That's true, of course, but I don't think anyone is arguing that that's the case. It's that men (and only men) have to register for this largely hypothetical draft in order to be able exercise the right to vote, etc., and face a not-so-hypothetical prison sentence and huge fine if they fail to do so. If the first interaction an adult female had with the federal government was being told that the government essentially owns her but don't worry your pretty little head over it because we probably won't exercise our right of ownership, the cries of "Patriarchy!!!" would be defeaning.

Dont know where you live but it isnt like that at all in France, if a mother gives birth under X, she can get away with it, a man just cant do that, so the woman can choose to pay nothing for the child if she is under X, she has no legal obligation, even if the man gets custody, at the opposite, if she wants to raise the child, the man has a legal obligation and has to pay. So no, sorry, there is absolutely no equality here, it's totally unfair and should be changed. And i bet it's the same in your country but you dont know.

And about being seen as a coward, you got to be kidding if you think it's the same thing, never a woman will be seen like asshole because she leaves the child to adoption, while the man will be seen as the worst man ever if he doesnt respect his legal obligations, since the law says he must do it.

The thread title reads: (primarily USA focused). You should have mentioned your perpective comes from french laws if that's the case. I am from the US and no state I have lived at had a law stating women didn't have to provide support but men did. What the heck is" under X" suppose to represent? If your country has that as law I would like a source so I can read up on it. Most I could find is paternity tests are banned and that is wrong and should be changed.

When's the last time fathers have been called murders in your country when a women gets an abortion. A woman who in my country doesn't pay support for children or doesn't want her kids is seen way more terrible then a man who does the same, partly because of the sexist views that women are suppose to show love to their child and men not is understandable because men aren't as nurturing, while still  also being considered terrible.

So you don't see what's wrong with what I've bolded there?

Your facile approach to this whole issue betrays your lack of ability for critical thought. In your mind, 9 months of pregnancy is of equal worth to whatever uncapped financial obligation is imposed on a father? An obligation that in some jurisdictions can extend to 22 years, and may amount to as much as millions in child support? Is the father some sort of tortfeasor in your mind that must compensate the mother by way of "damages" through support now for impregnating her? Is every woman who brings a child to term not doing so willingly in this millenium?

Unequal treatment by the state has been judicially defined as "imposing a burden or witholding a benefit" from/on one class of person and not another ("class" being sex, sexual orientation, race, marital status, etc.) see Big M Drug Mart Canadian Supreme Court. If a custodial parent is not required by the state to provide their child with progressive financial support where that amount is tied to that parent's income, but a non-custodial parent is,  you have an unequal burden and thus discrimination and unequal treatment. I won't even get into the injustice of failing to provide fathers with a "legal abortion", but clearly I would agree with those who oppose your view on that issue.

Please find me the case where a single mother making 6 figures was jailed for buying her children's clothes at Walmart or depriving them of an Xbox One AND a PS4.

My approach is not facile. If what I said in that post seemed an understatment of the sitution it is because I have already spoken in this thread often and expressed deeper sentiment and reasoning. Not going to repeat everything I said again in every post. 

It's not just 9 months that woman has an finacial obligation to a child. Do women not have to support their kids where you live, only the men? Is there a case where a woman owed nothing but the man did? Just so you know my mother had to pay my father child support when he had custody of me. One having custody already doesn't equal one not having custody so why would you expect the way support is dictated would be the same for both? Do you not see the difference between one who directly feeds, clothes, takes to school, to the hospital, and provides shelter and one who writes a check?

What does your last sentence even mean or imply?

I'll guess our countries are different since France is the second most important feminist country in the world so women began to get big  advantages over men on a lot of subjects ... I thought birth Under X existed everywhere :  http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accouchement_sous_X

http://vosdroits.service-public.fr/particuliers/F3136.xhtml

Birth under X represents the right for a woman to give up the baby to the adoption services and be anonymous ( then she has no legal obligation and the child will never be able to find her ) , that's what is totally unfair , men have absolutely no similar right.

Here, a woman has the right to be coward, it's autorized by the law so it'sn ot seen negatively by people, at the opposite, man has no such right so if he decides to give up the child against the law, he is wrong to the eyes of everyone

Also in France a woman can have an unprotected affair, get pregnant, and the husband style have the same paternity obligations. Even a DNA test proving it's not your kid doesn't change that responsibility.

Are people here fighting for the right to legitimately abandon their child? Why would someone even want such a right? And it's not like there aren't many instances in society in which a man gets zero scrutiny but a woman is condemned, ridiculed, and jeered. You win some you lose some.

Yeah i just saw that, french laws are totally insane and dont care about the man rights when it comes to this kind of things.

A judge can decide that you are the father even without your DNA if he sees proofs you had sex with the woman at this period, that's so crazy

Yes, sorry if that disturbs you but men and women should have the same rights on this subject. Think a bit, maybe someone doesnt want a child for now, that's a fundamental right to refuse to be a father for life if you are not ready, if the women have that right, men should have it too without stupid persons saying "lol you didnt wear condom so now it's your responsability" women dont hear such stupid things since they have the right to choose  no condom(because yes, the choice is not only from the man, both are responsibles ) and still choose to give up the child despite that

Your other point is totally irrelevant, if we all thought like that, women would stil be unable to vote and to work because " they win in an other way so it's ok, everyone is happy with inequalities "