5 ms·

Adams has a few good points about this. I'm not saying that it's completely right, but some ideas are. 1. In Family Court, the man is seen as the bad one. Unle

Adams has a few good points about this. I'm not saying that it's completely right, but some ideas are. 1. In Family Court, the man is seen as the bad one. Unless the woman is a baby-eater or something disgusting, she will get custody, with the man getting every other weekend or some such. He will also be charged to pay up to half his income for the "child",. And there is usually little or no checks to make sure it goes to the child. 2. In terms of parental and mother rights: A woman has a multitude of techniques in which to evade or eliminate pregnancy. These techniques can include up to abortion (this is NOT an abortion debate). After the child is born, the woman can also leave the child(ren) at a multitude of safe "drop points" in which the child is considered abandoned without criminal charge. The man, has very little recourse over children, even up to the woman having birth. There is no way for a man to give up parental rights and also not pay child support. The woman can do this at any time. 3. Women's pay is not in parity with men's pay of an equal job with equal skills. This is correct. The "solution" to this is to lower men's pay to that of women. And in cases which the woman sues, (SCOTUS case http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/05/29/340479/-SCOTUS:-Women-In-Workplace-Screwed http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/05/29/340479/-SCOTUS:-Wom...) the woman is still screwed. Not surprising from SCOTUS. But the comments comparing women with mentally handicapped and children... Well... That (ahem) stands for itself. That shit is just indefensible.

Mz 16y ago
There is no way for a man to give up parental rights and also not pay child support. My understanding is a man can, in fact, give up parental rights and not pay child support. I know a man who did so (though I don't know all the details). As I understand it, he had a brief fling with a woman who was separated from her husband. The marriage was falling apart in part due to the fact that it had not resulted in a child. The couple got back together and she found out she was pregnant. But the baby didn't belong to hubby. It belonged to the man she had a fling with while separated. She and hubby opted to stay together and wanted to raise the child as their own. They wanted to get rid of Mr. Fling. As I understand it, he was happy to sign away his parental rights as a means to avoid ever having to pay child support.
- waqf 16y ago
  TheAmazingIdiot meant that there is no way for a man to unilaterally give up parental rights and also not pay child support. Assume, for instance, that there's no husband in the picture, and that the woman wishes to keep the child and would be happy to receive child support payments. Then the man has no option other than to pay child support. A woman cannot be forced into this situation, because she can abandon the child without penalty.
  - Mz 16y ago
    There is some truth to that. But from what I have read, after a divorce, a third of all men pay no child support, a third pay part of what they are supposed to pay, and only a third pay child support in full (in short, I think there is so much social pressure on men about this in part because men can and do walk away from parental responsibilities much more often and much more easily than women typically do). As a woman who really sees this issue quite differently, I don't imagine this is the right audience to share some of my views on the matter (especially with having thrown up last night and not slept enough yet). Peace.
tejaswiy 16y ago
"I realize I might take some heat for lumping women, children and the mentally handicapped in the same group. So I want to be perfectly clear. I’m not saying women are similar to either group. I’m saying that a man’s best strategy for dealing with each group is disturbingly similar. If he’s smart, he takes the path of least resistance most of the time, which involves considering the emotional realities of other people. A man only digs in for a good fight on the few issues that matter to him, and for which he has some chance of winning. This is a strategy that men are uniquely suited for because, on average, we genuinely don’t care about 90% of what is happening around us". Looking at it rationally, there's two counter arguments he makes that can be considered. Women's rights activists arguing women earn 80 cents to the dollar and fewer women in top management. I personally think the second argument is valid while the first argument isn't unless I see some objective evidence. He could've refrained from the comparison with Children / mentally handicapped as it can lead you to wrong conclusions even on a forum like HN, but the rest of the argument isn't something that you get upset about.
patricklynch 16y ago
Let me play Devil's Advocate here. Perhaps you're taking something with many shades of gray, and unjustly trying to flatten it into black and white. ... >>>>"But the comments comparing women with mentally handicapped and children…" He's not comparing women with children or the mentally handicapped. Or at least he isn't intending to. He's comparing strategies for relating to various groups of people. Many readers are misconstruing this. Two pieces of context to keep in mind: 1. He writes in the same piece, "I’m not saying women are similar to either group. I’m saying that a man’s best strategy for dealing with each group is disturbingly similar." 2. He retracted this post and isn't standing by it. Probably because a large portion of his audience is pulling out a message he didn't intend to communicate, and doesn't really agree with. >>>>"Well... That (ahem) stands for itself." Maybe not to everyone. More than anything, I wonder what events in his life shaped this perspective. Also, saying something "stands for itself" is a lame rhetorical device. You pass off the burden of making your argument to some other function. Instead of saying something's obvious, why not spell out your thoughts explicitly for those who don't jump to the same conclusions? >>>>"That shit is just indefensible." To say that any kind of speech is indefensible is a comment about yourself and your own morality, not about the speech itself. (I'm paraphrasing a quote by Steve Pavlina about whether a 45 lb dumbbell is 'heavy' or 'light'.) Another idea, often raised by freedom of speech activists: Controversial speech is the only speech that needs to be defended. Nobody tries to suppress speech that everyone agrees with. ... Again, that was Devil's Advocate. Just a few things to think about.

Mz 16y ago

There is no way for a man to give up parental rights and also not pay child support. My understanding is a man can, in fact, give up parental rights and not pay child support. I know a man who did so (though I don't know all the details). As I understand it, he had a brief fling with a woman who was separated from her husband. The marriage was falling apart in part due to the fact that it had not resulted in a child. The couple got back together and she found out she was pregnant. But the baby didn't belong to hubby. It belonged to the man she had a fling with while separated. She and hubby opted to stay together and wanted to raise the child as their own. They wanted to get rid of Mr. Fling. As I understand it, he was happy to sign away his parental rights as a means to avoid ever having to pay child support.

waqf 16y ago
TheAmazingIdiot meant that there is no way for a man to unilaterally give up parental rights and also not pay child support. Assume, for instance, that there's no husband in the picture, and that the woman wishes to keep the child and would be happy to receive child support payments. Then the man has no option other than to pay child support. A woman cannot be forced into this situation, because she can abandon the child without penalty.
- Mz 16y ago
  There is some truth to that. But from what I have read, after a divorce, a third of all men pay no child support, a third pay part of what they are supposed to pay, and only a third pay child support in full (in short, I think there is so much social pressure on men about this in part because men can and do walk away from parental responsibilities much more often and much more easily than women typically do). As a woman who really sees this issue quite differently, I don't imagine this is the right audience to share some of my views on the matter (especially with having thrown up last night and not slept enough yet). Peace.

tejaswiy 16y ago

"I realize I might take some heat for lumping women, children and the mentally handicapped in the same group. So I want to be perfectly clear. I’m not saying women are similar to either group. I’m saying that a man’s best strategy for dealing with each group is disturbingly similar. If he’s smart, he takes the path of least resistance most of the time, which involves considering the emotional realities of other people. A man only digs in for a good fight on the few issues that matter to him, and for which he has some chance of winning. This is a strategy that men are uniquely suited for because, on average, we genuinely don’t care about 90% of what is happening around us". Looking at it rationally, there's two counter arguments he makes that can be considered. Women's rights activists arguing women earn 80 cents to the dollar and fewer women in top management. I personally think the second argument is valid while the first argument isn't unless I see some objective evidence. He could've refrained from the comparison with Children / mentally handicapped as it can lead you to wrong conclusions even on a forum like HN, but the rest of the argument isn't something that you get upset about.

patricklynch 16y ago

Let me play Devil's Advocate here. Perhaps you're taking something with many shades of gray, and unjustly trying to flatten it into black and white. ... >>>>"But the comments comparing women with mentally handicapped and children…" He's not comparing women with children or the mentally handicapped. Or at least he isn't intending to. He's comparing strategies for relating to various groups of people. Many readers are misconstruing this. Two pieces of context to keep in mind: 1. He writes in the same piece, "I’m not saying women are similar to either group. I’m saying that a man’s best strategy for dealing with each group is disturbingly similar." 2. He retracted this post and isn't standing by it. Probably because a large portion of his audience is pulling out a message he didn't intend to communicate, and doesn't really agree with. >>>>"Well... That (ahem) stands for itself." Maybe not to everyone. More than anything, I wonder what events in his life shaped this perspective. Also, saying something "stands for itself" is a lame rhetorical device. You pass off the burden of making your argument to some other function. Instead of saying something's obvious, why not spell out your thoughts explicitly for those who don't jump to the same conclusions? >>>>"That shit is just indefensible." To say that any kind of speech is indefensible is a comment about yourself and your own morality, not about the speech itself. (I'm paraphrasing a quote by Steve Pavlina about whether a 45 lb dumbbell is 'heavy' or 'light'.) Another idea, often raised by freedom of speech activists: Controversial speech is the only speech that needs to be defended. Nobody tries to suppress speech that everyone agrees with. ... Again, that was Devil's Advocate. Just a few things to think about.