If a man doesn’t want to “get trapped” into paying child support, he should keep his dick in his pants or put a rubber on it — Actually, make that two rubbers. Better yet, get a vasectomy.

This blog is a classic example of boys who refuse to grow up, aka Narcissim.

Call me crazy, but i think there is a big distinction between an ineffective birth control pill and a girl forgetting to take them. I don’t think forgetting should happen, and IF it does, then there’s no way the guy can complain, he was supposed to be on top of it too.

That was what I did and i never worried once about getting a girl pregnant. Of course, birth control between a man and woman is very intimate situation, and i’d be interested to hear how guys and girls handle this, and any comments on my suggestion

You couldn’t be any more wrong.

-Dick

“I only meant the tale as an example of the power shift in this kind of relationship. If the male in question is not anxious to be caught in this particular dilemma, whatever the rest of his character may be like, he would be well advised not to engage in unprotected sexual intercourse. ”

The “power-shift” only exists when he decides not to be a father and live up to his responsibilities”. GET IT?

This isn’t a “rule”, it’s a law. Laws are pretty specific about what they apply to; if a law says “employees of a business with more than 50 people have rights A, B, and C,” then the law doesn’t apply to you if you work for a tiny cafe that employs 10 people. Your employer, if it is a partnership, may argue that they do not meet the definition of “employer” under the law.

The point you’d rather avoid is that it’s not the case that all gender discrimination in all employment everywhere vanished in 1964.

Uh, no, that’s not at all a point I’m trying to avoid. I just don’t expect the world to improve overnight, and I don’t consider a failure of things to change instantly to be proof of an overall failure. A substantial amount of discrimination was made illegal in 1964, and over the years the loopholes have been closed, with fewer remaining open year over year. We should, of course, continue to solve problems as they are identified.

I herd cats for a living, I’ve learned to be patient. Otherwise I’d go crazy …

I’m sorry to disappoint you by refusing to disagree with you on everything.

Oh, damn. Now you’re being all reasonable and stuff.

This isn’t a “rule”, it’s a law. Laws are pretty specific about what they apply to; if a law says “employees of a business with more than 50 people have rights A, B, and C,” then the law doesn’t apply to you if you work for a tiny cafe that employs 10 people. Your employer, if it is a partnership, may argue that they do not meet the definition of “employer” under the law.

The point you’d rather avoid is that it’s not the case that all gender discrimination in all employment everywhere vanished in 1964.

And I’ll note that you ignored the links showing changes in men’s attitudes about fatherhood that I provided in #157 upthread. :p

I’m sorry to disappoint you by refusing to disagree with you on everything.

That’s only true for very large values of 20.

The Civil Rights Act was not, at that time, thought to apply to businesses that were partnerships, like law firms. And enforcement of what laws existed was not exactly as vigorous as today.

Exceptions don’t prove rules. I know English speakers have a hard time translating “prufung” to mean anything other than “prove” (it means “test” …), but the existence of someone, somewhere, who wasn’t protected, somehow, by Title VII doesn’t invalidate the overall factoid that Title VII made sex discrimination in employment illegal in 1964 (and wage discrimination became illegal in 1963, which is an even larger value of 20 …)

And I’ll note that you ignored the links showing changes in men’s attitudes about fatherhood that I provided in #157 upthread. :p

Isn’t it easier just to teach kids “Stick to homosex, you’ll never have to worry about a little surprise”? :P

Hey, I want grandchildren. I expect tiny munchkin to be out producing grandchildren at every possible turn, all of which will then be spoiled as rotten as I can possibly manage.

How about teaching him to be a kind and caring human being so if he does end up in this situation, WHETHER INTENTIONAL OR NOT, he’ll chose to become an actual father instead of a resentful, irresponsible, schmuck living in fear of ending up under a bridge. If you grew up with a good father, I’m sure you are greatful that he decided not to run for the hills (or the troll-bridge).

Pat, you can’t know this, but the son in question is seriously mentally ill. Of course if possible it’s always better to raise both our sons and our daughters to be loving and responsible people. In this case it wasn’t possible to have much impact on his behavior, much of which is dictated by illness.

I only meant the tale as an example of the power shift in this kind of relationship. If the male in question is not anxious to be caught in this particular dilemma, whatever the rest of his character may be like, he would be well advised not to engage in unprotected sexual intercourse.

Some of these men have the nerve to act surprised when intercourse results in pregnancy. (No!) Thus the “entrapped” in the title of this thread. Like she raped him or something. Even if - or especially if - the male in question is mentally ill or just a schmuck, he needs to exercise some rudimentary alertness, or at least not claim later that, well, it was all a trap of some kind.

The Civil Rights Act was not, at that time, thought to apply to businesses that were partnerships, like law firms. And enforcement of what laws existed was not exactly as vigorous as today.

Isn’t it easier just to teach kids “Stick to homosex, you’ll never have to worry about a little surprise”? :P

“I told my younger son, “This is how it works. The instant some girl gets pregnant by you, control passes from your hands to her hands. She can abort the baby, and you can’t stop her. She can NOT abort the baby, and you can’t force her to abort it. She can give the child away, and the only way you can stop her is to take custody yourself. She can NOT give the child away, in which case you are paying child support for 18 years. And if you don’t pay, your economic life above the water ends, the only way you can live is poorly, under the table. So, ponder these issues, BEFORE you have unprotected sex. Because afterwards it’s too late.”

How about teaching him to be a kind and caring human being so if he does end up in this situation, WHETHER INTENTIONAL OR NOT, he’ll chose to become an actual father instead of a resentful, irresponsible, schmuck living in fear of ending up under a bridge. If you grew up with a good father, I’m sure you are greatful that he decided not to run for the hills (or the troll-bridge).

Of course things are better than 20+ years ago. (20+ years ago, it was perfectly legal for my mother to be told openly by a boss “No broad is going to make partner as long as I’m at this firm”.) That doesn’t mean they’re good, or anything close to 50/50.

That’s only true for very large values of 20. Title VII was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That’s a pretty big value of 20 :)

In particular, single father households have grown dramatically since Title VII (though I doubt we can credit Title VII for that …). Using smaller values of 20, the shift in paternal involvement began in the 1970’s precisely because of the changes in men’s attitudes towards shared parenting, as well as changing social roles, as has been shown in some research for years where 20 has a value closer to 10 + 10.

What’s that thing about the plural of anecdote again?

Of course things are better than 20+ years ago. (20+ years ago, it was perfectly legal for my mother to be told openly by a boss “No broad is going to make partner as long as I’m at this firm”.) That doesn’t mean they’re good, or anything close to 50/50.

(Have I said lately how much I hate the Word Press software?)

I believe in FMLA

Whoops, there goes your Conservative cred.

Oh, I lost almost all of it years ago. It’s just that people keep giving it back to me every time I say something like “People should be responsible for their own needs in life.” Then I have to say “I believe in FMLA” or quote Marx.

As I said way back when, the issue isn’t really whether you get a few days off after childbirth; it’s that childrearing is seen as a private issue, and “my kid is sick” is not any more important than “there’s a baseball game I’d love to catch”. That attitude is not going to change until both women and men start to insist that it change.

My experience is that most employers, in the 21st century, recognize that “My kid is sick” is way more important than “I need to slack off”. Even between the sexes I’ve seen, in my adult lifetime, huge changes in social attitudes. Thirteen years ago I saw almost no fathers picking up or dropping off kids at school, or at any event that wasn’t sports or Boy Scouts. Today I run into fathers all over the place with kids. Not 50/50 yet, but definitely better than when I first got into the parent biz 22 years ago.

Sorry, I thought you were pheeno. And “Furry” and I are the same.

“Complaint”? Are you actually reading anything posted here, or are you just closing your eyes, pointing to random sentences on the screen, and then arguing? FurryCatHerder correctly pointed out that “non-custodial” is not an accurate term, and I agree.

I believe in FMLA

Whoops, there goes your Conservative cred.

As I said way back when, the issue isn’t really whether you get a few days off after childbirth; it’s that childrearing is seen as a private issue, and “my kid is sick” is not any more important than “there’s a baseball game I’d love to catch”. That attitude is not going to change until both women and men start to insist that it change.

Not sure what you’ve got

Why do you assume I am a divorced parent?

You said “I’ll lose all my Conservative cred if I keep proposing taxes”, above.

Such is the life of those of us who live in the middle. If we suggest people pay their own way, we lose our Liberal cred, and if we propose taxes, we lose our Conservative cred. There’s more to life than polar opposites. Some of us prefer life closer to the tropics …

That tends to suggests that they can’t afford for people who do give birth to children to take extended leaves from work, no? But if you think people should ‘pay their own way,’ I’m not sure why you’re insisting that therefore we do (in the US) have a workplace where the needs of parents are recognized. (If you’re a parent, surely you’re aware that “extended leaves from work” does not cover until the kid is 18.)

I don’t think the workplace is obligated to hand out free money. It’s that Capitalist in me (tho I think workers should own the means of production — feel free to read Marx on the subject …) that thinks money doesn’t somehow grow on trees.

I believe in FMLA, and I wish more fathers took more time off, but most of the people I speak to when asked “Why aren’t you still at home?” tell me they need the money, so they work. The workplace should =enable= parents to care for children, not pay for it. It’s not some either/or decision — either the workplace hands a parent a giant pot full of money and 18 years off, or workers are tossed on the street as soon as they become parents.

Very true. “Joint”, unfortunately, suggests 50/50 in all respects, when it probably ranges from your might-as-well-be-the-same custody to “on weekends”.

Well, when I find some “Non-Fat Milk” that has more than 0% milkfat (or more than “as close to 0% as practical”), I’ll consider your complaint to be a valid one. “Non”, as a prefix, means “None”. Not “Some”, not even “once in a blue moon”. None. Zero, zilch, zip, nada. Here, have a definition:

non-

prefix

Definition:

not, without, the opposite of
nonaggression
nonassessable

(non-: Definition)

“joint”, however, does not mean “exactly equal” –

adjective

Definition:

1. done together: done or produced together with others
A joint statement was issued by the three party leaders.

2. sharing same role: sharing the same role or position with another person or body.
My brother and I were appointed joint executors of her will.

3. owned in common: owned in common by two or more people or concerns
joint assets

4. combined: existing and operating in combination
the joint ravages of the weather and pollution.

(joint: Definition)

As I said, I prefer that custody be described as “Sole” or “Joint” with the ratio of custody being given. In my case, I have joint custody with about 47.5% time of possession. Not sure what you’ve got, but that’s what I’ve got.

You said “I’ll lose all my Conservative cred if I keep proposing taxes”, above.

To answer your question, no, people who don’t give birth to children tend not to stay home afterwards because Americans are, in general, pretty bad at saving enough money to take extended leaves from work.

That tends to suggests that they can’t afford for people who do give birth to children to take extended leaves from work, no? But if you think people should ‘pay their own way,’ I’m not sure why you’re insisting that therefore we do (in the US) have a workplace where the needs of parents are recognized. (If you’re a parent, surely you’re aware that “extended leaves from work” does not cover until the kid is 18.)

Terms like “Custodial” and “Non-Custodial” are themselves part of the problem, because they linguistically seem to imply that one has “all” and the other has “none”.

Very true. “Joint”, unfortunately, suggests 50/50 in all respects, when it probably ranges from your might-as-well-be-the-same custody to “on weekends”.

Thanks for the clarification. I’d never heard that quote before in any of its incarnations.

I’m particularly touchy on the subject of “Non-Custodial Parents” (whoda thunk it) because there is often this bizarre assertion in discussions about children, child custody and child support, that “Non-Custodial Parents” somehow don’t actually have custody or expenses. The focus is almost entirely on the Custodial Parent who may have overall expenses substantially lower (or higher) and lengths of possessions which are scarcely longer than the “Non-Custodial Parent”.

Terms like “Custodial” and “Non-Custodial” are themselves part of the problem, because they linguistically seem to imply that one has “all” and the other has “none”. Kind of like “Non-Dairy Creamer” has no dairy, “Non-Fat Milk” has no fat, and other things where the prefix “Non” indicates a lack of. I prefer to describe custody either with terms like “Sole” or “Joint” and include possession as a ration. It makes for a much more accurate discussion.

In the case of “Non-Custodial Parents”, we don’t have … none … we have … less. In my case, I have 174 (more or less — at this point, it’s so close to 50/50 that I could wind up with more if my ex would ever actually go on a week long vacation …) days out of 365 annual days of custody, and spend a total of some $28,900 (more or less) on my (one) child each year. If I use the “Per Capita” method used by the folks who set child support guidelines, instead of the “Marginal Cost” method I used for the amount given earlier, that increases to $37,600.

(BTW — my custody agreement, and Texas Family Law, don’t use “Non-Custodial Parent” to describe me. I’m a “Joint Managing Conservator”. Notice the word “Joint”. It’s only in discussions where people want to argue about who has it worse, and when the IRS wants to pretend that my ex spends more than me, that “Custodial” and “Non-Custodial” come into play.)

Also Susan, I’m sure that every single one of the people posting here could come up with myriad examples about how “other people’s opinions” have devastated their lives. And that’s only on the individual level. Groups are also affected by opinions.

I stand by my appraisal.

Julie, Herder of Cats Writes:
March 29th, 2007 at 3:35 am

All together now –

“The plural of anecdote is not ‘fact’”.

The much quoted phrase is ” The plural of anecdote isn’t data.” The idea is that while your anecdote may be true and a fact it’s not necessarily typical. Therefore it isn’t as persuasive as say, a statistically significant controlled study that’s be published in a peer reviewed journal with published data for independent analysis.

I’m pretty sure that’s what you meant.