Make sure to check out Rebecca Traister’s latest, Roe for men?, which takes on a lawsuit brought forward by the National Center for Men to try to establish reproductive rights for men. It’s a doozy.
Traister asks if the idea of men’s right to choose is a valid issue or simply a distraction from the insanity that is women’s repro rights these days.
With the suit, NCM hopes to establish that a man who unintentionally fathers a child has the right to decline financial responsibility for that child, a right based on the same principles laid out in the 1973 case that made abortion legal. According to the argument put forth by the team behind the suit, women are afforded more choices about reproduction than their male counterparts, which violates the 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the law.
The NCM is bringing the case forward on behalf of 25 year-old Matt Dubay, who says that he didn’t use birth control with his girlfriend because she assured him she couldn’t get pregnant. However, she did get pregnant and Dubay now pays $500 a month to support a child he says he never wanted.
There’s a whole lot to say on this issue, but my favorite response by far comes from Majikthise’s Lindsay Beyerstein:
According to the article, the National Center for Men had been waiting for an appropriate plaintiff for this lawsuit for ten years. And yet [Matt] Dubay's case is weak, even by the deadbeat dad lobby's standards. If he's the best test case they could find in a decade, it kind of makes you wonder if there are as many sperm-snatching snatches out there as the men's rights activists would have you believe.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Roe for men? Really?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/1842
As my spouse points out to me, this case has nothing to do with "reproductive rights" or Roe.
While in the womb, it's about the woman, and her choices and rights. No, it isn't necessarily "fair" - it's biology.
Out of the womb, it's about the rights of the *child* - and the state's interest in seeing that the *child* is supported, and does not become a burden on the state.
No Roe v. Wade, no "reproductive rights". The guy's lawyer is just throwing them up as a smoke screen. Nothing to do with 14th amendment, nothing to do with the "man's rights" vs. the "woman's rights".
great post, dreams. unfortunately, on this site, for some reason, it sometimes gives a "500" error when you post. this actually means that your posting has been accepted.
in any case, that was really succinct and well-put, so i didn't mind reading it again.
Actually, I think that case where the woman performed oral sex and moved the sperm to impregnate herself is a better case, but he wasn't even trying to argue that. I think he was claiming theft or something.
I think men should have better options to protect themselves from having to support children. A pill or something, but you mostly don't hear them clamoring for that. They can always keep it to themselves.
I dont see why men having a choice differs so greatly from women having a choice? My understanding is that part of the argument for reproductive rights is that hacing a child is a longterm commitment with many burdens, including ecnomoic burdens, and that it was not only a nine month commitment.
If this is so, then why should not men have the option to "opt out", and in the process removing any right or claim on the child?
I read the linked post by Majikthise’s Lindsay Beyerstein, and I am not sure it actually addresses the issue. I agree that it could mean that some women will choose to have an abortion given the financial situation, but at least both people understand their choices up front and it might limit the number of "dead beat dads" because men who dont want to be fathers can opt out. I also dont think this issue is limited to dead beat dads. Years ago I asked the same question in my women~s study class (that was a hard day) and the answer I was given was not satisfactory, as it translated to keep it in your pants. If we applied the same principle to women then only abortions for health risks or rape would be permitted.
Anyway, I think this is an interesting issue that should be discussed. Oh, and as for post about a pill for men, I have asked my doctor for it many times but it is not developed yet.
I love it! women want their rights, but don't want men to have equivalent rights for themselves. the fact feminists are poo pooing this lawsuit and making the tired "dead beat dad" claims.. i don't know, it is so hypocritical it really highlights the essence of something that is usually hidden and pushed down.
the battle for rights is often, frequently, done by activists promoting behind the scenes supporting an individual who chooses to take a stand. Most laws that gave women equal rights, the fight for minority rights, etc where done this way.. but now men do it, and its some kind of scam! beautiful.
As it stands, once a sperm hits the egg, a man is basically a slave to the woman who is carrying it. She has all choice, he has none. it is that fucking simple. Women SHould have the right to choose what they do, and men should too. anything less is anti male biggotry.
While Ephemeral makes a good point about males being able to opt out, thus giving up any right to the child, Jesus Jones Superstar reflects the usual male privelege that precludes him from understanding the false logic behind the "men's rights" movement. Men's "rights" in reference to family and child-rearing matters have never been in question. As a matter of fact, until about 100 years ago (or less), a man's children were every bit as much his property as was his wife. Hence, it is not "anti-male BIGOTRY" that drives feminists, but a need to prevent the reversion of women and children to chattel for male use.
I think this is where Catherine Mackinnon's work could help us better understand this debate. She writes about how in law treating men and women the same actually doesn't lead to equality. The problem, she points out, is that women are different than men -- as in they have the capability to bear children. This means that men don't have a comparable position (which is important as we look at things like pregnancy discrimination in the workplace and situations like this one) and so we can't look at discrimination in the same way. Her work is worth checking out. I think this is way more complicated than simply "reverse discrimination" against men.
That said, I agree that there are things we could do that would relieve these problems and providing men with a birth control pill is an excellent example. But short of that, it has to be a woman's choice. Otherwise a man could say he is not interested in supporting the baby, which virtually forces the woman (in many cases) to either abort (which so many people see as immoral and perhaps illegal) or raise the child "out of wedlock" (which yet again is the opposite of what most anti-feminist people want).