Hello Regan,

First a note of respectful empathy for what you suffered...I didn't gloss over that.

You seem interested in education, so here goes.

Things are very different in Canada when it comes to reproductive rights. Some Provinces have different laws as child welfare is under their aegis.

I assume it's the same with States' rights in the US and that is perhaps why there is so much apprehension: stacking the Supreme Court in order to overturn Roe Vs Wade for instance.

However, in Canada, the man has no say in the reproductive rights of the woman...has been that way for decades. (That doesn't mean that religious backed conservative politicians don't try to raise the spectre of a reversal but the laws have not been changed).

BUT, even if the father wants the child there's a mine-field to cross...and that's not getting into the adoption process should she decide to give up the child or have the child and go on welfare...with of course legally enforced support from the father.

Even if the mother continues to drink alcohol or engage in other addictive behaviours, and risks the well being of THEIR child with maladies like FAS, the father has absolutely NO RIGHTS.

Therefore, Canadian men do have to pay for unwanted pregnancies and not just until the child has reached 18 but also for four years of post secondary education...

...and that's not getting into supporting HIS non-biological children.

That's right.

Children he did not have a role in procreating and/or sign any adoption papers for.

This means that if a man lives with a woman and her children from another biological father, after six months they are considered HIS and therefore, if the common law marriage doesn't work out, HE will still be responsible for their child support and education until they reach 18 or for 4 years of post-secondary education...should the mother or children choose that route.

My Province has enormous powers to garnishee wages, remove drivers' licences, remove fees already paid to a post secondary institution, seize bank accounts: all from so-called 'dead beat' dads.

And that's not even getting into the number of men in Canada who lost their rights as fathers due to arcane misandric divorce/custody laws.

Admittedly things in Canada are slowly changing when it comes to father's rights, such as alienation of affection and equitable distribution of assets and the spouse's ability to pay spousal and child support and still survive.

But these old non-egalitarian laws still exist as most are based on English Common law, wherein precedent is king.

IOW, trying to change antiquated ideals of sexism, men don't want to be fathers, men lack the empathy to raise children or men's duty is to never question why but to pay until they die, is a hard legal road to change.

Once men have become the new serpent in the garden, as the current narrative would have it, it becomes almost impossible to engage in dialogue let alone address egregious laws.

All many new wave feminists may hear is the hissings of 'unawoke' demons who by daring to challenge an orthodoxy are immediately seen as dangerous apostates.

And of course there are men who do shirk their responsibilities and engage in diabolical actions. However, I am just as outraged at their behaviours as I am at any human being's...man or woman or other.

So if you wonder agape at Jeremy Huf's tone, it's because overt generalizations, which while vilifying all men deifies all women, will not bring about a much needed respectful rapprochement between men and women.

Surely those who have studied the trials and tribulations of early feminism know what it's like to be silenced at the discussion table. If so, why engage in the same methodology when men are asking to be heard or that all mens rights advocates are immediately dismissed as the mewlings of privileged misogynists.

But perhaps more importantly, men and women, and others of all genders, especially in these incredibly harsh times, are really really going to need each other, right?