stupid or can't think towards the future.

Now I'm confused, because you're the one that said that women cut men out in order to give children up for adoption. I was the one contending that such a thing is either so rare that it's not worth making legal policy over, or simply preposterous. Now you're saying that it makes no logical sense. Which is it?

Unlikely. We know women are in the driver's seat when it comes to having children - most contraception is in their control and once conception has happened they have sole right to determine what happens next. We know that about 80% of women have children.

Entirely irrelevant. One of the most common reasons for single parenthood is that the mother wanted to keep the baby and the father wanted out. The other most common reason is that one of the parents has died. If an expecting mother doesn't want a baby and the father does, her right to determine her own body dictates that yeah, she can terminate it. It's inhumane to interfere with how someone conducts their body. That would be like outlawing masturbation, or requiring spousal consent for men to get a vasectomy. It's idiotic and it's wrong.

We also know that, among divorced dads who have children, 75% want more time with their children than was granted by the court.

Further irrelevance to this topic. You're talking about divorced dads who wanted children before they were born and were part of a family unit until his marriage ended. We're talking about men who are not yet fathers, who find out that their S/O is pregnant. Men who complain about being "stuck" paying for kids he never wanted in the first place. Furthermore, divorced dads are given custody if Mom decides she doesn't want her kids any more. Remember, you can't take your 8-year-old and drop him off in front of a safe haven. That's child neglect. And you can't just give him up for adoption, because as soon as the system finds out that his father has visitation rights or partial custody, you'd be in so much shit it's unreal. So, non-issue, right there.

It's unlikely that men are abandoning women in droves. Men are roughly as interested in having children and caring for them as women are. We just don't let them.

That's the key behind this whole issue; they're not. Divorce rates have stabilized, and fewer people now are being tangled up in custody cases than 20 years ago. But even then, it wasn't an epidemic. It's a nuance of news and interest. It only seems like it's happening a lot, when you read about it a lot.

But it does happen often enough to warrant discussion, because it is tricky, with a lot of complex issues contained within it. That's why abolishing child support will create more problems than it solves. That's why fatherhood opt-outs are harder to implement than anyone here is willing to admit. And it has nothing to do with the blowback from the feminists; that's like being stuck in a housefire, and worrying about being shouted at.

Exactly. So when she cuts him out, she gets full decision making capability.

Still on this "she cuts him out" thing. Until you can provide evidence that women cut men out in order to give children up for adoption. If she didn't want the child she could just abort it before it's ever born. She wouldn't have to waste effort and lying when she could just tell a doctor "flush it out". Four hundred dollars and a few weeks of pain and soreness later, she's childless and doesn't owe anyone an explanation.

That would be like me deciding the only way to get a new apartment is to burn down the old one and pretend it was an accident, when I could just move out.

[–]RapeMatters 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Now I'm confused, because you're the one that said that women cut men out in order to give children up for adoption. I was the one contending that such a thing is either so rare that it's not worth making legal policy over, or simply preposterous. Now you're saying that it makes no logical sense. Which is it?

It makes no logical sense for a woman who is planning on giving a child up for adoption to leave the father in the picture. That carries risk and no reward.

One of the most common reasons for single parenthood is that the mother wanted to keep the baby and the father wanted out.

Source?

Furthermore, divorced dads are given custody if Mom decides she doesn't want her kids any more.

IF she gives him the opportunity by identifying him to the state. This is a key point. Does the state compel identification under penalty of law?

And you can't just give him up for adoption, because as soon as the system finds out that his father has visitation rights or partial custody, you'd be in so much shit it's unreal.

Which, once again, requires her cooperation, and I'm not sure is true anyway.

That's why abolishing child support will create more problems than it solves. That's why fatherhood opt-outs are harder to implement than anyone here is willing to admit. And it has nothing to do with the blowback from the feminists; that's like being stuck in a housefire, and worrying about being shouted at.

Like I said - either we need to make parental relinquishment available to men to be nonsexist, or abolish parental relinquishment available to women to be nonsexist.

You can't give a legal privilege to only one sex and then just claim it's those awful fuckin' MEN and that's why we can't have nice things.

I'm ok with either solution, but one of the solutions needs to be pursued.

Still on this "she cuts him out" thing. Until you can provide evidence that women cut men out in order to give children up for adoption. If she didn't want the child she could just abort it before it's ever born. She wouldn't have to waste effort and lying when she could just tell a doctor "flush it out". Four hundred dollars and a few weeks of pain and soreness later, she's childless and doesn't owe anyone an explanation.

That presumes she's ethically ok with abortion. Women are about as likely to be ethically opposed to abortion as men are (give or take a few percentage points).

That would be like me deciding the only way to get a new apartment is to burn down the old one and pretend it was an accident, when I could just move out.

Best illustration of the day, but again, many women are not ethically ok with abortion, even if they don't want/can't support the child.

[–]Liv47 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

It makes no logical sense for a woman who is planning on giving a child up for adoption to leave the father in the picture. That carries risk and no reward.

It makes no logical sense for a woman who doesn't want a child to even tell the father she's pregnant. Your rationale is full of holes that stem back to the moment this hypothetical woman discovered she was pregnant.

Source?

Hit up the Wikipedia page for "Single Parent" and go through the bibliography. Most references are in print.

In the United States, the rate of unintended pregnancy is higher among unmarried couples than among married ones. In 1990, 73% of births to unmarried women were unintended at the time of conception, compared to about 44% of births overall. [74]

"Fragile Families" are usually caused by an unintended pregnancy out of wedlock. Usually in this situation the father is not completely in the picture and the relationship between the mother, father, and child is consistently unstable. As well as instability "fragile families" are often limited in resources such as human capital and financial resources, the kids that come from these families are more likely to be hindered within school and don't succeed as well as kids who have strictly single parents or two parent homes. [75] Usually within these families the father plans to stick around and help raise the child but once the child is born the fathers do not stay for much longer and only one third stay after five years of the child's birth. [76]

I look forward to finding out what excuse you have to dismiss this. The old "Wikipedia is not a resource" argument is my bet.

IF she gives him the opportunity by identifying him to the state. This is a key point. Does the state compel identification under penalty of law?

Yes, unless it's a safe haven drop-off, and you can't do that unless the baby is newborn. And I don't think Canada has safe haven laws.

Which, once again, requires her cooperation, and I'm not sure is true anyway.

Bullshit. The state does take identification of the mother and the child, and does a background check. Otherwise any woman could wander in with any child and just say "give him to a good home". That would be an amazingly broken system. In the real world, they assess the mother for legal reasons, and ensure she is not currently in a divorce proceeding nor has a custody arrangement. If she's still married, then she cannot be there by herself, her husband must be present and in favour of the surrender.

Remember, once a child is born, it's no longer a matter of the mother's bodily integrity, since her body is no longer part of the equation.

Like I said - either we need to make parental relinquishment available to men to be nonsexist, or abolish parental relinquishment available to women to be nonsexist.

Preposterous. First of all "sexist" is the belief that one sex is superior to the other. So having an imbalanced system by itself is not sexist. It would only be sexist if it was in place because whoever put it there thought men were inferior. And the system was kinda put together by many people over generations, so that's probably impossible to prove (and exceedingly easy to disprove).

Second, when a man "relinquishes" his parenthood, there's no more father. When a woman does it, there's no more child. So you're arguing apples and oranges.

You can't give a legal privilege to only one sex and then just claim it's those awful fuckin' MEN and that's why we can't have nice things.

Who's claiming that? You're just being hyperbolic. Next you're going to be telling me it's unfair that women get free pap tests, but men don't.

That presumes she's ethically ok with abortion. Women are about as likely to be ethically opposed to abortion as men are (give or take a few percentage points).

...so you're suggesting that a woman ethically opposed to abortion would not be ethically opposed to abusing the legal system in a gobsmackingly stupid way in order to put her kid up for adoption? Who is this white elephant you refer to, because this really has to narrow down to a single human being at this point. There just can't physically be people who are that fucking stupid and not under 24-hour supervision.

Best illustration of the day, but again, many women are not ethically ok with abortion, even if they don't want/can't support the child.

Many women don't support abortion, true. How do you simply "cut out" the man on the baby's birth registration? If he never learned about the baby's existence in the first place, then what exactly is he being deprived of? If he's on the birth certificate, then the man has a legal right. That's the end of the story.

[–]RapeMatters 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

It makes no logical sense for a woman who doesn't want a child to even tell the father she's pregnant. Your rationale is full of holes that stem back to the moment this hypothetical woman discovered she was pregnant.

Yeah, biology makes dual responsibility really hard, because it's very easy for a woman to just refuse to divulge the father to the state (barring some big brother solution IE DNA database).

That's why some are in favor of parental relinquishment. Women always have that as an option, while men never do unless the woman chooses for them to.

I could go both ways, as long as we work towards equality.

Usually within these families the father plans to stick around and help raise the child but once the child is born the fathers do not stay for much longer and only one third stay after five years of the child's birth.

Why? This is a key question. Did he leave because he wanted to, or because he was forced out? We know a significant majority of divorces are initiated by women, but we don't know much about non-married relationships and who initiates that.

This doesn't prove your argument that men are leaving. It proves that they're gone, and that's not the same thing.

Yes, unless it's a safe haven drop-off, and you can't do that unless the baby is newborn. And I don't think Canada has safe haven laws.

Not sure about Canada and safe havens. I'd have to look it up.

Regarding the rest, really? If she refuses to identify a father to the state, the state... throws her in jail? refuses to process the adoption? Can you provide an example of how the state compels identification in adoption proceedings?

it's no longer a matter of the mother's bodily integrity, since her body is no longer part of the equation.

Right, which is why it's so unconscionable that women can unilaterally abandon their responsibilities after birth while men cannot. That's literally the problem.

It would only be sexist if it was in place because whoever put it there thought men were inferior.

This isn't in any way true, and even if it were, it probably is still sexist, as people see men as inferior parents.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism

1 :prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially :discrimination against women 2 :behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

and exceedingly easy to disprove

Ok, disprove it. I'll bite.

When a woman does it, there's no more child

WHAT? Canada murders children put up for adoption without a father being contacted? That's horrific. Someone needs to call the UN. You should call the UN right now. That's gotta be a human rights abuse.

Next you're going to be telling me it's unfair that women get free pap tests, but men don't.

It is unfair that women get all sorts of medical help that men don't (not pap tests), but that's another subject for another time.

so you're suggesting that a woman ethically opposed to abortion would not be ethically opposed to abusing the legal system in a gobsmackingly stupid way in order to put her kid up for adoption

How is it "gobsmackingly stupid"? It's perfectly rational.

How do you simply "cut out" the man on the baby's birth registration?

Simply put "unknown" on the birth certificate. It's quite easy. Unless they won't let you take the baby home without naming a father.

If he never learned about the baby's existence in the first place, then what exactly is he being deprived of?

His rights.

If he's on the birth certificate, then the man has a legal right.

Incidentally, just because he knows of the child doesn't mean he's on the birth certificate. This is a false assumption. I'm not sure about Canada, but in the US, it can cost upwards of $10,000 to get your name put on a birth certificate if you don't have the mother's acquiescence and consent, as it requires legal DNA tests, fitness hearings, and a court order to put your name on their unless mom says "Ok, that's him".

[–]Liv471 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That's why some are in favor of parental relinquishment. Women always have that as an option, while men never do unless the woman chooses for them to.

"Parental relinquishment" is not a viable solution to the problem, and neither is banning abortion. Please remember that just because you can't think of better options, it doesn't mean that we should be forced to pick between one shit choice and another shit choice.

Did he leave because he wanted to, or because he was forced out?

...seriously? You want to bring the courts into pre-marriage relationships? No thankyou. I don't even want to entertain discussion on something that Big-Brotherish.

Regarding the rest, really? If she refuses to identify a father to the state, the state... throws her in jail? refuses to process the adoption? Can you provide an example of how the state compels identification in adoption proceedings?

No, I cannot. I've never tried to trick the state into believing I'm the sole guardian of a child I was trying to abandon, and I've never heard of it happening in this country. But Canadian law is fairly clear on parental rights.

prejudice or discrimination based on sex

That's literally the same thing as what I said with different words.

Ok, disprove it. I'll bite.

How cute. Here's my proof: if you cannot prove it exists, it does not exist. There is no evidence to support the assertion that family law was designed to screw over men, nor is there any evidence that men are systemically mistreated by the law. People who have used statistics to try and demonstrate that connection, have sadly misused those statistics, as those statistics were not designed to study that issue. It's like those morons that thought a census study was a great way of figuring out whether businesses are being unfair to workers. Way to check to see if ducks meow, folks.

WHAT? Canada murders children put up for adoption without a father being contacted? That's horrific. Someone needs to call the UN. You should call the UN right now. That's gotta be a human rights abuse.

...if I say "I'm talking about abortion", and you're genuinely surprised, then this conversation needs to end now. If you're just trying to be funny... I suggest practice.

It is unfair that women get all sorts of medical help that men don't (not pap tests), but that's another subject for another time.

Name an example. What medical help do women get that men don't, but should?

How is it "gobsmackingly stupid"? It's perfectly rational.

...in your mind. Having contradictory standards on ethics is perfectly rational? Holy shit, we are in trouble, aren't we.

Simply put "unknown" on the birth certificate. It's quite easy. Unless they won't let you take the baby home without naming a father.

You're making it sound like you think the mother fills this thing out herself. That's done by the hospital staff. If the father showed up to the hospital during delivery, he's gonna be on the form. If he was a no-show, then the mother has to name him, or otherwise state for the record that she does not know the father.

His rights.

If he didn't care enough beforehand to find out, then he kinda waived his right in that regard. That's what happens when you don't step up.

Incidentally, just because he knows of the child doesn't mean he's on the birth certificate. This is a false assumption.

I didn't make that assumption, you made it on my behalf (which is getting to be something of a trend).

[–]RapeMatters1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"Parental relinquishment" is not a viable solution to the problem, and neither is banning abortion.

No one has argued to ban abortion.

Literally no one.

Please remember that just because you can't think of better options, it doesn't mean that we should be forced to pick between one shit choice and another shit choice.

I'm listening for a better idea. Giving women and only women their right to relinquish already born children is a shit choice. You claim giving men the right men already have is also a shit choice. You claim taking that right away from women is a shit choice.

I'm listening.

...seriously? You want to bring the courts into pre-marriage relationships? No thankyou. I don't even want to entertain discussion on something that Big-Brotherish.

No, merely saying we haven't studied it. You assume the men are just up and leaving. That may not be the case. Divorce proceedings would indicate "probably not", but we're talking two different populations here so that may not be accurate.

No, I cannot.

Exactly. Because this claim:

Does the state compel identification under penalty of law?

Yes, unless it's a safe haven drop-off

And that claim seems unlikely. You said the state COMPELS identification. Compels how exactly?

That's literally the same thing as what I said with different words.

And that's what our current system does. Women have automatic rights, but can give up their responsibilities. Men have responsibilities if women choose to assign them to them, and rights only if fought for (expensively, I might add).

if you cannot prove it exists, it does not exist. There is no evidence to support the assertion that family law was designed to screw over men, nor is there any evidence that men are systemically mistreated by the law.

Systematically is a big word, and I'm not sure about Canada, but here's something from the US:

http://tomjameslaw.com/blog/what-judges-really-think-about-fathers-responses-to-court-commissioned-judicial-bias-surveys/#fn-853-12

A key quote:

Another survey, this one commissioned by the Minnesota Supreme Court, found that a majority (56%) of the state’s judges, both male and female, agreed with the statement, “I believe young children belong with their mother.” Only a few of the judges indicated that they would need more information about the mother before they could answer. Fathers, one judge explained, “must prove their ability to parent while mothers are assumed to be able.”4 Another judge commented, “I believe that God has given women a psychological makeup that is better tuned to caring for small children.”5

Keep in mind, Minnesota is a pretty liberal state.

...if I say "I'm talking about abortion"

We're not talking about abortion here. At all. Not at all. That's a red herring.

Name an example. What medical help do women get that men don't, but should?

It's interesting that most states have programs where low income women can get one or more of the following: free breast cancer, cervical cancer, and ovarian cancer exams, but I know of not one where men get free prostate cancer or penile cancer exams.

Having contradictory standards on ethics is perfectly rational?

Most people have contradictory standards on ethics.

If the father showed up to the hospital during delivery

Who would tell him to show up during delivery? Does the state keep a registry of pregnancies and the hospital staff is required to call the father upon confirmation of labor?

If he didn't care enough beforehand to find out,

Let me stop you right there. It may have nothing to do with "caring" or "not caring". Women are just as shitty as men, and will do shitty things to men just as men do shitty things to women. He may care plenty - and just not be told. He may care plenty, and not know where to find her or the baby because she left while pregnant. Women are not angels, just as men are not angels. Stop assuming all women have good behavior all the time.

I didn't make that assumption

So you admit a father could be known, he could know he was a father, and still not be on the birth certificate, and therefore have no rights to stop the adoption no matter how much he cares and wants the child because the mother left him off the birth certificate?

[–]Liv471 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No one has argued to ban abortion.

Was it not you that argued that either men should be given an opt-out or that women should have theirs revoked?

I'm listening for a better idea. Giving women and only women their right to relinquish already born children is a shit choice. You claim giving men the right men already have is also a shit choice. You claim taking that right away from women is a shit choice.

Wait... now you're claiming that women shouldn't be allowed to give a child up for adoption? Dude, this is getting into the realm of "I don't wanna bother" because the mental gymnastics are just exhausting me and I don't want to bother keeping up.

If a mother is the only part of the child's life and she wants to surrender the child for adoption, why should she be forced to continue to raise it until the father can be hunted down and asked "Hey, you want this baby?" If he wanted a child, he would stay local, stay in touch with the mother, and pay child support so that he's accessible when she claims to be giving up the baby. If he makes no effort to be a parent whatsoever, who should be sympathetic when he suddenly wants to be a daddy? Sounds to me like he's just trying to spite his ex-girlfriend by making her adoption work more difficult.

I don't have a better solution, because I believe the system is working. Maybe not perfectly, but I'm not an expert in legislation (otherwise I'd be making the big bucks and wouldn't be spending a Wednesday afternoon arguing with someone on the internet), so I have no solutions. I only know that your suggestion is a catastrophe and I wouldn't vote for it with a gun to my head.

Systematically is a big word, and I'm not sure about Canada, but here's something from the US

I didn't say systematic, I said systemic. They have very different meanings. But regarding your link and the story, that has no bearing on Canadian culture, since it appears that your judges have religious views that are interfering with their ability to be objective. We have a different standard in Canada.

We're not talking about abortion here. At all. Not at all. That's a red herring.

That's not my fault; you really need to be more clear about this "parental relinquishment" euphemism that you've made up. Don't blame others when you invent terms that other people need to have explained to them.

Most people have contradictory standards on ethics.

I can't even call that the stupidest thing I've heard all day, because I've been reading posts from this subreddit all day :/ but it certainly is a contender.

You're suggesting that someone who sticks to an ethical standard only when it suits them "is perfectly rational". And you want me to consider your arguments perfectly rational as well. The level of illogic is painful. Mister Spock wouldn't even argue with you; he'd just slap you and walk away.

Who would tell him to show up during delivery?

If he's that far out of the loop that no one told him that his girlfriend was in labour, then he's not part of the equation. Either he was such a shit that does something bad enough that the entire social circle that knows about the baby won't talk to him, or she's done something so severe that he's cut ties completely. In either case, what dad wants to inject himself into that situation for a kid he hasn't met? You're arguing a hypothetical so obtuse that it's actually making me laugh.

Let me stop you right there.

That's not how text works.

It may have nothing to do with "caring" or "not caring". Women are just as shitty as men, and will do shitty things to men just as men do shitty things to women. He may care plenty - and just not be told. He may care plenty, and not know where to find her or the baby because she left while pregnant. Women are not angels, just as men are not angels. Stop assuming all women have good behavior all the time.

So if she left while pregnant, and he cannot find her, because she doesn't want to be found, that's another problem entirely. You're actually fighting really hard to assert that it's fundamentally viable to concoct a rather large conspiracy to hide an adoption from a father in order to validate your claim that men get shut out. The equivocating is loose and sloppy at best. It's like trying to justify killing someone by saying "well women kill people too!"

So you admit a father could be known, he could know he was a father, and still not be on the birth certificate

I made no such admission. You have a talent for presumptuous statements. ...not necessarily a strong talent, but perhaps at least a proclivity.

[–]RapeMatters1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Was it not you that argued that either men should be given an opt-out or that women should have theirs revoked?

Yes, but I was not talking about abortion. I was talking about women's right to unilaterally abandon their already born child to the state.

now you're claiming that women shouldn't be allowed to give a child up for adoption?

I'm saying equal rights are important. If women have the right to unilaterally surrender their responsibilities, so should men. Period. Women currently have that right. We can rescind that right. We can make it so that both parents consent is required in every single case.

Or we can give men the right women have. What we can't do is keep the sexist status quo.

If he wanted a child, he would stay local, stay in touch with the mother, and pay child support so that he's accessible when she claims to be giving up the baby. If he makes no effort to be a parent whatsoever, who should be sympathetic when he suddenly wants to be a daddy? Sounds to me like he's just trying to spite his ex-girlfriend by making her adoption work more difficult.

Again, this is falling exactly in the "it's always the man's fault" column. He may have lost track of her because she left. Women can be shitty. He may be trying to see the kid but she refuses and the courts refuse to do anything. Women and courts can be shitty.

You're blaming men en masse without evidence.

I don't have a better solution, because I believe the system is working.

Then you're not watching or reading. The system is not working - not if you give even one solid shit about equality.

That's not my fault; you really need to be more clear about this "parental relinquishment" euphemism that you've made up. Don't blame others when you invent terms that other people need to have explained to them.

If you don't understand a term, look it up. Or ask. Don't make assumptions. "Parental Relinquishment = abortion" doesn't make sense even at a base level. You can't relinquish a dead thing.

You're suggesting that someone who sticks to an ethical standard only when it suits them "is perfectly rational". And you want me to consider your arguments perfectly rational as well. The level of illogic is painful. Mister Spock wouldn't even argue with you; he'd just slap you and walk away.

Well, or we could argue that most people are irrational. That's a possibility too.

If he's that far out of the loop that no one told him that his girlfriend was in labour, then he's not part of the equation.

True - but it might be because she cut him out. Women are not angels. They are not immune from wrong. They are every bit as capable as being as shitty as men at any time.

Here's the thing: if enough men are so shitty that they would abandon a pregnant girl and a newborn, then enough women are so shitty that they would cut out a boyfriend from the newborn. Women are not less shitty than men.

These are equally shitty things to do. Women are just as shitty as men. Stop pretending women are angels that don't do shitty things.

I've known dozens of women who "cut out" boyfriends and one night stands and whatever and "didn't tell them" about the children or moved and left no forwarding address.

This is not uncommon.

So if she left while pregnant, and he cannot find her, because she doesn't want to be found, that's another problem entirely. You're actually fighting really hard to assert that it's fundamentally viable to concoct a rather large conspiracy to hide an adoption from a father in order to validate your claim that men get shut out. The equivocating is loose and sloppy at best.

No conspiracy required. It really only requires the actions of one single person who doesn't want to be financially responsible after all. Conspiracy requires more than one party. This only requires one shitty person.

I made no such admission.

Is that a possibility? Father could be known, know he was a father, and still not be on the birth certificate?

[–]Liv471 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RapeMatters1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I have no idea. Never heard of that being the case, but it's not like that kinda thing makes news.

Well I've seen it a lot in America. Full disclosure: there's a bit of an adverse incentive in play in America that may or may not apply in Canada.

If you are a single parent (one parent unknown), you only have to take into account your income when figuring welfare payments (other than food stamps, which are based on household size, relation or no relation), but if there's another parent in play, then that parent is required by the state to pay child support to the state to reimburse such welfare (in fact, almost half of back child support is owed to the state).

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/05/news/economy/unpaid-child-support/index.html

So, a lot of times the father is left off in order to get more welfare going forward. I'm not sure if that's a consideration in Canada, but it happens a lot here.

It should also be considered, in my mind, welfare fraud, but I'm not a fan of the way child support is done in the US (I do think we need to keep it as a system, but damn it needs some reform).

[–]Liv471 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pteawesome 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]RapeMatters 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Liv47 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]RapeMatters 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

You don't need to see a statistic. It's a law.

It's the law that wasting your employer's time in the United States is illegal under federal law. It hasn't been enforced since the 1940s (World War 2, and all that).

If I said it was usually the case that employees who waste employer time are prosecuted, you'd rightly call me out for bullshit, even though it's clearly against the law.

That's not often the situation because so few single mothers in Canada go to term and give up the baby when the father is in her life.

Thanks for, once again, claiming exactly what I was thinking - that what he claimed was the usual case was nothing of the sort.

Oftentimes, adoption is considered when a single mother for whatever reason does not abort and either does not know the father, or cannot find him (excepting of course, the adoptions that occur with consent of both parties).

Or chooses not to find him/reveal him, which is kinda the whole point.

[–]Liv47 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

It's the law that wasting your employer's time in the United States is illegal under federal law. It hasn't been enforced since the 1940s (World War 2, and all that).

I was not able to find where that exists in US law. Citation, please?

If I said it was usually the case that employees who waste employer time are prosecuted, you'd rightly call me out for bullshit, even though it's clearly against the law.

You're talking about enforcement of a law that would require someone to report this crime. I'd call you out on bullshit, but not because judges are refusing to hear cases, but because no one is alerting the cops to these time-wasters. However, it is a father's legal right to assume custody of his child if he has not already surrendered that custody (as in, hasn't fucked off to who-knows-where without leaving contact info or paying child support, which yes, happens even in Canada).

Thanks for, once again, claiming exactly what I was thinking - that what he claimed was the usual case was nothing of the sort.

I'm not sure why you think you're winning an argument against me. I don't take sides, and I don't sit in ideological camps. So if I say something that you agree with, great. But don't gloat like I accidentally fell into one of your traps. That's just unclassy as fuck.

Or chooses not to find him/reveal him, which is kinda the whole point.

And how often does that happen? Is it even possible to know? Because it sounds like you're basing an argument on what is so far unknowable. And that really doesn't make for good legal policy.

[–]RapeMatters 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I was not able to find where that exists in US law. Citation, please?

Thought this would be easy to find. Having trouble. I'm working on it. I know it was in Accounting Today some years ago but I'm having trouble finding it.

I could just as easily cite the prison time for not signing up with the selective service - 5 years in jail (which is also never done).

However, it is a father's legal right to assume custody of his child if he has not already surrendered that custody (as in, hasn't fucked off to who-knows-where without leaving contact info or paying child support, which yes, happens even in Canada).

Or because he was never told, or the adoption takes place without notifying him, or whathaveyou. Again, men are just as interested in becoming parents as women are. Rationally, if a woman doesn't want to become financially indebted to a father, she would cut him out. I believe women are rational actors.

I'm not sure why you think you're winning an argument against me. I don't take sides, and I don't sit in ideological camps. So if I say something that you agree with, great. But don't gloat like I accidentally fell into one of your traps. That's just unclassy as fuck.

It's unclassy as fuck to barge into a conversation without understanding what the conversation was about and start yelling how you don't need statistics because it's the law, when the claim had absofuckinlutely nothing to do with the law whatsoever in any way shape or form in any conceivable reading of the discussion.

And how often does that happen? Is it even possible to know? Because it sounds like you're basing an argument on what is so far unknowable. And that really doesn't make for good legal policy.

Hard to say. It's rational, but difficult to quantify. That doesn't stop you from claiming without evidence that it's men's fault that they don't get to have their children and fuck all men who lose their child to adoption for being deadbeat fuckers.

[–]Liv47 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Thought this would be easy to find. Having trouble. I'm working on it. I know it was in Accounting Today some years ago but I'm having trouble finding it.

It may have been a myth. That sorta thing happens.

I could just as easily cite the prison time for not signing up with the selective service - 5 years in jail (which is also never done).

I could cite marijuana laws in Canada too. But it doesn't quite mean the same thing here, because those are just blanket disinterest in enforcement, usually because the authorities don't care about that particular law. It's not because anyone wants one class or demographic to be treated differently than another.

Or because he was never told

If he was never told, then he is not the father. How can you miss something if you never knew it existed?

or the adoption takes place without notifying him

If he has even partial custody, or a visitation agreement, that would be illegal. Remember, you can't even move out of town without the courts and the other parent knowing. That's the law. In the US, a parent can face a stiff penalty for moving over a state border when there's a split custody arrangement.

Rationally, if a woman doesn't want to become financially indebted to a father, she would cut him out.

Absolutely illogical; there is no rationale to that at all. She would have to cut him out from the very beginning in order to succeed, which would mean she had no intention of keeping the children (so why not abort?), and would also mean that she would have to continue the facade of wanting to be a parent for an extended period before giving the child up for adoption. In the meantime, she has to figure out how to balance a productive work life with a demanding home life without any help from the father. A woman that engages in that level of deceit would not only be irrational, she'd also be fucking stupid.

It's unclassy as fuck to barge into a conversation

...in a public forum? How entitled are you?

without understanding what the conversation was about and start yelling how you don't need statistics because it's the law

When a father has a legal option at his disposal, statistics about it are irrelevant, because it is his choice to exercise those legal rights. Sounds like it's you lacking in understanding. Funny though, that you've leapt to insults already. True to form.

That doesn't stop you from claiming without evidence that it's men's fault that they don't get to have their children and fuck all men who lose their child to adoption for being deadbeat fuckers.

I made none of those claims. And I am frankly not even remotely curious how your mental gymnastics works, so I don't care how you came to that conclusion. It's just flatly untrue.

[–]RapeMatters 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

It may have been a myth. That sorta thing happens.

Possibly, yeah. I'm now very frustrated with myself when something I thought was an absolute truth turns out to be very difficult to find. I used google and everything.

But it doesn't quite mean the same thing here, because those are just blanket disinterest in enforcement, usually because the authorities don't care about that particular law.

That often happens when the aggrieved party is male.

If he was never told, then he is not the father. How can you miss something if you never knew it existed?

I mean told about the adoption. Not told about the child. My bad for not being specific.

And it happens.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/paternity-registry/396044/

When a father has a legal option at his disposal, statistics about it are irrelevant, because it is his choice to exercise those legal rights.

That presupposes he knows about those rights, is given notice about the need to exercise those rights, and a whole lot of other paperwork gets to the right places to the right people and all people within the system act as good actors, including, but not limited to, the judge, the mother trying to give up the child for adoption, the lawyer or social worker representing the rights of the child (I assume you have that in Canada too), serving officers, etc etc etc.

I mean, we adopted Miranda warnings in the US for a reason. People didn't know their rights and needed to be informed.

Now maybe Canada is better about finding fathers than the US so that adoptions are usually blocked by fathers, but I doubt it.

Funny though, that you've leapt to insults already.

I haven't insulted you. If I choose to, you'll know it. I am talking about your action of jumping in without understanding what the conversation was about. Maybe you don't do this regularly. Maybe it's an off day. Maybe you're a great man (or woman). However, on this day, at this time, you jumped into a thread without understanding its contents. The poster to which I was responding stated, verbatim, that the usual case is that when an adoption is attempted in Canada it's blocked by the father and the child goes to the father, who can then sue for child support.

Usual. Usual is a key word. Usual. Common. Average. The predictable sequence of events. The thing which happens in a significant majority of cases.

Usually Donald Trump says something stupid at least once a week. In any given week, that is generally the case. Not every week, but usually. This is what the word usually means, and that's what he claimed - that the usual case in Canada is that adoptions made by mothers are usually blocked by the father and custody is granted to the father.

I don't think a significant majority of adoptions in Canada are being blocked by fathers.

[–]Liv471 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Possibly, yeah. I'm now very frustrated with myself when something I thought was an absolute truth turns out to be very difficult to find. I used google and everything.

That's how I felt when I hit my adult years and all the feminist ideologies started looking sour and crazy.

That often happens when the aggrieved party is male.

Citation needed.

I mean told about the adoption. Not told about the child. My bad for not being specific.

That would be shades away from impossible. Do you have any evidence of this happening where fathers on the birth certificate wanted involvement in his child's life, paid child support, and then just found out the kid was given up for adoption? Your link from the Atlantic refers to a couple that didn't even live together. The odds are that the mother didn't put his name on the birth certificate.

Perhaps there ought to be a law requiring that when a father is not known for the birth certificate, that any individual claiming to be the father is entitled to compare their DNA to that of the baby to close that gap. Remember, a Paternity Registry is useless if they don't know whose kid is yours.

That presupposes he knows about those rights, is given notice about the need to exercise those rights, and a whole lot of other paperwork gets to the right places to the right people and all people within the system act as good actors, including, but not limited to, the judge, the mother trying to give up the child for adoption, the lawyer or social worker representing the rights of the child (I assume you have that in Canada too), serving officers, etc etc etc.

Yes, that is true, but that's also true for every other legal situation you can get into. You need to know your rights, you need to know that a situation exists where you can exercise them, do the paperwork, get the lawyers, et cetera.

I mean, we adopted Miranda warnings in the US for a reason. People didn't know their rights and needed to be informed.

It was put there for legal reasons. Not because people didn't know their rights, but because people could CLAIM not to know them, in an effort to make their statements inadmissible in court. "I only told them I was a drug dealer because I didn't know I could just keep my mouth shut".

Now maybe Canada is better about finding fathers than the US so that adoptions are usually blocked by fathers, but I doubt it.

Actually, we just have better co-ordination between provinces than America has among its states. Y'all might as well speak a different language in each state, by how different each one governs itself. It is impossible, on a practical level, to give up a child for adoption in Canada unless everyone on the birth certificate knows and consents - unless daddy dearest has gone out of his way to not be contactable.

I haven't insulted you. If I choose to, you'll know it.

Uh-huh.

I am talking about your action of jumping in without understanding what the conversation was about.

You believe I don't understand, but I do. I just disagree with you on basically every point. That's the difference. Just accept that much. It's kinda not really up to you where I post on a public forum, but if you really don't wanna chat with me, stop responding. Simple. You were never required to respond to my first reply - you chose to. I haven't got a gun to your head, demanding an answer; you're volunteering your time and effort into posts. So why you're now getting your balls in a pinch about it is leaving me with the impression that you're just frustrated because I'm keeping pace with your arguments, and providing counter-arguments that you're struggling with. But that's just an impression; I could be wrong.

The poster to which I was responding stated, verbatim, that the usual case is that when an adoption is attempted in Canada it's blocked by the father and the child goes to the father, who can then sue for child support.

The usual case when a father wants to intervene, he does. And yes, can certainly sue for child support. It comes down to whether the father wants to block it. Adoption is not a common practice compared to just keeping the baby, and adoption surrender by a single parent is rare among adoptions in Canada. From that, adoption surrender by a mother whose partner attempted to block it is even rarer than that. But to my knowledge, cases where a father was denied custody would only exist if the father had substantial legal problems or evidence of a drug addiction (we don't like crackheads having babies here).

So he's right. He might have been a tad clumsy wording it, but he's right. And you're just arguing dipshit semantics in an effort to look good, which is kinda sad. Because while technically you're correct, the "usual case" of adoption isn't blocked by the father, the "usual case" for adoption involves a father who wants nothing to do with the kid in the first place. Sorry to bust your bubble on that one.

[–]RapeMatters1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Forgive me that this is out of order.

The usual case when a father wants to intervene, he does.

That wasn't what was claimed, and even if it was, that requires extensive proof. You yourself have claimed that biology does not entitle the father to rights in Canada - and that if he is not in the child's life he can't block the adoption. This is true even if the only reason he's not in the child's life is no fault of his own.

Now, why that father is not in the child's life can be for a myriad of reasons. Suffice to say, I'm not in Canada, and what was claimed is so very alien from a US perspective it might as well be on another planet. That requires proof that this is "usual".

Even this claim I would like to see proof of. Statistically, what percentage of adoptions objected to by a father were actually quashed? I seriously want to see a percentage on that - because as soon as you added the burden of proof of "involvement", you suddenly gave leeway for courts to argue he wasn't involved enough, and proving involvement is hard.

Because, looking at it from my perspective (and the perspective of the Atlantic article), you can see that while HE made it through, the hurdles were so high almost no one would. He is the exception.

Perhaps there ought to be a law requiring that when a father is not known for the birth certificate, that any individual claiming to be the father is entitled to compare their DNA to that of the baby to close that gap.

It would be a start, but still insufficient. If you really want to make everyone accountable after the baby is born, you wouldn't let the baby leave the hospital until a father is found.

That's pretty big-brother-y, but we could do that. It's not my first choice. Otherwise, what we're saying is that women, and only women, are allowed to give up their responsibilities - which is specifically sexist.

adoption surrender by a single parent is rare among adoptions in Canada.

For shits and giggles, how rare, percentage wise? Because the source I linked earlier said that, in Canada, about a quarter of adoptions involve any father decision making at all, and this is up from previous years where the percentages were in single digits.

[–]Liv471 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That wasn't what was claimed, and even if it was, that requires extensive proof. You yourself have claimed that biology does not entitle the father to rights in Canada - and that if he is not in the child's life he can't block the adoption. This is true even if the only reason he's not in the child's life is no fault of his own.

You're now delving into parts of society that the law can't touch without up-ending everyone's lives. The government would have to know about everyone's private lives in order to legislate something to that level.

Because, looking at it from my perspective (and the perspective of the Atlantic article), you can see that while HE made it through, the hurdles were so high almost no one would. He is the exception.

I would argue that his case is an exception, as well, making the situation even more difficult. The assertion that this is even rare let alone common makes me really demand evidence before I'll believe it.

It would be a start, but still insufficient. If you really want to make everyone accountable after the baby is born, you wouldn't let the baby leave the hospital until a father is found.

Hell, why don't we just put a barcode on everyone and install cameras in every home and business so that the law always knows everything about everyone and then no man would ever be deprived of his kids? Right, because that would end society. And frankly, that's the only way that the mechanisms of personal relationships could be laid bare without a shadow of a doubt to the courts. Otherwise, it's all he-said-she-said.

For shits and giggles, how rare, percentage wise? Because the source I linked earlier said that, in Canada, about a quarter of adoptions involve any father decision making at all, and this is up from previous years where the percentages were in single digits.

I have no idea. The compound factors are probably not well-studied, and I do not know of any concrete publication of statistics on it. Again, 75% of adoptions not involving a father doesn't mean that all of those fathers were robbed of their rights. How many of those fathers do you think wanted to be a father in the first place? I don't know; and I don't wantonly propose sweeping changes to a system when I don't even know why the problems exist, or whether anyone regards it to be an endemic problem. You're making it sound like all the fathers whose kids go into the adoption system without their consent care, when I have trouble believing that a majority of kids who aren't being given up by a single mother have a father that cares. And after watching my sister have to raise a daughter on her own after her abusive husband refused to pay child support or have any meaningful role in the little girl's life, I can't help but wonder if it's the system that's broken, or if it's just the people.

[–]RapeMatters1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're now delving into parts of society that the law can't touch without up-ending everyone's lives. The government would have to know about everyone's private lives in order to legislate something to that level.

Which is why some prefer the simpler version - giving men the same rights women already have.

I would argue that his case is an exception, as well, making the situation even more difficult. The assertion that this is even rare let alone common makes me really demand evidence before I'll believe it.

Again, given that 25% of Canada's adoption system involves any male input at all per the source, I don't think it's that rare.

People are shitty.

Hell, why don't we just put a barcode on everyone and install cameras in every home and business so that the law always knows everything about everyone and then no man would ever be deprived of his kids? Right, because that would end society. And frankly, that's the only way that the mechanisms of personal relationships could be laid bare without a shadow of a doubt to the courts. Otherwise, it's all he-said-she-said.

And, again, this is why some are proposing we just take the rights women already possess and give them to men, because making women's rights match men's rights in this area would be... well, hard.

How many of those fathers do you think wanted to be a father in the first place? I don't know; and I don't wantonly propose sweeping changes to a system when I don't even know why the problems exist, or whether anyone regards it to be an endemic problem.

Not sure. I think it's fairly common. If both 80% of men and 80% of women want children (which is what the data seems to indicate), if they were matched randomly you would expect 96% of children to have at least one parent who wants them. Of course, the 80% of women who want children would probably not initiate adoption, so core random math would dictate 80% of single-parent initiated adoptions have a father who wants them.

But the math may not be random. Selection effects could change things extensively. I think it's common, but I'm not prepared to say how common.

when I have trouble believing that a majority of kids who aren't being given up by a single mother have a father that cares.

Again, 80% of men want to have and raise children. It's very likely the majority of children have a father who cares (or would care if he knew). Whether that applies to single parent adoption children is debatable, but possible.

And after watching my sister have to raise a daughter on her own after her abusive husband refused to pay child support or have any meaningful role in the little girl's life, I can't help but wonder if it's the system that's broken, or if it's just the people.

Yeah, after watching how my brother's wife would abuse their son, not sending him to school to the point truant officers show up frequently, feeding him junk food all the time, denigrating him for having some mannerisms that he shares with his father, and much much more and 10 years and $200,000 later he's STILL trying to get custody, I have little faith that the court system works worth a damn.

[–]Liv471 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Which is why some prefer the simpler version - giving men the same rights women already have.

I know of no right that women have that men don't, just as I can think of no right men have that women don't. We just like to toss around the idea of "should have the same rights" because the level at which people benefit from those rights changes from person to person.

Again, given that 25% of Canada's adoption system involves any male input at all per the source, I don't think it's that rare.

The circumstances detailed in the article are anything but common in this country.

this is why some are proposing we just take the rights women already possess and give them to men, because making women's rights match men's rights in this area would be... well, hard.

See above, the bit about rights.

I think it's fairly common. If both 80% of men and 80% of women want children (which is what the data seems to indicate), if they were matched randomly you would expect 96% of children to have at least one parent who wants them.

That's a massive flaw in logic, and a misrepresentation of the data. Not all people who have it, want it, and not all people who want it, have it. "It" can also apply in the children topic. And the random matching makes the data unknowable.

Yeah, after watching how my brother's wife would abuse their son, not sending him to school to the point truant officers show up frequently, feeding him junk food all the time, denigrating him for having some mannerisms that he shares with his father, and much much more and 10 years and $200,000 later he's STILL trying to get custody, I have little faith that the court system works worth a damn.

I'm sorry about your nephew's situation, but that's much different than what we're discussing here. You're arguing that more laws be added to a system that supposedly doesn't even care about men, a proposal so deeply illogical that nothing can rescue it.

I'm going to call it a day here. My headache has reached its Roche Limit, so to speak.

[–]RapeMatters1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I know of no right that women have that men don't,

Women have the right to unilaterally abandon their responsibilities to their born children and surrender them to the state and men do not. That's the right women have that men don't.

We could argue that right should be taken away from women, or that it should be added to men, but the status quo is unconscionable.

The circumstances detailed in the article are anything but common in this country.

Maybe. I wouldn't be so certain. Per a previous article on here, men can't even get the childhood tax benefit without a permission slip from the mother in Canada, even if he has full custody. I wouldn't count on it being especially egalitarian toward men.

You're arguing that more laws be added to a system that supposedly doesn't even care about men, a proposal so deeply illogical that nothing can rescue it.

I'm arguing rights should be equalized. I'm not sure which way to go about it.

My headache has reached its Roche Limit, so to speak.

Hope you feel better soon.

[–]pteawesome 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I do not need to prove basic tenants of law...f you are that ignorant of family law, and how it is meted out... you should not be commenting on that... So here's what happens mother gives baby up and the father is supposed to be notified, he then says nope I want the kid and if he is fit, voila he gets the kid... that's literally the process mate.

If the child is already adopted courts then have to rule on best interests of the child, and usually they go for the child... as for support yea its spelled out right in laws(https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/970391 for ontario)... but to nutshell it, the parent who has primary residency generally receives the support, based on a division of income...most of the time this http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/fl-df/child-enfant/look-rech.asp is usually accurate enough.

If you want to know about adoption laws then https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c11 - section 136 specifies mother or father, now without going through every section and cross referencing for you... what happens is what i said... Mother says lol nope adopt..father says not so fast, and he gets priorty... that's how it works....

[–]RapeMatters 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I do not need to prove basic tenants of law...

You didn't make a claim regarding the basic tenets of law. You made a claim regarding occurrence - that's the word "usually" describes.

As you recall, this was your claim:

women can give the child up for adoption which goes to the father usually...

Which goes to the father USUALLY. Usually is defined as follows by dictionary.com -

habitual or customary:
commonly met with or observed in experience; ordinary:
commonplace; everyday:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/usually

So here's what happens mother gives baby up and the father is supposed to be notified

Prove it actually happens in the usual case. I'll wait. Don't make claims about occurrence if you're not ready to prove occurrence.

Mother says lol nope adopt..father says not so fast, and he gets priorty... that's how it works....

Then you should have no difficulty proving your case that USUALLY when a child is given up for adoption by the mother the father gets custody. Remember, usually is a statement regarding occurrence. Here's the thing - I don't believe this is the usual case.

And I know this, because I punched your claim into google. I couldn't find a percentage, but I found this:

Experts point out that only a very small percentage of birth fathers historically have taken an active part in the decisions surrounding adoption, but some agencies report that in recent years, a quarter or more relinquishments have included active involvement of birth fathers. (Freundlich, 1998)

http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-placing-children.html

In other words, it's not the usual case. It's not even the majority of cases, and you usually need a significant majority of cases before something is a "usual case". In common parlance, I've noticed most people don't use the word "usual case" until you have a 75% majority or better in occurrence. According to the one source I found, it's shocking, shocking that now we're up to 25% or so, and previously it was a "tiny percentage".

It's not a usual case. It's rare as hell.

[–]DRU-ZOD1980 -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mymraccount_ac 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]pteawesome 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]silveryfeather208[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

thanks. that's a fair view. i don't believe in abandoning children on a whim, however, I do believe in pro choice, so if the man clearly states he does not want a kid before sex, and if he didn't say it before sex (and neither did the woman) they were both stupid yes, but if he said it when the women is pregnant, I still don't think he should be forced to pay. Maybe this isn't the view point of this sub, (haven't been here much before) but I'm not really a 'life begins at conception person' so I don't think men have obligations just because they created a fetus. (I'm sorry if this isn't appropriate for this sub, and I'm okay if mods delete this) Of course that's me, and I'm not here to argue, but if you want to add more of your two cents in, feel free to reply, I may not agree but I will definitely listen to you. I'm open to hearing different views.

[–]pteawesome 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Here's the thing regardless of your stance on abortion, BOTH parents took part in creating the child, BOTH parents are obligated to the child. The child's rights take priorty over the rights of both parents. Yes women have the end say of if the child is kept or not, beyond the point of conception. If the woman says aborting is wrong and wants to give it up, fathers generally have priorty over other adoptive parents, and theoretically mothers are then obligated for support. Family law is very complex and nuanced, but that's a theoretical outlay of how is works... in reality no you will never get support from the mother, and she will never face consequences for that... which is the real men's rights issue... not whether or not you have to be a father.. you have the obligation to be a father, and obligations trump rights.

[–]silveryfeather208[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]pteawesome 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well women theoretically don't give up their responsibilities, the problem is that women aren't forced to pay support the same as men are, due to a bias in the courts, not through failure of statutes at least in Canada... Generally speaking because law varies by province for the nuances, but basically, the mother say gives up the child, the father gets priorty providing he is a fit parent over other parents for adoption, now sometimes adoption moves fast, and daddy doesnt find out until it's half way through and the adoptive family then has the burden (not the father) to prove they are in the child's best interest ... So after daddy gets the child, then yes the mother is obligated for child support same as if daddy was had he decided to not be part of the child's life. That's how it works in theory under statute and case law.. for most of the country, I can't speak about America.

[–]Coker42 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He was just raising a double standard that you brought up as well. Birth control is a legally adequate reason as to why a man has consented to parenthood when he has sex. Birth control is not a legally adequate reason to hold a woman to the same standard.

If a man wants to avoid having a child he is expected to take every precaution before engaging in sexual activity. If he does and it fails, then that's just what happens sometimes and you have still legally consented to parenthood

If you apply that same standard to a woman, then you are an anti feminist, pro life asshole. It is wrong to say a woman that a woman should take all precautions to avoid pregnancy before engaging in sexual activity. Don't you know they aren't 100% effective.

Birth control is only a valid argument if used against men

[–]Liv47 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If you crash your car, you're still liable for the damage you do with the car, regardless of whether or not you wanted to crash it. Your actions have consequences on other people, which you then must take responsibility for as a contributing member of society. You can't "put the child up for adoption" as a father that wants out before the baby is born, because the child is not up for adoption if one of the parents is not willing to do so.

The only methods of getting out of parenthood are preventative. Protection, abstinence and alternative sex methods are your most reliable ways of not winding up someone's baby daddy. Your aim should be to not get someone pregnant, not to figure out how to weasel your way out of paying the consequences for your behaviour.

Girl says she doesn't like condoms? Walk away from her. Do not put your dick in that. Same if she claims allergies. It's not worth the risk. You agreeing to her terms is no different than not caring if she gets preggers.

Worried about the condom breaking? Don't have sex. Condoms are not a 100% guarantee, even if the condom doesn't break! There's still a fraction of a percent of a chance. So you're still rolling the dice; just, bigger dice.

Guys, you are in control of where that semen goes.

But if he said 'no' after finding out she's pregnant, it should be the same as abortion.

Oh, honey, you need to look into what it's like to get an abortion. Nowadays, there are electrodes that can be hooked up to you that will simulate what it's like to be pregnant, and what it's like to terminate a pregnancy. Were you to experience part of what it's like to abort, you'd likely change your tune on that equivalency.

Also, I got banned from a few feminist facebook groups/reddit groups for saying 'unfeminist' things...

Translation: you tried to argue MRA philosophy with feminists, who promptly shut you down. That's camp politics for you. Keep in mind that while banning supposedly doesn't happen here (it does), if you say "unMRA" things here, your reception will be even more negative. It's very much a case of "Would you like the Shit Salad or the Turdburger?" situation.

[–]marauderp 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The only methods of getting out of parenthood are preventative.

Unless you are a woman.

I'm all for women's reproductive rights. I don't want to restrict abortion to only cases of rape or incest; just leave it up to the woman.

Girl says she doesn't like condoms?

What if she pokes holes in them? What if you're in a committed relationship and she has been on birth control and decides to "forget" to take it?

Guys, you are in control of where that semen goes.

What if she gives a blow job and saves it for later? What if she raids the contents of a used condom?

How do we litigate when these things happen? Leave it up to the courts to decide whether she lied? How about, instead, we just let men decide for themselves the same way we let women decide for themselves? What about any number of other scenarios where a woman decides to have a child without the consent of the father?

Remember: as I've been told for decades by feminists, sex is not consent to parenthood.* (*some restrictions apply. Must be female to assert reproductive rights.)

Oh, honey, you need to look into what it's like to get an abortion. Nowadays, there are electrodes that can be hooked up to you that will simulate what it's like to be pregnant, and what it's like to terminate a pregnancy. Were you to experience part of what it's like to abort, you'd likely change your tune on that equivalency.

This is a complete non-sequitur.

You're a traditionalist. We get it. You like men keeping their traditional gender roles. Just be honest about it. Dealing with hypocritical liars is exhausting.

[–]Liv47 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What if she pokes holes in them? What if you're in a committed relationship and she has been on birth control and decides to "forget" to take it?

What if government agents are secretly compromising your condoms? What if space aliens are teleporting your semen into your girlfriend?

C'mon, you're chasing a white tiger on this one. They might have happened, but there's hardly evidence that it's a problem of epidemic proportions.

What if she gives a blow job and saves it for later? What if she raids the contents of a used condom?

WHAT IF SHE'S CLONING YOUR DNA

How do we litigate when these things happen? Leave it up to the courts to decide whether she lied?

At that point, it's no longer about mommy and daddy. In my view, a view shared by legal statute, the child's rights come first over the desires of the parents. It sucks that Mommy was a scumbag, but that's no reason at all to just let a child suffer in poverty.

Remember: as I've been told for decades by feminists, sex is not consent to parenthood.* (*some restrictions apply. Must be female to assert reproductive rights.)

This might surprise you, but the feminists are wrong. Consent to sex is consent to parenthood. If you willingly partake in sexual activity that could constitute a pregnancy, then you agree to the consequences. I'm sure a fella could assert that he never had penetrative sex with his partner, but there's little to be done at that point, because a baby is already in the picture. That child didn't have any choices to make, or the chance to decide "do I want to inconvenience these people?" So why punish the child because the parents aren't doing parenthood properly?

You're a traditionalist. We get it. You like men keeping their traditional gender roles. Just be honest about it. Dealing with hypocritical liars is exhausting.

Where the hell did that come from? Nothing of what I've said has anything to do with tradition or gender roles. I have no commentary on gender roles, because I really don't follow those customs or roles myself. If you wanna talk hypocrisy, tell me how you lot can justify balancing "We shouldn't have to pay child support" with "We have the right to see our kids", because that's a thing here. It's not the only hypocritical statement I've seen posted to this subreddit (repeatedly) but it's the most relevant.