I had always assumed that if a man had gotten a woman pregnant, then if that pregnancy is carried to term, both partners should be financially responsible for the child regardless whether the man had wanted to have the child or not. The mindset being "they got them pregnant, so you have to face the consequences'".

I was talking with some people online, and they asserted that if the man did not want to have the child, then they should be able to apply to be resolved of any financial responsibility towards caring for it. I was at first against this proposal, but I feel like I now understand it better. Our current legislation was created at a time where abortion was tantamount to murder, and since it was illegal, an obligation of financial responsibility was the only way to ensure that women weren't stranded with children they couldn't afford to raise. But now that we live in a world where abortion is legal (for now), and where abortion procedures are safer than carrying the child to term, there doesn't seem to be a good argument for men still needing to be financially responsible for unwanted children. Men probably would still need to assist in paying for the procedure, but outside of that, I think they had a point. Please explain to me if there is anything I'm failing to consider here.

I also want to apologize for the binary language I used in writing this. I tried at first to write this in a more inclusive way, but I struggled wrapping my head around it. If anyone can educate me in how to write in a way that doesn't disclude non-binary comrades, I would appreciate it.

  • ofriceandruin [none/use name]
    6·
    4 years ago

    That was in response to many comments that used the concept of "sperm contributing partner paying the costs." I tried to point out there that it comes off as thinly-veiled gender essentialism.

    • TillieNeuen [she/her]
      ·
      4 years ago

      Well, "sperm-contributing partner pays the cost" certainly is gender essentialist, and it's also incorrect. That makes it sound as if the other party doesn't contribute anything financially. The single parents I know work and contribute financially too. They're not lying around eating bon-bons all day.

      • TheUrbanaSquirrel [she/her]
        1·
        4 years ago

        This account is purposely taking the most bad faith interpretation of the people who disagree with them. I'm one of the people who used "sperm contributing" intentionally because 1) gendered language around who carries a child and who fertilizes the egg is getting less rigid, and 2) I'm deliberately not trying to make it a struggle session of men vs women. Yes, custodial vs non-custodial parent is better verbiage. Good call.

        • ofriceandruin [none/use name]
          7·
          4 years ago

          This account is purposely taking the most bad faith interpretation of the people who disagree with them.

          Or... it's a reasonable interpretation? Is that so hard to believe? This sounds like some Sam Harris "I'm being smeared!" kind of thing.

      • eduardog3000 [he/him]
        2·
        4 years ago

        Women are more likely to be awarded child support, are awarded more money, and more likely to actually receive the money. Although this data is from 1991 so.

        Edit: Here's numbers from 2011. If you do the math it figures to 53.4% of custodial mothers being awarded child support vs 28.8% of custodial fathers being awarded. So still the same idea.

        Even if you only look at custodial parents who are below the poverty line*, it's still 50.04% vs 26.9%

        * It seems custodial fathers have a higher average income, so only looking at below poverty controls for that. Also I think that means poorer fathers are less likely to be awarded custody in the first place.

        Edit: And here's data from 2015, publish in 2018 and republished in 2020. 52.7% to 39.6%.

          • eduardog3000 [he/him]
            2·
            4 years ago

            So it's perfectly fine that men disproportionately get less child support than women? There's nothing wrong with the legal system enforcing the "women are the caretakers" gender role?

            • ofriceandruin [none/use name]
              4·
              4 years ago

              Those stats you cited are pretty clear evidence of a patriarchal system, which makes it funny when someone gets super triggered by those stats and inadvertently defends that same system (even though they purport to be against such a system).

              • eduardog3000 [he/him]
                1·
                4 years ago

                Are they untrue? Is it ok how the system works right now?

                Believe it or not, we can use the same facts as the right to arrive at different conclusions. In fact, it's well documented that the right uses real inequalities as a springboard to radicalize people into hatred. It's also pretty obvious that liberals (or even the left) failing to address those inequalities makes it even easier for the right to radicalize people.

                Can you really not tell the difference between:

                • "Women get more child support than men, that's why women are bad."
                  and
                • "Women get more child support than men, we should probably look into why that is and address that inequality."
                  • eduardog3000 [he/him]
                    ·
                    4 years ago

                    Whatever, you are actively avoiding understanding what my point is or how it comes from a leftist perspective. You apparently just don't want to address inequalities or the effects of existing gender roles.

          • ofriceandruin [none/use name]
            6·
            4 years ago

            I literally do not care.

            I hate to sound like the annoying Ben Shapiro here, but facts don't care about your feelings lol.