5 Legal Rights Women Have That Men Don’t (primarily USA focused)

[Jlaff]

Mr Khan said:

Jlaff said:

And women can avoid abortion by wearing a condom so... It's silly to think the condom is the responsibality of the man only, the condom is the responsability of both.

The law can easily be changed, at least just by letting the man choose to not be the father of the child, be " under X " without being forced to do anything, like they allow for women even if the woman wants him to recognize the child and pay for him. If the woman has the choice to legally not take care of her child and give him up without being guilty and called coward, a man shouuld have that choice too

Why do people think men have no choices? If the mother doesn't want the child (not meaning abortion) the father has a right to full custody or putting the kid up for adoption. If he gets custody he would also get child-support from the mother. You got be kidding yourself if you think that women who put up for adoption or abort their child aren't thought of as cowardly.

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.

This is because of the problem of deadbeat parents, post-divorce. They had to be "harder" on non-custodial parents simply because of the long history of the deadbeat dad (though i don't doubt there were more than a few deadbeat moms as well). I understand that the laws certainly look unfair, but consider this: if we loosened the guidelines for child support payments, how many people would choose to pay the bare minimum? If there was an option to find a legal way out, how many people would just take it, and then the old deadbeat parent problem comes back.

The options are not uncapped progressive support payments (which can and do amount to millions in a number of cases) and the bare minimum. Further, until you require a custodial parent to do anything but the bare minimum (cloth, feed, send to school) then you can't require more from a non-custodial parent. Many custodial parents through child support are able to extinguish their personal financial obligation to their children entirely AND end up with a significant financial windfall.

The logic of that argument would also agree with stop and frisk laws for black people because they are convicted per capita as a race of more crimes than white people. The state is not to treat anyone in a prejudicial manner. You can't give custodial parents as a class of people the benefit of the doubt while assuming the worst of non-custodial parents and nailing them to the wall. Think about it.

And I base that previous paragraph on your assumption that "dead beats" abandoning their children is true. The courts and lawmakers of the 80s-90s were fooled by many radical feminist scholars/writers when most of these laws were implemented. This has been recognized by legal scholars - Google "The Divorce Revolution Fraud/Debunked/Hoax etc." for an example. So the idea that men en masse were abandoning their children and ex-wives to a life of poverty has been greatly exagerrated. Unfortunately most of the current laws still operate under these false assumption.