The Baby Trap "When a male character does this to a wife or girlfriend it's more likely to be portrayed seriously as the Domestic Abuse it actually is, since it adds in the physical violation of forcing a pregnancy on someone, in addition to tying them to the responsibilities of marriage and parenthood against their will." Another classic case of Double Standard, I would be inclined to connect it to The Unfair Sex and/or Abuse Is Okay When It Is Female on Male. Still though, even as far as reverse sexism goes, the notion of women tricking men with trap babies doesn't seem to be given much attention in school classes about domestic abuse. I suppose it isn't as dire as physical abuse or the like, but it is awfully damn manipulative. If only there were better means of protection against it... ... is it possible to tell whether or not someone is the kind of person who would use this tactic? This story refers to a guy who saw it as a red flag that she had a selfish streak, but how likely or frequent is it that those who would use this tactic could successfully conceal such selfish tendencies?
edited 16th Mar '11 7:05:28 AM by neoYTPism
If only there were better means of protection against it...Are they still trying to develop a male pill?
the notion of women tricking men with trap babies doesn't seem to be given much attention in school classes about domestic abuseWait, people learn about domestic abuse in school? Where do you live?
edited 16th Mar '11 7:12:12 AM by Penguin4Senate
Tyrannicidal ManiacI always argue that if a female gets to choose, so should a bloke. In the event of scenarios like this, not getting puursued for child support would be a boon!
edited 16th Mar '11 7:16:19 AM by MRDA1981
GristknifeHang on, I'm going to have to be pedantic for a moment. This is not an example of reverse sexism. Sexism is discrimination by sex, not just males doing horrible things to females. Women abusing men is sexist too. Reverse sexism isn't really defined, but in my mind it's when actuall sexism has a bennefit for the person being discriminated against, i.e. about 70% of the Chivalric code as understood by the man on the street.
Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.
Reverse sexism isn't really defined, but in my mind it's when actuall sexism has a bennefit for the person being discriminated against, i.e. about 70% of the Chivalric code as understood by the man on the street.Condescension doesn't benefit women, actually.
Tyrannicidal ManiacChivalry is gynocentric.
So are child beauty pageants. What's your point?
Condescension doesn't benefit women, actually.Run along and buy something nice dear, the men are talking. <3 Penguin, just kidding
The AR-15 is responsible for 95% of all deaths each year. The rest of the deaths are from obesity and drone strikes.
Connoisseur of redheadsI keep hearing stories of women puncturing condoms and.or getting pregnant on purpose; all the more reason to bring your own.
Tyrannicidal ManiacThat's for Hungry Joe.
"Wait, people learn about domestic abuse in school? Where do you live?" Newfoundland, Canada. That's about as specific as I am going to get. Though to be fair, they don't spend much time on that either. They have students meet up in the cafeteria for an afternoon in middle school (I only recall them doing this once, but it might have been more than once) where the local women's shelter (the one that gives out pamphlets saying "he becomes violent, she tries to keep the peace" which in turn reinforces such stereotypes and makes people less likely to believe that women would abuse men) shows a video about abusive relationships, one in which the guy is the abuser and the female is abused. Also, they respond VERY dismissively to the idea that a woman would be abusive towards a man. EDIT: Also, the health teachers DO mention domestic abuse from time to time, but they don't mention it very often. And they certainly don't seem to present any perspectives on it contradicting those of the local women's shelter either.
edited 16th Mar '11 8:33:58 AM by neoYTPism
Her with the hatTo be fair, they don't need to contradict what the women's shelters say, because it isn't a lie, it's just the specific focus of a women's shelter. They just need to be more open to other possibilities about what sort of abuse exists that aren't covered by said shelter's documents. How often does the Baby Trap thing occur IRL? I've heard of more fictional cases than real ones.
I need a new signature. Applications taken within.
Azor AhaiThis. I'm not sure what the opposing viewpoint is that you're seeking- abused husband? abusive husbands?
The Paedofinder GeneralI feel something like the "Male Abortion" where the man would be able to terminate his obligations financial and otherwise to the child would help in situations like this.
edited 16th Mar '11 12:57:13 PM by IanExMachina
By the powers invested in me by tabloid-reading imbeciles, I pronounce you guilty of paedophilia!
It does happen with males too, although males do have more options out. Still, it is not unheard of. this one remembers reading about the case in which female actually sabotaged a condom (without guy's knowledge) in order to make him stay with her. Well, he didn't, and then she sued for child support. Even though she confessed that she sabotaged birth control, that she wanted a baby and guy was against it and done everything in his knowlege to prevent it - the verdict still was that he has to pay. Which is insane.
If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common
Azor AhaiRead about that case (or an equivalent case) in a Family Law class I'm taking. It does seem unfair, although the argument, which has a fair amount of merit I think, is that courts are to look out for the "best interest of the child". So, even if the child was produced by fraud, you can't punish the child (i.e. allow the guy to not pay child support) because of it. There's also a problem tort-wise. Because it's the same outcome to not allow the guy to pay and to allow him to sue for the amount of child support payments. Wish there was some other kind of legal claim available, but don't think there is one.
this one remembers reading about the case in which female actually sabotaged a condom (without guy's knowledge) in order to make him stay with her. Well, he didn't, and then she sued for child support. Even though she confessed that she sabotaged birth control, that she wanted a baby and guy was against it and done everything in his knowlege to prevent it - the verdict still was that he has to pay.... what? Whether this is a problem with the legal system or with sexism, that's just dumb. Where was this?
Azor AhaiEvery state AFAIK. Dishonesty of the woman in the case isn't treated as a valid legal argument to get out of child support.
MentorIt's rather common. I personally know of a girl who told her ex she was pregnant with his child when she wasn't, in the hope that he would come back and actually make her pregnant.
Whether this is a problem with the legal system or with sexism, that's just dumb. Where was this?Well, that particular case I've heard about was in Russia, but it seems that it is commonplace around the world I still do not understand the reasoning. Child's interests or no, why should a man be responsible for something he been tricked into? I mean, umm, if he was raped, would he still be required to pay for his rapist's child? How is it any less insane?
edited 16th Mar '11 1:54:18 PM by Beholderess
If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common
Azor AhaiFunnily enough, there was a case in my class today about a case (which might be a bit uncommon) in which this 16 year old female babysitter got pregnant after having sex with a 12 year old guy and he had to pay child support, despite that being statutory rape. So, I guess the answer would be yes.
MentorThe system definitely needs an overhaul then. Do you have a link for that case or it's name?
Azor AhaiState Ex Rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer, 847 P.2d 1273
MentorOn January 15, 1991, the district attorney's office of Shawnee County filed a petition requesting that Colleen Hermesmann be adjudicated as a juvenile offender for engaging in the act of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 16, Shanandoah (Shane) Seyer, to whom she was not married, in violation of K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-3503. Thereafter, Colleen Hermesmann entered into a plea agreement with the district attorney's office, wherein she agreed to stipulate to the lesser offense of contributing to a child's misconduct, K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-3612. On September 11, 1991, the juvenile court accepted the stipulation, and adjudicated Colleen Hermesmann to be a juvenile offender. Really? I don't want to scream sexism but I doubt this would be the outcome if sexes were reversed, erg, we probably already have a thread for this, moving on... contending that the hearing officer "should have found a failure of consent would terminate rights." SRS sought review, asserting that the hearing officer correctly ruled that the issue of consent was irrelevant And this is the issue, consent is considered irrelevant when determining if a father should pay child support. It puts financial burden on a rape victim, this alone should be enough to get the law changed.
Azor AhaiI do kind of hold with the "best interest of the child" rationale, but that case is really problematic as it's kind of hard not to think that the court disbelieved that men could be raped. I mean they referred to the baby as the "only innocent party", but I'd think there were actually two innocent parties here.
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from firstname.lastname@example.org.