Manpower

One of the problems with being a man involved with the pro-feminist men's movement is that we often get mixed up with the men's rights activists who are virulently anti-feminist.  Thisgirl notes the appearance  of the new ManPower blog, and it is not an arrival to be welcomed.  It is a joint blog with many contributors.  Here's a sample from a fellow named Kurt:

It is about time that we take the men’s movement from virtual reality into real reality and this is the first step in that direction. By working to make men more masculine we will be paving the way for a change.

By working to install masculinity in men we will work towards making men self-reliant, proud and independent. A man who is selfreliant with a good selfesteem doesn't have to rely on women or others to support him and he can thus set his terms for any engagement with women.

If women don't like these terms then it's just too bad.

What we want from women is that they are nurturing, supporting and responsible.
That women have other qualities is not interesting to men because we don't need them!

Femininity will be the price women pay for enjoying Masculinity in men!

This should the personal viewpoint of every man. By holding this point of view you will be helping other men and, more important, you will be helping boys grow up to become men.

The bold emphasis is mine.

It's puerile and angry stuff, like most of what comes out of the men's rights movement.  It's annoying, because those of us who are trying to do authentic, pro-feminist men's work tend to get lumped in with these fellows. 

Interested in the "real" men's movement?  Check out these links:

NOMAS (National Organization of Men against Sexism)
Men Can Stop Rape
XYOnline

NOMAS'  statement of principles includes these ringing words:

We affirm that working to make this nation's ideals of equality a reality is the finest expression of what it means to be men.

We believe that the new opportunities becoming available to women and men through the feminist movement will be beneficial to both. Men can become happier and more fulfilled human beings by challenging the old-fashioned rules of masculinity that embody the assumption of male superiority.

Traditional masculinity includes many positive characteristics in which we take pride and find strength, but it also contains qualities that have limited and harmed us. We are deeply supportive of men who are struggling with the issues of traditional masculinity. As an organization dedicated to changing men, we care about men and are especially concerned with men's problems, as well as the difficult issues in most men's lives.

That's the men's movement I belong to; that's the men's movement I teach.  I note that the fellows at Manpower want many of the same things that the pro-feminist men's movement wants: greater seff-esteem and self-reliance.  It's not as if women benefit from being in relationships with men who are emotionally stunted and dependent!  The feminist movement is eager for male transformation -- but feminists don't wait around, hoping that "we boys get our acts together."  Helping boys grown into confident, responsible, loving, nurturing, responsible MEN is at the core of the pro-feminist men's movement. 

While the men's rights movement sees organized feminism as its adversary, pro-feminist men see feminist women as our allies.  Pro-feminist men don't ask women to do for us what we can do for ourselves (such as tell us how to feel, or motivate us to transform); nor are we interested in taking leadership roles in the women's movement.  Rather, we work in solidarity with each other, honoring our differences as well as our common goal.

I got involved in the men's movement out of a sense of frustration with the superficial nature of most of my relationships with men. (See my "popular posts" sidebar for earlier posts on men.)  I also came to the men's movement out of a sense of righteous pro-feminist anger.  I'll be the first to admit, I didn't like other men when I was younger.  But doing men's work led me to love and cherish other men -- without becoming hostile towards women.  It is my hope that a similar journey may lie ahead for these fellows in Manpower.

Comments

[typhonblue]

Perhaps taking this from another angle would be best. Of all the women you know who have given their children up for adoption, how many pay child support? Even if the father is the one who has custody?

[zuzu]

typhonblue, how many people do you actually know who are in the US family court system? Didn't you mention that you were in Canada?

As for your point about women needing the consent of fathers to give up their legal responsibilities... I haven't come across that *anywhere*. Some states give fathers a certain amount of time to step in and claim their rights to the children, but at that point the mother has given up all her responsibilities to her child. Including the responsibility to give the father child support if he has child custody.

This is where I have to conclude that you're very young, very dense or just plain stupid. A) Just because *you* haven't experienced it , or anyone you know hasn't experienced it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. B) If someone's terminated their parental rights, they have terminated their parental rights. That means that they're not only not responsible for the child, they're not given the benefit of being involved in the child's life. Of course, that changes where you have one parent who wants to terminate and the other who doesn't; the default option then, since responsibility hasn't been transferred to an entirely new set of parents, is that the parent who wants custody gets it and the other is responsible for support.

Like La Lubu has said, if a noncustodial parent disappears or has a tiny income through accident or design, they're pretty much judgment-proof. Meaning, it's futile to try to enforce the order because the cost/benefit analysis just doesn't work out in the custodial parent's favor.

Have you even taken an Economics 101 course? Do you understand barriers to entry? That's basically what we're talking about here. It's really only when you get up to higher levels of support that it's worth enforcing, and it does seem to be these people who howl the loudest about the injustice of it all. I really would hate to be the kid of any of these people, who want to be involved in your life but won't kick in any of the money it takes to raise you.

[La Lubu]

typhonblue, for someone who claims to not have any emotional or potential emotional involvement in this issue, you sure come back to it a lot. I'll admit it--this is not just an intellectual exercise to me. I have a dog in this fight, you know? Someday, my little girl is going to be asking me pointed questions about her "father", who he is, where he is, why doesn't he care about her, etc. And those questions aren't going to be any effing picnic to answer.

You've been several places in this conversation; now you're trying to get on the adoption issue. States differ in the exact procedures, but fathers can and do disrupt adoption proceedings. Back in the old days, unwed mothers could unilaterally put their child up for adoption. That has since been recognized as unconstitutional.

I find it curious that you are approaching the question of fatherhood from the potential of the 'deadbeat dad', while most real-life dads I know approach it from the opposite angle---that of how to be even more involved in the lives of their children.

[typhonblue]

zuzu says (in quotes):

"If someone's terminated their parental rights, they have terminated their parental rights. That means that they're not only not responsible for the child, they're not given the benefit of being involved in the child's life."

Women can obviously give up their responsibilities *as well* as their rights to a child, through adoption. But I know of no way that men can give up their responsibilities *as well* as their rights. But since you have so much more experience, maybe you could point me to the legal avenue by which men can give up responsibilities for their children.

"Of course, that changes where you have one parent who wants to terminate and the other who doesn't; the default option then, since responsibility hasn't been transferred to an entirely new set of parents, is that the parent who wants custody gets it and the other is responsible for support."

So you do know of a legal precedent where a father recieved child support after the mother terminated her parental rights by giving her child up to the authorities? Could you tell me about it? Because I was under the impression that once a woman put a child up for adoption, she no longer could be held responsible for the support or care of that child. Actually, if you could even point me to the part in the laws governing adoption where it says if a father comes forward he has the right to make the mother responsible for child support.

Because *I* haven't been able to find anything like that myself.

[typhonblue]

La Lubu says(in quotes):

"You've been several places in this conversation; now you're trying to get on the adoption issue. States differ in the exact procedures, but fathers can and do disrupt adoption proceedings. Back in the old days, unwed mothers could unilaterally put their child up for adoption. That has since been recognized as unconstitutional."

Fathers disrupt adoption proceedures by exercising their *rights* to the child. Rights that the father arguings are greater then the adopted parent's. It's worth noting that fathers often do not win such cases. None of that has anything to do with the father making the mother accountable for her responsiblities to the child (after she has given it up for adoption).

As for moving around in the conversation... I've always held that there is a double standard, I just needed to find its exact location and the best way to articulate it.

[La Lubu]

Mesca, are you dense. Why on earth would the father be entitled to any child support after both the mother and the father have agreed to place the child for adoption? If he doesn't have the child, he doesn't get the support! If the mother doesn't have the child, she doesn't get the support! The support is for the child. Adoptive parents waive the right to petition the court for child support on behalf of their adoptive child. The court accepts that the adoptive parents will take on the full responsibility for that child. The court has the responsibility to act in the best interests of the child. In the event that both parents are willing to give the child up for adoption, the best interests of the child are deemed to be to give the adoptive parents full rights and responsibilities, and terminate those of the biological parents. Adoption is a difficult process, and only for those with deep pockets. The court accepts that the deep pockets of the adoptive parents will be enough to make up for the lack of support from biological parents, just as it does in the rare cases where custodial biological parents go through the long process to have the parental rights of the uninterested party terminated (I only know one person who has had that done, and it took awhile. And he had to demonstrate the psychological damage to his son from the continuing 'relationship' with the on-again, off-again mother. Trust me, this father would much rather have had the more pedestrian issues of child support and visitation that are more typical, than have a grade-school child in counseling for abandonment issues).

The only "double standard" is that the child grows in the woman's body, and thus the mother has an earlier opportunity to bond with the child. I suppose you also think that breastfeeding is a "double standard", since women do it and men don't.

Look. If you bring a child into this world, whether by accident or design, you are responsible for that child. Period. Now, a man who finds himself in a situation of unwanted fatherhood may luck out if the woman agrees to an abortion or an adoption. In this instance, he may wipe his brow and thank his lucky stars (and perhaps make that appointment for the vasectomy).

However, he may live to regret that decision, too. Especially if he finds himself in the position of unwed father again, only this time wanting to raise the child on his own. His previous relinquishing of his parental rights could be held against him by the court.

Unwed fathers who wish to adopt their child, and that show an interest in their child prior to birth, and do their damnedest to maintain a relationship with their child, are generally not ruled against in the state of Illinois. Other states have different laws and records. It's a very contentious issue in family law, and like I said, I find it curious that you are examining strategies to make it easier for fathers to relinquish their responsibilities, when the real-life fathers out in the world are far more interested in trying to increase their role in their childrens' lives (which of course, means increasing their responsibilities). Very curious agenda ya got there, typhonblue.

[zuzu]

Okay, it's official. You're an idiot, typhonblue. I have no other explanation for your failure to grasp some very basic shit.

What's your story? Do you have a husband or boyfriend who hates having to pay child support? Have you asked him what happened re: birth control? Has his subsequent behavior in re condoms supported his claims of "Gee, I did all I could but that bitch was somehow superfertile but she didn't tell me that and she was just out for my money, I know it"?

Of course, you could also be a man with an agenda posing as a woman online. In any event, I call bullshit.

[mythago]

In fact women can walk into any hospital, police station or fire department and drop of their child, no questions asked. (A law created in responce to women killing their children, apparently.)

"No questions asked" means the woman will not be prosecuted for child abandonment. It does not mean the father's legal rights are severed.

Maybe I made a statement that I don't really want to spend the time backing up.

Then we'll just treat it as false until you can bestir yourself to do more than expect us to take your word for it, shall we? I mean, really: I didn't ask you for citations to the Annotated Civil Codes, just for a list of those 'many' states. Surely you could name them, since you provided us with this valuable information? (Since obviously you didn't just make it up.)

I'll do you one better than your contract: Unmarried fathers have NO obligations nor rights unless, and until, they affirmatively assert those rights. No custody, but no child support. Zero chance that Girlfriend can try to lure him to the altar by 'forgetting' her pill, or that he will get a bill from the state Child Support Enforcement Agency as a Father's Day surprise. Men will not be helpless in the face of a female partner's control of her fertility. And she knows that going in.

You might get a little resistance from some of those David Blankenhorn types, but do we want fairness for men or what?

[zuzu]

I have to say, La Lubu, you have a hell of a lot more patience than I do, but again, you have kids.

I have no kids, but I have friends who do. I have friends who have exes and kids. Some collect from their exes and have their exes involved in the kids' lives. Some have exes who have gambled away all the marital money and have been assholes to the kids. These latter people have chosen not to pursue child support from the ex because of the ex'
s unreliability not to mention his verbal abuse of the kids.

My sister has two kids, 8 and 2. Each of them has a father who served or serves int he military (the older, a now-retired Navy guy, the current one, an active-duty Marine). The military sets housing and pay benefits within a pay grade based on how many dependents you have. A corporal with two kids and a wife will get pay and housing to support them minimally while a corporal who's single with no kids will stay in the barracks or pay for his own place.

Should you move out or think you're going to get away with not paying child support, you're sadly mistaken. Because the military bases its pay on the number of dependents, it will deduct pay from the noncustodial parent's pay. Their whole idea is that since we're giving you time/money/housing/resources to fulfill your familial obligations, we're going to enforde that.

[typhonblue]

La Luba says (in quotes):
"Why on earth would the father be entitled to any child support after both the mother and the father have agreed to place the child for adoption?"

Where did I say the father agreed to place the child up for adoption. The *mother* placed the child up for adoption and the father exercised his rights to the child. Now, after the mother has placed the child up for adoption, and the father has custody can he then make her responsible for child support?

No one has answered this question. And everything I've read tends to say, no.

"Adoptive parents waive the right to petition the court for child support on behalf of their adoptive child."

Fine. Can a man choose to put a child up for adoption, thus reliquishing his rights and responsiblities even if the *mother* decides not to put the child up for adoption.

Since a woman can put a child up for adoption and not be held liable for child support, even if the father has custody, why can't a man?

"Look. If you bring a child into this world, whether by accident or design, you are responsible for that child. Period. Now, a man who finds himself in a situation of unwanted fatherhood may luck out if the woman agrees to an abortion or an adoption. In this instance, he may wipe his brow and thank his lucky stars (and perhaps make that appointment for the vasectomy)."

And why doesn't he get the same choice to opt out of his responsibilities as a woman? He only gets out, if *she* chooses to get out herself.

BTW, is the fact that a woman has put a child up for adoption held against her in future child custody issues?

As for the other issues relating to support and custody, of course I have problems with them, but we start by identifying *one* double standard and thinking how to resolve it, then moving to more.

[mythago]

Now, after the mother has placed the child up for adoption, and the father has custody can he then make her responsible for child support?

The problem here is that the mother can't, legally, place the child up for adoption unless the father a) agrees or b) has no parental rights, generally if he is not married to the mother and has not been around during the pregnancy. (Baby Jessica, anyone?)

So what you really have is a mother who *wants* to put the child up for adoption. Can a custodial father ask for child support? Sure, why not? I'm not getting what in your example would be a "no."

And why doesn't he get the same choice to opt out of his responsibilities as a woman?

Women do not get to 'opt out' of their responsibilities. A woman has a limited window in which to have an abortion. She also, if the father has no legal rights regarding the child, may have the right to put the kid up for adoption. That's it.

If I got pregnant tonight, hit my head and fell into a coma, and woke up at eight months of pregnancy, I'd be SOL. No abortion, no adoption without hubby's permission, and as the breadwinner guess who would be paying support?

[La Lubu]

you know, typhonblue, this conversation started out being about Manpower and its rather limited, cartoonish incarnation of what contitutes masculinity. And here you come on the scene, basically flying the banner for deadbeat fatherhood. Why?! Why, when the issue for most men regarding family law isn't how to absolve themselves of parental responsibility, but how to increase it?

You say you're all for getting rid of double standards and promoting equality. And you say you're female. So, you could have taken up the cause for equal pay, more female representation in nontraditional work, more female representation amongst elected officials, more female athletes on prime time television, more female bass guitarists.....whatever! But no, you want, of all things in this world, less stigma and more opportunity for deadbeat fathers. The same deadbeat fathers that real live, bona-fide single fathers would be more than happy to abolish and thus not be stereotyped along therewith!

Do you care to explain your choice of causes? 'Cuz right now, I'm right there along with zuzu: I'm calling B.S. too. Big time B.S. I've been wearing hipboots as I've been in up to my waist for a while, and now I'm in up to my eyeballs and trying not to drown!

[FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR]

"And as for the previous poster, here in Illinois child support rates are based on the income of the noncustodial parent and how many children there are. It's a percentage formula. In the case of a parent making the minimum wage, the percentage they pay usually isn't enough to care for a child. In the case of millionaires, it's more than enough. But the percentage formula exists in order to keep a wealthier non-custodial parent from withholding money that would no doubt be spent on the kids (in the form of private school, extracurriculars, vacations and such that those of us of more modest means don't really get to indulge in much if at all) if the parental relationship hadn't fallen apart---in other words, punishing the kids for the actions of the other parent."

THAT ENTIRE POLICY COMES STRAIGHT FROM THE KREMLIN. I REFUSE TO ALLOW MARXISTS TO DETERMINE ANYTHING IN MY LIFE. HOPEFULLY MY FELLOW ILLINI WILL JOIN US.

And then there are cases of "putative income", where the noncustodial parent deliberately refuses to work or takes a much lower-paying job in order to punish the other parent.

THEN THE MARXIST BUREAUCRATS HAD BETTER MIND THEIR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS. BETTER YET LEAVE THE DEMOCRATIC WORLD ALTOGETHER. NORTH KOREA, CHINA AND CUBA HAVE A PLACE FOR THEM.

"If the noncustodial parent has legitimately lost a job through a layoff, they can petition the court for a reduction in child support. Noncustodial union brothers of mine do this all the time after a layoff (it's their second stop after the unemployment office) and always receive it; they just have to show their layoff slip. Custodial parents who take issue with this court decision piss off judges. Judges are generally not happy when folks waste the courts' time."

THEN JUDGES HAD BETTER TAKE CARE TO PROTECT INNOCENCE. THE SO-CALLED "CHILD SUPPORT" SYSTEM IN ITS CURRENT STATE IS AN UTTER FRAUD AND AN AFFRONT TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS. FEMINAZI-MARXISTS WILL LEARN SOMEDAY THAT "PISSING OFF" THE INNOCENT BY DEFRAUDING THEM CARRIES A PRICE.

[FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR]

and please, NancyP, let's not foist these blowhards off onto foreign women! The mail-order bride issue is a whole 'nother ball game. Anyway, some of these guys can easily "put on a happy face" long enough to fool United States women. Then, surprise! The real jerk comes out---for any woman, U.S. or otherwise.
"Reading this stuff, I can't help but think some of it is a put-on...I mean, it would be like adult women clamoring for a return to Barbie-doll days! Dig the "men going their own way logo"; can't make stuff like that up, LOL!"

"I wasn't suggesting that I thought it was a good thing these men's domination types got foriegn mail order brides, just that was a likely option for these men. The mail-order brides can't escape as easily, because they will be deported. No other type of woman is as easy to dominate as a woman in need of a visa. Of course, similar men do get US citizen wives, who leave, and then the men hunt them down and some kill the ex-wives."

WHY THE HELL WOULD FEMINAZI'S CARE IF AMERICAN MEN SEEK WIVES FROM SOME OTHER PLACE? YOU HATE MEN AND MARRIAGE ANYWAY SO ITS NOT LIKE ITS GOING TO AFFECT YOU. REGARDLESS, WE CERTAINLY ARENT GOING TO ALLOW A VIRULENT, BIGOTED, DUPLICITOUS GANG OF BLATHERING HETEROPHOBES SUCH AS YOURSELVES INTERFERE WITH OUR CHOICES. WE REFUSE TO LEGALLY MARRY AND IF NEED BE WILL BRING OUR WOMEN INTO THE US BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. INTERFERE AT YOUR OWN RISK.

[La Lubu]

Wow. I'm just aghast. I mean, I thought everyone knew that "the Kremlin" is now a tourist site, and the Berlin Wall fell well over a decade ago.

Actually, someone who is seriously interested in avoiding any personal responsibility for the children they produce would be a die-hard advocate of classical Marxist-Leninist practice. The child support system currently in practice in the United States has capitalism as its backbone.

[La Lubu]

femalehater, you really are cuckoo for cocoapuffs. And if you're not going to bother to read the posts, don't bother posting. Please do refuse to marry; I'd hate to see another man or woman (as the case may be) be saddled with someone of your anger-management-control problems.

[mythago]

A troll who can spell but not turn off his CAPS key? I'm not buyin' it.

[Jen]

"If a child is born, neither parent has the legal ability to sign away the child's rights."

Actually, the mother does. She can abort, adopt, or abandon, all legally, without recourse, and without the father's knowledge or consent.

[Jen]

Child support is for the benifit of the child? Every child, with the exception of those with disabilities, take the same amount of money to raise. So why is child support based on the non-custodial parent's income. How does it cost 100 dollars a month for one child but 6,000 a month for another? It doesn't.

According to the foster care system, it costs about $9 a day to raise a child. So if child care is about the child, half of that is all the NCP should have to pay IF the children spend no time with the non-custodial parent. If the NCP sees the child 30% of the time, then only 20% of the cost should be paid to the child. If the NCP sees the child 50% of the time, then no money should exchange hands. Any money spent by the custodial parent should be documented, with reciepts, and a report to the non-custodial parent should be written once a year just like a tax document.

But that is not how it goes, is it.

Because child support is really alimony. It is illegal misrepresentation, and arresting someone for not being able to pay is also illegal. It is a way to force a non-custodial parent into poverty and a peripheral role in the child's life. If the child were at center here, required 50/50 shared parenting with no money changing hands would be default, because that is what the statistics show over and over again to be in the best interest of the child. If one parent had stayed home, then separate alimony could be awarded until the parent aquires an education.

This is all about privilage for the custodial parent, 80% of whom are women.

Feminists do not want equality, they want privilage. They look with a microscope to find inequity against women, yet put blindfolds on when inequity towards men is looming too large to ignore otherwise. Women have a biological DIFFERENCE (not disadvantage) in carrying a child. It is a privilage for women which men will never know, which carries risks men will never face. Men pay for this difference with not only missing out on the expirience, but also supporting the mother and subsequent child. The mother spends more time with the child, the father spends more time at work. Some women will think that is wonderful for the man. Men have been conditioned since birth to go out and work, it never occurs to them they may have choices. Women are raised from birth to have choices.Doesn't sound very equitable to me.

A side not, work is not the holy grail, it is work. It is something most people slog through until they get home and do what they want. Women have avoided the majority of this, then have been blackmailing men for perceived privilage. ?!?

If child support is really about children, then all spending should be acounted for and there would be a legal cap on a reasonable amount a child costs. There is currently not. So when the latest basket ball star's ex girlfriend sues for $25,000 a month in child support, I have to assume that the money is not accounted for, and the mother is living high on the hog off the man's money.

[Jen]

"If I got pregnant tonight, hit my head and fell into a coma, and woke up at eight months of pregnancy, I'd be SOL. No abortion, no adoption without hubby's permission, and as the breadwinner guess who would be paying support?"

You watch too much Guiding Light. Coma? LOL.
You can go to a out of town hospital, have your child, claim no knowledge of who the father is, and legally put your child up for adoption.
You can have your child anywhere, and drop the child off at a firestation, police station, or hospital, and not be pursued or face consequences. You can leave the child with his or her father and walk away. Many fathers would love that, and even if child support is ordered, just not pay. If it is so easy for fathers not to pay, then you should be able to get away with it easily enough.

Abortion can be had anytime in the first 1 and a half trimesters. The staff will not question the date you claim your last period was unless it is off by many months. SO that gives you the first half of the pregancy to abort. Not a very small window.

Why is is so difficult to admit that, as women, we have more choices. It is not a secret. It is not some horrible miscarraige of justice to admit that women are not completely and utterly oppressed. It is wrong that feminism continues to fly the victim flag even when women are the ones being the oppressors. In the case of reproductive freedom, that is precicely what is happening.

[FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR]

"Actually, someone who is seriously interested in avoiding any personal responsibility for the children they produce would be a die-hard advocate of classical Marxist-Leninist practice. The child support system currently in practice in the United States has capitalism as its backbone."

CHILD SUPPORT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING OTHER THAN FEMINAZI-MARXIST FRAUD.
MY ADVICE TO YOU IS TO MOVE TO NORTH KOREA WHERE YOUR VIRULENT FORM OF TYRANNY IS WELCOME. GET THE charming expletive OUT OF THE US.

"femalehater, you really are cuckoo for cocoapuffs. And if you're not going to bother to read the posts, don't bother posting."

I READ YOUR BIGOTED BULLexcrement. YOU CAN insert THAT ODIOUS PHONY DIATRIBE UP YOUR BLATHERING nostril, bleep YOU.

"Please do refuse to marry; I'd hate to see another man or woman (as the case may be) be saddled with someone of your anger-management-control problems."

OH DONT WORRY ABOUT ME LEGALLY MARRYING. I HAVE 4 REGULAR GIRLFRIENDS WHO LIVE NEXT DOOR TO ME ALREADY AND WE DONT NEED YOUR DEFINITIONS OF 'SOCIAL ENGINEERING' TO MANAGE OUR RELATIONSHIP. TAKE YOUR RADICAL LESBIAN BIGOTRY TO NORTH KOREA AND GET THE HELL OUT OF THE US. Nosewampus

[Hugo]

I'm sorry, Feminazihater, you've been banned.