"Roe v. Wade for men"

[trustwomen]

Depends on what you consider freedom?

BTW: interestingly enough the courts often state Financial abuse right along side verbal, physical, emotional etc as ways that men abuse women in relationships.

Let's look at the financial costs of women's options:

Abortion: approx. (Free - $400) http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/cost.html

Adoption: Free

18+ parenting: Hundreds of thousands of dollars (but an active choice the woman gets to make if she wants)

Men have no options/no choice when it comes to the outcome of an unplanned pregnancy:

His costs regardless: Hundreds of thousands of dollars over 18+ years.


When you look at it IMHO, looks like women have more options: for example adoption and abortion both of which are "practically free".
And adoption can always a good option for someone who doesn't believe in abortion.

I agree that birth control should be Both men and women's responsibility.. BUT women also have a corner in this market as well having way more options.
The options given to men are either less reliable or permanant (condom or vasectomy). Women have all sorts of highly effective reversable birth control currently available to them.

Geez, you really didn't read the thread-starting post, didja?

Loads of women pay child support for children they never wanted. They don't usually pay it to fathers, because fathers don't usually have (or want) custody - they pay it to grandmothers, aunts, and foster families.
A father has the legal right to block an adoption, get custody (and if the mother wanted to place for adoption, he'll usually win) and then sue the mother for child support. In other words, her right to place for adoption is EXACTLY the same as his; if the other person refuses and gains custody, you're on the hook for 18 years. This is NOT a gender issue; it's a child-support issue.

Not every woman can access an abortion. Medicaid only pays for abortion in a few states, nearly all states require a parent's consent for an abortion, and abortion is not available at all stages of pregnancy - in many states, it's only available in the first trimester. You'd be surprised how many women only find out about their pregnancy in the second trimester; when abortion is either impossible to get in their area, or costs far more than 400$. A lot of women are stuck giving birth when they would have preferred an abortion; so in real life, there is no "guaranteed" right not to be a parent, once a woman is pregnant. Therefore this is NOT a reproductive rights issue; it is a child support issue.

BTW, saying "adoption is always a good option for those who don't want to have an abortion" is a really, really, ignorant statement. Adoption (which can be blocked by either parent, remember, and is not a "special right of women") is emotionally devastating, miserable, and counter to every human instinct. Please, tell me you don't come across that cold to your pregnant patients.

Financial abuse never ever includes the collection of child support; it is a real kind of abuse that you clearly know nothing about. Women pay child support too, and they are not considered financially abused because of this. Women are financially abused when their partners control every aspect of their finances and they cannot obtain the resources necessary to leave and/or live without him. It can involve hiding her identity papers, taking her bank documents, filing false fraud charges against her so she cannot access welfare, cutting off food money for a month because she looked at a man at a party, getting her fired from every job she takes so she can't have her own money, etc... (it's surprisingly easy to get someone fired from a low-wage job). Collecting child support is in no way abusive; this is NOT an abuse issue.

Women's "highly effective birth control" is all HORMONAL - the kind of BC they refuse to create for men because men would never put up with the side effects (loss of libido, anyone? how about mood swings, weight gain, possible risk of cancer?). Many women simply cannot use hormonal birth control. Of non-hormonal methods, condoms are the most effective (except for IUDs, which are a bad idea for young women).

Clearly, no amount of logic or fact will make you "get over" this false notion of mass injustice. The reason men have no choice with respect to an unplanned pregnancy is that the only "choices" available involve somebody else's body. And they are not even available, for many women. Women do, sometimes, get to choose abortion. We also get "the **** end of the stick" when it comes to STDs, rape, wages, career advancement, housework, pregnancy & childbirth, child raising, and a host of other things. (And getting an abortion, for your information, is no cakewalk either.)

Men, on the other hand, have to be more careful when they have sex, and must always use condoms. Hell, it sounds like a public service announcement, not a massive constraint.

THE REAL ISSUE: who is responsible for the financial support of unwanted children? Their biological parents, or the collective (i.e. the state)? I'm assuming that letting them starve is not an option here. If it's the parents (and every country in the world believes this, no matter how socialist), then we collect support from them. Whoever has custody (mother, father, aunt, state) collects support. From whichever parent does not have custody. Parents, if you're sick of paying child support, imagine how much more you'd be paying if your kids actually lived with you. I said this yesterday when I told off (gently) a female coworker of mine who was bitching about having to pay child support.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[trustwomen]

If the woman decides to keep the child, she incurs both financial and parenting obligations. The male only incurs financial ones. In a strictly relative sense, I'd call that freedom.

Ummm, not sure where this came from, but okay.

Yes, you're right, they don't. And there's no good way to give them one. That's the point.

My, getting caught up in a little hyperbole, aren't we? According to the Census Bureau, in 2000 the median and average child support payments were $280 and $300 a month, respectively. Support obligations are also income sensitive, so they shouldn't be sending anyone to the poorhouse.

The woman may have the options, but she's also going to bear the brunt of whatever choice she makes. To make matters worse, pregnancy isn't prime time for rational decision making.

But let's talk about the only truly innocent party in all this mess: the baby. Should the baby, who has done nothing wrong, get screwed out of receiving financial support just because his/her Dad happens to be a selfish prick?

 

[ProReduction]

To paraphrase Bill Maher on the topic of fundamentalist Christians claiming that abstinence is the answer:



"...you know, with the fundamentalists claiming that sex is bad, because sex with them usually is."



"People in the heartland say that the coasts are out of touch with their morals. Well, you're right. See, we actually like sex. It drives our whole economy."



Sure saying that people shouldn't have sex unless they are willing to pay the consequences is a simple answer, but it misses the point of this lawsuit. If women can have an abortion to opt out from being a parent, then men should have the same option [legally speaking - equal protection].

I am not Christian. But I realize that the Bible thumpers are the ones that usually sound like this. All of my thinking on the issue is secular and philosophical. I agree that I didn't talk about the lawsuit. The thing that is missed is that men have NO reproductive rights.

Here is an older paper on the issue of men's reproductive rights. Not that I agree with it, but its a view:

Abortion: The Husband's Constitutional Rights
Wesley D. H. Teo
Ethics, Vol. 85, No. 4. (Jul., 1975), pp. 337-342.

 

[ProReduction]

Not every woman can access an abortion. Medicaid only pays for abortion in a few states, nearly all states require a parent's consent for an abortion, and abortion is not available at all stages of pregnancy - in many states, it's only available in the first trimester. You'd be surprised how many women only find out about their pregnancy in the second trimester; when abortion is either impossible to get in their area, or costs far more than 400$. A lot of women are stuck giving birth when they would have preferred an abortion; so in real life, there is no "guaranteed" right not to be a parent, once a woman is pregnant. Therefore this is NOT a reproductive rights issue; it is a child support issue.

Women's "highly effective birth control" is all HORMONAL - the kind of BC they refuse to create for men because men would never put up with the side effects (loss of libido, anyone? how about mood swings, weight gain, possible risk of cancer?). Many women simply cannot use hormonal birth control. Of non-hormonal methods, condoms are the most effective (except for IUDs, which are a bad idea for young women).

Clearly, no amount of logic or fact will make you "get over" this false notion of mass injustice. The reason men have no choice with respect to an unplanned pregnancy is that the only "choices" available involve somebody else's body. And they are not even available, for many women. Women do, sometimes, get to choose abortion. We also get "the **** end of the stick" when it comes to STDs, rape, wages, career advancement, housework, pregnancy & childbirth, child raising, and a host of other things. (And getting an abortion, for your information, is no cakewalk either.)

Men, on the other hand, have to be more careful when they have sex, and must always use condoms. Hell, it sounds like a public service announcement, not a massive constraint.

THE REAL ISSUE: who is responsible for the financial support of unwanted children?

Although morally opposed to abortion, I agree that it is not a good thing that a legal medical procedure (abortion) has so many barriers to its use. Many women do not have abortions because they simply cannot afford/travel to/find a practicing clinic close to home.

But the issue of whether abortion should be government subsidized is a whole other issue entirely. Not every medical procedure is state subsidized by the government. Now I'm not comparing abortion to something trivial like a tummy tuck, but just because the procedure is legal doesn't mean it should be state subsidized. You have to argue for that right. A start would be to argue that unsubsidized abortion places poor women at an unjust burden with respect to abortions that they cannt afford.

Finally, when it comes down to it, men currently have NO reproductive rights at all. It is always the woman's final decision. No court has ever ruled to block an abortion for an adult (18 or older) at the request of the father. So if an child is ever deemed "unwanted" then it is labeled that way because the mother chose to bring that unwanted child into the world.

 

[PTPoeny]

One question...do you really think that most men that are paying child support for children that arent theirs are doing it out of spite and scheming on the part of the woman? I would guess most of them are cases where the woman chose the most likely father and happened to be wrong. I think if you are going to offer men paternity testing, let the mother give multiple names if she wants to.

I know I had a friend who got pregnant and she had two regular partners. She claimed to use condoms regularly with both and as soon as she found out she was pregnant she sat down with a calendar and figured out which one she had more sex with during the time she likely conceived. Thats who she decided was the father. She could have been completely wrong, but she was not scheming or being spiteful. She would really liked to have known for sure, but there was no way she could afford the tests with a new baby on the way.

 

[trustwomen]

So if an child is ever deemed "unwanted" then it is labeled that way because the mother chose to bring that unwanted child into the world.

Sometimes (often, even) it is not a "choice" on her part. She would have chosen otherwise, but could not access an abortion. However, even when a woman does choose to bring the child into the world (i.e. could have done otherwise), knowing that the child is unwanted by its father, why should that mean that the child should be punished by being unsupported? We all know the state won't adequately step in. The logic fails. Moral censure for the woman, sure. But cutting off support to the child because of the mother's bad actions? No. And besides, what about when an adoption is blocked by the father and he puts mom on the hook for child support (let's assume she was unable to have an abortion); should she be able to avoid paying support also?

As for abortion funding, recall that the only alternative, childbirth, is always fully funded. (And aren't you all saying that childbirth is "elective" also?) By funding one and not the other, the state is coercing poor pregnant women into one of these choices - depriving them of the right to freely decide for themselves. Some people are fine with that; Utah's "informed consent" tape (that women seeking abortion must watch, by law) even says outright "the state of Utah prefers that women continue their pregnancies" or something like that, I forget the exact wording. But if you are among those of us who think that women should be able to decide freely when it comes to their pregnancies, then it is essential that there be no massive access differences.

 

[OzDDS]

I know I had a friend who got pregnant and she had two regular partners. She claimed to use condoms regularly with both and as soon as she found out she was pregnant she sat down with a calendar and figured out which one she had more sex with during the time she likely conceived. Thats who she decided was the father. She could have been completely wrong, but she was not scheming or being spiteful. She would really liked to have known for sure, but there was no way she could afford the tests with a new baby on the way.

Can't afford it eh? Well Paternity tests these days run in the range of approx. $150-350 bucks usually.

http://www.craigmedical.com/DNA_Paternity_Testing.htm

I would be willing to put money on the fact that if she "actually told" both men that she was sleeping with that they each "may" have been the father.

That the Men would probably pay to get themselves tested to make sure.

But instead of being ethical and informing everyone that was involved, like many women.. she made that decision on her own.

Besides using the calender.. other methods that woman or other women may use to assist them in making up their minds who they will "choose" the "real father" will be:

1) If she wants to inform the "father" so she can get help supporting the child.. then she chooses the man with the best paying job.

2) If she wants to be married.. chooses the man with the best paying job. (and maybe the one she "cares for/gets along" with the most)

 

[OzDDS]

And besides, what about when an adoption is blocked by the father and he puts mom on the hook for child support (let's assume she was unable to have an abortion); should she be able to avoid paying support also?

I agree with your point that both abortions and births should receive equal subsidization.

As to the situation where men block adoption.. I presume from your previous posts that you may have a friend or coworker who this has happend to. But instead of citing one example.. Honestly, how frequent does this occur? Do you have any stats?

I have one for you then.. What about men who are loving, hard working husbands who are looking forward to the day that they can become fathers. And then their wives knowingly and without warning go behind their back and get an abortion without their concent. (I can quote a couple cases too.. It's rare, but does happen).

Regardless.. You were the one who originally proposed the tax raise to allow both the man and/or woman to relinquish financial support of unwanted children. If that is the case.. then yes. The woman would also be able to aviod paying support.

 

[OzDDS]

We also get "the **** end of the stick" when it comes to wages, career advancement, housework, pregnancy & childbirth, child raising, and a host of other things.

This is a completly different issue.. but many women do not get paid the same for the same jobs because many of them are simply not willing to work the same hours that many men are. Also, more women are interested in more flexible or possible part-time positions, or ones with better maternity leave options if they are looking to have children. Also, most women are not willing to work in the more labor intensive physically riskier jobs out there that men are.
There are many other factors involved here.

If I as a man wanted a job, but my female co-worker in the same position was willing to work longer hours and wasn't interested in making sure there were stipulations in her contract for more flexible hours etc.. then I would expect to get a slightly lower wage than her.

 

[trustwomen]

I have one for you then.. What about men who are loving, hard working husbands who are looking forward to the day that they can become fathers. And then their wives knowingly and without warning go behind their back and get an abortion without their concent. (I can quote a couple cases too.. It's rare, but does happen).

If they truly are loving husbands then I would question the woman's moral judgment; if you don't want a child and your partner does, that's usually a deal-breaker on the relationship, and she owes it to him to be honest about what she wants (no kids now) - even if it means he will leave her.

However, while this may be morally wrong, we have no business making it illegal (i.e. she must get his consent for abortion). That would give him power over her body, and she must be the one who has the last word about what she does with her pregnancy. I'm totally against forced abortion (by partners or parents) for the same reason.

Those women who "trap" men (and I suspect that of the many men who feel trapped, only a minority of their partners actually set out to trap them) are also deserving of moral censure. Yes, that is not a nice thing to do; yes, it is wrong. However, I'm not OK with cutting off their children's support (taking food out of their children's mouths) because of the mother's lack of character.

I must remind you that I am alone (even among the socialists) in believing that, fundamentally, the state is responsible for the well-being of children and not the parents (I happen to not trust parents a whole lot, that happens when you're a social worker). The socialist countries are also the ones who go after non-custodial parents with the most vigour (we've discussed this). I guarantee you that most people will NOT be OK with a tax hike in order to let parents off the hook. (And virtually no Americans, for sure.) Meaning that in practice, if you let parents off the hook, the kids will suffer for it. The "men's rights" message would certainly be less popular if people realized that to grant them, you'd need to increase government ("and YOUR taxes") significantly in order to ensure that innocent children don't suffer from it.

 

[trustwomen]

This is a completly different issue.. but many women do not get paid the same for the same jobs because many of them are simply not willing to work the same hours that many men are. Also, more women are interested in more flexible or possible part-time positions, or ones with better maternity leave options if they are looking to have children. Also, most women are not willing to work in the more labor intensive physically riskier jobs out there that men are.
There are many other factors involved here.

If I as a man wanted a job, but my female co-worker in the same position was willing to work longer hours and wasn't interested in making sure there were stipulations in her contract for more flexible hours etc.. then I would expect to get a slightly lower wage than her.

I disagree with you about the labor-intensive physically riskier jobs; women do want to do these (they're often well-paid, too) but there are a host of factors preventing that. Other than that, you're probably right about the rest.

The solution is to ensure that fathers have equal levels of domestic/family responsibilities as mothers (i.e. lighten the load on her and place more of it on him). The current workplace culture is based on the stay-at-home mom being able to take care of "everything else", leaving dad to work those long hours etc. We need to shift that culture, because the single-income family is just not doable anymore. If both men and women were requiring the same freedoms and flexibilities, the adjustments would probably be institutionalized a lot faster. Right now women are still letting their partners off the hook for most of the domestic work, even when the women work full-time themselves. We only won half the battle - the "outside job" half. The "inside job" is still ours to bear alone, for the most part. The problem is, the outer half involved institutional change, and so we were primed to fight collectively for it; the inner half requires each individual woman to insist on an equal relationship with her partner - not so easy. Cultural shift will help smooth things out, and we're getting there slowly.

 

[trustwomen]

I know I had a friend who got pregnant and she had two regular partners. She claimed to use condoms regularly with both and as soon as she found out she was pregnant she sat down with a calendar and figured out which one she had more sex with during the time she likely conceived. Thats who she decided was the father. She could have been completely wrong, but she was not scheming or being spiteful. She would really liked to have known for sure, but there was no way she could afford the tests with a new baby on the way.

Eeee. See, this kind of story makes my teeth grind, as feminist as I am. Clearly, she was not being honest with her partners about the fact that she was seeing both of them. Otherwise, she could have gone to the "probable" father (or the other guy, even) and I'm sure he would willingly have paid for a prenatal paternity test. And I just can't approve of bringing a child into the world when you were dishonest with his father and were not in a stable and honest relationship to begin with. (If she was polyamorous and both partners knew, that's another story entirely and no moral censure applies - from me, anyway). I'm sure she wasn't scheming or spiteful, as you say, but she displayed questionable judgment nonetheless, IMO. Of course I don't know the details of the circumstance...

 

[dnw826]

This is a completly different issue.. but many women do not get paid the same for the same jobs because many of them are simply not willing to work the same hours that many men are. Also, more women are interested in more flexible or possible part-time positions, or ones with better maternity leave options if they are looking to have children. Also, most women are not willing to work in the more labor intensive physically riskier jobs out there that men are.
There are many other factors involved here.

If I as a man wanted a job, but my female co-worker in the same position was willing to work longer hours and wasn't interested in making sure there were stipulations in her contract for more flexible hours etc.. then I would expect to get a slightly lower wage than her.

Most men I know would LOVE to work less hours, or to get more maternity leave time for their families. ANd I actually love labor intense jobs. I have worked several. So don't go making assumptions, dear boy.

 

[OzDDS]

I actually love labor intense jobs. I have worked several. So don't go making assumptions, dear boy.

Then you're not the average woman.

Found this interesting...
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/050321/21john.htm

 

[OzDDS]

I just can't approve of bringing a child into the world when you were dishonest with his father and were not in a stable and honest relationship to begin with.

Agreed!

 

[dnw826]

Then you're not the average woman.

Found this interesting...
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/050321/21john.htm

Actually, a lot of my female friends/aquaintances feel the same. I like a good workout. I used to help with my friend's family fruit business, lifting watermelons for 8-15 hours straight and loading them, picking them, etc. It was awesome. I have also worked in factories. Not to mention being an aide in a hospital, you lift lots of 300+ pound patients, most of the time with no help (we were incredibly understaffed). That was the most physically demanding of all of my jobs, really.

 

[OzDDS]

I like a good workout. I used to help with my friend's family fruit business, lifting watermelons for 8-15 hours straight and loading them, picking them, etc. It was awesome. .

What about road construction, mining, cutting timber, oil rig worker in the middle of the pacific, swat team, firefighter, police officer doing drug busts in crack houses/gang control.

Know many women who would like these jobs.. and are willing to work long hard unflexible hours in bad conditions, and take risks to life and limb?

 

[trustwomen]

What about road construction, mining, cutting timber, oil rig worker in the middle of the pacific, swat team, firefighter, police officer doing drug busts in crack houses/gang control.

Know many women who would like these jobs.. and are willing to work long hard unflexible hours in bad conditions, and take risks to life and limb?

One of my coworkers wanted to be an undersea welder and work on the rigs - but she was endlessly sexually harassed during her training and quit to work in construction. She hurt her back and can no longer do heavy physical work, so she works with me now. Women in the trades face so much bull**** (as they do in some factions of the military) that many do drop out or choose other work; it's not that they didn't like the work, they just didn't like the constant harassment (sexual or otherwise). Some countries have made proactive efforts to get more women in the trades, and these efforts have worked; clearly it isn't just "preference". You may never get 50/50 (until you have more 50/50 in the home, as my previous post stated), but you sure can lessen the imbalance.

As for the drug busts in crack houses, I know a whole lot of women who are street-level social workers; they walk right into the crackhouses to get their clients out, stand up to pimps and dealers and violent johns, and a few have had to talk fast to avoid getting shot. They do not have bulletproof vests, or their own guns, or armed backup. They work long and miserable hours, for very little pay, because they actually care about the people they are trying to help. I think they're pretty damned heroic.

 

[OzDDS]

1. One of my coworkers wanted to be an undersea welder and work on the rigs - but she was endlessly sexually harassed during her training and quit to work in construction.

2. She hurt her back and can no longer do heavy physical work, so she works with me now.

3. Some countries have made proactive efforts to get more women in the trades, and these efforts have worked

4. I know a whole lot of women who are street-level social workers; they walk right into the crackhouses to get their clients out, stand up to pimps and dealers and violent johns, and a few have had to talk fast to avoid getting shot. They do not have bulletproof vests, or their own guns, or armed backup. They work long and miserable hours, for very little pay, because they actually care about the people they are trying to help. I think they're pretty damned heroic.

1. To some extint.. that's nature baby. What else do you expect when you put 1 woman on an metal island (oil rig) in the middle of the ocean with 200 men. I'm sure nights on the rigs get cold and lonely... and with such competition for the one woman to keep you warm at night. haha Testosterone is a funny thing.
If she could have stuck it out and brought with her 100 other women who were physically and emotionally strong enough to endure such work. Then maybe it wouldn't be as bad.

2. That is what happens a lot to people in high risk demanding jobs.. they get hurt. I'm sorry that, that happend to her though.

3. Like what? Can you list any examples of things that you feel have helped?

4. Good for them! It definitly takes a strong person to be able to do that sort of work! I agree with you.

 

[OzDDS]

Abortion: The Husband's Constitutional Rights
Wesley D. H. Teo
Ethics, Vol. 85, No. 4. (Jul., 1975), pp. 337-342.

Do you know if this is available online.. I can't seem to find it.

 

[Josh L.Ac.]

One of my coworkers wanted to be an undersea welder and work on the rigs - but she was endlessly sexually harassed during her training and quit to work in construction. She hurt her back and can no longer do heavy physical work, so she works with me now. Women in the trades face so much bull**** (as they do in some factions of the military) that many do drop out or choose other work; it's not that they didn't like the work, they just didn't like the constant harassment (sexual or otherwise).

Usually when I read something like this my factory-installed PC alarm goes off, but then I realized something. I've never worked in a factory but I have worked some blue collar jobs in my youth, and here's the deal about labor-intensive jobs:

Everyone gets harrassed on the job by their coworkers.


Yup, even men. Obviously the tone is going to be a little bit different if it is directed towards a woman instead of a man, but hey, men talk smack to other men on the job all the time. That's how it is. It's part of the bonding ritual. Granted the amount of the harrassment changes from location to location...when I first moved to Seattle from Kansas I got told several times to tone it down (my response was usually a "what do you mean? tone down what?").


But true, when the harrassment focuses more on sex then just humiliating the other person it tends to be worse...or does it?


[/off topic]



Great other posts BTW.

 

[dnw826]

What about road construction, mining, cutting timber, oil rig worker in the middle of the pacific, swat team, firefighter, police officer doing drug busts in crack houses/gang control.

Know many women who would like these jobs.. and are willing to work long hard unflexible hours in bad conditions, and take risks to life and limb?

I do know a female firefighter, where I lived there is a huge Meth swat team with many women, and there are females working in road construction. It is actually a VERY well paying job. I would take it if it were offered to me, at least for awhile. But there are no oil rigs, timber businesses, or mines around me. You must think pretty lowly of women to assume we can't or don't want these jobs.

 

[dnw826]

1. To some extint.. that's nature baby. What else do you expect when you put 1 woman on an metal island (oil rig) in the middle of the ocean with 200 men. I'm sure nights on the rigs get cold and lonely... and with such competition for the one woman to keep you warm at night. haha Testosterone is a funny thing.
If she could have stuck it out and brought with her 100 other women who were physically and emotionally strong enough to endure such work. Then maybe it wouldn't be as bad.

2. That is what happens a lot to people in high risk demanding jobs.. they get hurt. I'm sorry that, that happend to her though.

3. Like what? Can you list any examples of things that you feel have helped?

4. Good for them! It definitly takes a strong person to be able to do that sort of work! I agree with you.

Many mines now actively pursue hiring women, as well as other "mens" jobs.

Haha testosterone is a funny thing? Wow, ual harassment is fun. So is being faced with being d by the 200 men on board.

 

[OzDDS]

I do know a female firefighter, where I lived there is a huge Meth swat team with many women, and there are females working in road construction. It is actually a VERY well paying job. I would take it if it were offered to me, at least for awhile.

I'm just simply trying to point out that the majority of high risk hard labor jobs in this world are done by men. I'm not saying that women can't do these jobs, just more that (for the most part) compared to men, most women would not be interested in these jobs.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/050321/21john.htm

"Farrell argues that many men outearn women by a willingness to take risky and dangerous jobs as well as work that exposes them to stress and bad weather or that requires a transfer to an undesirable location in another city or country. Women are more likely than men to pick glamorous jobs that tend to pay less."

 

[vesper9]

you know a thread has gone to hell when "boy will be boys" attitude comes out

I forgot that my gender makes it okay to to make sexually degrading and threatening commments to me...after all, it just makes me "one of the boys" and is simply a "bonding" ritual ...next thing you'll be telling me rape is just men blowing off steam or misinterpreting a mini-skirt

please ladies stop abbeting these douches

 

[Josh L.Ac.]

Many mines now actively pursue hiring women, as well as other "mens" jobs.

This is something that has always bugged me, regardless of my somewhat liberal view of social issues: why should it be up to the mines to actively recruit women? If the women want to work there, fine, but why should recruiting women be a responsibility of the mine?


I understand the benefit of having people from different backgrounds with different perspectives collaborating on a business or intectual project, but I fail to see how it is important for a manual job. Plus, if the job is physically demanding, should a company be required to lower the physicial prerequisites to allow more women to work there?

 

[Josh L.Ac.]

you know a thread has gone to hell when "boy will be boys" attitude comes out

I forgot that my gender makes it okay to to make sexually degrading and threatening commments to me...after all, it just makes me "one of the boys" and is simply a "bonding" ritual ...next thing you'll be telling me rape is just men blowing off steam or misinterpreting a mini-skirt

please ladies stop abbeting these douches

I see your strawman, Argumentum ad hominem, and slippery slope and raise you an Argumentum ad populum.

 

[trustwomen]

This is something that has always bugged me, regardless of my somewhat liberal view of social issues: why should it be up to the mines to actively recruit women? If the women want to work there, fine, but why should recruiting women be a responsibility of the mine?

I understand the benefit of having people from different backgrounds with different perspectives collaborating on a business or intectual project, but I fail to see how it is important for a manual job. Plus, if the job is physically demanding, should a company be required to lower the physicial prerequisites to allow more women to work there?

Because "recruiting women" often requires nothing more than changing the work conditions so that they won't get sexually harassed all the time. (And then getting the word out.) You need a critical mass of women in order to make the workplace endurable; "tokens" often have an exceptionally hard time succeeding, no matter how capable they are - the military showed us that. Besides, getting more women in the trades is also a matter of pay equity; the types of unskilled (or low-skilled) work traditionally done by men are paid far better than the types of low-skilled work done by women. There's a reason why a man with a high school diploma still outearns a woman with a university degree. Mines probably recruit women (do they, really?) to look good and soothe their social conscience; they aren't obligated to. But bravo for them anyway.

Here, the companies don't "recruit"; instead, the government gives women incentives to train for these jobs. It's worked. Another essential component, of course, is enforceable workplace safety legislation...

Prerequisites should not be lowered - however, one can examine the prerequisites and see if they truly are necessary for the job. (A fireman's carry, for example, is a great equalizer.) If the bar for upper-body strength turns out to have been set higher than the job really requires, lowering it (for everyone) will net you not only more women, but also a wider pool of men. (I don't like different standards for men and women, however.) Technological advances also help; cops can use tasers now instead of wrestling people to the ground, and firing a gun don't need the same arm strength as before. I also believe that if you can meet the standard, you move on to the next aspect of qualification, i.e. a man shouldn't be hired just because he's physically stronger than a woman, when they have both met the standard.

 

[OzDDS]

1. "tokens" often have an exceptionally hard time succeeding, no matter how capable they are - the military showed us that.

2. the types of unskilled (or low-skilled) work traditionally done by men are paid far better than the types of low-skilled work done by women.

3. the government gives women incentives to train for these jobs. It's worked. Another essential component, of course, is enforceable workplace safety legislation...

4. Prerequisites should not be lowered - however, one can examine the prerequisites and see if they truly are necessary for the job. (A fireman's carry, for example, is a great equalizer.) If the bar for upper-body strength turns out to have been set higher than the job really requires, lowering it (for everyone) will net you not only more women, but also a wider pool of men. (I don't like different standards for men and women, however.)

5. Technological advances also help; cops can use tasers now instead of wrestling people to the ground, and firing a gun don't need the same arm strength as before. I also believe that if you can meet the standard, you move on to the next aspect of qualification, i.e. a man shouldn't be hired just because he's physically stronger than a woman, when they have both met the standard.

1. I understand what you're trying to say.. and I agree that it is better to get them out in mass droves. And if you truely feel that this is a good idea.. especially in the military. Then I think that should be VERY pro-active in attempting to get legistation passed to require women to register for the draft just like men. If things start out equal, I feel you're more likely to be treated equally once your there. Go for it! I'm behind you.

2. If I have a job that is low skilled but requires great strength.. ie. Moving piles of dirt/ditch diggin.. a hard and dirty job that no one wants. It's well paid, I agree. And it's usually big burly men who "choose" to do this work. Not many women truely want these jobs even if offered to them. When they could be working similarly low skilled job like folding clothes in a botique retail shop. Most will still choose a pay cut than the less glam job of pushing dirt around.

3. What sorts of incentives? What sort of "enforceable safety legistation".. what is required that isn't already in place?

4. I agree that you should not have diff standard for men and women. Although I don't think that a fireman's carry is a very good example. I feel that it IS a VERY GOOD thing to have a high load requirement. American's are the biggest fattest people in the world. I would hope that American Firemen.. sorry Firepersons.. would be able to carry the fatasses out of the house to save them.

5.. now.. I do agree with your point regarding the cops and "tasers" and guns. This is good point.

I just don't know what sort of technological advances will help a 110 lb. firewoman carry some big person out of a burning house, hold a hose a full blast, or knock down doors as easily as a 220 lb 6'4" fireman.

 

[PTPoeny]

Eeee. See, this kind of story makes my teeth grind, as feminist as I am. Clearly, she was not being honest with her partners about the fact that she was seeing both of them. Otherwise, she could have gone to the "probable" father (or the other guy, even) and I'm sure he would willingly have paid for a prenatal paternity test. And I just can't approve of bringing a child into the world when you were dishonest with his father and were not in a stable and honest relationship to begin with. (If she was polyamorous and both partners knew, that's another story entirely and no moral censure applies - from me, anyway). I'm sure she wasn't scheming or spiteful, as you say, but she displayed questionable judgment nonetheless, IMO. Of course I don't know the details of the circumstance...

Reply to both people that complained...trust me, both guys knew she was pregnant. They were friends, they never suggested paternity testing, but they did offer to split the cost of an abortion between the two of them.

 

[LADoc00]

Ive never understood the elective abortion/child support payment paradigm myself. Talk about having your cake and eating it too! I will never pay child support as long as abortion is a legal option. If it becomes illegal where I live, then Ill reconsider out of fairness. Of course Ive never got anyone pregnant and may never BUT the principle behind it I stand for.

Obviously the so-called freedom of choice is being enjoyed by only half of Americans..okay, where is the hell is my freedom of choice?! OR is my freedom of choice is the freedom to get my butt shot off for big oil profits?? That must be it.

 

[Solideliquid]

Ive never understood the elective abortion/child support payment paradigm myself. Talk about having your cake and eating it too! I will never pay child support as long as abortion is a legal option. If it becomes illegal where I live, then Ill reconsider out of fairness. Of course Ive never got anyone pregnant and may never BUT the principle behind it I stand for.

Obviously the so-called freedom of choice is being enjoyed by only half of Americans..okay, where is the hell is my freedom of choice?! OR is my freedom of choice is the freedom to get my butt shot off for big oil profits?? That must be it.

Nah, you will just go to prison. Yay!

 

[LADoc00]

I don't think that any man should have the right to force anything on my body, whether it's an abortion, a penis, or their mind numbing football/boobs blabber. How would you feel if women suddenly were given the power to force men into castration or...

I can think of worse, but it's too gruesome for this conversation.

I completely agree with you, now please remove your hand from my wallet!

Sheesh, why is that some people think a Y chromosome turns a person into an ATM?!

 

[LADoc00]

Nah, you will just go to prison. Yay!

Nope, nice try.

1 LADOC=100 LAPD.

Being only 10 inches tall, I can duck and weave, hiding in places you cant imagine. I spent 2 weeks in kitten ninja school as well. I may only be a baby sized cat, but when I get going, Rambo better watch out!

 

[jimbobb23]

I have not read the whole thread, but I think that such laws are simply the logical extension of current laws. If the man does not want the child and the woman does, it becomes solely her responsibility. Right now, if the man wants the child and the women does not he has no recourse. So, why should he have responsibility in the inverse situation? Unless we want to change the law so the man can compel her to have the baby...anyone think that is fair?

Of course, I think this whole movement of severing the natural inclinations between parents and children is disgusting - but if we are going to go that route we might as well be fair.

 

[Please Doctor]

Wow, I personally can't think of a worse way to try to trap a man than to have a child and be responsible for the next 18 years for raising that child, with no guarantee the man would be around to help. Petitioning for child support and getting child support from a deadbeat dad are two very different things. And even then, the support only partially covers the cost of raising a child so where is the benefit for the woman?

Something bizarre about the thinking. If that is trapping a man, isn't the woman trapped as well?

And wouldn't that be saying women are using an innocent child to do this trapping. I don't know any women who would do that, personally.