The Backlash Politics of Choice4Men

There are heated discussions on Alas, A Blog and Hugo Schwyzer's blog about Choice4Men. There is a second post on the subject at Alas here. I've been familiar with this group for nearly a decade. Choice4Men seeks to absolve fathers of the responsibilities towards their children.

Like so many men's rights groups, Choice4Men likens itself to the Civil Rights movement. This is insulting to the Civil Rights movement. These men view themselves as victims of a system that discriminates against men. In its FAQ, Choice4Men admits that it is about getting out of child support obligations.

Q.) Isn't "Choice for Men" simply a way for men to get out of paying child support?

A.) "Choice for Men" is more. "Choice for Men" gives males a right that women have had since 1973. It also allows men to become fathers by choice, instead of by accident. Stigmatizing "Choice for Men" as just a way to avoid child support is like saying the civil rights movement was just a way for blacks to ride in the front of the bus.

This is an excerpt from a position paper written by Choice4Men back in 1997. Note how Choice4Men has co-opted feminist language about "choice" in order to hide (poorly, in my opinion) these men's aim of avoiding their personal responsiblities. They want to have the ability to have sex without holding any of the responsibility for pregnancies that may result.

Men are entitled to a reproductive "choice", and should be allowed to terminate their parental rights and responsibilities during a limited period. It's beyond question that unplanned parenthood can completely disrupt a man's life. It disrupts his education, it disrupts his mental health, and it often disrupts his entire family life. We feel that, because of the impact to the man in this matter of such basic concern, inasmuch as there are any rights which are fundamental, that he should be allowed to make the choice as to whether he'll terminate his parental rights and responsibilities. The detriment that the government would impose upon the man by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Paternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the man a distressful life and future. Psychological harm and heartbreak may result. Mental and physical health may be taxed. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child. The continuing stigma of unwed fatherhood may be involved. The man is the victim. The government cannot deny the detrimental effect that the current paternity laws have on men. Certainly there are problems regarding even the use of contraception. Regardless of the circumstances of conception, whether he is extremely immature(1), whether it is because of contraceptive fraud(2), or whether it is a case of mistaken identity, he has no relief.

All Choice4Men supporters should read this link. Cara in the comments at the second Alas post had posted it. I knew about the article, but couldn't remember where I'd found it originally. Thanks to Cara for posting it over there.

Toward a Strict Liability Theory of Parentage

Here are excerpts:

"The story of Peter Wallis and Kellie Smith is just another in a long line of cases where the father of a child has claimed he is not liable for child support and/or that he is entitled to tort damages because of the mother's misrepresentations as to birth control and/or fertility. A woman's fraudulent misrepresentation regarding the use of birth control or the ability to become pregnant, however, has never shielded the father from child support liability."

[...]

"In these same cases discussed thus far, as well as in other cases, the father has claimed that the damages arising from the tort of fraud and misrepresentation offset the child support due. The courts have universally held that the father's allegations that the mother had deceived him were totally irrelevant to the issues of paternity and support. Child support statutes are based on the financial situation of the parents and the needs of the child, not on the personal agreements concerning contraception between the parties."

[...]

"In all of these cases except S.F. v. State ex rel. T.M., the fathers complained that the reproduction decision was solely in the mother's hands, because once conception took place he could not force her not to bear the child. But what the men have failed to understand is that in all of these cases the women assumed not only all the "reproduction rights," they assumed the reproduction risks of the failure of birth control.

Both men and women have reproductive rights and responsibilities. By virtue of biology, because a woman is the one to bear the child, it so happens that men must exercise their rights not to bear children earlier than women, that is, in the bedroom and not at the abortion clinic or in the courtroom. In the words of one court, [w]hile it is true that after conception a woman has more control than a man over the decision whether to bear a child, and may unilaterally refuse to obtain an abortion, those facts were known to the father at the time of conception. The choice available to a woman vests in her by the fact that she, and not the man, must carry the child and must undergo whatever traumas, physical and mental, may be attendant to either childbirth or abortion. Any differing treatment accorded men and women . . . is owed not to the operation of [state law] but to the operation of nature."

Try as they might, Choice4Men does not get off scot free. The law sees to that.

Now, just to play Devil's Advocate and throw everyone off, I need to point out that Welfare Reform has lead to all kinds of problems with unwed fathers and mothers and child support. Welfare Reform has created legal fiction stating that "child support is for the child." It's actually reimbursement to the mother for opportunity losses and other losses she undertakes when she accepts primary responsibility for raising children. The legal fiction has lead to Welfare Reform reducing fatherhood to DNA. When an unwed mother applies for public assistance, she must name the father even if she has not had any contact with him for many years. The state will track him down and require that he pay child support in order to pay back the state. Fatherhood is much more than DNA, and I think this practice causes many problems for men, women, and children.

A problem for many mothers is that when they petition for child support from a man who doesn't want to pay it and doesn't want any responsibility for his children, whether dad had married her or not, is that he often retaliates by filing for either sole or joint custody and visitation on his terms. I believe that if a mother is not getting child support and there is a chance that dad could retaliate in this fashion that she is better off without the child support. Any money she would have received in child support goes to pay legal fees. In my opinion, she's much better off without the hassle. Many of these contested custody and visitation cases begin because mom had filed for child support. If she needs public assistance, the state will not allow her to forgo child support, and then all sorts of horrible court hearings begin.

The same Choice4Men supporters who demand that they not have to pay child support also demand control over how mom lives her life if they do pay, such as visitation on their terms and forbidding her to relocate for a new job or remarriage. Choice4Men supporters are concerned only with their own welfare and demands, on their terms.