Choice 4 Men and the Glenn Sacks show

Glenn's promo for this Sunday's show is up. I'm going to be debating the concept of "Choice 4 Men" with Glenn and columnist Amy Alkon.  Here's the promo:

Nationally syndicated advice columnist Amy Alkon believes that men, like women, should have reproductive rights. Condemning women who get pregnant intentionally and "turn casual sex into cash flow sex," she notes:

"In no other arena is a swindler rewarded with a court-ordered monthly cash settlement paid to them by the person they bilked...Penelope Leach, in her book Children First, poses an essential question: 'Why is it socially reprehensible for a man to leave a baby fatherless, but courageous, even admirable, for a woman to have a baby whom she knows will be so?'...the law, as written, encourages unscrupulous women to lure sex-dumbed men into checkbook daddyhood."

The "Choice for Men" movement seeks to give unmarried fathers the right to relinquish their parental rights and responsibilities within a month of learning of a pregnancy, just as mothers do when they choose to give their children up for adoption.

Feminist Gender Studies professor Dr. Hugo Schwyzer, Ph.D calls Choice for Men "profoundly offensive," noting that it "seeks to give men the right to evade responsibility for the children they help to conceive."

I've been very clear on this issue, especially in this post during last summer's Amy Richards controversy.  I said then, and still believe now, the following:

Every man who ejaculates inside a woman, whether or not contraception is used, is signalling his willingness to become a father. If men are not ready and willing to raise a child conceived through an act of sex, they are morally responsible for refraining from sex...

I'm not familiar with Alkon.  I've been reading through the material on her site today, and she seems like a fairly standard "libertarian feminist".  I can't say we'll disagree on everything, but on this issue, we will.  This will mean that in some very real sense, I may be taking her on from the right, at least in my insistence that the only real choice that a man deserves in this situation is whether or not to have sex in the first place.  After that decision has been made, I am adamant that he, jointly with the woman with whom he briefly partnered -- is morally (and financially) responsible for any and all outcomes from that initial decision.  Even if those outcomes last a lifetime.

Whatever your views, please consider calling into the show on Sunday afternoon.

Comments

[Blue Mako]

"Every man who ejaculates inside a woman, whether or not contraception is used, is signalling his willingness to become a father. If men are not ready and willing to raise a child conceived through an act of sex, they are morally responsible for refraining from sex..."
I'm just curious, but if I changed the genders around (and altered that first line to reflect that), would you still agree? In other words, do you hold women to this standard as well?

Because as I see it, both men and women should do that...

[John]

Good question. "Answer! Answer!" Sorry, just been listening to Parliament.

[Hugo]

Blue, I'm what I call "prayerfully pro-life." I do think we should all be committed to raising any child we conceive, accidentally or not. But I do believe men have a responsibility to hold men accountable first, rather than focusing their energy on changing their sisters.

[joe]

i don't think men are really asking women to change. i think men want the same get-out-of-child-rearing-card as women. they are both wrong, opting out once pregnant, and it seems senseless to argue one can have the right and the other not.

[John]

Hugo, is that a yes, a no, or a yes you give when you don't want to give a yes?

[teg]

So you believe that 'duped' fathers should be held accountable?

Accountable of what?

Hugo, if you believe in doing the right thing, why don't you pick up the tab?

Ah yes...I forgot...you're role is to shame men into doing what is right...

[La Lubu]

Hugo, I'll call in!

Guys, if you don't want to risk fatherhood, but don't want to get a vasectomy, just have sex with either postmenopausal women (some of whom aren't that old, after going through 'chemical menopause' from chemotherapy), or sterilized women.

No fuss, no bother, no worries. Postmenopausal and/or sterilized women don't get pregnant. (you do hold conversations with women before you have sex, right?)

We already had the days of abandoned children. Didn't work out so well.

[Hugo]

The only "duped" fathers are those who are forced into intercourse against their will. Ejaculation is consent.

[stanton]

Hugo: The common feminist stand on this issue is one of the more blatant double standards I have ever seen. I can respect your position on this matter, as you say - men holding men accountable. But if there is a feminist woman who says that the accountability level for men and women should be the same, how can you possibly justify opposing that? Unless, of course, you will also support the equivalent position that women also retain their accountability for life - no opt-out for them either.

[stanton]

LaLubu: Of course you are correct, according to the rules as they are now enforced. Can you explain to me why women should be held to a lower standard? I have no problem holding men accountable for the results of their actions. Do you have a problem holding women accountable to the same degree?

[Hugo]

Stanton, equal accountability sounds good, but it ignores the essential biological difference between having a child grow inside of you and... not. I am pro-life, as you know; I desire an end to all abortion. At the same time, though both men and women are responsible for conception, it is women who bear the burden of pregnancy. Thus it seems reasonable to me to permit women to choose abortion AFTER conception while insisting that men exercise their choices BEFORE conception. I said it seems reasonable -- I in no way am supportive of abortion, except in the most extraordinary circumstances. And I remain committed to the principle that men and women must be primarily committed to preaching accountability to their own sex.

[teg]

If ejacuation is consent, why isn't "spreading your legs" consent too?

[IT]

There are a lot of men here who really don't like women. Teg's description of a woman's participation in intercourse is unfortunately coarse.

La Lubu's point seems reasonable. There IS a difference in being the one physically carrying the child.

That said, the act of sex is a knowing agreement with both parties that a child may result. THey are both responsible for this. I think the final choice must be with the woman because she carries the burden and the risk. I agree that men are responsible when they choose to deposit their sperm. Otherwise, vasectomy.... or sterile partners.

I have to wonder how many women are "tricking" men into impregnating them for child support. Some guys here seem to say it's many (or else, they just want responsibility-free copulation. Naaahh.....surely that can't be it). Single motherhood is a difficult, difficult job and I very much doubt child support from an angry ex-partner does much to mitigate those hardships.

What a lot of anger to be sure.

[stanton]

Hugo: This rationalization does not hold water, and I believe you know that. BOTH parties have choice before conception, ONE party gets choice after, and it does not require sophisticated logic to see the double standard in that. If it is okay to rationalize double standards, in your view, then you have no moral high ground from which to deplore the same in others. Rationalizations, if you insist that they be allowed as the basis for regulating lives, will lead to very unpleasant consequences.

If you want to claim that accommodation in the law must be made for biological differences between men and women, you open a door that I don't think you want to open.

Your politics are trumping your intelligence in this one.

[stanton]

Here is a proposal for all of you who feel a woman must be free to abandon her children if she chooses: Allow women to abandon their newborns if they so desire, but in each case give the father the right of first refusal for the adoption, with full suuport obligations to the mother if he accepts. Not perfect, because many women who truly do not want their babies would take them anyway just to keep from paying support, but it's better than the full-blown double standard that exists now.

Many here have complained about men trying so desperately to hang on to unjust privilege. Here is a clear example of women being in exactly that position, and behaving precisely in the manner they deplore. These are the times I find it difficult to respect feminism.

[Hugo Schwyzer]

"If you want to claim that accommodation in the law must be made for biological differences between men and women, you open a door that I don't think you want to open."

I'll happily open that one -- when it comes to reproductive issues, it would be absurd not to do so. Reproductive issues are very, very different from issues that do not hinge so powerfully on sexual difference.

[stanton]

"I'll happily open that one -- when it comes to reproductive issues".

There have been many laws, customs, business practices, etc. regarding accommodating for pregnancy, childbirth, etc. These have mostly (and rightly, IMHO) been reversed, due to more enlightened thinking on the part of western society. This is one that has not been reversed. I really don't believe you want to return to the old way of thinking. You want to pick and choose among the accommodations.

Anyway - leaving aside this "door", let me get it straight. Justice, to Hugo: Unmarried women must remain free to abandon their children at birth, if they so desire, according to their own whims, without any consequences whatever. Men must NOT be allowed to do this, because they don't gestate and give birth.

Does that sum it up?

[teg]

IT,

Defending 'duped' fathers equates to "don't like women"?

What planet are you from?

[Hugo Schwyzer]

Stanton, you state my position as follows: "Unmarried women must remain free to abandon their children at birth."

You bet, given that historically, the alternative has often been infanticide. It's why folks across the political spectrum support safe haven laws. (I can't imagine you don't.) OF course, safe haven laws mean that the state will not come after the father for support.

Men are not required by law to be "fathers" in any authentic sense of the word. They are asked to be financially responsible to the woman with whom they chose to have intercourse.

Nature is not fair. It is not "fair" that women get pregnant and men don't. It is not "fair" that women suffer through pregnancy and childbirth and men don't. It's not "fair" that the vast majority of single-parent households are headed by women in this country (and don't try and convince me that they all have ex-husbands just desperate to be involved in their childrens' lives). Life isn't fair -- and the law seeks to recognize that unequal burden by giving women certain rights that men don't have. But those rights are rooted in a greater responsibility for a child between conception and birth.

No man can be forced to have a child against his will. He simply must exercise his choice prior to ejaculation.

[Mark]

Stanton, you state my position as follows: "Unmarried women must remain free to abandon their children at birth."

You bet, given that historically, the alternative has often been infanticide. It's why folks across the political spectrum support safe haven laws. (I can't imagine you don't.) OF course, safe haven laws mean that the state will not come after the father for support.

Is that really so? Does a woman's use of a 'safe haven' necessarily mean that the state will not seek 'support' from the father?

Men are not required by law to be "fathers" in any authentic sense of the word. They are asked to be financially responsible to the woman with whom they chose to have intercourse.

Again, for you as for most feminists, it's all about money.

Nature is not fair. It is not "fair" that women get pregnant and men don't. It is not "fair" that women suffer through pregnancy and childbirth and men don't.

Who defines what "fair" means? Stop whining already.

It's not "fair" that the vast majority of single-parent households are headed by women in this country (and don't try and convince me that they all have ex-husbands just desperate to be involved in their childrens' lives).

You may choose to ignore the reality that most men want to be involved in their children's lives. That is your choice. However, I challenge you to take off your feminist blinders and see the world as it really is.

Life isn't fair -- and the law seeks to recognize that unequal burden by giving women certain rights that men don't have.

Really? What 'rights' are those? The 'right' to abort the 'child'? I see--your 'consistent life ethic' applies only when it's rhetorically convenient, huh?

But those rights are rooted in a greater responsibility for a child between conception and birth.

According to most feminists, there is no 'child' before birth. So much for that theory.

No man can be forced to have a child against his will. He simply must exercise his choice prior to ejaculation.

You're an apologist for abortion. Thus, you show yourself to be a hypocrite again.

Give it a rest, Hugoboy. Most men can see right through your phoniness.

Mark

[bmmg39]

"I'll happily open that one -- when it comes to reproductive issues, it would be absurd not to do so. Reproductive issues are very, very different from issues that do not hinge so powerfully on sexual difference."

But if you DO open that door because of "reproductive issues" and "sexual difference," then you leave that door open for the argument that a company is better off hiring men than women because the men aren't going to become pregnant anytime soon. That's not MY argument, but it waltzes through the door once you make allowances for this "sexual difference."

[Mark]

But if you DO open that door because of "reproductive issues" and "sexual difference," then you leave that door open for the argument that a company is better off hiring men than women because the men aren't going to become pregnant anytime soon. That's not MY argument, but it waltzes through the door once you make allowances for this "sexual difference."

Hey bmmg39,

That's an important point. Of course, then the "women earn 76 cents to a man's dollar" falls flat on its face, with no hope of redemption.

You may not realize the profundity of what you have done. You have just shown convincingly that feminism demands special, not equal, treatment for women.

Game over!

Mark

[Hugo Schwyzer]

Bmmg39, I don't think that's entirely accurate. The fact that a woman might get pregnant is surely different from the reality that a pregnant woman is more directly impacted by carrying a child than the man who conceived it.

Our laws regularly allow for sexual difference, after all. How else do you explain the fact that women's restrooms in public buildings don't have urinals?

[La Lubu]

stanton: But women already are accountable for our actions. We have a heavy decision to make; namely, either abortion, adoption, or keeping our children. One of the maddening aspects of "Choice 4 Men" to me is that the proponents seem to think of abortion and adoption as the physical, emotional, and ethical equivalent of getting a (expletive deleted) haircut!!! They want an easy path out of any potential pain. They can scream about "unfairness" all they want, but regardless of a woman's decision, she is already dealing with pain. There is no "easy way out" for the woman.

Now, you are offering up a "solution" of allowing mothers to abandon their children without penalty. You do realize of course, that this is not going to happen, in the vast, overwhelming majority of cases? Most women do not choose abortion. Most do not choose adoption. It may be controversial to talk about, but the bonding process starts long before the birth.

Why do you think so many women are concerned about abortion rights? Because for many, abortion is less emotionally painful (or, perhaps perceived to be) than adoption. The bonding process has not taken hold.

See? No easy way out. Most women would rather swallow the business end of a shotgun than give up their baby.

"Choice 4 Men" thinks that women are "duping" men into becoming fathers. Nope. We're all adults here, we all know what causes pregnancy. We know ways that we can reduce our risk. But short of menopause or sterilization, all we can do is minimize our risk, not eliminate it (that is, if we're choosing to have sex).

Once that child is brought into the world, both parents are responsible for that child. "Choice 4 Men" acts like no one ever has a damn conversation before jumping into the sack! My daughter's biological father knew long before he ever hopped in bed with me that I was not sterile. That I would not have an abortion, in the event of an unexpected pregnancy, nor would I give the child up for adoption. And he also knew that I was using birth control, because he could watch me putting it in. So. He had ample opportunity to just say no to sex. I didn't coerce him to have sex. He did so quite willingly. He knew the risks. He took the risk. I knew the risk. I took the risk. He knew my decision long beforehand, and I knew my decision long beforehand.

And believe it or not, that's the way it is for most folks. Most people just don't go falling into bed with strangers. Most of these demonized, "unwed mother" pregnancies are within the context of an ongoing, monogamous relationship.

I firmly believe that both parents owe that child an upbringing. Abortion is not considered "easier" by many women. Adoption is considered even harder, if statistics are any evidence. So.

Women get pregnant. Deal with it. Protect yourself. There are several choices open to you in order to eliminate or reduce the risk of unwanted fatherhood. Pick one. I'd call that "choice for men".

[La Lubu]

"But if there is a feminist who says that the accountability level for men and women should be the same, how can you possibly justify opposing that?"

Easy, and frankly I do it all the time. There are many feminists who take essentialist positions that I strongly disagree with. Feminism is not monolithic; we don't have to check our own minds at the door. After all, Christians argue theology all the time, but still retain the right to call themselves Christian, no? ;-)