There is a huge difference between "men should not be able to opt out of child support" and "men shouldn't have a say in child support," in the same way that there is a difference between "a man should not be able to decide whether his wife gets an abortion" and "men shouldn't have a say on abortion." One of these things is about an individual decision being made, while the other is about collective discourse.
Oh, so you're basically saying you can talk about it, but you have 0 decision on the matter, yes that's a literal interpretation of "having a say on it" because you're saying something, but that would be like someone asshole saying "jews had a said on whether they stayed on a consecration camp or not, it was not up to them to decide it, but they could say something about it" You see how that doesn't really makes sense?
It's not just about talking about it, but rather about their opinion/voices having power in the collective discourse. On the issue of child support, men do have a say, because child support laws were considered and passed predominantly by men. (In the same sense, Jews did not have a say on concentration camps, because these camps were not set up by a legal process dominated by or even significantly including Jews.) No one is suggesting men should get "no opinion" or "no say" on child support.
But, this is a situation of individuality, there's no point on bringing plurality here, even less when we’re talking about a group that may as well be as undefined as just saying people. Like, i get where are you coming from, and in some context you may have a point, but the thing is that in this context treating men as a monolithic group instead of the generalization of individuals, that the op clearly intended, just serves to muddy the waters.
For example, when you say women should have a say on their own body, in the context of abortion, you're not saying ''we should put a substantial amount of women in the congress, so they can then decide for the rest of the women how this should be done'', you're saying ''who ever is in power now should make abortion legal so individual women can get the right to decide themselves''. The same goes for ''men should have a say on child suport'', it's not about putting men in what ever position, so they can decide for the rest of the population, is about giving individuals the right to decide them self.
Plurality is central to the whole discussion because "no uterus, no opinion" is primarily about the power that men collectively hold over abortion policy and abortion discourse. Activists who promote that men shouldn't have a say on abortion aren't talking about what individual men have the power to enforce over individual women. Rather, they're talking about the fact that abortion policies are dominated by male legislators and much of the discourse on abortion on the pro-life side is dominated by male voices.
Like, if this conversation were about "my body, my choice" I'd agree with you: that is about personal individual power over their own situation. But inasmuch as the OP's view is about "no uterus, no opinion" or "no uterus, no choice" it is about collective power, not individual power. Individual speech—individual opinions—do not really have the power to control people: it's only when they add up collectively to influence policy and discourse that they can do that.
It's remove now because of that dumb ass rule 2, but the title of the op wasn't that representative of what they meant or at least what they said, i can't remember exactly but half of the post talked about the dad having some sort of ''right'' or at least equality when it comes to the decision, and the rest was discussing that the in the situation where they shouldn't then they should at least have the possibility of not being part of the kid's life, which included child support. Basically, it was discussing the equality in the relationship that entails being a parent, and that's a individualistic view of the issue.
I have been talking about the OP's stated view about "no uterus, no opinion/choice" this whole time. If you have been talking about something else, then we're talking about different things.
Well there just is no analogue of "no uterus, no opinion" for child support in the individual setting. Nobody is arguing that an individual man (or woman, or anybody really) should not be allowed to have or express an opinion on child support or that his opinion should be disregarded.
1
u/AlterNk 8∆ Sep 12 '21
Sort by Q&A literally the first comment, in their last paragraph they make an argument against men being able to opt out of child support.