For f***'s sake, I can’t believe the NY Times gave space to the tedious argument that because women have been graciously granted their right to reproductive autonomy (actually, it’s not even remotely gracious), it’s time to deal with the largely imaginary plague of “forced fatherhood”, i.e. women getting pregnant and carrying pregnancies to term against the father’s wishes, and then suing him for child support. This happens occasionally, though compared to men trying to force women to get pregnant against their wills, it’s so rare that it’s comparable to shark attacks in its frequency. My main problem with floating the argument that men should be able to get what “men’s rights” activists (scare quotes because it’s a phrase akin to “white pride” in its purpose and paranoia) call a “paper abortion” is that it’s actually a stalking horse for what they really want, which is to be able to terminate child support but maintain their rights as a father to have a role in their children’s lives. Focusing on “paper abortions” is a way to soften up an audience to the demands of men who want to foist all the responsibilities of child-rearing onto their exes while still getting to float in periodically to be the big hero who takes the kids to Disneyland once in awhile. If you actually go to “father’s rights” forums and websites, you’ll find lots of paranoia about sperm-stealing, but the men who are on the forum almost all are divorced and are bitter about writing child support checks while not getting the sexual and house-cleaning benefits of having a wife.
Read the rest at http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/13/fine-would-be-deadbeat-dads-heres-a-suggestion-for-you/
No comments:
Post a Comment