What happens when Mom raises an amazing kid solo, and Opt-out Dad suddenly wants a piece of the action? Oh look…paperwork! Dad relinquished all rights…but now has a change of heart? Don’t think that with “opt-out,” it won’t happen!

Yes, “opt-in” covers all of Daran’s concerns. The problem, I am guessing, is that with “opt-in,” there are no “do-overs.” My sense is that with a kid in this world, men are not truly willing to burn their bridges.

Hmm.

If, as Daran claims, the law’s priority should be “no man has to be responsible for a kid if hethey didn’t ask to,” then the opt-in system is far superior. It also has a feature of which Daran heartily approves: namely, women would always know that they can’t impose any obligations on a man, and would conduct themselves accordingly.

The “opt-out” system not only gives men rights women don’t have, it’s ridiculously complicated and nigh-impossible to enforce. What does a woman have to prove to show abortion was “available”? What if one or both of them is above the age of consent but below the age where they can legally enter into a contract? What happens when somebody changes their mind?

It was a most interesting conversation. I would like to continue to explore the area as I, at present, do not see that they would be received in the US because the result of implementing them would be to throw out the current marriage / union scheme.

I am not suggesting this as a solution to anything that is being discussed here, though I do think what I have described does, at the least, acknowledge that no matter how casual the sex is that two people might have, any children that are born as a result of that sex are unambiguously the responsibility of the people who concieved them, whether they wanted to conceive the child or not.

I don’t know why, but Daran’s very complicated contractual system put me in mind of temporary marriage, not because they are so similar in content, but because the each seem to share the impulse to nail down as unambiguously as possible the fuzzy social and cultural aspects of non-marital sex.

Yeah.

I’m sure it would be a lot harder with babies and very young kids, but my parents divorced when I was 11 (my brother was 7) and they had no trouble arranging 50/50 custody which worked very well for everyone involved. The important things they did were: put my brother and I far, far ahead of their grudges against each other; recognize that both were good parents and that my brother and I loved and needed both; stayed far, far away from the courthouse. By living in the same town (which I know isn’t always easy, what with jobs, housing, etc) and continuing to talk to each other, there was really no trouble at all.

So a healthy 50/50 custody arrangement is definitely possible.

If you look at Sacks or any other MRA sites, the really egregious stuff doesn’t come from the laws themselves, but from the actual system built around those laws - men pushed into bankruptcy (or suicide) by utterly erroneous child-support arrearages. Putting the foster system before willing, capable parents. Allegations of “sexist” courts that assume that the father could never be a better parent (I’m not going to debate whether these allegations are true or not here). Things like that.

These are implementation issues, not issues with the laws themselves. The biggest flaws with the CS system are organizational and oversight issues - NOT the underlying laws. Fundamentally, the idea that

a) If you are a parent of a child (including if you knock up a woman in a one night stand), you’re responsible for the child, and

b) there must be some time-share arrangement so that the child gets to be with both parents

are not really disputable.

There may be some custody issues where MRAs do have some legitimate gripes - after all, society is still mentally stuck in the patriarchal model where the mother is assumed to automatically be the primary care-giver, and the father is, by extension, secondary parent. But those issues are far more complicated to solve (has anyone actually figured out a 50/50 custody arrangement that wouldn’t completely screw up the kid?) than simply stating “dad doesn’t have to be a parent if he doesn’t want to be”.

We don’t agree with you that the system does the things you claim it does.

“Opt-In” precludes this possibility, as Dad who failed to “opt in” has no standing to seek parental rights.

Gee…I wonder why “opt-in” is not gaining traction. Can it be that in the end, MRA’s still want the “choice,” even if it comes down the line?

Really? If we’re going to be trading fake outrage, then I’d appreciate your apology for defaming feminists with “Children’s interests come second, and men’s (including the interests of baby boys, who will grow up to become men) come nowhere.” But we both know you’re not really feeling defamed and outraged; you’re just looking to score points by pretending that you’ve been “defamed”. And yes, I’m afraid that you very much come across as being angry at women, period.

And speaking of private facts:

This is not generally true. Both parents can agree to put the child up for adoption. Or the mother can do so unilaterally if the father doesn’t know he has a child. Or she can just abandon it in a safe harbour without making any formal arrangements for its care.

Daran, I know you’ve been around for many, many discussions on this topic. So you know exactly the extent to which these statements are true. I don’t understand why you think repeating them louder changes that.

A woman who puts a child up for adoption unilaterally risks that adoption being undone. A woman, like a man, can abandon a child in a safe harbor without fear of prosecution, but this does not automatically end her rights and obligations, nor the father’s to the child. All you’re really arguing for is better enforcement of laws that say “you need the father’s consent to put the kid up for adoption”.

You natter on about the ‘consensus’ of whether the law is wrong or right, but again, your proposal comes down to this: A complete change in the legal principle that the child’s best interests are paramount, and that rights and obligations attach to both biological parents as the rule, absent some exception severing those rights. You want this in order to insure that men don’t pay child support if they don’t want to.

If you’re willing to do that, I don’t understand why you support an ‘opt-out’ system rather than an ‘opt-in’ system. The only reason to support ‘opt out’ is a desire to give men special rights women don’t have; ‘opt in’ does a much better job of fending off child support.

Okay, speaking as Grandma, Daran :-*…this one is a non-starter.

Grandparental rights is a muddy area of law, but it does exist. Your proposal appears to simply wipe out legal recognition of familial relationships that have stood the test of time and culture.

Grandparents do have legal standing. If I understand correctly…grandparents are the default preference if Mom and Dad are absent/incompetant/incapacitated for whatever reasons. Your proposal to reduce paternal grandparents to mere bystanders in the lives of their grandchildren is frankly…horseshit. If you think for one heartbeat the BH and moi will surrender our legal standing to intervene if bad things are happening to one of our grandchildren, getting in line behind the state or other “interested parties”, think again. As far as I’m concerned…your “right” not to pay child support does not supercede our “right” to see to the wellbeing of our grandchildren.

Mandolin Writes:

December 10th, 2007 at 4:50 am
I see MRAs as supporting domestic violence through their actions. Pro-abuse set = MRAs. And now I’ve said that twice, and am done answering questions on the subject.

I’m not an Mens Right’s Activist. In general I think they’re silly and I don’t pay much attention to what they have to say. (I think Daren’s policy is ridiculous and about as politically likely as Heart’s Man Tax but that’s beside the point)

I think your labeling position is absurd and/or dishonest. Is this now a rule at alas? Can I re-label anyone who disagrees with me in a generally offensive way? Can anyone who thinks that a particular group, or policy position, has a negative outcome label them as being ‘for’ that outcome? Also, in this case,it really looks to me like you’re saying that Daren is personally in favor of domestic violence.

Mandolin - that’s fair. I was simply peeved, as I’d brought it up the last time as well, with no response. I went over to his site to confirm that it was not an anomaly.

I’m sorry, Katie. :( For some reason, I missed your comment in the other thread, or didn’t remember it.

I hope Mr. Moore takes your note to heart.

Moving on:

Progressive suggestions for retitling “Choice for men” so that it’s less euphamistic?

It boggles the mind that it seems that Daran thinks it is better to advocate the creation of a whole new area of family/contract law that will result in instability for millions of children and families as well as skyrocketing costs in legal and court fees than to advocate for universal sex ed and accessible safe and reliable contraception.

Tara, I would be quite shocked if Daran was less than a completely enthusiastic supporter of universal sex ed and and accessible, safe, and reliable contraception.