To think that men who evade paying for their children are a burden on society?

[ASimpleLampoon]

Not my situation as not divorced but I'm fed up of hearing about thousands of men who don't pay child support or only pay the minimum, or fiddle their employment status/ declared income to pay less

They should pay at least half the actual costs of raising their children, more if they earn significantly more than the other parent

If they can't pay they should be supported to get a better job

If theyre self employed and can't pay enough well get a job that allows you to pay.

If they're getting paid in cash, take on more work to pay or find a job where they can't hide their income so they have to pay.

They are the real burden on society , fed up of seeing disabled people and carers torn apart while these feckless men get away with it year after year.

Where is the government and media campaign against them?

But that’s exactly my point! Women have options and men don’t.

Well, it’s both. Shiftless, imprudent people shouldn’t be producing offspring when they can’t even manage their own lives.

and it’s not “supported by the government,” it’s supported by us taxpayers who get up and go to work every day.

Men have the option to keep it in their pants!

There is a difference in a mature long term relationship going wrong and endless 'baby daddy's'

So do women…

No, definitely not. Men have almost always shirked responsibility for controlling their fertility. And they need to. All this 'She said she was on the pill' crap is just deflecting blame.

Penis in vagina = baby.
Don't want a baby? Vasectomy. Condom. Non penetrative sex. No sex. Masturbation.

If you make a baby, you are responsible. Men need to man the fcuk up.

If a system designed to make people pay for their children isn't doing that and isnt making it clear it can do that then it's either complete incompetence on the part of everyone employed within an entire organisation or it's orders from above enforced by management to benefit who? Politicians with secret children? Very rich and powerful people with secret children? A system that benefits more from single parents being left holding the baby for some unfathomable (to me) reason than from parents being prevented from avoiding supporting their children? Something else?

And to chuck my two pence worth in to the discussion in general not part of the post i quoted - re second families, frankly, if you can't afford to support the children you already have then you don't have the luxury of having more children. Your primary duty is to provide for existing children. More children at the expense of providing for existing children is not OK. Just because it's with a new partner changes nothing. Don't have more children than you can afford to provide for is not an unreasonable position. It's one used a lot when taking about people on low incomes after all and plenty of people support it so why the exemption for people creating a second or third or forth family, leaving their existing children poorer and poorer?

Men know their options.

Biology dictates when their choices stop, so if they choose sex they choose the potential of having a child.

Women get a little longer to decide.

There's nothing unfair about that at all.

And if the woman gets pregnant she DOES have to face the consequences.

If these endless baby daddies are financially supporting their children then it makes no difference, does it.

Yes, but she has options in deciding how this will affect the rest of her life.

A very good example of what is wrong in society these days

And while I agree, women shouldn't be producing multiple children, with lots of different men, WHY don't men see women with several kids, several baby daddies and think 'She's not using contraception, if I'm shagging her, I need to wrap it and protect myself?' If I was a man, I sure as hell would.

My feeling is that if you can't afford to look after the children you already have, then you shouldn't be having more. I have 2 children, it was a choice not to have more and finances were part of the reasoning when I made this decision. I (and my husband) would stand by that decision regardless of whether we stay married or not.

Musk is one of those endless baby daddies!

It’s not all about one night stands. There are men who are married for years and everything seems stable. Then one day they walk out, never see the kids again and refuse to pay the costs of these humans who they previously seemed dedicated to. I think that is more reprehensible than a one night stand!

It doesn't necessarily have to be a prison sentence. There are plenty of careers where having a criminal record could result in being barred from the profession which would in itself be a deterrent.

I agree.
I think that once a man has children with 2 different partners it should be so financially difficult to father any more children that he is forced to take responsibility and stop breeding.
Step children, or more correctly children living at the same house as the absent father, should not be used to reduce the father’s maintenance payments. They should be completely irrelevant.
The tax payer should not have to keep working hard to cover all this expense.
There are also a growing number of couples living apart yet having children together. The fathers in these circumstances should be made to pay a high proportion of their wages towards the upkeep of their children. This should then reduce the amount of benefits the mother is allowed to claim.

Exactly.

We women hold all the power, and with more power comes more accountability.

The man had an option too. A condom. And to not just shag random women!

So in a system (patriarchy) designed to always benefit men, women STILL have to be more accountable? Talk about reinforcing systems of power.

Because the poor men can't stop themselves having sex if they are adamant they don't want a child?

I’d go even further and say that no one needs to produce offspring with more than one bio partner. Male or female.

Producing “one of our own” with every subsequent partner is unnecessary and self-indulgent.

Any parent who cannot raise their child without relying on the financial support of another person or the state is a burden on society. Obviously absent fathers who don't pay appropriate maintenance are guilty, but so are lots of mothers and indeed lots of couples who remain together. The entire cost of raising a child should fall to the parents. I've long found it bizarre that there are strict criteria, licences and tests required for things like driving a car or owning a shotgun, yet anyone who can find a willing sexual partner can have a child with no prior check as to their suitability.

But all the bloke has to do is pay a small amount of his earnings, right? If he is really feckless with low income it might be only £10 a month. It’s not like he faces all the sleepless nights and nappy changes and the rest - including difficult teenage years. A lifetime of work!