Skip to main content

I live in Singapore. This has its advantages, such as the fact that the miserable winter most of the US just shivered through was only a rumor over here (sorry!), or how when I forget an American friend’s birthday, I can post a “happy birthday” on their Facebook page the next day and it will still be on time. But it also has its disadvantages, and I suffered through one of those this morning when I read this diary. It left me with a number of things I’d have liked to add, and which I didn’t see in the comments. My apologies to anyone who did touch on what follows; I read the comments in a bit of a hurry and I may have missed a few.

For those of you who didn’t read the diary and/or comments, here’s the Readers’ Digest version: A judge in New Jersey denied a father-to-be’s request to be allowed in the delivery room while the mother of his baby gave birth (evidently there was some question as to whether he was the father, but the point is moot here – even if he was, the judge said it was her decision and hers alone). While the article was short on details of the couple’s current relationship, it appears they are no longer romantically involved – maybe they never were? – and the mother had always been unequivocal about her position on it all: she didn’t want him there, end of story. One thing the article did touch on: the mother was placed in the miserable position of contesting the matter while she was in labor.

This being Daily Kos, most of those who responded were highly supportive of the decision, since it reaffirms a woman’s right to privacy during an extremely difficult and intimate situation. But a small but vocal minority in the comments dissented, to the effect that it was unfair to men. The argument was something to the effect that feminists want it both ways, or that since men are on the hook for child support, that means they ought to have the right to be present at the birth, or some such. I’m not entirely clear on it, partially because even the dissenters didn’t seem to always agree with one another. One unfortunate thing did emerge with depressing clarity, though: a number of people felt the decision was evidence that feminists hate men, or at least always assume the worst of men. This, in turn, led to some debate about the odious “men’s rights” movement. While I saw a lot of strong rebuttals, I didn’t see anything that was quite on point in my view. That being the case, I’d like to offer my own rebuttal here. (Again, apologies if anyone did say what follows and I missed it!)

The argument seems to be that it’s unfair to assume the father in this case was less than pure of heart because he took legal action to force her to allow him in the delivery room. (To be fair, one of the dissenters – who was female, incidentally – agreed that he had no right to force his way in; but she still felt that he was somehow the victim of man-hating radical feminists.) Now, it is true that the diary itself only gave one hint that the guy was a jerk and the mother-to-be had valid reason to want nothing to do with him. But that one hint was a doozy: as numerous commenters pointed out, an unwelcome guest in the delivery room isn’t just inconsiderate and disrespectful of the mother’s privacy; it is also dangerous. It could prolong or complicate the delivery, and potentially even endanger the life of both the mother and the baby.  

Nevertheless, a number of people felt that was insufficient evidence that the guy was a jerk, and that any suggestion to the contrary was nothing short of misandry. (I’m surprised to note that Word didn’t give me a red-squiggly “this isn’t a word” line, there…)

I didn’t read the link, so I can’t comment on whether or not it features any further information on the man or his relationship with the mother. But I do know a great deal about the “men’s rights” movement – far more than any reasonable person would want to know, to tell you the truth – so I feel more than qualified to explain what some of our friends in that debate were missing.

As an aside, I always, always, always use quotation marks when it comes to “men’s rights” activists (MRAs). I have two reasons for this: first, they don’t really have anything to do with promoting anyone’s rights. Rather, they want to roll back all the progress feminism has made and then some, and they also have a thing for embracing the worst of male stereotypes as the true essence of masculinity. If anything, they want to curtail a man’s right to be true to himself, in favor of some silly blend of Hemingway, Teddy Roosevelt and John Wayne that they idealize. Secondly, even if they did have any noble goals, we are still talking about the least oppressed group in history; and any rights men don’t already have (the only one I can even think of offhand is wearing skirts, though I concede there are probably a few others) are self-imposed – it’s the patriarchy that denied those rights in the first place, not feminists or anyone else.

In any event, it is a hallmark of the “men’s rights” crowd that anytime anyone says anything negative about any man, it becomes a rallying cry of the whole “feminists hate men” nonsense. Whether intentionally or not, that’s exactly what happened on that diary: because that guy in New Jersey did one extremely offensive and potentially dangerous thing, it was somehow unreasonable to suspect that such a thing was probably representative of his personality in general. If we read anything into their relationship beyond what we know for certain, it’s man-hating radical feminism and deeply unfair to men everywhere!

Here is what I don’t think the father’s defenders understood: another hallmark of the “men’s rights” crowd is that they have a long and consistent history of throwing their support behind guys (I won’t call them men) who are indisputably jerks through and through. For example, divorced fathers who never visit their kids or pay child support but go to court to block the mother from getting remarried because it would interfere with their visitation rights, even though they hadn’t been using those rights at all. Or guys who complain that “you can’t tell a woman she’s pretty anymore” when their idea of “you look pretty” is more like “nice tits” or the like.

They also have a talent for cooking up hypothetical situations where a woman could screw a man and get away with it because of laws that feminists have lobbied for. Two examples will illustrate this point: “What if a couple agree to mutually masturbate and then the woman rubs the semen in her vagina? She could get pregnant and he’s on the hook for it even though he didn’t have unprotected sex!” (There is, of course, no evidence such a thing has ever happened.) More recently, there was a rumor of a woman who got a restraining order against her ex, and then somehow cornered him in a dead-end alley where he couldn’t help but be within X feet of her. (That’s not how restraining orders work at all, of course.)

As these (and many, many other anecdotes) illustrate, the “men’s rights” movement boils down to very little more than hate and fear of women. (They’re also big on false rape accusations, even though they’re just as rare as false accusations of any other crime.) Given that track record, it is more than plausible that the father in this case was just the sort of guy who almost always turns up at the heart of their latest cause célèbre. It is true that we only know the one incident in his case. But that one incident is absolutely emblematic of the “men’s rights” crowd and their characteristic misogyny: he expressed flagrant disregard for the mother’s wishes when she had made them clear; he forced her into a legal hassle at a time when it was extremely inconvenient for her; he wanted “equality” in a situation where men and women can never be equal and in which striving for equality is actually extremely unfair; and his side of the story requires assuming that the mother had nothing but unmerited contempt for him (since it was assumed she had no good reason for declining to inform him when she went into labor).

I don’t know whether the father’s supporters in the comments yesterday were trolls, or just honestly unaware of the “men’s rights” crowd and their modus operandi. Either way, I do wish I’d had the opportunity to spell that much out for them. Yes, it was more than reasonable to be suspicious of this guy based on the little we knew about him.

It also occurs to me that in a healthy relationship, the father’s role in the pregnancy and birth is something that will be decided together. Yes, of course the final decision ought to be the woman’s; but in my experience at least, it’s usually a decision both people come to. The idea that the woman will make the decision unilaterally and freeze the man out entirely for no good reason? Yeah, that’s most definitely MRA fodder, nothing more. When it does happen, it nearly always turns out that there is a very good reason, usually to the effect that she has cause to fear for her safety. It’s very, very sad that even on Daily Kos, some people have a hard time grasping that. The fact that she did not want him involved is, again, a sign not of feminists hating men, but rather a reflection of a relationship dynamic that only the two of them understood fully.

Bottom line, folks: Where there’s smoke, there isn’t always fire…but it’s ridiculous to assume there never is.

Originally posted to RamblinDave on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 05:59 AM PDT.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Huge Concern That If Birth Goes Sour (14+ / 0-)

    the man being present would be in position to assert rights to choose between woman's needs/wishes and his own agenda.

    In such a superstition dominated society as ours, bringing a man no longer involved in the relationship into the birth setting introduces a potentially life threatening risk to the mother.

    At this point in history I wouldn't trust any prearrangements including an encyclopedia of legal waivers signed by the birth father.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 06:04:24 AM PDT

    •  can't tell if this is snark (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      J Rae

      and that very rarely happens

      •  I think it's all too plausible (11+ / 0-)

        I could easily see the man in a case like this asking to hold the baby, then asking if he can take it outside "just for a minute" so his mother/sister/sibling/father can hold it, and simply never coming back.  And then suing for custody in another state.

        I mean, Bode Miller SUCCESSFULLY sued for custody of his ex-girlfriend's fetus on the grounds that she "appropriated it" because she decided to move to New York for graduate school.  He and his wife are now raising the child because the actual mother, the one who carried and gave birth, had the audacity to move to another state and attend college.  If that's possible, then no, I don't think it's all snarky to suggest to that the putative father in this case could have caused a ruckus in the delivery room, up to and including abduction, bringing in marshals to "reclaim" the child as soon as the umbilical cord was cut, or a suit for custody on the grounds that the mother's "hostility" toward him would be alienating the child against him from birth.

        This isn't freedom. This is fear - Captain America

        by Ellid on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 11:06:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you! This had to, needed to be said. (12+ / 0-)

    Hope the haters don't rush in to...well...hate.
    Peace and Blessings!

    Stop with the purity trolling!

    by Penny GC on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 09:43:51 AM PDT

  •  Good analysis. (16+ / 0-)

    A lot of the MRA commenters seemed to argue that their ejaculate somehow gave them ownership rights.  

    "If I impregnate a woman, I get to control her pregnancy."  

    A man's contribution to a pregnancy is rather insignificant, compared to what the woman puts in to it.  And it doesn't grant them control over her.  

    Semen just aint' that magical.

    My dogs think I'm smart and pretty.

    by martydd on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 09:57:23 AM PDT

  •  It's all preventable...from a male side. (14+ / 0-)

    If you, as a man, don't want to ever be in the position of paying child support for a child that you don't want...Don't have sex.  

    It's that simple.  Masturbate into a toilet if you are particularly paranoid.  Only have sex when married and where you have POA over medical decision's of your wife.

    No one promised men they could have consequence free sex.  Just like a woman has choices, so does a man.

    I would like all these MRA types to start practicing abstinence.

    •  I imagine that a great number do, (7+ / 0-)
      I would like all these MRA types to start practicing abstinence.
      ... though perhaps unwillingly...
    •  I just see the logic falling apart (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blackhand

      A man's input on the pregnancy is divorced and made null and all power invested into the mother, but then the man's contribution is required if she decides to take to term. So for that interperiod she has full responsibility, but afterward dictates the father's responsibility. If you divorce a person from contribution during the interperiod then why do they have obligation to contribute after term?

      http://callatimeout.blogspot.com/

      by DAISHI on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:46:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bullcrap. It takes at least two to create a (9+ / 0-)

        pregnancy. The guy is a full and equal partner in the creation process and is accordingly on the hook for his share of the subsequent costs. That is completely distinct from the mothers medical issues and treatment.If he wanted no pregnancy he should've taken precautions to prevent one.

        A delivery room, believe it or not, is a place where a medical procedure takes place. No extraneous non-medical persons should be there unless specifically requested by the mother to provide her moral support, encouragement, etc. It is not a place for gawkers. He has co input to give, no role to play and no meaningful contributin to make to the process.

        That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

        by enhydra lutris on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 06:16:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I would oh-so-dearly love (0+ / 0-)

      to see the look on the face of one as you suggested it to him.  The whole "debate" about womens civil and human rights would disintegrate completely, inside of thirty seconds.

      But seriously...is there really a "formal" men's rights movement based on what you and the diarist are referring to? Or would that just be considered more astro-turfing by the Right? I realize there's such a thing as "men's rights" movements for things like "fairer custody and visitation rights" during a divorce and those are very real things which are based in at least some semblance of reality. But what you're talking about seems a lot different. I was in that diary for a time yesterday, but I didn't see that kind of defense going on. That's not to say it wasn't there--I had only stopped by for a bit. I'm glad I missed it, as I suspect it would have seriously pissed me off.

      This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

      by lunachickie on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 08:10:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not just astro-turfing (4+ / 0-)

        There are some truly nutty guys out there, I'm afraid. What's really unfortunate is that they've usurped some very real problems facing men, and rather than trying to find intelligent solutions, they just blame it all on feminism.

        Certaines personnes disent qu'il y a une femme à blâmer, Mais je sais que c'est ma faute sacrément.

        by RamblinDave on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 08:18:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I've met a few (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RamblinDave

          I was just hoping there wasn't some kind of "formal" movement, too, because that's frightening. It's bad enough that Rush Limbaugh put the vomitous word "femin*zi" into actual public discourse. You can bet that's the tree where a lot of the nuts are falling out around...

          This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

          by lunachickie on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 08:23:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  For what it's worth... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            1toughlady

            ...in my experience at least, I can't recall ever hearing of a self-proclaimed MRA even running for office, much less winning. This could be because they're the type of people who'd rather just whine than try to change anything, or it could be because even the Republicans think they're too extreme. You'd think their disdain for feminism would make them a natural fit for the GOP, but evidently that's not the case. I'm really not sure why.

            (Oh, and one other mitigating factor: the loudest and most pungent MRA organizations are often Canadian. I guess our neighbors' tendency to more liberal social politics has also created a louder backlash, if also a largely ineffective one.)

            Certaines personnes disent qu'il y a une femme à blâmer, Mais je sais que c'est ma faute sacrément.

            by RamblinDave on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 09:22:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  MRA is not a position that politicians announce... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              1toughlady

              as their own.  But it exists implicitly in so called pro-life, anti abortion declarations and such initiatives like "vaginal probes", forced ultrasounds, hospital privileges required, and other attempts to limit access to women's healthcare that a certain national party is famous for.  All are attacks on women's rights.  I stand opposed to these attacks.

              This whole sex, pregnancy, child birth thing is a very complex and emotional situation for all parties involved and there is a huge spectrum of actions, reactions and personalities that can be involved.  

              While it might be ideal if the father and mother recognize their responsibilities and the fact that there was some attraction that brought them together and find the other is really pretty nice.  They go on to form a long lasting happy and prosperous family.  That same situation can also turn into a situation where when they get a big tax refund because of the child and the earned income tax credit, then they spend the money on matching tattoos (true story).

              On the other end, they could both be psychos and putting them together is like mixing gasoline and bonfires.

              Each case is unique and the judge here may have been testing to see if this guy was really going through with calling the mother while she was in labor, just trying to find out how big a jerk this guy really is.  The judge may just want it in the record so when the case come up about child support, the guy gets really hammered.

              Who knows.

              This whole case is a bad one to set precedence beyond affirming the mothers right to privacy.

              Enough from me, I just stepped deeper into this than I intended.

              The republicons moan, the republicons bitch. Our rich are too poor and our poor are too rich. Ferguson Foont

              by Josiah Bartlett on Fri Mar 14, 2014 at 01:40:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Whether or not the guy is a jerk is not relevant. (24+ / 0-)

    What is relevant is that anyone who is in a medical situation should be able to determine who is in that situation along with him or her, other than the obvious medically-necessary personnel.

    Whether or not the guy was the baby's father or the mother's husband is also not relevant. If a mother doesn't want her partner or husband or the baby's father or her MIL or the neighbor or her teenage son in the delivery room is HER BUSINESS. There is no medical reason to include any of those people. They do not have the right to be present at a birth. End of story.

    If a mother wants these, or other, people at the birth, then it is a negotiation between her, those people and whomever is in charge of the location where the birth takes place.

    What happens after the birth is another matter.

    I would have thought medical privacy laws would take care of this situation.

    •  excellent point (10+ / 0-)

      Anything that could raise the mother's blood pressure, put her under any stress of any kind puts the mother and child in danger. Her right to control her own health is paramount, there is no question. There should be no question! And I'm appalled at the people, women included, who think this guy had a right to push his way in to a situation where he could have caused the death of the child or mother.

      The only question is what is in the best interest of health of the mother and child. And the answer to that is simple - a mother who is under the least amount of stress possible, which means if she does not want someone in the birthing room, that person shouldn't be there, no matter who it is.

      "Every Pootie is a masterpiece." - Da Vinci

      by mdsiamese on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 12:20:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let us not forget here (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        redwagon, RamblinDave, T100R, jan4insight

        that one of the standard protocols of childbirth in ordinary situations is the ob/gyn asking each of the parents what the ob should do if a situation arises in delivery where he or she must first protect the mother, or the child.

         I know it gets asked in all remotely hairy deliveries because it was asked in both of mine, in both of which my beloved said prefer me, and I said prefer baby.  

        But what an antagonistic person in the delivery room can do is try to impose his answer because he's there and not limited by the fact that he is in labor because he ain't, no matter what the mother said  RATHER THAN  giving the information before and then beating up the waiting room furniture with all the other fathers and MILs and such, who until recent times have NOT supposed a right to be in the delivery anyway.

         Ob emergencies DO NOT wait until the ob has finished debating and negotiating  the options with a hostile father, here 'alleged father' in addition to his actual patients.  Bode Miller disease is getting around these days.

        •  re: because it was asked in both (0+ / 0-)

          It sounds like this should be a conversation to have before the child arrives, if not before even thinking of having children.

          I would be saying the same thing as, your beloved, and making the same choice if I were in (I assume) his shoes.

          "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

          by blackhand on Fri Mar 14, 2014 at 07:45:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, that's the bottom line (11+ / 0-)

      Whether or not someone else thinks she had a "good reason," SHE'S the one having a major medical event happening to her body, and she doesn't give up control of her medical care just because she's pregnant.

      I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death; I am not on his payroll. - Edna St. Vincent Millay

      by Tara the Antisocial Social Worker on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 04:17:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Badscience nailed it. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      StrayCat, T100R

      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

      by enhydra lutris on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 06:17:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I agree whole heartedly... (9+ / 0-)

    Trying to force yourself into the delivery room is sketchy. If you really care about the well being of your child then why add stress to an already stressful situation and possibly put both mom and baby's lives in danger? Those two things just don't compute for me.  

    I think the notice issue is trickier - I can understand wanting to be notified that the birth has occurred within a reasonable time, that makes sense. But trying to force notice of when the birth is about to occur seems like it's designed to allow the putative father (since paternity hasn't been conclusely determined) to show up unannounced and be a disruption.  I would imagine most courts would have required that the putative father be informed of the birth within a reasonable period AFTER the birth (once it was safe to do so) and I'd wager most folks would support that.  But that was not what was being asked for here.  This was a clear effort to gain entry into the hospital at the time of birth, however, and I think that some questionable intent can certainly be inferred there.

  •  children, babies and the ex (13+ / 0-)

    Almost any woman who has children and been in an abusive relationship has heard this threat.."I am going to take you to court for the kids and then you will never see them again."

    It is the controlling, abusive mans cry.

    So when we see that this man has his ex in court during labor we cringe.

    Maybe he is not controlling, maybe he had a good reason for having this hearing while his ex was in labor. But it is still cringe worthy.

    I did read the whole article. He had a whole lot of demands about the BC, name ect. None of them could be decided prior to birth.

    And BTW, according to the article he was granted access to the infant later that day in the hospital nursery.

    So he was not allowed to invade the mothers privacy but was not denied access to his child.

  •  All I'm really seeing here (1+ / 2-)
    Recommended by:
    montanaguy
    Hidden by:
    redwagon, lunachickie

    is a long, bland diary stereotyping the entirety of the group without nuance. Hard to take that seriously.

    http://callatimeout.blogspot.com/

    by DAISHI on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 02:42:31 PM PDT

  •  How is the judge's decision contraversial? (4+ / 0-)

    It's disappointing that it had to go to court, but the person suing for entry into a medical ward! No judge in his right mind is going to permit that, putative father or otherwise. Even if they were married, a husband would have the 'right' to be in the delivery room, but not necessarily 'permission.'

    Say the mother opted for a home-birth. And she said the man couldn't come into her home because she said so. Is a judge going to grant a warrant allowing him to violate her personal property and enter her home? No f-ing way. She'd call the cops on his trespassing ass, and he'd be dragged away. End of story.

    Not functionally much different in a hospital setting.  

    I can't see how this becomes a "man's right" case. If I were a "man's right" activist, this is not the case I'd save my outrage for. It would just make me look like an asshole.

    •  If you were an MRA (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mdsiamese

      You most likely wouldn't be concerned with what would "make you look like an asshole," because you probably WOULD be an asshole. No offense intended, since evidently you're not an MRA. But, honestly, this is EXACTLY the type of case they always do save their outrage for. Anything that even implies that women are entitled to any rights that wouldn't apply to men because we can't get pregnant - they hate that with a passion and they'll always look for any plausible scenario in which a good man could get screwed. But when it comes to examples, the man in question is anything but good.

      Certaines personnes disent qu'il y a une femme à blâmer, Mais je sais que c'est ma faute sacrément.

      by RamblinDave on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 07:58:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  They are not about Men's Rights (4+ / 0-)

    They do not staff hotlines for male victims of rape.

    They do not support changes in military justice to help rape victims. Many military rape victims are male.

    They do not open shelters for male victims of domestic violence.

    They do not work to stop bullying of boys in school.

    They do not work to help the tragic levels of support for poor boys, particularly poor non-white boys, in k-12 education.

    They just hate on women.

    •  In fact, they often ENCOURAGE bullying (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lunachickie

      ...of boys in school.

      Maybe not directly, but with their attitude that boys who aren't loud and boisterous and tough are "traitors to their gender" or have been brainwashed by feminist parents or what have you, they're definitely setting the stage for leading bullies to believe they're in the right.

      Certaines personnes disent qu'il y a une femme à blâmer, Mais je sais que c'est ma faute sacrément.

      by RamblinDave on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 08:09:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Seeing as how this diary seems to be going South (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Whatithink

    As fast the other other one, I've been debating commenting on it.

    I am a married male.  We have no children.  Should that situation change, I do ever not foresee myself in any way facing the issue that this apparent "jerk" is in.  In fact, I have debated with myself whether or not I would even want to be in the delivery room for some of the reasons stated above.

    I certainly understand the decision and the ruling IN THIS CASE.  

    Where I draw objection and offense is in someone, especially a 3rd party, telling me that, I, as a married individual, would not have the right to be present for the birth of my child.  I can also say that should I be denied, though as I said above, I can't see this ever happening, that the marriage would be over and done before she ever left the hospital.

    Obviously, some, disagree with me on this and we're just going to have to agree to disagree but all the foot stomping isn't going to change my mind.  It only makes me more resolute.

    "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

    by blackhand on Fri Mar 14, 2014 at 07:42:54 AM PDT

    •  I was present for my sons' births... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joy of Fishes

      ...to support my WIFE. Not because I had a right to be there. Not to see my babies a little earlier than I otherwise would have.

      The ONLY reason for someone to be present in a hospital room is to support the person who has medical needs. We even took a class so that she would know what to expect and I would know what to do to be helpful.

      A supportive friend can be a great help to a woman experiencing childbirth. In a normal marriage the obvious candidate is the husband. But if my wife had wanted me to not be there, it wouldn't have ended our marriage, because the birth wasn't about me. Other people have the right to make different decisions about their relationships.

      I don't need to know anything about that guy except that he tried to force his way in against her will. He wasn't denied by a third party. He was denied by her, and as the one with medical needs, that really was her right.

  •  If feminists hated men, they wouldn't get pregnant (0+ / 0-)

    would they?  Of course women don't hate men, though in my opinion they have plenty of reason to.  Bring back matriarchy!

    Armed! I feel like a savage! Barbarella

    by richardvjohnson on Fri Mar 14, 2014 at 12:39:06 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site