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.

  • 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?