Ok before the any slurs are thrown for sexism or whatever just keep reading....

I was just wondering about the opinion of others about fathers rights groups and their demands in general .

Personally I see nothing wrong with many of their ideas except a few and the way in which many of the groups operate on a sort of anti female line .

The demands of having equality for deciding custody of a child and rights to see a child should be pretty obviously supported in my view .

However many are demanding a right to have a say in a womans choice to terminate a pregnancy or not to which their should be no say by the male partner.

Besides some reactionary viewpoints etc I see some of their demands as being pretty reasonable and stuff.

What do others think ?

I find father's rights a really interesting concept. One of the things I find extremely interesting is that although men get the advantages of power most of the time, it's an extremely sensitive topic. Most of the legitimate requests of the father's rights movement (and men's rights movement) are laughed at even by men. I've presented some of the ideas to women who have absolutely had at me. Aka, loud, angry, clearly emotionally upset with me even bringing the topic up. Maybe it was legitimate. I just am taken aback when anyway gets angry in a debate.

1. I support shared parenting if there is a divorce, assuming it corresponds to the child's wishes.

2.Paternity leave is obviously something men should get. I would argue both men and women should receive it. This would decrease pregnancy related discrimination towards women in hiring practices. Furthermore, it would likely help out women who would prefer to stay at home but, making more money (or having a lazy husband) are compelled to return to work.

3. This is not "father's rights" but I do think there should be a period after pregnancy where men can voice their objections to having a child and avoid future child support payments. This always gets me in big trouble. I don't know why. Technically, women get a choice after the pregnancy happens. I don't see why men shouldn't.

4. This is another one that occasionally gets me in trouble. I don't think a parent should get custody rights because of biology. If a legitimate adoption takes place, a parent should not later have a legitimate claim to shared custody.

This is absurd! The man has his choice, it's called a condom. Seriously. He can't just say after he gets a woman pregnant, "oh, I don't want it now" and then not have to pay child support. Seriously, what the hell.

I think our critique of groups proclaiming "father's rights" as their goal needs to extend beyond what they say their aims are. Besides the cases you listed where they have tried to interfere with the woman's right to have an abortion, you can see the impact of their demands, if put into practice, would be to trample all over women's rights.

For example the claim of many father's rights activists that a child cannot be brought up "correctly" by just the mother is to be condemned as sexist. Many of them even go further than this, and say that in a situation of parental separation, in cases where the father is the primary custodian there are less cases of ADHD, higher stability etc. Furthermore they demand reform of child support laws in favor of the father's income rather than the actual needs of the children. We must face the reality, which is that the woman on average far more often is required to make all kinds of sacrifices in bringing up the children, far above what most fathers are willing to do.

Also I can speak from my own experience. I know anecdotal evidence is not very reliable, but here goes. My parents separated when I was 15 (a freshman in high school), and their divorce agreement was finally settled two years ago. After they separated I lived with my father except for a few hours on every Tuesday night. This went on for two years, and afterwards the agreement was renegotiated so that I spent about half of each week with my mother and the other half with my father. Now the time I lived with my father I was very often in a situation of being verbally abused, or alternatively just ignored, which was the case most of the time. I didn't have enough food to eat sometimes. When my mother first proposed renegotiating the custody agreement to help me out, she was met with all kinds of complaints about my dad's "right" to be with me, I was told that she and her "dyke lawyer" were trampling all over both me and my dad. Also I heard a lot that he couldn't afford the child support- him being just a workin' man, whose work happened to be the low-paying trade of eye surgery. Funnily enough that had been what I had been hearing even before the agreement was renegotiated- and that was when my mom was paying him child support for me.

I think this illustrates a bit what father's rights is really all about- not really concern for the child, which would be the thrust of a genuine movement in that direction, but an attempt to remove even the lousy protections our capitalist society has for divorced women and reinstate the worst aspects of patriarchy.

The main legitimate claim Father's Rights advocates make is for redress of inequities in the way divorce is handled, namely the general favoritism towards mothers when it comes to assigning custody over children and ownership of assets. There are also some cultural observations about double standards against fatherhood and male parenting in general which I would imagine can dovetail quite well with feminism, as the logical corollary to the denigration of fatherhood is natalism ("parenting is women's work; women are natural mothers").

On the other hand, giving men any say over abortion is just moronic, no good can ever come out of it. Forcing a woman to bear a child or undergo an abortion is way more monstrous than being forced to pay child support or do without a lovely heir. People who advocate this seriously need to get a grip.

Obviously I'm on your side on this, but I don't like your argument. For one, condoms can split, fact, if that happens, is it really the 'fault' of any of the two?

The mother, for one, had to have the burden of carrying what is essentially a parasite, in her body for nine months. Coupled with this is the restrictions on abortion rights in many places worldwide, if a pregnant woman decides she no longer wants the child after the legal time period when you are permitted to get an abortion has elapsed, then she is stuck with that burden until the point of pregnancy. Thirdly, we can't forget about the rampant sexism prevalent in today's society, women get paid, on average less than men, they come second choice to men when it comes to work, or many other fields of life and many single mothers are socially stigmatised, whereas fathers on the other hand, by virtue of being male, are much less so.

Also, just curious, what exactly are the statistics concerning mother-father custody rates (as in on average, with figures, who usually gets custody over the child?), and in addition to this, does anyone know of any other statistics which may show the amount of women having preference over the father for custody of the child to be down to, say, domestic violence on the part of the father, or 'poor parenting', again on behalf of the father?

The Father has absolutely no rights when it comes to whether or not to abort the child. However, I think it would be a nice gesture for the woman in question to at least inform the man in question of her decision.

EDIT: I will most likely respond more toughly to the points in this thread later, but as of right now I have to work tonight and need to go to bed before then.

No, I don't think I said anything about anything being someone's 'fault'. But the fact is that condoms very rarely break. If you're that worried about it, double up, get a vasectomy, or don't have sex. Otherwise, be prepared to pay child support if the condom breaks and abortion isn't on the table.

I don't think you can speak for the entire fathers rights movements , demanding equal say in custody of a child is a legitimate demand and I've heard of countless cases where custody has been given to a mother even though the father would have been a better choice .

1 case I know of someone close to me is that her mother was given custody even though she was a multi drug addict , emotionally abused her children, spent most of her time passed out or away leaving the kids alone for even days at a time yet even though the father pressed and pressed for custody he never got it and it wasn't till 9 years after all of this that the sister of the father had been given custody of the child after her and the father taking care of them for the most part when the mother couldn't.All the while the oldest of the kids (the person close to me) was telling social workers she didn't want to live with her mom anymore.

I find the system of childcare responsibilities sexist to both men and women it puts the role of parenting down to the woman if it becomes a choice. It is complete bullshit.

Whether your a good or bad parent has nothing to do with gender and its not partriarchial to say that their should be an equal judgement regardless of gender when deciding custody terms. It is not a protection of women like you say either to favour women in this.

Its obvious that their isn't a need for a father and mother , children can be perfectly brought up in different settings of parental arrangements these demands are reactionary of course by fathers groups and should be pretty much ignored.

With regards to child support I think a system ( in capitalism) of who earns more pays accordingly should be brought in . In socialism I don't see any child support being need to be paid .

Women are far more required to sacrifice during parenting but this is a product of the system of sexism towards woman for the best who knows how long. By continuing this "stereotype" of woman as better parents we are perpetuating the very same sexism ourselves.

Christians criticize women for the same reasoning with respect to abortions. Why are women guaranteed the knowledge that they can have sex and avoid the responsibility of a child, and men don't get that same privilege?

Here is a hypothetical scenario. I have sex with a women who gets pregnant. She told me beforehand she would get an abortion if something bad happened. We even used a condom and other forms of birth control. We just got very unlucky.

Now that she is pregnant, she changes her mind. I'm expected to pay child support? Why don't I get the privilege of having sex without the attached "by the way, you might get stuck with a financial burden for life and there is nothing you can do about it."

What if men had to undergo a procedure as painful as abortion? Let's say they measured it scientifically. If the man doesn't want a child, they had safe sex, and the women had previously suggested she wanted an abortion, why is the man accountable?

Should "I" really have to pay up in this case? Why?

You agree to get in my truck. You know I sometimes drive in dangerous areas. I take you somewhere I know you don't want to go, and you get shot.

It seems like I did something wrong? But you did have the opportunity to get out of the car once I told you what was going to happen.

Women + man have sex. Pregnancy. We are having a child if I decide. No if I don't, says women.

I would never say a man should get to force a women to abort, but I don't think he should have to pay especially in very explicit cases. There was a famous case where a women told a man she was infertile and he ended up with child support.

I think this stereotype of the dad who never pays child support while could be more common than a mother doing it is still a bit overdone IMO

Information from multiple sources shows that only 10% of all noncustodial fathers fit the "deadbeat dad" category: 90% of the fathers with joint custody paid the support due. Fathers with visitation rights pay 79.1%; and 44.5% of those with NO visitation rights still financially support their children. (Source: Census Bureau report. Series P-23, No. 173).

The following is sourced from: Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security Policy, Oct. 1991, Authors: Meyer and Garansky.

• Custodial mothers who receive a support award: 79.6%
• Custodial fathers who receive a support award: 29.9%
• Non-custodial mothers who totally default on support: 46.9%
• Non-custodial fathers who totally default on support: 26.9%

From: http://www.childrensjustice.org/stats.htm

Again, all the 'child support' issue boils down to is the problems created by Capitalism itself, if you could have what you need/want provided to you for free, then the issue would not even be an issue. I'm not too clued up on this, does the rates for child support vary depending on your income? If so, is it done on a percentage basis, and if so again, does that rate change depending on income?

Sorry, I didn't realise you meant what you said that way. To me, it sounded like you said "The man has his choice, it's called a condom".

On a different note, my dad was one of those people who didn't pay child support (never helped my mum or me out financially once, and he owns a small company in the USA), he's a cock.

What are you talking about? It's called birth control. Yes, there is a very tiny chance the condom could break. If that freaks you out, as I said, double up or don't have sex. In the case that a condom breaks and the woman gets pregnant, the woman isn't any more "privileged" than the man.

We can go into "what if" scenarios all day. The fact is that there is no justification for a law which enables men, after impregnating a woman, to forfeit responsibility; it would have probably a handful of legitimate uses ever and countless cases where men didn't want to wear the condom, or whatever, and then went to the lawyer the next day and did whatever the necessary procedure would be to excuse him from paying child support. It's an absurd suggestion...

I honestly have no idea.

That is what I said. He doesn't have any say over whether a woman gives birth or not; his say = choosing (or not choosing) to wear a condom. He does not/should not have any laws in place to protect him from responsibility (financial or otherwise) if he changes his mind about wanting a child after he's impregnated someone.

I have no problem with individual fathers who want this. Each situation should be examined on its own terms. What I object to is a movement that, on the basis of cases such as the one you described demands things like the abolition of reasonable amounts of child support, that mothers not be allowed to move away, and claims things like that children who are raised by single fathers as opposed to single mothers have a lower rate of ADHD, and that most women who make claims of domestic violence during divorce proceedings do it to get more alimony or because their lawyer told them to. Like it or not, the current organized "father's rights" movement is completely wrapped up in this kind of patriarchal horseshit.

And of course any movement organized around defending the rights of men in a male-dominated society is always going to end up like that.

I think it's pretty clear that in our type of society women will typically be expected to be the child's primary caregiver. As you say this is sexist and should be fought against. But because this is an expectation, the typical thing is also that many, if not most men will not care for their children to the level that the mother does, because they are not expected to. Until this system is abolished, I think as socialists we need to support the rights of those who are most likely to be taken advantage of in the current system, and to fight for whatever kind of meager support they can get from the justice system.

do you mean use multiple methods of birth control by this, or just doubling up the condom? because doubling up condoms is a bad idea.

Serious?
Well, the point still stands (minus the double condoms); we don't need a law in place to protect men in the tiny chance that a condom breaks, so they can get out of paying child support. There are enough men who don't fucking pay it as it is.

yes, it creates more friction and actually increases the risk of condoms tearing.

The women gets to choose whether to have an abortion or keep the child. She is a lot more privileged than the man in that circumstance. If I'm worried about the "tiny chance" (which is higher than you might think), it's unfair. I should have a very small window to declare that I don't want a child before the women decides whether to keep it. She can put it up for adoption, abort it.

Why is a women who never wanted a kid in the first place choosing to have one "and keep it?" It makes little sense.

Let me play devil's advocate here. Why does the man have any responsibility even if he willingly has sex without birth control of any kind? Let's go even more extreme. I'm not advocating this, but I'm just trying to challenge conventional assumptions. I'm more interested in how we we are justifying our conventional views.

Why is a man in any way responsible for the child? The women has rule over her own body. She choose to allow a foreign substance into her body knowingly. She knew what the consequences might be. Why is something that suddenly leaves her body having responsibility transferred over to the man?

If it's for equality or justice, fine, but we need to explain that in more detail. If we're being purely individualistic, the man shouldn't have to pay child support at all unless he agreed to a commitment.

If we are being purely collectivist, the man really should be getting a chance, in some cases, to claim he does not want the child.

I'm not an authoritarian. If I was, I could decide to have a known sexually "loose" man sterilized. I wouldn't do this, of course. Let's pretend I did because I love scenarios.

So I did that. Now there is no future child B. In another case, I did nothing. A child is born and the father has a responsibility to care for it. Don't I have an equal responsibility? My choice, a choice "not to do anything" led to the birth of another child. I also contribute and help keep a society running that allows new children to be born into poverty every day. Aren't we all "fathers" with a moral obligation?

I still think that in our current context there should be some sort of circumstances that allow men post-facto (or pre-facto) to guarantee no responsibility of a child without resorting to surgeries. For instance, a written contract (if women are so confident safe sex is safe enough, they shouldn't be worried about rolling the dice on commitment like us men, should they?) Or a short period after the pregnancy begins to have it noted they do not want the child.

Really, this is what I mean more eloquently:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_ab...pport_policies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubay_v._Wells

Look at the Dubay case. Is "that" case not ridiculous? There isn't even a denial of his claims. So, I tricked you (admittedly he might not be the brightest). I want child support.

Here is the court:

"the Fourteenth Amendment does not deny to [the] State the power to treat different classes of persons in different ways."

Isn't that an outright admission by the conservative United States judicial system that the issue is a matter of equality. But hey, we just don't care?

***

That's exactly the point! You've made my point for me. That's why such a scenario is so rare, and why such a law, if put in place, would be abused daily and used legitimately probably a handful of times ever.

Hate to tell you, bro, you're challenging conventional views with views that were far more conventional for a far longer time. The view that the father has a responsibility (if not physically, than financially) for the child also is sort of a new concept.

How is that "collectivist" in any sense? The second example is just as "individualistic" as the first. Funny, though, how in both examples the man is totally off the hook, isn't it?

Seriously, get fucked. You're like a white kid whining because he can't say "nigger".