<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: I think you&#8217;re confused as to the meaning of &#8220;child support&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/06/25/i-think-youre-confused-as-to-the-meaning-of-child-support/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/06/25/i-think-youre-confused-as-to-the-meaning-of-child-support/</link>
	<description>In defense of the sanctimonious women&#039;s studies set.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:26:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Kali</title>
		<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/06/25/i-think-youre-confused-as-to-the-meaning-of-child-support/#comment-251842</link>
		<dc:creator>Kali</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 02:17:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feministe.us/blog/?p=14095#comment-251842</guid>
		<description>HI folks, I just wrote a blog post on this myself hving just come across a situation that a friend of mine is going through. It illustrates the difference between the intent of the current child support laws and the reality of how they are enforced. My friend had no idea he was a parent until the partner of the woman with whom he had had sex - with birth control - only one time - decided to get a paternity test done which proved the child not to be his. So, my friend is now the father of an 18 month old severely disabled child born to a woman in her late 40&#039;s who opted not to get an amniocentisis done in spite of the risk of childbirth at that age. Nor did she contact all the potential father&#039;s at the time she realized she was pregnant to insure she knew who the child&#039;s father was. 

In my mind, her negligence in failing to notify my friend as a potential father of this child should negate his responsibility to that child. He was certainly negated from the process until it suited her to involve him. 

Before you get all crazy about this I want you to sit and think for a minute. You find out tomorrow that you are the parent of an 18 month old baby to a person you only knew for 2 weeks or so 2 years ago and now your wages will get garnished to pay child support for the next 16 years. Are you really OK with that? Let&#039;s say your in come in 40K a year. They could easily take about $800 a month for that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>HI folks, I just wrote a blog post on this myself hving just come across a situation that a friend of mine is going through. It illustrates the difference between the intent of the current child support laws and the reality of how they are enforced. My friend had no idea he was a parent until the partner of the woman with whom he had had sex &#8211; with birth control &#8211; only one time &#8211; decided to get a paternity test done which proved the child not to be his. So, my friend is now the father of an 18 month old severely disabled child born to a woman in her late 40&#8217;s who opted not to get an amniocentisis done in spite of the risk of childbirth at that age. Nor did she contact all the potential father&#8217;s at the time she realized she was pregnant to insure she knew who the child&#8217;s father was. </p>
<p>In my mind, her negligence in failing to notify my friend as a potential father of this child should negate his responsibility to that child. He was certainly negated from the process until it suited her to involve him. </p>
<p>Before you get all crazy about this I want you to sit and think for a minute. You find out tomorrow that you are the parent of an 18 month old baby to a person you only knew for 2 weeks or so 2 years ago and now your wages will get garnished to pay child support for the next 16 years. Are you really OK with that? Let&#8217;s say your in come in 40K a year. They could easily take about $800 a month for that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Skaitalai &#124; Laisvo oro direktorė</title>
		<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/06/25/i-think-youre-confused-as-to-the-meaning-of-child-support/#comment-250439</link>
		<dc:creator>Skaitalai &#124; Laisvo oro direktorė</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 07:32:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feministe.us/blog/?p=14095#comment-250439</guid>
		<description>[...] I think you’re confused as to the meaning of “child support” See, that’s the thing with child support: It’s for the child. The court places the welfare of the child first because the child is dependent on financial contributions from its parents and/or the state. No one is legally obligated to be a dad in terms of providing the kind of emotional support that parents should ideally provide; the state, however, does have an interest in making sure that children are fed and financially provided-for. That’s where child support comes in. The courts can’t force you to be a decent human being, but they can make you pony up a little cash to make sure that the kid you helped create has something to eat and some clothes to wear. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I think you’re confused as to the meaning of “child support” See, that’s the thing with child support: It’s for the child. The court places the welfare of the child first because the child is dependent on financial contributions from its parents and/or the state. No one is legally obligated to be a dad in terms of providing the kind of emotional support that parents should ideally provide; the state, however, does have an interest in making sure that children are fed and financially provided-for. That’s where child support comes in. The courts can’t force you to be a decent human being, but they can make you pony up a little cash to make sure that the kid you helped create has something to eat and some clothes to wear. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jenn</title>
		<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/06/25/i-think-youre-confused-as-to-the-meaning-of-child-support/#comment-249213</link>
		<dc:creator>Jenn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 09:17:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feministe.us/blog/?p=14095#comment-249213</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;I think that using the word “some” here is very far from accurate. In my experience, a very significant portion of the male population falls into these categories. The hostile comments toward men in this thread come from the very real fact that so many men will – and do – behave like complete abusive assholes when it comes to sex, reproduction, and parenthood. While the hostility might not be entirely on the mark, it’s absolutely understandable.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

That&#039;s the crux of the argument right there. My father is better than a lot of fathers. But he still refuses to pay anything over the state-mandated amount of child support--which isn&#039;t enough to raise a dog, let alone a child--and openly resents it and makes it plain to both my brother and myself. Being older and lacking a penis, I now know that my father is full of shit and a selfish asshole to boot. I mean, what else do you call squandering your children&#039;s child support and college savings and watch them wear hand-me-downs whilst you buy several acres of property in Texas, buy shiny new cars, and shop in Nordstrom? I went to upper middle class to hovering above the poverty line in the years between 1st and 2nd grade. It has impacted the direction of my life vastly, and utterly prohibited me from doing a lot of the things I would have been otherwise able to do.

And my story isn&#039;t weird or even uncommon. Time and time again I hear from friends in my income bracket (my low income bracket) how their Dads come around to play and be &quot;Disneyland Dad&quot; while pissing and moaning about their bitches of ex-wives having their grubby hands in their wallets and using them as a free meal ticket when they were married. They they blithely depart from their children&#039;s lives, leaving the majority of child-rearing to their struggling ex-wives, only to come back when they want to be &quot;Dad&quot; without all that pesky responsibility. Or they just say &quot;fuck it all&quot;, start a new family with another woman, and then use the power they wielded in their first abusive marriage to financially, legally, or physically dissuade the mother of their children for filing for some piss-poor compensation for caring from the children they abandoned.

My mother was fired from &lt;i&gt;three&lt;/i&gt; jobs trying to win sole custody (so my father would have to pay a pitiful amount instead of a deplorably pathetic amount of support) or trying to resist my father fraudulently reducing his support by lying about his income or just refusing to pay. Between the years she spend out of the work force raising his kids while he was married, and the years she spent in court getting fired (not to mention the legal fees attached to even presently serving papers for support), her income is so low as to be pathetic. Yet my father owns a house worth several million dollars, five cars, and numerous other goodies. And he still pays next-to-nothing.

So, really, I don&#039;t give a flying fuck about &quot;Men&#039;s Rights&quot;. Fuck your Men&#039;s Rights. My father ruined my life, and the life of my mother. My father is nothing special. There&#039;s plenty of other fuckbags that want all the esteem and priviledge of having children with none of the responsibility. A woman&#039;s job, by default, is to raise children. Which is why so many households are headed by single mothers. Even when the dude sticks around, his contribution to child-rearing is considered &quot;helping&quot;, which he is now a saint for doing. If she labors night and day for her children, well, that&#039;s normal.

Honestly, I could really care less about all this bullshit about what is philosophically and ethically great in some idyllic little world that MRAs and those stupid enough to debate and listen to them operate in. The reality is that everyone considers it the woman&#039;s job to (a) raise children and (b) bend over backwards to not get pregnant if she doesn&#039;t want &quot;a&quot;. Men get to think that being Disneyland Dads makes them good parents, and that &quot;bareback&quot; sex means you&#039;re a big strong maaaan. And my story isn&#039;t unique, it isn&#039;t special. You shouldn&#039;t even feel sorry for me, because the majority of single mothers have it a lot worse than I ever did.

So instead of pissing and moaning about inconsequential bullshit that is actually a vast exercise of male priviledge and never ever happens in real life, let&#039;s focus on making sure that women and children can afford to live, and that nobody actually still thinks it&#039;s totally cool to abandon your children, and it&#039;s actually the fault of that bitch of an ex-wife, who stole your manhood/children/wallet. Because once feminism has actually done something to equalize this desperate situation, then we can worry about men. Until then, shut the fuck up about men. Especially shitstains of men that abandon their own children and then whine like it&#039;s their god-given right to sow their wild oats and then keep their dreams of being rock stars.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>I think that using the word “some” here is very far from accurate. In my experience, a very significant portion of the male population falls into these categories. The hostile comments toward men in this thread come from the very real fact that so many men will – and do – behave like complete abusive assholes when it comes to sex, reproduction, and parenthood. While the hostility might not be entirely on the mark, it’s absolutely understandable.</p></blockquote>
<p>That&#8217;s the crux of the argument right there. My father is better than a lot of fathers. But he still refuses to pay anything over the state-mandated amount of child support&#8211;which isn&#8217;t enough to raise a dog, let alone a child&#8211;and openly resents it and makes it plain to both my brother and myself. Being older and lacking a penis, I now know that my father is full of shit and a selfish asshole to boot. I mean, what else do you call squandering your children&#8217;s child support and college savings and watch them wear hand-me-downs whilst you buy several acres of property in Texas, buy shiny new cars, and shop in Nordstrom? I went to upper middle class to hovering above the poverty line in the years between 1st and 2nd grade. It has impacted the direction of my life vastly, and utterly prohibited me from doing a lot of the things I would have been otherwise able to do.</p>
<p>And my story isn&#8217;t weird or even uncommon. Time and time again I hear from friends in my income bracket (my low income bracket) how their Dads come around to play and be &#8220;Disneyland Dad&#8221; while pissing and moaning about their bitches of ex-wives having their grubby hands in their wallets and using them as a free meal ticket when they were married. They they blithely depart from their children&#8217;s lives, leaving the majority of child-rearing to their struggling ex-wives, only to come back when they want to be &#8220;Dad&#8221; without all that pesky responsibility. Or they just say &#8220;fuck it all&#8221;, start a new family with another woman, and then use the power they wielded in their first abusive marriage to financially, legally, or physically dissuade the mother of their children for filing for some piss-poor compensation for caring from the children they abandoned.</p>
<p>My mother was fired from <i>three</i> jobs trying to win sole custody (so my father would have to pay a pitiful amount instead of a deplorably pathetic amount of support) or trying to resist my father fraudulently reducing his support by lying about his income or just refusing to pay. Between the years she spend out of the work force raising his kids while he was married, and the years she spent in court getting fired (not to mention the legal fees attached to even presently serving papers for support), her income is so low as to be pathetic. Yet my father owns a house worth several million dollars, five cars, and numerous other goodies. And he still pays next-to-nothing.</p>
<p>So, really, I don&#8217;t give a flying fuck about &#8220;Men&#8217;s Rights&#8221;. Fuck your Men&#8217;s Rights. My father ruined my life, and the life of my mother. My father is nothing special. There&#8217;s plenty of other fuckbags that want all the esteem and priviledge of having children with none of the responsibility. A woman&#8217;s job, by default, is to raise children. Which is why so many households are headed by single mothers. Even when the dude sticks around, his contribution to child-rearing is considered &#8220;helping&#8221;, which he is now a saint for doing. If she labors night and day for her children, well, that&#8217;s normal.</p>
<p>Honestly, I could really care less about all this bullshit about what is philosophically and ethically great in some idyllic little world that MRAs and those stupid enough to debate and listen to them operate in. The reality is that everyone considers it the woman&#8217;s job to (a) raise children and (b) bend over backwards to not get pregnant if she doesn&#8217;t want &#8220;a&#8221;. Men get to think that being Disneyland Dads makes them good parents, and that &#8220;bareback&#8221; sex means you&#8217;re a big strong maaaan. And my story isn&#8217;t unique, it isn&#8217;t special. You shouldn&#8217;t even feel sorry for me, because the majority of single mothers have it a lot worse than I ever did.</p>
<p>So instead of pissing and moaning about inconsequential bullshit that is actually a vast exercise of male priviledge and never ever happens in real life, let&#8217;s focus on making sure that women and children can afford to live, and that nobody actually still thinks it&#8217;s totally cool to abandon your children, and it&#8217;s actually the fault of that bitch of an ex-wife, who stole your manhood/children/wallet. Because once feminism has actually done something to equalize this desperate situation, then we can worry about men. Until then, shut the fuck up about men. Especially shitstains of men that abandon their own children and then whine like it&#8217;s their god-given right to sow their wild oats and then keep their dreams of being rock stars.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Femmostroppo Reader - July 1, 2009 &#8212; Hoyden About Town</title>
		<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/06/25/i-think-youre-confused-as-to-the-meaning-of-child-support/#comment-248599</link>
		<dc:creator>Femmostroppo Reader - July 1, 2009 &#8212; Hoyden About Town</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:30:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feministe.us/blog/?p=14095#comment-248599</guid>
		<description>[...] I think you’re confused as to the meaning of “child support” [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I think you’re confused as to the meaning of “child support” [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kristen J.'s Husband</title>
		<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/06/25/i-think-youre-confused-as-to-the-meaning-of-child-support/#comment-248390</link>
		<dc:creator>Kristen J.'s Husband</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:26:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feministe.us/blog/?p=14095#comment-248390</guid>
		<description>Don,

As one man to another...STFU.  A woman is not a human incubator.  She is not required to carry around another living thing in her body.  I can&#039;t force you to give up your liver for another person and I can&#039;t force a woman...not even my wife...(since you seem to think that&#039;s gives me some rights over her body)...to let another use her organs to sustain that life.

Flexibility and fairness all sounds good, but you forgot that the woman you&#039;re requiring to undergo 9 months of discomfort, pain, medical risk, lost income, and lot time is A HUMAN BEING also deserving of fundamental rights.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don,</p>
<p>As one man to another&#8230;STFU.  A woman is not a human incubator.  She is not required to carry around another living thing in her body.  I can&#8217;t force you to give up your liver for another person and I can&#8217;t force a woman&#8230;not even my wife&#8230;(since you seem to think that&#8217;s gives me some rights over her body)&#8230;to let another use her organs to sustain that life.</p>
<p>Flexibility and fairness all sounds good, but you forgot that the woman you&#8217;re requiring to undergo 9 months of discomfort, pain, medical risk, lost income, and lot time is A HUMAN BEING also deserving of fundamental rights.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don, the 14%er</title>
		<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/06/25/i-think-youre-confused-as-to-the-meaning-of-child-support/#comment-248316</link>
		<dc:creator>Don, the 14%er</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:07:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feministe.us/blog/?p=14095#comment-248316</guid>
		<description>Maybe the only person qualified to speak on race relations would be a person of color. 
And perhaps the only opinion regarding war would have to come from a proponent of peace. 
In the same manner, some people may believe the only qualified viewpoint about abortion would have to be from a woman since, obviously, men are ovary-challenged. 
So, being a man, I guess I have no opinion to offer. But I would like to add Barbara Johnson&#039;s ideas to the discussion. She was a candidate for Mass. Governor in 2002 and this was her platform 
http://www.barbforgovernor..com/cgi-bin/D.PL?s=0dYkqi&amp;d=barb.i.abortion on 
Abortion
(1) I am pro-choice in rape situations. 
(2) I am pro-choice in medical situations: the couple must have the informed opinion of the medical professionals before having to make a decision. 
Assuming that the partners consensually acted in a manner which would produce a child, I believe the following: 
(3) I am pro-life if an unmarried father, regardless of chronological age, wants custody of the child. His consent should be required before an abortion is allowed. It took two to tango. This is not only a matter for the woman just because it is her body. She gave that body willingly to the man for copulation, knowing full well the possibility of impregnation. 
(4) I am for married couples making their own choice. Government does NOT belong in anyone&#039;s bedroom. Neither do I. I suppose, then, in this situation, I&#039;d be pro-choice. 
(5) If a married couple is in dispute over the issue of abortion and if the intercourse was consensual, then I would come down on the pro-life side. 
(6) If a young girl under the age of 18, the age of majority, and living in the home of her parents wants an abortion, the parents should be told and partake in the decision. &quot;Rule&quot; (4) -- pro-choice -- would come into play: it would be up to the family as a unit. If the parents for reasons A, B, and C are &quot;unable&quot; or &quot;unfit&quot; or &quot;unskilled&quot; to communicate with the girl, then other factors would have to come into play and &quot;Rule&quot; (3) -- pro-life -- would become operative. 
Have I covered all the permutations? 
Flexibility and fairness are the keys here. Fairness is fundamental. And the more choices a person has, the freer a person is. The greater freedom a person has, the higher the quality of life achieved. 
Rigidity causes only tension and solves nothing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe the only person qualified to speak on race relations would be a person of color.<br />
And perhaps the only opinion regarding war would have to come from a proponent of peace.<br />
In the same manner, some people may believe the only qualified viewpoint about abortion would have to be from a woman since, obviously, men are ovary-challenged.<br />
So, being a man, I guess I have no opinion to offer. But I would like to add Barbara Johnson&#8217;s ideas to the discussion. She was a candidate for Mass. Governor in 2002 and this was her platform<br />
<a href="http://www.barbforgovernor..com/cgi-bin/D.PL?s=0dYkqi&amp;d=barb.i.abortion" rel="nofollow">http://www.barbforgovernor..com/cgi-bin/D.PL?s=0dYkqi&amp;d=barb.i.abortion</a> on<br />
Abortion<br />
(1) I am pro-choice in rape situations.<br />
(2) I am pro-choice in medical situations: the couple must have the informed opinion of the medical professionals before having to make a decision.<br />
Assuming that the partners consensually acted in a manner which would produce a child, I believe the following:<br />
(3) I am pro-life if an unmarried father, regardless of chronological age, wants custody of the child. His consent should be required before an abortion is allowed. It took two to tango. This is not only a matter for the woman just because it is her body. She gave that body willingly to the man for copulation, knowing full well the possibility of impregnation.<br />
(4) I am for married couples making their own choice. Government does NOT belong in anyone&#8217;s bedroom. Neither do I. I suppose, then, in this situation, I&#8217;d be pro-choice.<br />
(5) If a married couple is in dispute over the issue of abortion and if the intercourse was consensual, then I would come down on the pro-life side.<br />
(6) If a young girl under the age of 18, the age of majority, and living in the home of her parents wants an abortion, the parents should be told and partake in the decision. &#8220;Rule&#8221; (4) &#8212; pro-choice &#8212; would come into play: it would be up to the family as a unit. If the parents for reasons A, B, and C are &#8220;unable&#8221; or &#8220;unfit&#8221; or &#8220;unskilled&#8221; to communicate with the girl, then other factors would have to come into play and &#8220;Rule&#8221; (3) &#8212; pro-life &#8212; would become operative.<br />
Have I covered all the permutations?<br />
Flexibility and fairness are the keys here. Fairness is fundamental. And the more choices a person has, the freer a person is. The greater freedom a person has, the higher the quality of life achieved.<br />
Rigidity causes only tension and solves nothing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dan</title>
		<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/06/25/i-think-youre-confused-as-to-the-meaning-of-child-support/#comment-248137</link>
		<dc:creator>dan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:30:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feministe.us/blog/?p=14095#comment-248137</guid>
		<description>eh perhaps seezlebub but women who are orderd to pay CS dont actually pay, at a rate higher than men who have been ordered to pay/ lots of reason for that, chief among them women dont make as much due to a lot of shitty reasns but it is what it is. i dont understand why in this debate one side is assumed to be on the side of the angels and one isnt. stats can tell a lot of stories but its never simple.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>eh perhaps seezlebub but women who are orderd to pay CS dont actually pay, at a rate higher than men who have been ordered to pay/ lots of reason for that, chief among them women dont make as much due to a lot of shitty reasns but it is what it is. i dont understand why in this debate one side is assumed to be on the side of the angels and one isnt. stats can tell a lot of stories but its never simple.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sheelzebub</title>
		<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/06/25/i-think-youre-confused-as-to-the-meaning-of-child-support/#comment-248128</link>
		<dc:creator>Sheelzebub</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:22:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feministe.us/blog/?p=14095#comment-248128</guid>
		<description>The whole &quot;sex means you have a baby&quot; argument is being misconstrued.

Here&#039;s the thing: If two people have sex and the woman gets pregnant as a result, I&#039;d point out to her that it was always a risk if she just freaked out and did nothing and refused to make any decsions about the pregnancy at all.  It&#039;s not, yes, you should carry a fetus for ten months and put your body at risk because you had sex and this is a punishment.  It&#039;s, look, you can get pregnant from having sex, so you&#039;d better think long and hard about how you&#039;re going to deal with it. (And if men could get pregnant, I&#039;d say they should be able to decide whether or not to abort because it would be &lt;i&gt;their bodies&lt;/i&gt; that are affected by pregnancy.) There are no do-overs after.

With men, you know, they don&#039;t have to parent.  (Helping to pay for necessities is not the only thing you do when you parent, FFS).  But if you&#039;re the father, you&#039;ll have to provide some measure of support.  And a poster above was right--if a single mother refused to provide financial support and care for her child, she&#039;d be charged and the kid would be taken away (even if she was coerced into having the baby and thus didn&#039;t freely choose motherhood).   

And you can&#039;t put a child up for adoption without the consent of both biological parents.  

Finally--I was involved with a man who, several years before we met, had a child with someone else.  And you know, if he had ever bitched and moaned about CS, I would have tossed his ass out like a plague infested rat.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The whole &#8220;sex means you have a baby&#8221; argument is being misconstrued.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s the thing: If two people have sex and the woman gets pregnant as a result, I&#8217;d point out to her that it was always a risk if she just freaked out and did nothing and refused to make any decsions about the pregnancy at all.  It&#8217;s not, yes, you should carry a fetus for ten months and put your body at risk because you had sex and this is a punishment.  It&#8217;s, look, you can get pregnant from having sex, so you&#8217;d better think long and hard about how you&#8217;re going to deal with it. (And if men could get pregnant, I&#8217;d say they should be able to decide whether or not to abort because it would be <i>their bodies</i> that are affected by pregnancy.) There are no do-overs after.</p>
<p>With men, you know, they don&#8217;t have to parent.  (Helping to pay for necessities is not the only thing you do when you parent, FFS).  But if you&#8217;re the father, you&#8217;ll have to provide some measure of support.  And a poster above was right&#8211;if a single mother refused to provide financial support and care for her child, she&#8217;d be charged and the kid would be taken away (even if she was coerced into having the baby and thus didn&#8217;t freely choose motherhood).   </p>
<p>And you can&#8217;t put a child up for adoption without the consent of both biological parents.  </p>
<p>Finally&#8211;I was involved with a man who, several years before we met, had a child with someone else.  And you know, if he had ever bitched and moaned about CS, I would have tossed his ass out like a plague infested rat.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dan</title>
		<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/06/25/i-think-youre-confused-as-to-the-meaning-of-child-support/#comment-248108</link>
		<dc:creator>dan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:33:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feministe.us/blog/?p=14095#comment-248108</guid>
		<description>vgnvxn, 

  i wa shocked to find this talking point somwhat true but a dna test doesnt always work. depends on the state but there are  men out there with a dna test showing they are  not the father who are  stll responsible. many are husbands. &quot;needs of the child&quot; trumps all, its very interesting, especially when you look at the stats on how many men are rasing kids who arent biologically &quot;theirs&quot;. not sure if theres any fix to that but it is interesting.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>vgnvxn, </p>
<p>  i wa shocked to find this talking point somwhat true but a dna test doesnt always work. depends on the state but there are  men out there with a dna test showing they are  not the father who are  stll responsible. many are husbands. &#8220;needs of the child&#8221; trumps all, its very interesting, especially when you look at the stats on how many men are rasing kids who arent biologically &#8220;theirs&#8221;. not sure if theres any fix to that but it is interesting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dan</title>
		<link>http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/06/25/i-think-youre-confused-as-to-the-meaning-of-child-support/#comment-248106</link>
		<dc:creator>dan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:29:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feministe.us/blog/?p=14095#comment-248106</guid>
		<description>mantis i waant talking at all about when the woman is pregnant, only when there is a baby, the pregnancy is over. its been said in this thread, its not &quot;fair&quot; but just the way it has to be becasue of biology. well damn, we can change that right? men have no say at all once they ejaculate as to whether or not a baby comes to be, im 100% with you there. once there i sa baby they have no coice but support it no matter what the circumstances are surrrounding it? all there choice is removed by biology? seems we could take steps to change that, steps that might very well better society overall. sure there are assholes out there but it does not matter, if we have the means to make any situation more equitable for both sexes we should do so correct? having a child, as in there being one now not the process of making it, should be as equitable as possible, right now its not, in very many odd ways.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>mantis i waant talking at all about when the woman is pregnant, only when there is a baby, the pregnancy is over. its been said in this thread, its not &#8220;fair&#8221; but just the way it has to be becasue of biology. well damn, we can change that right? men have no say at all once they ejaculate as to whether or not a baby comes to be, im 100% with you there. once there i sa baby they have no coice but support it no matter what the circumstances are surrrounding it? all there choice is removed by biology? seems we could take steps to change that, steps that might very well better society overall. sure there are assholes out there but it does not matter, if we have the means to make any situation more equitable for both sexes we should do so correct? having a child, as in there being one now not the process of making it, should be as equitable as possible, right now its not, in very many odd ways.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
