Women’s Rights Part 1: On Reproductive Freedom

I find myself more and more often repeating this sentence in debates with feminists: American women have more rights than men. To most people this is a shocking and unreasonable statement at first, due to how directly it contradicts conventional doctrine, but I think anyone reading this would have a hard time coming up with a legal right that American men and boys have in 2016 that women and girls do not (if you can come up with one, I’d love to hear it).

Now consider, for example, that baby girls have the right to bodily integrity, and are not permitted to be circumcised at birth. Or that women are not required to sign the draft registry at 18. Or that women and girls have access to shelters, hotlines, and other state-funded and prescribed services specifically geared toward them when they are victims of partner violence. I could write an essay on each of these, and I eventually will. This is the first in a series of essays that address cases of female legal privilege, rights that women and girls have in the first world that men and boys do not.

As if my ideas aren’t controversial enough, today I’m going to talk a little about abortion. More specifically, about reproductive rights.

This debate has been ongoing and ugly. Its emotionally charged nature has led it to become one of the more polarized topics of discussion our nation has seen. As a result, both sides have been reduced to absurdist straw men. Liberals who believe in bodily autonomy have been painted as baby killers who have no respect for human life. Conservatives who believe a fetus is a person have been described as flagrant misogynists who are pretending to care about protecting the unborn so that they can wage a war on women out of pure spite. This is a debacle that I’d like to think we’ll all be embarrassed by in a decade or two.

Personally, I fall squarely in the pro-choice camp. I think bodily autonomy is one of the most important human rights, and the freedom to choose to or not to be a parent is definitely up there too. Becoming a parent should always be a choice, one that is well thought out, decided out of a genuine interest in child-rearing, and never forced upon anyone by circumstance. I side with the (reasonable) feminists in that a woman’s right to contraception and abortion, women’s reproductive freedoms, should be secured, maintained, and expanded.

But here’s the side of the coin that almost never gets discussed: What about men’s? Even with the difficulties women face in this arena, we have far more reproductive freedom than men do.

First off, we have access to the overwhelming majority of contraceptive options, from pills and patches to shots, to IUDs and Nuvarings, to emergency contraception, and that’s just a brief summary. We can discuss if or to what extent these should be provided to us at low or no cost by insurance companies or the state, but the fact is that we have them. They were developed for our use and we are free to use them.

Should any of these myriad options fail us and we do become pregnant, we still have an array of options. We can choose to terminate the pregnancy (albeit with some difficulty, depending on things like location and wealth). We can carry the pregnancy to term and give the baby up for adoption. Or we can surrender the baby to a police station, hospital, or other safe haven, no questions asked (in most states, this is immediately considered legal parental surrender, and the infant is adopted as a ward of the state, at no legal risk to the mother), and we can do this or any of the above without so much as asking the father.

Alternatively, we can choose to become pregnant, have the baby, and raise it, needing no one’s permission to do so.

While it’s reasonable and admirable to fight to maintain these rights and make them more accessible to all women, in the most basic sense, we have the right to every imaginable resource in the process of deciding if we are parents or not.

Men aren’t so lucky.

In terms of contraceptive choices, men have condoms, and that’s about it. No pills, no shots, no patches, no implantable devices.  Granted, condoms are nice because you can see them, and most of us can feel whether or not one is in place. It’s obvious if a condom isn’t being used, is being used incorrectly, or fails. You don’t need to say that you trust someone to use a condom. It will be immediately apparent if they are not. This is not the case with women’s contraception. A man must trust that the woman he’s sleeping with is being honest about her contraceptive choices and is using them correctly. (This is not an accusation of deceit toward women as a group, by the way. Some women deceive their partners, just as some men do, but there are also women who are uninformed about the use of their chosen contraception. For example, not all women know that some forms of birth control are less effective while taking certain antibiotics.)

Legally, a man has no say in whether or not his female partner becomes pregnant, or what measures she may take to ensure or prevent pregnancy. She isn’t legally obligated to to adhere to his wishes, or even to disclose this information to him.  Should a condom break, birth control fail, or a female partner has been dishonest or poorly informed concerning her contraception use, sexual intercourse is treated as consent to fatherhood, even though it is not consent to motherhood. Obviously, he does not have the right to demand that she not become pregnant or have an abortion (which is admittedly reasonable – it is her body that is in question), but the only way for him to ensure he doesn’t have a child, with all its entailed responsibilities, is to be abstinent. She gets the final say on all baby-related decisions, and regardless of his opinion on the matter, he foots the bill.

A non-custodial father is responsible for child support regardless of his consent for the child to exist, regardless of his awareness of the child’s existence at birth. According to one Chicago judge, he can even be held responsible for the support of a child conceived with sperm he didn’t use for vaginal intercourse. The woman in this news report used sperm from oral sex to impregnate herself against her partner’s will, and the court has ordered him to pay $800 a month in support of that child. Even more outrageous, this expectation can apply even when the woman became pregnant by sexually assaulting the father, even when the father was a minor at the time of the conception. Sex with a woman, any sex, even non-consensual sex, is legally taken as consent to fatherhood.

I want you to take a moment to picture what the evening news report would look like if a judge had ruled that a female statutory rape victim must pay her rapist child support so that he can raise her child.

As a man, you can find out that you’re a parent, which you had no interest in becoming, even if the mother deceived or raped you, you owe hundreds or thousands of dollars, and whether or not you have that money, it’s a felony offense to fail to pay it. There are very few ways in which an American citizen can be imprisoned for poverty, but according to a 2009 South Carolina survey, one in eight inmates was incarcerated for failure to pay child support. That’s over 1200 people in the state of South Carolina alone, just in 2009, who were imprisoned for the heinous crime of having sex while poor.

A friend of mine (who has given me permission to tell this story) has been arrested on such charges. I’ll call him Mike. The child in question had been the result of an unplanned pregnancy, conceived long after he and the mother had discussed that Mike wanted no part in fatherhood, but she decided that she wanted to keep the baby. When the child was born, the mother, who did not live with Mike, agreed to take care of the infant herself, needing no help practically or financially, until she discovered that in order to access services like Medicaid, she needed to make an attempt to collect child support from the non-custodial father. She filed the claim and an amount was set. He was far too poor to make the payments by any reasonable standard, working a minimum wage job and barely making ends meet before child support came into the picture, but that didn’t stop the state trooper, who pulled him over for a dead tail light, from arresting him and carting him off to the county jail, where he was stripped, searched, and thrown into a cell for two days, most of that time having no idea why he’d been arrested in the first place. Mike has emphasized to me over and over what an unpleasant, confusing, and dehumanizing process it was.

The day of the hearing, the judge was disinterested in Mike’s insistence that he barely made enough to support himself alone, and did not have the money they were asking for, or else he’d gladly pay what was owed. The judge was accustomed to and tired of such pleas.  Mike was told firmly that he’ll pay, or he’ll go to prison. After being released, he wound up dramatically cutting his own living expenses in order to avoid another arrest. This required moving from his apartment to a camper on a friend’s property and eating so little that at one point he was close to starvation. All for the care of a child he hadn’t planned, hadn’t asked for, and to whom it had once been agreed that he would not be responsible.

Later, the mother of Mike’s child admitted to him that she did not need the money to meet the child’s needs, and could have ended the requirement at any time after being approved for the health insurance. But she enjoys receiving several hundred dollars in the mail every month, and doesn’t want to stop the flow of free money. So every month Mike pays. He is fortunate enough to have a better paying job now, and is in no danger of starvation, though that doesn’t stop me, as his friend, from being angry with his ex for putting him through all this, and angrier with the system for allowing such exploitation.

Mike’s case may sound extreme, but there are millions of men across the country who struggle to pay court ordered payments on pain of imprisonment.  In fact, a majority of child support arrears are owed by the very poor, parents with an income of $10,000 or less, whose median dues are set at 83% of their income.  Imagine being charged more than three quarters of your income for the crime of fathering a child.

Is this shameful extortion really the best way to ensure that the children of separated parents are appropriately cared for? You can’t feed your child from prison, after all. And when you get out, it’s not so easy to find a job that will support both you and the non-custodial child. Less severe deterrents include confiscation of the delinquent father’s driver’s license, another measure that does nothing to assist him in collecting an income that would help him make his payments. These methods seem better designed to punish men for being poor than to provide funding for the care of a child.

Court ordered child support is a violation of men’s reproductive freedom. Just as women are permitted by law to surrender all parental rights and responsibilities even after a child is born, men should have this right as well: the right to choose parenthood, rather than being forced into it. Many MRAs refer to this concept as “financial abortion,” but I would compare it to the safe haven laws that women have access to. Men who wish to be in their children’s lives, as many fathers do, are free to financially support those children to the best of their ability, and men who have no interest in fatherhood should be free to waive all rights and responsibilities associated with a child that may have been conceived and born without their consent, just as a woman has the right to waive her parental rights and responsibilities.

As far as ensuring the well-being of the child after such responsibilities are waived, we already have many social programs for helping single mothers raise children they wish to keep, from Medicaid to WIC to housing and heating assistance to other grants, and I’d be happy to see these programs expanded, unified, and made gender neutral (since some custodial parents are fathers) to ensure that no child goes hungry. A child’s well-being should not depend on its parents’ willingness or ability to pay for its needs. Child support should be a social program, not a punishment for an unwilling father. This solution would be far more effective in ensuring that the child’s needs are met, without extorting the non-custodial parent into poverty and cyclical incarceration.

Now let’s take a look at the other side of reproductive rights: the right to parenthood. A woman needs nobody’s permission to be a mother. If she can become pregnant, she can be that baby’s caregiver, barring any extreme behaviours that any reasonable person would agree would make her an unfit mother (such as severe drug addiction or child abuse).

Men who are separated from their children’s mothers, on the other hand, are unlikely to see their children even as often as the mother does, even if he is paying child support. According to 2009 census data, only 18% of separated fathers are the custodial parent. More comprehensive data from 2007 showed that a mere 20% of fathers had equally shared custody.  More specifically, to counter the frequent feminist point that this disparity is because men simply do not sue for custody, in a five-year study of 2,100 Massachusetts fathers who sought custody, only 29% were awarded primary custody of their child.  Other similar studies have had different findings, but the fact remains that many custody courts favour mothers.  I have known many loving and devoted fathers who have been fighting ongoing legal battles for years just for the right to see their children at all.  Meanwhile, women’s rights organizations like NOW have unapologetic published stances in favour of a “primary caregiver presumption” for mothers, arguing that fathers who seek primary or equal custody of their children are merely abusers trying to get closer to potential victims.

Some feminists will argue that the expectation that a woman is more suited to parenthood than a man is an an unfair assumption of women, part of the female gender roles we should dismantle. I can’t say I disagree with this (being myself a woman without an ounce of maternal instinct to speak of), but this argument misses the point.  Yes, it is wrong to assume that a woman is especially fit for parenthood just because she’s a woman, but fortunately courts do not routinely award women child custody against their will.  They do, however, often reject men’s appeals for custody.

In short, despite the many salient and necessary conversations that are ongoing about women’s reproductive rights, men are left completely out of the discussion, even though their rights are far scanter.

A woman has the right to use a vast array of contraceptive options, become pregnant, terminate a pregnancy, give a baby up for adoption, surrender a baby to a safe haven, or give birth and raise the child, and all of these are her choice and hers alone. For a woman, sexual activity can be an expression of love, a source of physical pleasure, or an intentional step toward parenthood. She gets to choose. A man has the right to ask nicely, and cross his fingers and toes in the hope that his wishes will be considered.



Filed under activism, feminism, men's rights, privilege, reproductive freedom, sexism, women's rights

7 responses to “Women’s Rights Part 1: On Reproductive Freedom

  1. afungusamongus

    Sadly, Mike’s case is not an extreme outlier. “the vast majority of unpaid child support is owed by the very poor. A 2007 Urban Institute study of child support debt in nine large states found that 70 percent of the arrears were owed by people who reported less than $10,000 a year in income. They were expected to pay, on average, 83 percent of their income in child support” (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/skip-child-support-go-to-jail-lose-job-repeat.html)

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Where do you get the idea that the access to contraception in America is “overwhelming”? As a woman, I can tell you this is false. Our employers and insurance companies still control a great deal of that. Health care reform was supposed to help us with this but our government failed on that. Here is the piece I suggest you read. It is a perfect example of what women face every day trying to get access to birth control. Because corporations are people.


    I waited an entire year to change my health plan through the state I live in and when I did, they still denied me the right to certain methods of birth control. It is not as easy as you would think.

    To be honest, your comment that we women are luckier than men is absolutely false. Condoms are over the counter, completely accessible, have been for years, are plenty effective, and bring no side effects whatsoever to men. They also bring the added protection against STDs.

    So please. Do not even say that men are not as lucky in that arena. In order to prevent pregnancy, a man has one job. Walk into a pharmacy and buy some condoms. Women, on the other hand, have to go for yearly scrapings of their cervix and pelvic exams. Insurance companies can deny them the method of birth control their doctor prescribes and even question the doctor about their prescription. Different birth control methods have different side effects for each individual woman. One method may not work and we may have to try another. Which can leave us unprotected from pregnancy. Some states still require a spouse’s signature for a tubal ligation. And you really think that women have more rights than men when it comes to this matter?

    Should our method of birth control fail us, we do not have an “array” of options. We have three. Terminate the pregnancy, which has more than “some difficulty”. Give the baby up for adoption, again much more than just “some difficulty”. Or decide to raise the baby regardless of what situation we are in. Again, not so easy. I’ve done two of those options. And I can tell you that you are downplaying them quite a bit.

    Yes if a woman becomes pregnant and chooses not to terminate the pregnancy, a man will be responsible for his child. Do you want to know what I say to that? Too bad. No state in our country should legally orphan children and essentially take responsibility for them in the name of “fathers rights”. It is a ridiculous, slippery slope idea that will put a strain on our social programs so people like your friend Mike don’t have to grow the hell up. I do not feel sorry for your friend Mike. If he is an adult, he should be able to support himself. The mother had every right to do what she did. It wasn’t about her needs or his needs, it is about what the child is entitled to. And that is financial support from both parents. Children have a right to both parents supporting them. Sorry, that trumps situations like the one you described. Your friend should have chosen to put on one of the inexpensive over the counter condoms that are available to him even at Walmart.


    • I understand and appreciate the points you’ve made, which is why I addressed most of them in my essay.

      I have already agreed that women’s options need to be secured and expanded. I in fact stated that multiple times above, but I maintain that we do have them. An insurance company can not deny you your right to a prescribed medication. You still have the right to use whatever you are prescribed. This is different from accessing it for free (a separate conversation entirely, but I do support universal free healthcare, including contraception and abortion).

      I never argued that women have perfect access, merely that we have more options than men. A woman can use pills, shots, patches, implantable devices, female condoms, and more (and regular condoms are over the counter and easily accessible to us just as they are for men). A man can use a condom, and pray it doesn’t have a hole, break, or slip off, because if it does he gets no say in what happens next, whereas a woman does.

      Imagine if, as a woman, you were required to have and provide for any child that came of a contraception misuse or failure. Imagine if you were told to grow up and deal with the consequences of your actions. The argument you are making for child support as it stands is regularly used to defend anti-abortion positions and bills. As women, we are fortunate in that intercourse is not legally accepted as consent to parenthood. For men, it is.

      And this imbalance wouldn’t bother me nearly as much if it weren’t putting fathers in a position to choose between hunger and imprisonment. 70% of unpaid child support is owed by someone who makes less than $10,000 a year. This isn’t an epidemic of men refusing to pay out of spite. It’s a case of a majority of men being charged more money than they have to spare. The price for a misused condom shouldn’t be starvation. If women were put in a position like that, I imagine you would be as concerned as I am.

      For women who struggle to support their children, there is a plethora of social programs, from food and heating programs to housing grants and more. Why do we not have the same sympathy and understanding for non-custodial fathers who are poor? For poor mothers we have welfare and grants. For poor fathers we have prison.

      The situation for women isn’t perfect, and I never said it was. But we have some reproductive rights, which is better than what men have.


      • Yes an insurance company can. I was denied. And you clearly didn’t read the article. It is written by a physician and go says it happens in his office everyday.

        You are framing the options available to women as though they are fool proof and easy to get while portraying condom use as a “pray it works” method. False. They are 98% effective. With human error, they are 85%. Those aren’t the sort of odds that should have you “praying”.

        Requiring me to physically HAVE a child is in no way comparable to requiring me to financially support one. One scenario involves my body. The other does not. You comparing it to anti-abortion propaganda is invalid.

        Men are not forced to choose between hunger and imprisonment. If you think it’s so easy for women to just use social programs in place of asking the biological father to support their children, what is to stop the single men from doing this? If your friend was making less than $10,000 a year and paying child support, why didn’t he just apply for food stamps? Those programs aren’t just for women. Trust me if he was making that small amount of money and also had a dependent to take care of, he definitely would have qualified for the help. Medicaid, welfare, etc…..those are available to all people who meet the eligibility requirements.

        I’m sorry this is a ridiculous sob story. No grown man should be working a job that pays that little unless they simply want to. I don’t even have a college degree and I make three times that. In that situation, the answer is simple. Get a better paying job. That’s not an extraordinary request unless the person simply doesn’t want to take care of their issue. You don’t get arrested for child support unless you get very very behind. So again zero sympathy for the scenario you described.

        The only point you have in all of this, literally, is that if a woman does not want to get an abortion a man cannot force her and should that woman produce a child that is biologically his, he will be responsible for it. I say too bad. It is the only logical way for our system to work. The state you live in should not take financial burden for a child that you do not want simply because you do not want it and you do not want to take the necessary measures to support it. There are ways to avoid getting yourself into that situation. Wear condoms. Know a little bit more about the women you sleep with. Simple.

        Adults are able to do this. Immature people are not. That is where my “grow up” advice comes from.


  3. I did read your article (a good read, and very informative – thanks for linking it). You are conflating an insurance company’s obligation to cover a specific contraception with a woman’s right to obtain and use it. You have the right to use any birth control method on the market. You just have to pay for it sometimes.

    Why are you characterizing a woman who has to pay for her birth control out of pocket as a violation of her rights, but a man who has been charged, on pain of imprisonment, to pay more money than he has as a sob story?

    It’s outrageous that a woman can’t afford birth control, but a man who can’t afford to support a baby, a much more expensive endeavor, needs to grow up? Sounds like a double standard to me, exactly the double standard I am trying to address in my essay.

    Also, all birth control should be free, but a child’s well being should be left to fate based on its parents ability or willingness to pay for its needs? That’s a questionable set of priorities.

    Again, you are using anti-choice arguments to defend child support. “You should use a condom” is constantly thrown around as a justification for holding women to a profound and life changing burden. And when it’s directed at women, that argument is justifiably called misogynistic and unfair. Men, like women, have the right to have sex when it’s consensual, while using reasonable but fallible contraceptive measures. We agree that no woman should be forced to be a mother just because her birth control failed. Is it such a leap to say the same for a man?


  4. Pingback: Men Hunt and Women Fish | egalitarian jackalope

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s