One major issue with family law, and one that may be a problem with no good solutions, is the absolute female authority over abortion. The male has no input in whether the child is brought to term; that's the absolute decision of the woman. Yet he can be compelled to pay child support regardless of circumstances. Obviously, this is an inequitable situation, but both viable solutions have their own problems.
Even with the "male abortion" option (wierd name, especially since many supporters want it to be available to women too) the mother could still give the child up for adoption or use safe drop laws to avoid the problems of raising the child on her own. Essentially if this option were implimented for men then in cases where the woman carries to term she has the option of giving the child away releasing her from all economic costs and making it so the father cannot raise the child wether he wants to or not. If the father chooses to use the right to waive legal parent hood then she can give the child away (making this outcome the same as for the father if she didn't want the child) or she can keep it but with a greater economic burden. This situation is (even disregarding the fact that wether there is a child or not is entirely the woman's choice, which is just biological fact) strictly better for the mother, having all the options the father has and some he don't (which is why women also should have this right, so that fathers can get the choice of raising the child on his own when the mother doesn't want the economic burden at least some of the time)
@Air of Mystery: Both male and female circumcision are umbrella terms for a number of different operations. Some the most severe of the former are more invasive than the least severe of the latter (although those less invasive surgeries are by far the least common), so it doesn't make sense to determine what is allowed by the gender of the subject if the justification is the severity of the operation.
Just awesome like thatSomething that I actually did a research project on for my freshman psych and anthropology classes involved the relative lack of rights birth fathers have in the adoption process if they do not want the mother to give the child up (or if they want to raise the child themselves but the mother doesn't want them to have it yet doesn't want to keep the child). The process they need to go through to prove their willingness and capability to take care of the child is more often than not prohibitively obtuse, and the root of the issue is the belief that only mothers (especially biological mothers) are fit to take care of a child simply because they popped it out of their womb. It takes two to make
A Polar Bear Named GabraelI had my son circumcised at his birth because all the research I knew of (including polling my male friends and family members) said it was more hygenic and prevented a lot of problems later. This is different from female circumcision which doesn't have any medical benefit at all. So I don't consider male circumcision in the same level. Now when it comes to male paternity and their rights, I have a lot of first hand experience with this. The truth is the amount of fathers who want that baby regardless are a VAST minority compared to the rates of deadbeats and losers. While I hate that it is unfair, the system not to blame, it's the majority that should be blamed. I do not think it's right for a man to force a woman to carry his child. I cannot abide that. But another thing people don't seem to realize is at least in America, both the mother and the father have the ability to sign over their parental rights. If they don't want to be a parent, they can sign away their rights to the state. The child will either go to the parent that wants it, or if neither wants it, an appointed guardian. But no one has to be a parent if they don't want to be. But male paternity is also in the field of domestic abuse cases with me. Most of the time, the man is an abusive prick and will be treated as such until the case is examined better. I know about this issue first hand too. I feel for men. And as the mother of a boy and the girlfriend of a man I am very concerned with these issues. It just seems that there aren't that many clear cut ways to solve these problems.
Well I have no idea about female circumcision, it primarily happens in non-Western cultures so it's not really a problem for us (and I think most western countries made it illegal anyway). For male circumcision, I believe the latest studies show that the rate of complication equals the rate of benefits, and this is a long and well studied issue since it occurs so much in Western society... thus there's no net benefit to having male circumcision. As for guardianship of a child, it's an exceptionally complicated issue. The idea that a male can "abort" his rights to a child sounds good except for all the males who are just deadbeats. It's nowhere near equivalent to a woman giving up parentage of a child because a woman has the child until she does so, whereas a male has no difference between being a deadbeat and simply giving up responsibility. I mean, in the past, one of the solutions was forced marriage. Today we made it light and said "forced child support payments". But some males balk at that because they were angry that the woman didn't abort the child. But then how would you reconcile that? If one person wants to abort and the other doesn't, you don't have a clear answer. Today we give the power to the woman because she's carrying the child, so we have stated that the pain of going through the pregnancy or going through the abortion weighs on the woman more than the man, so the woman should have the choice. The only time I can see a male properly give up responsibility is if the woman accepts the man's "giving up" of parental rights.
The gravestone has been stolenYa' see this is the thread I've been looking for, and this is the problem with both political parties, neither of them even try to address such issues The Dems which usually have a good handle for human rights, just go Straw Feminist and blame the man as if nothing exists, and push for Double Standard s (especially in the VAWA of '94, well intentioned yes, but discriminatory). The GOP takes the "Shrug it off, ya' he-man" route. And why the hell is misogyny taken more seriously than misandry? There's something really messed up right there from the get go No one addresses why the heck men get all the really dangerous jobs, ...they just go all Tall Poppy Syndrome because a few elites that happen to be men are at the top (that's shrinking by the way), why single women actually get paid more for the job. Yeah the so-called Wage Gap is a myth, men are just disproportionately working for longer, more dangerous hours. Why is it that, no one's tried to make these jobs safer? But the lack of help for boys failing in school is the biggest offender, sure when girls fail, it's a problem and they go to all the trouble to help them do better on Math, now if boys are slightly more illiterate, meh tough luck. Heck just because of the trope Men Act, Women Are, a man will serve longer for the same crime, what about that gap?
Nichts hier zu sehen
A Polar Bear Named GabraelHere is the thing though. Deadbeats make shit fathers. Why keep someone in a child's life who doesn't want to be there? If a man is having to pay child support, unless he is some level of fucked up: drugs, abuse, prison, etc. he gets visitation. (One way the courts try to protect dad's from vengeful moms) Of course, he doesn't have to use his visitation, but as long as he is legally the father, he has rights including the rights to establish limits on the mother's housing arrangements (no cohabitation with partners), he gets a say if she moves, he can prevent a passport, certain schooling or social programs, and other services from being available to the child, not to mention if the mother dies while the child is a minor, he gets full custody automatically. Now all these things can be overruled by a judge. But going before a judge is damned expensive. And if the father really wanted to be a dick about everything, he can make the mother's life hell out of spite. If he legally signs off his rights, the mother gets the chance at tons of services and aid that a single mom who's deadbeat dad still has rights can never get. The child will know that their dad made the choice from their own free will because there is extensive legal documentation for this. It is also really hard to give a baby up for adoption now a days without paternal imput unless you go through a religious private organization, you almost always need a paternal imput.
I'd just like to point out that despite the name, all of the actual legal text of VAWA was totally gender neutral.
You can't even write racist abuse in excrement on somebody's car without the politically correct brigade jumping down your throat!
@ Gabrael So here's an interesting thought for you. In woman-power societies, of the few that exist, one of the better examples exists in China. This society is... well okay, WAS... a warrior culture. The men go off to fight, do hunting and so on. The social arrangement had females as heads of households, and so everyone was basically part of a particular household headed by a woman. The top woman had the most power in a dictatorial clan-like arrangement. The women in this society had 100% parental rights to the children they brought to bear and the men only had visitation rights at best. Women did not engage in marriage and instead engaged in "serial monogamy". The top female in the household could ban particular men from visiting the women in her household if she deemed them unworthy. So, apparently that's what 100% female power would want. @ terlwyth I'm unfamiliar with VAWA, so you might want to expand on that. Misogyny is far more prevalent than misandry, so that would be the reason why we've spent a disproportionate amount of resources on that subject. On the whole, there are far fewer topics in which men have less rights than women, and most of it surrounds family law. In almost all other arenas, men have greater rights. So, if we're going to spend resources on tackling issues, spending more on combating misogyny is okay. Otherwise it would be like trying to tackle poverty on Beverly Hills before we tackled it in Queens New York. I do believe that actually we have been trying to address men taking all the dangerous jobs. I would like to point out to you that just last generation (talk to people the age of your mom), women were actually banned from these jobs and women fought hard to be able to work in places such as coal mines. The reason women represent less of the work force in dangerous jobs is because we banned them from doing it and you can't really expect them to just suddenly flood those positions when we've pushed them into office work the whole time. This is like Medieval Europe bitching that the Jews do banking when it was the only job they were allowed to do. The idea should be to encourage people, of both genders, to work in all available jobs including labour-intensive tasks. Society today is still bent on having men do the physical work and women do the non-physical. Wage Gap exists, it's not a myth. Statistics can't lie. They aren't decades old. We collect that crap yearly. We even rate it against years of education, experience and so on. That said, men work the longer hours because women tend to work longer at-home hours. We've narrowed the gap of housework between males and females but so long as that gap exists, the one who works less at home will spend those hours at outside work. I haven't really paid attention to female detention rates. High profile cases in Canada feature nearly no women and the only women who got less than she 'deserved' was because of a plea bargain. That was just poorly handled justice in general. As Canada has a case precedent style system, I really don't see how women can get less jail time than men for the same crime. The judge would basically have to be sexist, and the vast majority of judges are men, so not really seeing it. Mind you, I'm not really proving one way or another that women have it easier but this isn't really all that easy to measure. Women in general commit less crimes and less severe crimes, thus it leads to lighter sentences. It's really hard to show women who commit tough crimes don't get tough times. I mean, women get life for murder in Canada, just like men.
edited 11th Jun '12 9:19:51 PM by breadloaf
A Polar Bear Named Gabrael@breadloaf There is also the very influencial group called the Scythians whose women would often cut off their right breast so that it wouldn't interfere with their ability to draw a bow when they rode into battle alongside the men. May I also note that with China, I think their gender rights record shows men have more than bounced back from that extreme. I never advocated a 100% female rule, so I guess I'm wanting to know what's your point in relation to what I said.
I'm unfamiliar with VAWA, so you might want to expand on that.The Violence Against Women Act, an anti-domestic abuse act that was, when written, gender-neutral except for one section (which was struck down by the Supreme Court), and which has been slowly expanded ever since.
No one addresses why the heck men get all the really dangerous jobs, ...they just go all Tall Poppy Syndrome because a few elites that happen to be men are at the top (that's shrinking by the way), why single women actually get paid more for the job. Yeah the so-called Wage Gap is a myth, men are just disproportionately working for longer, more dangerous hours. Why is it that, no one's tried to make these jobs safer? But the lack of help for boys failing in school is the biggest offender, sure when girls fail, it's a problem and they go to all the trouble to help them do better on Math, now if boys are slightly more illiterate, meh tough luck.I... have no idea what country/planet you live in/on, but it definitely isn't the same as the rest of us.
"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"
@ Gabrael It's a culture within China, not the Chinese in total, the culture continues to exist today. I wanted to say that in a female-dominated society, they prefer to do nearly all of the child rearing work with only child support from the male. But then in a male dominated society what do men want? The ability to not pay child support. Not the right to have parental ownership of a child, but most of the male rights groups want things like "male abortion". It's a bit disappointing to me. If we wanted to aim for equality what would that really ideally look like?
War ProfiteerI think one of the large issues with parental rights for males is that the court system is a clunky bureaucracy by nature, it doesn't really have the time or compassion to look into each case and examine if a man is a deadbeat or not, thus for the sake of expediency they use the majority of cases when it comes to the attitude the law takes. Which is unfortunate, but true. The majority are deadbeats. It's unfortunate, it sucks, and I really feel for the men who want to be involved in the parenting process. It's a tangled web of complications, and I really don't see an easy and fair solution.
The AR-15 is responsible for 95% of all deaths each year. The rest of the deaths are from obesity and drone strikes.
A Polar Bear Named GabraelLegally we already have equality. It's just not understood or given it's time in the proper channels. Let me give you a real world example: We have a man who is in love with a girl. They are unmarried. They have no kids. They have sexual relations regularly and use birth control. The girl lies to her mate/sabatoges their birth control and gets pregnant. The man has two basic legal options based on if he wants the baby or not. He can go before a judge, use the woman's deception as evidence against her to go for full or joint custody, request counselling, parenting lessons, whatever. The judge will most likely honor a resonable request like that. If he doesn't want the child, he can go before the judge, and use her decption to allow him an exemption for the fees charged with signing over his parental rights. That is another thing, just because a parent, male or female, signs over their rights it doesn't mean they just walk away with a get outta jail free card. While there is the federal right to dismiss parental rights, states vary in assigning financial responsibilities including things like repayment of court fees, housing fees for the child if they were put in temporary custody, or even sometimes child support is assigned in a flat, one time fee. We have a decent system in place. We just need better exercises of the system. Most people don't know their options. Most legal counsil don't represent their clients the way they should. This is a human problem, not just a male problem. And personally, who cares if a culture works like that? I don't know anything about Chinese law, so that's not my place to judge too harshly. The men can always choose to leave.
Mosuo, and while they are indeed rather egalitarian and women do hold a great deal of power in certain areas they aren't really female dominated. The culture that Gabreal was talking about is not the Scythians but the Amazons, and they were probably mostly mythical. They may have been based off rumors of Scythian warrior women (which actually did exist, and were surprisingly common, though not by any means their entire army), but they almost certainly didn't cut off their breasts to fight better.
edited 11th Jun '12 11:34:19 PM by BlackHumor
I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1
Euo will do!In general, when women fight, it's because the culture as a whole is under stress: another example is of the Fon people. Although polyandry was possible within that culture at various points in time, the gender-roles were not as extremley weighted in the way many fear of a woman-dominated culture. Mainly because such cultures aren't usually entirely dominated by females. A section of it might be, but, not the whole, by far. Such cultures are usually a lot more complex than a broad-brush, single paragraph statement ever indicates. Just saying. You might want to look to some culture closer to home for interesting divisions in gender-roles: Inuit ones are fascinating, both modern and historical. Even traditional societies that lean to the patriarchal aren't always as simple as painted, with woman often having surprising degrees of say in some areas. For example, among the amaXhosa in South Africa, a sister can rule like a tyrant over her younger brother's marriage, if she is that way inclined, due to their lobolo arrangement. She can have a say in who he marries, what happens within his household and how the children are brought up — and this is above his wife's or wives' own say. And her own husband shouldn't intrude in this, as that is not officially his right (even if he terrorises her at home). It is hers, by dint of the fact her bride-price earned her brother the right to whatever marriage he may have. However, it is not unknown for a brother-in-law to actually encroach on this using his wife's rights...
edited 12th Jun '12 6:32:44 AM by Euodiachloris
Manliest Person on Skype
But the lack of help for boys failing in school is the biggest offender, sure when girls fail, it's a problem and they go to all the trouble to help them do better on Math, now if boys are slightly more illiterate, meh tough luck.I said in the OP that this thread was not a place to whine about how much better women have it. Aside from that, though, the issue of boys lagging behind girls in academic performance is a good topic to address. After all, it used to be the other way around—boys did slightly better in school and a majority of college students were men. Now a majority of college students are women. What changed?
This seems to be a good article on the subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/fashion/07campus.html?pagewanted=all. This is doubly interesting to me, because I work at a college and the department I work in has 25 students employed—6 of which are male.
edited 12th Jun '12 7:12:21 AM by KingZeal
A Polar Bear Named GabraelThe Scythian people were a group of nomadic tribes that began out of the Caucasus mountain area and spread in all directions, but mostly to Persia and Russian areas in the 7th-8th century bc. These are the same tribes that when they moved southeast they would be known as the Hittites. When they spread westward across what is modern day Ukraine, they encountered the beginnings of the Greek Empire and their actions were recorded by Herodotus. However, his is not the only account we have of these people. We have their gold work, which is what I had to study as an undergrad for my Art History degree. They inspired the stories of the Amazons, yes. But they were not Amazons. Good scholarship on the subject has been done by Edwin Yamauchi, Francis R.B. Godolphin, Tamara Talbot, Ellis H. Minns, and others. Their gold pieces have been on display and up for study at the Metropolitan Museum of the Arts as well as various European and Russian museums. Or if you don't like reading, there is always Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians
Euo will do!They were, however, very likely a matriarchal society of some description (however slight or heavy). Something practically designed to scandalise the Greeks.
edited 12th Jun '12 8:35:00 AM by Euodiachloris
A Polar Bear Named GabraelThey were actually a very egalitarian society. Old men were the instructors and the tutors to young children regardless of their gender. Women were given the choice to become warriors or mothers if they wanted. (Hence why they only removed one breast and not both). We have their burial mounds, some had some paintings in them, at least on the Russian side they were as preserved as they could be. Everyone rode horses. Their armor was very much the same. Some women would actually wear fake beards when they rode into battle. They were a very interesting people. The problem with them was they stopped being nomads and started conquering. As soon as they became rulers, they started assimilating more. This group is confirmed to have made it into Mongolia and Iran. There are some theories they made it as far as Afghanistan, but we don't know that for sure. Their rulers were always men, but the queens were respected as well.
Aside from that, though, the issue of boys lagging behind girls in academic performance is a good topic to address. After all, it used to be the other way around—boys did slightly better in school and a majority of college students were men. Now a majority of college students are women. What changed?The culture shifted, but the privilege didn't, so men suddenly had to go to the boys' club and it was mostly girls. I personally think the problem will self-correct as more men are raised in the newer culture, but if it hasn't started to improve in a decade, I was definitely wrong and we've got a huge problem I have no idea what the origins are or how to fix.
"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"
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 email@example.com.