why do they rarely talk about the suffering of men?
they make it as if women are the only victims of social injustice. Sure, men might be 'more' privileged than women, but it doesn't mean men are not affected by social injustice. Not to mention things like media representation also affects men, but for some reason, it's always media representation of women that seems to be an issue. is there any specific reason why the subject of gender equality focuses on women and not so much on men?
Thread Recap (last 10 posts from newest to oldest)
Sep 07, 12 at 8:05pm
Misty
On the abortion/child support argument, I have a comment. Honestly, were it a simple question of functionality I have to agree that if it's one person's sole decision to keep a kid, it should be their sole income that provides for the kid given that they are also the sole caretakers. Something this debate has neglected to mention is that most fathers are involved with their children's lives in some way or another at some point in time. If the father isn't willing to help support the kid then I think they also should have no involvement in their child's life at all. Most men change knowing that they have a kid out there and want to try to be involved somehow; those men need to help support their child if they're accepting it as theirs. If the father legitimately wants nothing to do with having a kid at all, and sticks to their guns and has no involvement with the child or pregnancy at all, they shouldn't have to pay child support. The woman does have options with regards to their pregnancy (though I would support child support universally if there weren't methods to remove unwanted pregnancy), and if they make the choice to keep the pregnancy of their own accord they need to be prepared for the consequence of that choice. The choice to keep the baby is on their shoulders 100%, and honestly I think forcing child support if the father has nothing to do with the kid at all and it's been that way from day 1 is akin to letting women have their cake and eat it too. If they're poorly off financially because they chose to keep a pregnancy that is their choice in the same way that I'd be poorly off financially if I purchased a BMW tomorrow knowing I could barely afford it. Women have greater potential consequences because they have far more choices in the matter.
That said I think the "glass ceiling" is perpetuated just as much by women as anything. Women are a lot less likely to try to negotiate their salaries, for example, which is a big reason that women still do get paid less than men as a whole.
Sep 06, 12 at 8:37pm
Lazzara
definitely applaud her for getting her priorities straight (and not blaming society in process)
Honestly, I'm pretty sure a company isn't 'supposedly' allowed to pay one gender more than another. But then you have things like raise, days off, promotion, etc that will hugely affect one's salary. If disparity of income based on gender does exist, you'd be hearing it pretty much everywhere other than a blog with feminist agenda/ sensationalist media.
On another note of gender equality, has anyone seen the show Melissa and Joey? People think it's cheesy (despite not having to watch an episode), but I thought it depicts the idea of gender in such an interesting way.
Melissa, the main female character, is an independent liberated woman who works as a councilwoman (position of power), and she's pretty much the "man" of the house. In relationships, she's always seen as the dominant one as well. It's pretty interesting to see a female character is depicted this way, tbh.
Joey, the main male character, is a "nanny", not really something you see a lot on TV. He does the housekeeping work, such as cleaning, cooking, picking up kids from school, etc (and actually does a good job at that, much better than Mel). He, however, is not a feminine type of man at all. He still shows his masculinity (he's just as liberated as Mel), and pretty much against the concept that male nanny = feminine.
And while the show has hinted that both Melissa and Joey are into each other a couple of times, they're not romantically involved with each other. Which is a very interesting idea, since most male main characters usually are romantically involved with the female main characters.
The show is available on netflix if anyone's interested.
Sep 06, 12 at 7:17am
Dragoon
Looking at the more financial side of things and the preconception that women can't / don't reach the higher echelon's of business, I was reading an article earlier today about a professor at my (soon to be) University and how she took part in Dragon's Den and investigates why o few women reach the upper echelon in business, and she challenges the preconception that women don’t try hard enough. Directly from the article is states "[...]It explores her belief that it is not a glass ceiling preventing women from making it to the pinnacle, but women themselves."
This was brought up earlier in the thread via two people working the same job and the man getting paid higher than the woman, and I was wondering if it's just a woman's work ethic or something that means this preconception exists? I mean we know people all the time waver in wages who work the same job. My dad alone knows he earns a few thousand below another person who does the same job as him (Driving a truck) and he knows people are paid less than he is. So what do you guys think to that? Is it really just women wanting more money for less work, or are they literally being underpaid and poorly treated in certain circumstances?
Completely up to the woman. She has the right to choose whatever choice she wants to make. She shouldn't be having sex if she's not willing to face the consequences of the actions right
You have yet to pick one of the scenarios but I'm happy enough with your answer. You just agreed with me that those who have sex face the consequences. Therefore men should pay child support. Bravo, have a good night. Glad we finally agreed.
[color=#3366CC][div align=center]You do realise they don't take it all at once? Child support is determined based on a man's income.
True. It's generally about 25% (though it can go as far as 60% in some states) of men's income. 25% of your salary wasted on something you didn't want in the first place? Oh boy sure sounds fair enough. Not everyone makes enough amount of money to live well while having to pay for child support.
quote
That's great, he shouldn't have had sex then. EVERYBODY knows the only way to prevent kids is to not have sex. If he wanted to make sure he didn't get them, he shouldn't have had them.
Lol. And the great "the best form protection is abstinence" argument eventually prevails. Completely irrelevant to what I was talking about.
quote
This is beautiful. Truly *bleep*ing beautiful. Apparently women need permission now to do what they want to do with their own bodies. Nope, sorry. It doesn't work that way. You have control over your own body but nobody else's. Women sure as hell don't need permission from a man to do as they wish with their body.
Never did I say that. I clearly said if a woman is willing to have the baby without man's approval, more power to her. She can CHOOSE to terminate the pregnancy OR she can CHOOSE to keep the baby. But she shouldn't expect the man to pay for child support WHEN he didn't want to be involved with the baby in the first place. She was the one who made the decision to keep the baby, then she should be the one to bear the consequences. Is it a really hard concept to grasp?
quote
There's that beautiful phrase again. Men's approval. Women deserve what they get because they didn't ask men first! Guess what, it doesn't matter if the father says he doesn't want to be a dad or not. He is biologically related to that child and is part of the family. That's just nature.]
So what if it's nature? lol. The idea of family is socially constructed. We used to have one dad and one mother. Now we're allowed (in certain parts of the world) to have two dads or two mothers.
Men's approval is needed BECAUSE it involves their lives as well.
quote
Way to twist my words around. Going to say this nice and clearly for you so you don't get confused. Yes, it's part of a woman's responsibility but if the man doesn't want a kid then MAYBE he should MAKE SURE he doesn't want a kid. It's part of his responsibility too. Takes two to make a kid so there's two people with responsibility. Is that difficult for you to understand?
alright, because when you're having your regular one night stand, pregnancy is the first thing that comes to mind. Whenever you use a protection, surely it's a sign that you don't want a baby? If protection has been used and it failed to protect a fetus from developing anyway, is it not an accident? lol.
quote
Oh yes, forcing a man to pay for his children is comparable to forcing a woman to give birth or to go through an abortion. It's practically torture. Research human rights before you say wild things. The child has the right to food, clothing and shelter. As does the father. The father will be asked to keep up a small proportion of his pay check. It will hardly deprive him of his human rights because income is taken into consideration. Unless you class being able to buy luxury items as human right, which it isn't.
Is it not a torture to give 25% of my income for about 18 years to someone I don't want to be involved in? 25% is hardly a "small proportion". Say I have to pay for $500 for child support, that's $6k a year, 108k in total.
Child has the right to food, clothing and shelter, but it's the parents' responsibility. If a man doesn't want to be a father, then he shouldn't bear the responsibility of a parent. A person should be able to choose the right to be a parent.
Here's a question that I'd like you to answer. We're talking about equality here, yeah? If a woman can have the option not to be a parent, why can't a man have similar option?
quote
Once again for the guy that doesn't understand this. The only sure way of avoiding pregnancy is to not have sex. That's how he does it. That's why even in accidents, the man still should face the consequences. You have sex, you risk babies.
Another "the best protection is abstinence" argument. Completely ignoring the idea that accidents happen every now and then, albeit in small proportion.
quote
Approval. Just loving this. Again, you make a child, you pay for the child.
Nope. You decide to be a parent, you pay for the child. You shouldn't force someone to be a parent.
quote
So go on, which is it? What happens for the woman and child whilst the man gets to go on holidays, buy alcohol and expensive food and go out on nights out?
Completely up to the woman. She has the right to choose whatever choice she wants to make. She shouldn't be having sex if she's not willing to face the consequences of the actions right
Sep 05, 12 at 9:48am
Tay Rex
Wow. That sure is a beautiful post. Not even sure where to begin pulling this one apart.
and 18 year of child support is eventually going to take its toll for a man who doesn't even want a kid to begin with. what part of "ACCIDENT HAPPENS" did you not understand? No, he didn't want a child, no he didn't. I'm just gonna say it again, HE DIDN'T. It's an accident.
You do realise they don't take it all at once? Child support is determined based on a man's income. They're not taking every penny he has and leaving him without food. It just means he can't buy a whole lot of luxury items because his child comes first. They don't just pull a random figure out of their arse. They take income into consideration. You're back to saying it was an accident now? Okay. And I'm going to say, he didn't want a kid? That's great, he shouldn't have had sex then. EVERYBODY knows the only way to prevent kids is to not have sex. If he wanted to make sure he didn't get them, he shouldn't have had them.
Women carry the children, and they make their own choice for their wellbeing, I agree. But if she knew damn well that the pregnancy was not planned, she should know the consequences had she decided to keep the baby WITHOUT the man's approval. Does it mean abortion? Not necessarily, but it's one of the methods.
This is beautiful. Truly *bleep*ing beautiful. Apparently women need permission now to do what they want to do with their own bodies. Nope, sorry. It doesn't work that way. You have control over your own body but nobody else's. Women sure as hell don't need permission from a man to do as they wish with their body.
No one should pay for child support but the family (which can constitute as a mother and a kid). Stop relying on welfare (though it's okay to use welfare to get back on your feet- doesn't mean you have to rely on it). Stop relying on other people who decided not to be a part of the kid's life from the beginning. Women should face the consequences if they chose to keep the baby without men's approval.
There's that beautiful phrase again. Men's approval. Women deserve what they get because they didn't ask men first! Guess what, it doesn't matter if the father says he doesn't want to be a dad or not. He is biologically related to that child and is part of the family. That's just nature.]
so it is not a part of woman's responsibility to make sure that she's taking morning after pill? lol. So basically a man has to do EVERYTHING to make sure that shit doesn't happen where women can just relax and hoping that a man will take the proactive measure? ok, i get your logic now.
Way to twist my words around. Going to say this nice and clearly for you so you don't get confused. Yes, it's part of a woman's responsibility but if the man doesn't want a kid then MAYBE he should MAKE SURE he doesn't want a kid. It's part of his responsibility too. Takes two to make a kid so there's two people with responsibility. Is that difficult for you to understand?
he didn't intent to make one. Accidents do happen, however. It's not anybody's fault that men carry sperm, and you sure as hell can't force a man to do stuff he doesn't want to do because that's torture and disgusting. Women should never be in control of men's income. That would be violating their human rights.
Oh yes, forcing a man to pay for his children is comparable to forcing a woman to give birth or to go through an abortion. It's practically torture. Research human rights before you say wild things. The child has the right to food, clothing and shelter. As does the father. The father will be asked to keep up a small proportion of his pay check. It will hardly deprive him of his human rights because income is taken into consideration. Unless you class being able to buy luxury items as human right, which it isn't.
irrelevant statement. When a man doesn't intend to have a child, I would hardly think they'd want to put his sperm anywhere near that egg. We're talking about accidents here. And yet you're making it as if a man intends to impregnate a woman only to run away from the responsibility. No, that's not what I'm talking about.
Once again for the guy that doesn't understand this. The only sure way of avoiding pregnancy is to not have sex. That's how he does it. That's why even in accidents, the man still should face the consequences. You have sex, you risk babies.
I'm not blaming women for having the baby. I'm blaming those who are hoping to receive child support when the man didn't give the approval to raise the baby in the first place.
Approval. Just loving this. Again, you make a child, you pay for the child.
And now to address the main issue here. What do YOU propose women do? A man has knocked them up. He doesn't want anything to do with the child. He thinks that because he's not the one with the baby in the womb, he has no responsibilities. It's easy for him, he doesn't have to deal with the physical or mental trauma. He can piss off and spend his saved money on luxury items. Here are the three scenarios. Please pick which one you find best and tell me why. It will really help me understand what you're expecting women to do.
1. Keep the baby and struggle as a single parent. Possibly have to quit your job or resort to part time work. This doesn't bring in enough income. You have no child support because the father would rather have nice things than pay for his mistakes and look after his child. You either work your arse off and scrape by and never see the child you're meant to be raising (alone) or you go without money and give the child the attention and love it's entitled to. Not much of a life. But apparently that's their own fault for not picking options 2. or 3. In this scenario, the man is happy, the woman and child are not because they don't get the necessities they need.
2. Have an abortion. The woman pays to have an abortion (that's totally her responsibility I mean it's her uterus and all). The baby is sucked out through a tube and thrown away. It's dead. It has no right to live. The woman then goes through the psychological damage of an abortion. Ever read about the PTSD, depression, insomnia etc. that follows an abortion? Forcing a woman to go through that is violating her human rights as it causes harm to her. In this scenario, the man is happy because he gets to buy whatever he wants, the child is dead and the woman suffers from a range of issues.
3. Put the kid up for adoption. Thesystemworks. Oh no wait a second? It doesn't. Kids are stuck in the system for years more often than not being thrown from house to house. Some foster parents have even been known to be abusive or neglectful. In this scenario, the man is happy because he gets all his money and no responsibility, the woman could be either way, she could be happy because she also has no responsibility or she could be upset because she wanted to keep the child but couldn't afford it as the father refused to help and she could regret her decision. The child remains unhappy as its chances of living a good life are slim.
So go on, which is it? What happens for the woman and child whilst the man gets to go on holidays, buy alcohol and expensive food and go out on nights out?
It's really sad that 'hard earned money' overcomes the physical comfort of a woman, her body and her wellbeing. If a man doesn't want to make a child, he shouldn't make a child. Simple. There is no other way for him to make this decision because he isn't the one who pushes the baby out. Again, that's not sexism, that's nature. Women carry the children and so they make that choice because it's their own wellbeing that should be considered.
and 18 year of child support is eventually going to take its toll for a man who doesn't even want a kid to begin with. what part of "ACCIDENT HAPPENS" did you not understand? No, he didn't want a child, no he didn't. I'm just gonna say it again, HE DIDN'T. It's an accident.
Women carry the children, and they make their own choice for their wellbeing, I agree. But if she knew damn well that the pregnancy was not planned, she should know the consequences had she decided to keep the baby WITHOUT the man's approval. Does it mean abortion? Not necessarily, but it's one of the methods.
quote
Again I'm going to point this out. If you tell all men that they shouldn't have to pay child support and give them that choice, who will actually pay child support? Nobody. Then all women would be forced into raising kids single handedly with no support because it's apparently their fault for having wombs. Because THEY'RE the ones that give birth, they're the ones that must take care of it.
No one should pay for child support but the family (which can constitute as a mother and a kid). Stop relying on welfare (though it's okay to use welfare to get back on your feet- doesn't mean you have to rely on it). Stop relying on other people who decided not to be a part of the kid's life from the beginning. Women should face the consequences if they chose to keep the baby without men's approval.
quote
No, men don't take morning after pills but if the condom breaks and they want to make sure they don't have a child, they can easily ensure the woman takes one by accompanying her to the doctor and making sure she takes one.
so it is not a part of woman's responsibility to make sure that she's taking morning after pill? lol. So basically a man has to do EVERYTHING to make sure that shit doesn't happen where women can just relax and hoping that a man will take the proactive measure? ok, i get your logic now.
quote
A man cannot simply decide to not be a father. Either he has a child or he doesn't. If he doesn't want one, again I'll say this; he shouldn't make one. It's that simple. I'm getting bored of this same loop. It's not anybody's fault that women carry the children and you sure as hell can't force a woman to do stuff she doesn't want to do because that's torture and it's disgusting. Men should never be in control over women's bodies. That would be violating their human rights.
he didn't intent to make one. Accidents do happen, however. It's not anybody's fault that men carry sperm, and you sure as hell can't force a man to do stuff he doesn't want to do because that's torture and disgusting. Women should never be in control of men's income. That would be violating their human rights.
quote
Men can't control the bodies but what they can control is whether or not they put that sperm anywhere near that egg. THAT is where they make that choice and where they have that responsibility. I'm afraid that's how it works. It's not sexism, it's just the way anatomy works. Sorry if that offends you.
irrelevant statement. When a man doesn't intend to have a child, I would hardly think they'd want to put his sperm anywhere near that egg. We're talking about accidents here. And yet you're making it as if a man intends to impregnate a woman only to run away from the responsibility. No, that's not what I'm talking about.
quote
I'm loving how I called you out on blaming women for having the children when they can't afford them before you actually did it. Newsflash: takes two. TWO. That's a man and a woman. It's just as much the man's fault for not paying his share towards the baby (that's right, it's a child that has rights) that he created. Are you objecting to single parents now? Perhaps if men actually bothered to pay for their offspring instead of blaming girls because "well it came out of you" then maybe taxpayers wouldn't be footing the bill.
I'm not objecting single parents. I know some single parents who work really hard for their kid while hardly being supported by child support. And no, most of them are not currently on welfare. Yes, some of them have to work 2 jobs to support their children, but it's a sacrifice they have to make by choosing to keep the babies.
I'm not blaming women for having the baby. I'm blaming those who are hoping to receive child support when the man didn't give the approval to raise the baby in the first place.
quote
I don't know what you're trying to achieve here. You can't bitch about there not being any discussion of men's gender equality and make a point by blaming the other gender and putting them down. How about you actually address one of the real problems such as the whole media representation of men, society pressures and their perceived role? Complaining that men can't control women's bodies is the same as women complaining that they have periods and insisting that men should have them too. It's not solvable. You're going to have difficulty getting people to side with your opinion if you don't actually look at plausible issues.
I'm making a statement about how unfair the justice system to men, i.e the law of child support, alimony, etc.
I do address the real problems in other people's post, thank you (read the response to dynamite, faust, misty, etc). You're the one who's dragging this issue, and I feel compelled to respond it.
I'm not saying men should control women's bodies. What I'm saying, though, is that men should be able to decide whether he wants to raise the child or not. He should have that option. It doesn't mean the woman has to terminate the pregnancy, no- though she should be aware that there are consequences to be had if she'd chosen to keep the baby.
Sep 05, 12 at 8:06am
Tay Rex
It's really sad that 'hard earned money' overcomes the physical comfort of a woman, her body and her wellbeing. If a man doesn't want to make a child, he shouldn't make a child. Simple. There is no other way for him to make this decision because he isn't the one who pushes the baby out. Again, that's not sexism, that's nature. Women carry the children and so they make that choice because it's their own wellbeing that should be considered.
Again I'm going to point this out. If you tell all men that they shouldn't have to pay child support and give them that choice, who will actually pay child support? Nobody. Then all women would be forced into raising kids single handedly with no support because it's apparently their fault for having wombs. Because THEY'RE the ones that give birth, they're the ones that must take care of it.
No, men don't take morning after pills but if the condom breaks and they want to make sure they don't have a child, they can easily ensure the woman takes one by accompanying her to the doctor and making sure she takes one.
A man cannot simply decide to not be a father. Either he has a child or he doesn't. If he doesn't want one, again I'll say this; he shouldn't make one. It's that simple. I'm getting bored of this same loop. It's not anybody's fault that women carry the children and you sure as hell can't force a woman to do stuff she doesn't want to do because that's torture and it's disgusting. Men should never be in control over women's bodies. That would be violating their human rights.
Men can't control the bodies but what they can control is whether or not they put that sperm anywhere near that egg. THAT is where they make that choice and where they have that responsibility. I'm afraid that's how it works. It's not sexism, it's just the way anatomy works. Sorry if that offends you.
I'm loving how I called you out on blaming women for having the children when they can't afford them before you actually did it. Newsflash: takes two. TWO. That's a man and a woman. It's just as much the man's fault for not paying his share towards the baby (that's right, it's a child that has rights) that he created. Are you objecting to single parents now? Perhaps if men actually bothered to pay for their offspring instead of blaming girls because "well it came out of you" then maybe taxpayers wouldn't be footing the bill.
I don't know what you're trying to achieve here. You can't bitch about there not being any discussion of men's gender equality and make a point by blaming the other gender and putting them down. How about you actually address one of the real problems such as the whole media representation of men, society pressures and their perceived role? Complaining that men can't control women's bodies is the same as women complaining that they have periods and insisting that men should have them too. It's not solvable. You're going to have difficulty getting people to side with your opinion if you don't actually look at plausible issues.
Nope, I'm saying he should share the responsibility, just like what I've been saying throughout the thread. Twist my words as you wish but I've said the same thing all the way through this thread. If the woman can face the consequences, the man should be paying the same price because it took two.[/div]
It takes two to make a baby. It takes two to make a decision. What is going to happen if there's only one person who decides to keep the baby? Should the other be responsible of the other's decision? Even if s/h didn't agree with it to begin with?
Say I got someone pregnant, and I wanted to keep the baby, but she didn't. Should I be able to keep the baby, anyway? I could face the consequences, but the women I slept with couldn't. What are the chances that she's going to keep the baby? In b4 "but it's her body". Well, it's going to be my hard earned money for 18 years if she kept the baby.
Child support when the two parents aren't married should be decided prior to the childbirth. a man shouldn't be expected to pay for child support just because the woman wants to keep the baby w/o his approval.
quote
As for your contraception thing. Sorry? First you say it's because they didn't use contraception, then you said they did and it failed, now they're saying they didn't use it again. There's the morning after pill. You can't just say "LOL BUT WHO USES THAT?" It's their own fault for not using it and so the same responsibility occurs. What you're really implying here is it's sexist that men don't get a womb and aren't the ones to carry the children. That's nature. I'm afraid you can't change that. What men can control however is if and how they have sex. That seems fair enough to me.
let me clarify some points:
Firstly, nope, never said it was because they didn't use contraception. I said "men aren't expected to always have condom" in a sense that we can't always expect women to be on a birth control. I've always emphasized the fact that "accidents happen" in my posts as well, implying that the pregnancy was totally unexpected (eg, he used condom, she was on bc, morning after pill)
I didn't say "LOL WHO USES THAT" as in "who the *bleep* is going to use morning after pill lolol!", I meant it as in a question as to whose responsibility is it to take the morning after pills? men don't take morning pills, women do.
How is it sexist? Please explain it, because I don't really see how is my claim can even be considered sexist at the slightest. Is it sexist for someone to be dragged into something he didn't agree in the first place?
A man decided not to be a father, but he's still got to pay child support for 18 years. A woman decided not to be mother, she has to go through to abortion, but that's probably the end of it.
yes, not sexist at all.
Responsibility of raising a child should be mutual. You can't force someone into raising a child when his/ heart wasn't there.
and rofl, men can control is if and how they have sex.... of course women can't control these variables. you're right.
quote
So let's say these fathers can't be arsed to pay for their own children. Who does pay? It'll be the taxpayers. Now you're going to blame women for keeping the children. Now I'm going to say "No, it's the father's blame just as much because he helped made the child and he REFUSES to help pay for what he caused." Just because a woman has a uterus, it doesn't mean they're to blame for their own children. Again it takes two.
So who pays if not the father?
How about someone who decides to have the child is the one responsible for paying the child? People should stop wasting taxpayer's money for their stupidity. When someone's pregnant outside of a committed relationship, she should be aware of the consequences of giving birth to the child. Rather unfair to rely on other people for a decision that she made.
He refused to help pay for what he caused, but she had an option to terminate the pregnancy when she knows the man's not going to be responsible over the baby, only for her to decide to not take up the option. Whose fault is it?
lol. are you saying that a man should be the responsible one?
brb one night stand brb she forgot to take birth control brb condom broke brb she told me she wanted to keep the baby when i told her i didn't want it brb 18 years of child support + allowance
but if i was a woman
brb one night stand brb forgot to take my bc brb his condom broke brb i don't want to keep the baby even though he wants to keep it brb problem solved
sounds fair enough. thought we're talking about equality, my bad.
Nope, I'm saying he should share the responsibility, just like what I've been saying throughout the thread. Twist my words as you wish but I've said the same thing all the way through this thread. If the woman can face the consequences, the man should be paying the same price because it took two.
As for your contraception thing. Sorry? First you say it's because they didn't use contraception, then you said they did and it failed, now they're saying they didn't use it again. There's the morning after pill. You can't just say "LOL BUT WHO USES THAT?" It's their own fault for not using it and so the same responsibility occurs. What you're really implying here is it's sexist that men don't get a womb and aren't the ones to carry the children. That's nature. I'm afraid you can't change that. What men can control however is if and how they have sex. That seems fair enough to me.
So let's say these fathers can't be arsed to pay for their own children. Who does pay? It'll be the taxpayers. Now you're going to blame women for keeping the children. Now I'm going to say "No, it's the father's blame just as much because he helped made the child and he REFUSES to help pay for what he caused." Just because a woman has a uterus, it doesn't mean they're to blame for their own children. Again it takes two.
So who pays if not the father?
Powered by neoforums v1.6.5b (aperture) Copyright Neo Era Media, Inc. 1999-2013
