[ SECRET POST #2008 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2008 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



18.


__________________________________________________



19.


__________________________________________________



20.


__________________________________________________








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 088 secrets from Secret Submission Post #287.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 2 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[meadowphoenix]

where women, because of their gender, have control over the life and death of their children before birth; where men have no control over the birth of a child they do not want

This part is about biological sex, not gender, fyi. Since, you know, it hasn't been socialized that only women have children, which would actually relevant to gender issues.

where child support can sometimes be retroactively enforced regardless of whether the father wanted the child

If he didn't want the child, then he probably shouldn't have participated in an activity which biologically leads to it, and in which the only method with a 100% rate of prevention is abstaining from said activity and when he already knows he has no other biological control after there is a fetus.

where women can choose to deny custody by not naming the correct father or any father on a birth certificate; and where women have made DNA testing a necessity to determine paternity and child support

If you know you have the child, that's what court is for. Even if the right name is put down, while they have first claim to the kid, they'd still have to go to court for their rights.

Again, DNA testing is mostly a biological issue. If women and men could have sex and then wherever they had sex a seed was planted into the ground and sprouted into a baby like a mandrake, then for whoever wants to claim, or not claim, the child would have to have a DNA test, man or woman. But this isn't how biology works. I'm sure that cheek swab is traumatizing, however.

Biology doesn't grant responsibility automatically. You're right that gender does, in that we have been socialized to think that. But they aren't the same thing.

[(Anonymous)]

Men don't have a say in abortion unless women allow them to. Children may be given up for adoption without the father's approval because the woman can elect not to name the father. None of that is firmly rooted in biology.

But why aren't women then told that the only way to give up responsibility is to abastain from sex or use contraception? Saying men shouldn't have sex if they don't want children could be applied to women who choose to abort or give up children for adoption. Since this is unreasonable for women, it can't be used as a logical argument for men.

DNA testing is important when the woman cannot be trusted to properly identify the father. Trust in the mother can force a man to be the parent of a child that is not his but that he feels socially obligated to care for. It is unfair that men have to go to these lengths to ensure that they are being asked to care for their biological children.

The point is that women are more maligned for abandoning children because it is easier to determine parenthood, the woman has complete say over the child's life or death before birth, and courts are biased in favor of mothers, as well as a societal belief that women are better parents. There is a consequence to this belief and that is a greater amount of vehemence when a woman chooses to abandon her child.

[(Anonymous)]

But why aren't women then told that the only way to give up responsibility is to abastain from sex or use contraception? Saying men shouldn't have sex if they don't want children could be applied to women who choose to abort or give up children for adoption. Since this is unreasonable for women, it can't be used as a logical argument for men.

Women are told this all the time. I frequently hear it as an argument for why abortion shouldn't be legal - "If you didn't want kids, you had no business having sex." I don't believe in it as an argument against sex regardless of gender and wish people would stop using it it. I can, however, see the utility in applying this argument to men in order to get people to wake up and see how sexist and slut-shaming towards women this argument is.

[(Anonymous)]

Since this is unreasonable for women, it can't be used as a logical argument for men.

Are you agreeing or arguing with me? It's an unreasonable argument for women and an unreasonable argument for men. I just happen to sympathize more with the male side since women are given much greater freedom to decide what to do with unwanted, unborn children.

[anonymouslyyours]

Because it literally impacts their body and health? If there was a way to viably extract and sustain a fetus without any harm or side-effects to the mother I would be pretty appalled if abortion was legal. But there isn't and a woman owns her body and has a right to decide what happens to it. It doesn't really have anything to do with deciding what happens to your biological heirs as much as it does deciding what happens to your body.

[(Anonymous)]

That doesn't discount the fact that men are not given a legal say in their offspring up till the point of birth, at which point they must either take responsibility for a child they were unable to stop being born or pay child support with some places making terminating parental rights difficult and having retroactive payment laws. This greater power over life and death makes women who abandon children more abhorrent in many people's eyes. If a man wants nothing to do with a child, there's little he can do to stop it being born. There are more options open to a woman, so she is more abhorred for abandonment.

I'm not arguing whether this is right or not. I'm only saying what power women have over men in this situation and that that power directly contributes to a woman being more maligned for abandonment.

[anonymouslyyours]

TBH I doubt that much thought goes into the double standard here. Also to suggest the emotional (and physical) trauma of abortion is similar to the emotional issues involving abandoning or giving a child up are almost ludicrously dissimilar.

I'm also having issue with your phrasing of "power women have over men in this situation". When it reaches that point it's not about controlling the poor menz and more about a woman having something happen to her body and having to make choices about her health. The way I see it both parties have complete control over the process as far as it involves their bodies. By design that means women have a longer period in time to make their decision but that choice also comes with a heavier burden either way.

[(Anonymous)]

Where did I say any of that? I didn't bring trauma into this at any time or emotional or physical issues. The original OP basically said it wasn't fair that women are more looked down on when abandoning children. And I replied that in those societies, women have much greater power, control, and legal bias, which directly contributes to women being more looked down on. Women have a much greater opportunity to stop an unwanted pregnancy, are known to be the parents of the abandoned children, have a legal bias in issues of custody and abuse, and are aware of their biological children from the outset. Where did I say anything about trauma or compare abortion to abandoning a child?

Do you even know what the topic of the thread is? It's parental abandonment and women being disproportionately looked down on while men are given second chances. Well, that's because men have much less inherent say in their children's existence, cannot be proven to be biological parents without testing, are less likely to be awarded custody due to gender and unfounded societal ideas about motherhood, and are not necessarily aware of their biological children. There are more reasons for a man to be given a second chance. Whether you disagree with my wording, you can't deny that "by design" one gender is afforded certain privileges that the other doesn't get. I don't see where you're reading oppression into "power over" but you've already said I'm implying trauma, so I'm not really sure what you're reading.

[anonymouslyyours]

I'm not sure what you're referencing about me saying you're implying trauma? I was just addressing what seemed to me was your peevishness about women having an advantage over men. From my perspective a woman's "advantage" in this situation isn't really an advantage.

I also disagree that men have less say in their children's existence. They just have a very different set of options presented. Their say is just more short-lived which is tempered by the fact that they are not physically affected by the outcome of their choice.

I don't think both women and men having an equal say in a decision about abortion is fair because they are affected very differently. Men have a say up until the point of conception. After that any decision made by him will alter her body and therefore he can't make that kind of decision.

As to the point of this thread I wasn't specifically responding to that but to an aspect of an argument you made. I also made a reference to the fact that women should not be shamed for abandoning a child more than a man just because they could have chosen abortion. Abortion is not emotionally the same as surrendering a child for adoption.

[(Anonymous)]

Also to suggest the emotional (and physical) trauma of abortion is similar to the emotional issues involving abandoning or giving a child up are almost ludicrously dissimilar.

The advantage is having a legally protected say in the life and welfare of their children. What is the disadvantage there? Pregnancy? I'm really not seeing what your issue is.

I am not interested in arguing whether any of this is fair. I am simply stating that there is an imbalance in power that contributes to a greater disapproval of mothers abandoning children than fathers. In that regard, it is very much a separate but equal situation, which is to say it's not equal at all. If a couple divorces, there is a bias towards the woman in awarding custody. If a woman wants an abortion, she is able to do so without the father's permission. If a woman wants to put a child up for adoption, she is able to do so without the father's permission. If a woman has a child, it is only in the most extenuating of circumstances that the child is not assumed to be biologically hers. If a parent abuses a child, it is not automatically assumed to be the mother. It is the fact that these situations are overwhelmingly in favor of the mother that indicates an imbalance.

This only applies to certain societies, which proves that it's not an inherent way of thinking but rather a product of societal bias, ideals, and mores. The fact is that men in certain Western societies are at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to their children.

[(Anonymous)]

That's not what the law says everywhere. In some countries in Europe, the father has to legally acknowledge his paternity before or just after the birth. If he doesn't, he doesn't have to take responsability for the child. He can even bail out and he won't be held responsible, legally.

Also, I'd like to add how (from a Western perspective) christianity has influenced that perception. Women are seen as natural mothers, to whom motherhood comes as easily as breathing, who are supposed to love and nurture. When they're not like that, they're seen as bad mothers and abnormal women. I'm not saying I endorse this (certainly not, gosh), but I'm just highlighting the role it plays in what you're describing.

[(Anonymous)]

in some societies. But in those societies,

The show is based off American standards, so I'm using the culture of that country and cultures similar to that country's. There are several European cultures that deviate from this understanding of paternal rights, but the culture the show is based upon does not.

[(Anonymous)]

LOL

[(Anonymous)]

"Men don't have a say in abortion unless women allow them to."

Well, on purely legislative grounds... Men have been pretty much telling women what they could do or not with their bodies for decades.

[meadowphoenix]

Except that after viability, no one has a choice, neither mother nor father and viability is pretty biological. That women have the right alone before viability is biological too, since the health of the any fetus will be dependent on the health of the mother. I will grant you that not knowing a man has a child is a problem for asserting his rights. But that is the only one. Whether they are automatic rights or not is a matter of biology, since as you mentioned, the only certain parent is the mother, being that a baby can only come out through the mother.

It's perfectly fair. There isn't equal consideration for disparate impact. Men's health is never in jeopardy because of a pregnancy. Women's health is, and you can't declare that one health decision completely waives another. There's also a cultural rule that women are primarily responsible for birth control, anyway.

But again DNA tests are needed because of a biological reality.

You're going to have to give me receipts that abandoning children wasn't just as reviled for women when men had control over the life and death of their child, as much as you can with it being in another person, they were automatically assumed to have complete control over their family life, and they were considered the one with final parental control, and that men were just as reviled for abandonment as women are now. Because you are not only assuming causation, but you are assuming a certain order of causation for apparently no reason, considering that history says otherwise. This contempt for abandoning mothers has more to do with diminishing the role of women solely to mothers, so that any rejection of that role made them socially useless.

[diet_poison]

If he didn't want the child, then he probably shouldn't have participated in an activity which biologically leads to it, and in which the only method with a 100% rate of prevention is abstaining from said activity and when he already knows he has no other biological control after there is a fetus.

I can't believe you actually said this seriously. Because when this argument is applied to women, all fucking hell breaks loose.

this is probably a bad idea, seriously not trying to start anything

[anonymouslyyours]

There is a difference in the situations. If birth control fails or a vasectomy reverses for a man there is a difference in what happens when the same occurs to a woman. If a man wants an abortion the consequences are to the woman, not to his body.

Re: this is probably a bad idea, seriously not trying to start anything

[diet_poison]

I'm just making the point that if a person suggests that maybe women should *gasp* avoid having sex if they want to avoid the potential consequences, people start screaming misogyny. It's just common sense imo. I'm not even talking about abortion here - and I'm not condemning sex either, just pointing out the basic fact that actions have consequences and I'm really surprised to see someone applying that principle to one side of this discussion since when it's applied to the other sense you become a horrible heartless troll.

[meadowphoenix]

That's because you're asking for equal consideration with disparate impact. At no point will a man's right to control his health be in conflict because of pregnancy. A woman's health will be, and one decision on your health does not waive the right to control it completely. So the decision not to use birth control, which is a health decision, cannot waive the right to make other health decisions completely.

You're also ignoring that culturally, woman are thought to be primarily responsible for birth control anyway.

[diet_poison]

And you're missing the point - I wasn't even talking about abortion or birth control. Just saying that the principle of "you shouldn't sleep around if you don't want to wind up with the potential consequences of that action on your hand" was applied here to men but nobody ever applies it to women because if they do they get accused of being a horrible person. But I think it's a good principle for *everybody* to keep in mind - actions have consequences and risks are involved; it's something people should be aware of before making decisions like who to have sex with and when and even whether to have it. And it's a principle that's rarely brought up in this sort of discussion, because people are quick to call one a prude or say someone is trying to stamp out others' rights to sexual freedom etc.

And for the record, I think both men and women are responsible for birth control. And that's another part of the choice - if you wish to have sex and minimalize the potential for negative consequences, not only should you protect yourself but make sure your partner is also using protection.

[meadowphoenix]

Are you serious right now? Women have been blamed for the consequences of sex for fucking ever. And I do mean blamed and I do mean forever. That's my point about birth control. I think your opinion on responsibility and birth control is healthy but society absolutely does not see it that way. In society, women are responsible for prevention. And I assure you, girls get socialized to that standard. Boys do not. When you say nobody applies it to women without accusation, the reality is that people get upset because you're repeating a mantra that started in the Classical period and never stopped.

It is slowly changing from that double standard, but you're kidding if you think that principle (women's choices on sex should and do have more gravitas) is not the underpinning of every discussion on sex.

No seriously, though. Why do you think there hasn't been far more research on male contraception, when there was so much variety for women? Or that on the whole, women know far more about condoms, then men know about birth control pills, cups, sponges, rings, diaphragms, female condoms (I'm saying anyone of those things singly). Notice that although there are female condoms, there aren't male birth control pills or shots or rings.

[diet_poison]

Except I'm not talking about the history of who blames who for sex or whatever, I'm talking about what's relevant today and now.

A history of "everyone blames women" doesn't mean that today everyone should always blame men because then it's fair. Seriously, where does that even come from. I'm not arguing about what society actually thinks but what *should* be thought, imo.

I completely agree with you that society's double standard regarding birth control is wrong - sorry if I didn't make that clear enough before.

[meadowphoenix]

My point about society's double standard (and birth control) is that the history hasn't been concluded. It still exists. Now. In the present. Literally at this moment. I brought up the history because this has been a never-changing view of women. Women, in this very instance, are responsible for birth control. Suggesting that only men are been warned is ridiculous, because women have never stopped being warned.

[diet_poison]

"are been warned"

Assuming you meant "are being warned", then I don't know where you got that from. At the beginning of this thread I was talking about one person's comment, not society at large.

[meadowphoenix]

Do I have to go back and copy paste what you said? You suggested saying something about women and responsibility such as I said about men and responsibility would get you jumped on. By who, if not society or other humans in society? Aliens? Either read something substantial about sex politics or realize that you look ridiculously uninformed and like you are trying desperately to cover that ignorance up.