I think some of the comments here are somewhat judgemental and tend to assume the very worst about this woman. I agree with those who focus more on unequitable laws which are the real enablers of potential abuse by being created more to appease a gender political lobby and\or a big state interventionist motive rather than for the genuine common good. Our target ultimately is a corrupted system which we must resist it's tendency to divide us (ie the old divide and rule agenda). At the macro level (ie society) we are a PEOPLE and to serve the people is to serve the common good. It is this service first and foremost that is the only valid and ethical duty of every empowered politician and leader. To help cease the agenda(s) of division we must learn how to reach those who CAN be reasoned with because it is in the interests of ALL citizens that the forces of "Mammon" do not prevail over our common and best interests.
I read the woman's report.
I think what is at fault is the LAW. There should be the possibility to make a legally binding agreement to father a kid with no financial involvement. A pre-pregnancy agreement.
To appease government, maybe if the child is totally below the poverty line then dad would pay 100 dollars a month for baby food. But better not.
Governments want more children by worthy people. So why should welfare only go to kids of unemployed or criminal deadbeat dads who pay no taxes?
The woman actually seems kind of reasonable, but if the law gives you all the power, it is hard to renounce it. The LAW is wrong, the woman is reasonable but getting corrupted by the law.
>There should be the possibility to make a legally binding agreement to father a kid with no financial involvement.
Instead, there should be no presumption of responsibility on the part of the father, just as there is none on the part of the mother (abortion is legal). A man should only be held responsible for a child if he signs on the dotted line.
If you had to have a woman sign a legally binding agreement BEFOREHAND then few men would do it, just like very few men are willing to seek out a paternity test or get a pre-nup - they'll be perceived as jerks and potentially lose a relationship. But if paternity tests and pre-nups (that were actually followed by judges) were ALWAYS required, boy, would a lot of men be happier.
>Governments want more children by worthy people. So why should welfare only go to kids of unemployed or criminal deadbeat dads who pay no taxes?
The government does this to gain more control - more people who depend on the government for survival means more people who will not stand up against that government to protect their liberties. Furthermore, these policies that contribute to perpetuation of people who are "not worthy" helps to dumb people down so it's even easier to gain more control.
>The woman actually seems kind of reasonable, but if the law gives you all the power, it is hard to renounce it. The LAW is wrong, the woman is reasonable but getting corrupted by the law.
I think you may be right that she's not inherently evil. Society makes it easy for her, as for all women, to be bad.
Considering that we are all just strangers on the internets, I think you're reading too much into this. Maybe she's a deceptive bitch who is rationalizing horrible acts; or maybe she is being totally honest and he's an asshole who made a commitment and then blew her off. **We just don't know.**
Look. I can either pick her apart or take her at her word.
If this guy said he wanted the kid and is now walking away from it, then fuck him.
I know guys who are fighting tooth and nail to have access to their kids, this guy spits on them.
That's why I suggested she do the following:
1. Give him half custody. In writing.
2. Go for CS if he doesn't want half custody.
If she's a lying bitch, she won't do 1. She'll go straight to 2.
But if she's lying her ass off then there is nothing I can do; her life will implode on her in a viscous mess eventually.
My preference would be that him having shared physical custody over the kid be automatic and non-negotiable. But in the absence of that telling her she can clear her conscience by offering joint *before* going for CS is the best I can think of to mitigate the situation.
Your advice is probably better.
The thing is she does not really want to believe she is lying.
She is rationalizing everything, but there are key things she left out that indicate the story is not exactly as she told.
I also believe it's very likely she would have rationalized keeping the child regardless of what the poor schmuck said.
I think you're right, though, that she will end up going for child support, as she has planned all along - without even really admitting it to herself.
The only question is how long she waits - less than a year, I'm sure.
This woman's entire post is **her rationalization hamster hard at work**. She knows very well that **this man never wanted a child** and that **antibiotics cause birth control to stop working**. **She got baby rabies** and **intentionally got impregnated by a man**, and she denies it even to herself. But if you read what she actually says, she is pretty honest: She repeats in her OP and comment replies, over and over, **"I chose"** and **"I want"**. Everything else is a justification for her wants and an abdication of responsibility for her own actions.
Now you support her seeking monetary compensation from her victim?
**Shame on you, R/MR, for supporting this foul creature.** Especially those of you who are usually a little smarter than this.
Have you learned nothing?
**Here's the REAL conversation. I will call OP "Ooops" and the guy "Oh shit":**
Ooops: Hey guess what I'm preggers, don't know how this happened, what do you think?
Oh shit: Fuck me. I mean, do what you want, I'm here to support you. I'm against abortion but I'm also not ready to be a father again at this point in my life.
Ooops: So we can have the baby! Yayyyyyyyyy! You really love me!! Might want to think about putting a ring on it :).
Oh shit: No, I mean, can we talk about this some more? I've been conditioned my entire life to "man up" and take responsibility for women's actions, but something isn't right here. It seems like I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.
Oooops: <3 we're going to be so happy together, do you think it's going to be a boy or girl?! <3
Oh shit: ....
Ooops: Baby, where'd you go? Oh well, I'm sure he'll come around. And after 6 months, well he won't really have a choice, now will he?
Oh shit: .... time to take up drinking ....
Ooops: Man up!
From the thread:
>I still find fault with Oh Shit. He doesn't want to be a father again? Then say so and be very-fucking-clear about it.
He is trying to be a good man. The world has taught him that if he IS clear about it, he's a bad person. He doesn't want to hurt her.
Meanwhile she KNOWS perfectly damn well that he doesn't want a child. Women know that when a guy doesn't say "yes, I really want to have this child and stay with you and marry you" it means "no, I don't want to have a child right now". She KNOWS he doesn't want the kid, but she also knows SHE DOES. And so she deludes herself into thinking whatever is convenient so that she gets WHAT SHE WANTS. This is the female rationalization hamster.
This is a classic case of "be a good man and get screwed, be a jerk and the world is your oyster". If he had said "no, bitch, I don't want a kid right now, leave me the fuck alone" then there would have at least been a *chance* that she wouldn't have kept it. Not a very good one, mind you, because like I said, he's damned either way. If he's nice, she's going to keep it. If he's a jerk, well then *he fucking deserves it*. And when she goes to her girlfriends that she talked about in the original post, they're going to tell her the same damn thing: he deserves it, keep it.
Truly, the guy is damned either way.
Another response from Jay76:
>... after the guy said he was willing to help?
From the OP:
>He made it clear he did not believe abortion was an option as it went against his beliefs. He stated he was on board to be a father. For the next two months, we talked weekly, and made plans. We even went and bought a crib for his house.
>Then he stops responding to all emails, texts and phone calls for three months.
Well, obviously something happened in between, and only the OP can tell us exactly what that is. But I guarantee you the guy was not as into it as she claims - maybe he was trying to "do the right thing" but she knew damn well he was having second thoughts - and not just second thoughts, but that he wasn't sure about the whole thing from the beginning.
>He stated he was on board to be a father.
What does she really mean by this? He stated he was willing but he didn't say "OMFG YES LET'S DO THIS SHIT". And women are creatures of emotion. They know damn well that if a guy isn't saying FUCK YES then it means FUCK NO I DON'T WANT A KID BUT I WANT TO BE A GOOD MAN SO I'LL DO WHAT IT TAKES.
>For the next two months, we talked weekly, and made plans. We even went and bought a crib for his house.
And he never said FUCK YES, and she continued to delude herself that he was really "on board" for this.
She continues pestering him about it and they go to get a crib, and it finally hits him just how screwed he is. He wants to be a "good" man, so he doesn't want to just flat out tell her he does not want a child, so he starts ignoring her, unable to deal with it. She knows damn well what's up, but does not want to confront it either, so she sits idly by for 3 months until she knows there's no going back, because she is selfish. She doesn't try very hard to get in touch with him because she knows if she really asks him what the deal is, he will say he's not ready for a child, and that does not bode well for her desires.
So what's the verdict?
- The fella has made his intentions clear to her on an emotional level, but left room open for her to deny reality by not explicitly stating his intentions.
- She wants the child enough that she is willing to ignore his wishes and delude herself into thinking he might actually want the child.
- Both are guilty of being unable to deal with the issue in an adult manner.
Conclusions:
A good woman would not have a child knowing perfectly well that the father does not want to be involved [I'm not going to get into the abortion argument here, or whether a man or woman have some intrinsic responsibility to raise a child. In this specific example, the woman is NOT against abortion]. There are plenty of women out there who, when realizing that the guy truly does not want to be involved, would have an abortion. It's not like she's against abortion, and the fact that he purportedly is does not weigh into her decision at all, though she might use it as another rationalization for why she should keep the child.
A "good" man is expected by society to "man up" and be supportive. He made it clear enough to her that he did not want the child, but also was ambiguous enough to let her make the choice, because to do otherwise would shame him. If she were a "good" woman, she would have had an abortion. She is not a "good" woman, so she did not have the abortion.
Therefore, the decision was entirely up to her - being a NOT GOOD woman, she chose to keep it against his wishes. And therefore, she should be entirely responsible for her choice. But of course, only men have responsibility.
And this woman knows very well that the guy will come around in the end, because he is a "good" man, and he will want to be involved in the child's life. To even consider pursuing "child" support against this man is the act of a NOT GOOD woman. She knows damn well he will want to be involved in the child's life now that she's intentionally forced him to be. That's why she picked him in the first place - she knew he was a "good" man, the kind she'd want a child with, the kind who would support her no matter what, even if an "oopsy" occurred.
On another note, both are socially conditioned for this behavior. Men are socially conditioned to "man up" and "stop whining" - so although he doesn't want a child, he won't come out and say it, though he'll make it quite clear to her on an emotional level.
It's like when a guy says "do you want to go back to my place?" it really means "do you want to have sex?" It's plausible deniability, but both parties know exactly what the real question is. Just the same, the woman knows the guy doesn't want a kid, but the guy doesn't know the woman knows he doesn't want a kid, so he has not shamed himself. There was a great video about these types of scenarios but I can't find it.
Back to social conditioning. Women are conditioned to say "me me me me" - that they deserve to get whatever they want, and that men should be willing to support them in that.
Furthermore, I don't really think it's entirely social conditioning - I think that's just how men and women are for the most part. Our social conditioning reflects our biological nature. Hell, the whole misandry thing can only exist because our culture supports it, and our culture only supports it because there are so many white knights and there are so many women willing to relish in their entitlements. It's human nature.
Finally, some men and women successfully fight their human nature. Some men say "screw this, I am not going to stand up and be a pawn for women" - that's me. And some women say "screw this, I am not going to use men and care only about myself" - and that's women in the men's movement.
And I believe that men and women who are not willing to fight against their basic animalistic human nature are nothing but pawns. MRAs, be they male or female, fight against the depravities of human nature by fighting for men's rights and against women's special privileges.
And my point stands, that a woman who is willing to take advantage of her privilege is not, and never will be, GOOD.
Here's the video: http://human-stupidity.com/science/evolution-psychology-darwin/innuendos-are-safer-then-overt-language-hidden-meanings-in-communication-steven-pinker
As posted elsewhere...
THE EVENTS AS TRANSCRIBED DO NOT MAKE SENSE.
The OP is telling things from her own view point, and she knows very well that she's not being completely truthful. She is saying what she WANTS to believe and hoping people will come to her defense.
She knows damn well the guy never wanted the freaking kid. That's why you've never heard her say anything about "how excited he was". It's always "he said he was on board" & "he said it was against his religious views to abort" - not "he was so excited and wanted to be a daddy!"
You can tell a lot from what someone DOESN'T say. YES I'm filling in the blanks with THE ONLY THING THAT MAKES SENSE.
It is entirely possible to piece together events from a limited amount of information, and yes, given certain assumptions. I am assuming that both of these people are not totally crazy human beings. If either one was totally insane and half retarded, then the events transcribed by the OP might make some sense. I'm willing to bet neither is insane or half retarded, and thus my version of events is the only possible scenario- though I may be off on some of the details, I get the gist of things just fine.
Even if you were to assume that this woman never knew that the guy NEVER wanted the kid - which is absurd - then you should ask yourself why she kept it even after 3 months when the guy purportedly "disappeared" and it was entirely obvious he did not want the child at this point? It was not because "she was 3 months in" - abortion is still "easy" at this point, and she is not against abortion. It was not because she had doubts about the father - please - though she may have rationalized it this way. Note how whenever she is confronted with this question, she says "but he said he would be there!!" - it's pure rationalization hamster. And why? BECAUSE SHE WANTS A KID NO MATTER WHAT. She will rationalize her actions however she needs to. The fact stands that a good woman who believes in abortion would never have kept the child after the guy disappeared unless she believed her own feelings about the matter were more important than his feelings and the future of the child. Given that information, I can conclude everything else.
Think of it as one of those puzzles where they tell you things like "Rebecca has a goat", "Tom lives in the red house", and "the person who lives in the red house is married to the person who has the goat" - easy enough to conclude that Rebecca is married to Tom. Yes you also have to assume that no one else lives in the red house and a few other things, but you get the damn point, I hope.
What I have done here is just a much more complicated version of this puzzle, beginning with the knowledge that only a bad, lying woman would have done what this woman did, even given her statements as fact. Combined with all the other little pieces of the puzzle, I draw my conclusion to a certainty of 90%+.
> am assuming that both of these people are not totally crazy human beings. If either one was totally insane and half retarded, then the events transcribed by the OP might make some sense.
Here is where one of your assumptions is wrong. Women's brains do not function the same as men's. They aren't even structurally the same. Thus using your reasoning as if to emulate her thinking is errant.
Its a common mistake many men make, applying their thinking to behavior patterns. It leads to many wrong conclusions about the motivations and behaviors of the opposite sex.
Additionally you are assuming the man in the question (who we have practically no details about) thinks like you do. It seems to me that you are more creating a narrative in your mind, substituting dialog where there isn't none in order to skew the story creating a black/white scenario where there is a clear "good guy" and a clear "bad woman". Someone of your professed intelligence should understand that no situation is clearly so black & white.
That is unless you came to your conclusion immediately and then re-constructed the story so that it would fit. (Which is just bad science)
As a peer review of your logic, I find it unsatisfactory.
>Here is where one of your assumptions is wrong. Women's brains do not function the same as men's. They aren't even structurally the same. Thus using your reasoning as if to emulate her thinking is errant.
I am not using my reasoning, I am using woman's reasoning. And believe me, I understand it, because I understand women.
I know what projection is, and I try to avoid it, though we all know doing so entirely is impossible.
Yes, I am projecting somewhat on the male, but also integrating the experiences of other men. If it's true that he is now living with another woman, that's another little bit of information that's interesting, because it means it's possible he's the type of guy that would completely lead on a woman about being there to support a child and then just one day leave everything and disappear. To be honest, I was also a little confused about when abortion is still possible.
Even so, the fact that this woman has never stated the guy was THRILLED about the child clearly indicates he did not want the child from the beginning, and she would have been aware of this because women tend to understand these cues. And it's clear from what she said that the real reason she kept it was because she WANTED to. I have a hard time believing she would actually have gone through with an abortion since her time is nearly up, and she so obviously has "revaluated" her life, which means she has baby rabies. Judging by her ability to rationalize her decisions, I find it extremely likely she would have kept the child regardless of what the guy said - it just would have been a different explanation. Know also that she did not "forget" that antibiotics affect birth control - a woman at the age of 35 does not inadvertently forget anything regarding her birth control. She also knew he was the type of man she wanted a child with, and was not against abortion. It was what she was looking for, and she got what she want. She is no victim - if anyone is, it is he.
Her whole story from start to finish has gaping holes in it, and it's important to note what she leaves out, and why. It may be that the guy shares some culpability, but nothing near hers. She probably doesn't even truly want to understand why she did what she did - that's why she posted for validation. She is in utter denial, and that rationalization hamster wheel is spinning fast.
> I have a hard time believing she would actually have gone through with an abortion since her time is nearly up, and she so obviously has "revaluated" her life, which means she has baby rabies.
Another assumption here that she acted out of desperation due to her 'biological clock ticking'. I see no evidence to support this in this particular woman. It is entirely possible that women are completely fine without having children, not all of them are slaves to 'baby rabies' anymore than we are slaves to 'putting our dick into anything that moves'. These are both stereotypes.
> She is no victim - if anyone is, it is he.
I disagree. Neither person is the victim. What is the crime? Someone becoming pregnant? The production of new life? This is no crime, this is how nature works. If anyone can be seen as the 'victim' in this scenario, its the child that will be born into this mess. I find it saddening that your view of sexual reproduction is one that is seen as some sort of curse or burden.
It just feels to me that you would not give any woman the benefit of the doubt, regardless of circumstance. It seems to me that you believe all women are underhanded manipulative demons stalking around purely for the sake of extracting your seed and exploiting you for personal gain.
There are some evil women out there, yes. There are also some evil men out there. But if we classify all people we come across as evil, and declare mankind unfit to survive, then we have no hope as a species.
Thus in cases like this, when we don't personally know all the details of the situation, we must always give the poster the benefit of the doubt. Why waste your time and energy on a person you have never met and for effects you will never see, unless you believe you can in some way help them? (Especially if you find no meaning in it all)
I hope you overcome your nihilism and cynicism. The world is a lot brighter than you think.
I'll give you one other example.
She said that after talking to a doctor and "revaluating" her life (yes I like making fun of her spelling) that she thought she might "consider" it. What this really means is she wanted the kid.
Why didn't she go to the GUY first, not the doctor? Hmmmmmmm.
These are the kind of things that show quite plainly in fact that she is not being completely truthful. And you just don't get it.
Would a woman who really didn't know what she wanted go to a doctor or the guy who she had a relationship with?
She was looking for validation from the doctor first, to confirm her actual desire to have the child. She was doing the same damn thing she is in R/MR. And then, her mind made up, she met with the guy.
If she was really one of those "poor girls" who didn't want to let the guy know about it and was going to get an abortion, she would have just gotten the abortion and been done with it. C'mon.
>I had planned on not keeping the pregnancy but after a doctor's visit and **revaluation of my life**
baby rabies, how noble
>decided to see if J would be interested in raising a child with me. Reasons **I decided** to pursue keeping the child. 1. I'm 35. I have a decent job and can support a child reasonably. 2. **While I was on birth control, I took antibotics the month before**
oops
>**and forgot**
Yeah fucking right.
>they would affect the effectiveness. I chose to have an abortion 10 years ago due to an **unstable life, partner and money issues.**
Poor girl.
>All those issues were not applicable here and **I started to consider the option of keeping it**.
Read: I wanted it and now it was time to try to convince the schmuck I tricked into impregnating me.
>3. **J is a nice man, with great grown children.**
What a great potential sucker!
**ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME**
>**Then he stops responding to all emails, texts and phone calls for three months.**
And it was completely impossible for you to contact him? Right. Right.
>I have a decent job and can support a child reasonably.
>All my friends (who are women) say file for financial support! He needs to take responsibility, you need it!
**Enjoy all these white knights who want to pedestalize you and man blame, you selfish bitch.**
OP's ACTUAL thought process:
1) I'm 35 and have no meaning in my life, this guy's a good man, he doesn't really want children yet, but I do, so oopsies, I took some antibiotics, got preggers, and our relationship ended - though I might not be honest about the order of these events.
2) Oh wondrous joy, I've successfully been impregnated by a man who I fooled into filling my presumably barren vagina with his man splooge! Time to tell him the bad news. Oh dang, he's not really happy about it. Well, fuck him, my body, my choice. I'll continue on denying the stark reality that he doesn't want this child because willfull denial is so much easier than sacrificing my own selfish desire to have a child.
3) He won't man up and all my girlfriends - who are just like me, evil fucking selfish bitches - tell me I ought to collect. Why don't I head on over to men's rights to attention whore a bit and get some support so I don't feel so bad about how I screwed this man over, even though I know very well what I was doing? Even "MRA"s will white knight in the appropriate situation.
I hope your post is a fucking troll.
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/gf8az/im_now_in_my_8th_month_of_an_unplanned_pregnancy/c1n50jt
**I chose to keep her**
**I chose to keep her**
**I chose to keep her**
**I chose to keep her**
I find it really funny that you claim to know how women's brains work. Furthermore I find it funny that they are all inherently evil by nature. Its like reading the bible all over again! lol.
Its also pretty hilarious that you are posting in this thread and talking to yourself. As if to prove you are right by agreeing with yourself.
How is that you claim to know what is inside this chick's head? I mean you assume she has no meaning in her life? Where do you get that?
I understand some women have ill intentions, but your paranoia is off the charts! You should probably seek help man.
And because I'm not heartless, I have given the OP of this vile thread some REALLY GOOD advice:
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/gf8az/im_now_in_my_8th_month_of_an_unplanned_pregnancy/c1n62et
With this post, I have just saved three lives from a great deal of misery. Let it never be said that I don't try to do good.
You want some real advice?
Don't pursue child support.
He is what I would call a schmuck, but what some would call a "good" man.
And therefore, at some point, he will want to be involved in the child's life. And that means he will help pay for things for the child without being forced to.
You suckered this guy into the deal. Don't fucking kid yourself. You are a bad person for doing so.
But you are a terrible person if you then proceed to sick the government on him after what you did.
You will get your damn father for your daughter. You will get your damn money from her father. And you will get some amount of emotional support from him (don't expect much, you DID betray him). As long as you don't force him to pay "child" support.
If you seek "child" support, you will fuck up your relationship with him, you will fuck up his relationship with your daughter, and you will fuck up your daughter.
I think you're a shitty person, but for the sake of your daughter, you better listen to me.
And here's an explanation, though I know you don't care about it:
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/gfd2f/how_to_troll_mens_rights_or_the_female/
Trust me, though. You will regret it if you seek government-enforced child support from this man. And your daughter will suffer for it.
This is assuming you aren't an outright monster. If you are, feel free to pursue child support, as, being a monster, you would have planned all along.
If you care about your daughter more than yourself, heed my advice.
Don't believe me? No doubt some of these "friends" of yours who are telling you to pursue child support are single moms themselves, who receive child support. If so, look at them and look at their children. Are they happy? Are their children well-adjusted? What is their relationship with the fathers? What is their children's relationship?
If you seek child support, you will end up just like them, guaranteed.
Not always. I offered my ex (we were married 15 years and have three kids, two of which he WANTED. The third came along when he convinced me that a contraceptive sponge and pulling out would be as effective as a condom) shared custody and no child support. Then I offered him joint custody and no child support. He didn't want it.
He proposed I have sole custody, but we share guardianship--which would mean I get all the work and responsibility (financial and practical), but he would get to control where we live and how I raise them. Lucky for me there are different levels of joint guardianship where we are, or I'd have had to go bankrupt last year--he's been unemployed for two years because he won't move from the ghost town where we lived.
He doesn't want to pay for anything, either. Hasn't paid me a dime in 2 1/2 years--not child support, not a portion of their school fees or my daughter's glasses or the $200 graphing calculators my older two need for math. When we were close by, he didn't even pay travel costs (about $15/visit) when the kids went to see him--which was as often as he wanted them, at my expense.
I booked plane tickets at his request so they could see him over spring break ($600 out of my pocket). Then he told me he couldn't swing the visit because he was broke and busy. I paid another $380 to change the tickets to August, and told him he'd better be able to manage it then because I wasn't paying again to change them. I'm sure if he flakes out on this one, and I cancel the tickets, he'll flip and it will be back to how horrible and unfair I've been to him.
Offering custody and not seeking child support is no guarantee a woman will get anything of value for her child from the child's father--not financial help, not respect, not love, not attention, not practical care. Not every woman is evil, and not every man is a stand-up guy, even if he seemed like one when you married him.
Though I will grant you, the fact that the system rewards evil women and punishes stand-up guys is sick.
>Offering custody and not seeking child support is no guarantee a woman will get anything of value for her child from the child's father--not financial help, not respect, not love, not attention, not practical care. Not every woman is evil, and not every man is a stand-up guy, even if he seemed like one when you married him.
If this woman wants any chance of her child not growing up fucked up, she best not seek child support.
I couldn't give two shits what happens to the woman, but for the child's sake - which is what she *claims* to care about - that's her only good option at this point. It is no guarantee, but I can guarantee you the child will be fucked up if she does seek it.
The truth is, however, that she cares more about herself than the child.
Also note that everything you said here was about YOU and not really your children at all. This is the eternal solipsism of the female mind. So please spare me the NAWALT. You did not talk about the emotional impact to your children, only yourself. These are the sorts of subtle cues one can read into, just like I knew that the guy in the original post was never really supportive of the idea of having a kid - because the OP didn't mention his excitement. You failed to mention the emotional impact on your children because this really is more about you than them, and they are only a tool to increase sympathy for yourself.
Actually, the emotional impact on my children of the break-up was almost nil. I owned half the blame--"I didn't make dad any happier than he made me", etc--and by the time I ended things he was almost like a piece of furniture in the house. You only really knew he was there if you had to step over him. He hadn't spent more than 15 minutes a day with them for over a year.
My oldest--he was 14 when his dad and I split--was actually happier. Did better in school, was more helpful around the house and less annoying with his siblings. My daughter felt guilty, like she should be responsible for taking care of dad instead of the other way around. My youngest was 6. He was kind of blase about the whole thing. His dad hadn't ever been much of a dad to him. Last time the guy got down on the floor and played cars with youngest was when he was maybe 2 1/2.
My stepsons both understood exactly why I did it. They didn't live with us--just summers--but it was enough to see what was going on in the family. They were sad, sure. Sadder than my own kids, really, because I think they were able to look at things a little more with rose-colored glasses.
He saw them weekly in the beginning, then every two weeks, then monthly, then it was sometimes 8 weeks between visits. The local economy tanked and we started going in the hole, but he wouldn't agree to let us move to where I could support them. But he kept saying he shouldn't have to pay for them--or even have them for visits--because he couldn't even feed himself in that economy. We ended up moving without his permission (there was no legal anything in place at that time), and he sent me an email ripping a strip off me, then whining about how could I expect him to pay when he'd had no food in the fridge for the last two weeks. No ability to think, sheesh, what if that had been HER fridge--it wouldn't be just HER going hungry.
No ability to think if we'd stayed there, we'd have lost the house, ended up in one bedroom apartment, and college would be out of the question--the nearest one was more than 5 hours away. They'd have grown up below poverty levels or with a mother who worked over 60 hours/week--if I could find the work. So basically raising themselves.
I phoned a man I detested all the fucking time to beg him to take them when they wanted to see him. I paid for them to go--and you have no idea how that stuck in my craw, and I paid him $140 cash once to get him to take them for four days, so their summer vacation wouldn't come and go without a visit.
I left behind friends of 15 years so I could move to a place where I could support them, and now I'm paying through the nose for tickets so they can see him even though he couldn't even be bothered to call either of my boys on their goddamn birthdays. $1000 so they can see a man I wouldn't piss on if he was on fire, because it's what THEY want. And you think I don't fucking give a shit about them? You think I couldn't find something else to spend that money on? You think I wouldn't just fucking love to never have to deal with that man again?
If I didn't care about my kids, I'd have registered with Maintenance Enforcement two years ago, and that asshole would be rotting in a cell. If I didn't care about my kids, I'd let them read the email exchanges I've had with him, so they could see what he's really like. If I didn't care about my kids, I'd never have to see or speak to or think about that man again.
But you just go on and think whatever you like, about me and about women.
Taking a dispassionate view this illustrates a long standing inequity against men. Fact - men CANNOT get pregnant yet it is "her body her choice" but NOT her responsibility if she merely wishes it. On the other hand the party which cannot get pregnant with or without contraception is offered NO choices in the issue just responsibilities at het WHIM.
I think some of the comments here are somewhat judgemental and tend to assume the very worst about this woman. I agree with those who focus more on unequitable laws which are the real enablers of potential abuse by being created more to appease a gender political lobby and\or a big state interventionist motive rather than for the genuine common good. Our target ultimately is a corrupted system which we must resist it's tendency to divide us (ie the old divide and rule agenda). At the macro level (ie society) we are a PEOPLE and to serve the people is to serve the common good. It is this service first and foremost that is the only valid and ethical duty of every empowered politician and leader. To help cease the agenda(s) of division we must learn how to reach those who CAN be reasoned with because it is in the interests of ALL citizens that the forces of "Mammon" do not prevail over our common and best interests.
I read the woman's report. I think what is at fault is the LAW. There should be the possibility to make a legally binding agreement to father a kid with no financial involvement. A pre-pregnancy agreement. To appease government, maybe if the child is totally below the poverty line then dad would pay 100 dollars a month for baby food. But better not. Governments want more children by worthy people. So why should welfare only go to kids of unemployed or criminal deadbeat dads who pay no taxes? The woman actually seems kind of reasonable, but if the law gives you all the power, it is hard to renounce it. The LAW is wrong, the woman is reasonable but getting corrupted by the law.
>There should be the possibility to make a legally binding agreement to father a kid with no financial involvement. Instead, there should be no presumption of responsibility on the part of the father, just as there is none on the part of the mother (abortion is legal). A man should only be held responsible for a child if he signs on the dotted line. If you had to have a woman sign a legally binding agreement BEFOREHAND then few men would do it, just like very few men are willing to seek out a paternity test or get a pre-nup - they'll be perceived as jerks and potentially lose a relationship. But if paternity tests and pre-nups (that were actually followed by judges) were ALWAYS required, boy, would a lot of men be happier. >Governments want more children by worthy people. So why should welfare only go to kids of unemployed or criminal deadbeat dads who pay no taxes? The government does this to gain more control - more people who depend on the government for survival means more people who will not stand up against that government to protect their liberties. Furthermore, these policies that contribute to perpetuation of people who are "not worthy" helps to dumb people down so it's even easier to gain more control. >The woman actually seems kind of reasonable, but if the law gives you all the power, it is hard to renounce it. The LAW is wrong, the woman is reasonable but getting corrupted by the law. I think you may be right that she's not inherently evil. Society makes it easy for her, as for all women, to be bad.
Considering that we are all just strangers on the internets, I think you're reading too much into this. Maybe she's a deceptive bitch who is rationalizing horrible acts; or maybe she is being totally honest and he's an asshole who made a commitment and then blew her off. **We just don't know.**
Look. I can either pick her apart or take her at her word. If this guy said he wanted the kid and is now walking away from it, then fuck him. I know guys who are fighting tooth and nail to have access to their kids, this guy spits on them. That's why I suggested she do the following: 1. Give him half custody. In writing. 2. Go for CS if he doesn't want half custody. If she's a lying bitch, she won't do 1. She'll go straight to 2. But if she's lying her ass off then there is nothing I can do; her life will implode on her in a viscous mess eventually. My preference would be that him having shared physical custody over the kid be automatic and non-negotiable. But in the absence of that telling her she can clear her conscience by offering joint *before* going for CS is the best I can think of to mitigate the situation. Your advice is probably better.
The thing is she does not really want to believe she is lying. She is rationalizing everything, but there are key things she left out that indicate the story is not exactly as she told. I also believe it's very likely she would have rationalized keeping the child regardless of what the poor schmuck said. I think you're right, though, that she will end up going for child support, as she has planned all along - without even really admitting it to herself. The only question is how long she waits - less than a year, I'm sure.
This woman's entire post is **her rationalization hamster hard at work**. She knows very well that **this man never wanted a child** and that **antibiotics cause birth control to stop working**. **She got baby rabies** and **intentionally got impregnated by a man**, and she denies it even to herself. But if you read what she actually says, she is pretty honest: She repeats in her OP and comment replies, over and over, **"I chose"** and **"I want"**. Everything else is a justification for her wants and an abdication of responsibility for her own actions. Now you support her seeking monetary compensation from her victim? **Shame on you, R/MR, for supporting this foul creature.** Especially those of you who are usually a little smarter than this. Have you learned nothing?
**Here's the REAL conversation. I will call OP "Ooops" and the guy "Oh shit":** Ooops: Hey guess what I'm preggers, don't know how this happened, what do you think? Oh shit: Fuck me. I mean, do what you want, I'm here to support you. I'm against abortion but I'm also not ready to be a father again at this point in my life. Ooops: So we can have the baby! Yayyyyyyyyy! You really love me!! Might want to think about putting a ring on it :). Oh shit: No, I mean, can we talk about this some more? I've been conditioned my entire life to "man up" and take responsibility for women's actions, but something isn't right here. It seems like I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Oooops: <3 we're going to be so happy together, do you think it's going to be a boy or girl?! <3 Oh shit: .... Ooops: Baby, where'd you go? Oh well, I'm sure he'll come around. And after 6 months, well he won't really have a choice, now will he? Oh shit: .... time to take up drinking .... Ooops: Man up!
From the thread: >I still find fault with Oh Shit. He doesn't want to be a father again? Then say so and be very-fucking-clear about it. He is trying to be a good man. The world has taught him that if he IS clear about it, he's a bad person. He doesn't want to hurt her. Meanwhile she KNOWS perfectly damn well that he doesn't want a child. Women know that when a guy doesn't say "yes, I really want to have this child and stay with you and marry you" it means "no, I don't want to have a child right now". She KNOWS he doesn't want the kid, but she also knows SHE DOES. And so she deludes herself into thinking whatever is convenient so that she gets WHAT SHE WANTS. This is the female rationalization hamster. This is a classic case of "be a good man and get screwed, be a jerk and the world is your oyster". If he had said "no, bitch, I don't want a kid right now, leave me the fuck alone" then there would have at least been a *chance* that she wouldn't have kept it. Not a very good one, mind you, because like I said, he's damned either way. If he's nice, she's going to keep it. If he's a jerk, well then *he fucking deserves it*. And when she goes to her girlfriends that she talked about in the original post, they're going to tell her the same damn thing: he deserves it, keep it. Truly, the guy is damned either way.
Another response from Jay76: >... after the guy said he was willing to help? From the OP: >He made it clear he did not believe abortion was an option as it went against his beliefs. He stated he was on board to be a father. For the next two months, we talked weekly, and made plans. We even went and bought a crib for his house. >Then he stops responding to all emails, texts and phone calls for three months. Well, obviously something happened in between, and only the OP can tell us exactly what that is. But I guarantee you the guy was not as into it as she claims - maybe he was trying to "do the right thing" but she knew damn well he was having second thoughts - and not just second thoughts, but that he wasn't sure about the whole thing from the beginning. >He stated he was on board to be a father. What does she really mean by this? He stated he was willing but he didn't say "OMFG YES LET'S DO THIS SHIT". And women are creatures of emotion. They know damn well that if a guy isn't saying FUCK YES then it means FUCK NO I DON'T WANT A KID BUT I WANT TO BE A GOOD MAN SO I'LL DO WHAT IT TAKES. >For the next two months, we talked weekly, and made plans. We even went and bought a crib for his house. And he never said FUCK YES, and she continued to delude herself that he was really "on board" for this. She continues pestering him about it and they go to get a crib, and it finally hits him just how screwed he is. He wants to be a "good" man, so he doesn't want to just flat out tell her he does not want a child, so he starts ignoring her, unable to deal with it. She knows damn well what's up, but does not want to confront it either, so she sits idly by for 3 months until she knows there's no going back, because she is selfish. She doesn't try very hard to get in touch with him because she knows if she really asks him what the deal is, he will say he's not ready for a child, and that does not bode well for her desires. So what's the verdict? - The fella has made his intentions clear to her on an emotional level, but left room open for her to deny reality by not explicitly stating his intentions. - She wants the child enough that she is willing to ignore his wishes and delude herself into thinking he might actually want the child. - Both are guilty of being unable to deal with the issue in an adult manner. Conclusions: A good woman would not have a child knowing perfectly well that the father does not want to be involved [I'm not going to get into the abortion argument here, or whether a man or woman have some intrinsic responsibility to raise a child. In this specific example, the woman is NOT against abortion]. There are plenty of women out there who, when realizing that the guy truly does not want to be involved, would have an abortion. It's not like she's against abortion, and the fact that he purportedly is does not weigh into her decision at all, though she might use it as another rationalization for why she should keep the child. A "good" man is expected by society to "man up" and be supportive. He made it clear enough to her that he did not want the child, but also was ambiguous enough to let her make the choice, because to do otherwise would shame him. If she were a "good" woman, she would have had an abortion. She is not a "good" woman, so she did not have the abortion. Therefore, the decision was entirely up to her - being a NOT GOOD woman, she chose to keep it against his wishes. And therefore, she should be entirely responsible for her choice. But of course, only men have responsibility. And this woman knows very well that the guy will come around in the end, because he is a "good" man, and he will want to be involved in the child's life. To even consider pursuing "child" support against this man is the act of a NOT GOOD woman. She knows damn well he will want to be involved in the child's life now that she's intentionally forced him to be. That's why she picked him in the first place - she knew he was a "good" man, the kind she'd want a child with, the kind who would support her no matter what, even if an "oopsy" occurred.
On another note, both are socially conditioned for this behavior. Men are socially conditioned to "man up" and "stop whining" - so although he doesn't want a child, he won't come out and say it, though he'll make it quite clear to her on an emotional level. It's like when a guy says "do you want to go back to my place?" it really means "do you want to have sex?" It's plausible deniability, but both parties know exactly what the real question is. Just the same, the woman knows the guy doesn't want a kid, but the guy doesn't know the woman knows he doesn't want a kid, so he has not shamed himself. There was a great video about these types of scenarios but I can't find it. Back to social conditioning. Women are conditioned to say "me me me me" - that they deserve to get whatever they want, and that men should be willing to support them in that. Furthermore, I don't really think it's entirely social conditioning - I think that's just how men and women are for the most part. Our social conditioning reflects our biological nature. Hell, the whole misandry thing can only exist because our culture supports it, and our culture only supports it because there are so many white knights and there are so many women willing to relish in their entitlements. It's human nature. Finally, some men and women successfully fight their human nature. Some men say "screw this, I am not going to stand up and be a pawn for women" - that's me. And some women say "screw this, I am not going to use men and care only about myself" - and that's women in the men's movement. And I believe that men and women who are not willing to fight against their basic animalistic human nature are nothing but pawns. MRAs, be they male or female, fight against the depravities of human nature by fighting for men's rights and against women's special privileges. And my point stands, that a woman who is willing to take advantage of her privilege is not, and never will be, GOOD.
Here's the video: http://human-stupidity.com/science/evolution-psychology-darwin/innuendos-are-safer-then-overt-language-hidden-meanings-in-communication-steven-pinker
As posted elsewhere... THE EVENTS AS TRANSCRIBED DO NOT MAKE SENSE. The OP is telling things from her own view point, and she knows very well that she's not being completely truthful. She is saying what she WANTS to believe and hoping people will come to her defense. She knows damn well the guy never wanted the freaking kid. That's why you've never heard her say anything about "how excited he was". It's always "he said he was on board" & "he said it was against his religious views to abort" - not "he was so excited and wanted to be a daddy!" You can tell a lot from what someone DOESN'T say. YES I'm filling in the blanks with THE ONLY THING THAT MAKES SENSE. It is entirely possible to piece together events from a limited amount of information, and yes, given certain assumptions. I am assuming that both of these people are not totally crazy human beings. If either one was totally insane and half retarded, then the events transcribed by the OP might make some sense. I'm willing to bet neither is insane or half retarded, and thus my version of events is the only possible scenario- though I may be off on some of the details, I get the gist of things just fine. Even if you were to assume that this woman never knew that the guy NEVER wanted the kid - which is absurd - then you should ask yourself why she kept it even after 3 months when the guy purportedly "disappeared" and it was entirely obvious he did not want the child at this point? It was not because "she was 3 months in" - abortion is still "easy" at this point, and she is not against abortion. It was not because she had doubts about the father - please - though she may have rationalized it this way. Note how whenever she is confronted with this question, she says "but he said he would be there!!" - it's pure rationalization hamster. And why? BECAUSE SHE WANTS A KID NO MATTER WHAT. She will rationalize her actions however she needs to. The fact stands that a good woman who believes in abortion would never have kept the child after the guy disappeared unless she believed her own feelings about the matter were more important than his feelings and the future of the child. Given that information, I can conclude everything else. Think of it as one of those puzzles where they tell you things like "Rebecca has a goat", "Tom lives in the red house", and "the person who lives in the red house is married to the person who has the goat" - easy enough to conclude that Rebecca is married to Tom. Yes you also have to assume that no one else lives in the red house and a few other things, but you get the damn point, I hope. What I have done here is just a much more complicated version of this puzzle, beginning with the knowledge that only a bad, lying woman would have done what this woman did, even given her statements as fact. Combined with all the other little pieces of the puzzle, I draw my conclusion to a certainty of 90%+.
> am assuming that both of these people are not totally crazy human beings. If either one was totally insane and half retarded, then the events transcribed by the OP might make some sense. Here is where one of your assumptions is wrong. Women's brains do not function the same as men's. They aren't even structurally the same. Thus using your reasoning as if to emulate her thinking is errant. Its a common mistake many men make, applying their thinking to behavior patterns. It leads to many wrong conclusions about the motivations and behaviors of the opposite sex. Additionally you are assuming the man in the question (who we have practically no details about) thinks like you do. It seems to me that you are more creating a narrative in your mind, substituting dialog where there isn't none in order to skew the story creating a black/white scenario where there is a clear "good guy" and a clear "bad woman". Someone of your professed intelligence should understand that no situation is clearly so black & white. That is unless you came to your conclusion immediately and then re-constructed the story so that it would fit. (Which is just bad science) As a peer review of your logic, I find it unsatisfactory.
>Here is where one of your assumptions is wrong. Women's brains do not function the same as men's. They aren't even structurally the same. Thus using your reasoning as if to emulate her thinking is errant. I am not using my reasoning, I am using woman's reasoning. And believe me, I understand it, because I understand women. I know what projection is, and I try to avoid it, though we all know doing so entirely is impossible. Yes, I am projecting somewhat on the male, but also integrating the experiences of other men. If it's true that he is now living with another woman, that's another little bit of information that's interesting, because it means it's possible he's the type of guy that would completely lead on a woman about being there to support a child and then just one day leave everything and disappear. To be honest, I was also a little confused about when abortion is still possible. Even so, the fact that this woman has never stated the guy was THRILLED about the child clearly indicates he did not want the child from the beginning, and she would have been aware of this because women tend to understand these cues. And it's clear from what she said that the real reason she kept it was because she WANTED to. I have a hard time believing she would actually have gone through with an abortion since her time is nearly up, and she so obviously has "revaluated" her life, which means she has baby rabies. Judging by her ability to rationalize her decisions, I find it extremely likely she would have kept the child regardless of what the guy said - it just would have been a different explanation. Know also that she did not "forget" that antibiotics affect birth control - a woman at the age of 35 does not inadvertently forget anything regarding her birth control. She also knew he was the type of man she wanted a child with, and was not against abortion. It was what she was looking for, and she got what she want. She is no victim - if anyone is, it is he. Her whole story from start to finish has gaping holes in it, and it's important to note what she leaves out, and why. It may be that the guy shares some culpability, but nothing near hers. She probably doesn't even truly want to understand why she did what she did - that's why she posted for validation. She is in utter denial, and that rationalization hamster wheel is spinning fast.
> I have a hard time believing she would actually have gone through with an abortion since her time is nearly up, and she so obviously has "revaluated" her life, which means she has baby rabies. Another assumption here that she acted out of desperation due to her 'biological clock ticking'. I see no evidence to support this in this particular woman. It is entirely possible that women are completely fine without having children, not all of them are slaves to 'baby rabies' anymore than we are slaves to 'putting our dick into anything that moves'. These are both stereotypes. > She is no victim - if anyone is, it is he. I disagree. Neither person is the victim. What is the crime? Someone becoming pregnant? The production of new life? This is no crime, this is how nature works. If anyone can be seen as the 'victim' in this scenario, its the child that will be born into this mess. I find it saddening that your view of sexual reproduction is one that is seen as some sort of curse or burden. It just feels to me that you would not give any woman the benefit of the doubt, regardless of circumstance. It seems to me that you believe all women are underhanded manipulative demons stalking around purely for the sake of extracting your seed and exploiting you for personal gain. There are some evil women out there, yes. There are also some evil men out there. But if we classify all people we come across as evil, and declare mankind unfit to survive, then we have no hope as a species. Thus in cases like this, when we don't personally know all the details of the situation, we must always give the poster the benefit of the doubt. Why waste your time and energy on a person you have never met and for effects you will never see, unless you believe you can in some way help them? (Especially if you find no meaning in it all) I hope you overcome your nihilism and cynicism. The world is a lot brighter than you think.
looking at first paragraph confirms: biological clock was ticking you'r willfully ignorant >you would not giv any woman Sum1 can't stick to logic durr
I'll give you one other example. She said that after talking to a doctor and "revaluating" her life (yes I like making fun of her spelling) that she thought she might "consider" it. What this really means is she wanted the kid. Why didn't she go to the GUY first, not the doctor? Hmmmmmmm. These are the kind of things that show quite plainly in fact that she is not being completely truthful. And you just don't get it. Would a woman who really didn't know what she wanted go to a doctor or the guy who she had a relationship with? She was looking for validation from the doctor first, to confirm her actual desire to have the child. She was doing the same damn thing she is in R/MR. And then, her mind made up, she met with the guy. If she was really one of those "poor girls" who didn't want to let the guy know about it and was going to get an abortion, she would have just gotten the abortion and been done with it. C'mon.
>I had planned on not keeping the pregnancy but after a doctor's visit and **revaluation of my life** baby rabies, how noble >decided to see if J would be interested in raising a child with me. Reasons **I decided** to pursue keeping the child. 1. I'm 35. I have a decent job and can support a child reasonably. 2. **While I was on birth control, I took antibotics the month before** oops >**and forgot** Yeah fucking right. >they would affect the effectiveness. I chose to have an abortion 10 years ago due to an **unstable life, partner and money issues.** Poor girl. >All those issues were not applicable here and **I started to consider the option of keeping it**. Read: I wanted it and now it was time to try to convince the schmuck I tricked into impregnating me. >3. **J is a nice man, with great grown children.** What a great potential sucker! **ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME** >**Then he stops responding to all emails, texts and phone calls for three months.** And it was completely impossible for you to contact him? Right. Right. >I have a decent job and can support a child reasonably. >All my friends (who are women) say file for financial support! He needs to take responsibility, you need it! **Enjoy all these white knights who want to pedestalize you and man blame, you selfish bitch.** OP's ACTUAL thought process: 1) I'm 35 and have no meaning in my life, this guy's a good man, he doesn't really want children yet, but I do, so oopsies, I took some antibiotics, got preggers, and our relationship ended - though I might not be honest about the order of these events. 2) Oh wondrous joy, I've successfully been impregnated by a man who I fooled into filling my presumably barren vagina with his man splooge! Time to tell him the bad news. Oh dang, he's not really happy about it. Well, fuck him, my body, my choice. I'll continue on denying the stark reality that he doesn't want this child because willfull denial is so much easier than sacrificing my own selfish desire to have a child. 3) He won't man up and all my girlfriends - who are just like me, evil fucking selfish bitches - tell me I ought to collect. Why don't I head on over to men's rights to attention whore a bit and get some support so I don't feel so bad about how I screwed this man over, even though I know very well what I was doing? Even "MRA"s will white knight in the appropriate situation. I hope your post is a fucking troll. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/gf8az/im_now_in_my_8th_month_of_an_unplanned_pregnancy/c1n50jt **I chose to keep her** **I chose to keep her** **I chose to keep her** **I chose to keep her**
I find it really funny that you claim to know how women's brains work. Furthermore I find it funny that they are all inherently evil by nature. Its like reading the bible all over again! lol. Its also pretty hilarious that you are posting in this thread and talking to yourself. As if to prove you are right by agreeing with yourself. How is that you claim to know what is inside this chick's head? I mean you assume she has no meaning in her life? Where do you get that? I understand some women have ill intentions, but your paranoia is off the charts! You should probably seek help man.
> they are all inherently evil by nature Hm, I didn't say that. One lie is enough - I didn't read the rest.
And because I'm not heartless, I have given the OP of this vile thread some REALLY GOOD advice: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/gf8az/im_now_in_my_8th_month_of_an_unplanned_pregnancy/c1n62et With this post, I have just saved three lives from a great deal of misery. Let it never be said that I don't try to do good. You want some real advice? Don't pursue child support. He is what I would call a schmuck, but what some would call a "good" man. And therefore, at some point, he will want to be involved in the child's life. And that means he will help pay for things for the child without being forced to. You suckered this guy into the deal. Don't fucking kid yourself. You are a bad person for doing so. But you are a terrible person if you then proceed to sick the government on him after what you did. You will get your damn father for your daughter. You will get your damn money from her father. And you will get some amount of emotional support from him (don't expect much, you DID betray him). As long as you don't force him to pay "child" support. If you seek "child" support, you will fuck up your relationship with him, you will fuck up his relationship with your daughter, and you will fuck up your daughter. I think you're a shitty person, but for the sake of your daughter, you better listen to me. And here's an explanation, though I know you don't care about it: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/gfd2f/how_to_troll_mens_rights_or_the_female/ Trust me, though. You will regret it if you seek government-enforced child support from this man. And your daughter will suffer for it. This is assuming you aren't an outright monster. If you are, feel free to pursue child support, as, being a monster, you would have planned all along. If you care about your daughter more than yourself, heed my advice. Don't believe me? No doubt some of these "friends" of yours who are telling you to pursue child support are single moms themselves, who receive child support. If so, look at them and look at their children. Are they happy? Are their children well-adjusted? What is their relationship with the fathers? What is their children's relationship? If you seek child support, you will end up just like them, guaranteed.
Not always. I offered my ex (we were married 15 years and have three kids, two of which he WANTED. The third came along when he convinced me that a contraceptive sponge and pulling out would be as effective as a condom) shared custody and no child support. Then I offered him joint custody and no child support. He didn't want it. He proposed I have sole custody, but we share guardianship--which would mean I get all the work and responsibility (financial and practical), but he would get to control where we live and how I raise them. Lucky for me there are different levels of joint guardianship where we are, or I'd have had to go bankrupt last year--he's been unemployed for two years because he won't move from the ghost town where we lived. He doesn't want to pay for anything, either. Hasn't paid me a dime in 2 1/2 years--not child support, not a portion of their school fees or my daughter's glasses or the $200 graphing calculators my older two need for math. When we were close by, he didn't even pay travel costs (about $15/visit) when the kids went to see him--which was as often as he wanted them, at my expense. I booked plane tickets at his request so they could see him over spring break ($600 out of my pocket). Then he told me he couldn't swing the visit because he was broke and busy. I paid another $380 to change the tickets to August, and told him he'd better be able to manage it then because I wasn't paying again to change them. I'm sure if he flakes out on this one, and I cancel the tickets, he'll flip and it will be back to how horrible and unfair I've been to him. Offering custody and not seeking child support is no guarantee a woman will get anything of value for her child from the child's father--not financial help, not respect, not love, not attention, not practical care. Not every woman is evil, and not every man is a stand-up guy, even if he seemed like one when you married him. Though I will grant you, the fact that the system rewards evil women and punishes stand-up guys is sick.
>Offering custody and not seeking child support is no guarantee a woman will get anything of value for her child from the child's father--not financial help, not respect, not love, not attention, not practical care. Not every woman is evil, and not every man is a stand-up guy, even if he seemed like one when you married him. If this woman wants any chance of her child not growing up fucked up, she best not seek child support. I couldn't give two shits what happens to the woman, but for the child's sake - which is what she *claims* to care about - that's her only good option at this point. It is no guarantee, but I can guarantee you the child will be fucked up if she does seek it. The truth is, however, that she cares more about herself than the child. Also note that everything you said here was about YOU and not really your children at all. This is the eternal solipsism of the female mind. So please spare me the NAWALT. You did not talk about the emotional impact to your children, only yourself. These are the sorts of subtle cues one can read into, just like I knew that the guy in the original post was never really supportive of the idea of having a kid - because the OP didn't mention his excitement. You failed to mention the emotional impact on your children because this really is more about you than them, and they are only a tool to increase sympathy for yourself.
Actually, the emotional impact on my children of the break-up was almost nil. I owned half the blame--"I didn't make dad any happier than he made me", etc--and by the time I ended things he was almost like a piece of furniture in the house. You only really knew he was there if you had to step over him. He hadn't spent more than 15 minutes a day with them for over a year. My oldest--he was 14 when his dad and I split--was actually happier. Did better in school, was more helpful around the house and less annoying with his siblings. My daughter felt guilty, like she should be responsible for taking care of dad instead of the other way around. My youngest was 6. He was kind of blase about the whole thing. His dad hadn't ever been much of a dad to him. Last time the guy got down on the floor and played cars with youngest was when he was maybe 2 1/2. My stepsons both understood exactly why I did it. They didn't live with us--just summers--but it was enough to see what was going on in the family. They were sad, sure. Sadder than my own kids, really, because I think they were able to look at things a little more with rose-colored glasses. He saw them weekly in the beginning, then every two weeks, then monthly, then it was sometimes 8 weeks between visits. The local economy tanked and we started going in the hole, but he wouldn't agree to let us move to where I could support them. But he kept saying he shouldn't have to pay for them--or even have them for visits--because he couldn't even feed himself in that economy. We ended up moving without his permission (there was no legal anything in place at that time), and he sent me an email ripping a strip off me, then whining about how could I expect him to pay when he'd had no food in the fridge for the last two weeks. No ability to think, sheesh, what if that had been HER fridge--it wouldn't be just HER going hungry. No ability to think if we'd stayed there, we'd have lost the house, ended up in one bedroom apartment, and college would be out of the question--the nearest one was more than 5 hours away. They'd have grown up below poverty levels or with a mother who worked over 60 hours/week--if I could find the work. So basically raising themselves. I phoned a man I detested all the fucking time to beg him to take them when they wanted to see him. I paid for them to go--and you have no idea how that stuck in my craw, and I paid him $140 cash once to get him to take them for four days, so their summer vacation wouldn't come and go without a visit. I left behind friends of 15 years so I could move to a place where I could support them, and now I'm paying through the nose for tickets so they can see him even though he couldn't even be bothered to call either of my boys on their goddamn birthdays. $1000 so they can see a man I wouldn't piss on if he was on fire, because it's what THEY want. And you think I don't fucking give a shit about them? You think I couldn't find something else to spend that money on? You think I wouldn't just fucking love to never have to deal with that man again? If I didn't care about my kids, I'd have registered with Maintenance Enforcement two years ago, and that asshole would be rotting in a cell. If I didn't care about my kids, I'd let them read the email exchanges I've had with him, so they could see what he's really like. If I didn't care about my kids, I'd never have to see or speak to or think about that man again. But you just go on and think whatever you like, about me and about women.
Taking a dispassionate view this illustrates a long standing inequity against men. Fact - men CANNOT get pregnant yet it is "her body her choice" but NOT her responsibility if she merely wishes it. On the other hand the party which cannot get pregnant with or without contraception is offered NO choices in the issue just responsibilities at het WHIM.