At the individual level, although I tend to agree with Jimmie's point about women having the power when it comes to sex, both parties share the blame. Neither suffers any (or much) negative consequence for their actions (and may actually benefit), so they don't feel responsible. Why abstain or use contraception if the resulting pregnancy/child is considered no big deal?

This is where societal blame comes into play. Everyone who's ever served on a committee knows that when the committee is responsible for something, no one is responsible. So it is in the age of "it takes a village." Thomas Sowell has said that social policy over the past 50 years has consisted to a large degree of replacing what worked with what sounded good. Not shaming, not blaming, boosting self-esteem as a goal in and of itself: sounds good, but doesn't come close to the benefits of what worked before.

Bottom line is that the individual blame is shared by the parents; society is to blame for creating the culture of non-responsibility.

I agree with Paula however that nowadays, they're free to keep catting around in a way that they weren't in the past.

RG

The topic of Jimmie’s original post was out-of-wedlock births so it probably would have been a good idea to read and respond to my comment in that context. Arguments about father’s rights or the poor treatment fathers often receive from the courts or society, however valid, are largely irrelevant. Your comment is a good illustration of why it’s foolish to assume you know someone’s position on a variety of topics after reading a few paragraphs on a loosely-related subject.

Keeping that in mind, here is my original point in a nutshell: I think it would very likely reduce the rate of out-of-wedlock births if there were, indeed, some amount of stigma attached to unwed pregnancies. I would just like to see that particular shame evenly distributed. I think, however, that’s unlikely to happen.

Why? As Jimmie pointed out in his comment, there are names for promiscuous women. There are no derogatory names for promiscuous men. No matter how many definitions you try to attach to “deadbeat dad,” it is not the equivalent of slut, whore or skank. The English language doesn’t have any male-specific equivalent terms because the stigma of sexual promiscuity has never been equally distributed between males and females.

Going back to Jimmie’s comment again, to say that women have “all the control” in sexual situations is overstating it. If I were a guy and I were serious about not wanting to father unwed children, I’d use condoms. Whether my partners claimed to be on birth control or not. But please be real; most of these guys don’t give a flying fig how many out-of-wedlock children they father.

So let me sum this up for you: a man bears 50% of the responsibility for each out-of-wedlock birth, period. Thus, to my way of thinking, if there’s shame to be had, please, spread it around.

Women have covered that situation ad nauseum. It's time men speak on that horror that women have become. Women deflecting have been the problem. It should e noted that they rarely if ever have been so egalitarian in speaking about women and girls in less sympathetic terms as they have dished tons of misandry over the past 4 decades. Besides, unwed fathers don't qualify for the vast support network that these harpies have selfishly established for THEIR one-parent families.

"I realize the mothers are a handy target, especially since they are the ones most often receiving assistance"

As well as often receiving the vast majority of custody arrangements. Handy indeed.

"A welfare mother can’t realistically produce more than one child each year. An irresponsible father, however, can produce many children per year. "

"So…society does need to deal with irresponsible fathers. They never should have taken away the shotgun…!"

Yet they welfare and other mothers often do without any legal penalties on the act and on the publics dime. As opposed to men and fathers who can and often receive harsh punishment by way of prison/ asset relocation/ revocation of drivers license and even passports. Thus it's women again who are unshackled and shameless, regrettably so. There are legal restraints on men not women thus they should be the focused on meore intently now than ever before.

"Why are those men conveniently removed from the public spotlight? "

Women have kept these men exclusively in the spotlight while conveniently never discussing there fellow women/mothers unless it's in the most sympathetic terms. Thus your response itsonlywords. Convenient amnesia.

"Why is there no term that can be applied to males that corresponds to Welfare Queen?"

The term is Deadbeat Dads. It's been well propagated by women in mainstream culture though YOU plead cluelessness. Empty plea.

"but as long as we’re spreading the blame around, we need to spread the shame around as well"

Too late. An enormous amount of study and dialogue should be addressed now at the bulging single mom culture simply because it's been unexplored. Women such as Itsonlywords demonstrate the need for analysis. Where's theres smoke, there's fire…and often hypocrisy.

"but as long as we’re spreading the blame around, we need to spread the shame around as well.

Womens/mothers turn to feel the heat of observation. I agree. Men, again, have been well-covered. Single-mothers?, well-protected and disgustingly so.

"Unfortunately, I think that’s unlikely to happen because, as with Welfare Queen, there are no terms that correspond to slut, whore and skank."

Deadbeat Dads. As if you didn't know.

The case went to trial, and my son lost his case. In Texas, it's considered a very serious matter to terminate a father's rights, and will normally only be done in cases where there is physical or sexual abuse of the child by the father. Neglect is not considered a good reason, nor is the need for the child to have the father actually living in the same home. So, when things get tough – which they do with a teenager – my son has to cope with the "you can't tell me what to do…you're not my father" thing in addition to all the usual problems that arise. (they did get a judgment of some $68,000 of back child support against the biological father, so things may still get interesting*)

So…society does need to deal with irresponsible fathers. They never should have taken away the shotgun…!

*this man is apparently in line to get a job as an assistant to a lawmaker in his state – which is _not_ Texas. He also lied and cheated in his statements in the court, so this development really frosts me, though it's really sort of irrelevant. It does speak to the standards of our lawmakers, though.

But I don't think men are off the hook here. The work they have to do is a lot more subtle, as you point out.