Dalrock: asking the wrong question

Dalrock has a great post on the continuing blog discussion over men’s (lack of) reproductive rights. Tangental note: I’ve stopped reading Althouse posts, so I don’t know if she’s bothered to respond to anything (though I doubt she has); the commentariat was the best part of her community, and her turning off the comments has rendered her blog not worth bothering with. Having taken herself out of the conversation, I have no particular desire to hear her reiterate her position, “the public policy status quo is just fine and anyone who suggests otherwise is a whiner.”

From Dalrock’s post:

Simply put, the purpose of child support is to replace marriage.  Discussing how it should be implemented is discussing how to replace marriage. … Child support crowds out marriage, and even in cases where weddings still technically occur the option for the wife to unilaterally convert the family from a marriage based family to a child support based family always exists.  This is part of the threatpoint designed to empower wives and dis-empower husbands.  Men simply don’t have the option to choose the marriage based model over the child support model.

And this is why the current policy status quo, offering women the choice between two models, is no good. In the traditional view of marriage, a woman received the financial benefits of marriage and was correspondingly required to uphold her marital duties to her husband in return. With the invention of the child support model to replace marriage, women still receive the benefits of marriage from the men… but without any corresponding duties placed upon them. Half the equation has been cut off and thrown in the trash bin: men are still required to perform all the duties of husband and father (the law requires his financial investment, though it stops short from compelling his physical presence in his children’s lives, as such a requirement might interfere with a woman’s right to cast the father of her children out of her life while simultaneously demanding payment from him. In place of the law compelling his physical and emotional involvement, social pressures are brought to bear upon him, and any man who fails in this manner is branded a “deadbeat” and “not a man” – even though the person responsible for his fatherhood, i.e. the woman, is never criticized for her poor judgment in choosing an unsuitable mate or publicly pressured to make sure her children have access to their fathers even if it inconveniences her.)

Basically, feminism triumphed in throwing off social expectations that women give in return for getting: now, women have an entitled attitude in which they believe the mere possession of a functioning uterus justifies their chosen lifestyles being supported by the taxpayer (i.e., men in general) – while declaring that nobody has a right to so much as gently criticize any decision they might make. Meanwhile, men are faced with a society that now not only demands that each father financially support any woman who bears his child (with or without his consent or knowledge) but that refuses to offer him any benefit in return. Not even legally-mandated access to his own children. In essence, the old deal was that women would constrain their sexuality in return for men giving them financial security for themselves and their offspring independent of the women’s own personal income. The current situation is that women are still given, by force of law, full access to men’s finances (over and above their own income), but they are no longer required to constrain their sexuality in the least. But of course, if a man doesn’t want to bear the burden of parenthood, “he should just keep it in his pants.”

So, in order to rectify the imbalances, society could give men equality by offering them an equivalent to the abortion/adoption get-out-of-child-support-free card: this would give men at least an equal right to as much promiscuous sex as women currently possess, though it doesn’t offer any equivalent subsidy of the baby-rabies in the form of welfare as women currently have. This would require the full cost of child welfare payments to be borne by the taxpayer. A lot of people would have a problem with this (“Men are getting out of supporting their offspring!”) but let’s get real, here: no woman anywhere in this country is ever required to support her offspring. She always has an out, and the taxpayer is already picking up the tab for her choices.

Of course, the other obvious solution is “bad” and “misogynistic” and “mean-spirited” and means “you want children to starve on the streets!” – make women pick up the tab for their children themselves, if they can’t get the prospective father to consent to the duties of fatherhood. No subsidies for women’s choices cloaked in “for the children!” rhetoric. Your body, your choice, you pay for it.

But any time anyone suggests that maybe women ought to pay for their own choices, the feminists start screaming about “taking women’s rights away” – as if it were a right for women to have other people pay their bills. Or the compassion-whores start talking about child support as “for the good of the child” as if a society organized to encourage women to have lots of “consequence-free” promiscuous sex and become multiple-babymommas by multiple babydaddies and live in welfare-land ghettos filled with gang activity and failing schools and a toxic underclass culture is good for the children?! You can’t have your pretty picket-fence middle-class divorce-with-shared-custody-and-child-support fantasy without the ugly underbelly, and the kids are NOT okay. Not even if you’re rich enough to pretend that they are. In the current policy climate, the kids are already screwed. Find some other solution. And maybe think about reforming CPS and the foster care system, while you’re at it, ’cause the kids are getting screwed there, too.


About pancakeloach

pancakeloach.wordpress.com :)
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Dalrock: asking the wrong question

  1. Dalrock says:

    Thanks for the kind linkage.

    On the Althouse affair, is there a cliff notes version of what happened somewhere? I’ve seen several references to it now, but since I don’t follow her blog I don’t know the backstory.

    • pancakeloach says:

      I wasn’t paying a great deal of attention to it, but apparently the comment flame wars got so bad that she felt she had to shut it down completely rather than opt out of responding. The “regulars” among the commenters over there include several antagonistic personalities coming from a pretty broad spectrum of political backgrounds, so whenever Ann threw out some red meat to them the comments regularly reached into the hundreds and generally eventually devolved into some pretty entertaining bitchfests complete with ad hominem attacks. Given that level of “acceptable” hot discourse, I have to say I expect the flamewar got really, extremely bad – she said something about new people coming in due to the Insty exposure and behaving poorly. I wasn’t really interested in reading the bitchfests at that point so I didn’t follow them myself after reading through the initial discussion thread, gotta watch my own blood pressure too! 😉 I don’t know why she didn’t just ban people who crossed the line. Given her blogging style is deliberately provocative and she interacted with her community of readers via comments fairly often, I thought she enjoyed the debates. That was all I was really interested in on her blog – the way people with multiple viewpoints would argue over the occasional serious topic she gave them – so since comments closed down I haven’t been following her blog at all and probably won’t know if she opens them back up again, unless Insty links the post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s