Who Should Pay Child Support? (Split from Roe v Wade is on deck)

[Toni]

Very much so. The response to whether a woman has the right to her body is "but what about the guys rights?"

If a woman wants to have a right to an abortion, men shouldn't have to pay for their babies. In other words, the Toms out there want to be able to financially blackmail a woman into getting an abortion. Nice.

Note that my position isn't one of blackmail. I specifically included allowing her to opt out of the rule--if she won't accept abortion she simply needs to be up front about it.

If he won’t accept paying child support, he needs to be upfront about it as well, use a condom throughout any sexual encounter and put down a deposit towards any medical care that might be required as a result of his orgasm. In addition, he needs to set up an escrow account to cover her share of any legal fees when she pursues him for child support if she becomes pregnant, as well as to cover any loss of wages, etc. as a result of his orgasm.

Believe it or not but women are living, thinking human beings with their own individual health needs and concerns, thoughts and feelings about pregnancy, abortion, parenthood, adoption, marriage, co-parenting, career and educational attainment and pathways and a host of other factors to consider.

The whole wham bam thank you ma’am ideology is a fraud which shortchanged all of society.

And you think condoms are 100% effective?

You aren't explaining how my position is a burden. If she doesn't like it she's free to tell him so. Yes, that will mean a lot of men won't be willing to sleep with her--so what? She's the one that wants to run up the costs. This would be a complete non-issue with any other sort of accident, the laws are outdated when the accident is contraceptive failure.

Whoever thought condoms are 100% effective? Never have I posted such a thing.

My position is that if a man is unwilling to support whatever choice his sex partner(s) make as a result of his orgasm, then he should be upfront about that, in writing, before engaging in any activity that might lead to his orgasm. BTW, this is ONLY in response to YOUR position. Normal people do not behave this way. YOUR position that 'she's the one who wants to run up the costs' is disgusting, sexist, and ignorant.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Very much so. The response to whether a woman has the right to her body is "but what about the guys rights?"

If a woman wants to have a right to an abortion, men shouldn't have to pay for their babies. In other words, the Toms out there want to be able to financially blackmail a woman into getting an abortion. Nice.

Note that my position isn't one of blackmail. I specifically included allowing her to opt out of the rule--if she won't accept abortion she simply needs to be up front about it.

If he won’t accept paying child support, he needs to be upfront about it as well, use a condom throughout any sexual encounter and put down a deposit towards any medical care that might be required as a result of his orgasm. In addition, he needs to set up an escrow account to cover her share of any legal fees when she pursues him for child support if she becomes pregnant, as well as to cover any loss of wages, etc. as a result of his orgasm.

Believe it or not but women are living, thinking human beings with their own individual health needs and concerns, thoughts and feelings about pregnancy, abortion, parenthood, adoption, marriage, co-parenting, career and educational attainment and pathways and a host of other factors to consider.

The whole wham bam thank you ma’am ideology is a fraud which shortchanged all of society.

And you think condoms are 100% effective?

You aren't explaining how my position is a burden. If she doesn't like it she's free to tell him so. Yes, that will mean a lot of men won't be willing to sleep with her--so what? She's the one that wants to run up the costs. This would be a complete non-issue with any other sort of accident, the laws are outdated when the accident is contraceptive failure.

I think open communication is incredibly important. Ultimately, I think something like this should only apply if the woman is openly deceptive and is trying to get pregnant. But good luck proving that. And still, this goes back to the whole, this is past the point of birth and not relevant whether a woman has a choice, because in Texas, most of them already don't. And that is going to spread.

 

[Toni]

Very much so. The response to whether a woman has the right to her body is "but what about the guys rights?"

If a woman wants to have a right to an abortion, men shouldn't have to pay for their babies. In other words, the Toms out there want to be able to financially blackmail a woman into getting an abortion. Nice.

Note that my position isn't one of blackmail. I specifically included allowing her to opt out of the rule--if she won't accept abortion she simply needs to be up front about it.

If he won’t accept paying child support, he needs to be upfront about it as well, use a condom throughout any sexual encounter and put down a deposit towards any medical care that might be required as a result of his orgasm. In addition, he needs to set up an escrow account to cover her share of any legal fees when she pursues him for child support if she becomes pregnant, as well as to cover any loss of wages, etc. as a result of his orgasm.

Believe it or not but women are living, thinking human beings with their own individual health needs and concerns, thoughts and feelings about pregnancy, abortion, parenthood, adoption, marriage, co-parenting, career and educational attainment and pathways and a host of other factors to consider.

The whole wham bam thank you ma’am ideology is a fraud which shortchanged all of society.

And you think condoms are 100% effective?

You aren't explaining how my position is a burden. If she doesn't like it she's free to tell him so. Yes, that will mean a lot of men won't be willing to sleep with her--so what? She's the one that wants to run up the costs. This would be a complete non-issue with any other sort of accident, the laws are outdated when the accident is contraceptive failure.

I think open communication is incredibly important. Ultimately, I think something like this should only apply if the woman is openly deceptive and is trying to get pregnant. But good luck proving that. And still, this goes back to the whole, this is past the point of birth and not relevant whether a woman has a choice, because in Texas, most of them already don't. And that is going to spread.

What about men who are openly deceptive? Men who say they have been snipped? Or are infertile because of childhood disease? Or that they want to make a baby with you? That they'll love you forever? That they are wealthy? That they want to make love all night long? That they are into monogamy? That that rash means nothing? THAT THEY'LL USE THAT CONDOM? That he'll pull out in time? That you're the only one for them? That they are wealthy and want to take care of you? That she meant nothing to him and it's all over? That he only lives with his mother temporarily, to help her out?

 

[Jarhyn]

There we go! Pregnancy insurance.

Guy: I think you're hot.
Gal: I think you're hot.
Guy: Lets have sex.
Gal: You insured?
Guy: *bashful* $2,000 policy.
Gal: Too bad. *walks off towards much lesser attractive man waving $50k policy*
Guy: Can't we at least cuddle...
Gal: So $50k?
Guy2: And my policy doesn't even require a condom.
*leaves together*

I think it needs more to be single payer. Like "sexual security insurance" or some shit like that.

Everyone who has not taken reasonable measures to establish that they cannot impregnate another human being gets to pay it, and if they end up producing kids, they get to pay more. Not a lot more, just slightly higher premiums.

Essentially it creates one explicit pool "pregnancy-theoretic male" to which anyone MAY claim membership and a lot of people will want to have validation for to be "not pregnancy-theoretic male".

Want to not pay premiums? Agree personally and explicitly to child support obligations of your children in particular. Renege, get someone pregnant, and have a kid without meeting your obligation? Get stuck with back taxes.

No individual "PTM" gets stuck holding the bag for anyone.

Dislike that on account of being PTM? Get snipped, fool.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Very much so. The response to whether a woman has the right to her body is "but what about the guys rights?"

If a woman wants to have a right to an abortion, men shouldn't have to pay for their babies. In other words, the Toms out there want to be able to financially blackmail a woman into getting an abortion. Nice.

Note that my position isn't one of blackmail. I specifically included allowing her to opt out of the rule--if she won't accept abortion she simply needs to be up front about it.

If he won’t accept paying child support, he needs to be upfront about it as well, use a condom throughout any sexual encounter and put down a deposit towards any medical care that might be required as a result of his orgasm. In addition, he needs to set up an escrow account to cover her share of any legal fees when she pursues him for child support if she becomes pregnant, as well as to cover any loss of wages, etc. as a result of his orgasm.

Believe it or not but women are living, thinking human beings with their own individual health needs and concerns, thoughts and feelings about pregnancy, abortion, parenthood, adoption, marriage, co-parenting, career and educational attainment and pathways and a host of other factors to consider.

The whole wham bam thank you ma’am ideology is a fraud which shortchanged all of society.

And you think condoms are 100% effective?

You aren't explaining how my position is a burden. If she doesn't like it she's free to tell him so. Yes, that will mean a lot of men won't be willing to sleep with her--so what? She's the one that wants to run up the costs. This would be a complete non-issue with any other sort of accident, the laws are outdated when the accident is contraceptive failure.

I think open communication is incredibly important. Ultimately, I think something like this should only apply if the woman is openly deceptive and is trying to get pregnant. But good luck proving that. And still, this goes back to the whole, this is past the point of birth and not relevant whether a woman has a choice, because in Texas, most of them already don't. And that is going to spread.

What about men who are openly deceptive?

I'm just saying if a woman was purposefully trying to get pregnant and was lying to the guy, that maybe some different standard of support was legitimate, but I also implied that proving such a thing would probably be impossible.

Men who say they have been snipped? Or are infertile because of childhood disease? Or that they want to make a baby with you? That they'll love you forever? That they are wealthy? That they want to make love all night long? That they are into monogamy? That that rash means nothing? THAT THEY'LL USE THAT CONDOM? That he'll pull out in time? That you're the only one for them? That they are wealthy and want to take care of you? That she meant nothing to him and it's all over? That he only lives with his mother temporarily, to help her out?

Yeah, lying and sex do seem to go hand and hand and how people think pre-sex verses post-sex is often wildly different. There really is no perfect system. Both sides can become manipulative and bullshit can get quite dramatic. And of course, this is presuming a child will be born. Which is kind of the opposite of an abortion. Roe v Wade isn't about child care!

But only one side is actually pregnant. And in no universe should a woman be compelled to abort a child if they don't want to or endure pregnancy and birth if they don't want to. Really this is the only thing that should matter. And men bringing up the child care costs just feels like a compulsion to force women to hedge towards an abortion, whether they want one or not. Which is deplorable.

There we go! Pregnancy insurance.

Guy: I think you're hot.
Gal: I think you're hot.
Guy: Lets have sex.
Gal: You insured?
Guy: *bashful* $2,000 policy.
Gal: Too bad. *walks off towards much lesser attractive man waving $50k policy*
Guy: Can't we at least cuddle...
Gal: So $50k?
Guy2: And my policy doesn't even require a condom.
*leaves together*

I think it needs more to be single payer. Like "sexual security insurance" or some shit like that.

But that isn't funny.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And you think condoms are 100% effective?

You aren't explaining how my position is a burden. If she doesn't like it she's free to tell him so. Yes, that will mean a lot of men won't be willing to sleep with her--so what? She's the one that wants to run up the costs. This would be a complete non-issue with any other sort of accident, the laws are outdated when the accident is contraceptive failure.

Whoever thought condoms are 100% effective? Never have I posted such a thing.

My position is that if a man is unwilling to support whatever choice his sex partner(s) make as a result of his orgasm, then he should be upfront about that, in writing, before engaging in any activity that might lead to his orgasm. BTW, this is ONLY in response to YOUR position. Normal people do not behave this way. YOUR position that 'she's the one who wants to run up the costs' is disgusting, sexist, and ignorant.

I'm taking the position that she can make whatever choice she wants--but she has to tell him first. What's the problem with this?

 

[Bomb#20]

I'm taking the position that she can make whatever choice she wants--but she has to tell him first. What's the problem with this?

She has a right to change her mind after she gets pregnant. If public policy is that if she changes her mind then he's relieved of all financial responsibility for any consequently increased costs, then those costs will be borne by someone else. If she can't afford those costs then they'll be borne by the baby or borne by the taxpayers. The public is unlikely to find an argument for either of the latter two options compelling, when they have the option of pinning the costs on a guy who freely chose to run the risk of creating them.

 

[Toni]

And you think condoms are 100% effective?

You aren't explaining how my position is a burden. If she doesn't like it she's free to tell him so. Yes, that will mean a lot of men won't be willing to sleep with her--so what? She's the one that wants to run up the costs. This would be a complete non-issue with any other sort of accident, the laws are outdated when the accident is contraceptive failure.

Whoever thought condoms are 100% effective? Never have I posted such a thing.

My position is that if a man is unwilling to support whatever choice his sex partner(s) make as a result of his orgasm, then he should be upfront about that, in writing, before engaging in any activity that might lead to his orgasm. BTW, this is ONLY in response to YOUR position. Normal people do not behave this way. YOUR position that 'she's the one who wants to run up the costs' is disgusting, sexist, and ignorant.

I'm taking the position that she can make whatever choice she wants--but she has to tell him first. What's the problem with this?

My position is that he also needs to be upfront about his willingness to use birth control and his willingness to accept her autonomy over her body. If she gets pregnant, she gets to decide whether or not to carry the pregnancy.

What’s wrong with that?

Here’s the part where I mention that, when confronted with a real pregnancy, people sometimes have unexpected reactions and feelings. Sometimes people who never thought they’d consider abortion absolutely want an abortion. Sometimes people faced with an unexpected pregnancy really want to have that baby—forever or to give the baby for adoption. Even if it means big changes in plans.

It’s best if they both agree and then do whatever it takes to make that decision work for all. But because only the woman is pregnant, her choice is the one that wins out. That includes deciding to have an abortion or have a baby without telling him. The second choice: having the baby, really really really should include telling him ( assuming this was a mutually consensual encounter) but she has no obligation to tell him she’s having an abortion unless she wants to or needs his support.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here’s the part where I mention that, when confronted with a real pregnancy, people sometimes have unexpected reactions and feelings. Sometimes people who never thought they’d consider abortion absolutely want an abortion. Sometimes people faced with an unexpected pregnancy really want to have that baby—forever or to give the baby for adoption. Even if it means big changes in plans.

It’s best if they both agree and then do whatever it takes to make that decision work for all. But because only the woman is pregnant, her choice is the one that wins out. That includes deciding to have an abortion or have a baby without telling him. The second choice: having the baby, really really really should include telling him ( assuming this was a mutually consensual encounter) but she has no obligation to tell him she’s having an abortion unless she wants to or needs his support.

She can change her mind, but I don't see that she gets to obligate him in doing so.

 

[Keith&Co.]

She can change her mind, but I don't see that she gets to obligate him in doing so.

The KID obligates him. That's the point of child support, thsat there's a kid he knew, or should have known, might reasonably reault from his engaging in the whoopie smoochies.

 

[Metaphor]

Very much so. The response to whether a woman has the right to her body is "but what about the guys rights?"

If a woman wants to have a right to an abortion, men shouldn't have to pay for their babies. In other words, the Toms out there want to be able to financially blackmail a woman into getting an abortion. Nice.

Note that my position isn't one of blackmail. I specifically included allowing her to opt out of the rule--if she won't accept abortion she simply needs to be up front about it.

If he won’t accept paying child support, he needs to be upfront about it as well, use a condom throughout any sexual encounter and put down a deposit towards any medical care that might be required as a result of his orgasm. In addition, he needs to set up an escrow account to cover her share of any legal fees when she pursues him for child support if she becomes pregnant, as well as to cover any loss of wages, etc. as a result of his orgasm.

Believe it or not but women are living, thinking human beings with their own individual health needs and concerns, thoughts and feelings about pregnancy, abortion, parenthood, adoption, marriage, co-parenting, career and educational attainment and pathways and a host of other factors to consider.

The whole wham bam thank you ma’am ideology is a fraud which shortchanged all of society.

And you think condoms are 100% effective?

You aren't explaining how my position is a burden. If she doesn't like it she's free to tell him so. Yes, that will mean a lot of men won't be willing to sleep with her--so what? She's the one that wants to run up the costs. This would be a complete non-issue with any other sort of accident, the laws are outdated when the accident is contraceptive failure.

Whoever thought condoms are 100% effective? Never have I posted such a thing.

My position is that if a man is unwilling to support whatever choice his sex partner(s) make as a result of his orgasm, then he should be upfront about that, in writing, before engaging in any activity that might lead to his orgasm.

Why? Don't try and tell me you would honour any such agreement. That you would not demand the State extract money from the father no matter what he said up front?

 

[Toni]

Very much so. The response to whether a woman has the right to her body is "but what about the guys rights?"

If a woman wants to have a right to an abortion, men shouldn't have to pay for their babies. In other words, the Toms out there want to be able to financially blackmail a woman into getting an abortion. Nice.

Note that my position isn't one of blackmail. I specifically included allowing her to opt out of the rule--if she won't accept abortion she simply needs to be up front about it.

If he won’t accept paying child support, he needs to be upfront about it as well, use a condom throughout any sexual encounter and put down a deposit towards any medical care that might be required as a result of his orgasm. In addition, he needs to set up an escrow account to cover her share of any legal fees when she pursues him for child support if she becomes pregnant, as well as to cover any loss of wages, etc. as a result of his orgasm.

Believe it or not but women are living, thinking human beings with their own individual health needs and concerns, thoughts and feelings about pregnancy, abortion, parenthood, adoption, marriage, co-parenting, career and educational attainment and pathways and a host of other factors to consider.

The whole wham bam thank you ma’am ideology is a fraud which shortchanged all of society.

And you think condoms are 100% effective?

You aren't explaining how my position is a burden. If she doesn't like it she's free to tell him so. Yes, that will mean a lot of men won't be willing to sleep with her--so what? She's the one that wants to run up the costs. This would be a complete non-issue with any other sort of accident, the laws are outdated when the accident is contraceptive failure.

Whoever thought condoms are 100% effective? Never have I posted such a thing.

My position is that if a man is unwilling to support whatever choice his sex partner(s) make as a result of his orgasm, then he should be upfront about that, in writing, before engaging in any activity that might lead to his orgasm.

Why? Don't try and tell me you would honour any such agreement. That you would not demand the State extract money from the father no matter what he said up front?

Why on earth would I care to have sex with such a selfish, shortsighted person who is unwilling to take responsibility for birth control or any progeny that might result from such failure? Why would i care to engage in intimate contact with someone who is unwilling to assume their fair share of responsibility?

 

[Metaphor]

Very much so. The response to whether a woman has the right to her body is "but what about the guys rights?"

If a woman wants to have a right to an abortion, men shouldn't have to pay for their babies. In other words, the Toms out there want to be able to financially blackmail a woman into getting an abortion. Nice.

Note that my position isn't one of blackmail. I specifically included allowing her to opt out of the rule--if she won't accept abortion she simply needs to be up front about it.

If he won’t accept paying child support, he needs to be upfront about it as well, use a condom throughout any sexual encounter and put down a deposit towards any medical care that might be required as a result of his orgasm. In addition, he needs to set up an escrow account to cover her share of any legal fees when she pursues him for child support if she becomes pregnant, as well as to cover any loss of wages, etc. as a result of his orgasm.

Believe it or not but women are living, thinking human beings with their own individual health needs and concerns, thoughts and feelings about pregnancy, abortion, parenthood, adoption, marriage, co-parenting, career and educational attainment and pathways and a host of other factors to consider.

The whole wham bam thank you ma’am ideology is a fraud which shortchanged all of society.

And you think condoms are 100% effective?

You aren't explaining how my position is a burden. If she doesn't like it she's free to tell him so. Yes, that will mean a lot of men won't be willing to sleep with her--so what? She's the one that wants to run up the costs. This would be a complete non-issue with any other sort of accident, the laws are outdated when the accident is contraceptive failure.

Whoever thought condoms are 100% effective? Never have I posted such a thing.

My position is that if a man is unwilling to support whatever choice his sex partner(s) make as a result of his orgasm, then he should be upfront about that, in writing, before engaging in any activity that might lead to his orgasm.

Why? Don't try and tell me you would honour any such agreement. That you would not demand the State extract money from the father no matter what he said up front?

Why on earth would I care to have sex with such a selfish, shortsighted person who is unwilling to take responsibility for birth control or any progeny that might result from such failure? Why would i care to engage in intimate contact with someone who is unwilling to assume their fair share of responsibility?

I mean: don't try and tell me you want society to honour and enforce such an agreement.

Man Y gives such a written notice to a woman X who reads it and agrees and then has sex with him. She becomes pregnant.

Are you telling me that you would then be happy to say 'woman X cannot pursue State-enforced child support from man Y'?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Whoever thought condoms are 100% effective? Never have I posted such a thing.

My position is that if a man is unwilling to support whatever choice his sex partner(s) make as a result of his orgasm, then he should be upfront about that, in writing, before engaging in any activity that might lead to his orgasm.

Why? Don't try and tell me you would honour any such agreement. That you would not demand the State extract money from the father no matter what he said up front?

Why on earth would I care to have sex with such a selfish, shortsighted person who is unwilling to take responsibility for birth control or any progeny that might result from such failure? Why would i care to engage in intimate contact with someone who is unwilling to assume their fair share of responsibility?

Fundamentally, you want the right to make an agreement and then go back on it if you change your mind.

 

[Toni]

Whoever thought condoms are 100% effective? Never have I posted such a thing.

My position is that if a man is unwilling to support whatever choice his sex partner(s) make as a result of his orgasm, then he should be upfront about that, in writing, before engaging in any activity that might lead to his orgasm.

Why? Don't try and tell me you would honour any such agreement. That you would not demand the State extract money from the father no matter what he said up front?

Why on earth would I care to have sex with such a selfish, shortsighted person who is unwilling to take responsibility for birth control or any progeny that might result from such failure? Why would i care to engage in intimate contact with someone who is unwilling to assume their fair share of responsibility?

Fundamentally, you want the right to make an agreement and then go back on it if you change your mind.

What the actual fuck, Loren?

I’m not capable of becoming pregnant! I’m not sleeping with someone in hopes of trapping him into making me pregnant at my age or at any age.

You are the person who started with saying that women who won’t have an abortion in the case of what you do charmingly call an ‘oops pregnancy’ must take full responsibility for the pregnancy and any costs associated with the pregnancy, birth and child rearing. OR she needs to sign a document agreeing in advance to abort any pregnancy or ride bear full financial burden.

Can you please explain exactly what SHE did that He did not also do? Sure, she ovulated but he ejaculated.

What terrible attitudes you have toward women, pregnancy, sex, childbirth, child rearing! What horrible attitudes you have towards women!

No person of intelligence abs education should be so ignorant or so ill informed or anti-woman.

I wrote what I did: that the man should sign a document accepting or refusing to accept responsibilities for any unplanned conception prior to sex so that the woman would be able to make an informed decision.

What kind of sick mind sees women as sly, calculation seductresses after a man’s spent so that she can extort him and the state—fir what??? Barely subsistence standard of living? The risk to her health and life? The risk to her educational and economic future?

I really thought much better than of you than your contributions in this thread. You’re intelligent and educated. You’re married to a woman you seem to love. Yet you seem to hold women in general in such contempt that is rarely seen in the US outside of the GOP.

 

[Metaphor]

I wrote what I did: that the man should sign a document accepting or refusing to accept responsibilities for any unplanned conception prior to sex so that the woman would be able to make an informed decision.

And if a man has signed such a document, you agree that he should be absolved from any legal responsibility if the women becomes pregnant?

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, as the thread has worn on, it becomes apparent that there are two camps of self-interest.

I still expect my single-rate "testicles insurance" would solve the problem nicely.

Wish to have testicles and use them? Either pay insurance to the state for preemptive shared-risk-pool childcare costs, volunteer for situational liability (subject to removal as an option, owing to abuse), be married (accept complete liability for all children, within the terms of marriage), or get snipped.

Take your pick.

This is the compromise everyone will hate so I'm pretty sure it's the best compromise.

 

[Toni]

Whoever thought condoms are 100% effective? Never have I posted such a thing.

My position is that if a man is unwilling to support whatever choice his sex partner(s) make as a result of his orgasm, then he should be upfront about that, in writing, before engaging in any activity that might lead to his orgasm.

Why? Don't try and tell me you would honour any such agreement. That you would not demand the State extract money from the father no matter what he said up front?

Why on earth would I care to have sex with such a selfish, shortsighted person who is unwilling to take responsibility for birth control or any progeny that might result from such failure? Why would i care to engage in intimate contact with someone who is unwilling to assume their fair share of responsibility?

Fundamentally, you want the right to make an agreement and then go back on it if you change your mind.

You want the right to make an agreement and then go back on it if you change your mind.

Oh, wait: you think all the choices should belong to men. And they can be. Happiness lies in their hands.

 

[Metaphor]

I wrote what I did: that the man should sign a document accepting or refusing to accept responsibilities for any unplanned conception prior to sex so that the woman would be able to make an informed decision.

And if a man has signed such a document, you agree that he should be absolved from any legal responsibility if the women becomes pregnant?

I'm still interested in your answer to this, Toni.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Fundamentally, you want the right to make an agreement and then go back on it if you change your mind.

What the actual fuck, Loren?

I’m not capable of becoming pregnant! I’m not sleeping with someone in hopes of trapping him into making me pregnant at my age or at any age.

You fail to understand.

A couple agrees that if they have an oops that they will abort. You want that agreement to mean nothing, she gets to decide anew when it actually happens.

I really thought much better than of you than your contributions in this thread. You’re intelligent and educated. You’re married to a woman you seem to love. Yet you seem to hold women in general in such contempt that is rarely seen in the US outside of the GOP.

No. I expect women to receive equal treatment, I object to systems that are unfair in either direction. You always take the path that benefits the woman, right or wrong. That's opposite to but no better than the old approach of always favoring the man.