Girls less likely to use protection = Boy still to blame

Remove all ads!

I've personally seen more strongarm tactics on the part of women in courts than men (get a female attorney and a female judge with a female plaintiff together in a divorce case and the man might as well not show up; he can count on being humiliated), but of course my experiences don't speak for the 'state of being for mankind' or anything like that.

[edit]

On the other hand, I'm rather unapologetically an advocate of (for lack of a better way of putting it) 'protecting women,' or female adolescants over males, (male and female chidren would be equally in need of protection imo), for the simple fact that if you had to pick one, physical abuse is worse than psychological abuse, at least in the short term. And I don't say that because I want to be a knight in shining armor who thinks all women are weak and feels more comfortable by subjugating them. While there are always exceptions, by and large, women don't beat up men. Men and women may psychologically abuse one another, but men usually physically abuse women by a disproportionate amount. So throw me into a scenario where there are male and female adult combatants and I'm pretty much going to take the part of the female initially, unless she's obviously the aggressor and/or the superior combatant. That's not sexism, just reality. All it takes is a few real life instances of seeing the effects of a beating to make you 'unfair' that way.

So anyway, as to 'protecting' your teenage daughter from wolves at the door, yes. Your teenage son can moreso fend for himself.

 

There are some people in this thread [and I won't personalize this] that are blantly sexist and offensive. And it has gone on in threads like this for some time now. It has nothing to do with "fairness," nor with a "sense of justice," but with a socially conservative agenda that would turn back the clock to 1950 and return us once again to a largely patriarchal society, with women and children returned to their "preordained place."

However, you are entitled to your views on what you believe is "Justice" and what is "fair." That is your right, and I respect that right. By the same token others may have a different sense of what is "Just" based upon personal experiece and observation and/or a different preference for social order. Not everyone has a sense of what is "Just" that is informed upon past, traditional institutions, or from a Holy Book, or even what their church pastor teaches them. I can appreicate someone having an agenda regardless, but when it is used with the intention of being offensive because others may disagree, then it is just that -- offensive.

Can the situation be reversed and the woman may not want to "show up?"

 

I haven't seen the reverse myself (particularly in divorce cases ... male judges will typically go out of their way to accomodate female plaintiffs/defendants from what I've seen), but that's not to say it doesn't happen. My experiences would probably amount to being more than anecdotal, but less than ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY ACROSS THE BOARD!

 

I know that there are men who run off, abandon the mother, and hide their assets. They then refuse to pay when the courts find them, and there is little the courts can do, especially to lowlifes who have no trouble driving without the licence they wee denied due to failure to pay any support. There are also men who seek to punish their exes by refusing to pay what they were ordered to pay. The existence of these men is not in doubt.

The argument that ALL men in civil custody issues are like this is the one that burns my ass. We are not. As the Banned One mentioned, if a man in a marriage loses his job, no one accuses him of being a deadbeat for the reduced financial circumstances of his children. So why is a divorced father instantly labelled with the Deadbeat moniker, just because his wife left him?

Oh, and just because a wife leaves her husband doesn't necessarily mean that he was abusive. But in today's climate, that's what everyone thinks -- it was all his fault, surely she is pure and innocent! What a load of crap.

We are, as a society, so paranoid about being labelled sexist that we have totally lost our sense of balance and perspective. T2 mentioned doing what is best for the child -- well, I'm sorry, I don't buy that, because the definition of that is almost always to give the women custody and shove the man out of the picture in every way except, of course, for the $$ element. You can't tell me that's always "what's best for the child", but the misandryst mindset is everywhere and pervades all decisions.

 

Actually, as someone who has a female family lawyer, she claims the reverse of what you are. Plus, my dad was also a baliff at the family law center in downtown Houston for a while, and I'll ask him if that mattered, if the gender of the judge was an issue. I guess it might depend on the local area.

 

been openly available for about 2 years.

I am only going to continue with my outright opinion that contraception is a 2 way street, both parties are responsible for their seed and their health, if you fail to protect youself then you are at the mercy of your own inaction.

as for pregnancy, I think it is unfair for a man to criticise a woman who gets pregnant which ever choice she makes, my wife is pregnant and I have seen the effects it has had, we chose to have a child, some do not

 

Please, T2. If you payed any attention to my discussion with Mordea recently, you know that's not true. What I object to is a blatant double-standard, one where men have no say over what happens to their children, but are still held responsable for it. In an ideal situation, it would always be a joint decision, not just a 50/50 matter, but actual agreement. Of course, this reality isn't ideal, so it's no surprise that that is rare. Still, I find the resulting approximation very unjust. I don't want to turn back the clock, I don't want to see the kind of thing that happened in the past return. I just still hold out hope for real fairness and what's actually best for the child. I also make no claims as to what actually happens most of the time in our courts. If men usually still get an unjust upper hand, that's just as bad. I only know the stories and what I see as just and unjust. If the woman can force the man for something, the man should be able to force the woman equally. Better yet, though, neither should be able to force either if there's another solution that's better for the child.

To some degree, I agree with this. It is also a reflection of the way the laws and judges treat people. The fact that a one-night-stand can result in an 18-year, one-way commitment tells me that sometimes they just don't care about 'fair' or the best solution. For example, can you imagine what kind of uproar would happen if a judge told a single mother that the best solution was for her to give up her child for adoption? It may be a harsh statement, but it may also be a true one.

I'm also not concerned with world matters here. Only the US courts. I don't care if every other court system in the world is hopelessly misogenistic. It doesn't justify our courts being biassed in the reverse.

 

NOG, I did read your discussions with mordea (or whoever that person is, was, or will be) and, no, I don't see "that's not true" -- it's why I asked the question and said it didn't make any sense. I was actually hoping you could shed some light on what I was reading instead of getting your panties in a bunch and throwing negative rep. I guess I was wrong to assume you could actually carry on a meaningful conversation without resorting to blows.

WTF?! What are you babbling about here? Force him into what exactly? Child support? Child support goes to the custodial parent and the non-custodial parent pays -- sex is not an issue there. Full joint custody is the preferred solution by most courts. Where is the upper hand or do you simply want to punish a woman because she has the right to an abortion? If so, that's pretty petty.

It's not one way -- the father can actually decide to be a parent. Full joint custody -- there are those strange words again, I suggest you look them up.

I know just as many women who got hammered in divorce cases as men. I don't see the courts being biased.

 

T2 is damn right, my boss in particular is forcing a situation with hsi ex wife where their house is to be sold. She wanted the house bcause she was living there with his 3 boys, he wanted the house sold and the money split 50-50, he won.

 

I can speak only for laws in the USA. No they aren't fair. Some laws favor girls/women some favor boys/men. Some favor straights, don't know off hand any that favor homosexuals.

But we are getting off topic. First the Alleys are a place of SERIOUS debate and discussions. All opinions are equal if supported by the facts. Ad Hominem arguments are not allowed in serious debate/discussions.

In the case of first time for both persons just how responsible can either one be? I think it depends on the age. At least in good part. Other things would enter in but I do think that the younger both people are the less responsible they are. Can you imagine a 13 or 14 year old boy taking on the responsibility of a child? I can't. Here the families enter into the equation. That I think is reality.

If we are discussing older, experienced people I think that a different topic. Experience is important in all our actions. Even I can learn new things. Learn from people much younger than I am.

 

In my opinion this is an important point, especially on this particular topic. I tried to make this point earlier, but perhaps you wrote it a bit better than I, since I was rebuffed. But you were able to personalize it in a way that made it more effective. It's like the quote above T2's avatar.

+ Rep for Nakia.

I have to say that I don't miss that much either. I guess I will stop now, and just enjoy life in the sun.

 

I agreed with you that experience and maturity mattered.


In regards to T2/NOG... it once again seems like you're disagreeing on semantics.

*please read the following paragraph with no bias; I am not putting forth a point of view, I am trying to establish factual possibility*
NOG, you're saying that women can choose to abort or carry to full term, effectively deciding for the man whether or not he will be a parent. As such, the woman gets to choose whether or not there will even be a custodial/non-custodial parent. As such, even if a man really, truly wants to be a father and would be the best father in the world, the woman can still over-rule his decision. Everyone agrees this is true? I should hope so, as this part should not be debatable.

From what I can tell, T2 is saying that this is the right thing -- this is the "morally good" way to handle the situation; woman's body, woman's choice.

This implies to me that the disagreement he has with you isn't about "equality" or "fairness" but in two completely separate definitions of what is right.

Honestly, I can see where you're coming from NOG. Men are held responsible for a child they make, but a woman is not if she aborts. (Empirically speaking; abortion can have vast emotional consequences and responsibilities) The only way a woman is 'responsible' for getting pregnant is if she decides to be. The only way a man is 'responsible' for getting a woman pregnant is if she decides he is. (Whether or not the man wants to be responsible for the child or not)

I can also see T2's point.

However, I'm going to share a little anecdote. My best friend as a child lived with his mom. She had a different boyfriend every week, did drugs, drank, had no job, lived in a trailer. My mom watched my friend every weekend/almost every weekday (we joked about being brothers). This happened because his father lost a court case, and became limited to strictly child support. My friend's older brother eventually moved in with his dad when he was old enough to choose. It wasn't until my friend was about 11 that his father took the matter to court and won.
My inference about his mother's motives were that she greatly disliked her ex, and despised him for getting remarried. (To a nice lady who has kids of her own) She wasn't thinking about the best situation for her children and should never have gotten full custody of them in the first place.

This is what I think LKD and NOG are talking about: "good" guys who want to be good parents, but are overruled by the mother. I also don't know the statistics on the subject and so I can only operate on personal experience. Which is why I don't feel that I can form a substantive opinion on the topic.
I feel none of us here truly can; we can only form opinions out of our limited perspective. That most certainly makes sense if you consider T2's background, Chandos' family and LKD's history with bad mates.

 

I disagree, mature people can take the same risks as an imature person.

A driving instructor once said a sentance which I believe can be put against any argument regarding experience and inexperience.

 

Thanks, Rahkir. But I think someone else commented that there was "little difference between knowledge and experience."

Not in my exprience, really. Yes, there may be a few -- and I'm not sure of your age -- but like I commented earlier, when I was between wives, women I dated knew exactly what they wanted and in almost every instance, with the exception of 1 or 2, it was completely safe sex. BTW, most didn't bother to mention that they are on the pill, even though they were.

Yes, but for every story of a vindictive woman, and they are out there, I can tell you another of a vindictive guy. My dad hated working at the family law center. He once commented to me that husbands and wives getting a divorce were sometimes "worse to each other than the hardened thugs he had to take into criminal court." Really, no joke.

 

Sexism exists on both sides of the aisle. Laws are not always fair. Judges are not always fair. Life isn't always fair.

Putting a child up for adoption is not an easy choice. A woman caries a child for 9 months unless something goes wrong. Nature has created a bonding process which doesn't always work but it does in most cases.

Topic: A study was made involving first time sex of teen age rs. Yes a 18 or 19 is still technically a teen age but in many countries at least of European origin 18 or 19 is considered adulthood. I do feel strongly that the age of the first time participant should be taken into consideration.

On a personal note. My mother, who to the best of my knowledge was a virgin, married my father, got pregnant and had me. For reasons I won't go into here she packed up his belongings and sent him packing when I still a baby. This was back in the dark ages and the state laws made it difficult for her to collect child support. There was no state or federal benefits available. With the help of her parents she raised me. Because I was a cute, blond, almost blue eyed child she had offers from people who wanted to adopt me. She choose to keep me and after my grandfather died struggled to support and raise me. Adoption was not an option for her. Many women feel the same way.

I was lucky because I had my grandfather as a father figure others are not always so lucky.

Come on folks, let us do as our beloved moderator has ordered and keep i8t friendly and as much on topic as we can.

We could start a new thread, don our boxing gloves and have it.

"Who has the most responsibility in a sexual relationship for using protection, the man or the woman." I assure you I do have opinions on that.

"Are the law regarding who gets the child fair?" I also have opinions on that. Some of those might surprise you.

Fight fair, no name calling, no Ad Hominem arguments. Nothing below the belt. You men should realize the problems that could cause.

 

Friendly? I don't think so.

NOG is stating (and he can certainly correct me if I'm wrong -- or give me another negative for that matter) that he believes it is not fair that women can "avoid parenthood" through an abortion and the man cannot stop it ... so, the logical step (in his mind) is that the man should be able to walk away if he doesn't want to be a parent. That's just plain rubbish and I'll call him on that. It's simply tit-for-tat kind of logic which is, at its base, extremely self-centered.

His center of his argument is the unfairness of the woman to be able to use abortion to remedy an admittedly difficult situation. One flaw in the argument is the fact that the majority of women will not choose abortion -- there is a huge difference in wanting the choice and actually following through.

NOG has repeatedly argued against abortion and it just seem quite hypocritical for him to use abortion as an excuse for a man to avoid responsibility.

 

Since I have mixed feelings about abortion it is difficult for me to address this. If a referendum was on the ballot to allow a women to have an abortion if she wished I would vote for it. That is because I am old enough to remember the "coat hanger" back room abortions. I have also been in a position to hear the stories of women who had abortion. In many cases it leaves an emotional scar even when done in first trimester.

Is it fair that a woman can choose and a man can't? Especially if he is willing to take the child and raise it? I know of cases like that I feel sorry for the man. In my opinion there is an unfair aspect to it. But I am biased.

Well if we can't be friendly let's keep it civil or poof goes the thread. We have been warned.

 

Ah yes, abortion ... again?

And another in having to make it because of being in a difficult situation. I know women who have aborted, none are happy about it, none made the decision easily, and all felt that they had no choice but to choose to abort. Criminalising their choice, as it has been in the past, doesn't help them with their situation; it merely gives then people enacting such laws a fuzzy feeling for having upheld morality.

And I second Nakia's statement that it is good that the coat hanger back room abortions are history. A doctor will make sure that at least the women are treated properly should complications arise. In a couple ways abortion is a lesser evil.

And that's coming from someone who doesn't like abortion. I think that women should be dissuaded from having abortions, be told that there are other means available, like adoption, and that they can have the child, and that abortions shouldn't be made easy and that there should be restrictions on when they are allowed. But insisting that a woman for instance carries the child of her rapist so that she can have it adopted later, because abortion is sinful, is asking too much. In a sense, it would be a perpetuation of the rape, for nine more months. Take that for a psychologically scarring experience.

 

@Ragusa, I agree with your post. You would get a + Rep from me but it seems I have given you one recently.