MA: Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby steps in "it" with commentary desguised as news on 'Roe v. Wade for Men' and goes completely stupid. Typical liberal bull sh*t...

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...ed_fatherhood/

The obligation of unwanted fatherhood
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | March 23, 2006

REAL MEN - good men - take responsibility for the children they father. If
they get a woman pregnant, they do the right thing: They stand by her. They
support their child. They don't try to weasel out of a situation they
co-authored. They shoulder the obligations of fatherhood, even if they
hadn't planned on becoming a father. Once upon a time, men confronted with
news of an unintended pregnancy knew what was expected of them. Often they
married the woman who was carrying their child; for those tempted to behave
irresponsibly, society devised the shotgun wedding. Women, too, knew what
was expected of them. They tended to be very careful about sex. If they
didn't always wait until they were married, they waited for a relationship
that seemed to be marriage-bound.

It wasn't a perfect system, and it didn't guarantee perfect happiness, but
on the whole it was realistic: It recognized that sex has consequences. It
bound men to the women they impregnated and made sure that children had dads
as well as moms.
But the old code was swept away by the Sexual Revolution. With the Pill and
easy abortion came the illusion of sex without consequences. Pregnancy could
be avoided or readily undone. Men didn't have to marry women they
impregnated; women didn't have to reserve themselves for men who were
committed or whose intentions were honorable. With the devaluation of sex
came the devaluation of fatherhood. Men got used to the idea of sex without
strings. So did women, many of who also got used to the idea of motherhood
without husbands. Government helped, too, mandating welfare benefits for
unmarried moms, and child-support checks from "deadbeat dads." With the
incentives for marriage weaker than ever, more and more children were born
out of wedlock. In 1950, just 4 percent of births were to unmarried mothers.
By 1980, the rate was more than 18 percent. It stands today at nearly 36
percent. All this is bad enough. Comes now Matt Dubay with a proposal to
make things worse.

A 25-year-old computer programmer in Michigan, Dubay wants to know why it is
only women who have "reproductive rights." He is upset about having to pay
child support for a baby he never wanted. Not only did his former girlfriend
know he didn't want children, says Dubay, she had told him she was
infertile. When she got pregnant nonetheless, he asked her to get an
abortion or place the baby for adoption. She decided instead to keep her
child and secured a court order requiring him to pay $500 a month in
support.

Not fair, Dubay complains. His ex-girlfriend chose to become a mother. It
was her choice not to have an abortion, her choice to carry the baby to
term, her choice not to have the child adopted. She even had the option,
under the "baby safe haven" laws most states have enacted, to simply leave
her newborn at a hospital or police station. Roe v. Wade gives her and all
women the right - the constitutional right! - to avoid parenthood and its
responsibilities. Dubay argues that he should have the same right, and has
filed a federal lawsuit that his supporters are calling "Roe v. Wade for
men." Drafted by the National Center for Men, it contends that as a matter
of equal rights, men who don't want a child should be permitted, early in
pregnancy, to get "a financial abortion" releasing them from any future
responsibility to the baby.

Does Dubay have a point? Of course. Contemporary American society does send
very mixed messages about sex and the sexes. For women, the decision to have
sex is the first of a series of choices, including the choice to abort a
pregnancy - or, if she prefers, to give birth and collect child support from
the father. For men, legal choices end with the decision to have sex. If
conception takes place, he can be forced to accept the abortion of a baby he
wants - or to spend at least the next 18 years turning over a chunk of his
income to support a child he didn't want.

All true. But it is also true that predatory males have done enormous damage
to American society, and the last thing our culture needs is one more way
for men to escape accountability for the children they father. Dubay wants
more than the freedom to be sexually reckless - he wants that freedom to be
constitutionally guaranteed. Truly he is a child of his time, passionate on
the subject of rights and eager to duck responsibility.

The culture used to send a clear message to men in Dubay's position: Marry
the mother and be a father to your child. Today it tells him: Just write a
monthly check. Soon -- if this lawsuit succeeds -- it won't say even that.
The result will not be a fairer, more equal society. It will be a society
with even more abortion, even more exploitation of women, even more of the
destructiveness and instability caused by fatherlessness.

And, in some ways saddest of all, even more people like Matt Dubay: a boy
who never learned how to be a real man.

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is

"Dusty" wrote in


The obligation of unwanted fatherhood
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | March 23, 2006

REAL MEN - good men - take responsibility for the children they father. If
they get a woman pregnant, they do the right thing: They stand by her.
They support their child.

Don't need to read any further, he's already established his old world
opinions!
I guess it's OK to force the same ethics and morals on everybody, just like
any regime?


- "Laws that prevent the choosing of sin also prevent the choosing of
virtue."--Daniel B. Klein

- "Liberty is the only thing you can't have unless you give it to
others."--William Allan White

"DB" ) writes:
"Dusty" wrote in

The obligation of unwanted fatherhood
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | March 23, 2006

REAL MEN - good men - take responsibility for the children they father.
If they get a woman pregnant, they do the right thing: They stand by her.
They support their child.

Don't need to read any further, he's already established his old world
opinions!

Indeed.

I guess it's OK to force the same ethics and morals on everybody, just
like any regime?

Don't be silly, notice that in Jacoby-World, only men have duties...

I've sent off a strong letter of condemnation to his e-mail address.

Andre

"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
"DB" ) writes:
"Dusty" wrote in

The obligation of unwanted fatherhood
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | March 23, 2006

REAL MEN - good men - take responsibility for the children they father.
If they get a woman pregnant, they do the right thing: They stand by
her.
They support their child.

Don't need to read any further, he's already established his old world
opinions!

Indeed.

I guess it's OK to force the same ethics and morals on everybody, just
like any regime?

Don't be silly, notice that in Jacoby-World, only men have duties...

I've sent off a strong letter of condemnation to his e-mail address.

Andre

And you wonder why I posted this...

"Dusty" ) writes:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in message
...
"DB" ) writes:
"Dusty" wrote in

The obligation of unwanted fatherhood
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | March 23, 2006

REAL MEN - good men - take responsibility for the children they father.
If they get a woman pregnant, they do the right thing: They stand by
her.
They support their child.

Don't need to read any further, he's already established his old world
opinions!

Indeed.

I guess it's OK to force the same ethics and morals on everybody, just
like any regime?

Don't be silly, notice that in Jacoby-World, only men have duties...

I've sent off a strong letter of condemnation to his e-mail address.

Andre

And you wonder why I posted this...

Not at all. I was aware that you were posting it as further proof
of the misandristic bias of the pop media.

So that non sexist-bigots could write in to the writer bigot
and correct his ****e.

Andre

Following is an e-mail I have sent Jeff Jacoby on the subject of his
column.

For men seeking equal rights, and an end to the unjustifiable privileges
given to women, there's a real problem with conservative men. Such men,
including this columnist, talk as if men still are in a position of power,
and must act as protectors of women.


Dear Mr. Jacoby:

I read your piece about the lawsuit intended to establish the principle
that men should have post-conception reproductive choices approximately
equal to women. I understand your perspective. Possibly, I would myself
have shared it many years ago. However, in the present-day situation, I
think you are utterly wrong in your conclusion. I think you may not have
spent enough time thinking about the issue in the wider perspective.

First of all, you talk about what "real men" would do. The general
theme of your piece suggests that you generally view social issues from a
conservative point of view. I have been involved in gender-related issues
for almost 20 years -- essentially since I was catapulted into divorce in
the late 1980s. One thing I have found as a result of my experience is
that, in any areas where the interests of the two sexes are in conflict,
there is grotesque and all-pervasive bias against men. Furthermore, a major
reason for this bias is the unwillingness of heterosexual men to speak up
for their own interests, plus the tendency for some men (including,
apparently, you) to think in terms of what "real men" would do. The
feminist movement, despite its supposed emphasis on equality between the
sexes, has shamelessly exploited the "real men" line of thought, when it has
been in the movement's interests to do so.

In current U.S. society, who knows what "real men" would do? Lay down
their lives to protect their womenfolk, a la Titanic? Wear dresses to get
in touch with their feminine side? Or just do what feminists tell them to
do? The latter, I suspect, is the answer, as far as anything that is likely
to be published in the Boston Globe is concerned. My suggestion is that the
"real men" talk is nothing more than meaningless rhetoric, and men should
pay no attention whatsover to it.

I have two proposals. One is that you take a step back and examine the
merits of the proposition that men's post-conception rights should be on a
par with those of women. The other is that you think some more about the
long-term results of giving men post-conception reproductive rights.

Right now, there is approximate equality in pre-conception rights. Both
men and women have access to birth control, via either abstention from sex,
or various methods of birth control, surgical and otherwise. However, in
the post-conception situation, the situation is radically different. Over
the last 30 or so years in the U.S., no effort has been spared to give women
post-conception choice. They have (a) abortion, (b) in practical terms the
right to make unilateral decisions about adoption, and (c) increasingly, the
right to drop off newborns at hospitals and other designated locations -- no
questions asked. Meantime, for men, things have moved in the OPPOSITE
direction. As you recognize in your column, there is Draconian enforcement
of child support laws, combined with the growing use of DNA tests.
Basically, major resources have been put into preventing men from exercising
the ability that Nature has given them to walk away from unwanted
pregnancies.

What would be the long-term effects of giving men post-conception
reproductive choice, via allowing them to have the legal right to surrender
their paternal rights and responsibilities? You seem convinced that this
would do nothing more than cause an upsurge in irresponsible sexual behavior
by male "predators." However, there is far more reason to think that there
would be more responsible sexual behavior by women, if they realized that
they--and they alone--had to accept the consequences of their own unilateral
post-conception choices. It is very likely that there would be a reduction
in the number of fatherless families, with clear benefits for an orderly
society. (By the way, is there predatory behavior by women too? You seem
to think not, thus falling into a well-established feminist propaganda
trap.)

Please don't tell me that men should accept the realities of the
situation and act accordingly. In the Jim Crow days, no one told blacks in
the South that they should accept the realities and stay away from whites if
they didn't want to beaten up or lynched.

I would urge you to think about this issue a little more, and get away
from the approach of dismissing the points made in this lawsuit because you
think Matt Dubay "never learned how to be a real man."

Since I have two (now adult) children, and have no wish for personal
publicity, this e-mail is not for publication.

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...ed_fatherhood/

The obligation of unwanted fatherhood
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | March 23, 2006

REAL MEN - good men - take responsibility for the children they father. If
they get a woman pregnant, they do the right thing: They stand by her.
They support their child. They don't try to weasel out of a situation they
co-authored. They shoulder the obligations of fatherhood, even if they
hadn't planned on becoming a father. Once upon a time, men confronted with
news of an unintended pregnancy knew what was expected of them. Often they
married the woman who was carrying their child; for those tempted to
behave irresponsibly, society devised the shotgun wedding. Women, too,
knew what was expected of them. They tended to be very careful about sex.
If they didn't always wait until they were married, they waited for a
relationship that seemed to be marriage-bound.

It wasn't a perfect system, and it didn't guarantee perfect happiness, but
on the whole it was realistic: It recognized that sex has consequences. It
bound men to the women they impregnated and made sure that children had
dads as well as moms.
But the old code was swept away by the Sexual Revolution. With the Pill
and easy abortion came the illusion of sex without consequences. Pregnancy
could be avoided or readily undone. Men didn't have to marry women they
impregnated; women didn't have to reserve themselves for men who were
committed or whose intentions were honorable. With the devaluation of sex
came the devaluation of fatherhood. Men got used to the idea of sex
without strings. So did women, many of who also got used to the idea of
motherhood without husbands. Government helped, too, mandating welfare
benefits for unmarried moms, and child-support checks from "deadbeat
dads." With the incentives for marriage weaker than ever, more and more
children were born out of wedlock. In 1950, just 4 percent of births were
to unmarried mothers. By 1980, the rate was more than 18 percent. It
stands today at nearly 36 percent. All this is bad enough. Comes now Matt
Dubay with a proposal to make things worse.

A 25-year-old computer programmer in Michigan, Dubay wants to know why it
is only women who have "reproductive rights." He is upset about having to
pay child support for a baby he never wanted. Not only did his former
girlfriend know he didn't want children, says Dubay, she had told him she
was infertile. When she got pregnant nonetheless, he asked her to get an
abortion or place the baby for adoption. She decided instead to keep her
child and secured a court order requiring him to pay $500 a month in
support.

Not fair, Dubay complains. His ex-girlfriend chose to become a mother. It
was her choice not to have an abortion, her choice to carry the baby to
term, her choice not to have the child adopted. She even had the option,
under the "baby safe haven" laws most states have enacted, to simply leave
her newborn at a hospital or police station. Roe v. Wade gives her and all
women the right - the constitutional right! - to avoid parenthood and its
responsibilities. Dubay argues that he should have the same right, and has
filed a federal lawsuit that his supporters are calling "Roe v. Wade for
men." Drafted by the National Center for Men, it contends that as a matter
of equal rights, men who don't want a child should be permitted, early in
pregnancy, to get "a financial abortion" releasing them from any future
responsibility to the baby.

Does Dubay have a point? Of course. Contemporary American society does
send very mixed messages about sex and the sexes. For women, the decision
to have sex is the first of a series of choices, including the choice to
abort a pregnancy - or, if she prefers, to give birth and collect child
support from the father. For men, legal choices end with the decision to
have sex. If conception takes place, he can be forced to accept the
abortion of a baby he wants - or to spend at least the next 18 years
turning over a chunk of his income to support a child he didn't want.

All true. But it is also true that predatory males have done enormous
damage to American society, and the last thing our culture needs is one
more way for men to escape accountability for the children they father.
Dubay wants more than the freedom to be sexually reckless - he wants that
freedom to be constitutionally guaranteed. Truly he is a child of his
time, passionate on the subject of rights and eager to duck
responsibility.

The culture used to send a clear message to men in Dubay's position: Marry
the mother and be a father to your child. Today it tells him: Just write a
monthly check. Soon -- if this lawsuit succeeds -- it won't say even that.
The result will not be a fairer, more equal society. It will be a society
with even more abortion, even more exploitation of women, even more of the
destructiveness and instability caused by fatherlessness.

And, in some ways saddest of all, even more people like Matt Dubay: a boy
who never learned how to be a real man.

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is

"Andre Lieven" wrote in

And you wonder why I posted this...

Not at all. I was aware that you were posting it as further proof
of the misandristic bias of the pop media.

Not only the Pop Media, but the court system as well! They are trying to
enforce values based on a family model of the 50's.

These days, Women do not depend on men to house or feed them and that's what
they wanted.
So why are woman still so dependant on men to house and feed their children?

"DB" ) writes:
"Andre Lieven" wrote in

And you wonder why I posted this...

Not at all. I was aware that you were posting it as further proof
of the misandristic bias of the pop media.

Not only the Pop Media, but the court system as well! They are trying
to enforce values based on a family model of the 50's.

Um, not really, no. While I grant that there are similarities, the
present methods are far less clear and honest.

For instance, when actual alimony was/used to be assessed, there was
a method of arriving at a just and individually appropriate figure,
with a requirement of some proof of amounts on the part of the
claimant. Not to mention a time limit.

The dishonestly named transfer of wealth dubbed " child support "
comes with none of those things. It used to be reasonably true
that the time limit was the age of majority of the child, yet
many cases of recent times show that even thats not true, with
mothers demanding monies for the " care " of adult " children "
who happen to be in post secondary education.

Also, " 50s models " apportioned responsibilities to *both* men
and women. Modern Feminised women ( And, the nad-less male gits
that scutter at their bootheels... ) utterly reject any degree
of responsibility for... *women*.

These days, Women do not depend on men to house or feed them and
that's what they wanted.

Incorrect. While some women said that that was what they wanted, when
you examine their actual behaviors, its clear that their words were
empty and MS-leading rhetoric.

Consider that a woman staying at home and not working, is seen as
being quite reasonable, while, if a man is the stay at home spouse,
many question his very manhood, not to mention that they will say
to such a supporting woman, " hes using you ".

Plus ca change...

So why are woman still so dependant on men to house and feed their
children?

For the same reason that so many modern women play the other gimme
gimme sexist head games, like " asker pays " when they refuse to
take on the risks of asking.

Read " The Rules ", where the two female authors actually do
explain their view that women get, men give. This issue is no
different, in the views of most Feminist type women.

Andre

DB wrote:

"Andre Lieven" wrote in


And you wonder why I posted this...

Not at all. I was aware that you were posting it as further proof
of the misandristic bias of the pop media.


Not only the Pop Media, but the court system as well! They are trying to
enforce values based on a family model of the 50's.

These days, Women do not depend on men to house or feed them and that's what
they wanted.
So why are woman still so dependant on men to house and feed their children?





that was a great view point

i.e. the courts are in the 50s when it comes to loading men with all the
responsibilities ....

May I'd suggest you trace these developments and write a full length
post / article

It would make great reading


regards
Vinayak

"Vinayak" wrote in

Not only the Pop Media, but the court system as well! They are trying to
enforce values based on a family model of the 50's.

These days, Women do not depend on men to house or feed them and that's
what
they wanted.
So why are woman still so dependant on men to house and feed their
children?

that was a great view point

i.e. the courts are in the 50s when it comes to loading men with all the
responsibilities ....

May I'd suggest you trace these developments and write a full length
post / article

I'm sorry, I don't have the education level it requires to write such a
piece, but I do know that the mentality of present laws could not get passed
on today's standard's for women.

I'm neither a liberal or a conservative, I just believe in True Freedom &
Equality for all.
We all know that in a Free society, you have the right to succeed, but you
also have the right to fail too. Nothing is guaranteed, but then again you
do not have other people dictating how you should live. It just seems so
ironic that a country that brags about being founded on freedom, is so quick
to finding ways of taking it away & forcing control on a particular segment
of people. God help you when you are classed as an NCP, it's open season on
you for any glory hunting politician that wants to make a name for
themselves.

CS is a social issue, not a criminal issue!