Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Sour grapes. The fox, being unable to reach the high fruit, concludes that it must not be as appetizing as it appears.

Cute cheap shot there, Arkham, but it's not as simple as that. We do value men who haven't completely stifled their capacity for empathy nor their capacity for assertiveness. Neither extreme is attractive.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

It's funny how much vitriol is being flung at these theories, given that the few ethical prescriptions to have originated from evolutionary psychology, sociobiology, and the tangentially-related field of game theory all point to (kin) altruism and reciprocity as the most advantageous ethical strategies.

Well, it's nice to see that science is finally catching up to philosophy here!!

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Indeed, but it is unreasonable to expect all humans to behave as saints. Notions about the perfectibility of man are themselves artifacts of Christian eschatology.

Uh, not really -- unless you're using the term "eschatology" in a certain sense which I can't figure out. Christian theology assumes that man is sinful by nature and that this nature can never be made perfect, at least on this earth.

And such skepticism is healthy. The fact that evolutionary science has in the past been used to justify social Darwinism should serve as a cautionary tale to anyone not to place undue faith in science. But the opposite extreme -- the wholesale rejection of any science that questions man's perfectibility -- is equally pernicious, because it gives free license to monomaniacal ideologues to radically reconstruct society from the ground up, without regard to the human cost of their vision.

Yes, yes, fine. So let's learn some lessons from both fields of study, if we can.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Anarchism has no program -- can't have a program, really. You will not see an anarchist working through the state to impose a singular vision of the perfect world from above. Feminists do this sort of thing, because they are of the same species as other radical totalitarians who believe human beings can be forced to be good.

I object to this kind of global statement about all feminists. It does not characterize my position, nor does it accurately describe many people who consider themselves both libertarian and feminist.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

And it is the man's body that is usurped to pay for the unwanted child. You cannot blithely dismiss this fundamental inequity. Even if you choose to ignore it, other men will not, and they will mount an ever-growing resistance as the double-standard ruins more and more lives. Placing your hands on your ears and shouting "La la la, I'm not listening!" will not suffice to quiet the critics.

Arkham, I understand what you're saying, but I also think you're flirting with the same sort of victim ideology that you so deplore in some feminists. It is a harsh reality that you're speaking of, and I suppose that a man who is all-too-conscious of his gene pool and his bank account is going to have to make some tough decisions about when and if to have unprotected sexual intercourse with a woman.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Huh? The woman is required to provide support for 18 years too. So where do you get this 24:1 ratio?

That is an obligation she chooses for herself -- and only if she forgoes giving the child up for adoption. The man has no such choice. Ever. He is completely excluded from the decision-making process, if that is her wish.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Time will tell. So far, feminism seems to have created as much dysfunction as it reputedly solved, so at the very best it can be considered a wash. I don't think the Men's Rights Movement is going fade into the background, however. I've seen first-hand the human wreckage that results when the family courts fix their gaze on (lower-class) males in my time working with the homeless. And this was before the current recession. The number of men being rendered destitute and homeless by the family courts must have exploded in the last 18 months. I live in a fairly rural area now, and I have seen men wandering the back roads whom I am certain are homeless from their raggedy clothes and overstuffed rucksacks, and I know that many of them are probably in arrears on child support payments they have no hope whatsoever of servicing in the current economic climate. If they are stopped by the authorities, for whatever reason, these men will be going to jail, where the arrearages will continue to accumulate. They are trapped by forces beyond their control. Such men can have no faith or investment in a system that systematically oppresses them, and they serve as object lessons to other, more fortunate men who are terrified of winding up in similar circumstances. That is not a healthy foundation for equitable relations between the sexes.

Injustice is injustice whether it's perpetuated on men or women. The social system needs to change. We can't make men women, or women men, but we can change our social structures (That was what feminism fought for, even if things did get off course).

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Women get stuck too. The decision point is early in the process for both people.

No, they don't. At least not in the United States and other Western countries with similar laws regarding abortion. The woman always -- always -- has an escape route, in the form of abortion. The procedure can be performed as late as actual delivery, in the case of partial-birth abortions. The man has no such option.

Since the woman is the one who gets pregnant, she has a brief window during which she can terminate the preganancy before the options for termination shut down in many states. In some states there is also a very brief period right after birth when the mother can terminate her parental rights. After that neither parent can do so and both are responsible for child support until age 18.

This "brief" period lasts several months, into the second trimester for conventional abortions, and up to the moment of delivery in the case of partial-birth abortions. Moreover, the mother can sever parental rights well after the actual birth of the child. I have personally worked with children whose mothers had them declared incorrigible and handed them over to the state at middle-school age. There is no real legal limit on when a mother can surrender custody of a child.

Obviously men cannot have an abortion because they don't get pregnant. So I see no unfairness here. The only unfairness I can see is the brief window after birth. The women can surrender her parental rights, while the man can do so only if the woman does so first.

Incorrect. The male equivalent of abortion is the prerogative to sever all parental rights and obligations to unwanted offspring. If a woman can decide to abort a child before it is brought to term, and thus sever all parental rights and obligations, then justice requires that men have an analogous right. But such a right is not acknowledged by current family law.

After this brief period both parents are in the same boat, neither can surrender their rights. The father is entitled to support from the government or the mother if he is the one raising the child.

Untrue. Parents can have their children declared incorrigible and surrender them to the state. I have personally cared for such children. I have seen them transferred from one foster family to another, only to be bounced back to my care. A father could not unilaterally do this without the consent of the mother, except in cases where the mother was absent or deceased, since such a move would be seen by the authorities as an effort to deflect mandated support.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Huh? The woman is required to provide support for 18 years too. So where do you get this 24:1 ratio?

Her assumption of parental responsibility is purely voluntary, given that she can terminate the pregnancy before it leads to a child.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I doubt it. Local communities cannot afford to house the homeless in jail. The baby daddies I know of live with a woman until she throws him out, often producing a baby in the process Then they repeat the process with another woman until they run out of the options.

What you describe isn't male versus female issue. It's a poor person's issue. These homeless men aren't raising their kids adequating. And its likely the mother isn't either.

The cause of the problem is poor choices in youth. The consequences are harsh for everyone involved, particularly the children, because of our nation's fetish for personal liberty and personal repsonsibility. If you don't show personal reponsibility then by God we'll make damn sure your kids pay the price. And then by George we will have a whole new generation who is going to go out and do the same thing all over again.

Have you worked with such persons? One of my clients at the homeless shelter was a draftsman. He was trained in CAD-based architecture and could design buildings from the foundation up. He lost his job in a bout of downsizing, and his wife divorced him. In short order, he was ejected from his home, cut off from his child, and rendered destitute by support payments calculated on the basis of imputed income from when he was still employed. The man wound up addicted to heroin and contracted hepatitis from sharing dirty needles. He went through a six month regimen of interferon treatments and lost 40 lbs. during his time at the shelter.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

What do you propose as a remedy, Arkham?

Contractual agreements that are actually honored as such. I would allow men and women, in whatever combination, to enter into domestic partnerships of their own definition. But in no case would government fiat be able to overturn and invalidate private arrangements. That would mean prenuptials with actual legal weight, not subject to casual redefinition or dismissal by feminist judges. Women who fail to secure adequate provision for their offspring would suffer the natural consequence of bearing children without the means to support them. And yes, this would entail disadvantages for children in the short-term. But in the long-term it would result in far fewer unwanted and unsupported children being born, as women exercised greater discretion in their choice of mates and availed themselves more liberally of contraceptives and abortifacints, in the understanding that they would not be able to externalize the costs of their profligacy onto society.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Uh, not really -- unless you're using the term "eschatology" in a certain sense which I can't figure out. Christian theology assumes that man is sinful by nature and that this nature can never be made perfect, at least on this earth.

Eschatology is the study of final things, both as they relate to individual human lives and the entirety of Creation. Christianity posits a fallen world as a result of the original sin of Adam and Eve, which resulted in their ejection from Eden. Time is progressive in Christian theology, since it leads necessarily from the Fall to the salvation of man by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the cross at Calvary, to the eventual redemption and perfection of the world following the Armageddon and the final defeat of Satan and Anti-Christ. Christian eschatology therefore points to a perfect future in which the chosen of God enjoy eternal life in a world without sin or evil. This is the origin of all Western utopian visions, however secular the language in which they are expressed, from Moore's eponymous island paradise to Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat. This goes back centuries. A lot of modern evangelical end-time literature is actually based on the writings of Joachim of Fiore, a 12th-century monk who was eventually declared a heretic by the Catholic Church for his controversial interpretations of the Book of Revelation.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I object to this kind of global statement about all feminists. It does not characterize my position, nor does it accurately describe many people who consider themselves both libertarian and feminist.

Feminists of various stripes should be more discriminating about their allies, then. You will be judged by your most vocal members.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Arkham, I understand what you're saying, but I also think you're flirting with the same sort of victim ideology that you so deplore in some feminists. It is a harsh reality that you're speaking of, and I suppose that a man who is all-too-conscious of his gene pool and his bank account is going to have to make some tough decisions about when and if to have unprotected sexual intercourse with a woman.

I didn't make the world, but I do have to live in it.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Have you worked with such persons? One of my clients at the homeless shelter was a draftsman. He was trained in CAD-based architecture and could design buildings from the foundation up. He lost his job in a bout of downsizing, and his wife divorced him. In short order, he was ejected from his home, cut off from his child, and rendered destitute by support payments calculated on the basis of imputed income from when he was still employed. The man wound up addicted to heroin and contracted hepatitis from sharing dirty needles. He went through a six month regimen of interferon treatments and lost 40 lbs. during his time at the shelter.

If his wife divorced him solely on the basis of his having lost a job, that is a sucky reflection on her attitude towards marriage and commitment in the first place ("For better or worse, for richer or poorer" are part of the traditional vows for a reason). My husband has lost numerous jobs (both 9-5 and freelance work), but you know what -- he's a lot more to me than a wage-earner.

The system may have screwed this guy over with regard to his family life. However, the system is not responsible for him becoming a heroin addict. That's on him. He could have made other choices. Thousands of other men have.

You are seeing the worst case scenarios in homeless shelters -- products of bad individual decisions combined with a lousy social structure. I say both areas need to be addressed.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Contractual agreements that are actually honored as such. I would allow men and women, in whatever combination, to enter into domestic partnerships of their own definition. But in no case would government fiat be able to overturn and invalidate private arrangements. That would mean prenuptials with actual legal weight, not subject to casual redefinition or dismissal by feminist judges. Women who fail to secure adequate provision for their offspring would suffer the natural consequence of bearing children without the means to support them. And yes, this would entail disadvantages for children in the short-term. But in the long-term it would result in far fewer unwanted and unsupported children being born, as women exercised greater discretion in their choice of mates and availed themselves more liberally of contraceptives and abortifacints, in the understanding that they would not be able to externalize the costs of their profligacy onto society.

Interesting. I have to wonder if some of these arrangements might not become more or less standardized over time. It's not my impression that most people are that interested in the nuts and bolts of contracts when they're wildly in love.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

If his wife divorced him solely on the basis of his having lost a job, that is a sucky reflection on her attitude towards marriage and commitment in the first place ("For better or worse, for richer or poorer" are part of the traditional vows for a reason).

Nevertheless, he was completely at her mercy, the wedding vows having absolutely no legal weight. This is the real issue: in the current legal climate, men can have no reason -- besides blind faith -- to trust in the loyalty or fidelity of their spouses. There is no legal or cultural sanction for women who renege on their vows.

The system may have screwed this guy over with regard to his family life. However, the system is not responsible for him becoming a heroin addict. That's on him. He could have made other choices. Thousands of other men have.

Yeah, that's very easy to say. If your entire world was destroyed by the caprice of a human being you loved and the complicity of an unfeeling government bureaucracy, how resilient do you suppose you would be to the manifold temptations of the street?

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Eschatology is the study of final things, both as they relate to individual human lives and the entirety of Creation. Christianity posits a fallen world as a result of the original sin of Adam and Eve, which resulted in their ejection from Eden. Time is progressive in Christian theology, since it leads necessarily from the Fall to the salvation of man by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the cross at Calvary, to the eventual redemption and perfection of the world following the Armageddon and the final defeat of Satan and Anti-Christ. Christian eschatology therefore points to a perfect future in which the chosen of God enjoy eternal life in a world without sin or evil.

It is not clear to me that this eschatology is subscribed to by all Christian sects. (I might have to appeal to Mr. Saari's superior knowledge here)

I certainly don't subscribe to it myself, and though I'm a follower of Christ, I'm no utopian. Never have been. Emergence and evolution are processes, not endpoints.

This is the origin of all Western utopian visions, however secular the language in which they are expressed, from Moore's eponymous island paradise to Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat. This goes back centuries. A lot of modern evangelical end-time literature is actually based on the writings of Joachim of Fiore, a 12th-century monk who was eventually declared a heretic by the Catholic Church for his controversial interpretations of the Book of Revelation.

Yeah, I would consider all that dispensationalist stuff heretical.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Feminists of various stripes should be more discriminating about their allies, then. You will be judged by your most vocal members.

For the purposes of this discussion, I'd be satisfied if you'd just judge my statements.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Interesting. I have to wonder if some of these arrangements might not become more or less standardized over time. It's not my impression that most people are that interested in the nuts and bolts of contracts when they're wildly in love.

I expect that the families of the starry-eyed lovers -- and there is no reason to presume mere male-female pairings, when male-male, male-female-female, male-male-female, male-male-female-female, etc., combinations are equally plausible -- would involve themselves in the drafting of the actual contracts. (Elopement would be foolhardy in the extreme, given the possibility of serious abuse on the part of one party or another.) This would be a novel fusion of the arranged and romantic marriage, with the young people finding one another, but the elders hammering out the nitty-gritty details in order to protect their children. Rather like parents co-signing on a car or student loan nowadays.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

For the purposes of this discussion, I'd be satisfied if you'd just judge my statements.

I can judge you thusly, because I am familiar with your persona through frequent interaction on these forums. But in the wider arena of social and political discourse, the loudest (and frankly, most obnoxious) voices predominate.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Nevertheless, he was completely at her mercy, the wedding vows having absolutely no legal weight. This is the real issue: in the current legal climate, men can have no reason -- besides blind faith -- to trust in the loyalty or fidelity of their spouses. There is no legal or cultural sanction for women who renege on their vows.

I am not convinced that this is true 100% of the time. There are cases in which men have won sole custody. These may be "exceptions that prove the rule," but I believe they do occur.

Yeah, that's very easy to say. If your entire world was destroyed by the caprice of a human being you loved and the complicity of an unfeeling government bureaucracy, how resilient do you suppose you would be to the manifold temptations of the street?

I don't know. Some people are more resilient than others. Some people deaden their pain with drugs. My own father-in-law ended up like that. He was a successful academic but also a very self-centered, unforgiving person who became an alcoholic and estranged himself from all of his children due to his irresponsibility. Everyone lost in that relationship.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Yeah, I would consider all that dispensationalist stuff heretical.

Pff. Forget dispensationalism. Preterism holds that all of the conditions of the end-times occured during the first century after the birth of Christ. That would mean that we are already living in the New Earth refashioned by God following the Armageddon, and this is indeed the best of all possible worlds, which is too depressing to contemplate, IMO.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Nevertheless, he was completely at her mercy, the wedding vows having absolutely no legal weight. This is the real issue: in the current legal climate, men can have no reason -- besides blind faith -- to trust in the loyalty or fidelity of their spouses. There is no legal or cultural sanction for women who renege on their vows.

Nor, in my opinion, should there be. Believe me, I understand the pain and dismay that can be caused when a woman's heart is faithless and without honor (and, by extension and reflection, when a man's heart is the same), but that's one of those things that cannot be solved by law. No contract can make a false heart true. I could wish it were otherwise, but it ain't. The only solution is personal, to consign her to the "lessons learned" category and move on.

Where children are involved, it's no longer between two people, and the children have rights that must be protected. If there are flaws in the system that sometimes give a noncustodial parent child support obligations that are unrealistic in terms of income, that needs to be corrected by changing the system, NOT by giving noncustodial parents an "opt-out" option. I say that as someone who paid child support for two children for more than 20 years.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Additionally, from the youtube video I linked to upthread:

"Reproductive rights: men have none. Now understand this clearly, because it is very important that you understand the full implications of this. Men have no reproductive rights, which means what? If you get a woman pregnant, she can do whatever she likes with that pregnancy. You can be forced into fatherhood against your will, or a child you want can be aborted. And you have no say in the matter either way. Now those who ignore the needs and rights of men will tell you that men do have reproductive rights. They say a man can abstain from sex, or wear a condom. But abstaining is not a reproductive right: it's what everyone's doing when they're not having sex. Wearing a condom is not a reproductive right, it's merely a contraceptive, a preventative measure against pregnancy, just like the pill. Reproductive rights only come into play when there's an actual pregnancy. In the States, Roe vs. Wade established that it's a woman's right to choose what happens with the pregnancy. Now tell me, what legal precedent established that wearing a condom protected a man's right not to have fatherhood imposed on him against his will? If there were a law which said wearing a condom protected men from the legal consequences of pregnancy, then wearing a condom would be a reproductive right. But there is no such law, which means, condom or not, if the woman falls pregnant, you will be forced to pay child support if she has the baby. Ergo, men have no reproductive rights...."

Also, abstinence is no protection. Or even the incorrect configuration of one's gonads. There have been cases in which new mothers have picked the names of putative fathers out of phone books, including a few in which women with unisex names were erroneously identified. The burden and costs of disestablishing paternity are born entirely by the putative father, and in most states there is a very limited time-frame in which this can occur, before a default judgment is filed. If you can't afford a lawyer when the papers arrive in the mail -- or if you never receive the papers because they were sent to the wrong address -- you're SOL. This is especially surreal when the falsely identified women must present in order to disestablish paternity, and are still required to make nonrecoverable support payments until such time as the case is decided.

Mike stated most of what I was going to say, but I must strongly disagree with the premise of your first paragraph. I repeat, the guy chose to have the bad sense not to use birth control. If the woman claimed she was on the pill and really wasn't or other such deception then I see a situation where child support could be denied, otherwise, the guy should pay up if he can afford to do so. Biological differences have no bearing on the normative standards of responsibility.