Search Results: if you could change a law

Throughout history women usually had to be cautious of men since men could fairly easily overpower them, assault them, beat/abuse them or even kill them just bare handed.

Then certain laws stepped into power which have changed things. While some of these laws may have been of good intentions, with it came abuses of it's power (just like men's strengths can be exploited).

Nowadays a woman in the first world countries has the potential to permanently ruin a man's life almost practically at her will with the extreme punishments including but not limited to his job loss and a new criminal record, prison sentence and being alienated from society just because the man and the woman had (consensual) sex but she regretted it and in order to save her own reputation she claimed she was sexually assaulted by him (as an example).
Forfeiture of property and assets, confiscating cars, losing custody and paying alimony because the marriage did not work out and ended in a divorce.

And if a man seeks support after being treated like an expendable subhuman being his chances of receiving care aren't as high as the women's support and he would likely be dismissed, laughed at or be told to man up.

This is how MRA, MRM and MGTOW were created.

This is not to say that women are evil. This is to say that men too #MenToo face big dangers in their life.

I had a debate with my mother the other day about related topics as I was trying to explain to her that men can't choose when they become a parent but women can and can do so at any point, even after the child's birth. A lot of the reproductive rights debate seems to centre around giving women free abortions but that's slightly tangential to the core issue; the discrepancy in birth control between the sexes shouldn't mandate that men be held responsible by someone who would usurp their decision on fatherhood. This wouldn't be so pressing if men weren't forced to pay exorbitant amounts for a child they can't/refuse to support in the first place.

Forcing a woman to bring a child to term when she doesn't want to is inextricably and very obviously draconian. Having said that, why should a man - knowing that they cannot/will not be a father - ultimately pay for a child they begged the mother not to have in the first place? Even when you cast the would-be father's ability/intentions aside, parity in this area of law would at the very least dissuade "career mothers" from following through with their decision to use the law as a tool of wealth extraction.

Saying "well he should've just kept it in his pants" is a lazy and somewhat callous argument as it doesn't fully address the complexity of a situation for which the consequences are literally life-altering. Simply put; in an egalitarian society, if I can't force a woman to change her plans on motherhood and have an abortion then she can't force me to distort my own plans on fatherhood and just give her money because of that.

With today's women being strong and independent, throwing unearned money at them undercuts that notion alongside them only paying 30% of taxes but receiving 70% of benefits, them being the majority of graduates (with better grades on too) yet comprising 60%+ of student debt and women somehow making 85% of consumer decisions in spite of the supposed pay gap. Thoughts?