Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

anyone listen to woman's hour this morning? Roe v's Wade 'for men'

31 replies

monkeytrousers · 27/03/2006 16:32

The roe v's wade 'for men' discussion for men's reproductive rights. Not a contentious thought except the test case is involving a man who asserts he was 'tricked' into parenthood and then unfairly forced to pay child support. The whole debate was couched in terms of 'female duplicity' and the need for men to be protected from it...THEN, near the end of the piece it was actually stated that no one actually knew whether the woman had gotten pregnant purposely or by mistake !! Is it just me or do all these debates take the context of innate female duplicity for granted. This approach was never once questioned by the presenter and the woman in question was constantly and spuriously referred to as being dishonest. I’m at uni now but I'll find a listen again link when I get home..

OP posts:
Original poster
monkeytrousers · 27/03/2006 22:06

Crikey Jools, you were right!

OP posts:
edam · 27/03/2006 22:08

Hi MT, didn't see this earlier. Didn't hear the programme either but am shocked by your description.

Original poster
monkeytrousers · 27/03/2006 22:20

I'll defo try to get a link - don't have time at the mo! Smile

OP posts:
sparkly1 · 27/03/2006 22:21

He could have worn condoms. He should have been anyway if he didn't want kids. Or he shouldn't have been having sex. And what about the child in this case as the one from the teenage mother whose abortion was not successful? Growing up knowing your father feels this way about you. Nice.

Until men carry children, go through childbirth, I fail to see how Roe v Wade is a man's issue.

bubble99 · 27/03/2006 22:22

What happened to the trials of a contraceptive pill for men? I'm sure I read about one fairly recently.

Original poster
monkeytrousers · 27/03/2006 22:22

\link{http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/03/2006_13_mon.shtml\what am I talking about, of course I have time!!} Grin

Just when you have the time though - I feel I need a second opinion.

OP posts:
Original poster
monkeytrousers · 27/03/2006 22:24

Precisely Sparky, apparently they 'had a conversation' where they concurred they didn't want children but then proceeded to have sex without a condom. Doh

OP posts:
sparkly1 · 27/03/2006 22:27

I'm not saying it doesn't happen where women who want children will lie about contraception, I'm sure it does. That doesn't change the fact that as a man he still has a certain amount of control over birth control. Especially as this was a "brief relationship" you'd think condom use would factor in regardless. Honestly, it's not rocket science.

Original poster
monkeytrousers · 27/03/2006 22:27

"he alleges that told him she was using contraception, and that she was infertile." Eh?

And I was anorexic when a teenager and convinced I was infertile as a consequence - I now have a child. So sue me!

OP posts:
bubble99 · 27/03/2006 22:28

I wasn't dreaming it, was I? I'm sure a pill for men has been developed.

Original poster
monkeytrousers · 27/03/2006 22:31

I'm not saying that either Sparky. There will be a minority of women who will do this as there are a minority of women who will 'cry rape' - But what I constantly see in pieces of this kind is the agenda put forward (and never challenged) is the implication of innate female deviance - it is very subtle but is undeniably there - and (to coin what's probably fast becoming my catchphrase) that's an example of institutionalised misogyny....:p

OP posts:
Original poster
monkeytrousers · 27/03/2006 22:32

It was being developed but I've no idea where it is now - there were increased risks, I'm not sure if they were the same risks as women, but I think that might have scuppered it.

OP posts:
sparkly1 · 27/03/2006 22:33

I had clomid, ovulation induction, ivf (with my ex-h) and when I got together with ex-dp, I told him I couldn't have kids because of that. It was a huge thing to tell someone that. Then a 2 years into our relationship I got pregnant. That wasn't to trap him, it was just how things worked out. I was on the pill at the time to regulate hormones but wasn't diligent about taking it - he knew this - because I didn't need it for birth control. If he'd insisted on using condoms, I would have done so. It was a mutual decision to stop using them after the first 8 months or so.

The bloke in this case feels trapped and doesn't want to pay. I can't see him winning this but I suppose if it got him out of 18 years of child support payments, it's worth trying.

expatinscotland · 27/03/2006 22:34

As an American, I've been following this case and another one - expected to be ruled in the father's favour - in which a divorced father with joint custody of his son opposes the mother's decision to have the 8-year-old boy circumcised for non-medical, non-ethnic or religious reasons.

sparkly1 · 27/03/2006 22:35

It most definitely is (borrowing your phrase Smile ) institutionalised mysogyny. It's wrong on so many levels yet, as you say, it's accepted and not challenged. Why is that? That's the underlying question.

Original poster
monkeytrousers · 27/03/2006 22:36

When you have unprotected sex you take all kinds of risks. Will people be sued for giving someone and STD - women suing as they become infertile after undiagnosed chlamydia, men suing after a bout of ghonnorrhea? The worlds gone mad.

OP posts:
expatinscotland · 27/03/2006 22:37

'He could have worn condoms. He should have been anyway if he didn't want kids. Or he shouldn't have been having sex'

I agree! Sex = babies, b/c no contraception is 100% effective all the time. There's so much lack of personal responsibility in society it's a disgrace.

Original poster
monkeytrousers · 27/03/2006 22:37

Oh, I dunno Sparky. No doubt I'll be tossing and turning all night thinking about it though!

OP posts:
Original poster
monkeytrousers · 27/03/2006 22:40

Speaking of which I'll pick this up tomorrow. I'm off to dive into some Saint-Exupery for half an hour. Laters girls. x

OP posts:
sparkly1 · 27/03/2006 22:43

EIS, interesting about the case with the 8 year old. I can see why if there are no legal or health reasons he would deem circumcision unnecessary. I can't see why that wouldn't go in his favour.

I'm reminded of a case in Canada in the late 80s when I was at university. A woman's boyfriend got an injunction preventing her from having a termination. It was issued in Quebec but was Canada wide (can't think of her name). By the time it was thrown out she had gone to the States to have a termination but it was in the 2nd trimester. I'm fairly adamant that termination is a woman's issue but yet a patriarchal system intervened making it harder for her. Madness. Surely that's more institutionalised mysogyny.

expatinscotland · 27/03/2006 22:45

I dunno about you, sparkly, but I've found institutionalised misogyny to be a HUGE problem in N. America and the UK.

What's frightening is how it is condoned almost w/o thought by many women as well as men.

Sad
sparkly1 · 27/03/2006 22:49

You're absolutely right, it's so accepted by everyone that it's perpetuated by many. Very sad indeed.

nooka · 27/03/2006 23:42

I think that this is only really an issue in a long term relationship where there should be trust, but one or the other partner is being duplicitous. In a short term relationship condoms should always be used for sexual health reasons let alone the risk of pregnancy. On the child support front it really is irrelevant, because the support is for the child, however it was conceived. I think that the abortion stuff is more contentious, because althoguh I agree that it is a woman's body, and would not in any way wish for her right to have an abortion to be challenged, it is still the man's child too. That's why that IVF case was so difficult, because you can't just say that one person's rights overrule the other person's, IYSWIM.

sparkly1 · 28/03/2006 00:40

Nooka, I do agree with some of what you're saying re use of birth control/prevention of stds but I think that until men have the burden of carrying a child, having the child etc, then I feel the decision is only for the woman to make. I'm not saying it's something that should be used to punish a man just as I don't think it's ever right to lie to your partner about contraception in order to get pregnant.

Original poster
monkeytrousers · 28/03/2006 12:18

The IVF case was difficult but it was also crucially different ad the embryos were outside of the body and so no one had any more rights of ownership than the other. Your right about the Canada case Sparky. Terrible.

OP posts: