This is what Feminism has done to Child Support Laws

[Beardy McFuckface]

Erm, no. These laws weren't lobbied by feminists. That's all I'm saying.

The rape laws over here for example didn't get changed until the 90s. The problem? The Catholic church.

['andersom']

A council not too far from me is delving into options to do the same. To find biological fathers to pay for their kids. The plan is to cut women down on their income if they do not help to find the biological fathers.
This includes victims of abuse. Anything for the government not to have to pay.

Reaction of quite a few women was that they'd rather go completely poor than putting the lives of their kids and themselves at risk.

That money hunger doesn't sound like feminism to me.

[Al Swearegen]

A council not too far from me is delving into options to do the same. To find biological fathers to pay for their kids. The plan is to cut women down on their income if they do not help to find the biological fathers.
This includes victims of abuse. Anything for the government not to have to pay.

Reaction of quite a few women was that they'd rather go completely poor than putting the lives of their kids and themselves at risk.

That money hunger doesn't sound like feminism to me.

It is not to say that Money hunger equals feminism.
It is that Feminism has been behind putting a system in place. Once it is in place it is hard to shift and it may adapt in ways that will disadvantage women and children it also may be co-opted to benefit government or the rich or anything else.
I saw a video the other day about a woman who years ago married a guy that was very light on work and over the years made very little. They divorced, and she went on to become a high flyer on fat cash. He was barely employed.
He then claimed alimony (I think) off her and it was upheld. So she has to give tis bum she isn't married to money and a lot of it.
This was never designed to be a system by which women were to be penalised. But in this instance it is. He does not deserve the money, but then so many women in his situation have equally not deserved the money off their ex-partners.
So the fact that a system is put in place to benefit some and doesn't always or is corrupted or inefficient or unwieldily does not mean that much to me. It certainly doesn't mean it was not a product of Feminism

[RageBeoulve]

What you've pointed out here is a product of theists, Al. Feminists are just as assly, and I hate them too, but this wasn't their turd.

[Jack]

Yes, it is due to feminism. Men have no say about anything concerning legal/financial matters of their sperm. Have always believed there would be fewer unwanted/unprepared pregnancies if single men were legally able to 'choose' not to be a parent like women do. Equality is not.

[Al Swearegen]

Yes, it is due to feminism. Men have no say about anything concerning legal/financial matters of their sperm. Have always believed there would be fewer unwanted/unprepared pregnancies if single men were legally able to 'choose' not to be a parent like women do. Equality is not.

Yes. Thanks Jack

It is strange that if a mother wants to abort a child, the father has no say. If a Father wants to keep a child, he has no say. If a woman wants to adopt a child out, the father can not intervene and can not know where the child has been placed. If a woman lies about the paternity of a child and the lie is discovered after he has been paying child support for a long period of time, she does not have to give the money back. Furthermore, depending on how long this distressed man has been falsely being a Father to the child, he may have to keep paying child support until the child that an unfaithful wife or ex-wife is 18.

None of this is fair to the Father. If Feminism was really about equality, these things would have been attended.

These things all came about as a Feminist response to a perceived need of women to be protected by the state. It is ingrained in society for men to protect women and children so like many aspects of Feminist incursions into law and culture, there really was not going to be that much resistance. Women want to protect women and children and men want to protect women and children. Once a bit of ground is made then slowly eroding away Father's rights and obligations and the Paternal obligations to state obligations to enforce on Fathers is the next step.

[Jack]

Disagree with the idea about men having any legal say about whether or not a woman gives birth. It creates sad circumstances for some men, but the alternative is just too much. Though if it's legal in society for a woman to terminate her own fetus, then can't see the problem with allowing men to legally sign away parental rights and obligation. It's just an opinion, but in my country birthcontrol is accessible and effective for the vast majority. Therefore can't help but believe, women would be more responsible about their bodies if they weren't able to legally force men to financially support their choices.

[Al Swearegen]

Disagree with the idea about men having any legal say about whether or not a woman gives birth. It creates sad circumstances for some men, but the alternative is just too much. Though if it's legal in society for a woman to terminate her own fetus, then can't see the problem with allowing men to legally sign away parental rights and obligation. It's just an opinion, but in my country birthcontrol is accessible and effective for the vast majority. Therefore can't help but believe, women would be more responsible about their bodies if they weren't able to legally force men to financially support their choices.

Look I agree. I would not use the abortion solely as an indicator of women having greater rights or greater say but combined with all of the above examples is a compelling argument.
I don't think that there ought to be a demand for women to give birth to kids they don't want either. Unfortunately there has to be a loser an the women ought not be that loser in that instance.
I just think that laws ought to be fair and equitable and not favour a gender.

[Jack]

Agreed.

[RageBeoulve]

Yes, it is due to feminism. Men have no say about anything concerning legal/financial matters of their sperm. Have always believed there would be fewer unwanted/unprepared pregnancies if single men were legally able to 'choose' not to be a parent like women do. Equality is not.

This is true, but it still looks to me like this particular nonsense is mostly the theist's fault.

[Jack]

Yes, it is due to feminism. Men have no say about anything concerning legal/financial matters of their sperm. Have always believed there would be fewer unwanted/unprepared pregnancies if single men were legally able to 'choose' not to be a parent like women do. Equality is not.

This is true, but it still looks to me like this particular nonsense is mostly the theist's fault.

No. Theist didn't advocate for the existence of these laws; women did.

['andersom']

Yes, it is due to feminism. Men have no say about anything concerning legal/financial matters of their sperm. Have always believed there would be fewer unwanted/unprepared pregnancies if single men were legally able to 'choose' not to be a parent like women do. Equality is not.

In the case of sperm donorship, I think the father chose not to be a parent, just helping someone out who wanted a kid.

In other cases, it's complicated. Can a man tell a woman to have an abortion, because he doesn't want to be a parent? Can a man tell a woman, who, unplanned, fell pregnant tell her to get the baby, because he wants to be a parent?
Ideally, there would be communication on this. But if the final say would be with the man, rape could become the way to get offspring.

I don't know. Feminism comes in many forms, as does socialism, capitalism and what not. If it can be used for benefit, every ideology will be bent to get that.

Feminist influence in my country means shared custody, by default, after a divorce. It means the richest of the two partners, after a divorce, will have to take financial care of the ex partner, no matter what gender. And, alimony for a partner will never be longer than 12 years. If the marriage hasn't lasted 5 years, alimony for a partner will not exceed the number of years the couple was married.
The maximum of 12 years will probably be brought back to 5 years.
Alimony for an ex partner makes sense. I know couples where there was the agreement they would study in succession, while the other provided the income. If after 6 years one partner got a degree, and a good job, and the time had come for the former provider to quit a job and get a degree, and divorce happened, the one with the degree better pay for the then unemployed and studying ex-partner. The degree had been paid for by the ex-partner.

Trying to pluck money from a sperm donor, well, a state who wants that done can use all kinds of ideologies to get that. Interest of the child, to know it's biological father, and the right of the child to know it's father cares, at least in a financial way, is a nice one to use.  The "it isn't how god/nature intended children to be begotten" is another one.

[Adam]

What about laws that entitle RAPISTS to visitation rights (when the rape has resulted in pregnancy)

I suppose that's feminism too, eh, Les?

[TheoK]

Hehe, in Sweden you can murder your wife/husband or parents and inherit them, since the law makes it compulsory with inheritance for children and legal partners 

[RageBeoulve]

I think after all the risings to defense of "feminism" in here, I should post this.