Aibu to think we need to change the system? Too many men getting away with pump & dump!

[FamilyLife2point4]

Just that I suppose?
Im reading lots of threads about men getting away with sooo much in terms of creating a child. The system here in the UK seems flawed, CMS seem pretty incompetent, courts don’t / won’t enforce men to take on their fair share of parenting / childcare / finances involved in raising a child. Not to mention the emotional benefits for a child’s well-being and sense of belonging at having an active, present, safe father, (whether the parents are together or not).

From what I read, some other countries have far fairer systems and absent parents are actively prosecuted. I am also aware this applies to the smaller minority of absent mothers vs single dads too, but I honestly don’t read anywhere near as many stories of that so this is more focussed on men (no offence intended).

I don’t believe this country will change on its own, but what will it take - those wronged parents (& children) plus supporters perhaps coming together and actively petitioning to change the law? Open to suggestions?

What if we could change the law - what would it look like?
I’m also thinking about this from the other perspective of women who withhold children from their dads (for the variety of wrong reasons - not because the dad is violent / abusive / danger to kids etc) and how a reform could also ensure equality all round.

For clarity my name is as it suggests, happily married with 2 kids, DH grafts hard, would try shirk housework if I let him away with it, but has always been hands on with kids - it just makes me sooo sad and mad at all the inequality I keep reading about.

YANBU - to think that if you do the crime, you do the time - provide for and raise those kids equally - the system needs reformed.

YABU - absent parents / Disney dads should continue to pump and dump kids as they please and we should do fuck all about the system that enables it.

Male contraception needs to be improved so that there is a decent alternative to sterilisation or condoms.

No one cares about the side effects that women’s contraception have though do they? Another double standard.

It needs to be treated and regarded like non payment of council tax, and enforced the same way.
Liability order, bailiffs and having your car/possessions taken in lieu, attachment of earnings/benefits, people hounding you to pay more all the time, threat of prison, actual prison if you still don't pay up.
And we need to change the social attitude from 'women need to choose better/stop getting pregnant to trap a man' to 'men have control over their own fertility and if they don't want to be a father then they need to exercise that control' and if they don't then the least they do is pay 50%. And it needs to be seen as normal to support your kids and not normal to bugger off and leave it to someone else, and that would work both ways as well - it's not normal to stop a father seeing his children unless there's a damned good reason.
Never change though because there's too many people out there who can never see a man at fault and it must always, somehow, be the fault of the woman.

It's interesting because if the mum also said she didn't want to be a parent would the dads be ok with the kids going into care ?

I’m nodding along to @Onnabugeisha’s posts.

Er, yes we do! Our contraception is much safer & more effective than the effectiveness and initial side effects reported for the male pill. Plus, over the decades, the BC pill (and all other hormonal contraception) has been adjusted to become safer and safer. Plus we have developed the copper coil for women who cannot use hormonal contraception.

Contraception is an area where the gender gap has benefitted women and frankly, when it comes to preventing pregnancy women should be the priority. It would be misogynist to prioritise putting the power of preventing pregnancy in the hands of men by prioritising contraception for men.

XenoBitch · Yesterday 20:42
Condoms and the pill. Both parties should be bearing responsibility for their own fertility and birth control“

This ^

@HeavenIsAHalfpipe if you bother to rtft it was supposed to be hump and dump but I mixed it up as im clearly feeding ….

Default on a bank loan, mortgage, rent etc and you might face your assets being seized, garnish orders on earnings etc.
Default on child support? No one cares.

I was gobsmacked to see on this site posts explaining that the costs of childcare (that's childcare that enables the primary carer to go to work to support their child) is the sole responsibility of that primary carer.

Somehow society seems to have sleepwalked into handing financial control over to men. For every high earning woman there are a hundred underpaid, undervalued women struggling to juggle costs of childcare with inflexible work hours.
But lets blame them for forgetting to take the pill.

It’s a bit more than forgetting to take a pill. It’s more “forgetting” to book a termination for a few months…

@dameofdilemma exactly, although I think it will take a lot of us together to cause reform.
@Onnabugeisha still discounting the men that want the baby, then walk out after it’s ‘all too much’ then go to start another family, and do in. I think Bojo falls in such a category …..

Having read everyone’s suggestions it would appear the consensus is:

1. bringing a child into the world should be a joint decision, however, if the woman decides to go through with the pregnancy - this can not absolve the father for paying for the child, it is not the child’s fault (perhaps a vastly reduced maintenance % in such cases where it is proven the father did not wish to be a parent from the onset).

2. once a child is here, resident parents are disproportionately disadvantaged under the current system in terms of childcare, finances and general support - reform is required all round, with enforceable punishments to act as deterrents and renumerate resident parent appropriately.

3. mums tend to be the primary care giver which pretty much absolves fathers from responsibility (even current court orders aren’t always enforced from what I’ve read) and some men continually repeat this cycle which can result in children living in poverty - there should be some additional penalty for ‘repeat offenders’.

I am not one to advocate a system where reproductive rights are controlled however I am open to debate - a close friend of mine (not on MN) made an interesting suggestion:

What if it were law, to require men to submit their DNA (could be tested at birth) and to wear a condom unless in a committed relationship where they (for lack of a better way of wording it) could declare / sign up / apply for exemption - knowing any child conceived, he would need to take 50/50 responsibility for in terms of childcare, finances etc until she’d 18yr. Committed relationships would need conditions - perhaps time limits eg: together a year / married / or applying for an exemption after meeting the love of your life and wanting a baby together 4 months in - they get one exemption, but if they try to leave and get with another bf/gf, no more exemptions - heavier penalties.
Any child conceived could put with this could have its dna tested at birth and the father easily matched.
Anyone entering the country to study / work / live must submit dna and adhere to law.
We even debated those allergic to latex and found latex-free condoms. We debated the same law around taking the pill but the amount of side effects (some women die from them) we couldn’t even suggest this - whereas condoms don’t / can’t hurt anyone and allergies are accounted for. We debated the religious aspects of contraception too (some forbid it) but those also forbid sex outside marriage so if they are going by their religion, they should encounter no problems with such a system.

We agreed it is totally an authoritarian suggestion however it would ensure every child knew who their dad was, dads couldn’t be cut out the picture, women trying to get pregnant to get maintenance would be found out quickly - again punishable, could be less need for pharmaceuticals like the pill and less side effects (less strain on nhs), children would be majority financed from their parents (less strain on state funds), and it would really shine a light on abuse / rape / incest - it would be pretty hard to hide / deny these with dna evidence (technically aborted foetus dna could also be tested as standard to ensure no abuse).

What we also mentioned was how this would ensure men took responsibility and could reshape culture, giving better role models for young boys and reducing misogyny / breaking the cycle / reducing mental health conditions.

The only real problem we see is the world is run by men, who would put their own ‘wants’ over the ‘needs’ of children - being able to dip their d**k where the want with whom they want, consequence free, will always trump the needs of children, creating a cycle of poverty and mental health conditions.

we need something better, our children are our future and deserve better than this joke of a system which puts them last - it’s not often I look to the US either but their system is even better than ours?! Wtf?

I don't think men should have the option to opt out of parenthood because they don't have the same access to abortions that women have. For a lot of women abortion is not seen as an option for ethical/religious views, these women don't have the option to opt out of parenthood so why should the person who got them pregnant. Men should either step up or use contraception, condoms are widely available, I do know that condoms are not 100% effective but no contraception is.

Abstinence is an entirely safe method of contraception. Men should really not be engaging in sexual activity with women if they are not prepared to accept that pregnancy might occur. Perhaps enforced vasectomies during puberty would be a good solution until men decide they are ready for a family, then they can get them reversed if they sign a legally enforceable document specifying that they cannot abandon their children later down the line.

Some of the posters here should never be allowed to have children themselves, are seriously deluded. Living on a different planet. Makes Big Brother look like Peter Rabbit.
Actually treating men in an extremely unpleasant & derogatory way.

@SandraCumin no, I don't think stripping teenage boys of their human rights is the answer here

Agreed - forcing medical proceedures / medication is way too far.
enforcing condoms, not invasive at all ….

I don’t think it should be a human right to sire a sprog and then ditch them the moment it becomes the slightest bit inconvenient which is what far too many men are able to get away with. Vasectomies are quick and easy, and also reversible so there is absolutely no question about ‘stopping’ people from doing anything.

I remember reading a several years back that 4 BILLION was owed in unpaid child support in this country. I believe the government wrote off half if it a few years ago. It’s absolutely disgusting that it’s not treated more seriously.

Don’t be daft, men can’t get pregnant, women take all the risk with pregnancy and child birth, that’s not “fair” either, but that’s biology for you.

@SandraCumin reversal success rates are 90-95%, so 5-10% of men wouldn't be able to have children because of it

No great loss to the world then.

I think they should pay for any child once they're born, but you can't really force anybody to be a parent.
I know there's pregnancy which can be risky, but that aside even women have the choice (officially anyway) to be a parent or not, either by termination, adoption or choosing to keep the baby. Men also have that choice, be a parent or not. Just that they also know they don't have the choice in the baby being born or not, so once it is born if they didn't want it they don't need to be around but they do need to pay to help raise the child and they should be prepared for that.
It would be horrible for the child too, to be forced on somebody who doesn't want them around. Also, there are enough stories or child abuse and neglect from parents who say they do love and want their child, would probably be even worse if there's resentment towards the child.
The type you mention with several children with different women who they have abandoned- that is also partly a woman's responsibility. If he's abandoned 1/2/3+ already it's quite likely he'll also abandon this one. That is assuming there is a choice and it isn't an abusive relationship or forced pregnancy she doesn't want.

Either way, be forced to pay up, yes. Actually be involved in the childs life, no. As it is, a mother is "lucky" if CMS are any help at all in getting the bare minimum from what I hear so unless the man is genuinely willing then it's all just useless. And even worse, so many people will be quicker to judge the single mother who does all she can than they are to judge the man who abandoned them. Not sure if this judgement is changing a little these days yet? But I think it will eventually because more people are seeing the ridiculousness in it all.

I think it is a matter of dignity. Why would any woman wish to receive money from a partner who has made it blatantly clear that they wish to have nothing to do with them or their child/children.
Support yourself & family & hold your head up.
Of course it is difficult, as I found myself. Luckily I had a wonderful family & friends.

@DemelzaandRoss because childcare prices single parents out of the workplace. One parent should not be disadvantaged and unable to work, because the other parents decides to f**k off and dump all responsibility. Paying for that child and it’s care is the absolute minimum that should be expected. Sex is not consequence free, but the law in this country allows it to be, mainly to the benefit of irresponsible little boys who haven’t grown up (that I won’t dignify with the title of ‘men’ or ‘father’ as they are neither).