Call Email Join Donate
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

Reproductive Rights

January 11, 2009

sperm in spaceMen’s reproductive rights include issues such as false paternity claims or paternity fraud, adoption rights, abortion, rights over frozen embryos, choice for men, etc.

The American Association of Blood Banks reports that, out of 300,000 DNA paternity tests performed annually, 30% exclude the man as the biological dad. Over 70% of paternity judgments in L.A. County are obtained by default. (“Examining Child Support Arrears in California; The Collectability Study,” 3/03, p. 16.) Many of these men are inadequately served or respond late due to language barriers, mental disabilities, fear, or mistaken belief that they do not have to respond because the child is not theirs. They often first learn of a paternity judgment when their wages are attached or their driving privileges are suspended. By then it can be too late. Even if DNA excludes them, they can still be forced to pay support, despite having families of their own to feed. Military men are particular targets of paternity fraud because of the benefits they carry.

In 2004, NCFM helped pass a law to protect paternity fraud victims (AB 252, enacting Family Code § 7646 et seq.). While this law is helpful, it is not enough. Judges still have discretion to force a man to pay even after DNA excludes him as the biological father, and many men still find themselves trapped by the existing two-year deadline to challenge a paternity judgment from the time they “knew or should have known” of it. If they are late by one day, they are locked in with no escape, and courts have no discretion to relieve them. Stronger laws and more public education are needed to combat this problem. For more, see and

Choice For Men is an attempt to bring gender equality to reproductive rights and responsibilities. Although women have far more contraceptive choices than men, men are deemed at least as responsible as women when an unwanted pregnancy occurs, but women have the entire say in whether to abort or keep the child, and have much easier access to adoption or safe-haven abandonment. As a result, when an unwanted pregnancy occurs, either by accident or when men are lied to about birth control or fertility, women can surrender their parental rights and responsibilities, while men cannot. “Choice for men,” as a matter of gender equity, would give men a certain period of time to surrender their parental rights and responsibilities.

You might want to read the story “Protecting Our Freedoms, One Way Conversation with a Hero“. Some say choice for men is no real choice at all…

For more on men’s reproductive rights, see

On Men, Women, Chivalry & Feminism

“The strength of women is their façade of weakness; the weakness of men is their facade of strength.”
– Warren Farrell, Ph.D., “The Myth of Male Power.”

“Ignoring men may be macho and politically correct, but it is costly to society.”
– Rep. David Bickford, NH

“The female institution that subordinates the needs and nature of men to those of women, while promoting special entitlements, privileges, and protections for women, is feminism (although feminists would deny that is what feminism is about). But men have their own institution: chivalry is the male institution that subordinates the needs and nature of men to those of women, while promoting special entitlements, privileges, and protections for women.”
– Pradeep Ramanathan, former V.P.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

87 Responses to Reproductive Rights

  1. Barbara Clark on October 11, 2010 at 1:14 PM

    I came to this site because I had just finished blogging about how I wanted to find a lawyer and writing up a legally binding document exempting my (future, theoretical) partner from any financial responsibility for our (future, theoretical) child. Specifically, I don’t want him to have to pay child support.

    I have always firmly believed that I would rather get an abortion than bear the child of a man I could not respect. Therefore, I will only have sex with a man I respect. Because I respect him, I will only bear his child if he gives me his permission to do so. Beyond that, I will still not ask him for financial support for this child. (I’m not saying that’s how everyone should do it. I’m saying that’s how I choose to do it.) I am smart enough, and strong enough, and powerful enough to pay for a child if I bear one. I don’t need that kind of help.

    However, I will ask that he plays with that child, and talks to that child, and teaches that child the lessons he thinks it is important for his children to learn. If I have a child, I would rather have a child who knows his Dad, than a Dad who paid for his child.

    That said, I went to this site, and I read through the comments. There are some very wise people here. And there are many angry people here.

    For example, Faultroy (forgive me if I single you out, you’re not the only one spewing this garbage): ” If you read the Bible, women are always whining and complaining about something. That is the nature of a woman…” and “One cannot accuse women of doing what comes naturally to them. By nature they are vindictive and backstabbing…” and “This is not me saying this but other women against each other.”

    Of course. Women. In the Bible. Saying all of this.

    He’s not the only one. I’ve read through more woman-hater trash on this site than I care to think about. The women hate men, the men hate women. No wonder nothing’s getting done.

    If everyone would make a tremendous effort for a minute and stop thinking of this as an “us against them” matter when really it’s a “wow, the system needs an overhaul” matter, maybe things would improve.

    Instead of complaining that people don’t like it when men are angry, stop letting your anger go spewing out in uncontrolled waves, and start making your anger work for you. Focus your thoughts. Instead of ranting about one part of the issue (“I believe abortion is a sin” or “we need a pill for men”) start focusing on the one thing all of us as a group want changed.

    Firstly, it seems like nobody here wants men to have to pay for children that aren’t really theirs, particularly if they didn’t want children in the first place. So, we can work on that first. Then, we could focus on another issue, like men being responsible for children they didn’t want in the first place. Same deal. If everybody can agree to agree on that one, isolated issue, maybe then something will happen.

    And when I say everybody, I mean everybody. That includes those feminist witches you hate so much. HOWEVER, if you keep calling women “whiny, vindictive, backstabbers”, I really doubt they’ll feel inclined to help you.

    Appeal to their emotions. Women are good with emotions. When women wanted change, they got angry, because men understand anger. If men want change, they should appeal to women’s emotions, because women will respond to something that pulls at their heartstrings.

    “Ma’am, your son’s 18, right? I know you don’t trust that girl he’s dating. What happens when she decides he’s Mr. Right? What happens when she tries to put him a cage or take his money? Perhaps the laws aren’t protecting your son. Perhaps the laws need to change.”

  2. skip Stroble on October 4, 2010 at 7:06 AM

    No one wants abused, neglected children abandoned to the streets. In a better world there would be no abortion or child support. Each child would be wanted, planned for, cared for and loved. But such is not the world nor will it be until we ourselves bring it about.

    It is the legal prerogative of every woman to terminate any pregnancy she doesn’t want for any reason. Granted stuff happens. But we justify giving her this after-the-fact opt-out by manipulating the definition of “child”: if she wants it, it’s a child; if she doesn’t, it’s not. And the reason we do that is because we as a society feel we literally can not expect women to stop having children they themselves can’t afford and nobody else wants to pay for. So what should we do as a society with all those insolvent breeders who simply refuse to stop breeding? Sterilize them? Lock them up? Pay for all their offspring? No, it’s much easier to let them terminate the non-children they don’t want and scapegoat the sperm-donors of those children they do. Women have an unspoken unassailable right to breed and men have an explicit incontestable obligation to pay. But this not what we should do.

    The male pill will go a long way in preventing convenient plays on definitions: couples having children because they both want children with each other at the same time. Giving him a choice will go a long way in discouraging coldly calculated, unwanted, unaffordable pregnancies. There is no “we” in “we’re pregnant” until “we” have a choice which “we” do not now have.

    And revising child-support guidelines will go a long way in preventing manipulation of those who we actually acknowledge as being real children. And manipulated those children most certainly are – after all, if someone is willing to kill or abandon a child for want of emotional readiness, that someone is most certainly willing to manipulate a child for want of money. Court-ordered child support should only be awarded in cases of demonstrable abuse, neglect or abandonment. I don’t want my girls learning the cheap empty monkey-talk and pseudo-victimization taught by modern feminists.

    The male pill is no panacea for our ills but along with female accountability, would make a good start.

  3. BrianBzed on September 3, 2010 at 5:23 PM

    great blog If you are the type to update your blog regulary, then you have gained one daily reader in me today. keep up the super work.

  4. Skip on May 21, 2010 at 10:24 PM

    Nobody wants to pay for children that aren’t theirs. So again, the question becomes what makes this thing-in-a-womb someone’s child? Pro-choice has already won its battle in court countless times with its solid objective science. But abortion is a social issue as well as a science issue. Pro-life is every bit as responsible for the way things are as pro-choice because pro-life has no scientific or social response other than hand-wringing, pontification and violence.

    Pro-choice demands to make the decisions yet they howl about child-poverty being so wrong and unfair. Pro-choice hides behind pro-life when it comes to money and pro-life lets them get away with it. As long as pro-life refuses to hold those making the decisions accountable for the decisions they make, things will never change – including child poverty and abortion.

    So what would happen if men too had a choice? Would abortions skyrocket because women would no longer be assured of the income needed to support their children and so kill them? But maybe abortions would decrease because a lot of these accidental pregnancies aren’t really accidental after all. Or maybe the number would remain flat because women already have children whether they can support them or not simply because it is their birthright as women to do so.

    No matter what the numbers do, do you really think things would stay the same if pro-choice had to help pay the tab for the consequences of being pro-choice? Right now they don’t have to and that’s the problem.

  5. Sam Radavan on May 16, 2010 at 9:32 PM

    How old is the child suppose to be in Florida in order for him to decide with which parent he would like to live?

  6. Dumbfounded on May 7, 2010 at 10:50 AM

    Wow…just when I thought we couldn't get any more ridiculous, I found this site!!! I am never disappointed in men's capacity for stupidity and egotism. We are nothing if not consistent(yes, I am a man, clearly I have been "bewitched" by the "coven"). Y'all rock. Now go drink some beer and have a pissing match so we can elevate our species. Oh, and hey, did you know that some frogs can self-fertilize? Maybe with a little modern genetic manipulation, we don't need women at all! But then, who among you wants to see an obstetrician?

    • TheKingofMen on January 6, 2012 at 12:47 AM

      Well said. ^_~

    • Marc A. on March 10, 2012 at 7:51 PM

      Well dumbfounded, like I said to Makaela, it's being a "baby" to fight back when you're denied custody over your kid because you have a penis, right? When in Germany, single dads have no rights over their child unless mom consents, that's no big deal, right? When forced labor laws back in 1930 exempted "able bodied males ages 18-45) from the ban on slavery, that was no big deal, right? Any man who complains about that is a baby, right? Same for being forced to wait longer than women do to retire, like in England and Israel, right? And getting higher criminal sentences because you're male, or denied public benefits because you're male, or denied DV services because you're male, denied rape protection because you're male (like the law in India). Yeah, men are "babies" for complaining about that. Real bright of you, Dumbfounded. I'm a little dumbfounded by your dumbness.

      • destroyedfathersunite on May 17, 2016 at 7:25 AM

        why is it that when a man say NO he is bypassed and labeled everything i.e. abuser, sexiest, or social medias favorite oppressor of women but when a woman says no she gets to invade everything for wallet to house hold walls. doesn’t that seem a bit sexiest? hmm? people like dumbfounded seem to want to make this issue a taboo thing like there are some weaker course of men and for what because it hasent happen to them or they cant see past the bias which is that a woman has more “humanity in the rite of birth and a man serves as a utility”, but this would be for someone as dumbfounded as mr/ms. dumbfounded to say that i am arguing one extreme to the next. what i find funny is that in all these other countries but especially AMERICA social media bias has not only destroyed The purpose, image, faith etc etc. of a man. So what are we left with in this delusional illusion of society?women trying to fill the places of men and objectify themselves so they can “identify as a social independent” and in the eyes of “law” word games is all a man i left to be confused with or by.. its time this social bias ends

    • Unknown on March 25, 2022 at 10:45 AM

      Learn to see the other side of the coin, there is no justification for what youre saying

  7. sally s on May 3, 2010 at 3:01 PM

    OK, so I agree with a everything I’ve read about men’s rights except for this one. My opinion is undoubtedly colored by the fact that I am pro life. I also admit that I don’t know much about family court. I do not, however, believe that a woman should be cornered into killing her child, giving it to strangers or raising it in poverty. Who’s responsibility is it to make sure these children aren’t raised in poverty? Is it mine? NO THANK YOU. I pay enough taxes already. Now, do I think there should be some serious reform in child support laws? Yes, I absolutely do. But the idea that a man can “abort” his child is ridiculous. Signing away your parental rights is very different than killing a child in your womb, or giving that child away. I hate to say it, but this is one way that life just isn’t fair. That being said, I do think there needs to be some serious reform in child support laws.

  8. Acrimonious on April 17, 2010 at 6:48 PM

    Men just need to be the responsible gender because women have made it clear that they will not be.

    She says she’s on the pill? She needs to give the pill to you to inspect to be sure it is actually the birth control pill and must take it in front of you as well as show a clear mouth that it has been taken. After that, you still wear the condom, because hey, reduce the risk, it doesn’t feel as good and is a slight pain in the butt but a child is a bigger pain if you are not ready. If she doesn’t agree to do so, she isn’t worth your time, find another. Here is your choice right here.

    There of course is many methods of subversion that the woman can do in this case including induced vomiting to remove the pill from her digestive system, and sabotage of the condom, a better method is a vasectomy. Chances of complication are extremely low (not zero) and you get the added benefit of potentially ruining someone’s scheme.

    The men who engage in spontaneous unprotected sex with a random female that “claims” she is on the pill or better yet, infertile (laughable, this nearly never happens), are making a bad decision because you are having sex with someone who could be untrustworthy or have the maturity level of a twelve year old.

    You may take this post as an effort to paint every woman as an immature, irresponsible, near useless leech of society. This is not the purpose of this. However there is ALWAYS a chance you can run into a person like this REGARDLESS OF GENDER. HOWEVER, currently, women hold the power so men like this can only think and not take any real action (without legal consequences). Why risk it? A woman who cares about you in a relationship will not be offended by your precautions since she should not want a child either and would probably force you to wear the condom or you two are obviously incompatible 😛

    • kenna on October 25, 2012 at 12:56 PM

      Why would you want to treat the woman your willing to have sex with as if she is a child or a mental health inpatient? If you do not trust her enough to be honest about taking her birth control pills, why are you having sex with her?

      There are seriously immature women and men in the world. This has nothing to do with gender, and your post is immature and unreasonable.

      Its simple, just protection and don’t sleep with women that are untrustworthy. That means taking time to get to know someone, and having the social skills to know the difference.

  9. Rick on March 29, 2010 at 11:08 AM

    Well I would like to say three things. First, Sara, you sound like both an excellent mother and a logical thinking human being. To MAKAELA, what is laughable is when people use things that happened in the PAST, not to anyone who is alive NOW, to justify feeling sorry for themselves, expecting others to feel sorry for them, and expecting others to feel guilty for what their ancestors did, NOT them. And finally, just a quick comment on the subject at hand. If women have the right to decide whether or not they want to be a child's mother, then men have to have the right to decide whether they want to be the child's father.

  10. Skip on March 15, 2010 at 5:23 AM

    Of course guys don’t want to wear condoms. Of course they rely on their partners who enjoy the luxury of a pill. Of course they get pissed when they’re told that the pill is no longer in play – that a profound change in the relationship has just been made unilaterally without any prior discussion or notice whatsoever. Of course they’re angry. These guys just realized that their “partners” haven’t been taking their pills thoughout the current relationship nor down through the many years and boyfriends that came before just because it was much easier and more convenient that she do so; and it most certainly wasn’t because it had anything at all to do with her respecting any boyfriend’s wish not to become a dad just yet. Guys make the mistake of thinking that her pill is all about mutually unwanted pregnancies when there is nothing mutual at all about it. It’s a real eye-opener when they finally figure that one out. They’ve been manipulated and trumped so now they’re pissed. That they sometimes stick around means they’ve bought into the relationship past the point of easy departure. This ain’t rocket science.

    Now admittedly, this is only one of many possible reasons a guy could get mad. And I won’t even bother responding to the whiny stuff about the awfulness of being woman.

    While adoption is a noble option (though I disagree that wanting your children to have your genes is selfish), it does point out something fundamentally wrong with our country: America is a place where a dad needs sole legal title to his kids just to avoid being separated from them at his own expense and then bled afterward. Men should not have to adopt just to be considered parents in equal standing. Men must start taking parenthood just as seriously and as selfishly as women do. Men must demand more and better reproductive options and parental considerations.

    If his genes make it his child then abortion is literally baby killing. If she has a choice then he gets a choice because conception does not a baby make – so sayeth Roe v Wade.

  11. lil on March 11, 2010 at 3:28 PM

    can anyone offer the name or names of a lawyer in washington state who is an advocate of law interested in helping someone in a situation that began with papers being served for a surprise child who was 3 old and has unraveled into tens of thousands in arrears, a cleaned out bank account, a suspended driving license, a suspended passport, and a conviction to make sure the pursuit of happiness of a man who engaged in a consentual relationship with a woman who secretly had a child without his knowledge is supressed to the point of suicide contemplation. We’ve been looking and talking to many lawyers but no one seems to be interested in helping in any other way than to get money to submit papers but not take on a cause. Any information would be greatly appreciated…!

  12. tiago on March 2, 2010 at 3:39 PM

    if a man wants to have a son or a daughter, he should consider adoption at first place. this is a responsible and realistic way to deal with the will to raise a family.

    it is selfish, not only in the gender relations, but also socially, to wish a child for its genetic similitude to the parent's.

    plus, one should be able to chose whether she would experience an extreme process such as pregnancy. the physical and psychological impact of that is something not known to males.

  13. Makaela on February 28, 2010 at 4:04 AM

    As far as choices for men go…

    The only reason there's no male birth control pill is because there's not enough interest in it! I mean, most guys don't even wanna wear a rubber, for Christ sake! And then they wanna blame the woman when she gets pregnant.

    Does any man have any idea what an awful situation that is to be in? You are responsible for another human life. You have to share your body with another person for nine months.

    It shouldn't matter if the father wants the baby or not. It's still his kid. It's still half his genetic material, his flesh and blood, his responsibility. So what if you have to pay monthly child support? You should be grateful. You could have actually been pregnant, throwing up all day every day for months, becoming heavier and more unable to do things by yourself, and then – to top it all off – having to squeeze a human being out of your vagina, possibly ripping it open pretty good in the process.

    I find it funny that men complain now, when for THOUSANDS of years women had to deal with the anytime-anywhere impulses of men. Men can be such babies. Women put up with all kinds of unfair treatment, and now that the tables have finally turned the men don't like it – suddenly they can't perform the way their supposed to.

    It's laughable.

    • Marc A. on March 10, 2012 at 7:48 PM

      Yeah Makaela, it's being a "baby" to fight back when you're denied custody over your kid because you have a penis, right? When in Germany, single dads have no rights over their child unless mom consents, that's no big deal, right? When forced labor laws back in 1930 exempted "able bodied males ages 18-45) from the ban on slavery, that was no big deal, right? Any man who complains about that is a baby, right? Same for being forced to wait longer than women do to retire, like in England and Israel, right? And getting higher criminal sentences because you're male, or denied public benefits because you're male, or denied DV services because you're male, denied rape protection because you're male (like the law in India). Yeah, men are "babies" for complaining about that. Real good, Makaela.

  14. Skip on February 21, 2010 at 6:10 AM

    “Hey boys, let's meet back of the church after prayers, drink us some beers and slap around the women folk. That sound like fun?” Damn monkeys.

    Of course, a guy's only other option seems to be "Yes dear, whatever you say dear. I'm going to be a daddy? How wonderful! What? You might not want keep it afterall? Oh, well, whatever you decide whenever you decide it dear. Oh, and not to worry dear, if that still isn't good enough, you take the kids when we split up and I'll babysit whenever it's convenient for you…plus I'll be sure to supper-size a paycheck to go along with those kids of mine that I love so much. Just tell me what a real man would do because I'm a real man and all I ask is an opportunity to prove it. Is that ok dear?" Hell, that's no man, that's a lapdog.

    A woman's place is on her own two feet, not on some guy's head or under his heal. Some women have shown the same brutish proclivity to advance oneself at any cost and by any means as some men did and obviously still would given the opportunity. Nothing has really changed much – it's just that now we throw our sons into the river to drown instead of our daughters.

    We're not just talking about what has happened to us or someone we know, we're talking about what's going to happen to own children and our children's children. We live in a push-button age, so having to sacrifice our sons for the sake of our daughters is a false choice given that our daughters are every bit as capable of fending for themselves as our sons are. I for one am tired of my girls being taught otherwise…with my sons being expected to pick up the tab for this continued learned helplessness.

    Get mad.

    • Whine with that cheese? on March 1, 2013 at 7:41 PM

      Skip, those are all good points about learned helplessness….raising two boys with a dad that works 70+ hours a week is not easy, but i manage, plus work full time, plus take care of house, elderly parents, their house…its exhausting. So, when is it going to change, when is it going to get better? The truth is when everyones attitudes change, when we stop preventing women from taking more responsibility for the outcomes in their lives, when we stop looking at their physical appearance and stop passing judgment based on looks, when we begin to value contribution, collaboration, instead of purposely tripping them up as they try to navigate an ever more difficult world that does not seem to want to make room for them…everyone has burdens to carry, but the burden of being unwanted – whether its in the family pecking order, or the work place, is a burden passed on to the rest of society…its not fun, its a matter of great importance, the kind that no one seems to be able discuss rationally, because it means giving space to new ideas, new realities, letting go of old prejudices. Everyone is on that life journey, tread slowly, listen, learn, ask questions, think things through from all perspectives, understand long term outcomes are based on short term decisions – only truth sets us free provided we are willing to hear it: the state-us-quo & education level is making everyone incapable of functioning on their own so more indebted servants can be borne, once this realization hits, everything begins to take on a new meaning, research and activism for change take on a new scope. last but not least, peace be with everyone on that journey… life its not so easy, when all around you there is hate, instead of hope.

      • NCFM on March 2, 2013 at 8:58 AM

        Whine with that cheese, thank you. Very well said. Hate may be the most destructive force in the universe. It has little value here, on earth, for sure. Unfortunately, those who work only for those like themselves in the mirror see nothing but their own likeness. Diversity is one thing, but when diversity includes only those in the mirror, others, out of view, become nothing of value except as targets of disdain. For the past 30 years or so those who consider themselves “marginalized” are gathered, grouped, and exploited by a few self-serving, spiteful, often deranged, and completely myopic ideological grand-standers who give lip service to those in the mirror at the great expense of those out of view who see more than themselves. The grand-standers are a destructive force that takes no responsibility for anything, not even their role in history which over time will show them to be the destructive force they truly are.

  15. Jon on February 15, 2010 at 7:42 AM

    It's simple, The Child support system is a multi-billion a year industry. There are a lot of state of state & Fed jobs that depend on a steady supply of illegitimate children and high Divorce rate. We have all heard of the the Military/Industrial complex, well what we have here is a illegitimate child & Family court complex. Do not underestimate the amount of money involved, or how morally corrupt it is.

  16. Darrell on January 14, 2010 at 3:13 AM

    WOW! Just simply WOW!

    Sorry for my over-enthusiasm. I really did not realize that there was this sort of dialogue taking place anywhere. It is so refreshing to see men and women in here making such valid points about the pathetic state of "family court".
    I am certainly a veteran in this war and totally agree that it takes a terrible toll on the non-custodial parent as well as the children. There are a few things though that I have never understood.
    I came to the understanding that Roe-v-Wade was a matter of privacy and not so much a matter of choice. In the Sonia Sotomayor confiremation hearings recently, she stated that the matter of privacy is protected by the Constitution and that Roe-v-Wade is a closed issue. I did notice that not once did she mention that the ruling protects the privacy of women. Why does it not protect men's privacy just the same? Please don't tell me there are two Consititutions…one for women and another just for men? I have read a ruling from the State of Michigan, where a single man did in fact use the historic Supreme Court ruling and won in a lower court. After the State Attorney General got wind, he filed a motion with the State Supreme Court of Michigan which struck down the lower court's ruling. At which time the man was ordered to pay restitution to the state for it's time in pursuing him. In other words, don't any of you single men out there get any bright ideas in your head!
    I have a little better understanding of why men are not granted the same basic rights as women from reading the comments submitted here by others. For that I thank the owners of this site and hope to garnish an even better understanding.

  17. bill on January 13, 2010 at 8:13 PM

    I also grow tired of hearing about people commenting on how angry people are “the angry man syndrome” Well when you constantly get screwed over and getting bullied what the hell is the natural response… a ned flanders okely dokley with a shitty ass grin on your face and carry on…..get real

  18. bill on January 13, 2010 at 12:07 PM

    the arguments are simple and logical against all the family court bullshit but the politics as always posions it to a point of nearly no return

  19. bill on January 13, 2010 at 12:06 PM

    wake up guys,,,, this is a major problem throughout the world. Men in family court is the same as a woman in india… all this mayhem by the system is purposely done. Its not by happen chance. I dont see things ever changing except for the worse (if thats possible….and it is) because how do we make the system who wants this corruption and mayhem in place change it ways? Lets face too, guys havent really united together in all this and fight things to the supreme court and im not talking through a lawyer , im talking about educating urself and learning how things work and getting the back up to challenge "law" to the highest courts,, you dont want to leave things to a lawyer cause they couldnt care less.

  20. Phill on December 13, 2009 at 6:34 AM

    I feel that all men need to get back together. Lets put the women where they belong. Back into the homes without a possibility of usurping the power of a man figure in the house. We need to vote a law disbanding the NOW and other groups responsible for tearing up society. Now we have highest rate for women infidelity in the country. Men need to abandon the alcohol to become a big part of the family unit. dragging the children to church and build the united states back on its feet as a christian nation.

    • Fred on December 22, 2011 at 1:32 AM

      You are disgusting. Such a sexist pig.

  21. violetred on December 8, 2009 at 9:28 AM

    Deborah, maybe you need to learn how to read. There is nothing in my post that suggests I’m angry. I was stating a fact. I get along great with my son’s father and my son is now 18, a high school graduate and in an apprenticeship program to become a electrician just like his dad. I wasn’t angry when I became pregnant as I said my son’s father was pissed. I was overjoyed as I was and am a successful woman who even at that time owned my home, had a great job and wonderful support from my family. I know all about birth control as I didn’t have my son until I was 30 years old. I never said I was raped nor that I didn’t want to have sex with my son’s father so really, what the heck are you talking about. Let me repeat, my son’s father was angry and he chose not to wear a condom. You are disgusting because you read awhole lot more into my post than what I actually said. Also disgusting was your stupid advice for me to get back at him. I never said I wanted to get back at him. He’s paid child support for 18 years – a hefty sum I might add. I am educated and self sufficient so I don’t need to get back at anyone. Maybe you do.

  22. single digit midgits on November 29, 2009 at 11:13 AM

    I'm almost at the end of my court ordered child support payments. I still don't know why they enforce this peculiar sytem, but I have to admit that the women pulled the rug right out from under the legislative body when they passed this stuff. I'm a witness to all the destructive power that it has on a family & it is UGLY!

    I'm sure it will be reviewed as it continues to hit close-to-home to more and more of the political class. Judges, attorneys, and other court members are also realizing the severe emotional damage that it is causing when they get caught up in their own system after their wives decide that it is OVER and take the kids to begin a new life.

    And who came up with that 'loose your professional license' if you miss payments. After you have to give her the house, the auto, then pay $1,000 a month, how the heck do buy & pay your own house, auto, and cost of living bills?

    To the lawyer guys reading this from my perspective today, you should make an effort now to change the laws before your future ex-wives drag you to court & successfully tag your paycheck for the majority of your lives. Or don't & just sit there and appreciate it.

    Good luck to everyone with this bizarre world we live in.

  23. Skip on November 27, 2009 at 9:18 AM

    It’s difficult to swallow the proposition that a loving, caring, omnipotent, omniscient God could be so impotent, arbitrary and capricious as to invoke “because I say so”. That sounds more like someone desparate to have his way but unable to defend it without resorting to apeish brute force aka Devine Retribution.

    If abortion is murder then make a case more compelling than simply proclaiming it so on personal authority from God. If men should just keep their pants on, then make a case why they should even as women are taking theirs off. I for one promise to start listening again.

    Women are the way they are because men are the way they are because women are the way they are because men…ad nauseum. If men don’t like the way women are then men need to stop treating women the way they do. The same goes for women. The world is the way it is because we are the way we are. Of course, changing the world assumes we are also a species capable of higher levels of moral reasoning than a bunch of nasty little monkeys fresh down from the trees hellbent on mutual assured self-destruction.

    Men don’t need to start changing diapers, they need to start insisting they do so. Women don’t need to start earning their own living, they need to start insisting they do so. Children don’t need to start raising themselves, they need to start insisting their parents do so…well, that last one might be asking a bit too much. Maybe adults ought to start teaching children how to pray to God that their parents wake up, grow up and stop simply praying for Devine Intervention.

    No woman will ever be my equal until she actually stands on her own two feet. I will be no woman’s equal until I actually raise my children. The Annointed Of God will have nothing useful to say until they actually do.

    Kids first, parents second. God can hold His Own.

  24. Sara on November 17, 2009 at 2:46 AM

    WOW…this crazy world amazes me every day. I am a single mother of a beautiful little boy. I get $75 dollars a week from his father for child support (not court ordered). He sees his father every week from Sunday to tuesday, and even though talking to his father every night I have him, before he goes to bed, isn't the highlight of my day, it means soo much to him to talk to his daddy (he does the same when with him). Everything I do when I make decisions about this whole child custody thing revolves around my son…NOT ME…or how much money I need. His fathers a pain in my ass, but hey thats my problem. Im not gonna treat him like a criminal because of it, and I refuse to let my child suffer for one second about this breakup! It has only been a year since it all began, and it has been a scary struggle for me. The court system is soo upside down. I dont know how people deal with this heart wrenching problem. I dont know what I would do if I was to only see my son every other weekend or if I was that child in the middle of the conflict. It doesnt make sense. I thought that the love of a parent towards their child is a completely unselfish love. Thats how I feel. I would rather die than hurt my child like that. I certainly couldnt put that kind of heartache on another human being, unless I thought my child was truely in harms way. I think that people need to grow up and deal with the consiquences of their decisions. If your a woman that got pregnant and want the child and the father doesnt. It is just as much your right to accept the obligation or not, as it is his. If he doesn't want it thats his decision. If you dont want it thats yours. The only issue that is hard is if he wants it and you dont. Well if you really didnt want children you should have doubled up on birth control, and if he cant respect your wishes to use birth control, why are you with him in the first place?

    • Barbara Clark on October 11, 2010 at 12:00 PM

      This is a reply to Sara:

      I think you got it right. Children are children. They aren’t weapons. Everyone’s so busy complaining about men’s right and women’s rights. If everyone focused on the children themselves (the original object of this entire debate) things would flow much, much more smoothly. Unfortunately, this world is full of people who can’t behave like adults– both men and women– so we end up making laws to try and keep things fair. Then the laws break down and we need new laws, which is why everyone on here has something to say about an issue that would really be quite simple if all the people in the world were more focused on the most important issue: what is best for this child?

  25. Deborah on November 12, 2009 at 10:05 PM


    RE: your post of 11/11
    “How about using a CONDOM??? Although they are not 100% that simple act would cut down on unwanted pregnacy from the male’s point of view. My son’s father refused to wear a condom but insisted on getting busy. When I got pregnant he got pissed.”

    You destroyed your own point with the key words “they are not 100%”. Sadly, even sterilization is not 100% if you are a man. (I’ll get to that in a moment – you’ll love it.)

    I’m sorry you are so angry – I can see why. Having no ability to communicate the simple word “NO” – or the knowledge to utilize birth control on your own. Please, visit your local Planned Parenthood. They have great educational programs to help you understand how to avoid pregnancy.

    Then, go visit your local Women’s Center or find a good counselor that can help you better relate to men so you won’t continue this – or end up in another – abusive relationship with someone that would rape you.

    That is, I can only assume he raped you, if “NO” didn’t work. Or maybe you’re unaware that you have that right.

    Here’s a great way to get back at him: get pregnant by another man. Most states will make him pay for supporting that child, even after he proves it’s not his.

    That should get him.

    You poor dear….

    Now pardon me while I lose my dinner…. I can’t believe there are still women that know so little – and respect so few. It disgusts me.

  26. Violetred on November 11, 2009 at 6:49 AM

    How about using a CONDOM??? Although they are not 100% that simple act would cut down on unwanted pregnacy from the male's point of view. My son's father refused to wear a condom but insisted on getting busy. When I got pregnant he got pissed.

  27. mike on November 6, 2009 at 9:52 AM

    Abortion is murder. I could only agree in medical cases. I read most of these post and I have yet hear anyone say that MEN are as capable of raising their childern. For what reason do women automatically gain custody? Sexiisssmm! The courts basically state that men are unfit because they are incapable of loving their childern. Personal experences have proven to me that men love just as much, maybe more. God intended that a child be raised by a male and a female. He designed each sex to provide different approaches, which compliment each other, giving the child a well rounded up-bringing. But! If I had to pick a parent – given that a father is a father and a mother a mother, I would pick the father. I have seen enough single moms claiming to love their kid/s while failing to prepare them for the world. It is easier to sit back and let the kid/s have their way. Women have a hard time (emotionally) making their children mind. It hurts a father (emotionally) to discipline their childern but most men understand that WE must teach our kids. If we don't the world will i.e. drugs,gangs,suicides,crime, murder etc. It is a God given duty but satan seeks to destroy the family so he goes after the God decreeded head of the family; the father. Remove the father and the family falls apart, the family falls apart and the nation falls apart.
    Men no longer know what it is to be a man/father. Society has demonized fathers as stupid invalids incapable of anything but being a stud horse for breeding and providing. They have trained us that it is unmanly to open our mouth in demand of our rights. -a real man sucks it up- If a women cries in court she is a "poor dear thing", if a man shows anger because they are taking his kids unjustly he is a violent man who should be locked behind bars. There are so many issues just about the family court system that men should march over I forget them all and then add in equality,military etc.
    Womens rights,equality, child abuse, affrimative action are all issues that needed to be addressed but we have gone so far to that other side that we have done more harm than good. Please, Pray for our childern, our country, and our men!

    • Devin on December 21, 2011 at 2:06 AM

      Did you know that a woman's body can naturally abort a baby if the baby is not developing properly? And even if the baby is developing properly the woman's body can still abort.

      Is this still murder?

      =_= Your argument that it is a "God given duty" is moot, considering not all women and men believe in your God. Try again. And this time don't sound stupid and biased.

  28. Skip on October 29, 2009 at 1:41 AM

    I don't know which Old Guard message I despise the most. The one that says women are hapless, helpless, feckless and burdensome, or the one that says their place in the world is as some guy's live-in maid, nanny, house manager and bed buddy…and all the while not complaining about it either. I would no more turn back the hands of time to some 1950's Holy Land than to a time when men huddled around the campfire outside the cave whispering "Don't go in there Fred, there's Woman Magic going on!" How about we all Evolve already.

    While the male-pill would be a Godsend, it is really just an avatar for a much larger issue: Family. As far as I'm concerned, Family is who I say it is – who I decide to give my life, devotion, blood, sweat and tears to. Yet just because I decide to raise my child doesn't mean I must also raise my child's mother. If things don't work out between mom and me, I'll care for the kids when they're with me and she can provide for them when they're with her. Let's just see how grabby she gets with them then.

    I demand to choose when and with whom I become a father. I demand assurance that my kid is truly of my loins. I demand unbiased consideration if I choose to adopt. I demand to raise my child without also having to raise its mother.

    Of course, I may be wrong. Maybe women are exactly what the Old Guard says they are. If that's indeed the case, then I certainly don't want /anyone's/ daughter running for President, now do I? And maybe I should be extremely vocal about that too.

  29. Marc A. on October 6, 2009 at 10:56 AM

    This is a response to Faultroy

    "In addition, men have traditionally taken a cavalier attitude with respect to household responsibilities."

    Not true. They have done their fair share of housework given their share of work outside the home. A recent 25-nation study by economists from Berlin, Brussels and Texas, which included rich and poor nations, found men do as much work as women when all types of work are combined.

    A University of Maryland study found the total workloads of married mothers and fathers is roughly equal when paid work is added to child care and housework, at 65 hours a week for mothers and 64 hours for fathers.

    And a University of Michigan study found women work an average of 11 hours more housework per week more than men while men an average of 14 hours per week more than women outside the home.

    "The problem is not with women."

    We have not said the problem is with women. The problem is more related to systemic bias driven by gender-feminist politics, chivalry, male gender-roles and misandry. Both men and women are to some extent at fault, but neither sex is solely or entirely to blame.

    "Men are the ones that are consistently violating the rights of other males."

    This is partly true, but not entirely. Feminism, which is mostly made up of women, has specificially promoted discriminatory anti-male policies, such as by opposing shared parenting laws, promoting gender-specific domestic violence laws, refusing to acknowledge the frequency and seriousness of abused men and of false rape accusations, etc. etc.

    As an organization we do not take any position that one sex is morally superior or inferior to another. Our battle is for equal rights, treatment and dignity for men, and against misandry and anti-male discrimination. We are not about attacking or criticizing any sex or gender. And our membership includes both men and women of various backgrounds and beliefs.

    • Aron on December 22, 2011 at 1:28 AM

      Actually, there are millions of men involved in feminism.

    • Aron on December 22, 2011 at 1:29 AM

      And involved in feminist movements.

      • Marc on April 16, 2012 at 6:54 PM

        Yes. I said “mostly made up of women.” That is still true, despite there being many male feminists.

  30. faultroy on September 28, 2009 at 3:49 AM

    I'm very familiar with the growing problem of male discrimination and the loss of male rights. I'm also aware of the hypocrital societal attitude of giving women a free ride and blaming men when things go wrong.
    However the reality is that women are not the ones responsible. It is men. Statiscally women are in a definite minority
    within the legal system and in the legislative branches. In the USA there are 5.5 million more women than men, and 5 million more women voters than men. In addition, men have traditionally taken a cavalier attitude with respect to household responsibilities. As a matter of fact, the last two male generations have taken the attitude of "Okay, if women think they can do things better than men, then let them." Males have definitely become effeminized to the point where we don't even recognize the problem–but women do. By nature, men are very easily manipulated by women–and they always use sex to further that manipulation. Over the centuries, men have always known and subliminally understood both the manner and degree of manipulation. But the last two generations for reasons that I am not aware of have defacto subordinated their historic masculinity in favor of a feminine paradigm.
    Yes, we have a very strong and vocal Feminist movement in this country, but in reality they have very little sway when it comes to the nuts and bolts of living a life for the average women. Women demand to become pregnant and raise children–it is in their DNA–they have no choice. And the articles that you read about women not needing a male to raise children is nothing more than hyperbole.
    The problem is not with women. If you read the Bible, women are always whining and complaining about something. That is the nature of a woman. And males have always handled it in a reasonable even handed manner. The problem is with Men. Men are the ones that are consistently violating the rights of other males. In order for a male movement to get off the ground, this fact must be realized. One cannot accuse women of doing what comes naturally to them. By nature they are vindictive and backstabbing. They are constantly looking for "advantage in." This is not me saying this but other women against each other. A woman is biologically programed to do anything and everything to benefit their offspring. We even see this in animals. Because of the inherent lazyness and lack of concern by men in protecting their own self interest, it will probably be women that ultimately launch a counter offensive against these unjust practices–again to protect their own self interests. One has to keep in mind that most men wind up with another woman after a horrible breakup. These other women must suffer along with their men in personal and financial hardships–and their new offspring if they have any. For the life of me I cannot understand why men choose to blame women for their own inadequacies in dealing with real societal issues. Instead of complaining about the problem, we must initiate and implement proactive and rational laws to protect both sexes. To date, we have no means of doing this. By given adequate protections to men,
    we indirectly negatively affect the interests of children and women. Society as a whole and the courts in particular have indicated that this is an unacceptable solution. Instead of pursuing this in an adversarial way, the best way to attack this problem is to educate men in the pitfalls and problems they will encounter in terms of being wholly and solely responsible for the financial welfare and raising of their offspring–whether they choose offspring of not. Then, if they get into trouble, it is their fault and no one else's. The education process is very frustrating because men with their arrogant attitudes always think it will not happen to them. They are shocked and dismayed when they find out their women lied to them.
    Surprise!!!People always lie and this is true for both genders. Traditionally women have always lied if for no other reason than the fact that they had very few civil rights in a male patriarcal society. For the most part, women in the past have never needed these rights because men have always taken on the responsiblity for providing for their women and children. The only difference at this current point in our societal history is that it is becoming much more painful and expensive than in years past. The fact that women are in a plurality both in sheer numbers and as voters, not to mention the fact that they are instrumental in making about 90 percent of financial decisions and household purchases, giving women the right to vote was tantamount to male suicide as in a democracy, the majority vote rules. It is too late to complain now, men have to accept the status quo and make the best of it.

  31. Cornel on September 9, 2009 at 1:15 AM

    Yes, we really do need choice for men. Equality for men is a very serious matter now that most of men's rights have been taken away. There are thousands of men who literally live on the street or in their car because of unfair divorce settlements, unfair child support and alimony payments that are not based on the needs of the child, but are based on politics. For these men, we need to develop some sort of economic underground railroad to financial freedom from economic slavery for these men, much like the underground railroad for Black slaves that took them to physical freedom from physical slavery. After all, as Ghandi said, "the worst form of violence is poverty", and unfair levels of child support payments and alimony payments coupled with unfair economic rape in a divorce court has put thousands of men into poverty. If two people share the care of a child, why should their be child support payments? If each in a divorce is a complete adult, why should their be alimony? It's all so unfair, it's the biggest forced transfer of wealth from one gender to another in human history.

  32. Barry Jernigan on July 23, 2009 at 12:00 AM

    To those here who want to keep harping how awful it was for women in the past and how women didn't have the same rights as men and were considered property, blah,blah, blah etc etc ad nauseum. I'm a genealogist and we find documentation to prove our ancestry. We go by that and I can tell you that the feminists are definitely giving you a screwed up version of history. Free black women owned large plantations and OWNED other black people as slaves. Native Americans (like the Cherokees) OWNED black people as slaves. The vast majority of Englishmen in the Virginia colonies in the 1620s were servants. According to the LAW (look it up, ladies if you have the guts to see THE TRUTH) those Englishmen were considered PROPERTY owened by other English men and even owned by English WOMEN. Until the feminists want to truly talk about THE TRUTH I have no interest in ANYTHING they want to say. And one more thing. Who built the buildings where your covens gather to promote your hatred of my kind? Could it be…Oh I don't know…Satan! 😉 Just kidding no actually you may THINK we're Satan but it was men. I frankly think when enough men get sick and tired of you we will STOP constructing ANY buildings for you. We will STOP marrying you. STOP giving you children. STOP risking our lives to protect and defend you. STOP risking our lives to mine worthless rocks for you to wear. And frankly STOP loving you or caring about you at all. Be thankful for guys that aren't as disgusted as I am about the whole stupid mess. They are about the only ones who still think any of you are worth all that trouble. I definitely have much more important things to concentrate on — like surviving in a failing economy.

    • Aron on December 22, 2011 at 1:27 AM

      If you stop doing those things, then the human race will die out. 😛 Just saying.

      So question. If you are so disgusted…are you gay? Nothing wrong with that. Not at all. You sound extremely anti-female and therefore I must wonder. 😯

  33. Barry Jernigan on July 20, 2009 at 12:22 AM

    In reference to Paternity Fraud I don't often see this point being made and that it is in fact ILLEGAL (in Tennessee at least and perhaps in all states and maybe even in the UK?) for a woman to KNOWINGLY falsify a government document or provide false information for it. A birth cert is a GOVERNMENT document. It is called PERJURY in TN and is a misdemeanour. If she then takes the man to court and in court LIES under oath she is GUILTY of AGGRAVATED PERJURY — a Class D Felony here in TN punishable by imprisonment. Guys – push the courts to DO THEIR JOB and follow the laws already on the books and put these women where they belong — IN JAIL!

    Or put another way — If the courts don't respect the law — why should I or any other man in our screwed up system?

    Thank god we don't have a draft anymore! lol You couldn't pay me enough to support a system that is such a joke! And the women who keep defending it.

    Barry Jernigan
    Pres, NCFM-KY/TN

  34. Skip on June 26, 2009 at 12:54 AM

    The message I want my sons and daughter, granddaughter and grandson (so far) to be getting is that self-determination carries with it personal obligations and only by accepting personal responsibility for those obligations does one realize true self-respect. I want mine to have the courage to choose their path with eyes wide open. And developing in them an actual history of self-reliance begets that courage. Their decision, their responsibility; plain and simple.

    In reality, this is not a men’s rights issue but a responsible parenting mandate. No one kills that which they would also have me call my child – no one kills my child, not even me. This conversation must be moved out of the blogosphere and into the mainstream public domain.

    Choice for men is an easy argument to make given choice for women. Anything else is basically telling fathers that their obligations to their children only begin when mothers give such things permission to live. Aside from the obvious moral and intellectual bankruptcy of this if-and-only-if proposition, how can anyone really expect men to buy into fatherhood at all? That guys do anyway is a testament only to their materialistic dedication not paternal involvement. And hasn’t that always been the issue? And isn’t that exactly what is being demanded?

  35. Steve on June 14, 2009 at 4:22 AM

    The highest court of the land has made it quite clear that the creation of life is a decision made by an individual, not a couple. Both are involved in conception but the courts have determined that conception is not the beginning of life; the creation of life is an individual decision. Current law provides that one individual is held responsible, against his will when necessary, for a decision made by another individual.

  36. Sherry on June 2, 2009 at 12:39 PM

    I fully am a firm believer that a man should have the same rights as a woman. Why should we as women be able to make that choice for them on fatherhood. It is their right as well as our right. I feel the government needs to allow for men the right to choose just like they do us. I am a parent of two children, and I do not believe if I made the choice and he did not make the choice to have these children he should be forced into this. I feel in the long run the parents of the child and the children will suffer a great amount of resentment and pain that niether party should be put through. I would stand up for the equal rights of men hands down.

  37. Skip on May 13, 2009 at 2:49 AM

    What is happening to men today is just as egregious as what happened to women yesterday. And it took women’s anger to change women’s lot. To dismiss male anger in light of women’s history is hypocrisy at its finest. The climate for men has not changed. And men need to get mad, mad as hell, at the institutionalized misandry that exists in family and paternity law. Anger worked for women back in day and the only way it will be counterproductive for men in this day is if women listen now better than men did then. But feminist listening has never been a big part of this very one-sided conversation. Women should not blanch at male anger but embrace it just as the “enlightened” men of yore did Hers. That guys should swallow their outrage is telling.

    I will entertain the notion of feminism actually listening when it stops interjecting its running commentary about women’s plight, past and present. When my daughter gets walked on, I get pissed. When she gets raped, I get homicidal. What I don’t do is talk about what a rough day at the office I had or how last year’s taxes really killed me. Me listening to her without focus and emotional buy-in on the topic at hand is…well hell, I might as well be reading the newspaper. So where is women’s anger over the treatment of the men in their lives? I remember their anger over their own treatment. I remember a lot of angry men all worked up over women’s treatment.

    That the laws are the way they are is a mute point until we can get a handle on why they should be changed. What we change them with is a good solid operational definition of what equality actually means. Let me give it a stab: I reserve no right for myself that I don’t first grant to others; I make no demand on others that I don’t first demand of myself. There is no unreasonable child support due if men can just say no. There is no unreasonable child support due if preferential custody is given only in cases of demonstrable abuse, neglect or abandonment. There is no unreasonable child support due if each parent is expected to provide for the kids according to their own ability.

    Again, fairness is simply not a good reason to change, but self-consistency and equal expectations are. No, men should not have the right to force a pregnancy to term (how many times does that dead dog need to be beat?); but wouldn’t it be a better world if we respected his point of view on the matter and then enabled her, if she so chose, to accommodate it without any strings attached to either one of them? And dare I say it, maybe even encourage her to do so. After all, we are talking about mutual respect here are we not? And if we are then where is feminism’s indignation? Where is men’s? After all, men have sons too don’t they? Sons that count? Heck, I’ll fight for them since it’s too late for me. And I'm only good at fighting when I'm good and mad.

  38. hmmm on April 24, 2009 at 7:08 PM

    Another quick point about why it is so difficult to change these laws. You have to remember the interests of the state. If the custodial parent needs to go on TANF (welfare), they MUST file for child support from the noncustodial parent first in order to receive state assistance. The payments are then paid, not to the custodial parent, but to the state. The custodial parent (in this case we are referring to a mother) would not receive any of this money unless the amount is more than she receives in her TANF payment.

    So the child support payments are very often not used to reduce the burden on the custodial parent, but to reduce the burden on the state. So this pits male reproductive rights against the state’s interest, which is a very difficult fight.

  39. hmmm on April 23, 2009 at 7:18 PM

    I am a woman and very much agree that men should have equal rights to terminate their parental rights and responsibilities (as long as they did not intend to conceive at the time of conception and their partner was aware of this or could not have thought otherwise). I do not think that legislation should be enacted giving a man the right to force a woman to carry a child to term, however. In other words, both people should have reproductive choice in terms of not becoming parents, but neither should be forced into something they don’t want to do. This maintains bodily integrity and sexual autonomy in my view.

    I have liked a lot of what I have read on this site, and as someone who works in sexual health and sexuality rights, I feel that it is actually very much in line with what many of the men and women I work with feel. This quote, however, is absolutely ridiculous:

    “The female institution that subordinates the needs and nature of men to those of women, while promoting special entitlements, privileges, and protections for women, is feminism (although feminists would deny that is what feminism is about). But men have their own institution: chivalry is the male institution that subordinates the needs and nature of men to those of women, while promoting special entitlements, privileges, and protections for women.”
    – Pradeep Ramanathan, former V.P.

    It makes this site very hypocritical.

    Feminism at one point was much more angry than it is now. But at that time they were fighting institutions and laws that were extremely restrictive and even dangerous for women. For example, state laws previously made wives the sexual property of their husbands so that men were able to rape women within marriage without legal recourse for the woman or social protection (rape is a very common part of long term physical abuse). This is a very apparent and serious problem. So these laws and many, many more like them were changed and while there are still many problems, the situation, at least in legal terms is much better for women. The time called for very adamant and somewhat militant women who needed to make drastic change because the view of gender at that time was so restrictive (I agree that it was often restrictive for men too – at that time it was simply much more dangerous and restrictive for women.)

    Now the climate has changed. People are talking (or at least should be) about equality, not about power. Those who are still talking in terms of fighting one another are the problem. And this quote is very much on that side of the coin. I really hope that this site is a progressive site in support of men’s rights and gender equality, not a thinly veiled movement against women’s rights. Getting into arguments about who is hurt more is simply childish. We should be talking about how inequality hurts both genders and looking for inequality and discussing how to resolve it whenever we see it.

    By the way, Cathy Young has some wonderful equality views that support both men and women and don’t pit one against the other. One day we will hopefully see gender as indicative of a person’s capabilities, goodness or ability to do wrong as we do hair color height.

  40. ok Brian on April 23, 2009 at 11:27 AM

    Brian, I think you are mucking up what is otherwise a very thoughtful and interesting conversation.

  41. Skip on April 1, 2009 at 9:38 AM

    If we keep doing what we’ve been doing, we’re just going to keep getting what we’ve been getting: ignored. I’m certainly not saying we should stop seeking immediate relief but if history is any indication, we won’t make progress post-haste. Demanding fairness isn’t going to work for men like it did for women and minorities until men make their moral case in the public’s eye just as women and minorities did. The courts are social constructs and bow to social pressure not logic or reason or ethics or anything other than an edict by the people. Ivory towers respond to earthquakes and not much else.

    We need to make it safe for politicians, judges and bureaucrats of all stripes to stand up against an obvious double standard. We can only do that by the strength of the masses. Unfortunately, the masses have internalized feminism’s double definition of what constitutes a child. When they talk choice, they say it is *not* a child just because it was conceived. When they talk support, they say it *is* a child simply because it was conceived. We need to hammer on this basic core self-inconsistency.

    We don’t need to revamp the system, we need to turn the system in on itself and force the system to evolve. Roe’s maternity-by-choice is inconsistent with child support’s paternity-by-genetics. Let’s exploit this glaringly sexist inconsistency; drag it kicking and screaming out into the open. Turn the two pillars of modern family law, child support and Roe, against each other. If it is his child because it has his genes then it is his child at the moment of conception when it acquires his genes and abortion is literally baby-killing. If it is her child because it was her choice then it is her responsibility because it was her choice. Pick your poison.

    I’m obviously not saying anything new. I’m just focusing on something that keeps getting lost in the discussion.

  42. myname on March 28, 2009 at 2:19 PM

    The pill would be helpful, but just as the pill for women isn't full proof, the pill for men won't fair much better.

    I believe we need to decide whether we are going to try to make a short-term-quick-fix change now that will honor the rights of both males and females in order to obtain a higher level of moral justice or whether we want to completely revamp the system (which would take much longer)in order for there to be the highest level of moral justice. The problem with the latter is that The moral level we are at now is already low and revamping a system would only serve to continue or depress the low morality level while the system is being revamped. On the other hand a focus on a quick fix would raise the moral level and after the quick fix is put into place, considerations for revamping the system could be considered. To me, this way appears more attractive as the total levels of moral justice would always be higher.

    Initiative 1:

    This is why, with our current system, i.e. abortion being legal, the only ethical way to solve the problem of giving some parental choice to men is by putting in place a policy that the mother must ask the father whether or not they want to be a part of their child(ren)’s life as soon as they learn they are pregnant. If the response is positive then the father owes their resources for the well-being of the child(ren), if negative, the father should has no obligations to the child as the mother can simply abort if she does not want to be solely responsible for the child(ren)’s well-being.

    Because abortion is legal, the father has no rights to his unborn child and thus no legal responsibility to the it until it is born (I say legal because many men may feel they do have a moral responsibility to the child while it is in the whom). In addition, some men may feel like they have a responsibility to the newly born child, in such a case it seems reasonable that he provide resources for the child and become part of its life. On the other hand, if he feels no responsibility for the child because the mother did not want to abort, then how can we expect him to provide resources for this unwanted child when, by law, the child could have been aborted.

    This kind of reasoning works given the current legal status of abortion and a woman's right to choice. Currently, the father cannot decide to abort his child, only the mother can. In addition, the mother can abort the child regardless of what the father wants.

    There are several arguments against this including the argument that abortion should not be legal in the first place.

    Additionally, setting the abortion issue aside, some men feel they should have the right, as much as the mother, to chose the fate of their offspring.

    These two issues will be the hardest ones to change should a group of people decide to rally for them. This is why in the mean time I believe we need to do what we can to achieve a higher level of moral justice and rally for some kind initiative explained above (Initiative 1).

  43. Skip on March 19, 2009 at 1:28 AM

    Amen, bring on the pill. But guys have been saying that for the last 30 years and it ain't going to happen until we get ticked off enough to raise a stink over it. Yet we have become silent on what it means to be a "real" man let alone a father. For example, women wag their fingers in our faces telling us to provide for our children (as defined by that thing-in-a-womb having our genes) while in the very next breath they say they have the right to kill it if they want to (because it isn't a child just because it has our genes). That kind of double talk is morally bankrupt; yet there is only silence and lawsuits. We need a course change, a little indignation.

  44. Dan on March 10, 2009 at 12:52 AM

    Give us the pill!

  45. Skip on March 4, 2009 at 10:23 AM

    The unfairness is not going away until our approach to it changes. NCFM and others have been struggling with this double standard for decades and while they have been slowly chipping away at the problem, our culture has yet to embrace it as its own. I believe we are framing it wrong. Most guys that I know don’t care about fairness so much as doing the right thing – they will accept legal indignities if perceived to be morally justified. This needs to be a moral issue, not a fairness issue. Harp on its inherent immorality given its obvious legal self-inconsistency; morally compel Joe Blow to participate in the dialogue instead of gripping at his beer.
    I admit to being out of these discussions for many years but “I’ll sue” and “it’s unfair” just never sounded very…well, manly; sorry. Please do not get me wrong, I deeply appreciate the efforts of these groups and have anteed up for the cause. But the moral groundwork needs to be there first. Focus on and emphasize basic questions like what single set of self-consistent objective, and therefore better moral, criteria do we use to decide if this thing-in-a-womb is a man’s child and so his responsibility. Restate the abortion issue from a self-consistency point of view because no matter the outcome – pro-choice for all or no-choice for any – men and children will fare much better than either have so far.

  46. Jean Claude Van Man on March 2, 2009 at 2:25 AM

    I agree that women should have control over their reproductive decisions (within the constraints of the law).  I have a problem with men being forced into paying child support for children that aren't their own.  The exception would be adopted parents, and some common law situations where the child was raised by the man. There should be universal daycare for single parents.  I support a male pill.  If it can be proven that a woman duped a man into getting her pregnant so that she could collect child support, then the man should not be forced into paying her money.

    • Mad Dog Mike38321 on May 7, 2012 at 7:58 PM

      She should also go to prison for not less than seven years for felony fraud. this should be a federal law take that power out of the states hands. I read an article about a woman that is going to prison for lying to everyone and telling them she had Leukemia, and defrauded people out of thousands of dollars for her wedding, honeymoon, and gifts. Now if she would have admitted to paternity fraud she would not be charged with a crime.
      that is why I call paternity fraud the PERFECT CRIME, even when you get caught they still punish the victim.

  47. myname on February 27, 2009 at 11:23 AM

    To me the issue seems rather simple:

    In many U.S. States women have complete control over what happens to their child(ren) while in the womb. 

    On the other hand, men have absolutely no control over what happens to their child(ren) while in the womb.

    If a woman decides they want the child(ren) and the father does not, the father is still responsible for the well-being of the child.

    On the other hand if the mother decides they do not want the child(ren), the father cannot stop the mother's decision to abort.

    This is clearly a double standard.  The only argument that would support such a silly double standard is the fact that the child(ren) must grow inside the woman's womb for 9 months (and not the father's womb).  Therefor the mother has a right to decide what happens to her own body.

    Because this is a valid concern the only solution is for the mother to ask the father whether or not they want to be a part of their child(ren)'s life as soon as they learn they are pregnant.  If the response is positive then the father owes their resources for the well-being of the child(ren), if negative, the father should has no obligations to the child as the mother can simply abort if she does not want to be solely responsible for the child(ren)'s well-being.

    Many may think this solution is cold, but given our current situation (legal abortions) any other way would be unfair.  This is of course my opinion and I am open to any other logical opinions people have to offer.

    • Vader88 on November 7, 2011 at 10:13 AM


    • Devin on December 21, 2011 at 1:53 AM

      In most states, abortion is illegal. A woman can not just go and abort. Abortion now days can be a long process, and it is also a very painful one too from what I have been told.

      Most women that I know that did abort not abort because they "can" or "feel like it". They did it because the baby was not healthy, or their health was at risk. One of my friends was told that her body was not physically able to carry a child, and she had the option to have an emergency abortion to save her life.

      Other reasons would be rape, financial issues (especially those that are sudden and unpredicted), and/or the mother has the natural instinct to rid of the child. This even happens in the wild. If the mother/female feels there is something wrong or she can not care for the young, she automatically begins to miscarry, OR she abandons the baby. This happens often in the case of runts, however, there are also cases where animals abandon their young simply because they can not care for them, regardless of how healthy the young is.

      Humans are animals too, and we have animalistic instincts. When a woman feels the need to abandon a baby, it is usually because of this instinct.

      Also, if you don't want the child, then perhaps you shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place? You knew the risks, but as a man, you can't keep it in your pants.

      Women are naturally expected to be able to care for the child, which is why most cases lean towards the mother in court systems. Certainly there are exceptions.

      However, mothers are also more likely to provide emotional support to the children. Babies tend to live healthier if the presence of the mother is there. Without the mother, babies can weaken in health.

      This is something called "natural instinct".

  48. Brian on February 27, 2009 at 7:46 AM

    The best thing I ever did was get a vasectomy. I make  six figures a year. It's unbelevable how pissed off women get when they discover they can't "forget" their birth control and get a paycheck out of me. I learned the hard way. I was married young, had a baby with my ex and divorced when she started running around. I was lucky since we had joint custody; only because I had a private detective follow her and take pictures going into motels with her various boyfriends. She was gearing up to rape me financially until I showed her the pictures and threatened to give copies to all of her family and friends. All of a sudden she wanted me back. LOL

    • Devin on December 21, 2011 at 1:46 AM

      You sound like you get around yourself there, big boy.

    • Mad Dog Mike38321 on May 7, 2012 at 7:48 PM

      Way to go brian, I love to see men like you stick it to these greedy B&^%#s.

  49. Brian on February 27, 2009 at 5:13 AM

    in the UK Un-married fathers have no rights if they take there child for a DNA test without the mothers concent they can be charged with assult or child abuse, if he signs the CSA form believing he is the father he can not later ask for a DNA test if he believes he may not be the father, even if you go to the courts and the mother says you are not the father (so no DNA test is needed) the CSA will still count you as the father becouse you once believed you my be so Its MEN who need more rights

  50. Ladette on January 28, 2009 at 8:57 PM

    Bring on the male pill!!  I think men should be pushing for their own pill so they have the same control that we women have over our bodies.  Interestingly however, studies show that many men are not willing to take a pill every day or take hormones of any kind which is partly why we still don't have a male pill on the market…It seems that men want to have the same rights that women have but are unwilling to make the same sacrifices…

    • Devin on December 21, 2011 at 1:45 AM

      (I'm going to address everyone here)

      Yeah. Personally, there are millions of potential studies and options that men can have, however we choose not to take them. This is obviously stupid on our parts.

      Men need to start thinking more and understanding that we are only oppressing ourselves, if there is even oppression at ALL.

      Firstly, women NEED the options because men are more likely to force ourselves on women, and also more likely to endevour in multiple sexual encounters. We don't have to worry about being called horrible names like "slut", "whore", etc like women do, and therefore we have much more sexual freedom, even in a young age.

      Women are in need of these extra options.

      Also. A woman can not just simply name the father of a baby. =_= That is stupid. Generally, the biological father, or who is assumed the biological father, is written on the birth certificate.

      Women also can not auction off a baby. This is illegal and called "human trafficking". I think you need to create a new banner, cause there is nothing legal about it.

      She also can not name just ANY man as the father. This is considered fraud (if the woman knows who the biological father is, or if she is not quite sure but makes an honest mistake [and they DO happen], then these are not considered fraudulent) and is illegal.

      As for returning the baby to the hospital, there is a 24 hour decision when the baby is born, and usually the woman is still in the hospital in recovery. After 24 hours, the hospital can refuse to accept the baby and hand the baby to next of kin or to orphanage to put up for adoption.

      I think the people who work on this site need to do a little more research before making stupid posts and making fools of themselves and their so called "organization".

      Please. There is no male oppression here. Just a bunch of scared men who think women are out to get them. PFT. Y'all are laughable.

      • Marc on April 16, 2012 at 7:05 PM

        Devon said: Personally, there are millions of potential studies and options that men can have, however we choose not to take them.”

        What options are you talking about?

        Devon said: Men need to start thinking more and understanding that we are only oppressing ourselves, if there is even oppression at ALL.

        I disagree. When the government makes policies that are anti-male, like neglecting men’s health, refusing to create offices of men’s health like they have for women, discriminating against men in parenting rights, public benefits, criminal sentencing, etc., that is institutional discrimination against men.

        Devon said: “women NEED the options because men are more likely to force ourselves on women, and also more likely to endevour in multiple sexual encounters. We don’t have to worry about being called horrible names like “slut”, “whore”, etc like women do, and therefore we have much more sexual freedom, even in a young age.”

        I diagree. Men get called “womanizer” which is even worse than “slut” because it conveys they idea that you victimized someone just by having sex with various women. “Slut” doesn’t convey that. And terms like “slut” and “whore” are deemed almost like bad words and are often pushed off to shock jock types of forums, not mainstream, whereas anyone can say “womanizer” at any time. Men aren’t praised for having sex with multiple women, but with having the *ability* to do so. A man can be called a “stud” even if he doesn’t have sex at all, whereas a man can be called a sleeze or a womanizer even if he’s not considered a stud. So the word stud isn’t tied to how many partners he has, but how many women are attracted to him.

        Devon said: “Also. A woman can not just simply name the father of a baby. =_= That is stupid. Generally, the biological father, or who is assumed the biological father, is written on the birth certificate.”

        Not true, Devon. A woman can name any man and will not be prosecuted if it’s the wrong one. In CA, it doesn’t matter who is on the birth certificate. If she names a man, and he is served (often gutter served without actual service, or defaulted) and doesn’t respond on time, he can be trapped for life with child support payments. I’ve seen many cases like this. Look up the appellate case of Wilburn v. Tate, for example.

        Devon said: “As for returning the baby to the hospital, there is a 24 hour decision when the baby is born, and usually the woman is still in the hospital in recovery. After 24 hours, the hospital can refuse to accept the baby and hand the baby to next of kin or to orphanage to put up for adoption.”

        There is a safe haven rule that allows abandoning the baby without any legal recourse. While the law is gender neutral, in reality it doesn’t apply to men because they usually aren’t the ones with the child. In many cases the hospital or police don’t even try to find or contact the father.

        Devon said: “I think the people who work on this site need to do a little more research before making stupid posts and making fools of themselves and their so called “organization”.”

        I think you’re the one who looks stupid Devon with your ignorant comments and ad hom personal put-downs.

        • Paul on June 22, 2012 at 2:00 PM

          Devon said: "As for returning the baby to the hospital, there is a 24 hour decision when the baby is born, and usually the woman is still in the hospital in recovery. After 24 hours, the hospital can refuse to accept the baby and hand the baby to next of kin or to orphanage to put up for adoption."

          And yet again, the man seldom has a choice or say inthe matter.

Leave a Reply to kenna Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.