Nelly Oudshoorn's book, The male pill: a biography of a technology in the making (2003) points out that although the feasibility of a male birth control pill was demonstrated in the 1970's, there is still no such product available. Early opinion surveys focused on class and gender differences, such as Balswick (1975) who stated that "any attempted reeducation process must take into account the lower-class male's fear of emasculation." According to a survey of 1,930 men by Thompson (2008), over half of men desire "more personal control over their fertility", and 96% are willing to visit a doctor in order to get a new method of male contraception. According to Thompson, belief persists among contraceptive developers that men would not embrace a drug-based birth control method, but the results of the survey contradict this stereotype.
In the 1980's, I knew a man who claimed to get a male birth control pill from Canada, saying that it wasn't available in the U.S. The man was a compulsive liar in pretty much every area of his life, but being 12, I believed him. As an adult, I question his motives for sharing this "fact" with a 12-year-old (he didn't actually make a pass at me that I noticed), as well as shudder to think about the girls he probably did convince to have unprotected sex with him.
Here's the thing: I feel like the male-birth-control thing is tied up in a Catch-22 with the social responsibility for pregnancy. I feel like the current laws regarding child support are unfair to men, but also that changing them would be unfair to women. I get furious when I hear things headlines like "Sperm Donor Sued for Child Support", even though the sources are often reactionary crap (two examples: FOXnews, 2005; NY Post, 2007). There is no opt-out for men when it comes to child support, but I feel like this option can't be given until there is more equal responsibility for preventing pregnancy.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Take the Difference Blog Reader Poll
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
you know that the theory is the best interests of the child, and not about fairness to the adults, right? I mean, not that this always works perfectly.
though I have to agree that suing a sperm donor should be doomed to failure.
My problem comes with tying the "best interests" of the child to the "responsible parties". If it's truly about society caring about the best interests of the child, it seems like the cost should be borne by society.
The current child-support laws seem to imply responsibility, and responsibility implies choice. There is no opt-out stage for men past conception under current laws. Under no circumstances do I think men should get to decide if a conceived child gets carried to term, but I also don't think they should be held responsible for "accidentally on-purpose" pregnancies.
I actually have that book, but I've only read the first few pages so far. It seems to me that men have more to lose if it goes wrong, than women if they get pregnant while on the female pill. If a woman has just become pregnant, she can still get an abortion without anyone knowing, but the man just has to accept whatever decision she makes.
Personally, I'd rather use condoms.
piterburg
2009-03-27 12:41 am UTC (link) Track This
//The current child-support laws seem to imply responsibility, and responsibility implies choice. There is no opt-out stage for men past conception under current laws. Under no circumstances do I think men should get to decide if a conceived child gets carried to term, but I also don't think they should be held responsible for "accidentally on-purpose" pregnancies.//
I am 100% with you on this.
The actual situation is even worse than you state - often times men cannot avoid supporting children who are not even theirs biologically due to time limitations on challenging paternity claims. Let's say you divorce you wife, start paying child support, and 5 years later you begin to suspect that the child is not yours. Your suspicions confirmed by a DNA test, but you cannot challenge paternity because the statute of limitations (often 3 years) had expired.
That is the reason some divorce attorneys advice their male clients to demand DNA tests during divorce proceedings. In light of the present laws the demands for DNA tests is undeniably prudent, but, needless to say, they do not facilitate amicable divorces.
The laws requiring cuckolded men to keep supporting others' children are justified as being "in best interest of a child". To follow this logic to the bitter end it would be in the best interest of a child to be supported by Bill Gates.
[info]piterburg
2009-03-27 12:51 am UTC
//I get furious when I hear things headlines like "Sperm Donor Sued for Child Support", even though the sources are often reactionary crap//
Men who donate to a licensed sperm bank are generally exempt by statute from claims for support of their biological offspring. However, those men who do it privately, by, say, donating to a female acquaintance who wants to have a child and disclaims support, are still on the hook for support if she changes her mind later as any such disclaimers are generally not valid.
Post a Comment