promethea.incorporated

oligopsony:

socialjusticemunchkin:

oligopsony:

matt-ruins-feminisms-shit:

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

cisnowflake:

Remember, if a man gets a woman pregnant and he doesn’t want that kid it’s his responsibility anyway. If she wants to keep it, he’s fucked. He needs to pay even if he was tricked into fatherhood. If he doesn’t pay he goes to jail. He shoulda kept it in his pants, amiright?

If a woman gets pregnant, gives birth, and doesn’t want the kid there’s a box she can drop the baby into and she’s immediately relieved of all responsibility. She never even has to tell the father because fuck that dude. He doesn’t have a right to his spawn unless she wants that sweet sweet child support check.

*Equality*

Hey, this is an option that might discourage some abortion. I say good.

I don’t think anyone is saying it’s a bad idea, it’s certainly better than a dumpster. It just shows you only have options if you are the mother.

But that’s already taking it for granted (accurately, mind) that the mother is the one stuck with the baby if neither party wants it. A man can throw a baby in a baby box as easily as a woman. Go ahead, try it! (Do not actually try this.)

No he can’t, because the state will send men with guns to ransom or kidnap him if the baby’s mother is known and is on board with the “kidnapping and/or ransom” plan instead of the “put baby in box” plan.

If we as a society want babies to be taken care of, we give money to them (for use by their parents/guardians for their benefit) instead of ransoming people based on the copenhagen interpretation of ethics (your gametes were involved, it’s your responsibility now kthxbye). Or if we want to enforce contracts of “yeah, I totally will support you with the baby” then we should actually require such contracts to be consensually established instead of assuming that sex is inevitably implied consent to such with no way out even if participants explicitly agree.

We wouldn’t force people to take the risk of having to marry just for having sex, and consider those who try to enforce such things to be utter barbarians, so why would we expose people to the risk of losing substantial amounts of money for 18 years as the price of having sex?

I don’t have any strong opinions on policy here, though my intuitions aren’t too far from your own. My comments are limited to whether baby dumpsters amnesty (specifically) is unfair to men (specifically,) not anything else.

“No he can’t, because the state will send men with guns to ransom or kidnap him if the baby’s mother is known and is on board with the “kidnapping and/or ransom” plan instead of the “put baby in box” plan.”

But the same applies in reverse. If a legally recognized father found out that his child had been thrown into a dumpster by the child’s mother, you don’t think he could arrange to have her kidnapped?

I don’t know the specifics; probably yes, although I don’t know if she would be kidnapped and/or ransomed if she just renounced her custody and gave it solely to the father; it might be that the law is equally unfair in theory and simply lopsided in practice and she would have to pay, or it could be that the law actually works differently because I wouldn’t put such ass-backwardness beyond the capability of any american jurisdiction.

(via oligopsony-deactivated20160508)

1 month ago · tagged #steel feminism #yes this is a notorious feminist speaking #just for all you mranons i am very much a feminist and you are observing feminism #this is what a feminism sometimes looks like #and what i think it should look like more often #still 100% feminism tho · 660 notes · source: cisnowflake · .permalink