This wasn't something I just decided -- it was a change I realized over time. I felt I was a feminist since I was for equal rights. Equal being just that. Nothing less. Nothing more.

But the situation after conception is grossly unequal, for a woman has 3 choices:
abortion
adoption
keep the child

I simply have no choice.

That is not equality. I am asking for the same rights women have: to determine my own future.

I used to be a feminist, but I no longer recognize that movement as interested in equality. If you want men to support women's rights then women should support ours too. As adults we should all have the same choices.

As this imbalance continues I believe more men will lose interest as well.

You want to be able to get pregnant so you can have an abortion, put a child up for adoption or raise it? I want to be able to pee standing up (without making a mess no matter how hard I try not to, that is), but due to physiology it's not going to happen. . . .well actually, if I had a sex change it could happen, whereas if you had a sex change you still couldn't get pregnant.

For 100% equality, there must be a perfectly level playing field. When it comes to certain health/physiology related things, there is no way to make everything equal. I will never be able to understand fully what impotence does to a man's a psyche and you will never understand what a pregnancy does to a woman.

I'm working on the assumption you don't want to be able to make a woman who doesn't want an abortion to have one because you don't want the child, and you wouldn't want her to put a child up for adoption if she wanted to keep it because you don't want the child. If this is correct, you have a problem with the fact that when there is a disagreement between a couple regarding continuing or terminating a pregnancy your vote has less weight and can not over-ride hers, but the opposite is true. I'm also guessing that your main concern isn't her aborting a child you want and woudl raise yourself if she didn't want to raise it with you (be honest, really honest). You're angry/concerned that if she is so selfish as to have and keep the child (against your wishes), you will have some long-term financial obligation.

You'll find most of use who are adamantly pro-choice are disgusted at the archaic child custody and support laws we have in this country and are in full agreement that they need to be revised to be as fair and equitable as possible while doing what's in the best interests of the child/children.

You get the same choice as a woman does when it comes down to financial responsibility for a child that was not planned. Women do think about whether we can raise a child on our own financially and emotionally (they have to); any woman who gets pregnant and has children has to think about this because she may not get support from the father (even when he's supposed to pay it), the father may die and leave her without his income to help support the family (father's income is usually higher than a mothers), etc. I don't think men think about the potential ramifications as much or as seriously as women do. Maybe they need to, maybe this will make them think more about who they're engaging in sexual activity with to make better choices so he doesn't feel he's getting screwed long after he's rolled over and gone to sleep.

Excellent....you covered everything.....thank you for speaking for all women

"You'll find most of use who are adamantly pro-choice are disgusted at the archaic child custody and support laws we have in this country and are in full agreement that they need to be revised to be as fair and equitable as possible while doing what's in the best interests of the child/children."

Sadly, that is not true. I wish it were, but it's not. NOW is totally against it. That is in spite of facts like 85% of voters in MA supporting joint legal and physical cusotdy. The Democratic party needs voters like Dustin back. Other issues don't matter much when your reduced to "visitor" status with your own kid, even in the absence of wrongdoing. The Democratic party needs to reject NOW's position on these issues, or be prepared to continue losing.

I'm not sure you even understand what a feminist is. Were you a First, Second or Third wave feminist?

I have never been involved with NOW. I don't know too many women of my generation that have. You quoted me correctly and then went off in another direction. what I said:

"You'll find most of us who are adamantly pro-choice are disgusted at the archaic child custody and support laws we have in this country and are in full agreement that they need to be revised to be as fair and equitable as possible while doing what's in the best interests of the child/children."

what I did not say:

"You'll find a majority of those who identify themselves as feminist and adamantly pro-choice are disgusted at the archaic child custody and support laws we have in this country and are in full agreement that they need to be revised to be as fair and equitable as possible while doing what's in the best interests of the child/children."

There's a big difference, a very big difference. I understand that this is a horrible situation that affects you but when people representing the concerns of non-custodial fathers rally around statements about paper abortions in the middle of a debate on reproductive rights and go on about the evil of women as a group, it comes off as the hystrionics of a man who doesn't want to pay any child-support (even an appropriate amount). There are men and women who are both drasticially in the wrong on these issues and most people are familiar with cases of each. If you want to do your cause justice, build bridges, don't burn them - the way I've seen most of the men present their case is most definitely not the former.

I accept the fact that one can be pro-choice and have never been involved with NOW. In fact, I accept it so much that I include myself as one. This is not about me, it is about kids. If I never had a child it would still be just as wrong. It is nothing short of appalling. It is disappointing to be compelled to vote for someone who is anti-choice just because they are the only candidate who isnt' afraid to say that in the absence of wrongdoing, both parents ought to be allowed meaningful time with their kids. As a parent, meaningful time with my kid is more important than someone else's choice not to have one. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

First, parents (mostly dads) lost their rights to be a meaningful part of their kids' lives. Now, it looks like women will lose theri right to choose, or at least have it dramatically altered. I never wanted anyone to lose those rights. All I ever wanted was for my kid to be able to grow up and have kids for all the right reasons, like I did. Unfortunately, he's seen firsthand that regardless of right and wrong, the government doesn't believe he needs to be a meaningful part of his kid(s) lives.

I'm not sure if our boat is half full or half empty of water. But, I know at least we better start rowing in the same direction.

I always heard the occasional case here and there and always thought them to be aberrations. My mom's a paralegal and the lawyer she works for does a lot of domestic, she's made sure I'm aware that the formulas used for support are total BS and that there's an equal number of folks of each sex working the system and screwing each other without any regard to the kids. I think, if a connection with a large organization could be made, there are now enough blended families in which women and men are seeing how archaic the system is that a real movement could be started to try to force some equity into the system. The only way you're going to get anywhere is if we can find a large, female dominated organization to work with a fathers group and form a coalition instead of this advesarial relationship that's been developed there is some hope for this. How do we make that connection and get to work?

I volunteer to be the token spinster w/o children (until Dante married me, then we can adopt some kids of our own).

Funny you should say that. It's a fact, every time there is meaningful progress in this arena; it's a woman's rights that are being defended. Both times GA's CS guidelines were ruled unconstitutional a woman was the appellant. I don't have any problem with that. It is just as wrong if an unconstitutional law is applied to a woman as if it is applied to a man. And, the truth is that the case is easier to win if it is a woman appellant than if it is a man. No one gives a rat's a** if a man is the getting the shaft. People openly rationalize, well; it's just making up for some other wrong. Meanwhile, they fail to address injustices like the fact that children are 31 TIMES, not 31%, but 31 TIMES more likely to be killed by a woman than they are their biological dads. IT'S NOT ABOUT CHILDREN'S BEST INTERESTS. It's about the money.

There are some organizations that have popped up like GACSR. Incidentally, it's administered by women. But, mostly the movement lacks a central organization, such as its adversarial group NOW. But, with its malicious stands on family issues, at least NOW provides an identifiable a voting cue for these issues and topics. Granted, it's not too sophisticated, but it's effective. It doesn't make me wonder why there is such a gender disparity between the parties when NOW is so public about its endorsements. For the tens of millions of dads, as well as some moms too that were reduced to "visitor" status with their own kids, NOW stands as the single biggest reason that they are unable to see their kids a meaningful amount of time. Organized or not, it doesn't take a whole lot of sophistication to figure that out.

I look forward to the day when voting on issues or candidates makes using NOW as a voting cue obsolete. If it takes women's actions to get there, that's o/k with me. I welcome their efforts. After all, it's not like I don't like women. If that were that case, it's unlikely I would have ever become familiar with these issues.

You forgot one option:

Legal abandonment. Pretty much every state allows for a woman to abandon a child at a hospital, fire station, or police station no questions asked.

Some states allow five days, others allow up to 30. In my home state of NY the baby can be dropped off with anyone loosely referred to as a "responsible party."

I'm afraid it's just not accurate to worry about your potential sex partner. The problem is the government.

The way it is now for any man, regardless of who your laying down with, your potential sex partner in every case is now the US government.

Now ain't that a wham bam thank you ma'am?!

I have always believed that there should be something similar to abortion rights for men. NOT to force a woman to end a pregnancy or to carry a child to term, but a termination of the father's rights if he wanted. That always made sense to me and seemed perfectly fair............. I have the right as a woman to decide if I want to give birth and become a mother, so why shouldn't the man have the same right? A legal way to say to the woman and society early in the pregnancy "I terminate my rights and obligations". Because you're right, it's not fair to let women decided when men become fathers. No more than it would be for a man to legally force a woman to become a mother.

BUT in my mind, exercising that right would be final and have the same effect in the man's life as an abortion does in a woman's. There would be no going back and changing your mind years later. You don't get the "fun" of being a father without the obligations and work too.

I think some of the men's groups are pushing for what they call a paper abortion. I have no problem with something like that being worked out but I am afraid that, at the current time, bringing that up during debates over medical abortion and the much needed revisions to child custody and support laws it actually works against the men. I'm willing to bet that the feminist groups like NOW get extra advesarial when they hear this because they have that knee-jerk reaction of these SOBs don't want to take any responsibility (ignoring the fact that many of the guys are actually getting the shaft, as are the children).

So guys, tell us what we can all do to work together on this and, maybe, get support from a large woman's organization to assist the smaller men's organizations that may not have the infrastructure they need to get the job done?

They do................... or at least, they did the last time that I tried to raise this idea. I'm a proud feminist and a member of NOW, but I will admit that the feminists that I talked to about this were violently opposed. You'd have thought that I was suggesting going back to the days when only men could vote considering the reaction that I received. LOL

But the thing is that this IS only fair. Women deserve our rights and that must include the right to determine our future and what happens within our bodies. But that can't mean that men's rights are shunted aside.

Besides, I think it's better for both the mother and the child to know up front exactly what they're going to have to deal with. I watched friends spend years, many tears and energy trying to get the jerks in their lives to stand up and take responsiblity. Far better that you know from the getgo that this is going to be a totally solo act. You know?

For now, the best thing to do is to write your elected leaders, newspapers, and remain firm on internet boards like this. The facts about the matter are quite compelling. Glenn Sacks is positioning himself as the leader of the movement. But, there are numerous others who have laid the groundwork. Considering where it started from, the movement is quite impressive.

The systematic separation of children from their dads is the Great American Tragedy of Our Times.

I know men who are stand up guys who will do anything for their kids and their ex's seem to just use the kids for cash and as pawns. I know women are totally screwed by fathers who do nothing for their kids and have to face the constant heartbreak of thier children being let down again (as well as the financial struggle). The fact that system works to hurt the guys who are trying to be good fathers and helps the manipulative women only hurts the responsible people, children and society as a result.

Since you're a member of NOW, can you think of ways we can approach them or another organization to spearhead some sort of partnership that will be of mutual benefit and further the cause of true reproductive choice and responsible parenting?

I really don't think a letter writing campaign to my representatives will do jack (especially since I don't have any kids and have no idea what to say).



I actually think the archaic child custody and support laws so more harm to children and society than anything else the religious right deems a threat to the American Family (and their anti-choice stance will further exacerbate the problems we're having, not solve them).

I used to be an ardent supporter of NOW. Mark that down, because it is something that a lot more people are saying. NOW seems to have forgotten how to come up with constructive ideas to resolve issues. Instead, it wants to further the causes of women (an admirable endeavor) in relation to men (a poor choice of measuring sticks).

If men were to fare drastically worse (you pick the issue - pay, time at work, number of men entering college, whatever) NOW would consider it an advance if women did only slightly worse or had minimal gains. NOW is not as concerned about the welfare of women as it is about how it compares to men. While that negative approach might be useful for short term gains, it is undermining and destructive towards real long term progress. Tens of millions, like me who were sympathetic to the causes of women now hold them in disdain, because of the scars inflicted by a 2nd wrong that was intended to correct a previous one. Reality is the score card now reads two losers. Nobody has won.

Currently, women make up about 57% of the college population. While I realize NOW would probably like that percentage to be higher, a rational person has to ask themselves what it is that they are trying to accomplish? It is well documented that a college education is the most effective way to increase one's earning capacity as an adult. Yet, NOW cries that women are precluded from fulfilling that earning potential because they are forced to sit home and raise children. Regardless of the fact that most mothers do work outside the home, if NOW believed this were true, then why would they be so opposed to fit fathers being able to at least share meaningful time with their children in cases of divorce? After all, that would decrease the father's earning capacity, as well as give more opportunity for the mother to put her college education to good use.

Certain things have become apparent:

1) NOW is more bent on tearing down men than it is advancing the causes of women.
2) The overwhelming majority (85% of MA voters) want presumptive joint legal and physical custody laws.
3) Forces that NOW rails against as chains that hold back women are the very forces that it has fought so hard to keep in place.
4) When you identify a party's platform to that of NOW, no one doubts that Democrats mirror that image more than Republicans.
5) Democrats lost the election, largely based upon gender differences.
6) No one looks to another organization to decide on gender issues more than NOW.
7) As a result of the elections, it appears as though the most important issue (the Right to Choose) may be lost or will at least be severely limited.

NOW has managed to piss so many people off, by ardently supporting what it says is the cause for so many women's failures that it managed to lose what is probably the single most important issue to women. When the final reconciliation of all this is done, yes, NOW will have accomplished making losers out of millions of men. But, women are losers too. Sadly, and consistently, children are the biggest losers of all.

You can go back to your NOW organization with this type of info, and tell them about me and the millions of other men just like me. But, the cycle will only continue with them. They will have no message to advance the causes of everyone. All they will have for you is more of the same negativity for you about men like me. That's fine; I guess I can't change that in them. But, just remember I would have preferred to vote for someone who was pro-choice. The only problem was that I was more concerned about being a meaningful part of my kid's life than I was about someone else's ability not to have one.

Look.............. I sympathize with the feelings of frustration. As I say, I support the idea of a legal abortion for men. But I also think there is a great deal of over-generalization happening in this thread. NOW is not out to pull men down, and the system doesn't systematically tear men from their children. It's just that the types of situations that you're discussing (child custody and their relationship with parents) is one of THE hardest things to resolve. In fact, I'm not sure that there is ever a good solution when parents divorce or don't live together because there really is only two choices. Either one parent is shifted to "visitor" status or the child faces years shuttling between their parent's houses in a "shared" custody situation. And every parent has an strong and natural instinct to protect and raise their children, even if those instincts run counter to what the other parent feels equally strongly about. There is simply nothing more fundmental than our bond with our children.

The thing is that I've never seen NOW intentionally try to limit men's rights. BUT they are a women's rights advocacy group, and like with custody issues......... sometimes it seems that one person loses when another gains. There was a time when men held all the legal rights to property and to custody. In fact, there are societies where men still hold those rights. So for women to gain any legal standing means in essence that the men will lose some of what they assume is theirs. I'm not saying that anyone in this thread thinks or wants men to have all the rights. ALL that I am saying is that perhaps what we're seeing as a society is a natural reaction to the feeling of losing ground to another group. Does that make any sense? I hope it does.

Wow, I had a double take between looking at the first post of this thread and how Dustin states that he won't be a feminist anymore because of one issue in reproductive rights. Being a feminist is about much more than reproductive rights--it's so much more. It's about what it means to be Other (which can include identity issues for women, minorities, anybody outside of dominant hegemonies, and yes, even white European males victimized by their own hegemonies). Reproduction/custody is just the tip of the iceberg! Then there are the issues concerning opportunities in employment (oh yes, there is an Old Boy's Club, me dears, in most every organization, but especially in big businesses), treatment, especially in domestic expectations, the implicit coding which situates and hardwires us into certain ways of life, jobs, the way we look, act, and feel about our bodies and identities.

Don't believe me? What do you suppose it is like for somebody who is gay in this country? Even transgender? What do you suppose it is like for a woman to work for years in a company only to be replaced or fired because she doesn't look good enough, is too old, or because somebody else is younger, prettier/better looking? This happens to white males, too--issues of reproduction are important, but let's not get hysterical here! You are not a feminist and weren't in the first place if you would chuck it all because of one issue that hasn't been righted yet--as if women or any Other person in this crazy world has ever achieved that kind of equality anyway, or whether true equality could ever be possible. Stop overgeneralizing--you're throwing out the baby with the bath water! If you want to change something in particular, fine, but threatening others that you'll quit is silly, juvenile, and it's a fallacy, to boot.

I see your point. I think If a man doesn't want to be a father and the woman wants to go ahead with the pregnancy, he should give up his parental rights before the child is born. I don't believe in forced motherhood or forced fatherhood.

Dyan,

Like I sated before, I am pro-choice. That has never changed about me. But, to think that NOW is not intentionally trying to limit men's rights is simply ignoring its stated positons. Probably more important than that is NOW's disregrard for the welfare of children. In spite of the crying about children being shuttled "back and forth" between homes, children in joint physical custody fare far better than their counterparts in sole custody. In fact, it's not even close. As for the myth of being shuttled back and forth, typical joint physical custody arrangements have children going to and from one home to the other far less than if the child were reduced to visitation with his/her own parent.

This past November 85% of voters in MA supported a ballot referendum asking for their legislators to enact presumptive joint legal and physical custody.

I think that you're confusing feminists with membership in NOW. I am definitely a feminist, but I have never been a member of NOW. I am, however, on their mailing list from attending the pro-choice rally.

If you feel that all feminists are man-hating bitches who want to deny men their rights, then you're buying into the stereotype being fed to you by the Repubs. Not all feminists are members of NOW, just like not all senior citizens are members of the AARP.

Before making such accusations, please read through the thread. This very issue was already discussed. I believe the only areas that I've mentioned where feminists might be in disagreement with my positions are ones in which NOW has publicly called for different actions. On what is quite possibly the single biggest issue, the right to choose, we are in agreement.

The original poster said he was no longer a feminist because he was denied a right to choose, like a woman is. I'm giving you a mulligan on that one. I'm just taking it a step further and saying if men can be forced to become a parent, with no choice about the matter after a pregnancy like women have, then you at least have to allow the father to become and/or remain a meaningful part of his kids' life. Even so, I'm not saying he should be given any more rights as a parent than the mother should enjoy.

The basis of the argument is not to pit men against women. The basis of the argument is that children in joint custody fare similar to those in intact families, which is light years different than children who grow up in sole custody. In spite of the preponderance of those facts, and that 85% of voters in MA just voter to support joint legal and physical custody, NOW is vehemently opposed to it.

If demanding that laws allow both parents to be a meaningful part of their kids lives makes someone a female-hating bastard, then I suppose you'll now have to color Massachusetts red.

ParentofChild,

Here's what I know from first hand experience.

(1) the judicial system isn't fair. But then I doubt that there is a "fair" solution to child custody situations, so I find it hard to fault judges for their all-too-human reactions.

(2) joint physical custody is a disaster most of the time. For it to truly work well, the parents must be able to get along and cooperate. The problem is that if they could get along and cooperate to the level needed for joint custody, then they wouldn't be divorcing in the first place. The reality is that divorce is filled with hurt and anger toward the ex-spouse. In fact, I think it's safe to say that most people hate their ex-spouse at one time or another. OHHHH it might be fleeting and quickly regretted, but the emotions are all there. Hate Anger Reproach Disappointment Hurt Blame ..... Face it, there are emotional reasons why people divorce. So it's naive to believe that those feelings will magically end when faced with joint custody.

How do I know this with certainty? I'm a former divorce attorney.

As a former divorce attorney can you think of ANY (not just family court) other area of American Law where the routine final order of the court is to punish those of whom said court has found no wrongdoing, besides reducing a parent and child to less than meaningful time with one another?

I don't accept your assumption that the final order is a punishment on any party nor is it "routine". Most judges that I know (and most lawyers) honestly do their best with what they have to work with. It's as I keep saying.............. people are imperfect and because of that, the end results are also imperfect.

And yes, I can think of several areas where two equally reasonable positions end up with one party feeling as if they "lost". Property rights, for example. Inheritance disputes. Contract disputes. It is very possible for two good people to end up with a dispute where the facts are that NEITHER was the "bad guy", yet the very nature of the system is that the Court has to issue a ruling that very often means that someone who did nothing "wrong" or illegal loses their case. That is the very nature of our judicial system......... it's based on one party winning and one party losing.

If that type of result doesn't work for you, then in all honestly your best solution is to stay out of the judicial system. Work out a custody arrangement with the other parent privately. If you want the arrangement to be formalized with a court order, that's possible and I have never ever seen a court turn down an arrangement that both parties want and that works for the child. But I know what you'll say .......... or at least I strongly suspect I know what's coming next.

You'll say what if it's the other parent who forced the matter into court or the one that refused to work things out privately, which I have seen happen many many times. But that's my point.

If, for whatever reason, the other party can't or won't agree about a custody arrangement, then how do you honestly expect that a court ordered shared custody schedule will work? If that person is going to be unreasonable and unbending now, I promise you that a court order won't make them more reasonable tomorrow. Which is why I say that I have never seen court ordered shared custody work other than in the rare cases when BOTH parties want it. And, frankly, those cases either never come to court because the parents worked it out privately or they don't come to court because they find a way to keep the marriage together as well.

Please understand that I'm not being flippant about your position or your dedication to your child. I am also a parent, and I cannot begin to imagine what it must be like to have someone else (whether it's the othe parent or a court) tell me how much time I can have with my son and when I can see him. I can't imagine how it feels to call on the phone only to be told by the other parent that I can't even TALK to my son when I want! I'm just trying to explain that the American system of justice is not designed to resolve these types of issues. The system is set on a premise that one party wins the case and the other loses, which is a horrid result when it comes to custody. BUT court ordered shared custody doesn't work because a court can't make people get along. I know it's not a fair result............. and I am honestly sorry for that. It's why family law ate at my gut.

Dustin

When you are able to carry the embryo for nine months and deliver, you should get equal say.

This sounds like a personal problem to me. If you conceived a child with a woman and you don't have any choice on abortion, adoption or keeping the child, that's a relationship issue not a political question. If you are in a relationship where the two of you are not making this important decision together, you need to re-evaluate the type of people you are getting yourself involved with, rather than re-assessing feminist ideaology. From where I sit those same choices are available to you too.

The routine order of the court is to award custody to one parent or the other. You have as mush as said so yourself. Typically, it does so in the absence of any wrongdoing. Yet, the results of the well-being of kids who are allowed to share meaningful time with each of their parents after a divorce far exceeds those whom are reduced to "visitation".

A system which dictates that whoever is most likely to win custody will reap greater reward by also creating conflict practically assures that conflict will result. If the presumptive custodial parent knows they will wield greater decision making power, as well as reap HUGE financial rewards, rather than share parental responsibility and rewards, then they are likely to do so. So, while supporters of status quo contend that it is because parents of joint custody got along better to start with and that is why their children do so much better, it would be a dereliction of an officer of the court's duty not to account for the obvious, that creating a winner and loser is a primary incentive to continue conflict, even after the divorce. Either way, your contention that joint custody is a disaster is in stark contrast to just about every conceivable measurement of the welfare about children.

Children of sole custody suffer disastrous results as opposed to their joint custody counter-parts. Typically neither these children, nor their parents did anything to deserve it. Considering the results, I just don't understand how anyone could logically conclude that courts have acted in the best interests of children, other than their circular argument that it is because that is what it ruled. There is some real Due Process for you. It is an affront to every parent that knows it is parents that know what are the best interests of their children.

You know why any decent family law attorney hates it so much? Because current family law goes against the basic principles of our democracy. It twists just about anything that is good and turns into crap. It takes something as basic as an inalienable right, and twists it into the right to alienate. There will be a special place for these practitioners after this life. As Lincoln said, "You can't fool all the people all the time." The American people have been played the fool long enough by family law attorneys.

Losing a right by a final order of the court is the quintessential definition of punishment. Not too many rights should be held as dear as for a child and their parent to be able to share meaningful time with one another. We seem to be in disagreement.

I think Robin is right and that the basic issue here is one of relationships and of making choices about the types of people that we want to raise children with.

ParentofChild, no one is taking rights away and nothing is "final" until you die. Parenting doesn't end when a child turns 18, but the court order regarding custody and visitation will. Also while the child is a minor, circumstances and the resulting court orders change and are likely to change many times. But even if the court order never changed, that still doesn't mean that people can't change their relationships and that those relationships can't be meaningful. You don't need x amount of hours a week to form a strong and meaningful bond or to have a lasting impact a child's life.

That is a weak reply; I know you can do better than that. Final orders are final unless and until they are changed by a subsequent final order. If it were such a fleeting order than why, in the eyes of the state, would you be so opposed to both parents being a meaningful part of their child's life? Just in case you are wondering what I meant by that, I will remind you that most states do in fact define a certain amount of time as being "substantial" or "meaningful". Yes, the numbers are arbitrary. But, as an attorney you ought to be able to find the problem with that more quickly than me.

What don't you understand about losing the "inalienable" right to meaningful time with your own child? Or, don't you believe that is a right that parents are privileged with when their chidlren are born?