Abolish Child Support

[mercuryrising]

I would like to ask a related question to abortion that never seems to get addressed. It is largely based on my own experience, but I think there are many men who would agree with me.

The argument for abortion is that a woman has rights over her own body and that another person (i.e. men) have no say whether a woman goes to term with a baby or not.

Ok. If that is true, why does that same woman have rights over a man's income if she chooses to take that baby to term? If a man has no say in her bearing a child, why is he potentially obligated for 18 years to pay her to raise that child? Or do anything else with that child?

If the counter-argument is that a man makes his choice at the time he chooses to have sex with a woman, then the same restriction on a woman should apply. She makes her choice when she decides to have sex with a man. I don't think that scenario would be beneficial to either the woman or the man.

What I see is that we are playing both sides of the issue when it comes to reproductive rights, and the ball always lands on the woman's side of the court. Feminists want to get rid of the traditional family because it is repressive to women. But on the other hand, they want men to take responsibility for a child that is fitting to their traditional role in a family.

If it is voluntary for a woman to decide whether she wants to have a baby, I think it should be voluntary for a man to support her decision to have that baby.

What are the errors in this argument, if any?

Thanks

[Angela]

I would think that would only logically apply if the woman is the sole decider -- that is, if the woman makes a unilateral decision to continue a pregnancy that the man outrightly opposes. In that case, my feeling is that a woman is 100% responsible for her child (well, she is anyway, but so is the man).

But in so many other cases, like where a man feels objection but doesn't say anything, or if he is ambivalent, or if they are a married couple whose vows included procreation but didn't say when, or if he finds another woman, doesn't want to stay in the relationship for whatever reason, or simply changes his mind (an option the woman doesn't have after a certain point), then it doesn't make sense that he not be held accountable financially, and that it not be enforced legally.

I think if a woman behaves without integrity regarding procreation -- for instance, she lets a man think a child is biologically his -- then she should be liable for any money he pays her for the child's support as a result of fraud, and in fact she should be held accountable in court for punitive damages, as well. The man may very well decide that's not the best decision because of potential damage to the child, but the woman shouldn't be let off the hook, legally, for such a (in my opinion) heinous act.

It's all kind of hard to prove, though, especially with the preponderance of strongly held religious and moral beliefs that hold that not having a child, or that a child must have a non-gender-matching pair of parents, or that a man is not a man if he doesn't support his child even if he is tricked, etc. etc. I think to get fair laws enacted in this area there may be a lot of thoughts to re-think in society.

And by the way, blaming and blasting women or some imaginary "feminist machine" for these thoughts that need re-thinking, is not going to help effect any such change -- in fact, it's going to work against you. Men have been every bit as involved (maybe even more) in setting up the cultural beliefs that keep the current procedures going. (not that you are doing that, Ned. )

p.s... one thing I think would be a great idea is if there were a contract involved -- not necessarily notarized or anything, but some agreement that is verifiable, to protect both parents. Personally, I would talk about the possibility of pregnancy with a potential sex partner before any sex takes place. And I think I've already told you about the ten million, in cash, in my name, that I'd require.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

If it is voluntary for a woman to decide whether she wants to have a baby, I think it should be voluntary for a man to support her decision to have that baby.

What are the errors in this argument, if any?

I don't necessarily think that there are errors in the argument. I do however think that it's a giant can of worms where at least one person in the equation is always going to come up short in some way.

Some scenarios:

1. One Night Stand Situation: Man and woman get it on, condom breaks (or they were stupid enough not to use one). Neither should be obligated to the other in any way. If the woman wants to keep the child, that is her decision. If she wants to get an abortion, her decision. That is a tricky part. What if the man is totally against abortion and would take the child himself? Should he be allowed to force her to carry to term? I believe that the answer is no, unless we continue to keep the rule that should she decide to keep the child, he pays. It's easy enough if she wants the child and he doesn't in this scenario. She has baby and is responsible for everything about the baby. If father wants nothing to do with having a child, he should sign away his rights and be free.
2. Dating Situation: Pretty much same scenario as one night stand.
3. Marriage or Long-Term Cohabitation: This is a little trickier to me. What if the couple has two kids, accidentally gets pregnant with a third and the guy doesn't want it? Sure, you may say he is not obligated to pay for a child he doesn't want, but in this case that causes some really big issues: Does the marriage or partnership end? Does he see and support his first two kids and ignore the third? The really big questions come in at this scenario for me and I'd love to hear what others think.

• If you fail to use protection, should you be liable?
• What about if you lied and told your girlfriend or wife you wanted kids, then when one is actually on the way you change your mind?

I don't know. I'm trying to come up with a way that's fair for everyone but I guess in this situation there is really nothing that is I don't think. I'm interested to see the conversation.

[Angela]

I don't see it as being too complicated:

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

[LIST=1][*]One Night Stand Situation:

If a pregnancy occurs, she gets to choose what to do with her body, he does not. He shouldn't be able to force him to procreate, and she shouldn't be able to force him to pay for her choice. (I'm using "should" here in a "where I stand on the law" sort of way).

[*]Dating Situation: Pretty much same scenario as one night stand.

Ditto.

[*]Marriage or Long-Term Cohabitation: This is a little trickier to me. What if the couple has two kids, accidentally gets pregnant with a third and the guy doesn't want it? Sure, you may say he is not obligated to pay for a child he doesn't want, but in this case that causes some really big issues: Does the marriage or partnership end? Does he see and support his first two kids and ignore the third? The really big questions come in at this scenario for me and I'd love to hear what others think.

This is why you should always have a written agreement when you marry or cohabit. Get all procreation financial issues in writing. I mean, you can't agree on whether the partnership ends or thrives, but financial issues, you can, and should, agree on. I don't know why people are so careless about such an important partnership, that they don't include a contract when they marry or cohabit.

Plus, you remind me: just as a man should be entitled to damages if a woman "tricks" him, same thing goes for vice-versa. If a man pulls any "tricks" on the woman: like promising to pull out but then not, or pretending to use a condom, or lying about having been snipped or about his intentions, then HE should be liable for damages, in addition to child support, as well.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

At this point, I'd say that Angela has expressed what I believe is fair as well.

I'm interested to see what the guys think of your "plan" Angela. I think it's pretty straightforward and fair. I do see there being a (probably small, fundamentalist type) faction who will be up in arms that a man can't decide to keep the baby even if the woman does not want to. I agree it is her choice, but I know that there are people who will disagree with that and I'd love to hear their argument on the matter.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by Angela

And by the way, blaming and blasting women or some imaginary "feminist machine" for these thoughts that need re-thinking, is not going to help effect any such change -- in fact, it's going to work against you. Men have been every bit as involved (maybe even more) in setting up the cultural beliefs that keep the current procedures going. (not that you are doing that, Ned. )

Well, I think I did to certain extent in saying that the ball always lands in a woman's court. Some of my own anger about the past. My apologies.


So let me correct that. I understand that women, in many situations in our society, are virtually powerless. There are many women who live in poverty because they chose to keep their baby and I do not wish to attack those women. I have the utmost respect for women who make such a sacrifice of themselves. It is a very tough road and I have met many women who have worked full time jobs, raised their kids and gotten a college education without any help from the father. They make me look like a lazy slob.

I agree, Angela. I think we need to look at the issues as a society, not as an attack on women. We won't get very far if we can't get past the rhetoric.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

I do see there being a ... faction who will be up in arms that a man can't decide to keep the baby even if the woman does not want to. I agree it is her choice, but I know that there are people who will disagree with that and I'd love to hear their argument on the matter.

I think you may be right about that. And I can see where there may be some real anguish on the part of a man who wants that baby to be born. That might be the most difficult thing a man could ever face, to have a woman choose to abort his child, and I have real compassion for him.

And I hope that the thread doesn't get derailed into a debate on abortion rights -- that would be for a different thread.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by Angela

I think you may be right about that. And I can see where there may be some real anguish on the part of a man who wants that baby to be born. That might be the most difficult thing a man could ever face, to have a woman choose to abort his child, and I have real compassion for him.

And I hope that the thread doesn't get derailed into a debate on abortion rights -- that would be for a different thread.

I think a lot of men are against abortion because of what you just said. It's not to enslave women or make them into their objects. They simply care about children, particularly the one's they bring into this world. I believe they feel a bit ostracized by reproductive rights.

Perhaps instead of focusing on making abortion illegal, they could see what it takes to remove the conditions that put a woman into such a situation.

I think women need to have that option open to them, for their own safety and control over their bodies. But I don't know of many women who would like to find themselves making such a choice.

I almost put this at the end of the thread on abortion, but I wanted this to be taken on it's own merit. If something like this idea were to go through, I think it would clear up a lot of these problems about procreation and who is responsible. I also hope this doesn't get de-railed.

Or that I'm doing the de-railing.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

I think we need to look at the issues as a society, not as an attack on women. We won't get very far if we can't get past the rhetoric.

Originally Posted by Angela

And I hope that the thread doesn't get derailed into a debate on abortion rights -- that would be for a different thread.

Good points, both.

I am rather surprised there hasn't been more of a response so far. I'm really eagerly awaiting what our men have to say on this one (and of course our women as well!).

[Angela]

Maybe you're right -- that the two issues are intertwined.

And if a man believes that a baby's rights trump its mother's -- that a woman does not have the right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy -- then for that man to put his penis anywhere near the vagina of a woman who believes otherwise -- or not to find out first -- is the epitome or irresponsibility.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Angela

Maybe you're right -- that the two issues are intertwined.

I really think they are, even if we stick to discussion of only one side of it here .

Originally Posted by Angela

And if a man believes that a baby's rights trump its mothers -- that a woman does not have the right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy -- then for that man to put his penis anywhere near the vagina of a woman who believes otherwise is the epitome or irresponsibility.

I think this is why I still, even though I've gotten over religious guilt about sex, have a real nervousness around casual encounters. You don't know enough at that point to decide whether or not your values and desires are compatible when it comes to kids, and it's too easy to lie just to get to the sex part. It would be nice if no one did that, but it certainly happens. And then people wonder why they have to deal with such a mess!

I wonder if we'll ever get to a point where we are comfortable saying "I am pro-choice and do not want to have a child" at last call at the bar. OR "I am against abortion and do not think a woman has a right to terminate my child if I don't want her to." While I certainly agree that in serious relationships or marriages this should be well discussed and agreed upon prior, I just don't see it happening with casual sex. Maybe there are people who do this, but I can imagine getting laughed at and passed over for a drunker, less straightforward woman. I guess that would be in my favor anyway though, so good .

[SomeRandomGuy]

I think that a man should be held responsible for helping support any baby that he is proven to have fathered except for in a few situations:

• He can prove that he wanted the pregnancy aborted - In my mind this would require some sort of document to be drafted, basically stating that the man wants the pregnancy aborted and the woman refused. Ideally it should be signed by both parties and notarized (although I can see situations where a woman might refuse to sign). If such a document existed, it would seem to me sufficient proof that the woman made the decision not to abort on her own, and should be responsible for supporting the child.
• There was trickery involved at the time of conception - Anytime a pregnancy is a result of trickery on the part of the woman I do not feel that the man should be held responsible. By trickery I mean that she told him she was on birth control and wasn't, sabotaged a condom so it would break, etc. This would likely be very hard to prove, however.

One issue I see with the first case is when the woman has religious or moral objections to abortion. There could also be a problem if the woman believed the man wanted a baby, until the pregnancy occurred, then he asked her to get an abortion. For these reasons, I think that Angela's idea of an up-front contract makes most sense. If everyone who had sex had documented whether or not they wanted children, the birth control plan, etc. things would be simpler. Not only could this help solve disputes regarding child support, but it would also force people to think about the consequences of unprotected sex before the act. If before having unprotected sex with a woman I had to sign a contract stating that if a pregnancy resulted I would pay for half of any required medical care as well as half of the cost of raising the child you can be sure I would instead take the time to go find a condom.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

I guess that would be in my favor anyway though, so good .

Not to mention your future childrens'!

That's one of the reasons I think having sex with someone you just met in a bar is a really terribly stupid thing to do. The alcohol will help you to "forget" that there are possible consequences, and the unconsciousness will help you to brush off responsibility in favor of lust. Well, duh, Angela.

I believe if you sleepwalk through sex, that is, you don't bother to check out the potential consequences and just ride your own heat wave, then it's pretty pathetic to complain about having to deal with a fertilized egg or supporting the resulting baby. It's a dire consequence to be faced with an unwanted pregnancy (or STD), but if you get to that point, you really needed to be woken up in a big way anyway.

Why don't they teach sexual responsibility in schools?

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Angela

Why don't they teach sexual responsibility in schools?

They're too busy teaching the abstinence .

Really a whole 'nuther thread (note: 'nuther is Texan for other).

[Cyllya]

Another child support angle: Say a married (or similar) couple has kids and gets divorced. It's common for the mother to get full custody and the father to have to pay child support, or less often, vice versa. I've heard it argued that someone who cannot support the child on their own should not get full custody. The child should spend only as much time with them as they are able to support the child, and the other parent won't pay child support because they're supporting the child the rest of the time.

There's some pros to that argument, but also some problems (for example, what if one parent is abusive or doesn't want to spend time with the kid, etc).

Originally Posted by Angela

And I hope that the thread doesn't get derailed into a debate on abortion rights -- that would be for a different thread.

Yes, it's intertwined in some ways but not in others.

Ways in which abortion legality is irrelevant...
1) Supposing no one was allowed to have an abortion, the topic is still applicable, because a woman can still give up her parental responsibilities by putting the baby up for adoption while the man cannot give up his parental responsibilities in the even that she decides to keep it. Still not fair to the man.
2) Some people think abortion is wrong but should not be illegal; I think (not sure) most pro-choice people fit this description despite what most pro-lifers think. Surely everyone agrees it's bad for abortion to be forced upon a person, and no one thinks that abortions should be the solution in 100% of the cases where the man doesn't feel like paying child support.

But some people (who are surely all pro-choice, but not all pro-choice are these kind of people) can't help but equate a woman wanting to keep a conceived but unborn baby she is unable or unwilling to pay for to, say, a person who wants a car they are unwilling or unable to pay for. If you can't afford it, tough luck; no one else should have to foot the bill. Pass on it now and get a different car/baby in the future when you're in a better condition. Any argument against this (unborn babies are people too) happen to be the same arguments you'd use if you were trying to argue that abortion should be illegal.

And if a man believes that a baby's rights trump its mothers -- that a woman does not have the right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy -- then for that man to put his penis anywhere near the vagina of a woman who believes otherwise is the epitome or irresponsibility.

What about those rare cases when someone changes their mind on abortion? I did once.

[Brutha]

The right over your own body is more important than the right over having money.

What are the errors in this argument, if any?

A decision to have an abortion is more than a decision not to have a child.
It carries also a lot of ethical baggage with it even if you don't believe that it should be outlawed.

[funchy]

I think you're right. There should be some provision for a man to sign away his parental rights (and all obligations such as child support) the moment the woman knows she is pregant. I agree it's not fair women to want 100% of the decision not to adopt out or abort but they can demand child support. It isn't fair.

But that being said, sexist things still happen against women, too. Women still make less than a man doing exactly the same type of work. There is still a glass ceiling in some professions. The average women don't get the respect & power that the average men do. We don't get hired if the employer finds out we're trying for a family, but it wouldn't hold back a man from being hired or promoted. Our government & laws are written and upheld by a majority of men.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The right over your own body is more important than the right over having money.

Money comes from work. And work involves the mind and body. It's no different than slavery in that sense. You are laboring for someone else without any decision in the matter. And you can go to prison if you don't pay up.

Consider that: you can go to prison for not paying someone for a choice that you didn't make.

A decision to have an abortion is more than a decision not to have a child.
It carries also a lot of ethical baggage with it even if you don't believe that it should be outlawed.

You are right, it does. I think that more than anything, women need our compassion and forgiveness. Not forgiveness because we think they did something wrong for making that choice, but that they feel they did something wrong.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by funchy

I think you're right. There should be some provision for a man to sign away his parental rights (and all obligations such as child support) the moment the woman knows she is pregant. I agree it's not fair women to want 100% of the decision not to adopt out or abort but they can demand child support. It isn't fair.

But that being said, sexist things still happen against women, too. Women still make less than a man doing exactly the same type of work. There is still a glass ceiling in some professions. The average women don't get the respect & power that the average men do. We don't get hired if the employer finds out we're trying for a family, but it wouldn't hold back a man from being hired or promoted. Our government & laws are written and upheld by a majority of men.

I think that part of the problem is that we have some laws that recognize equality and other laws that uphold a tradition and it becomes quite confusing real quick. Family law is a complete mess.

It would be good if we changed the way we hire people. I read a study a while back that showed that the traditional hiring method where you go face-to-face and the employer decides if they like you is the worse way to hire someone. A competency evaluation is much more effective. And you can make those anonymous. The employer would only see an ID number and a set of scores.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

I wonder if we'll ever get to a point where we are comfortable saying "I am pro-choice and do not want to have a child" at last call at the bar. OR "I am against abortion and do not think a woman has a right to terminate my child if I don't want her to." While I certainly agree that in serious relationships or marriages this should be well discussed and agreed upon prior, I just don't see it happening with casual sex. Maybe there are people who do this, but I can imagine getting laughed at and passed over for a drunker, less straightforward woman. I guess that would be in my favor anyway though, so good .

I'm not sure why we couldn't have some kind of ID that states your position. Everyone fills one out in high school during sex ed. I'm sure some lawyers could tear it apart in a court and you might not flash it at the bar, but at least everyone would be aware of the consequences and they are consciously making a decision.

[Brutha]

Money comes from work. And work involves the mind and body. It's no different than slavery in that sense. You are laboring for someone else without any decision in the matter.

The right about your own body is separate from laboring.

Consider that: you can go to prison for not paying someone for a choice that you didn't make.

Going to prison doesn't infringe your right about your own body.
That the reason why civilised countries don't torture or have capital punishment but do imprison people.

[Lauxa]

My lawyer friend has talked before about how he should develop a pre-conjugal contract for men which basically limits liability for any offspring conceived. That might be a really good offering for both men AND women, several different versions of contracts going over birth control plans and agreement on what will happen if a child is conceived. But would anyone even want something like that? Or is it all nookie first, think about the consequences later?


Hg, I agree that a man should be able to terminate his parental rights during pregnancy, possibly paying a small fine sufficient to cover costs of abortion and recovery. I also think men paying child support should have the right to see their children, and I know that this is sometimes a problem in today's legal system.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The right about your own body is separate from laboring.

Please explain to me the difference.

Going to prison doesn't infringe your right about your own body.
That the reason why civilised countries don't torture or have capital punishment but do imprison people.

I'll tell you what, how about you start sending me $400 a month because we are having this conversation, because I choose to have you send me the money. And if you don't, the authorities will arrest you and take you to prison.

According to your argument, there is nothing wrong with any of that. I'm not infringing on your rights in any way. Send me a PM and I'll give you my address.

[Brutha]

Please explain to me the difference.

What is the difference between a apple and a banana?
The right about your own body is a right about being what you want to be.
The right about freedom from forced work is a right about being free to do what you want.

According to your argument, there is nothing wrong with any of that. I'm not infringing on your rights in any way. Send me a PM and I'll give you my address.

You have no right to begin with to demand money from other people.

In the example of child support there are children's rights and a child has the right to the opportunity of well being against their parents who happen to be responsible for the child's existence.
When the child is underage the mother represents the interests of the child and can therefore demand money from the father to be able to provide for the child's well being.

The child happens to be innocent for whatever decisions their parents made (to have sex) and therefore it's rights to have two parents who care for it are stronger than your right to do whatever you want.

I think in decisions like this from a European perspective, in another thread someone informed me that the US doesn't fully recognize children rights but I still think that children's right at least exist a bit in the US.

[SomeRandomGuy]

Originally Posted by Brutha

When the child is underage the mother represents the interests of the child and can therefore demand money from the father to be able to provide for the child's well being.

I think this is the root of the problem. The child certainly has the right to be cared for. Does the mother, however, truly have the right to demand money from the father? If the mother gives the father no input in whether she keeps the child, etc. then why should the mother not be held fully responsible for supporting the child? If we assume that the custodial parent has the burden of supplying support, then by the mother demanding money from the father she is acting on behalf of her interest (to not have to pay as much to care for her child), not the child's.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we need to separate child's rights and mother's rights in the discussion. I doubt anyone would argue against the child's right to receive the necessary report. The argument seems to be whether or not the mother has the right to refuse to provide the complete support, and instead demand that the father provide part of that support.

[Holistic Star]

When 2 people have sex then there is a possibility of having a child. Even if they use birth control, it isn't 100% effective. it's probably less effective if you are drunk and fooling around and not using it properly.

For a guy to say, well if the woman gets pregnant then she should have an abortion or he shouldn't have to pay for the child in my mind doesn't absolve him of responsibility for his actions.

If I'm out driving my car and cause an accident, even if I didn't mean to, then I still have to pay the other person costs either on my insurance or out of my own cash. (Technically I could also hit and run, but that's illegal).

Just because I didn't mean to crash into someone's car, doesn't absolve me of responsibility for paying for it. If I injured them, the pay out would be more. If I killed someone in an accident it is likely I would be sent to prison. The fact that I didn't want to do it doesn't count. I have to take into consideration that every time I get into a car I could potentially cause an accident.

Perhaps we should have a system where men have insurance policies against impregnating women. If they get to 70 and haven't ever claimed they get a lump sum back!!!

Why not? In Australia, many women have pregnancy insurance as there is no statutory maternity pay, so why not something similary for men?

[Brutha]

If the mother gives the father no input in whether she keeps the child,

That assumes that the mother makes the decisions about what whether to abort the child based on what she thinks will happen after the pregnancy.

If that would be the only thing that's relevant Roe vs. Wade wouldn't allow the mother to abort the child.
The mother has the right to abort the child because it's lives in her and she has the right to control her own body. The father has no such claim.

If the mother gives the father no input in whether she keeps the child, etc. then why should the mother not be held fully responsible for supporting the child?

That assumes that a single mother is able to care as well for her child when she gets support from the father as she is when she doesn't.

then by the mother demanding money from the father she is acting on behalf of her interest (to not have to pay as much to care for her child), not the child's.

It's not only about money. The mother can spend more time with the child when she hasn't to work as much to earn money.

[Dan.Linehan]

I haven't read all the replies in this thread.

However, I think this is a fair assessment of how many men feel with our current laws.

[lifetimelearner]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

I haven't read all the replies in this thread.

However, I think this is a fair assessment of how many men feel with our current laws.

that was interesting Dan thanks

laws are flawed -the legal system is flawed -humans are flawed

my experience with the legal system is this -

I was in the process of filing papers for divorce and my lawyer was trying to force me to do something I did not feel right about

it was the issue of child support

he said legally the child support should have been 20 - 23% of my ex's pay

I told them that that was too much and that would leave him broke

he said to me -"this man has abused you for many years and you should take the maximum you can get "

I told him abuse aside this was a different issue
so AGAINST his advice I settled for a different amount
sure I could have been greedy and revengeful but morally I couldn't that to the father of my children

in court the judge asked me why I had agreed to this amount I told her that that was all I was asking for and left it at that

I am telling you this so you can see this world of laws and lawyers is human based and unless some rise above their emotions it is always going to be dipping the scales of justice




Aesop:
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office."

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

I haven't read all the replies in this thread.

However, I think this is a fair assessment of how many men feel with our current laws.

You know, honestly my first reaction to that was one of defensiveness. I thought to reply, "yes, but it's not just women who do shady things to their partners...what about all the guys who do x, y, z?!" And that more as a reaction to the replies to that comment as the comment itself was not venemous. In fact it was quite straightforward.

And then something very simple, something I should have known all along, hit me: right now we are talking about what it's like for men in this situation. That doesn't preclude recognizing that men also do horrible things to women and get away with it. But to always counter a man's concerns or outrage at a situation like this with what it's like for women, with what men do that's just as bad or worse, is to minimize this very real struggle that men face.

I feel like I finally "get it." I would agree that laws need to be changed. I think we had some good ideas at the beginning of the thread for what would be just, although they do rely heavily on people taking responsibility for themselves.

I was watching Chappelle's Show this weekend...anyone seen the episode with "The Love Contract"...made me think fondly of this thread.