the third choice

Here’s where I may lose some of you. Up to now, I’ve kept to myself those thoughts on gender topics that I know are not going to be popular. As such, some of you (such as the person with whom I had lunch yesterday who said we needed to stop discussing this subject) may want to skip over this post. Go ahead and close the window or tab, we’ll wait to get started until you’re gone.

Ok. I first saw this story a couple days ago and bookmarked it as something I might write about. As I said though, I knew what I had to say would not be popular among some (if not most) of my friends. When it got brought up at lunch yesterday, I tested the waters and discovered that, sure enough, my thoughts on the matter are not going to make me any friends. Later that day I then read this post and decided I should go ahead and put my own thoughts out into the world.

In case you’ve not checked the story, the short version is that a guy is suing to be released from his responsibility to pay child support because, he claims, he did not want a child and his now ex-girlfriend knew that. A men’s rights group is funding the case because, they say, the current system violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause. Leaving aside the validity of this particular case and the question of whether or not the status quo (which, to my knowledge, requires all men pay child support; if that’s not so, please chime in) violates the equal protection clause and even whether or not the law should be changed, I still think the case points out one of the many irrational double standards in our society.

Two unmarried adults choose to have sex. As a result, the woman gets pregnant. Three courses lay open at that point: abortion, birth and child rearing, or birth and adoption. Taking it as a given that a woman is the only one who has say over her body, if she chooses abortion, the man has no real recourse, nor should he, if he did not want the abortion to happen. I think we’re all on agreement there. It’s options two and three where I see my opinions diverging from the world at large.

If the woman chooses not to have an abortion – as she should be free to do, the forced abortion is just as abhorrent to me as the forbidden abortion – and chooses to keep the child, current thinking is that the man is then required to pay child support. Each makes the first choice, to have sex, only the woman, as I think is right because it is her body, makes the second choice of whether or not to abort, but then, current law says, only the woman’s choice about whether or not to keep the child (and thus assume financial responsibility for it) is valid. My point is not that a man should not be financially responsible for his child, but that the law (and society) should respect his choice in the matter as much as it respects the hers.

It’s because that third choice, whether or not to keep the child and take on the financial responsibility for it, exists that we have a problem. If adoption were not a possible option, then the choice to have sex would be the one and only point where a man can choose to take responsibility for a child if one is conceived. In such a world, I would agree with requiring him to pay child support. However, adoption provides a second point of choice.

If a woman decided to give a child up for adoption, should she be required to pay support money to the parents who chose to keep the child? Of course not. So if a man chooses not to keep the child, and of course loses all rights to said child, including visitation, why should he be required to pay child support to the woman who chooses to keep the child?

too much to think about

Oh man there’s so much fodder out there from which I could craft this post. Too much in fact. Do I rant about Congress sticking the Real ID legislation in the appropriations bill covering war and tsunami relief (and which also includes some potential dangerous homeland security clauses as noted in this story discovered via this post by Wil Wheaton. Of course in this day and age what doesn’t include dangerous homeland security clauses? Even my underwear includes a dangerous homeland security clause)?

Or maybe the current brouhaha in Canada over the effective if not explicit vote of no confidence in the Liberal government which they have chosen to ignore in favor of shiny bits of foil and golden retriever puppies? A story that was probably first posted about by MP Monte Solberg via his blackberry from the floor of parliament. The BBC has the current bit of “hunh?” available here, wherein the Prime Minister decides that instead of a vote which contained words declaring the outcome a reflection of confidence in the government being, you know, a reflection of confidence in the government, the budget vote next week will instead serve that purpose. So to vote him out he’s saying they have to vote no to paying the bills (the Democrats should pick him up in the next draft). As usual, Canadian columnist Colby Cosh has an opinion worth reading. Of course the craziness of Canadian politics was first brought to my attention by crazy Cerebus creator Dave Sim, whose multipart essay on the subject can normally be found here (but since the Cerebus Fangirl Site is not loading right now, here’s the google cache). Oh, and for those who have no clue how the Canadian Parliament works (well, as much as any parliament works), wikipedia is here to save the day.

Or maybe the new blip on the Gender Issues Radar? Via Mind Hacks, comes what I would imagine is a wonderful Edge debate on “The Science of Gender and Science”. I must admit to not yet having gone over the whole lengthy debate yet (due to lack of time), but given that this debate (conducted between Professors Pinker and Spelke of Harvard (yes, that Harvard)) comes from the same people that brought you the multitude of answers to “What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?”, I trust that it won’t be a waste of time. (Though it is extensive and has video to watch, audio to hear, and text to read so I’ll understand if ya’ll don’t partake.)

Or maybe I’ll just realize that I’ve already written over 400 words and pointed ya’ll at some good material, so I can call it a day.

thoughts on the harvard president’s comments

So. The recent remarks by the president of Harvard created a brief flurry of press nationwide (and it may still be swirling up there in Boston). His actual remarks aren’t available as the conference where he was speaking “was designed to be off-the-record so that participants could speak candidly without fear of public misunderstanding or disclosure later” (quoted from this New York Times article). I guess that was only the case if you didn’t say anything too controversial.

From the reports I’ve read, he was asked to make a provocative speech to a lunchgroup. He spoke about the gender gap in the math, science, and engineering fields. The point of his speech, as I understand it, was that in addition to gender bias other possible causes should be studied. The three areas he suggested for examination are the amount of work required at the higher levels of the fields (80 hour work weeks and women with families probably don’t mix well), neurological differences between the genders, and the possible overinflation of the importance of gender bias in hiring.

Now as I understand it, he was suggesting areas for study and presenting the ideas of others, not his own (though even if he were, the context surrounding them should have outweighed any bigotry in the ideas) (and according to several sources others in attendance thought he was presenting provocative ideas to stir thought and research, not to be misogynistic). And as she comes from my alma mater, I have to quote Georgia State University economics professor Paula E. Stephan, who said, “I think if you come to participate in a research conference, you should expect speakers to present hypotheses that you may not agree with and then discuss them on the basis of research findings.”

Having read several articles now, I suspect it was M.I.T. biology professor Nancy Hopkins who broke the story as she was so upset by his remarks she walked out partway through and says she felt physically ill. I have no problem with her reaction. I do have an issue with her being so vocal in her objections as she did not listen to the whole speech and seems to have misinterpreted what was said.

She has stated she didn’t disagree with his ideas on the amount of work reauired. (Of course she then seemed to contradict that statement by presenting anecdotal evidence that she and her friends like to work that much. I can’t find info on whether or not she has a family (in which case her anecdotal evidence doesn’t apply), but I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt.) What irked her the most, was the way the ideas were presented. That, to me, is not a valid reason to force an apology from him and create such a storm (though admittedly one in a tea cup). If she had sat through the entire lecture, I would have less problem with her outcry (as I said, it is just conjecture that she kicked all of this off).

I would still have something of a problem as the conference was intended to be “off the record”. To that end, I think everyone should have just given a “no comment” response (then we’d know for sure who “leaked” the story).

Personally? I think there are neurological differences between the sexes. I also believe that any hurdle can be overcome. (I’m not saying that I do or do not consider the neurological differences to be a hurdle in this case, but if they are, I believe they can be surmounted.) All in all, it irks me how careful one must be nowadays in avoiding saying anything that might be interpreted as racist or biased. I’m not going any farther down that road tonight though or I might lose a number of friends.

Anyway.