Sign up for a free recipe e-book →

Clarissa's Blog

Reproductive Coercion

Published by

Clarissa

on

I just found the most blatant example of hypocrisy I have seen in a long while:

Reproductive coercion is an abusive dynamic in intimate relationships in which one partner “pressures the other, through verbal threats, physical aggression, or birth-control sabotage, to become pregnant.” The instinct behind reproductive coercion is not primarily (or at all) a desire to create a baby, but to create a dependency in their partners. A woman (and it is overwhelmingly women who are victimized by reproductive coercion) is easier to control, if her independence and ability to make choices that exclusively prioritize her own needs are compromised in some way.

You have really got to be a dishonest and nasty piece of work to write something so obviously and offensively wrong. Does this stupid freakazoid somehow manage not to know how many pregnancies occur because women unilaterally decide they should occur? The differences in male and female physiology make it completely unnecessary for a woman to pressure or threaten the man to make a pregnancy happen. She can just quietly make her choice, and the man will have to accept it.

I don’t even want to tell you how many women aggressively and obnoxiously suggested to me that I get pregnant without asking for N.’s consent. (For some reason, they all assumed that I had no children at 30-35 because N. was unwilling, not because I might have been unprepared or uninterested.)

“That’s how I got my baby!” they would respond angrily to my suggestion that it was wrong to do something like this. “Would you have preferred for my son or daughter not to exist?”

This reality, however, has no space in the “women are always victims of everything” that Melissa McEwan and her crowd of self-righteous idiots like to promote.

P.S. For the especially gifted, I will reiterate that the way a child was conceived has no bearing on this child’s entitlement to child-support.

52 responses to “Reproductive Coercion”

  1. el Avatar
    el

    Just read:

    Russia’s Vladimir Putin and wife Lyudmila divorce
    …
    The couple, who had been married for 30 years, made their divorce public on Russian state television after attending a ballet performance.
    …
    The BBC’s Steve Rosenberg in Moscow says that tonight’s announcement confirms what had been rumoured for years, that the Putins were having marital problems.

    But the news has still come as a shock to many Russians, who are not used to their leaders getting divorced, our correspondent adds.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22806866

    Is the last sentence true, though? Stalin’s wife even committed suicide, which is worse than any divorce. And, unlike in US, in Russia I guess people would only laugh at the cheating story, right?

    Like

    Reply
    1. el Avatar
      el

      // And, unlike in US, in Russia I guess people would only laugh at the cheating story, right?

      I referred to the Clinton scandal.

      Like

      Reply
      1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
        bloggerclarissa

        “// And, unlike in US, in Russia I guess people would only laugh at the cheating story, right?

        I referred to the Clinton scandal.”

        – That whole thing was disgraceful. The American people made a laughing stock of themselves in the eyes of the whole world. I had just come to North America when it all happened, and I was completely shocked.

        Like

        Reply
    2. bloggerclarissa Avatar
      bloggerclarissa

      This is very civilized of them. I’m impressed! Politicians everywhere should learn from this example.

      I had no idea I would ever be positively impressed by anything Putin does.

      Like

      Reply
      1. el Avatar
        el

        Of course, it’s civilized. Whatever happened (or not) behind closed doors, Putin needs it to be civilized since he plans to stay in power for a long time to come and cares about PR. Any scandal would look bad.

        Like

        Reply
        1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
          bloggerclarissa

          The scandal about him and his illegitimate son with a gymnast has been in every newspaper and magazine for years. And it did nothing bad to his power.

          Like

          Reply
  2. David Gendron Avatar
    David Gendron

    In Québec, men have practiced reproductive coercion until the end of La Grande Noirceur, but in Occident, reproductive coercion by men is almost non existent actually, unless anti-abortion women-beaters like Jean-Guy Tremblay. In Occident, Reproductive coercion is practiced very mainly by women.

    I don’t buy this particular Radfem rhetoric. Their timetable seems to be stalled at 1950.

    Like

    Reply
  3. el Avatar
    el

    // The scandal about him and his illegitimate son with a gymnast

    While Putin was already married? Never heard of it.

    Another link:

    An 18 years old left wing anti-fascist activist, Clément Méric, a student at Sciences Po, was declared brain-dead this morning. He was attacked in the heart of Paris by skinheads.
    …
    Witnesses say that one of the gang had a Swastika tattoo and another had a Front National T-Shirt.

    Links between the murderers and the FN have been vigorously denied by Marine Le Pen this morning on the radio station, RTL.

    The FN leader then launched into what the Nouvel Observateur calls a “hallucinatory” defence of the far-right intellectual Dominique Venner who recently committed suicide outside Notre-Dame de Paris in protest at gay marriage.

    Clément Méric, Anti-Fascist, Killed by Far-Right in Paris.

    Have you heard of Dominique Venner before?

    Like

    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
      bloggerclarissa

      Google “алина кабаева” and you will see the whole story.

      “Have you heard of Dominique Venner before?”

      – No, horrible!

      Like

      Reply
      1. cliff arroyo Avatar
        cliff arroyo

        Dont’ worry, Femen noticed and decided to kick their nobel peace prize nominated campaign to convince the world that Ukrainian women are all insane, freakish exhibitionists with no sense of decorum, dignity or decency….

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2329072/Dominique-Venner-Outrage-Femen-protestor-mocks-Notre-Dame-suicide-posing-gun-mouth-DAY-right-wing-historian-killed-altar.htm

        In other news I would contribute to a fund to engineer and film a confrontation between Clarissa the femen freaks.

        Like

        Reply
        1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
          bloggerclarissa

          Sure, life in Ukraine is not easy. And sure, making a living can be harsh. But why do these women have to degrade themselves like this for money?

          I wouldn’t confront them because what could I say to people who have lost all human dignity?

          Like

          Reply
          1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
            bloggerclarissa

            And look how posed every shot is. I’m sure the creep had been practicing with a modeling coach for weeks before the event.

            Like

            Reply
  4. musteryou Avatar
    musteryou

    eep!

    http://unsanesafe.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/to-be-eternal-infant.html

    Like

    Reply
  5. Splodgey Avatar
    Splodgey

    I’m at a loss as to why this is hypocritical. It seems to me that the term “reproductive coercion” is too narrowly defined here — i.e., if we’re only talking about coercion of women, we should find another word. But saying that reproductive coercion of women is bad doesn’t exclude the possibility that reproductive coercion of men is bad.

    Like

    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
      bloggerclarissa

      The phrase I was disagreeing with is this: “it is overwhelmingly women who are victimized by reproductive coercion.” She isn’t simplys aying it’s bad. She is saying it prevails overwhelmingly.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Splodgey Avatar
        Splodgey

        Well, as she defines it — where one partner “pressures the other, through verbal threats, physical aggression, or birth-control sabotage, to become pregnant” — it IS overwhelmingly women who are victimized by it. I think the only reason she doesn’t say that it’s EXCLUSIVELY women who are victimized by reproductive coercion (again, as defined) is that she is conscientious about acknowledging the existence of transwomen and -men.

        In other words, someone who identifies as a man but has the reproductive biology of a woman could also be subject to reproductive coercion. Otherwise, it’s all women, because she defines the term in terms of coercing someone to become pregnant (which can only apply to people with uteri, etc.), as opposed to coercing someone to become a biological parent (which can apply to any fertile person).

        Like

        Reply
      2. Splodgey Avatar
        Splodgey

        In other, other words: I don’t think she’s making a statement about the relative prevalence of the reproductive coercion of cis-women and -men. The latter simply isn’t within the scope of the discussion.

        Like

        Reply
        1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
          bloggerclarissa

          Do you understand the meaning of the word “overwhelmingly”?

          Like

          Reply
      3. Splodgey Avatar
        Splodgey

        Of course I do. I just explained that I think she’s saying that reproductive coercion (defined as coercing someone to become pregnant) happens overwhelmingly to cis-women, with the remainder being directed at trans men.

        This is different from saying that reproductive coercion (defined as coercing someone to become a biological parent) happens overwhelmingly to cis-women rather than cis-men.

        Again, she’s very conscientious about defining women from the standpoint of gender identification, rather than reproductive biology. I’m confident that if one of us emailed her, she would confirm the interpretation I’m advancing here.

        Like

        Reply
        1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
          bloggerclarissa

          “Of course I do. I just explained that I think she’s saying that reproductive coercion (defined as coercing someone to become pregnant) happens overwhelmingly to cis-women, with the remainder being directed at trans men.”

          – We have already discussed at length why this idea is unsustainable.

          Like

          Reply
      4. Splodgey Avatar
        Splodgey

        We have? I don’t see it, in this post or comments, at least. I’m not sure how prior posts would be relevant, since the point I’ve raised is specific to a paragraph of text in a recent blog post on Shakesville. Sorry if I’m slow on the uptake, but can you please point me in the right direction?

        You do understand the concept of transexuality and cisexuality, right?

        Like

        Reply
        1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
          bloggerclarissa

          It has been discussed at length why cis-women are a lot more often perpetrators of reproductive coercion than cis-men. If you can’t see where it has been discussed in the thread and in the post, then you are trolling.

          Like

          Reply
      5. Splodgey Avatar
        Splodgey

        Just did a search of your blog and now see that of course you are familiar with these concepts, and are an advocate for trans people. Sorry, should have checked that first.

        I’m just genuinely at a loss as to why we’re not connecting on this point. You’ve said, in the OP and in comments, why you believe that it’s hypocritical and inaccurate to assert that it is women who are overwhelmingly victimized by reproductive coercion — and you seem to mean in relation to men. I’ve explained several times why I believe the assertion you are responding to is not the assertion that Melissa made. In other words, your interpretation of Melissa’s statement is different from mine. But if you’ve addressed why you think my interpretation is incorrect, I’m not seeing that.

        Like

        Reply
      6. Splodgey Avatar
        Splodgey

        I’m not addressing the relative prevalence of reproductive coercion by cis-women versus cis-men. I don’t believe Melissa is either. That’s my point.

        Like

        Reply
  6. Shakti Avatar
    Shakti

    The blogger seems to be referencing this study, if you follow her links and then google the study (Sorry I don’t have access to the full text — I don’t have access to academic databases). You can quibble with this person’s methodology, I’m sure.

    You cite anecdata in asserting that it’s the opposite. Are there studies which show that it’s mostly women who coerce men into having children?

    It is fucking gross that the women would actually lead their partners to believe they are using birth control when they aren’t and then boast about getting a baby that way.*

    *I’m assuming they weren’t suggesting that you have sex with someone unable to consent, because yikes. They probably have no problem with 40 Days and Night either

    Like

    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
      bloggerclarissa

      You know what I think of all these “studies.” Even the word itself makes me cringe. One can have a study to prove absolutely anything whatsoever.

      We can, however, proceed from the basic logic. Based on physiology, who will find this process easier, men or women? I think the answer is very obvious.

      Like

      Reply
      1. L Avatar
        L

        You’re argument appears to be:
        “Whoever has the easiest time engaging in reproductive coercion from a purely anatomical perspective will engage in it more often”
        +
        “Women have an easier time than men in engaging in reproductive coercion from a purely anatomical perspective”
        = “Therefore, women must be currently engaging in more reproductive coercion than men”
        I think this argument fails on the first premise. There are factors beyond anatomy to take into account. Men often have a sense of entitlement regarding the control of their girlfriend or wife’s body that woman seem to have less often. Men are socialized to be more aggressive, assertive and coercive than women. Women are socialized to be more conceding and more cooperative.

        Furthermore, a man who has an agreement with his girlfriend to use a condom only need a needle to cause a pregnancy and some guilt-tripping skills to prevent an abortion. This is relative to a woman who has that option, along with lying about birth control and the like. While the woman does has a slightly easier time, it’s not as if the anatomical ease gulf is particularly massive.

        This isn’t even taking into account that the sort of scum that would have his lover bear a child she didn’t really want would not be too likely to be above bullying, verbal abuse, threats, violence or rape.

        Like

        Reply
        1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
          bloggerclarissa

          “You’re argument appears to be:
          “Whoever has the easiest time engaging in reproductive coercion from a purely anatomical perspective will engage in it more often”
          +
          “Women have an easier time than men in engaging in reproductive coercion from a purely anatomical perspective””

          – People need means, motive and opportunity to engage in any behavior, don’t they?

          “Men often have a sense of entitlement regarding the control of their girlfriend or wife’s body that woman seem to have less often.”

          – There are much less extreme and costly means of having that control. Let’s remember that a pregnant woman’s body begins to be controlled by something quite alien to both the man and the woman right after conception.

          “Men are socialized to be more aggressive, assertive and coercive than women. Women are socialized to be more conceding and more cooperative.”

          – – And women are socialized to be sneaky, manipulative and to get a sense of social value through childbirth.

          “Furthermore, a man who has an agreement with his girlfriend to use a condom only need a needle to cause a pregnancy and some guilt-tripping skills to prevent an abortion.”

          – I know a person who was born as a result of this trick. But outside of countries where abortion is illegal, this is impracticable. Unless the person sticking holes in a condom is a woman. Then the method would work.

          “While the woman does has a slightly easier time, it’s not as if the anatomical ease gulf is particularly massive.”

          – Slightly??? A man has no real options at all. What can he do? Beg, cajole, offer gifts? That’s about it. A woman only needs to flush a pill down the toilet and then not abort. Let’s try to be at least a little bit realistic here. I can’t even imagine anything anybody could have done to make me get pregnant against my will save kidnapping me and locking me in a basement. I, however, could have achieved that with extreme ease and zero effort involved.

          Like

          Reply
      2. Stille (@aperfectbalance) Avatar
        Stille (@aperfectbalance)

        I could imagine reproductive coercion with women being the victims being accomplished by financial coercion. Apparently, getting an abortion in some parts of America requires travelling (sometimes overnight) to the couple places that do offer abortion in that state, then either staying there for the legally mandated 24-72h between asking for an abortion and getting it or travelling back home and then back to the clinic again. A poor woman may not be able to obtain the funds in time, especially if the abuser has been cutting her away from family&friends who may help her.

        Like

        Reply
        1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
          bloggerclarissa

          Many things need to come together for such a scenario to work. In comparison, throwing away birth control pills is a lot more accessible to a lot more people.

          Like

          Reply
      3. Stille (@aperfectbalance) Avatar
        Stille (@aperfectbalance)

        Agreed. Of course the majority of people using reproductive coercion are women.

        Like

        Reply
        1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
          bloggerclarissa

          The real issue here is that the reason why women do it is that there are two central means of female fulfillment in any patriarchal society: the most crucial one is being in a romantic relationship and the secondary one is making babies. Nothing substitutes for these two activities in terms of proving a woman’s value to her peers. This is where the root of the problem lies. It isn’t like women who coerce these pregnancies are necessarily that interested in having children. They are simply fulfilling their second most important social role.

          This is why the way in which Melissa McEwan formulates her argument ends up by being detrimental to her own declared cause of liberating women from the “you need to make babies at any cost” mentality.

          Like

          Reply
    2. Splodgey Avatar
      Splodgey

      Of course I do. I just explained that I think she’s saying that reproductive coercion (defined as coercing someone to become pregnant) happens overwhelmingly to cis-women, with the remainder being directed at trans men.

      This is different from saying that reproductive coercion (defined as coercing someone to become a biological parent) happens overwhelmingly to cis-women rather than cis-men.

      Again, she’s very conscientious about defining women from the standpoint of gender identification, rather than reproductive biology. I’m confident that if one of us emailed her, she would confirm the interpretation I’m advancing here.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Splodgey Avatar
        Splodgey

        Oops, put this in the wrong place. Now copied to the right place.

        Like

        Reply
  7. David Bellamy Avatar
    David Bellamy

    On the other side of this discussion, I know more than one man who has had a secret vasectomy because he does not want children and his wife/partner does.

    Like

    Reply
  8. Wirbelwind Avatar
    Wirbelwind

    A little bit offtopic, but I have to vent somewhere about this.
    It is quite often brought up if feminist circles that women were slaves to men for thousands of years, they controlled their reproductive choices etc.
    What people don’t want to remember is that basically 90% of pre-industrial society were basically slaves (because this is what being a serf is; serfdom was abolished in the second half of XIX century in Eastern Europe !).
    I have no idea why people like to think of themselves as descendants of nobles, or kings, or wealthy craftsmen. Vast majority of us are children of serfs or poor townsfolk.
    Rant over 🙂

    Like

    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
      bloggerclarissa

      You are telling me! No matter what I say, my students refuse to hear that women always worked, that the vast majority of families historically couldn’t even conceive of affording a non-working wife, that birth control was varied and women used it extensively in the Middle Ages, and that, as you say, the majority of people lived in abject misery and enslaved until quite recently in historic terms.

      Students seem to believe that Leave It to Beaver is an accurate representation of what the history of humanity was for millenia.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Wirbelwind Avatar
        Wirbelwind

        Yeah, it’s like believing that life in South America is just like it is presented in soap operas. And non-working wives are a recent phenomenon, in Poland basically present only for a short time (let’s say 1947-1989). Having a willingly non-working wive when about 50% of young adults are unemployed and general unemployment is around 17% is suicidal.

        Like

        Reply
        1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
          bloggerclarissa

          “Yeah, it’s like believing that life in South America is just like it is presented in soap operas. And non-working wives are a recent phenomenon, in Poland basically present only for a short time (let’s say 1947-1989). Having a willingly non-working wive when about 50% of young adults are unemployed and general unemployment is around 17% is suicidal.”

          – Exactly! So you have youth unemployment rates similar to Spain’s? That’s tough. 😦 😦

          Like

          Reply
    2. Stille (@aperfectbalance) Avatar
      Stille (@aperfectbalance)

      “Basically” slavery does not mean slavery. Slavery was also abolished in the second half of the XIXth century in my part of Eastern Europe, and, while my ancestors were pretty mistreated, they could still marry freely, not be sold as cattle (they were tied to the land and the ownership of the land could change, but there’s quite a difference from that and being sold) and any harm to them would be punished by the same laws that punished harm done to people who weren’t serfs. None of this applied to the Roma population, however, and I’d feel like a complete tool pretending that what my ancestors went through and what the Roma went through are “basically” the same thing.

      Like

      Reply
      1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
        bloggerclarissa

        Serfs in my part of Eastern Europe were slaves for all intents and purposes. They were sold, raped, tortured, separated from their families at the owner’s whim and could not choose whom to marry.

        Like

        Reply
      2. Stille (@aperfectbalance) Avatar
        Stille (@aperfectbalance)

        Got it. I’m curious, though, did Ukraine have a sizeable Roma population? The Roma showed up in the area currently occupied by Romania at about the time the Asian invasions stopped and power hierarchies stopped being upended every time another horse tribe showed from the East, and the presence of an enslavable population that was “not us” racially, ethnically, linguistically and religiously might explain why serfdom was much less nasty in this area. I must admit knowing very little about the subject though, so if anyone can tell me more (or what would be a good source to find out more from), I’d appreciate it.

        Like

        Reply
        1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
          bloggerclarissa

          Yes, we did and we do still. There was always a lot of prejudice against the Roma people and there was even this hugely popular Soviet TV series aimed at promoting tolerance towards the Roma.

          Like

          Reply
  9. Shakti Avatar
    Shakti

    I just find it strange that nobody can produce a study to back up this supposedly overwhelming truth that women trap men into having babies rather than the other way around. People have studies to prove supposedly overwhelming truths all the time (see evolutionary psychology).

    I think such a study would have to separate out men who just decided to have unprotected sex because their partners said, “I’m using a non barrier birth control method” from men and men who were “I don’t want to be a dad but it’s not my responsibility to use a condom” from guys whose condoms were sabotaged. Yes, there’s about two birth control methods.

    . By the logic you stated in another post, those poor men should have just abstained from PIV, or used a condom or gotten a vasectomy, instead of trusting that their partners were deploying birth control correctly, when they decided to have sex. You mocked some other histrionic woman for believing or taking on faith initially that her partner was monogamous when he said he was monogamous.

    The victims in both of these situations made the mistake of assuming their partners were trustworthy.

    Further, if there was some epidemic of babies resulting from women deliberately “oopsing” their birth control, wouldn’t there be more options for dudes now? Because it would be in their self interest. RISUG (or something like it) would be an option (cheap, effective, reversible, doesn’t fuck with hormones). Why isn’t it?

    Like

    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
      bloggerclarissa

      “By the logic you stated in another post, those poor men should have just abstained from PIV, or used a condom or gotten a vasectomy, instead of trusting that their partners were deploying birth control correctly, when they decided to have sex. You mocked some other histrionic woman for believing or taking on faith initially that her partner was monogamous when he said he was monogamous.”

      – I agree completely that these men are idiots. Anybody who is in a relationship with a person who’d do this to them deserves all he gets. These men are immature losers to the same degree that woman is. The only difference is that in her case, no innocent third party suffers.

      “Further, if there was some epidemic of babies resulting from women deliberately “oopsing” their birth control, wouldn’t there be more options for dudes now?”

      – Let’s remember that a woman bears almost all of the burden for carrying a child to term, delivery, the health risks, breastfeeding, loss of income, loss of career prospects, the social costs of choosing not to raise the child, etc. The social, financial, emotional and physiological cost of a baby for a man is almost non-existent compared to all that.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Wirbelwind Avatar
        Wirbelwind

        We have a saying “widziały gały co brały” meaning: “you saw what you were taking”.
        It never ceases to amaze me that people marry somebody who is KNOWN to be a drug addict, or a wife beater, or a thief and an alcoholic and somehow believe they will magically change. Just like with the woman and that cheating man in the article on Feministe. I mean, really ?

        Like

        Reply
  10. el Avatar
    el

    Another law link:
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/kyanonymous-fbi-steubenville-raid-anonymous

    // If convicted of hacking-related crimes, Lostutter could face up to 10 years behind bars—far more than the one- and two-year sentences doled out to the Steubenville rapists. Defending himself could end up costing a fortune—he’s soliciting donations here. Still, he thinks getting involved was worth it. “I’d do it again,” he says.

    Even if one sees Lostutter as a huge criminal, how can reporting of a committed crime be 10 times worse than committing it?

    Like

    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
      bloggerclarissa

      Federal crimes all carry much higher penalties than non-federal crimes. It makes no sense to compare them.

      Of course, the sentences to the rapists were shockingly low, but that’s a different issue.

      Like

      Reply
  11. NancyP Avatar
    NancyP

    “Reproductive coercion” does exist. One scenario of interest to feminists is the situation that faces many poor unmarried women, in which the man undermines the woman’s efforts at avoiding pregnancy by hiding or throwing out her birth control pills. The woman can’t buy more pills, the man won’t use a condom, and if she gets pregnant, she can’t afford an abortion. She may be dependent on the man for housing or other expenses. She may be afraid of leaving the man – physically abusive men may become murderous if the woman leaves.
    Hard as it is for middle-class women to imagine, obtaining $350.00 in a short period of time is difficult for a poor woman who may have a hard time just paying the rent. A great many poor people do not have well-off relatives or friends who can provide money for emergencies. Notice that Medicaid will not pay for abortions unless the woman’s life is in danger. There are privately funded abortion assistance funds that will provide part or all of the cost of an abortion for indigent women, but typically there isn’t enough money to help all of the women who find out about the charity through Planned Parenthood. A lot of the eligible women don’t even go to PP because they know they can’t pay for the abortion themselves, and they never find out about the possibility of partial or complete financial assistance. Planned Parenthood can’t afford to give away its services because they are trying to keep the price of abortion down to a minimum. Those who seek abortion are disproportionately young and poor. The middle class women who could afford to spend slightly more money are relatively effective at using birth control, so poor patients can’t be “subsidized” by middle class patients.

    Like

    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
      bloggerclarissa

      THis is all true. However, even if we assume that women can’t find the money for an abortion in 95% of cases (which is obviously not true, but let’s assume it is), men cannot do anything about an unwanted pregnancy in 100% of cases (AND RIGHTFULLY SO). 95% is still smaller than 100%. Ergo, I have proven my case.

      It is curious how deeply ingrained the idea of women as perennial victims has become that I have to spend so much time proving, basically, that a pregnancy happens inside a woman’s body. Because this is the crux of our discussion here.

      Like

      Reply
  12. NancyP Avatar
    NancyP

    Men, whether married or not married to the women they impregnate, can avoid all consequences simply by being unemployed or in the criminal trades. The little effort put into enforcing child support is directed to absent fathers who are legally obliged (married to the woman during the approximate time of conception), and who have steady wages/ salaries from employers who can be compelled to garnish said wages/ salaries. Even under these circumstances, public prosecutors don’t pursue these cases vigorously due to overall high workload. Expensive genetic tests are required to establish paternity in the case of men not married to the women they impregnate. These child support cases have to be initiated and entirely funded by the mother, and the mother often doesn’t have enough income to hire a lawyer and pay for the paternity tests if the family court judge is willing to order the putative father to provide a DNA sample.

    Like

    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
      bloggerclarissa

      Now this is indisputable. This is why I say that the costs of a pregnancy to women are enormous and for men they are negligible.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment

A conservative literary critic and college professor

Recent posts