The Measure of a Man

[Salvor-Hardon]

Last night I was flipping through channels and hit the Anderson Cooper 360 show, while they were discussing a Michigan case about a man name Matt Dubay and by extension reproductive rights for men.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/08/fatherhood.suit.ap/

To sum up and over simplify, a couple had sex, the woman got pregnant and the man did not want to be a father. He does not want to pay child support and waives all parental rights to the child. But a lot of the issues that came up (way too many for a quick 10 minute segment) really had me thinking and wondering.


Is DNA a basis for parental responsibility?

Do men have a different set of rights with children (one of the "experts" was arguing that Roe v. Wade allows women to choose to have sex and not be mothers, so there should be equal rights for men)

Does sex constitute an agreement of care for children if pregnancy is a result?

Is the last fringes of sexism finding karmic pay back if the courts rule that men are financially responsible based on DNA alone?

Tons of other questions as well.

Since I respect and admire the intellect of many here, and it is a sex based issue to some degree, what say you all?

 

[gauchecritic]

Good questions Salvor. If women can choose not to be mothers so should men choose not to be fathers.

Unfortunately it obviously isn't that simple. The first case is about abortion and the second is about responsibility, which leads to the question does a father have any say in abortion? I'll stear clear of that one thankyou.

 

[zeb1094]

Mmmm...Abortion or Responsibility, tough choice!

How about a nice game of chess?

 

[ElizabethWest]

There was already some interesting discussion on this topic here.

 

[Salvor-Hardon]

There was already some interesting discussion on this topic here.

Ah... thank you elizabeth

I have to stop watching news after 6:00 though......

 

[Guest]

*Pout*

And here I thought this was a discussion of one of my poems.





The Measure of a Man by sweetsubsarahh ©

Perhaps you are familiar with the music lovers' quote,
"how all the ladies swoon when e'er the tenor sings a note?"

I beg to disagree! Although he makes a joyful sound,
the bass will always be the man I want to hang around.

To be specific, though I love a tenor's gorgeous note,
I lose all thoughts of music with a thick cock down my throat.

My musical experience allows me to be wise,
and basses tend to be most gifted, body, strength and size.

So please forgive my adding lib: "when all the songs are sung,
the bass will take the woman home, and why? He's so well hung!"

 

[Guest]

Salvor?

Forgive the drool.

That's quite an AV.

 

[sweetnpetite]

If he gives up responsibility, he gives up all rights always and forever too.

No reunions 10 years later on Maury Povich.

 

[Salvor-Hardon]

Bringing this one back up, after reading a course outline for "Questioning Masculinity" offered as part of Toronto's Anarchist University educational co-operative.

Read for your self here

I like that most of the discussions are questions to be examined rather than facts to be memorized.

And especially now, as I am having "those talks" with my 9 year old, I'm even more curious to know "what makes a man?"

 

[impressive]

Bringing this one back up, after reading a course outline for "Questioning Masculinity" offered as part of Toronto's Anarchist University educational co-operative.

Read for your self here

I like that most of the discussions are questions to be examined rather than facts to be memorized.

And especially now, as I am having "those talks" with my 9 year old, I'm even more curious to know "what makes a man?"

I'm rather questioning why a "gender identity" is necessary at all.

 

[Salvor-Hardon]

I'm rather questioning why a "gender identity" is necessary at all.

I think ( and with only reading synopsis I'm jumping to conclusions) they are seperatig "gender" from "sex". Sex would be biological, penis equals male, vagina equals female, both is hermaphrodite. Gender would be more behavior.

And this is where I am pondering aplenty. I hate professional sports, I can't use a hammer and a nail to save my life, I like opera and theater and ballet. In some views I would be "less than manly" because I'm not the stereotypical "guy".

On the other hand I can make certain women swoon ( unless they lied to make me feel good), I can make networks and computers do things that make the normal person gaze in awe and wonder, I lift weights, I like looking at women naked, in a very profound sense I am very much male.

Does eschewing the status quo make me less of a man, or more of a man to be my own individual, or just a really ugly lesbian with dangly bits?

 

[cloudy]

Does eschewing the status quo make me less of a man, or more of a man to be my own individual, or just a really ugly lesbian with dangly bits?

More of a man, as far as I'm concerned.

K cries, is sensitive enough to make me gasp at the beauty in his art, yet is all the more man for that.

I can use a hammer, can fix the water heater, and can work on car engines...does that make me less of a woman?

 

[Salvor-Hardon]

More of a man, as far as I'm concerned.

K cries, is sensitive enough to make me gasp at the beauty in his art, yet is all the more man for that.

I can use a hammer, can fix the water heater, and can work on car engines...does that make me less of a woman?

Exactly. Can we come up with traits that are masculine and feminine without being so narrow as to think men fix thing, women nutrture people?

 

[impressive]

Does eschewing the status quo make me less of a man, or more of a man to be my own individual, or just a really ugly lesbian with dangly bits?

Again, why does it matter? "Man" is just a label. It would seem that those who wish it to have significance are eager to define it, to slap arbitrary characteristics on it.

We're people. Our biological sex is largely inescapable. Why try to pigeonhole the rest?

(I like looking at naked women, too.)

 

[R. Richard]

The guy knocks up a woman and now decides that he wants no part of the rest of the scenario. The description is not that of a man, but a little boy playing games in an adult world. I would agree that he should have no further contact with the woman or child. He should, however, be forced to pay administrative costs: 1) ALL costs of enforcing the orders against contact; 2) reimbursement of the government cost of supporting the mother while she raises the child, including all hospitalization and health care costs; 3) a fine to give him cause to think about his actions [perhaps the direct costs of feeding, sheltering and training the child, at going rates.]

 

[ABSTRUSE]

"Is DNA a basis for parental responsibility?"

This is a brilliant question. There are people out there who are just DNA donors and lack what it takes to be a parent.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I'm a big fan of gender.

 

[Liar]

I can use a hammer, can fix the water heater, and can work on car engines...does that make me less of a woman?

I'm pretty useless with car engines. Does that make me more of a, uh, woman?

Or less of a man?

Or just less of a mechanic?

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I'm a big fan of gender.

ditto.

 

[cloudy]

I'm pretty useless with car engines. Does that make me more of a, uh, woman?

Or less of a man?

Or just less of a mechanic?

just less of a mechanic. Want lessons?

 

[Liar]

How about when it was said, explicitly, in advance that the man should not be the fathar?

here are two interresting cases where sperm donation has been challenged, from both perspectives:

Sperm Donor Challenges Parental Rights in Kansas
Posted on December 5, 2006 by Grant Griffiths

A sperm-donor's rights case will be addressed this week in the Kansas Supreme Court. A Kansas man who donated sperm to his friend wants to help raise the offspring. He's challenging a state law that says donors have no parental rights.

The suit, set for arguments concerns a Shawnee County man who donated sperm to a friend. The woman underwent artificial insemination and delivered twins in May 2005. The man argues that he always intended to act as a father to the children. No agreement was put into writing, however, and a judge later decided the man had no rights as a father.

That’s because Kansas law denies parental rights to sperm donors unless they have a written agreement with the mother specifying that they will act as father. The 1994 law was designed to protect children conceived through artificial insemination from frivolous custody disputes, as well as to safeguard donors from child support lawsuits.

The unmarried woman, who, like the donor, is identified only by initials in court documents, argues that she never intended to share parenting with the man. She chose the man, whom she had known for 10 years, because of his good medical history.

The man appealed his case to the high court, arguing that the law is unconstitutional. His attorney said a better law would require donors to sign an agreement waiving their rights as parents.

Linda Henry Elrod, a family law professor at Washburn University, filed a legal brief in which she sided with the donor. Elrod argues that to require a man to have a written agreement before he has parental rights over his biological children is to violate his constitutional rights. The law, she wrote, “cannot take away a constitutional right to be a parent” without due process. Elrod was my family law professor in law school. However, I have to disagree with her on this one. And it would appear others do too.

21 other family law experts across the country filed a brief supporting the woman. They argued that the Kansas law in effect protects the interests of children created through sperm donation, as well as the mothers and the donors, by requiring any agreements to be set down in writing.

One of those professors, Nancy Polikoff, a family law professor at American University, said “biology is not enough” to give the man parental rights. The law assumes the mother (and any husband or partner she might have) will have custody when it comes to children of sperm donors. Without the Kansas law, she said, women could face custody battles from donors, or donors could find themselves being asked to support a child they never intended to know.

I will keep you all posted on the outcome of the case before our Kansas Supreme Court when the decision comes down.

Sperm donor pays support
Filed under: Uncategorized — Lex | August 13, 2006 @ 6:58 pm (Views: 210)

Should a sperm donor be required to pay child support? Imagine a few situations before you make up your mind.

Suppose that you donated to a sperm bank with the understanding that all donors would be kept confidential and that the mothers have contractually agreed that all they want is the sperm and that they will never seek support. Suppose further that the mother dies in a car crash and the children are now wards of the state. The state has subpoened the records of the sperm bank and want support from the donor. What should happen? Does the welfare of the children outweigh any other consideration? What if your donation was used 500 times because your donor profile was attractive to the mothers? Should you pay support to 500 children?

A court in Pennsylvania has ruled that an agreement between the mother and donor was unenforceable because of "legal, equitable and moral principles." The same result would undoubtedly be reached in Louisiana in this same fact situation.

McKiernan (the donor), who has paid up to $1,520 a month in support since losing the case at trial, said he was not pleased with the ruling.

it kind of questions the whole concept, wouln't you say?

 

[Liar]

just less of a mechanic. Want lessons?

Want car to practice on.

 

[minsue]

here are two interresting cases where sperm donation has been challenged, from both perspectives

How very sad, in both cases.


As for gender roles etc, I have no interest in spending my entire life dancing backwards thankyouverymuch.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

McKiernan (the donor), who has paid up to $1,520 a month in support since losing the case at trial, said he was not pleased with the ruling.

I'm not pleased either. That's just wrong.

 

[Recidiva]

Whatever the law says, I've raised two children and never enforced child support.

Although I appreciate that money makes the world go round, it doesn't make my world go around and I don't want to teach my children that they're owed something. Entitlement is not the legacy I want to teach them. I chose to bear them, I chose to raise them, I chose to do that with my whole heart. Not my checkbook.

Parenthood is a gift, not a burden. Anyone who wants out, should be able to get out. Any woman who chooses to have a child, do so with your whole heart, or you do your children a disservice by assigning them a set "court value" to their existence.