Just Smith.

permutationofninjas:

mensrights:

disgruntledqueer:

mensrights:

disgruntledqueer:

mensrights:

permutationofninjas:

mensrights:

n-ausea:

permutationofninjas:

mensrights:

This editorial cartoon, pretty well sums up society’s “woman good/man bad” norm on reproductive issues. I expounded on this at greater length in my co-authored column Respect a Man’s Choice, Too (8/1/06) for the left-wing website AlterNet. I wrote:

“….5 million American women legally walk away from motherhood every year through adoption, abortion or abandonment. In over 40 states mothers can completely opt out of motherhood by returning unwanted babies to the hospital shortly after birth. If men like [Choice for Men lawsuit plaintiff Matt] Dubay are deadbeats and deserters, what are these women?

“Whenever a child is born outside of the context of a loving, two-parent family, there are no good solutions. [Feminist critic Kai] Ma overstates her case, but she is correct that ‘Choice for Men’ is a flawed solution. However, the current regime, which provides women with a variety of choices and men with none, is also flawed.

“Dubay’s conduct is not particularly admirable, and he’s certainly not a candidate for father of the year; however, he does have a point. Over the past four decades women’s advocates have successfully made the case that it is wrong to force a pregnancy on an unwilling mother. Despite the backlash against Dubay, hopefully his lawsuit will result in a greater societal awareness that it is also wrong to force a pregnancy on an unwilling father.”

Source: http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/11/29/societys-woman-goodman-bad-norm-on-reproductive-issues/

I posted about this cartoon a while ago, making very similar points.  Worth reading again.

I disagree on this one.

Yes, by aborting a baby, a woman is indeed avoiding the responsibilities required of motherhood. However, they are doing so by stopping their biological motherhood from actually happening, killing the fetus before it becomes a human with emotional needs.

When a person, male or female, abandons their living child, they are neglecting the needs of an actual child, the existence of whom they were partly responsible for creating, even if it was an accident. Under most circumstances, this is a selfish thing to do: you made a decision to have unprotected sex with a person and then chose not to deal with the consequences, leaving a child to grow up without a parent, leaving its mother or father without financial or emotional support (in a typical situation, I suppose.)

The point is that a living child even exists without his consent. Women have had the right to have sex without having to reproduce since Roe V. Wade. So if you say: “Well there’s a living child now, you have to take care of it because you had sex and helped make it” then you would have to be anti-abortion. Or a Hypocrite.

Having sex with someone is not consent to be chained to an unwanted child for 18 years. And looking at other situations: what if she harvested his sperm? What if she lied about being on birth control? What if she poked holes in his condoms? What if she raped him? Hopefully in any of those situations you’d agree that forcing a pregnancy on someone is morally reprehensible. What if it was the other way around and he held her down and impregnated her. And then when she went to the doctor to have an abortion, the doctor said: “Well, you had sex and now you have to deal with the consequences.” Or, “Your husband wants the baby, so you’re going to have it,”

A man can’t abort living cells, like a woman can. That’s biology. We can’t make biology more equitable, but we can make it easier on victims of forced parenthood with laws and legislation. Just like we did for women in 1973. Why would you reject a concept like that?

Commentary and ongoing discussion.

The point is that this isn’t about what the man does or what rights he has when he’s presented with a living child.  That’s a different ballpark entirely.  This is about his right to choose whether at any point he is acknowledged as the parent of a child, when the child is still the same bundle of cells that a mother may abort at any time.  This is not really about a man’s rights with regards to a child.  This is about a man’s rights with regards to a fetus.

But that’s when things get tricky. When we start talking about a man’s rights with regards to a fetus, the knee-jerk reaction will be “her body, her choice,” And though I absolutely hate those little easily-repeatable sound bites, body autonomy is a legitimate issue and should be handled with care.
Just a random aside here: I love how when it comes to a man’s “responsibility” to care for his child, that fetus is suddenly a baby. But when a mother wants to abort, that baby magically turns into just a clump of cells. I see what you’re doing over there with all them fancy manipulations of language to paint a picture of either a baby-abandoning monster, or a civilized woman just exercising her right to abort some cells.
Either way, as far as Feminists are concerned no man has any right to what they see as “Their body” (even when they’ve made the conscious choice to carry to term and create another body). Asking for anything other than legal separation at this point in the dialogue, is shooting for the moon.

I would hope you wouldn’t be trying for anything other than legal separation.  The only other option is forcing people to get abortions. 

See: knee-jerk. And yet mothers also force fathers out of the children’s life by way of the Family Court.
Now that I think about it, the loudest cry of outrage at the mention of reproductive rights for men usually takes the form of “There’s a living child, you can’t just abandon a living child!!”
But then why is everyone silent when fathers are denied visitation of that living child? Or when the mother abandons it at a hospital, or puts it up for adoption?
So women are allowed to not only abort a clump of cells, but a living child too? And Fathers have absolutely no say in any of it, because (a) forcing a woman out parenthood is a crime against her! When on the flipside, forcing a father out of parenthood in the courts is perfectly acceptable. Then (b) A man who walks out on a living child is a monster and a deadbeat dad!! But a mother who does the same is just exercising her rights.
And finally (c) A man who forces a woman to be a mother is a rapist, but a mother who forces a man to be a father is a-ok.
And when we say “other than legal separation” We mean that you can not legally separate yourself from a fetus— that is— before the child is born. It is not a person yet, and from the feminist’s own mouth: Her body. “The only other option” would be to be legally allowed to denounce fatherhood before the child is even born, like women can. I’ve said it repeatedly on my own blog, and I’m sure many other MRAs have had to make this distinction before: We don’t want to force any woman into an abortion. Please don’t try and misrepresent our position.

I wasn’t trying to misrepresent your position.  That’s why I didn’t say “YOU WANT TO FORCE PEOPLE TO GET ABORTIONS ARGLEBARGLE.” I was trying to figure out what you meant.  I suppose I’m not very well versed in the language MRA-types use to discuss this stuff.  I guess I could/should do some more reading.  Thanks for helping me realize that!

You say it’s a knee-jerk reaction, but there are people who want to be able to force either pregnancy or birth on others.  So it’s a legitimate concern.

Also, I don’t hold opinions a, b, and c, that you spelled out.  I don’t think it’s okay to keep children from their parents, so long as the parents aren’t abusive or horrible neglectful, I don’t believe that people who don’t want to be parents are monsters, and I don’t think people should be able to be forced into parenthood. 

I’m confused about the distinction you’re making between legal separation and the ability to denounce fatherhood before a baby is born, and your statement that it isn’t feasible to ask for anything besides legal separation.  Are you saying that it’s more likely people will be on board with fathers being able to legally remove themselves from any responsibility for/connection to baby once it’s born, but not while it’s still a fetus? 

If you were just trying to figure out what I/we mean, the question mark is your friend. I’m happy to answer any questions to the best of my ability, but the way you phrased it came off as “well this is the only other option that comes to my own mind, so it must be what you want”.

The situations that I listed were not directed at you specifically, as this is a blog solely about men’s rights and I try to make points wherever and whenever I can. That’s great that you personally don’t hold those positions, but many other people do.

And when you say “but there are people who want to be able to force either pregnancy or birth on others” I’d like to first agree that that is a legitimate concern. I’d also like to point out that, as it stands in north america and the UK, it is legal for women to do this to men, but illegal for men to do this to women. You used gender neutral terms. Can you please be more specific which situation you meant.

A fetus is not a baby, it is a part of a woman’s body. Trying to separate yourself from a part of someone’s body is ridiculous, because you can’t be the father of a part of someone’s body. Feminists are really clear on that… in the case of abortion. But when a mother wants to keep the baby, suddenly he is a father and has all of this responsibility to the fetus.

The way legal separation works (in my mind, I don’t speak for everybody and I might well be completely off on this) is the man would still be listed on the birth certificate, and be recognized as being a father of the child/ren, but would hold no financial responsibility to the mother or them. But a denouncing fatherhood before the child is born would be a complete and total severing of connections. Like an abortion. That is how I see it.

I don’t think male abortion/denouncing an unwanted fetus would be generally accepted at all. It’s too close to being true equality. That’s why I likened it to “shooting for the moon”.

I think I do disagree with you on “legal separation” the way you’ve defined it.  At least with me, the term “legal separation” is used to drive home the fact that the objective isn’t to force women into having abortions.  It’s sort of like the difference between “marriage” and “civil partnership” when it comes up with regards to gay rights.  (Yes, complicated, bad example, whatever.)

I also don’t think legal separation should terminate parental rights in their absolute entirety.  It’s not quite the same as abortion, and shouldn’t be treated as such.  There are two specific examples, actually, where I think it should leave things intact.

One, medical information.  Having a current family medical history is important, and there should be room for that information to be communicated if that’s desired.

Second, adult contact.  Once the child’s 18 or so, they should have the right to the potential for contact with the father, should they both be comfortable with that.

These are basically how it functions in an adoption situation.

In practice, the best way to describe legal separation/renouncing parenthood/male abortion is that it’s and adoption where the mother is adopting.  The father is giving the child (at the stage of “fetus”) up for adoption, and the mother has first choice at that point on whether to adopt the child herself, terminate the pregnancy, or look into adoption herself.

I believe that it would be unfair for this to simply terminate parental obligations.  It must also terminate parental rights.  Thus, we don’t get cases of fathers who on one hand want to renounce financial obligations but on the other are looking for visitation.  To be fair, it must terminate all connections except the two I mention above.  That’s not a simple decision, at all.  It’s not easy, and for most men it would be as difficult a decision as the decision women face with regards to abortion or adoption.

The key objective is to give both parents as close to equal rights as can be managed.  In the case of women, this takes the clear form of abortion and adoption.  In the case of men, the objective is thus to provide legal options that are as close as possible within reason and common sense.  Neither person should ever be forced into becoming a parent against their will. 

I agree that any kind of honest equality would be “shooting for the moon.”  Our society rejected any kind of even remotely equal treatment in the law for men a very long time ago.  With the power of the feminist establishment against the few people speaking common sense, it’s doubtful anything will change soon. 

Ironically, the greatest likelihood of an equitable solution comes from the anti-abortion protestors, because if they get their way it’ll all suck equally for everyone!  (Obviously I’m not advocating for this, that would be idiotic.  However, it would be equitable idiocy.)  If we really want a beneficial outcome for everyone, the feminist movement needs to start advocating for real equality, because that’s the only way they’re going to get everyone else behind them.  One of few things the average person likes less than the religious far-right is the feminist far-left, and as long as the feminist movement keeps acting the way it has been for the last couple decades, that’s unlikely to change.  Let’s hope they learn from their many, many mistakes.

Hey,

I don’t want to force a woman into an abortion.

The question is: do you want to force a man into parenthood? 

If a child would be unwanted, the mother is allowed to spare it before it is born.

If a child would be born disabled and suffering, the mother is allowed to spare it before it is born.

If she would be unable to support it financially, she is allowed to abort it.

If she is simply not ready to support it, she is allowed to abort it.

If she was raped, she is allowed to abort it. 

In all of these situations, abortion is moral. It eases suffering. Abortion is also less painful than childbirth, so we should be considering it as easing suffering in itself. To that end, if there is any doubt as to whether the baby should be born, abortion is the preferred alternative. 

I argue that men have just as much right to not father the child of their rape. They have just as much right to care for their unborn child, and to wish to spare it from suffering. They have just as much right not to be ready or able. They have just as much right to use contraception.

Except, under the current law, they don’t.

I don’t want to force a woman into abortion, but I will support it if it lessens suffering. For a child to be born, both parents should consent. If they don’t, then they should use the retroactive contraception that is abortion, and wait until they are ready. If one partner never wants children, then the other is free to choose to have children with somebody else, if it really matters that much to them. That gives both partners a full choice in whether to be a parent or not. 

At the moment, men don’t have that choice. Their female mates have full power over whether or not they become a father, no matter what the circumstances. If the child would live a life of pain, the father wouldn’t be able to spare it if the mother wanted to drag it into the world anyway. If he had been raped, he wouldn’t be able to stop the psychological horror of the rapist having his child. If he simply didn’t want the child, he could have his life overturned and be forced into either being miserable or a deadbeat dad, simply on the mother’s whim. These are not things that can happen to women, because they have the right to abort. Men deserve that fundamental right.

Remember how abortion is a force for good? Remember how it actually saves the woman pain and effort? So no, ‘forced abortions’ are not as horrific as you make out. To contrast, forced parenthood brings a lifetime of negative consequences for all involved. Please don’t use anti-choice imagery and arguments to make abortion out to be a horrible thing in this argument, because you are shooting yourselves in the foot. 

As for pro-life being more egalitarian, I agree. In fact, I drew this diagram:

http://just-smith.tumblr.com/post/7273048804/hivemined-just-smith-as-you-can-see-the

More information and argument can be found in these posts:

http://just-smith.tumblr.com/post/7273410804/anti-choice

http://just-smith.tumblr.com/post/7268429714/mens-reproductive-rights

http://just-smith.tumblr.com/post/7269307282/mens-reproductive-rights

http://just-smith.tumblr.com/post/7308865909/im-sorry-to-say-but-your-response-to-the-male

I would also recommend reading normal pro-choice posts with your mind open to the possibility that men might appreciate contraception too. Normal pro-choice logic actually supports this equality, which is why it is odd when pro-choicers turn around and use anti-choice arguments to attack it. That’s where they show their true colours and reveal whether they really are pro-choice, or merely pro-women. For example:

http://just-smith.tumblr.com/post/7814185589/dailymurf-things-that-i-like-to-have-sex

Happy reading.

mensrights:

n-ausea:

permutationofninjas:

mensrights:

This editorial cartoon, pretty well sums up society’s “woman good/man bad” norm on reproductive issues. I expounded on this at greater length in my co-authored column Respect a Man’s Choice, Too (8/1/06) for the left-wing website AlterNet. I wrote:

“….5 million American women legally walk away from motherhood every year through adoption, abortion or abandonment. In over 40 states mothers can completely opt out of motherhood by returning unwanted babies to the hospital shortly after birth. If men like [Choice for Men lawsuit plaintiff Matt] Dubay are deadbeats and deserters, what are these women?

“Whenever a child is born outside of the context of a loving, two-parent family, there are no good solutions. [Feminist critic Kai] Ma overstates her case, but she is correct that ‘Choice for Men’ is a flawed solution. However, the current regime, which provides women with a variety of choices and men with none, is also flawed.

“Dubay’s conduct is not particularly admirable, and he’s certainly not a candidate for father of the year; however, he does have a point. Over the past four decades women’s advocates have successfully made the case that it is wrong to force a pregnancy on an unwilling mother. Despite the backlash against Dubay, hopefully his lawsuit will result in a greater societal awareness that it is also wrong to force a pregnancy on an unwilling father.”

Source: http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/11/29/societys-woman-goodman-bad-norm-on-reproductive-issues/

I posted about this cartoon a while ago, making very similar points.  Worth reading again.

I disagree on this one.

Yes, by aborting a baby, a woman is indeed avoiding the responsibilities required of motherhood. However, they are doing so by stopping their biological motherhood from actually happening, killing the fetus before it becomes a human with emotional needs.

When a person, male or female, abandons their living child, they are neglecting the needs of an actual child, the existence of whom they were partly responsible for creating, even if it was an accident. Under most circumstances, this is a selfish thing to do: you made a decision to have unprotected sex with a person and then chose not to deal with the consequences, leaving a child to grow up without a parent, leaving its mother or father without financial or emotional support (in a typical situation, I suppose.)

The point is that a living child even exists without his consent. Women have had the right to have sex without having to reproduce since Roe V. Wade. So if you say: “Well there’s a living child now, you have to take care of it because you had sex and helped make it” then you would have to be anti-abortion. Or a Hypocrite.

Having sex with someone is not consent to be chained to an unwanted child for 18 years. And looking at other situations: what if she harvested his sperm? What if she lied about being on birth control? What if she poked holes in his condoms? What if she raped him? Hopefully in any of those situations you’d agree that forcing a pregnancy on someone is morally reprehensible. What if it was the other way around and he held her down and impregnated her. And then when she went to the doctor to have an abortion, the doctor said: “Well, you had sex and now you have to deal with the consequences.” Or, “Your husband wants the baby, so you’re going to have it,”

A man can’t abort living cells, like a woman can. That’s biology. We can’t make biology more equitable, but we can make it easier on victims of forced parenthood with laws and legislation. Just like we did for women in 1973. Why would you reject a concept like that?

mensrights:

just-smith:

tempurlcauseisuck:

mensrights:

This editorial cartoon, pretty well sums up society’s “woman good/man bad” norm on reproductive issues. I expounded on this at greater length in my co-authored column Respect a Man’s Choice, Too (8/1/06) for the left-wing website AlterNet. I wrote:

“….5 million American women legally walk away from motherhood every year through adoption, abortion or abandonment. In over 40 states mothers can completely opt out of motherhood by returning unwanted babies to the hospital shortly after birth. If men like [Choice for Men lawsuit plaintiff Matt] Dubay are deadbeats and deserters, what are these women?

“Whenever a child is born outside of the context of a loving, two-parent family, there are no good solutions. [Feminist critic Kai] Ma overstates her case, but she is correct that ‘Choice for Men’ is a flawed solution. However, the current regime, which provides women with a variety of choices and men with none, is also flawed.

“Dubay’s conduct is not particularly admirable, and he’s certainly not a candidate for father of the year; however, he does have a point. Over the past four decades women’s advocates have successfully made the case that it is wrong to force a pregnancy on an unwilling mother. Despite the backlash against Dubay, hopefully his lawsuit will result in a greater societal awareness that it is also wrong to force a pregnancy on an unwilling father.”

Source: http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/11/29/societys-woman-goodman-bad-norm-on-reproductive-issues/

K, wait. When a woman decides to abort her pregnancy, she’s getting rid of a cluster of cells. That is what a fetus is, at least by the pro-choice definition. When a man decides not to be a father to an already born baby that is a COMPLETELY different scenario. Women, by tradition, have been the main care-takers of their children. They’re the ones who end up having to quit their jobs, to go through 9 months of pregnancy, to go through childbirth, to breastfeed, to get judged when the rest of society looks down on them for being single mothers.

The left of the cartoon is what people say about fathers who abandon. What some people say. But on the whole, men in this society totally get away with child abandonment. He can go golfing on the weekends, he can have friends, he can have a job. A man who has estranged kids is hardly something people get up in arms about. But imagine a woman applies for a job and somehow the interviewer find out she go an abortion, or gave up her child for adoption. 

I’m all for equal rights, I’m not “anti-masculist” but you simply can’t pretend that in this situation women have the upper hand. Men get cut a lot of slack.

The point is that men aren’t allowed to get rid of the cluster of cells, by law. They can be forced into becoming fathers, and they have no say in the matter. It is not their choice to be presented with an already born baby that they didn’t want - they were forced into this. If they are not ready or able to support that child, they aren’t given the right to choice like the woman is - they just have to hope that she uses her sovereign power here sympathetically, and doesn’t force them into this decision. I would imagine that the decision is not a pleasant one. They would have to leave the relationship with a woman they may well love, and abandon their own child simply because it was forced upon them at the wrong time. Emotionally and morally that has to be destroying, but their unwanted decision has legal and financial consequences as well, because the law will always favour the woman in this case. There are no such things as father’s rights. This picture then examines the social implications of this double standard - women are allowed to be a mother or not as they so wish, and they are applauded whatever their decision. But the father is not given a single choice until it is far too late, and if he acts then he faces attacks from even the most liberal ‘pro-choicers’. That is the double standard this picture addresses. It recognises that the circumstances are different, and that is exactly it’s problem.

I’d like to just add in something on your assertion that “men in this society totally get away with child abandonment”.

Debtor’s prison is back, and it thrives on men who can’t pay Child Support.
http://www.mrcustodycoach.com/blog/illegal-child-support-debtors-prisons
An excerpt from the Rome News-Tribune ( http://romenews-tribune.com/view/full_story/10772467/article-Law-Center-questions-%E2%80%98debtors%E2%80%99-prison%E2%80%99?instance=home_news )
”

Randy Miller is serving a sentence in the Floyd County work release center for falling more than $3,000 behind on his child support payments.

A petition for his release is slated for a Jan. 10 hearing in Floyd County Superior Court.

“He should never have been incarcerated,” said Sarah Geraghty, an attorney with the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta. “In this country, we don’t put people in jail just because they’re poor.””

And I’d also like to draw your attention to this speech given by Obama on father’s day, as recapped here:

http://jsoltys.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/obama-irresponsible-in-fathers-day-speech/

So let’s look at the biggest offenders of fathers on Fathers Day.

Barack Obama showed his overt discrimination against fathers – again – on Fathers day.
While calling on black fathers to take responsibility for the numerous fatherless homes in the African-American communities, he also extended his venom towards all fathers.
He told a Fathers Day crowd this about black men,

“They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men.

He also told the crowd with an austere lip,

“we need fathers to recognize that responsibility doesn’t just end at conception.”

He even scolded those fathers who are present in their children’s lives, implying they are lazy and uninvolved:

“It’s a wonderful thing if you are married and living in a home with your children, but don’t just sit in the house and watch ‘SportsCenter’ all weekend long.”

He concluded that,

“What makes you a man is not the ability to have a child — any fool can have a child,” he said, to applause. “That doesn’t make you a father. It’s the courage to raise a child that makes you a father.”

His cure for this problem is the co-sponsoring of a bill with Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana, which would increase enforcement of child support payments, and increase services for domestic violence programs.

And also:

But before I get ahead of myself, let’s pause to look at the tone of language and imagery used by Barack Obama on Fathers Day towards fathers:

“lazy; uninvolved; not man enough; a fool; lacking courage; and irresponsible”

Now let’s take a look at Barack Obama’s speech to mothers’s on Mothers Day taken from his own website:

Senator Obama’s Mother’s Day Statement
Chicago, IL | May 11, 2008
This Mother’s Day, I’ll be doing what so many other Americans are doing – spending time with my family and thinking about the mothers in my life. My mother, Ann Dunham, was the kindest, most generous spirit I have ever known, and what is best in me, I owe to her. My grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, helped raise me, sacrificed again and again for me, and loves me as much as she loves anything in this world. And the mother of my daughters Sasha and Malia – my wife Michelle – is the rock of the Obama family and a woman who continues to make me a better person. We couldn’t have done this year without my mother-in-law Marian Robinson, who stays with our girls while Michelle and I are on the campaign trail. And my two sisters, Auma and Maya, each the mother to young daughters, are not only my family, but my dear friends. So to the mothers in my life and to the mothers in all our lives, Happy Mother’s Day.

Is it just me or is his imagery and tone towards mothers completely different?
In his Mothers Day speech, these are the words and imagery created:

“thinking about mom; kind, generous; the best for me; owe a lot; sacrifices for me; loves me immensely; rock of the family; make a better person”

When the President of an entire nation holds these sorts of attitudes, how can you say that “Men get cut a lot of slack.”?

Commentary.

tempurlcauseisuck:

mensrights:

This editorial cartoon, pretty well sums up society’s “woman good/man bad” norm on reproductive issues. I expounded on this at greater length in my co-authored column Respect a Man’s Choice, Too (8/1/06) for the left-wing website AlterNet. I wrote:

“….5 million American women legally walk away from motherhood every year through adoption, abortion or abandonment. In over 40 states mothers can completely opt out of motherhood by returning unwanted babies to the hospital shortly after birth. If men like [Choice for Men lawsuit plaintiff Matt] Dubay are deadbeats and deserters, what are these women?

“Whenever a child is born outside of the context of a loving, two-parent family, there are no good solutions. [Feminist critic Kai] Ma overstates her case, but she is correct that ‘Choice for Men’ is a flawed solution. However, the current regime, which provides women with a variety of choices and men with none, is also flawed.

“Dubay’s conduct is not particularly admirable, and he’s certainly not a candidate for father of the year; however, he does have a point. Over the past four decades women’s advocates have successfully made the case that it is wrong to force a pregnancy on an unwilling mother. Despite the backlash against Dubay, hopefully his lawsuit will result in a greater societal awareness that it is also wrong to force a pregnancy on an unwilling father.”

Source: http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/11/29/societys-woman-goodman-bad-norm-on-reproductive-issues/

K, wait. When a woman decides to abort her pregnancy, she’s getting rid of a cluster of cells. That is what a fetus is, at least by the pro-choice definition. When a man decides not to be a father to an already born baby that is a COMPLETELY different scenario. Women, by tradition, have been the main care-takers of their children. They’re the ones who end up having to quit their jobs, to go through 9 months of pregnancy, to go through childbirth, to breastfeed, to get judged when the rest of society looks down on them for being single mothers.

The left of the cartoon is what people say about fathers who abandon. What some people say. But on the whole, men in this society totally get away with child abandonment. He can go golfing on the weekends, he can have friends, he can have a job. A man who has estranged kids is hardly something people get up in arms about. But imagine a woman applies for a job and somehow the interviewer find out she go an abortion, or gave up her child for adoption. 

I’m all for equal rights, I’m not “anti-masculist” but you simply can’t pretend that in this situation women have the upper hand. Men get cut a lot of slack.

The point is that men aren’t allowed to get rid of the cluster of cells, by law. They can be forced into becoming fathers, and they have no say in the matter. It is not their choice to be presented with an already born baby that they didn’t want - they were forced into this. If they are not ready or able to support that child, they aren’t given the right to choice like the woman is - they just have to hope that she uses her sovereign power here sympathetically, and doesn’t force them into this decision. I would imagine that the decision is not a pleasant one. They would have to leave the relationship with a woman they may well love, and abandon their own child simply because it was forced upon them at the wrong time. Emotionally and morally that has to be destroying, but their unwanted decision has legal and financial consequences as well, because the law will always favour the woman in this case. There are no such things as father’s rights. This picture then examines the social implications of this double standard - women are allowed to be a mother or not as they so wish, and they are applauded whatever their decision. But the father is not given a single choice until it is far too late, and if he acts then he faces attacks from even the most liberal ‘pro-choicers’. That is the double standard this picture addresses. It recognises that the circumstances are different, and that is exactly it’s problem.

mensrights:

This editorial cartoon, pretty well sums up society’s “woman good/man bad” norm on reproductive issues. I expounded on this at greater length in my co-authored column Respect a Man’s Choice, Too (8/1/06) for the left-wing website AlterNet. I wrote:

“….5 million American women legally walk away from motherhood every year through adoption, abortion or abandonment. In over 40 states mothers can completely opt out of motherhood by returning unwanted babies to the hospital shortly after birth. If men like [Choice for Men lawsuit plaintiff Matt] Dubay are deadbeats and deserters, what are these women?

“Whenever a child is born outside of the context of a loving, two-parent family, there are no good solutions. [Feminist critic Kai] Ma overstates her case, but she is correct that ‘Choice for Men’ is a flawed solution. However, the current regime, which provides women with a variety of choices and men with none, is also flawed.

“Dubay’s conduct is not particularly admirable, and he’s certainly not a candidate for father of the year; however, he does have a point. Over the past four decades women’s advocates have successfully made the case that it is wrong to force a pregnancy on an unwilling mother. Despite the backlash against Dubay, hopefully his lawsuit will result in a greater societal awareness that it is also wrong to force a pregnancy on an unwilling father.”

Source: http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/11/29/societys-woman-goodman-bad-norm-on-reproductive-issues/