187 replies to this topic

[Duquesne Frog]

Who was it that down played the role of the father in all this?

You are conflating (intentionally, I suspect) two different things here: the mechanics of creating a child versus the act of raising a child once it is born. The burden on fathers for the former is virtually nothing. The burden on the man for the latter (we agree, I believe) should be shared. Given that, I don't think it is a difficult leap of logic to conclude that the woman gets the legal right to make decisions WRT the former and the man should share responsibility for the latter.

Taking your position means the women get to have their cake and eat it too. If the baby is half the father's right after birth then by God it is half his prior to birth. My point is extremely relevant to the situation. There are downstream ramifications to society telling young men they are short time players in the process. No wonder so many say "screw it" and walk away.

Not a single man in the history of ever said "screw it" and walked away because he was told that his role in the in utero gestation of a fetus is negligible. Every man who has ever had a child has been patently aware of that fact. It is the very fact that a man can create a child with so little personal sacrifice that makes it so easy for so many men to walk away. A woman cannot walk away. SHE has to deal with it in some way. She has no other choice. A man can hop on the next bus out of town and never see mother or child again.

So if you're mad that so many men do walk away, blame God for not making us go through the morning sickness, the pain, the health risks, the labor, the inability to carry on with normal life ... not dirty libruls. Ancient cavemen realized that they didn't have to do chit to create their children either, way before Gloria Steinem came along ...

[The Uniballer]

Why do they? Is it because the mother doesn't want to share the thousands of dollars of federal and state cash she is about to get so she tells him to get lost? Why do young men father as man kids as they can out of wedlock, not get involved at all, and count the number of illigitimate kids as a sign of manhood and maturity? Why are nearly half of the kids born in this country today born out of wedlock - 70% or so of blacks? What is society telling both the young women and the young men? Here is what I feel:
* To young women - "You don't need the fathers. You are the heroine raising these kids by yourself. Here is $20,000. Go have another."
* To young men - "You are a spectator. All you do is squirt a little daddy juice and then you're done. From that point on, the mother has all the power and all the say-so. You get nothing."

Now, prove me wrong and I will gladly listen.

Given how pervasive the problem is, there isn't one reason.
If I had to name one reason, I would probably go with the fact that we don't do a good enough job allowing people to suffer consequences for their actions.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

Given how pervasive the problem is, there isn't one reason.
If I had to name one reason, I would probably go with the fact that we don't do a good enough job allowing people to suffer consequences for their actions.

Disagree. As Duq points out, God, in his infinite wisdom, distributed the consequences very, very unequally. Sex has always been casual to young, unattached men. This really is not a new thing like you seem to be implying.

[The Uniballer]

Disagree. As Duq points out, God, in his infinite wisdom, distributed the consequences very, very unequally. Sex has always been casual to young, unattached men. This really is not a new thing like you seem to be implying.

Are you saying there aren't more children being born out of wedlock now than in the past?

[weklfrog]

Creating and making babies, being pregnant, and raising and supporting children after birth require very different roles between males and females. No matter how you set up the rules at each stage, one of the genders is going to get screwed, so to speak. The woman is the one who carries the baby during pregnancy, suffering the discomforts, illnesses, and sometimes even serious consequences to her health. She alone should be the final decision maker regarding her pregnancy. After the birth of the child, the father has respopnsility for helping to raise the child even if that responsibility is only financial. For the father to avoid financial responsbility at that point because he wants to claim that he didn't have a choice in whether the pregnancy was terminated or not has serious negative consequences for society. If he doesn't want to have to support a child he doesn't want, he shouldn't participate in the creation of the child. But once he participates in the creation, he has no right to tell the woman how she should deal with her pregnancy. In a caring relationship, the partners will communicate and make joint decisions. But to let the man off the hook for financial responsility just because he could not force the woman to end a pregnancy he did not want puts the entire burden for pregnancy, child rearing and financial support on the woman which is patently wrong.

[Duquesne Frog]

Are you saying there aren't more children being born out of wedlock now than in the past?

When in the past? For a large chunk of human history, it was common practice, a spoil of victory even, for armed men to rape the women of the vanquished. Probably a lot of basterd children back then ...

[The Uniballer]

When in the past? For a large chunk of human history, it was common practice, a spoil of victory even, for armed men to rape the women of the vanquished. Probably a lot of basterd children back then ...

Last 100 years. And I agree with NFF that the nature of sex hasn't changed. So if men are how we've always been, why are there so many more babies being born out of wedlock now than 100 or even 20, 30 years ago? There isn't one answer. I happen to think that one of the reasons is our reduced emphasis on personal responsibility and the fact that we don't allow people to suffer consequences for their choices.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

Are you saying there aren't more children being born out of wedlock now than in the past?

When in the past?

[Duquesne Frog]

Last 100 years. And I agree with NFF that the nature of sex hasn't changed. So if men are how we've always been, why are there so many more babies being born out of wedlock now than 100 or even 20, 30 years ago? There isn't one answer. I happen to think that one of the reasons is our reduced emphasis on personal responsibility and the fact that we don't allow people to suffer consequences for their choices.

Are you implying abortion and birth control with that last statement? I'd argue that prior to either becoming readily available, men had never really been forced to suffer the consequences for their choices and the women always had. Men have always had the ability to walk away and suffer no real personal consequence. The thing that has changed is the ability for women to have sex without consequence (or at least greatly reduced chance for consequence).

[The Uniballer]

Are you implying abortion and birth control with that last statement? I'd argue that prior to either becoming readily available, men had never really been forced to suffer the consequences for their choices and the women always had. Men have always had the ability to walk away and suffer no real personal consequence. The thing that has changed is the ability for women to have sex without consequence (or at least greatly reduced chance for consequence).

I didn't mean to imply abortion and birth control, I meant more generally -- bailouts, don't cut kids from teams, mommy calls the teacher every 5 seconds, etc... Maybe I'm guilty of romanticizing the past, but it seems like 30+ years ago, there was more of an expectation of a man to "do the right thing." I remember that was part of my no-sex before marriage talk 25 years ago, that if you get a woman pregnant than you'll have to marry her and that will change your whole life.

[KillerFrog InD KitchenSink]

FWIW, teen pregnancies and teen abortion rates are actually at record lows (since 1972), so some good news.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/08/us-teen-pregnancy-idUSTRE8171J020120208

Highest rate was 1990.

[Duquesne Frog]

I didn't mean to imply abortion and birth control, I meant more generally -- bailouts, don't cut kids from teams, mommy calls the teacher every 5 seconds, etc... Maybe I'm guilty of romanticizing the past, but it seems like 30+ years ago, there was more of an expectation of a man to "do the right thing." I remember that was part of my no-sex before marriage talk 25 years ago, that if you get a woman pregnant than you'll have to marry her and that will change your whole life.

I can't speak for how much that has changed for society, but we're the same age, I had a similar talk, and I'm sure our kids will get the same talk. I think you are absolutely right in that there are many reasons why marriage is declining as an institution, some of them bad ... fewer men feeling compelled to hold themselves responsible, but some of them good ... a society that is less willing to condone bad marriages. While I think it's easy to say, and is generally true, that kids will do better in a two-parent house, it's not true across the board. A kid is not better off in a house where the dad is beating the chit out of mom and the kids, obviously ... and there was a time 50 years ago when a divorced woman was more of a stigma than a wife-beating man.

It's not black-and-white, and I know that you know that. I'm not sure others here know that ...

[The Uniballer]

I can't speak for how much that has changed for society, but we're the same age, I had a similar talk, and I'm sure our kids will get the same talk. I think you are absolutely right in that there are many reasons why marriage is declining as an institution, some of them bad ... fewer men feeling compelled to hold themselves responsible, but some of them good ... a society that is less willing to condone bad marriages. While I think it's easy to say, and is generally true, that kids will do better in a two-parent house, it's not true across the board. A kid is not better off in a house where the dad is beating the chit out of mom and the kids, obviously ... and there was a time 50 years ago when a divorced woman was more of a stigma than a wife-beating man.

It's not black-and-white, and I know that you know that. I'm not sure others here know that ...

And it's easier for women to go it alone today than it was in the past, so women probably feel less obligated to marry the father. I wonder what the divorce rate is/was for couples that married after becoming pregnant?

[weklfrog]

And it's easier for women to go it alone today than it was in the past, so women probably feel less obligated to marry the father. I wonder what the divorce rate is/was for couples that married after becoming pregnant?

And there are a lot of committed couples raising kids who choose not to get married. In the past, a man and a woman living together without being formally married was very much stigmatized, now it is widely accepted as being part of the norm.

[burford]

If I had to name one reason, I would probably go with the fact that we don't do a good enough job allowing people to suffer consequences for their actions.

Yes sir, I do agree.

[burford]

And there are a lot of committed couples raising kids who choose not to get married. In the past, a man and a woman living together without being formally married was very much stigmatized, now it is widely accepted as being part of the norm.

Yes sir, I agree with that too...also that that is part of the problem.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

Yes sir, I agree with that too...also that that is part of the problem.

Yeah...let's return to the days of labeling kids basterds on the playground and torturing them while they grow up. That'll solve things for sure.

'Scuse me, but this raises my hackles...that's a world I DO NOT CONSIDER A GOLDEN AGE . I have some basterd relatives 1.5 generations back, and they paid far more dearly as than any putative father--who skipped out never to be seen again and at that time that was easy--ever could.

[burford]

I didn't mean to imply abortion and birth control, I meant more generally -- bailouts, don't cut kids from teams, mommy calls the teacher every 5 seconds, etc... Maybe I'm guilty of romanticizing the past, but it seems like 30+ years ago, there was more of an expectation of a man to "do the right thing." I remember that was part of my no-sex before marriage talk 25 years ago, that if you get a woman pregnant than you'll have to marry her and that will change your whole life.

You are one who sees clearly, Uni. The left cannot just explain away what has happened. It hurts them to see that their self-perceived intellect is so fallible.

[burford]

Yeah...let's return to the days of labeling kids basterds on the playground and torturing them while they grow up. That'll solve things for sure.

'Scuse me, but this raises my hackles...that's a world I DO NOT CONSIDER A GOLDEN AGE . I have some basterd relatives 1.5 generations back, and they paid far more dearly as than any putative father--who skipped out never to be seen again and at that time that was easy--ever could.

Your jumping to the wrong conclusion...but by all means Newf, proceed to justify sentencing millions upon millions of kids to a high probability of poverty, drug addiction, incarceration, and early death. Much more preferable than hurting a few folks feelings, huh? For someone of great learning, you sure have trouble seeing the nose on your face sometimes.

[burford]

And it's easier for women to go it alone today than it was in the past, so women probably feel less obligated to marry the father. I wonder what the divorce rate is/was for couples that married after becoming pregnant?

Don't know but again I agree with you. It is easier but statistics show that kids, particularly boys, desperately need a father figure. Tell some fairly immature young moms they don't need a man in their kids lives and pay them to make it easier not to and, well, there you are.. Uni, you are on a roll with the wisdom.