Well ladies and gents, I can't resist not posting again, especially with the commentary from Helen_Jupiter on the news story about Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Mich., who has filed a lawsuit dubbed by the National Center for Men "Roe v. Wade for Men."
Yeah, this guy is filing a lawsuit to address the issue of male reproductive rights, because he doesn't want to pay child support to his ex-girlfriend who told him that she was infertile.
He sounds like a bit of a loser right? Well, lets not go too rough on him, quite yet. It's easy for ladies (and some gentlemen) to scorn Mr. Dubay's actions as just another irresonsible buy, or dead-beat dad. Why is it so easy?
I'm not religious, but the Bible has got some good lines. Here's three of them from the book of Matthew:
7:1 Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
7:2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
7:3 Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
The real problem I have with Helen's commentary isn't with her opinion. She writes clearly and well, but the issues that she has raised aren't the issues that I'd like to see get talked about.
Let's talk about gender inequality. It's a massive issue hanging over our society's collective heads. Divorce rates are up, single mothers and youth pregnancies abound.
Let's not complain and point fingers. Let's talk about the issue of fatherhood. Motherhood is easily defined by the biological and emotional responses women undergo as they are pregnant, give birth and become mothers. But in today's society, where men are considered useless except to pay child support, fatherhood needs some major redefinition.
Dubay's case asserts: "If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood."
I don't think this is a great solution, but its the beginning of a dialogue that I think is important if the role of fathers and the whole notion of fatherhood is going to change for the better.
Peter Wakeman
Yeah, this guy is filing a lawsuit to address the issue of male reproductive rights, because he doesn't want to pay child support to his ex-girlfriend who told him that she was infertile.
He sounds like a bit of a loser right? Well, lets not go too rough on him, quite yet. It's easy for ladies (and some gentlemen) to scorn Mr. Dubay's actions as just another irresonsible buy, or dead-beat dad. Why is it so easy?
I'm not religious, but the Bible has got some good lines. Here's three of them from the book of Matthew:
7:1 Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
7:2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
7:3 Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
The real problem I have with Helen's commentary isn't with her opinion. She writes clearly and well, but the issues that she has raised aren't the issues that I'd like to see get talked about.
Let's talk about gender inequality. It's a massive issue hanging over our society's collective heads. Divorce rates are up, single mothers and youth pregnancies abound.
Let's not complain and point fingers. Let's talk about the issue of fatherhood. Motherhood is easily defined by the biological and emotional responses women undergo as they are pregnant, give birth and become mothers. But in today's society, where men are considered useless except to pay child support, fatherhood needs some major redefinition.
Dubay's case asserts: "If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood."
I don't think this is a great solution, but its the beginning of a dialogue that I think is important if the role of fathers and the whole notion of fatherhood is going to change for the better.
Peter Wakeman
Maybe something about how a woman can throw away a man (except for his wallet) just as quickly as he can discard her?
Babies are disposable too....
In a society that flushes 6-week-old fetuses down the toilet after a simple chemical abortion because it's convenient (it's just like having your period, right?) , how can that same society inconvenience men by tapping their finances for 18 years?
Again, I make no judgements. I'm just asking the questions.
[Edited on Mar 19, 2006 9:22PM]