"Utterly indispensable": reflections on men, women, military service

I'm interested in the discussion (a civil one, I am happy to say) below this post.  The subject of men, women, and the draft has come up.  The military draft is a troublesome issue for feminists and pro-feminists, as it brings a variety of important issues together:  equality for women, social justice, and the morality of war, just to name a few.  From the discussion, I can sketch together a few basic positions:

1.  Social Conservative/Traditionalist:  Women should not be drafted.  Women should not serve in combat positions even in a volunteer army, because their primary role ought to be as wives and mothers, not "cannon fodder."  The fact that women are already fighting and dying in Iraq is a disgrace.  Men, on the other hand, are natural protectors and fighters and ought to be required to serve.

2.  Men's Rights Advocates: Women ought to be treated exactly as men are treated.  If and when a draft is reinstated, women ought to be drafted.  Women should be required to register with Selective Service, just as men do now.  Ala Warren Farrell, men bear an unequal burden; they could be conscripted and are forced to register for that conscription, while women will not bear that burden of being required to fight for their country.

3.  Feminists: Well, not surprisingly, there is no clear feminist unanimity on this issue.  Liberal feminists who favor full inclusion for women in all aspects of society tend to support Selective Service registration for women, as well as the opportunity for women to serve in combat.  More radical feminists tend to oppose registration and all forms of military service for both sexes.  But few serious feminists defend the current system; they either want more women in the military or they want a complete re-think of how our nation wages war.

Here's where my pacifism actually leads me into agreement with some of the Men's Rights Advocates.   (Shock of all shocks.)   Warren Farrell, a man I disagree with 85% of the time, is absolutely right when he calls Selective Service registration "the psychological preparation to be disposable."   Farrell is rightly upset that our national rhetoric around war sees men's bodies as not worthy of protection:

We don't call the one-million men who were killed or maimed in one battle in World War I (the Battle of the Somme) a holocaust, we call it "serving the country."

Indeed.  Pro-feminist men (of whom I count myself one) and MRAs share, I think, a real sense of outrage at cultural messages that glorify the deaths of young men in battle.   We share a mutual anger at those from all points of the political spectrum who argue that men have a natural inclination for violence that somehow makes their dying in battle justifiable. 

But few MRAs are actual pacifists.  I oppose the draft because I am fundamentally opposed to war on religious and ethical grounds; I don't want either my sisters or my brothers fighting.  The thought of any of my loved ones being killed -- or killing -- fills me with equal horror.  And I get angry at right-wing rhetoric that cheapens men's lives:

America owes much to its women service members.

But they shouldn't be in combat. First, they are the bearers of life and the heart of family life, an utterly indispensable role. When America sends young women off to war, watching them kiss their toddlers goodbye, we are making a moral choice that children are just not important anymore. It is much more important to drive a military truck. This callousness is an outgrowth of the abortion culture in which human life itself is cheapened. Any job those women do could be done by a man, but nobody else can be a mother to her children. It is bad enough for children to lose their father, but it is utterly unnecessary for them to lose their mother...

If women are utterly indispensable, what are men?  Here, I think, pro-feminists, feminists, and MRAs can stand together.  While some would like to see women drafted alongside men, and others would like to see a world where war was renounced forever as a policy tool, we can all agree that a  worldview that sees men as fundamentally more dispensable than women is abhorrent.

I stand with my feminist allies who push men hard to change.  I'm a pro-feminist because I want to see the men in my life become better lovers, husbands, fathers, sons, and brothers.  I'm a pro-feminist because I refuse to believe that men are biologically oriented towards domination, violence, and poor parenting skills.  I'm a pro-feminist because I believe that both men and women benefit from a society where gender roles are less rigid and more fluid, and where both men and women have access both to political and economic power as well as the opportunity to nurture the vulnerable.  But I'm also a pro-feminist man because I love men.

My faith tells me that every life is equally precious, from the unborn in the womb, to the hungry child in a refugee camp in Darfur, to the murderer on death row in Texas, to a lance corporal in the Marine Corps.   My consistent-life ethic tells me that no living body is more or less valuable than any other, whether or not it is has a brain, whether or not it has committed a crime, whether or not it has a penis.

According to the God who loves us and made us, we are all, each and every one of us, "utterly indispensable."

Comments

[djw]

The libertarian streak of the left and the right and various points in between and off the charts in American politics is on full display here. I've never understood opposition to selective service registration, except for my brief teenage stints as a self-proclaimed anarchist. I support and honor conscientious objectors and resisters to immoral wars, and I support staffing the military with well paid and treated volunteer personnel whenever possible.

SS registration suggests is a moment of symbolic shared sacrifice; an indication that should circumstances dictate such a circumstances dictate it, we all share in the self-defence of our homes and communities. (As such, and to state what should be obvious, I think women should be required to register in the same way as men, for feminist reasons). I know this sounds like an anachronistic rosy civic nationalism given the current clown show running the war machine, but we shouldn't let that effect our attitude toward the permanent institutions of the state.

And this discussion of alleged "indentured servitute" makes me cringe. First of all, it reminds me of the time people were calling policies that promote cultural assimilation a form of "genocide." Indentured servitute is way of living one small step up the ladder of depravation from slavery. The practical implications of the law is filling out a postcard sized form. It takes 10 minutes. I believe the form is postage paid. At some later date, of course, you may be forced to make a harder and more intrusive choice, but selective service is just a bureaucratic reminder of something that would be true regardless--we're potentially subject to being forced to do stuff we don't want to do by the state. This is true in just about every modern nation-state, whether or not they have some sort of selective service requirement. If you find selective service intolerable, you're basically saying you find the trade-offs associated with life in a world of nation-states intolerable. I don't know what your alternative vision is, the one that would protect and enrich us just as well or better without the occasional inconvenient impositions. I doubt I'll be impressed.

[djw]

Preceding intemperate rant was typed pre-coffee, so take that into consideration. In particular I now see that the indentured servitude line was used in relation to the draft itself rather than selective service registration per se. I still disagree with this characterization, but it's considerably less preposterous, so I apologize for the mischaracterization.

[The Gonzman]

But then, what's a pacifist feminist to do? I agree that my feminist principles dictate applying any draft to both men and women, should a draft exist.

You answered it yourself - " But I'm a Quaker even before I'm a feminist" - so, if that means anything to you, you should be campaigning for abolishment of the draft.

It's not possible to have un-disparate standards, where pregnancy is concerned. The thing isn't evenly divisible, and any standard you apply will fall unequally on both sexes.

There's many ways to do this, the primary being, to wit:

No person should be forced to become a parent against his or her will.

If you wish to argue that no child has surrendered a right to a mother and father, then you must follow that to the logical consequences, which will infringe upon the "right" of a woman to be a single parent and not have "the sperm donor" messing up the situation with "her" child; IOW, it is the child who has ownership rights of the mother and father, and not vice-versa, and BOTH of the parental units must have their rights and wants be secondary to that of the child. Which will include accountability for child support, visitation, decision making, and such on both sides.

To be succint, you cannot have it both ways. With sole choice, and sole decision making power under law, sole responsibility under law must follow, no matter what your belief on abortion, child support, et al. Failure to make that the first consideration is morally, ethically, logically, and philosophically inconsistant.

Because biology is not fair, it does not follow that the law must be.

[NYMOM]

"...Military service can, in principle, be distributed to both sexes..."

NYMOM said: No it cannot be, as the Supreme Court properly saw when they ruled against women having to register. The military exists for FIGHTING and WINNING WARS, not to distribute educational or other benefits equally or run all kinds of gender neutral social engineering experiments trying to prove that men and women are exactly alike in every way.

Thus, since women have already been showned NOT to have the inherent physical abilities to fight in the front lines, we are NOT eligible for registration or a draft as much as many here would like to see it happen.

I predict it won't happen ever as MOST women (not just traditional ones as many of you tried to dump me into that hole and MOST men, believe it or not will opposed women registration as well).

You don't appear to understand that it's simply ridiculous to attempt to dislocate an entire society by attempting something like this; when we have almost 280 million people here and are NOT under a life or death threat of invasion. Which is probably the ONLY situation which would require this sort of change, if THAT since society under that kind of threat usually become MORE traditional with assigned gender roles, not less as your ideas would require.

So get over it, it's not going to happen.

"...we're potentially subject to being forced to do stuff we don't want to do by the state. This is true in just about every modern nation-state..."

NYMOM said: Yes and guess what we are ALL subject to it in nature too. As I would have just LOVED to walk into the hospital after work as my ex-husband did and be handed a little pink bundle of joy to name.

Whoopeee...What fun!!!!

As opposed to what I actually had to go through getting our daughter to that point as my contribution.

Okay.

So yes, we are ALL subject to being forced to do stuff we don't want to do, IF we wish life to continue as we know it.

Some of us are just more mature about accepting the limitations God or evolution, if you don't believe in him, chose for us...it just life!

[Uzzah]

NYMOM> Some of us are just more mature about accepting the limitations God or evolution, if you don't believe in him, chose for us...it just life!

NYMOM is absolutely correct. Women should just accept their limitations and stay home barefoot and pregnant. Leave work and fighting to men like God intended..

Sheesh..

As for all of you that think another draft is not likely. I would not make any bets on it. Lawmakers are already discussing it. There are not enough volunteers to replace troops already there who have finished their extended tours. So get ready for it. Even if you are either Quaker or pregnant.

[bmmg39]

I respectfully submit that we're getting away from Hugo's original point: that men ought not to be considered dispensable or expendable, just as women shouldn't be.

I state that I'm opposed to ANYONE being drafted; an effective military is one in which everyone there has volunteered and wants to serve. And I recognize that men, on average, are stronger than women. But that doesn't mean there aren't women out there who would pass all the requirements to serve on the front lines. And instead of ridiculing these women for "trying to enforce an androgynous society" we should be giving them their props for promoting true equality.

I'd much rather be in a foxhole with them than with the likes of Charlotte Hays, who wrote that it's the job of men -- "if they've been raised right" -- to die in order to save the lives of women, ANY women. I think I'd risk my life to save the lives of women (and men) who'd do the same for me.

Charlotte Hays is on her own. And shame on her for thinking that my life is worth less than hers.

[Sally]

I actually think there are some real parallels between the *volunteer* military and indentured servitude. Actually, the more I think about it, the more apt the comparison seems.

[The Gonzman]

That's because the "indentured" is misquoted. Read again. It's "Involuntary Servitude."

Puts a whole 'nother light on it.

[djw]

I'm an idiot. Sorry.

[NYMOM]

"Because biology is not fair, it does not follow that the law must be."

NYMOM said: Unfortunately in some cases it does mean this, as societies that send women off to fight wars and order men to stay home to produce the next generation won't be around very long to do either.

"I respectfully submit that we're getting away from Hugo's original point: that men ought not to be considered dispensable or expendable, just as women shouldn't be."

NYMOM said: Men are not considered expendable because they are the ones who go into the military.

When many women died in childbirth usually before we were 40 did that happen because our societies considered women expendable? Of course not. It's because that is one of the life tasks (if you want to call it that) which women have been assigned by God, Evolution, Buddha, whatever. It's the biology, nothing else. It has nothing to do with being considered expendable by our societies.

Clearly if any society could get trained dogs to go to war in men's places or lions, they would do so. They go with what we got, MEN, which are the larger and stronger of the human species. If women were stronger, they would be sending us.

I mean it's a little silly to keep acting like soceity has other choices and just considers men expendable and that's why they are always picked on for war.

It would be almost as ridiculous for women to start a similar campaign against men wanting to force them to bear children, claiming men aren't doing their share, etc., and women are being picked on to be forced to do it alone.

"But that doesn't mean there aren't women out there who would pass all the requirements to serve on the front lines."

NYMOM said: Ummmm. Sorry but that is what is meant. They tested the 'best' women (under Clinton, actually TRYING to put some women in the front lines) by giving them training equivalent to what they give men who go into the Special Forces. Those women were unable to beat the average man in hand to hand combat (actually they were unable to beat the men the army is usually trying to screen out of the service).

Thus based upon those results Les Aspin immediately banned all women from the front lines and from the Special Forces units such as Navy SEALS, Green Berets, I don't know the others...

So no, there are NOT women who can go into the front lines, not unless evolution took a hugh leap forward (or backward) recently. If they found some back when Clinton was President, they would have put them there as Clinton was looking to do that to please his feminist allies.

"NYMOM is absolutely correct. Women should just accept their limitations and stay home barefoot and pregnant. Leave work and fighting to men like God intended."

NYMOM said: I never said that as you well know if you read anything I wrote. But I just think this military registration thing is being very overblown by men today. I just wanted to make it clear to them that there are SOME tasks men or women are assigned that have to be done by that assigned group.

There is just NO way around it.

Like I said I would LOVED to have had my children by just showing up after work and being handled a nicely wrapped, clean, healthy baby as my ex-husband was permiited to do. Unfortunately the next generation just doesn't happen without some really, hard, painful, bloody work being done on the part of WOMEN. AND you don't hear us complaining that our societies consider us expendable because of this do you????

It would be considered slightly ridiculous actually.

"I actually think there are some real parallels between the *volunteer* military and indentured servitude. Actually, the more I think about it, the more apt the comparison seems."

NYMOM said: Well what are they then? What are the parallels between either indentured servitude or involuntary servitude and the military AS WE HAVE IT SET UP TODAY? Today, remember, not some glorified past where MOST men actually entered the service, when today MOST don't.

So what parallels exist today?

I mean what could POSSIBLY be easier for MOST men to do, then hand in a post card at the PO.

What?

I think the only reason they are complaining is because women don't have to hand in a card as well.

But isn't it obvious why?

[Mr. Bad]

As I've already argued this point to death on the other recent thread, I'll spare you redundant missives. However, I just wanted to comment on what Sally just pointed out, i.e., "I actually think there are some real parallels between the *volunteer* military and indentured servitude." Fist, let's correct that as Gonz pointed out to "I actually think there are some real parallels between the *volunteer* military and involuntary servitude"

What I think this alludes to is the phenomenon that we have now with young men and women from poor (re. SES) backgrounds 'joining' the military out of desperation for a real life. In other words, if your life is a living-hell and there's no other way out but the military, then should we really view enlisting in the military as 'voluntary?' I've heard compelling arguments re. how for many, since joining the military was the only real option for a decent life, that under those conditions it's not so much volunteering as coercion. And therefore, it can be seen as an 'economic draft' for young people from poor backgrounds. I believe that in most recent cases where the draft was implemented, stats show that members of lower SES were disproportionately affected, and I believe that when all is said and done, our modern 'voluntary' military will look similar.

As for NYMOM's disgusting and offenseive characterization of the "father walking into the delivery room and grabbing the bundle of joy" from the mother, as if he contributed almost nothing pre- and post-natal, the only response a sane person would have is (to be kind) "hogwash." Fathers sacrifice just as much as mothers do when they're allow to be parents - there's an equitable division of labor that's been established over the millenia of human existence. It might suck to be a woman during the 4 -12 hours of childbirth, but it sucks just as much - or more - for the 18+ years (for each child) that a man has to bust his ass to provide for his family. If the likes of NYMOM consider motherhood to be equivalent to military service, then the wholesale devaluation of the father's role in the family that folks like her indulge in is nothing short of treason - treason to men and treason to civilized society.

[The Gonzman]

Unfortunately in some cases it does mean this, as societies that send women off to fight wars and order men to stay home to produce the next generation won't be around very long to do either.

If this is the root of an argument, then it needs to be applied from the foundation of such a society - which carried out to the logical conclusion means punishing those women who do not contribute, just as it used to punish men who failed to live up to their roles.

This is a prime example of the modern feminist wanting their cake and eat it too. "I'm a stong, self-sufficient woman when it suits me, and a helpless damsel when it's to my advantage." Utter hogwash. Either get off the bicycle and swim, or admit that the word you were looking for wasn't "bicycle" but actually "river." (And you know good and well what infamous quote I refer to, that of the Holy St. Gloria.)

If you proceed from biology, you will wind up, invariably, with a dysfunctional un unfair society, because biology is not fair. This is exactly what kept men and women in such proscribed gender roles for so long . It is one thing to acknowledge biology, and another to be ruled by it.

The better idea, instead is to proceed from a principle. Should people be forced to become parents from an accidental pregnancy? Shall we give one person no say at all, but force them to bear the consequences? Is it a parent's right to the child, or a child's right to the parents? How much of a trump should biology be? If it is sufficient to saddle an unwilling parent to supporting a child to their majority, isn't it right and fair to give said parent a full and equal say in the upbringing of that child, unless proven - PROVEN - unfit?

Does equality of the sexes before the law mean anything, or is it just a hypocritical soundbyte for a press release? Is it, or any of these, guiding principles - or unprincipled rhetoric?

Note carefully, I have set a trap, and I will warn you of it - those questions could apply equally to men - or women - and are intended to be addressed to people, to individuals, rather than an abstract and artificial class. Answer them as different for one gender or the other, and it's pretty apparent to me the real sexism there. But however you answer, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and will have consequences, good and ill, bidden and unbidden, when carried out to their logical conclusion.

[Michael]

That's because the "indentured" is misquoted. Read again. It's "Involuntary Servitude."
Puts a whole 'nother light on it.

Well, the volunteer army of today could be considered indentured. You exchange your labor for a small amount of money and considerably more money in education benefits. And of course, retirement and health benefits for vets. It’s a motivated and educated army.

A draft to me would fall under involuntary servitude. Its basically snatching you up off the streets, paying you a pittance and forcing you to serve. A completely different army altogether in quality and competence.

The problem in the past has been this: Both the volunteer army and the drafted army tended to consist of men and women from the lower tiers of society. I think Antigone touched on this. Volunteers for economic reasons, draftees because the previous system of draft was flawed and full of holes. If we implement a new draft, which I think is only a matter of time, I would hope there would be some way that we could eliminate any loopholes that allowed the wealthy and connected to avoid service and create a fair system that crosses all social classes. In addition to being more fair, I think this would greatly shorten any conficts, or police actions, or liberations.. or whatever the term for the current war is.. And new wars will be less likely.

As for society placing a higher value on women than men, I guess that is one way to look at it. I prefer to look at it is that our leaders, driven by business interests, don’t give a damn about any of us. Women are only getting preferential treatment, or more accurately, less BS, because of their perceived unsuitability for combat. In the past wars (pre-1960), there just weren’t that many military positions that women could fill and they were less than 2% of the military personnel. But today, the new army needs less boots on the ground to make things happen. Technology allows women to compete more favorably with men in military theatres. Predictably, military leaders are leaning further and further towards an all inclusive draft. Including women doubles the pool of technology skills and increases the likelihood that high tech jobs are filled by the smart people needed.

I think all of us can pretty much say we are against a draft. But it is coming anyway. The question is will it include women…

[Lynn Gazis-Sax]

You answered it yourself - " But I'm a Quaker even before I'm a feminist" - so, if that means anything to you, you should be campaigning for abolishment of the draft.

Sure, and I would, if there were a draft, and I did do anti-draft organizing, back when they brought back registration (that was actually most of my student activism). But that wasn't the question stanton was asking; he made that quite explicit, and I was replying to his comment.

I wrote: It's not possible to have un-disparate standards, where pregnancy is concerned. The thing isn't evenly divisible, and any standard you apply will fall unequally on both sexes.

And Gonzman replied: There's many ways to do this, the primary being, to wit:

No, there are not many ways to handle pregnancy that don't fall unequally on both sexes. On the contrary, there are many ways to handle pregnancy, and every single one of them falls unequally on both sexes. Apply to both sexes equally the standard of right to life? You get unequal results. Apply to both sexes equally the standard that your right to swing your arm ends where my body begins (and assume no rights for the fetus)? You get unequal results.

No person should be forced to become a parent against his or her will.

And this standard gets you seriously unequal results, if you're applying it after the woman's already pregnant. Not to mention dumping the entire burden of the problem on the child who gets to be abandoned by his/her father - the child who was the one party who had no choice whatsoever in the conception. I'm not going to hash it out again in this thread (I've already done so both on other threads here and on my own blog), though, because I don't want to divert the thread too far from the issue of military service.

On the other hand, in response to NYMOM (replying to a quote from me):

"...Military service can, in principle, be distributed to both sexes..."

NYMOM said: No it cannot be, as the Supreme Court properly saw when they ruled against women having to register. The military exists for FIGHTING and WINNING WARS, not to distribute educational or other benefits equally or run all kinds of gender neutral social engineering experiments trying to prove that men and women are exactly alike in every way.

Thus, since women have already been showned NOT to have the inherent physical abilities to fight in the front lines, we are NOT eligible for registration or a draft as much as many here would like to see it happen.

Men and women are not, of course, exactly alike in every way, but they're a heck of a lot more alike in their ability to fight wars than they are in their ability to get pregnant. So, yes, military service can, in principle, be distributed evenly, even if the Supreme Court has chosen not to do so. cmc pointed out, earlier in the thread, that objective, job-related strength tests can be used (and if they screen all of the women out of all of the combat positions, fine - it's an objective test). And then, as others have pointed out, the many non-combat positions (some of which put people at plenty of risk of dying, and are now being filled competently by women) could be distributed to either sex.

Since, as I said, I'm a pacifist, I'm sure not going to be on the front lines lobbying for anyone, male or female, to be put in the army. But there's a difference between jobs where men (or women) are on average more useful, and things that just plain can't be done by one sex or the other.

[Lynn Gazis-Sax]

Rats. Hugo, could you close the italics right after "No person should be forced to become a parent against his or her will."? (Putting a close italics at the beginning of this comment, just in case that helps any.)

[BritGirlSF]

There's an interesting point that Michael tried to add to the discussion. Both voluntary military service and the draft fall unvenely upon the poor. Even if a draft were implemented, regardless of whether it included both genders, what I am absolutely sure of is that the children of the rich and powerful would be able to avoid being drafted, as they have in every other war. This is clearly unfair and needs to be addressed. The question is how to address it. this becomes even harder to address when talking about voluntary service, which under the current system almost ammounts to bribery - you sign up and we give you money to go to college and a way out of your crappy economic situation. In some ways it almost resembles medieval serfdom, which is not a pleasant analogy at all.

[BritGirlSF]

Can someone please turn off the italics? I have no idea why my post is in italics and am not sure how to fix it.

[Sally]

Did that work?

I still think indentured servitude is the best analogy for the current situation. Indentured servants were mostly poor young people who chose to accept a period of unfreedom because they saw it as an investment in their future. (Some indentured themselves to pay for passage to America, where it was easier to obtain a farm. Some were indentured to a master craftsman who was supposed to teach them a trade.) They often faced danger, and in fact many American indentured servants didn't survive their full terms, but risked it because they thought the reward was worth it. Like members of the military, they were subject to limitations on their freedom that ordinary people would not have been. The rewards they hoped for sometimes proved elusive, which is true for people in the military today, too.

[Michael]

The question is how to address it. this becomes even harder to address when talking about voluntary service, which under the current system almost ammounts to bribery - you sign up and we give you money to go to college and a way out of your crappy economic situation.

What makes it hard, is that volunteering for the military can indeed help many young people pull themselves out of poverty. Young people who might not otherwise ever be able to get higher education can earn the money to do so. It can be a case of “Golden Handcuffs”.

That is if they live long enough. The service can mean the difference between persistent poverty or being able to securely support your family. But if they don’t survive it, their family is left flapping in the breeze. Something I think is a national disgrace.

Hugo mentioned a Civilian National Service, something along the lines of Clinton’s Americorps or Roosevelts Civilian Conservation Corps. Something that would employ young people and offer them an opportunity for higher education without tying them to a fixed (or not so fixed) stretch of military service. We have plenty of “Nation Building” that needs to be done in our own country.

[The Gonzman]

And this standard gets you seriously unequal results, if you're applying it after the woman's already pregnant. Not to mention dumping the entire burden of the problem on the child who gets to be abandoned by his/her father - the child who was the one party who had no choice whatsoever in the conception. I'm not going to hash it out again in this thread (I've already done so both on other threads here and on my own blog), though, because I don't want to divert the thread too far from the issue of military service.

I'm glad you brought it up though. Let me see if I understand it right, it seems to be a variation on the old "The child has a right to both parents that the child didn't waive."

Do tell.

I take it, then, absent abuse or total unfitness for parenthood being proven, that you would be in favor of interference in custody or visitation as being categorized as abuse?

How about the child who has that father he is entitled to misidentified because momma could get more child support out of the better off guy? The kid, who is suipposedly the most important one in this equation, has been defrauded. I'd say that is despicable. We put people in jail for such things. Not to mention providing false information for a legal record - AKA: Perjury.

What about the woman who just wants to be a mother, and doesn't want a father to "interfere" with "her" child at all. How are you prepared to deal with her? Is she abusive? Robbing a child of a parent they are entitled to is pretty serious.

How about the lesbians that use a "friend" to be a sperm donor? Or better yet, are you prepared to tell a gay couple that "Sorry, you *have* to at least have this third wheel involved, because the child is entitled to them, and never waived them" hm? Or deny them being parents? Who is it we are worried about - it is the right of the child that trumps any "parent's" rights, wants, or needs, correct?

Or is it now biology not being important? Well, once again, why would it be different here as opposed to there? Why then, if biology is not a determinate, should you go after the biological daddy. Either it is important - or not. Please pick one.

Or will it be "Oh, well, it's unfair, but since we can't do anything without holding the female responsible in some way, or inconveniencing her, I guess it has to be the status quo."

Um. Yeah. Some "equality" that.

[Lynn Gazis-Sax]

I take it, then, absent abuse or total unfitness for parenthood being proven, that you would be in favor of interference in custody or visitation as being categorized as abuse?

That depends heavily on how "interference in custody or visitation" is defined, what standards are set for its proof, and what the consequences of "categorized as abuse" are going to be. I don't want to agree to a standard that sounds good in theory, but in practice winds up depriving more children of their parents.

How about the child who has that father he is entitled to misidentified because momma could get more child support out of the better off guy?

DNA testing. It should be commonplace if there's any grounds to suspect that the father might be misidentified.

What about the woman who just wants to be a mother, and doesn't want a father to "interfere" with "her" child at all. How are you prepared to deal with her? Is she abusive? Robbing a child of a parent they are entitled to is pretty serious.

She's not entitled to cut the child off from the father. Fathers who want to be involved with their children - absent an actual history of abuse - should be able to be involved with their children.

I'm not biting on the sperm donor tangent. Whatever is done with lesbians (and straight couples) using sperm donors, treating regular old fathers who became fathers in the usual way the same way we now treat sperm donors is not the answer.

[NYMOM]

"If the likes of NYMOM consider motherhood to be equivalent to military service, then the wholesale devaluation of the father's role in the family that folks like her indulge in is nothing short of treason - treason to men and treason to civilized society."

NYMOM said: Well since you have personally never been in EITHER role military or motherhood do you think you are really the most qualified person to comment on this latest ridiculous idea of yours????

BTW, I didn't put forth the idea of the military and motherhood as being equivalent. The ancient Spartans did as I mentioned numerous times. Obviously they clearly saw the link between men serving in the military and women bearing children, which many here obviously miss. Since BOTH of these actions (which are today completely voluntary) BOTH involve an element of inconvenience/risk/suffering to the participants as well as serving an important citizenship function.

After all where would our society be if every woman became a child-free feminist lawyer, and just adopted their children when they were almost 50? I know that's the perfect, gender netralized, sterile life story that every woman should strive for today; unfortunately it's not too realistic if we expect to be around in another generation or two.

With 1001 reasons to say NO to being a mother today, especially if we continue listening to people like you running motherhood down, we better start thinking of some darn good reasons for the next generation of young women to say YES.

[Uzzah]

NYMOM> Some of us are just more mature about accepting the limitations God or evolution, if you don't believe in him, chose for us...it just life!
Uzzah > NYMOM is absolutely correct. Women should just accept their limitations and stay home barefoot and pregnant. Leave work and fighting to men like God intended."
NYMOM said: I never said that as you well know if you read anything I wrote.

Well it sounds to me like you were saying that. Maybe you should just write what you really mean instead of sexist language like this.

NYMOM> Well since you have personally never been in EITHER role military or motherhood do you think you are really the most qualified person to comment on this latest ridiculous idea of yours????

You have never been in the Military. How is it you can comment on this issue? Being a mother only proves you know how to get pregnant. So what..

NYMOM> BTW, I didn't put forth the idea of the military and motherhood as being equivalent. The ancient Spartans did as I mentioned numerous times.

Nobody gives a damn about the Spartans. They are a dead race. Gone 2200 years. They are all dead. They have no bearing on modern society. All their whining about women having children didn’t save them. It is you that is putting forth the idea about military and motherhood as being equivalent. Did I mention it? The Spartans are dead.

NYMOM> Obviously they clearly saw the link between men serving in the military and women bearing children, which many here obviously miss. Since BOTH of these actions (which are today completely voluntary) BOTH involve an element of inconvenience/risk/suffering to the participants as well as serving an important citizenship function.

Mom, we are talking about a draft here. Not Voluntary Service. This has been mentioned to you quite a few times but you still don’t get it or choose to ignore it for your own convenience. It’s about mandatory registration and draft. Geez..How hard is it for you to understand this and address this issue? Please stop trying to drag the discussion in your direction by ignoring this. You are embarrassing the feminists.

After all where would our society be if every woman became a child-free feminist lawyer, and just adopted their children when they were almost 50? I know that's the perfect, gender netralized, sterile life story that every woman should strive for today; unfortunately it's not too realistic if we expect to be around in another generation or two.

With 280 million people in this country we are already overpopulated. I wouldn’t expect any under population problems to occur anytime soon. There will always be plenty of women who will fall on their backs and have 8 kids with no means to support them. There are 280 million people in this country, 140 million of them are women. Our army is only 1.5 million. Worst case, if women make up 750,000 of them, it hardly puts a dent in the 140 million. Still plenty of women to make babies and collect welfare and child support. Even if half the remaining become childless feminist lawyers. So get over it. The country doesn’t need you to make more babies. In fact, if more women held a nickel between their knees, it would help this country.

NYMOM> With 1001 reasons to say NO to being a mother today, especially if we continue listening to people like you running motherhood down, we better start thinking of some darn good reasons for the next generation of young women to say YES.

They are already saying “YES” too much. Say no and serve your country. Stop trying to dodge your responsibility with such lame excuses. But to be honest, women like you do need to stay home and make babies. Lord knows I’d hate to have my life depend on you while I’m dodging bullets. Stay home where you belong and iron your husband’s shirts like your God intended.

[Mr. Bad]

NYMOM said: "BTW, I didn't put forth the idea of the military and motherhood as being equivalent. The ancient Spartans did as I mentioned numerous times. Obviously they clearly saw the link between men serving in the military and women bearing children, which many here obviously miss. Since BOTH of these actions (which are today completely voluntary) BOTH involve an element of inconvenience/risk/suffering to the participants as well as serving an important citizenship function."

Ok, let's see if I understand you here: When you need to go into the past - very far into the past - to justify your argument, then it's Ok. But if us men try to point out that up until quite recently we were not only compelled to register with the selective service, but indeed were drafted, then that's out of bounds because 'nobody is drafted any more.' Very convenient - it's like Gonz said (paraphrasing) you strident women-firsters want equality when it's to your advantage and want the special privileges that women enjoy when it's to your advantage. Gotcha.

As for your remark: "Well since you have personally never been in EITHER role military or motherhood do you think you are really the most qualified person to comment on this latest ridiculous idea of yours????" Are you saying that I'm not allowed to have an opinion on the matter? And if so, then any woman who has not had a child also be excluded from commenting? Besides, for all we know the type of 'mother' you were was the archtypical "Welfare Queen" who had a couple of kids by a couple of different dads, those kids grew up to be crack addicts or other criminals, and therefore you not only didn't make a positive contribution to society, you've been a decided burden and negative for society.

All we have is your word on this matter, and I for one am skeptical given the level of misandry and cynicism you have.

[The Gonzman]

That depends heavily on how "interference in custody or visitation" is defined, what standards are set for its proof, and what the consequences of "categorized as abuse" are going to be. I don't want to agree to a standard that sounds good in theory, but in practice winds up depriving more children of their parents.

Since we are proceeding from the idea that a child is entitled and has a right to have the support and presence of both parents, I'm holding to the high sounding but far too often empty words that proceed from the Divorce/CS industry, and I will say this: It's a moral poverty in this society where an indifferent parent who sends the requisite check every week and can't be bothered to do anything else is counted a better parent than the involved but financially struggling one.

With that in mind, the child is entitled to that parent as a meaningful presence. Regular interaction, that should be at least 3 days a week. MINIMUM. Neither parent, custodial or non-custodial, should be permitted to move where the child is deprived of that, your career be damned - it is, as I recall, about the child, no?

The non-custodial parent should recieve calls and mailings from the child's school as a matter of course, and should not have to rely on the custodial parent to be kept up to speed. The NCP should not have to pay an attorney year in and year out to write letters threatening lawsuits to be permitted to deposit a supply of SASE's and a check for copying to recieve such things - and don't tell me it doesn't happen. Happened to me for YEARS.

Accusations of unfitness as a parent should be treated with a criminal burden of proof.

The same draconian, no excuses, zero-tolerance standard for CS should be applied for custody or visitation, and each and every prosecutor's office should pursue these with as equal a vigor, and pro-bono. CS violations are prosecuted as contempt of court. Vistation is also a court order.

DNA testing. It should be commonplace if there's any grounds to suspect that the father might be misidentified.

Since it can now be done in office, it should be required to place a father's name on the birth certificate, even if married. This way there can be no emotional blackmail of "You don't trust me!"

And trustworthy women have nothing to fear, do they?

She's not entitled to cut the child off from the father. Fathers who want to be involved with their children - absent an actual history of abuse - should be able to be involved with their children.

Congratulations - if you are really serious about this, you're an MRA. This is our core issue.

I'm not biting on the sperm donor tangent. Whatever is done with lesbians (and straight couples) using sperm donors, treating regular old fathers who became fathers in the usual way the same way we now treat sperm donors is not the answer.

Partners in gay relationships have been both denied and assigned child support and parental rights in custody cases. Sperm donors have been prosecuted for Child support in Scandanavia, New Zealand, and the US. Men who are not the fathers of children have been stuck with Child support, and in many cases denied visitation (There's a good one - since you have "acted like a father" we will give you the bill and deny you the ability to further act like a father). It is pleaded that women who are the victims of rape or statutory rape should not be forced to bear a child - yet underage boys seduced by older women (Statutory rape) have been forced to be fathers and pay child support (And in many cases denied involvement with the child) - and in the same breath courts have ruled that when a woman is raped, child support is her due, and it is right and just to deny *HER* victimizer parental rights.

These are all examples of mutally contradictory positions which must be resolved and addressed. These are positions in which, regardless of the gender, there are clear wrongs, wrongs which are resolved far too often by not holding the women involved accountable.

The gay parentage issue is presented for the illogic value - if it is a child's right to the involvement of biological parents, and that right trumps other considerations in heterosexual relationships, why should gay couples have special exceptions? It is the position that special rights aren't what they are after, no? And if it is answered that "biology" is not a trump, well... again - is it or isn't it? Or is it only not a trump when it advantages politically protected groups, and a trump when it advantages another?

Legal consistancy and clarity is needed in all these cases.