User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.8143 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Or, as Hemingway said, you can make anyone sound like an idiot if you quote five lines (or a paragraph).
It totally depends on the circumstances of the marriage. If two lawyers get married, keep working after they tie the knot, and then divorce without having had children, then obviously it's insane.
If the wife quits school and works to put her husband through law school, then stays home to raise their children, then alimony on top of child support is totally right and just. The same would hold in reverse if the husband had been the one who'd quit school and stayed home to raise the kids. It only seems like "gender discrimination" because so few husbands are willing to sacrifice their careers for the sake of their wife's career.
And in the many more cases where the lines aren't as clearly drawn, then without knowing the particular circumstances, it's impossible to make any blanket statement about alimony, other than that people don't like paying it. I think we all understand that.
Well, buy an large classic, at least.
WTF
Why take it out of context like that, robin? His point was that jail is a much greater threat to people who haven't been in the system before--it's a thesis of his article, that the threat of jail is a psychological ploy, a shakedown, and he spends a couple of pages talking about that threat, noting the fear of jail, especially county jail, is largely without foundation.
People can read the whole thing if they like. I did. Your takeaway from it should be the dangers of generalizing off of anecdotal narratives, especially those accessed based on a targeted Google search in an attempt to score points in an internet debate revolving around a very complicated socioeconomic issue. Personal experience certainly has value in discussions like this, as it is one part of knowledge base, but it is only one part.
You are not the guy to be calling people out on demographic limitations or self-awareness on this particular topic, Jack. And while I don't expect you to know this, I have in the past made many references, generally unwelcome ones, to the fact that BTF is floor-to-ceiling with professional-class white guys, myself included, mostly ages 25-49. When the topic is Michael Bourn's deal with the Indians, it doesn't matter. When the topic is one like this, it most definitely does.
As for a "targeted google search", do we find people multiply imprisoned for the inability to pay child support through UNtargeted google searches?
"When the topic is one like this, it most definitely does."
What most definitely does? This isn't clear.
Look, McGreer's not a fun guy to defend, but the people severely damaged by the inanity of the current system are unlikely to be practiced, college-educated writers. The guys trapped by the system may be unfamiliar with rhetorical techniques that make you sound more polished, more reasoned. Horror of horrors, they may even sound funny when they write. I still haven't seen a specific, reasoned objection to a single thing he's written, though. Just the usual shallow mockery
Snotty and smearing... because?
That should serve as model for this entire discussion, which for the most part concerns losers pitted against losers, with children the grass underneath the two elephants' stomping feet. From a financial standpoint, nobody but lawyers "wins" from a divorce settlement.
The idea that many low income men get the shaft from our bureaucratic child support system is indisputable. But the idea that women are somehow profiting from this in any meaningful sense of the word is one of those fantasies that I'd expect from Ronald Reagan.
And to extrapolate from the legitimate grievances of some low income men who get caught between a rock and a hard place, and use their experiences as a way of kvetching about the plight of an upper middle class man who is forced to pay child support, is just pathetic.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
When does a woman ever make a revocable decision not subject to some kind of restitution from the man? (Yet, she's equal.) A man has sex, that's it. He's in bondage for the meat of his life (LBJ's quip about balls and hearts and mind become public policy). A woman makes a decision to be a wife and mother with all that entails, positive and negative, but if things go bad for her, for her we got to make it somehow right. We excuse, we fix, we handicap, and we recompense. If your example, if he made his choice, then she made hers. She will have gotten her quid pro quo in the love that accrues from her children to her, a love the husband by working, by working forfeiting in her favor. But still that ain't enough. If she can't get along without foreign aid, maybe that should be factored in the custody decision. You better believe it would be if he didn't have the wherewithal--not to mention the likelihood of his getting alimony (or any other restitution) in general situations like that--that's only for comedy material.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
It'd be fine if I were married to a lawyeress. Then we could both clean up from other people's misery.
Nobody profits, but, still, we need to keep the paradigm in place?
The USCA, 6th, responded with all the je ne sais quoi of the PIVS gang:
Given the issues explicitly raised, that has all the intellectual honesty of 'I'm sorry, you can't sue for malpractice, as the patient is dead' or, oh, say, 'If you want to be out on bond while appealing your support award on the ground you can't afford to pay it, you must post the amount of the bond in full, in cash, where the amount of the bond is set equal to the amount of support you assert you can't afford to pay.
Nobody profits, but, still, we need to keep the paradigm in place?
Morty, nothing I've said should be taken in defense of a system that in some cases---I have no idea how many---winds up leaving one partner, usually the man, virtually destitute as a result of payments which are nevertheless necessary for the child's well being. Unfortunately, all I've seen thrown out here for the most part is a lot of theoretical and rather abstract grievances on behalf of men, as opposed to any practical suggestions which would result in anything better than what we have now.
I have zero interest in seeing deadbeat dads thrown in jail, since all that does is to remove one source of potential income from the child's upbringing. But I also have zero interest in letting a man force a woman into a situation where she has to either abort or renounce any future support from the child's father. I think some of you guys have been taking The Playboy Philosophy a bit too much to heart.
As a good liberal I can hit the sweet spot, of an expansive view of mens' civil rights, and of all childrens' right to well-funded social insurance programs (affordable in part because they'll be paying into those same programs as adults). In short, their access to those programs from conception means they are borrowing against their later repayment, rather like today's view of Social Security. But, I endorse by right, not by practicality.
It's ridiculous, that we can imagine 'permanent' tax cuts, but can't imagine permanent, universal health care.
Why do you find that insufficient? Is it insufficient when it applies to the female--in this area of the law and policy or in other areas?
Even a bright, open-minded guy like you persists in this.*** Serious question: are there any facts that could persuade you that the bulk of parents falling behind aren't 'deadbeats', the common definition of which is someone who routinely falls behind in his debts; irresponsible...
What would it take, do you think, to persuade sensible people to stop using that word generically to refer to any dad who falls behind in support?. And since this is such a loaded subject, I want to be clear that I mean no offense to you specifically. I think it's an important part of reframing the debate in the larger world, even if the sole point of that reframing is to keep parents who can't pay out of jail, which seems like a hell of a lot better way of getting money eventually to their kids.
***I may take more umbrage than some due to knowing four people pretty well who got behind (one was a woman). They all took their obligations seriously, even the guy who barely knew the woman who bore a child; they were all crucified directly and indirectly, and none of them were guilty of anything other than bad luck and bad economies.
Because on a desperate partisan hair trigger you mistakenly injected race into one white guy commenting on another white guy's crappy grammar. You could have at least admitted it after it was pointed out to you.
Why do you find that insufficient? Is it insufficient when it applies to the female--in this area of the law and policy or in other areas?
When I see a lot of theoretical and abstract grievances expressed on behalf of women, I'll react the same way. In the area of childbearing and child raising, women and men are not equal in the same way that a male and a female lawyer or doctor are equals. To ignore that obvious fact, and to try to construct a legal standard of child support based on that denial, is not going to get me drawn into the conversation. I am not going to agree that men should ever have the right to force a woman to abort, and I've never going to agree that a woman's refusal to abort gets the man off the hook, UNLESS HER FINANCIAL STATUS MAKES HER INDEPENDENTLY ABLE TO SUPPORT THE CHILD ON HER OWN.
That last qualification addresses the specific issue of fairness and equality before the law that's germane to this discussion. Beyond that, complaints from men who want an opt-out when they're in a better position to pay than the woman are just whining, and they can howl at the ####### moon for all I care.
Even a bright, open-minded guy like you persists in this.*** Serious question: are there any facts that could persuade you that the bulk of parents falling behind aren't 'deadbeats', the common definition of which is someone who routinely falls behind in his debts; irresponsible...
Point taken. I think you can see from my last comment that I'd exclude those men without the means to pay for child support from the category of "deadbeats."
Well, I think the conversation has taken some interesting turns and plowed fertile ground, given the infancy of the concept, and the way the conversation stalled for hundreds of posts while the PIVS crowd, in response to issues of rights, contented themselves with repeating "Once it's in, he has no rights". Oh, and "you pro-deadbeat guys suck". I wasn't around for posts 250 to 1100, but even at that distance it was pretty offensive. A dozen different hypotheticals were brought up, but none were meaningfully addressed.
I mentioned going six years instead of 18, as a way of opening up the debate on current mores. No reply. I brought up a number of specific instances with which I was familiar, and heard back. "PIVS. Game over." I posted the specifics of one guys case, but haven't heard anything back beyond "he sucks".
In any cases, many of the grievances were entirely specific. In another sense, the grievance is very plain, and needs little elaboration, at least in the stating: "If men have no say in the decision, they should not be responsible for the outcome."
That's a guiding principle for a lot of ethical philosophy.
Anyway, let me ask, then, what direction do you think the conversation can still productively take?
Our point is that all the institutional burdens are one way. The fetus, a nothing at first suddenly, mirabile dictu, is a person, a human. Not only that but in becoming a child, he somehow is now (although genetically there has been no change) an everything, and he has his protector and promoters. His agent, and we all know how easy it is for agents to abuse their agency. The mother gets her vig. She's the house; she's never without her recourses. She doesn’t lose, not to the extent the man does.
The man always only loses. (It's always man v. the universe (probably why most everything there is that's not natural is his creation.) It's as if by engaging in sex and impregnating a woman, a commitment is imposed on him that knows no bounds and is absolute. You wonder why he's always trekking out to frontiers, why he’s always wanting to get away from society and its bonds, even why he adopts "libertarian" attitudes--it's because he knows you're out to do him no good in some way. He’s not sure always how it’s going to come about, but he knows that somewhere along the way, the sky is going to fall on him. And he knows you ain't paying him for what you want from him. After childhood, and the woman can't use him as a pretext to hold the father in bondage (not yet, anyway), he becomes one of the expendables. He's just fodder. He only has uses. He's become a sort of fetus when he becomes an adult without any personhood or rights that are not heavily compromised every which way from Sunday. Unless you're the one percent. Because there is that one percent, it's as if all men are in the one percent. Most men know they are only this far away from riding the rails to nowhere.
Demographic profiles. This isn't a discussion about sabermetrics. If you want to get serious about this topic, there are a couple of things you might consider looking at carefully: some of the feminist scholarship on this and related issues, and a mirror. And before you talk to me about tone, let me see you focus on the "white boys" and "little Mattie" comments and take some ownership of them.
As to "specific, reasoned objections", you are framing it wrong. McGreer is sharing his personal experiences, as sort of an advisory guide for guys who are in this situation. Here is how he leads it off:
This isn't a work of rigorous scholarship; it is an interconnected set of grassroots anecdotes about one blue-collar white guy, presented entirely based on his personal POV, in one county jail system, with one set of behavioral patterns, written on behalf of an advocacy organization, and designed for a specific audience. The excerpts that Itza and I posted are relevant, in that they are a window into how this guy thinks. Since he is relating his personal experiences, it is fair to evaluate that.
As to the issue itself, there are obviously issues with family court, and there are obviously times that everyone concerned, men, women and kids--get screwed, as Andy pointed out with his elephants analogy. I am not sure what to do about that, but I am fairly sure that your ideas on the subject are pretty unsophisticated.
Why not 6 instead of 18? It won't play in the court of public opinion. What about the people in long-term marriages. What about the divorcees who are doing their best to manage? So this guy made a careless mistake, but he should essentially be rewarded for it by paying LESS for his child's upbringing than someone who is more responsible? That's how that looks to a large segment of the populace.
I don't want these births to happen. Abortion is not the solution for a lot of people, to put it up as a cure-all is a third rail. What are people doing generating kids out of a 5 week relationship. That just seems careless, to be honest. Was the orgasm worth it? There are so many other choices, it's so easy to avoid. If a guy is dead certain he doesn't want kids, a vasectomy seems like a good idea. If a guy wants kids later, but definitely doesn't want them with the woman he's sleeping with... I think people need to be cautious there.
I do not care about what kinds of sex people have, how many partners, how often. Please, please use multiple forms of birth control. But why can't we look at the social circumstances that are generating these births? Does that have to be off the table? The birth control failure rates have been mentioned. Then that's a risk that needs to be taken into account if the two people having sex aren't serious about each other long term. There are going to be the failures.
If I did happen to be in this situation, my advice would be to fight for joint custody. Then you have the most control. You're going to be paying anyway, might as well be running the budget. If it's hard to get joint custody for the man, then that's something that needs to be worked on.
Obviously the first one is true, although I am not sure about one-third. McGreer might want to think about that and what it might mean.
As to the other two, I don't know, and I am pretty sure that neither you nor McGreer does, either. It might well be that people who have been in know how soul-sucking it is and really, really want to stay out as much as people who have never been in do. Probably varies from person to person and from system to system. It might be that in Fairfax County, VA, jail is easier for white guys than it is for white guys in other places, but McGreer doesn't know this, since he has only been locked up in Fairfax County. Here is McGreer talking about one of the times he was in:
Specific, politically feasible changes to the family court system, rather than just talking about how badly men get screwed and how victimized they are by having to pay child support.
Maybe whiny low-fitness men should try electing more of their mewling ilk to office in order to influence the process. Obviously leaving these decisions to the sort of elected males who crafted the current system over the past century isn't working for these sorts of people.
The only true and fair resolution to this issue is the free, open, and unfettered sale of children on an open market. Everyone agrees that a newborn infant possesses some value. Items with inherent and widely recognized value are commodities, and to deny the sale of a commodity through a transparent market is an assault on economic liberty. There is no shortage of willing buyers for healthy young American infants in an American market and the number of willing shoppers would expand enormously if the "adoption" process were simplified to reflect its actual status as a financial transaction between willing buyers and willing sellers.
No idea if this is addressed to me, but honestly this conversation is boring. Both sides have said everythign there is to say. How many times can I write "I think the child's needs takes precendence", and then watch as people whine about "how this one time the system was mean to this one guy who like was totally innocent - therefore the whole system is a sham."
I get both sides arguments. I am not impressed by the other side. As far as I can tell they don't care about the child, or would rather it freeload off of society and the safety net rather than have to pay for their own children. They think the mere fact a woman could abort the child means men should never have to pay for children they are fathers to, and I disagree.
Some say the system is broken based on anecdotes. This may be true. Reform may be needed. The principle of having the father contribute to the welfare of his child (and the mother as well, both parents mustr contribute) is not broken. And you disagree.
Like I said - boring. But others can feel free to chime in, it is a public discussion thread. I know I have talked about stuff boring to others. But don't cast stones at those who choose to "bail" and engage in ad hominem attacks.
EDIT: And I sign off on what both rr and yr said above.
And if there's ever a food shortage in the country, this could serve an additional purpose!
Andy, can't you write plain English without the propaganda? (*) There's no "force" involved, and the woman is equally responsible. If the sex was forcible, that's rape, and an entirely different situation wherein the man should fry.
(*) Mostly unrelated aside: You gotta love white liberals ripping on white men for their grammar, as if they'd take on the arguments of any other demographic on the planet in the same way.
"Deadbeat dads" is the male equivalent of slut shaming.
Andy, I'm going to put this bluntly. You're an old man, and your concepts of sexual freedom and sexual interactions between the sexes are outdated and archaic. As SBB points out @1337, if the sex is "forced" it's actually rape. Rapists shouldn't be paying child support; rapists should be in prison for rape. This entire conversation is predicated on consensual sex between adults. In consensual adult sex, no one forces the woman to do anything she doesn't want to do.
You know what was wrong with the "I have a dream speech?" It didn't have politically feasible changes to the system. It was all pie in the sky call to "justice" and ####. Useless, really.
*raises gloved fist*
It's done by lawyers in litigation as a combination CYA and cut off BS mechanism
If you ask for "A and B" and the other side only has "B" they may play cute and give you nothing
if you ask for "A or B" and they have both A and B, they'll give you one or the other but not both.
Outside of lawyers I have no idea why people use it in everyday life, I;'ll do it by mistake of habit every now and then
Negroes were low-fitness! The Social Darwinian dynamic should just carry on with its work. Yes, I do believe there were some who held those views.
Then why are they so good at basketball?
So they'd have enough money to pay child support?
SBB is (as always) trolling, and the statement about forcing a pregnant woman to choose between abortion and renouncing child support has nothing to do with rape, but is predecated on consensual sex between adults. Consensual sex between adults can lead to unplanned pregnancies (or hell, planned pregnancies that are regretted before coming to term). It behooves you to read what Andy wrote before responding to it.
It's your analogy. (It's an ancestral environment thing preserved by the evolved culture for its slyly amused condescension? My authority: Haven't you seen Airplane!?)
As to the former thread, this is pretty priceless:
Resigning Pope No Longer Has Strength to Lead the Church Backwards
The Family Court system as a whole is far more likely to leave the woman "destitute" than the man.
I think it's unproductive and possibly done too often. Assuming that at least some of these anecdotes are true, family courts are not nearly rigorous enough in determining whether the guy actually has the money or the means to get the money...
Part of the problem is that the courts get lied to so much by litigants that they take the default position that the guys before them saying,. "Sorry your honor, but I lost my job..." become indistinguishable, the lazy judge will start jailing guys for contempt, and you know what, a significant chunk of the ""Sorry your honor, but I lost my job" suddenly can write checks that clear- unfortunately the guy who legitimately can't pay may sit and rot awhile.
How so?
He said the man was "forcing" the woman into a choice. That isn't accurate, and is in fact a retrograde and paternalistic view of women and freedom. The "choice" Andy bemoaned is in fact as much the woman's responsiblity as the man's, unless the sex itself was "forced."
There is (or at least was not long ago) a hard left view holding that sexual congress between men and women was inherently coercive and that "consent" was essentially impossible. I haven't understood Andy or anyone else to be adopting that position, but instead understand them to be approaching the issue with some combination of: (1) a retrograde, paternalistic view of sex wherein men are always the aggressors or seducers and therefore "benefit" more from it; and (2) the modern liberal tendency to always favor women over men, particularly white males, and to attribute calls of unfairness to "racism" or "sexism."
Cute, but off point as you well know.
He said the man was "forcing" the woman into a choice. That isn't accurate, and is in fact a retrograde and paternalistic view of women and freedom. The "choice" Andy bemoaned is in fact as much the woman's responsiblity as the man's, unless the sex itself was "forced."
This assumes that force can only take the form of either jail or gunpoint. The "choice" of either abort or be forced to raise a child without adequate financial support amounts to no choice at all. Your refusal to acknowledge this is what lies at the root of your problem.
There is (or at least was not long ago) a hard left view holding that sexual congress between men and women was inherently coercive and that "consent" was essentially impossible. I haven't understood Andy or anyone else to be adopting that position, but instead understand them to be approaching the issue with some combination of: (1) a retrograde, paternalistic view of sex wherein men are always the aggressors or seducers and therefore "benefit" more from it; and (2) the modern liberal tendency to always favor women over men, particularly white males, and to attribute calls of unfairness to "racism" or "sexism."
First, I've yet to bring up race in this discussion, so if you insist on dragging that into the conversation, please address someone else.
Second, I've repeatedly stated that child support should be the primary (not necessarily sole) responsibility of the person most able to afford it, regardless of whether it's the man or the woman. I've repeated this countless times, and yet every time it gets translated into "always favor[ing] women over men". Whether this is a deliberate misreading of what I've written, or merely a lack of reading comprehension, I can't say, but it's certainly not responsive to what I've written.
That may or not be true, but the woman is as responsible as the man for that "predicament." To this point, you haven't acknowledged that truism.
Second, I've repeatedly stated that child support should be the primary (not necessarily sole) responsibility of the person most able to afford it, regardless of whether it's the man or the woman. I've repeated this countless times, and yet every time it gets translated into "always favor[ing] women over men". Whether this is a deliberate misreading of what I've written, or merely a lack of reading comprehension, I can't say, but it's certainly not responsive to what I've written.
That, too, might be true, but is beside the point. The woman having the sole discretion over whether child support even becomes an issue is entirely unfair. You have yet to acknowlege this unfairness.
EDIT: And you have brought up race in this discussion, in post 885:
In my case it was more like 50 years ago, only with the tired arguments about "you're demanding special privileges for blacks" now replaced by whining about "you're demanding special privileges for women", with a few misogynists coming in off the bench to replace some of the reformed racists.
Thus comparing and attributing claims of unfairness to both racism and sexism.
Hugh Hefner is 86, and since he seems to be your particular role model in this discussion, I'll let you compare your liver spots to his.
----------------------------------------------------
What if neither can afford it? Who goes to jail then?
Right now the child then either suffers in the privacy of the mother's house (sometimes the father's), or becomes a ward of the state. Other countries seem to have found ways to provide a more humane way of dealing with this, but not us.
I'd be genuinely interested to hear from Dan or Rickey! or ... about the plan to eventual adoption. And utterly uninterested in whingeing about the current state of affairs.
Andy's presentation, and yours, is based on the premise that the woman was forced into sex, which is of course ridiculous since we're talking about consensual sex.
The lie here is the veiled presumption that the woman had something done to her that she had no say in which resulted in a pregnancy, rather than something she agreed to partake in.
That is what you think is happening now but what is your opinion on the matter since the statement I was replying to was your opinion and not what was happening now.
I thought I'd laid out a three point plan earlier.
1. Provide as close to free as possible OTC morning after pills to the general public.
2. Create a legal framework by which any unplanned fathering can be opted out of by the man.
3. Create a more robust support system for the "it takes a village" crowd to support children of single mothers who choose to carry to term without the resources to support the child. (Consider removal of children from mothers who can't support them, even.)
Step 0, however, is breaking through the old man thinking around sexual freedom, wherein a man who impregnates a woman accidentally has "taken advantage of the poor girl" or something. Step 0 is moving the Overton window of thinking about sexual freedom to something more gender neutral.
Sell the infant and use the proceeds to help support the next one.
Hugh Hefner is a retrograde misogynist, actually. At least, he certainly acts like it. The fact that this is your point of reference is telling, though.
That may or not be true, but the woman is as responsible as the man for that "predicament." To this point, you haven't acknowledged that truism.
That truism is certainly true as long as the sex was truly consensual, but that doesn't negate the situation in the womb, and it doesn't give the man the right to compel an abortion as a means of washing his hands of it.
Second, I've repeatedly stated that child support should be the primary (not necessarily sole) responsibility of the person most able to afford it, regardless of whether it's the man or the woman. I've repeated this countless times, and yet every time it gets translated into "always favor[ing] women over men". Whether this is a deliberate misreading of what I've written, or merely a lack of reading comprehension, I can't say, but it's certainly not responsive to what I've written.
That, too, might be true, but is beside the point. The woman having the sole discretion over whether child support even becomes an issue is entirely unfair. You have yet to acknowlege this unfairness.
IOW it's "unfair" that the man can't give the woman the choice of aborting or raising the child without adequate financial support. I think this discussion his tail.
What does "truly" mean there?
IOW it's "unfair" that the man can't give the woman the choice of aborting or raising the child without adequate financial support.
No, it's unfair that the woman has an opt-out entirely under her control but the man doesn't.
And as we saw in the decades since, the problem with King's vision is that he didn't understand that people _don't_ want to be treated equally; quite to the contrary, they want special rights, not equal rights. This applies to every Victim group, not just African Americans. It applies to women, to homosexuals... We can see it in this very discussion, where people are arguing that a woman should have the special right to force a man to assume the responsibility for her sole decision to have the child. And why? Because she is a woman, and women have historically been treated worse than men in this country, dontchaknow. So that drives everything in the here and now.
Treating people equally means paying no special attention to them, and Victim groups get irritated when they feel people aren't paying any special attention to them.
Hugh Hefner is a retrograde misogynist, actually. At least, he certainly acts like it. The fact that this is your point of reference is telling, though.
My point of reference, your apparent point of inspiration. There's nothing about your attitude in this thread that wasn't contained in Hefner's "Playboy Philosophy" of 50 years ago. About the only difference I can see is that he wielded a pipe instead of a foam tomahawk.
Jonah Goldberg just called. He want...huh? 6 pounds of rocky road fudge delivered to his office? I have no idea what that was about.
Your reading skills seem to be diminishing with age, then.
What does "truly" mean there?
Since I don't want to get into subtleties that would only extend this tired discussion even further, let's just assume that all non-rape sex meets your standard.
IOW it's "unfair" that the man can't give the woman the choice of aborting or raising the child without adequate financial support.
No, it's unfair that the woman has an opt-out entirely under her control but the man doesn't.
Here, have a crying towel on the house. I truly feel your pain at not being born with a womb.
?
Once more: nobody is compelling an abortion. You fail to understand the meaning of force. This is evidenced by the fact that you think the woman was "forced" to have sex and also "forced" to have an abortion.
Your reading skills seem to be diminishing with age, then.
Sam, any 20 year old can understand what you've been saying. Hefner just could afford a better editor.
How to handle the instances where one group empirically gets "special attention" (e.g. men getting paid more than women for the same position), then?
And that's essentially your justification: the woman is a woman and the man is a man.
I don't want to go all Lassus here - I rarely ask for a cite as people know - but, do you have a cite for this? I'd be happy to read the literature you can point me to.
Otherwise, I don't accept your premise.
You do know that most all of these discrepancies are explainable by years of experience? i.e. women take time out of the labor force to raise children, and that depresses their earnings.
In the absence of proper market access for infant sales what other options are left for destitute women? Freeloading off the hardworking RDP's of the world? I think the living would envy the dead.
Ray, help me out, surely you have no qualms about free market infant sales as part of a direct transaction between birth mother and purchaser, yes?
Once more: nobody is compelling an abortion. You fail to understand the meaning of force.
Ray, your concept of force is limited to a person sticking a gun in your face, a stronger person threatening you with bodily harm, or the threat of jail. I'm not surprised that you can't understand anything beyond that.
This is evidenced by the fact that you think the woman was "forced" to have sex
And when have I ever said that? Please cite one instance on any thread, any time.
and also "forced" to have an abortion.
She's not forced to have an abortion, either, but unless she wants to raise the child without adequate support, she's forced to choose between the proverbial rock and a hard place. You seem to find that quite reasonable, although I'm sure you'll later find cause to whine when the government starts subsidizing the child's flat screen TV.
Yes. Welcome to the world. Sometimes you have to make hard choices and accept the consequences of your actions. Is it your esteemed position that women are too much of wilting flowers to be asked to make such stressful decisions? Should we get them a fainting couch or something?
And that's essentially your justification: the woman is a woman and the man is a man.
Glad to see that by your late 30's this has finally dawned upon you. They say that walking a mile begins with the first step. Perhaps you'll next discover which one of those two sexes bears the entire brunt of gestation and childbirth, and we can then proceed from there.
Nobody's addressing it because they more or less can't. There isn't a good answer - running two half-sized households costs more than running one full sized household, and thus both partners coming out of a divorce are going to be poorer (in lifestyle). And they'll have to take on additional chore-load (since it doesn't scale linearly either). There's no way around it - by forming a mini-society, there were generating more wealth than the sum of the wealth they generated as individuals (this statement is true, though the phrasing is obviously pure trolling), by breaking it up, the wealth dissappears - they have to become poorer.
That said, if you see the system usually leaving men the one destitute, you probably know more men than women. Women end up in a terrible way all the time too.
Your world looks suspiciously like China. I don't think compelling women to have abortions when they'd rather not is a good idea, but of course I oppose pre-abortion untrasound rape too. I'm a sensitive guy like that.
And yours includes someone being faced with a tough life decision based on a predicament for which they're responsible.
Nah, I'll just take that wailing wall that you've been whining on and let them stand up and prove their toughness. Poor Sam!
Women have been given the freedom to negate and avoid this "brunt." Have you not noticed?
That's my understanding, yes. Men are in the workforce more than women are due to... choices that people make... which leads to the perceived discrepancy. But the discrepancy is not based on discrimination.
I suppose we could eliminate the discrepancy by forcing women to work. Should that be the solution to this non-existant problem?
So you are saying... "tough titty"?
Nobody's addressing it because they more or less can't. There isn't a good answer - running two half-sized households costs more than running one full sized household, and thus both partners coming out of a divorce are going to be poorer (in lifestyle). And they'll have to take on additional chore-load (since it doesn't scale linearly either). There's no way around it - by forming a mini-society, there were generating more wealth than the sum of the wealth they generated as individuals (this statement is true, though the phrasing is obviously pure trolling), by breaking it up, the wealth dissappears - they have to become poorer.
That said, if you see the system usually leaving men the one destitute, you probably know more men than women. Women end up in a terrible way all the time too.
Thank you, Brian, for introducing a touch of reality to the discussion. Not that any of these pidgin-Alpha males are much interested in anything like that.
Snarks and Snides like this abound in this discussion, and they come from one side only. If we spoke of women like this, whining about their status wrt pregnancy and abortion, these same people would jump on it with hobnail booths. Yet, for the male it always comes down to if a man isn't willing to eat #### he ain't a man.
Then why do you want to let the men off scot-free? Why don't they have to accept the consequences?
Your argument applies equally to men. If you don't want the potential consequences of a child, don't engage in coitus with a woman.
And as we saw in the decades since, the problem with King's vision is that he didn't understand that people _don't_ want to be treated equally; quite to the contrary, they want special rights, not equal rights. This applies to every Victim group, not just African Americans. It applies to women, to homosexuals... We can see it in this very discussion, where people are arguing that a woman should have the special right to force a man to assume the responsibility for her sole decision to have the child. And why? Because she is a woman, and women have historically been treated worse than men in this country, dontchaknow. So that drives everything in the here and now.
Treating people equally means paying no special attention to them, and Victim groups get irritated when they feel people aren't paying any special attention to them.
Reposted for the truth, which is of course ignored because ad hominem and innuendo makes us feel so much better--and what makes you feel better is self-proving.
Exactly. The empirical evidence is that divorce leaves women poorer and men richer. Women and children bear more than 100% of the efficiency lost by moving to two households.
In the woman's situation there is a choice.
In the man's situation there is not.
See how this works?
So you are bothered because you don't get to make the exact same choice as the woman?
In the man's situation there is not.
See how this works?
Of course the man has a choice. Don't engage in coitus with fertile women if you're not willing to risk fathering a child.
Alas, not offhand.
Is the implication that there *are* no such empirical examples of "special attention"?
Because they didn't make the decision to proceed with the pregnancy.
There is an intervening decision to be made after pregnancy, a decision which results in one of two states: a child or no child. The intervening decision makes the preceding choice to engage in sex irrelevant since it can make the "consequences" disappear. If the woman has the sole power to make the intervening decision, she should accept the sole responsibility of the "consequences" of that decision.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main