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.

  • TillieNeuen [she/her]
    2·
    4 years ago

    How is child support gender essentialist? The noncustodial parent pays it to the custodial parent, regardless of gender.

    • 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.

                      • commubaby [she/her]
                        ·
                        4 years ago

                        Whatever, you are actively avoiding understanding what my point is or how it comes from a leftist perspective.

                        Here's a leftist perspective on the issue: https://www.reddit.com/r/Socialism_101/comments/ixl9sc/socialist_views_on_financial_abortion/

                        • eduardog3000 [he/him]
                          ·
                          4 years ago

                          Is the main post what I'm supposed to be reading? Or is there a specific comment?

                          Either way, this is talking purely about fathers financially supporting custodial mothers. That's fine, that can happen, though I agree some of the arguments used sound like pro-life arguments. My problem is that mothers financially supporting custodial fathers happens less often and usually in smaller amounts. It's a gender role based inequality that needs to be addressed.

                          • commubaby [she/her]
                            ·
                            4 years ago

                            I just happened upon that post searching about the issue and trying to educate myself. It seems there are differing opinions on the matter, that's all.

                            • eduardog3000 [he/him]
                              ·
                              4 years ago

                              I mostly agree with that post, though I understand that one parent opting out financially isn't viable if the custodial parent doesn't have enough money to take care of the child. My main point is that custodial mothers and custodial fathers get different treatment for reasons soaked in shitty gender roles.

                              • commubaby [she/her]
                                ·
                                4 years ago

                                I mostly agree with it too. I've seen what years of child support can do to someone who didn't want the child (this happened to a cousin of mine who's otherwise a sweet guy, but just wasn't ready for the burden of fatherhood). I agree with you on the differing treatment as well. Hell I'm not that great with kids, but everyone assumes I'm "good with kids" because of my gender.

                            • eduardog3000 [he/him]
                              ·
                              4 years ago

                              Talking points are not exclusive to one side. The same points can be and quite often are used to draw very different conclusions. The quality and validity of the conclusions drawn don't affect the validity of the initial points. You aren't critiquing, or really even acknowledging, the conclusions I'm drawing. Instead you are focused the unrelated conclusions of people who will never be on this site.

                              Why do you allistics have to be so fucking thick?

            • 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.

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

        This is one of those "feminism is for everyone" moments. I think it would be great for more men to raise their children, instead of sticking to old gender roles.

        • TheUrbanaSquirrel [she/her]
          2·
          4 years ago

          The person above is posting MRA talking points. An overwhelming majority of custody cases are settled in mediation and many parents share custody. If the non-custodial parent did not believe the other parent was fit they can fight it or at least get shared custody.

          • TillieNeuen [she/her]
            2·
            4 years ago

            Oh I recognized the MRA talking point, I just enjoy responding to "but gender adjfdjfajfjajdf" with "yes."

        • eduardog3000 [he/him]
          6·
          4 years ago

          Yes? That's my point. But courts are biased in thinking the mother is automatically the more fit parent, because of old gender roles.

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

            An overwhelming majority of custody cases are settled in mediation, meaning there is no lingering disagreement over the decision. If a parent asks for shared custody they usually get it unless the other parent can prove lack of fitness, which is really fucking hard to prove these days. You're spreading nonsense.

      • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]
        1·
        4 years ago

        Which parent disproportionately gets custody in court cases, usually regardless of whether they are actually more fit to care for the child?

        Oof

          • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]
            1·
            4 years ago

            It sounds like the "women control my world and steal what's mine" reactionary talking point.

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

              It's not. I'm most likely going to end up with a guy, and I'm definitely never having children. It has nothing to do with women "controlling me" or "stealing what's mine".

              Woman are more oppressed in many ways yes, but not in this specific way. Existing gender roles lead to women being seen as the better caregiver than men. Don't we want to fight against gender roles?

              • ofriceandruin [none/use name]
                1·
                4 years ago

                Existing gender roles lead to women being seen as the better caregiver than men. Don’t we want to fight against gender roles?

                Apparently they don't lol.... which is why I was worried that they were using thinly veiled gender essentialism when they were talking about things like the "sperm producing" partner carrying the burden and talking about that personal responsibility shit (i.e. "maybe you shouldn't have had sex if you didn't want a baby!"). Also talking about "biological differences" in similar ways to how race realists like to bring that shit up. Honestly the whole thing is super reactionary.