Obama's straight talk on fatherhood

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

While we're at it, could we pass some laws to force the government to pay for all of the indignities men have suffered as a result of legal sex discrimination against men--being kidnapped and enslaved into the military, being forced to die in the military and involuntary circumcision, etc.? I'd love to see a powerful men's rights movement come to power in this country.

Are you serious? Men's rights? hahahaha. Psst: In case you didn't notice we already control everything.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: m1ldslide1
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
I agree that men can be enslaved, and presumably Obama is in favor of that.

This sentence caught my attention. :laugh:

If you were a politician, you would be endlessly quoted out of context and nationally reamed in chain emails for that one.

...and if I were a politician I wouldn't post on discussion forums and I'd choose my words very carefully.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Again, the legality of abortion has very little to do with the abortion rate. In addition, the fact that many women without some support from the father would be unable to support a child. A father's paper abortion could in many circumstances force the issue and lend control over a woman's body to her boyfriend. That's probably not going to fly.

You mean--women might have to face economic reality and realize that they can't have all the children they want if they'll be forced to support them on their own? Women might have to <gasp> be responsible for something...like making a decision to birth an infant they can't afford to take care of?

From an economic standpoint, making women 100% responsible for their choices--removing the external costs of their choices (externalities)--would be the best thing we could do as long as inexpensive abortions were available.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: Zebo
Dude there's lots double standards in society - like "chicks" over 50 dieing to get married again and can't find any takers.

How is this a double standard? Maybe it is, but I'm missing the logic. Maybe you could help me out.

Besides we , as society, have said the interests of children override fairness and freedoms adults for a long time.

"For the children".

I agree with you that to an extent that's the way it is, but I totally disagree that sacrificing our individual rights and freedoms "for the children" is good or best. After all, if you take it to the extreme we could end up having outright socialism or communism "for the children".

Don't have kids but have a high income? Then the state will tax you at 75% "for the children" so that poor children can be cared for with your tax dollars. (We're already doing that, actually.) Also, all adult movies and R-rated movies are now illegal in the name of protecting children. All radio stations will now be forced to broadcast children's stories and songs "for the children".

What the "for the children" arguments miss is that one day those children will be adults and will have to suffer with the laws that sacrifice them "for the children", so in the long run it really isn't in the children's best interest to live in a society without freedoms.

 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Again, the legality of abortion has very little to do with the abortion rate. In addition, the fact that many women without some support from the father would be unable to support a child. A father's paper abortion could in many circumstances force the issue and lend control over a woman's body to her boyfriend. That's probably not going to fly.

You mean--women might have to face economic reality and realize that they can't have all the children they want if they'll be forced to support them on their own? Women might have to <gasp> be responsible for something...like making a decision to birth an infant they can't afford to take care of?

From an economic standpoint, making women 100% responsible for their choices--removing the external costs of their choices (externalities)--would be the best thing we could do as long as inexpensive abortions were available.

Except that by doing so a man could be largely forcing a woman to undergo a medical procedure that she does not want. The same is not true the other way around.

I'm just telling you that's never going to happen.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: eskimospy

Are you serious? Men's rights? hahahaha. Psst: In case you didn't notice we already control everything.

How do you explain:

The all-male military draft?

Lack of paper abortions for men?

Involuntary circumcision?

False accusations of rape against men?

Paternity fraud?

Lower life expectancies for men?

Higher suicide rates for men?

Higher rates of homelessness for men?

To have your consciousness raised and to learn more about men's issues, I suggest you read Warren Farrell's books Why Men Are the Way They Are and The Myth of Male Power. Farrell was a 3-time NOW board member years ago when he was a male feminist before he started observing how much men were suffering.

 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: eskimospy

Are you serious? Men's rights? hahahaha. Psst: In case you didn't notice we already control everything.

How do you explain:

The all-male military draft?

Lack of paper abortions for men?

Involuntary circumcision?

False accusations of rape against men?

Paternity fraud?

Lower life expectancies for men?

Higher suicide rates for men?

Higher rates of homelessness for men?

To have your consciousness raised and to learn more about men's issues, I suggest you read Warren Farrell's books Why Men Are the Way They Are and The Myth of Male Power. Farrell was a 3-time NOW board member years ago when he was a male feminist before he started observing how much men were suffering.

The draft is one that I agree with you on.

Lack of paper abortions for men? Not with you. Never going to happen because paper abortions overlook the idea that one person's body is affected and the others' isn't.

Involuntary circumcision? I guess. It doesn't have the devastating effects on men that circumcision has on women, but it's a negative thing.

False accusations of rape? Not with you. How about real incidents of rape that happen far more often to women then men? Not only that but rape is one of the hardest crimes to prove and so many men guilty of rape are not convicted.

As far as lower life expectancies, not with you unless you can point to a social or legal cause for this. If not, I don't see your point.

Suicide rates might be higher for men then for women, but suicide attempts are much much higher for women then for men. Meh.

Higher rates of homelessness for men has a lot to do with the fact that women are less likely to want to trade a roof over someone's head for sex.

When you combine this with the much lower wages for women in the same work, the massive under representation of women in positions of power, etc... etc. I say we have it pretty sweet.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: eskimospy

Except that by doing so a man could be largely forcing a woman to undergo a medical procedure that she does not want. The same is not true the other way around.

I'm just telling you that's never going to happen.

How would men be forcing women to have abortions? Women would still be free to have children and to then live in their self-imposed poverty.

The same thing IS true the other way around. Men cannot force women NOT to have abortions. A man who impregnates a woman and doesn't want her to have an abortion cannot legally prevent her from having the abortion. Thus, childbirth is 100% a woman's choice.

I wouldn't say that we'll never see paper abortions for men but from a political perspective it would require a radical reworking of the American mindset. First, abortion needs to be seen as 100% moral and rational, and we're far, far away from that right now. Thus the ideological battle for paper abortions for men includes a moral defense of abortion in the first place.

Another way that it could come about would be if the government wanted to limit the number of births, perhaps to attain negative population growth or zero-population growth. This is already the case in China with its one child per woman policy. Could it happen here? This would also require a radical ideological shift but I doubt that Americans have the IQs for it. We might already be, by far, the world's third most populous country and we might already be undergoing a population explosion (that will transform us into an overpopulated, impoverished India) but I doubt that Americans will ever realize that having a lower population is in their rational selfish interests.

So, I think it could happen as a result of two ideological forces--abortion's becoming well accepted and common place combined with a men's rights movement and/or a desire to reduce or control population growth. I think the latter is more likely though I find both possibilities very unlikely. Americans might not address their population explosion problem, but eventually the Malthusian forces of starvation, poverty, and disease will do it for them.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: eskimospy

Lack of paper abortions for men? Not with you. Never going to happen because paper abortions overlook the idea that one person's body is affected and the others' isn't.

A woman's body might be affected for a day or a week but a man's life could be affected for 18+ years. Why are you ignoring that aspect? Also, what if a man wants a woman to carry a fetus to term and give birth? If he has a responsibility to care for that child how can she kill it without his permission? Do you see the contradictions here--it's her choice...so why shouldn't it be her responsibility?

Involuntary circumcision? I guess. It doesn't have the devastating effects on men that circumcision has on women, but it's a negative thing.

Glad you agree with me that it should be illegal. Any man who wants to be circumcised can choose to do so at age 18.

False accusations of rape? Not with you. How about real incidents of rape that happen far more often to women then men? Not only that but rape is one of the hardest crimes to prove and so many men guilty of rape are not convicted.

Have you been paying any attention to the newspaper articles that report about men getting exonerated by DNA evidence? It seems like there's a new story about once or twice a month and presumably that's only a tiny, tiny fraction of the men who have been falsely imprisoned.

False accusations of rape occur all the time and they can be very devastating and expensive. What's worse is that the criminals who make false accusations often don't get prosecuted or receive a slap on the wrist when they should actually be subject to the exact same jail sentences as those who are actually convicted and subject to tremendous amounts of civil liability.

Did you pay any attention to the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax where a prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence and tried to railroad three students for political reasons? If those guys hadn't had well-to-do parents they might be in jail right now. The woman who made the false accusation--she got off scott-free and wasn't even prosecuted for anything.

As far as lower life expectancies, not with you unless you can point to a social or legal cause for this. If not, I don't see your point.

Read the book Why Men Are the Way They Are for a discussion and an explanation as to some possible reasons why men don't live as long. Ever notice that men seem to do the more dangerous jobs and the jobs that can have bad long-term health effects? Ever have the sense that men are the ones expected to shoulder the stress and burden of bringing home the bacon to support wives and children? Did you know that far far less money is spent on prostate cancer research than on breast cancer research?

Suicide rates might be higher for men then for women, but suicide attempts are much much higher for women then for men. Meh.

But are those female suicide attempts actual attempts or merely calls for help and attention? It's really not that hard to kill yourself if you really want to die so failed attempts need to be looked at skeptically.

Higher rates of homelessness for men has a lot to do with the fact that women are less likely to want to trade a roof over someone's head for sex.

You lost me on this one. It speaks to the status of men in our society and the overall state of men's health and well-being.

When you combine this with the much lower wages for women in the same work, the massive under representation of women in positions of power, etc... etc. I say we have it pretty sweet.

Studies have shown that men who do equal work and put in equal effort get paid the same or more. It's completely invalid to compare a fireman's work (dangerous job) or a garbage man's work (degrading and unpleasant) to a librarian's work (air conditioning, little physical labor). Women can earn as much as men by offering to do the hard unpleasant jobs that men do and by offering to put in as much effort and as many hours as men do. In men's movement circles the feminists' propaganda about women earning less is regarded as lies and dogma (point being that there are other points of view on this issue and that you shouldn't take the propaganda at face value without questioning it or digging deeper).

I haven't read it, but a worthwhile read for a different point of view might be Farrell's book Why Men Earn More (and What Women Can Do About It).


 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Well I don't have the time to write a full response to you, I'll just say that I guess I violently disagree with the idea that men are somehow oppressed in our society.
 

ultra laser

Banned
Jul 2, 2007
513
0
0
If a white man told loser black fathers to get with the program he'd be ostracized and soon without career.

Although Obama does have particular insight into this phenomenon, seeing as his father is one of them.
 

ultra laser

Banned
Jul 2, 2007
513
0
0
Women have every opportunity to gain positions of power in our society - in fact, many of them do. A lot of them, however, lack the desire. Having significantly less testosterone, they lack the will to dominate their surroundings and don't thirst for power in every form. In other words, they're women.
 

Killerme33

Senior member
Jan 17, 2006
399
0
0
WhipperSnapper, your posts make you sound very bitter towards women. The reason abortion is up to the woman is because they are the ones who get pregnant, not the man.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: ultra laser
Women have every opportunity to gain positions of power in our society - in fact, many of them do. A lot of them, however, lack the desire. Having significantly less testosterone, they lack the will to dominate their surroundings and don't thirst for power in every form. In other words, they're women.

Studies on testosterone have shown that it's effects on aggression and general social behavior have been wildly overstated. It's far far more socialization then anything else.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: Killerme33
WhipperSnapper, your posts make you sound very bitter towards women. The reason abortion is up to the woman is because they are the ones who get pregnant, not the man.

No, I'm not bitter towards women. I love women. Heck, I even married one. I just think men are getting a raw deal. I agree with you that abortion is up to the woman. I understand that 100%.

That's fine--but since women choose whether or not to give birth, they should also take 100% of the responsibility in cases where the man is willing to pay for the cost of the abortion (and then some) and to waive all rights to the child (a paper abortion).

I know that that's a very radical view that's unfathomable to many people, but that's because abortion is not very well-accepted. Most people who support legalization do so grudgingly, agreeing that it should be legal but still feeling that there's something immoral or dirty about it. If you had a different kind of mentality...if you saw at as an issue of rational self interest and of pursuing one's own happiness and didn't regard a brainless fetus as being equal to a human being...then it would be easier to see it differently...as casually as going to the dentist for a filling...in which case it make sense to say that it's really the woman's full choice and that she should thus be 100% responsible.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if a real, rational, widespread well-organized men's movement ever took hold and if they decided to hold abortion hostage until they could get women who support abortion to agree to also campaign and fight for paper abortions for men. It would go something like this:

"We men think abortion should be legal but since you women don't support paper abortions for men, we're going to vote for candidates who will make abortion illegal until you agree to support men's rights too."

 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Allow me to also toss in that even though a father may have difficulty affording to pay child support, that doesn't relieve him of the responsibility even if he has a new family to look out for. In the end, that child still needs to eat and have a roof over its head whether the dad can afford to pay for it or not.


If the stepson is living with you, how many of his basic needs aren't being met?

None because I am a damn good stepfather, but that doesn't matter. I am not responsible to pay for his needs. That's biological father's and mother's responsibility. Fathers should not be held any less accountable for the child support they owe just because another person is choosing to help pay for their child's needs out of the kindness of their heart. If he paid his child support then his money and the mother's money would be paying for the child's needs while my money is used to pay for everything else. That's the way it should be.

And if the point of the support payment is to ensure the child meets a certain standard, why wouldn't the payment decrease when the child is living with 2 parents whom would assumed to be able to maintain a sufficient household themselves.

Simple. That's the law. The biological parents are the ones who are legally responsible for their own children. That includes all financial responsibilities to meet that child's needs. Just because there are people out there who are kind enough to help out other people's children does not mean that the biological parents should be legally relieved of their responsibilities or have them reduced.

The bottom line here is that someone needs to be legally responsible for the kids. It should always be the biological parents unless those parents prove themselves to be unfit to take care of the children because they are abusive or whatever.



Originally posted by: Zebo
Straight talk but when it came time to talking about how to fix the problem he goes though a liberal laundry list

"We should reward fathers who pay that child support with job training and job opportunities and a larger Earned Income Tax Credit that can help them pay the bills. We should expand programs where registered nurses visit expectant and new mothers and help them learn how to care for themselves before the baby is born and what to do after -- programs that have helped increase father involvement, women's employment, and children's readiness for school. We should help these new families care for their children by expanding maternity and paternity leave, and we should guarantee every worker more paid sick leave so they can stay home to take care of their child without losing their income."

In other words it's still your fault America - show me the money. As if we don't have enough entitlement our culture already. Where's the "work hard like me, get good grades, work your ass off, be polite and personable and maybe you can even be like me someday" -Obama

You know...if the current system worked then there would be no need to offer incentives. The fact is that it doesn't work. As previously discussed in this thread, there are solutions which involve much stricter enforcement of the current system in place. The problem is that strict enforcement is very expensive. It is more expensive than taking the route that Obama is proposing.

So, basically you have three choices:

1. Leave the broken system the way it is.
2. Spend a ridiculous amount of your tax money on a regular basis to enforce the law to fix the problem.
3. Spend less tax money than #2 by mixing up increased enforcement with incentive for the people to take responsibility themselves.

Pick one
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Originally posted by: davestar
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: davestar
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Atreus21

I see your point.

But I disagree nonetheless. It's simple to me. Abortion, like murder, is wrong, regardless of the circumstances, regardless of a person's economic status, and the government should recognize that first and foremost. Afterwards, they should worry about addressing the issues, such as poverty, which would drive a person to commit the crime.

Well, it's up to you but just understand that you will never see a reduction in the amount of aborted children using your logic unless abortion is completely outlawed leaving the people without a choice. Only then will the opinions and actions of the government in regards to being pro-life have any impact on one's decision to get an abortion. Otherwise, the people don't give a crap what the government thinks.

I respect your position on supporting your priorities but I think you need to pay more attention to your goals for this country which is separate from priorities and how those goals will be reflected by your vote. The goal is to reduce abortion as much as possible with as few negative side effects as possible. Outlawing it will not produce a positive result due to the other negative consequences so the only choice left is to convince America not to choose to get an abortion. Morals and beliefs are obviously not working. The answer is money and economics.

Possibly so.

For the record, I'm not in favor of an anti-Roe v. Wade. That is, I'm not in favor a nation-wide ban, imposed by 9 justices. I'm in favor of returning the issue to state legislatures.

how do you condone returning the issue of abortion to the states if abortion is equivalent to murder? murder's OK if it's not in your backyard?

Just because something should be a crime doesn't mean everything should be a federal crime.

but if someone truly feels that abortion is a form of murder, then logically that person should desire that abortion should carry the stiffest, murder-equivalent penalty.

the point is, if people engage in all this rhetoric about abortion = murder and choose to treat that issue as more important than ALL others, then they should follow their ideals/policies to their logical conclusion. to do otherwise is irresponsible.

I have to admit davestar is absolutely right.

It's disingenuous of me to say that abortion = murder, and then say it should be returned to the states to decide. The legality of murder shouldn't ever be up to anyone, much less legislatures, to decide.

However, (I'm not sure if this holds any logical weight or not) I can't reasonably expect such a drastic result without calling myself a revolutionary, or a rebel. I disagree with abortion, but I also disagree with the manner in which Roe v. Wade protects it. I don't like any blanket decision by the supreme court. I want it overturned, first of all. Ultimately, I would like to see abortion outlawed. For the present, however, I'd prefer to be moderate in my methods, while not entirely following my ideal, than being a clinic-bomber, and steadfastly following my ideal.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
While we're at it, could we pass some laws to force the government to pay for all of the indignities men have suffered as a result of legal sex discrimination against men--being kidnapped and enslaved into the military, being forced to die in the military and involuntary circumcision, etc.? I'd love to see a powerful men's rights movement come to power in this country.

I hope that never happens. It's about the least manly thing a group of men could do. Leave complaining and entitlement to the feminists, thanks.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: Atreus21

I have to admit davestar is absolutely right.

It's disingenuous of me to say that abortion = murder, and then say it should be returned to the states to decide. The legality of murder shouldn't ever be up to anyone, much less legislatures, to decide.

However, (I'm not sure if this holds any logical weight or not) I can't reasonably expect such a drastic result without calling myself a revolutionary, or a rebel. I disagree with abortion, but I also disagree with the manner in which Roe v. Wade protects it. I don't like any blanket decision by the supreme court. I want it overturned, first of all. Ultimately, I would like to see abortion outlawed. For the present, however, I'd prefer to be moderate in my methods, while not entirely following my ideal, than being a clinic-bomber, and steadfastly following my ideal.

well, for one, your honesty is a good thing. :)

second, just to be clear, you want Roe V Wade overturned because it provides blanket protection for abortion...is that right?

And thirdly, I am guessing that once RvW is overturned, then the states will be allowed to decide individually the fate of abortion within each state. So still, some states will outlaw and some won't, and that doesn't protect all unborn babies from "murder."

SO

would you support a blanket decision by the supreme court which would essentially outlaw all abortion? I am going to guess that yes you would support such a decision.
 

m1ldslide1

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2006
2,321
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

While we're at it, could we pass some laws to force the government to pay for all of the indignities men have suffered as a result of legal sex discrimination against men--being kidnapped and enslaved into the military, being forced to die in the military and involuntary circumcision, etc.? I'd love to see a powerful men's rights movement come to power in this country.

Are you serious? Men's rights? hahahaha. Psst: In case you didn't notice we already control everything.

Isn't it still the case than men earn like 30% more than female counterparts in the same jobs? If so, then it seems a little backwards to try to further 'mens rights', especially financial ones in re: to child support.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: Atreus21

I have to admit davestar is absolutely right.

It's disingenuous of me to say that abortion = murder, and then say it should be returned to the states to decide. The legality of murder shouldn't ever be up to anyone, much less legislatures, to decide.

However, (I'm not sure if this holds any logical weight or not) I can't reasonably expect such a drastic result without calling myself a revolutionary, or a rebel. I disagree with abortion, but I also disagree with the manner in which Roe v. Wade protects it. I don't like any blanket decision by the supreme court. I want it overturned, first of all. Ultimately, I would like to see abortion outlawed. For the present, however, I'd prefer to be moderate in my methods, while not entirely following my ideal, than being a clinic-bomber, and steadfastly following my ideal.

well, for one, your honesty is a good thing. :)

second, just to be clear, you want Roe V Wade overturned because it provides blanket protection for abortion...is that right?

And thirdly, I am guessing that once RvW is overturned, then the states will be allowed to decide individually the fate of abortion within each state. So still, some states will outlaw and some won't, and that doesn't protect all unborn babies from "murder."

SO

would you support a blanket decision by the supreme court which would essentially outlaw all abortion? I am going to guess that yes you would support such a decision.

Thanks.

Yes, I want Roe v. Wade to be overturned, for two reasons: First and foremost, that it protects abortion at any stage for any reason, and second that it imposes an oligarchical decision on a country that prizes democracy.

You are correct about the third assumption.

When I think about it, if the Scotus imposed the anti-Roe v. Wade, I would agree with the end, but not the means. Therefore I would not agree with the decision. For me, using the weapon of the enemy in this case is hypocritical. What I want is a constitutional amendment.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
That's fine--but since women choose whether or not to give birth, they should also take 100% of the responsibility in cases where the man is willing to pay for the cost of the abortion (and then some) and to waive all rights to the child (a paper abortion).

Here is the problem with that idea. While I agree with you that it is a fair way to divide responsibility, the end result would be nothing but more children living in poverty and that is not fair to them. That would hurt our country in the long run quite a bit. Think about it. Do you really believe that we would see a lot more abortions in this country if what you are suggesting became national policy? It would barely change at all. The women would sign the paperwork, have kids, and the number separations between parents would remain the same. The only difference would be that there is less money going towards helping support these children since waiving the rights means they are no longer responsible for child support. Children are people. We cannot treat this situation in the same way that we treat ownership over property and possessions.

What so many people fail to understand is that the child support laws are fair. However, it is not fair between just the man and the woman. It is fair between the man, the woman, and the child.