« At the Bastille | Main | Could Steve Levitt get into a top Ph.d. program today? »
Male reproductive rights?
With the suit, NCM hopes to establish that a man who unintentionally fathers a child has the right to decline financial responsibility for that child, a right based on the same principles laid out in the 1973 case that made abortion legal...
The NCM has been looking for an appropriate plaintiff for this case for more than 10 years. It finally found one in Matt Dubay...who claims he and his ex-girlfriend did not use birth control because of her assurances that she could not get pregnant due to a medical condition. But the couple, who Dubay told Salon were together for about three months, did conceive, and Dubay's ex elected to keep the child, for whom he now pays $500 a month in child support, despite his contention that he was always clear about not wanting the child.
Save your moralizing, let's do tax incidence theory. If you were a woman and wanted an unwilling father, or at least wasn't trying too hard to avoid one, what kind of guy would you pick? Smart, not a criminal, tall, high-earning, and possibly nerdy. You also would pick a flexible, mild-mannered guy, on the grounds that he might grow to like the idea of parenthood (there is some chance you will decide to keep him in the picture).
If financial responsibility could be repudiated, these guys would find it harder to get quality sex. This is a simple economic principal: change the terms at one end of a deal, and they shift back at the other end. The ex-cons, who will take off in any case and are known to have this quality, would not be penalized. They might get even more sex.
Now which of the nerdy guys will suffer the most from holding greater "reproductive rights"? The risk-loving, sex-crazed nerds who like to sleep with strange women and are willing to chance paternity (just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?). And the nerds who know they are sterile or vasectomized. Did I mention the nerd who doesn't much mind a bit of financial (and other kinds of) servitude? No longer will these guys be viewed as potential appealing "victims."
Who will mind this change the least? The local dullard -- you went to high school with him but hoped you never had to marry him -- who wants to settle down with a wife and family, but otherwise faced competition from the smarter nerd tricked or lured into siring a kid.
The bottom line: This change would be a tax on male nerd sex. It would boost male nerd autonomy, but which of these do nerds need more?
No, one data point does not test a theory, especially when that data point is selected for purposes of national image. Nonetheless here is a photo of Matt Dubay, computer technician. Here is a video of Matt. Prior to the paternity suit, Matt had owned his dream car, a 1998 Trans Am.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on March 16, 2006 at 07:31 AM in Law | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/3576/4463101
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Male reproductive rights?:
» Male Reproductive Rights from DrewMiller.net
So I initially started batting this around with Brad Plumer over on his blog, and have been pondering it as it's swept across the blogosphere. Finally, though, someone made what I think is an irrefutable case for why I should... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 16, 2006 3:08:44 PM
» Male reproductive rights = Tax on male nerd sex? from Jacqueline Mackie Paisley Passey
I am a big fan of the idea that men should also have the right to decide whether they want to be parents when an unplanned pregnancy occurs. If the guy doesn't want to be a father, and tells this [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 16, 2006 3:15:30 PM
» A Tax on Male Nerd Sex from FreedomSight
Tyler Cowen applies tax incidence theory to the problem of unintentional fatherhood.If you were a woman and wanted an unwilling father, or at least wasn't trying too hard to avoid one, what kind of guy would you pick? Smart, not a criminal, tall, high... [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 16, 2006 11:49:14 PM
Comments
The transaction costs of opting in/opting out to this legal protection have to be low, so if the legal regime were changed, the Nerd who prefers more sex still could easily opt in to paternity risks to attract women. But a Nerd who prefers a bundle of less sex and more autonomy (i.e. fewer children allows more time & money to pursue Nerdy interests) can protect himself. The current legal regime restricts his ability to contract.
In the freedom of contract world, the sex-craved Nerds who prefer more sex and/or more tolerant of paternity risks will get more sex, and the nerds who prefer autonomy will get less. Right now the level of sex for each group is smoothed out, but I would tend to think inefficiently.
Posted by: Tony Candido at Mar 16, 2006 8:01:42 AM
This should also affect the female's choice of ex ante pregnancy risk, since it would raise the costs of unwanted births (or even of wanted births, is pregnancy is strategic). I'm thinking of Levine and Staiger's model of abortion from their 2002 NBER paper, "Abortion as Insurance." We might expect states that adopted this law to experience an increase in contraceptive use and an increase in ex post abortions.
Posted by: scott cunningham at Mar 16, 2006 8:45:28 AM
Huh?, Normally Tyler your posts make a lot of sense to me, this one, falls quite flat. Are we to believe that nerds would prefer one night of sex or a likely more short term relationship and be willing to pay for 18 years of child support after expressly saying that they did not want to father a child? Since the father is not required to terminate paternal duties, he may still assume such a role, but even then in his expressly declared intentions from the get go, he did not want the child. Especially since the "nerd" doesn't have the choice to continue in this relationship after the birth of the child (the mom could get up and leave and go find the bad boy she always wanted or something) this seems like an awfully fleeting benefit for quite extensive a cost. 2nd and 3rd relationships for nerds only get worse.
You make "nerds" sound incredibly more desperate for sex than I imagine they are. I mean after all, (oh geez this is a terrible thing to say), sex hardly needs to cost $500x12 months x18years x the appropriate discount rate.
Posted by: Joel B. at Mar 16, 2006 9:45:15 AM
It's sad that a man who happens to be nerdy is relegated to such a debased condition when it comes to getting sex. It's women who are really to blame, the way they all seem to want Alpha frat boy types.
Posted by: Peter at Mar 16, 2006 10:02:42 AM
From what I hear, the "sex starved nerd" is mostly a thing of the past with the prevalence of internet hook-ups. Of course the relative QUALITY of those hook-ups is likely to vary wildly depending on what assets you might bring to the table. I'm married myself and don't participate in the "meat market", so I couldn't provide any verification of that analysis, it's just based on what I hear from single and divorced software-engineer types.
Posted by: Matthew Cromer at Mar 16, 2006 10:20:23 AM
I'd say they're better off with the autonomy. And the group you describe that would suffer is very small, I think. if they weren't, your comment to "save your moralizing" makes the rest of the discussion nearly pointless. Consider this reducto, if there was currently a tax on all blacks requiring them to bow in the street to white people, I guess changing this law would benefit black people who don't like to feel inferior and it would hurt white people who enjoy being bowed to. Tax incidence, in this case, isn't relevant - moralizing is. Its simply unfair to allow women the sole discretion to keep or abort a child but afford men no option on whether to be financially responsible.
Posted by: Zac at Mar 16, 2006 10:53:37 AM
"From what I hear, the "sex starved nerd" is mostly a thing of the past with the prevalence of internet hook-ups. Of course the relative QUALITY of those hook-ups is likely to vary wildly depending on what assets you might bring to the table. I'm married myself and don't participate in the "meat market", so I couldn't provide any verification of that analysis, it's just based on what I hear from single and divorced software-engineer types."
I strongly disagree. As long as _de facto_ polygamy (the Alpha male with multiple girlfriends) and serial monogamy (the executive who trades in his current trophy wife for a new one every few years) remain significant parts of American life, a nerdy or otherwise non-Alpha male will find it very difficult to get a woman. Internet dating is worthless because the number of men seeking women far exceeds the number of women seeking men. Singles bars and nightclubs are no help either, as despite running constant "ladies' night" promotions in the hope of getting more women to attend most such establishments are proverbial "sausage parties." A perfect example of just how dire the dating and marriage situation has become for non-Alpha men is the fact that the mail-order bride industry just keeps on growing and growing even though most people know the truth, namely that most of the brides are con artists intent on bleeding men dry. How pathetic it is, that thousands upon thousands of men are left with no alternative other than to try *buying* wives who will steal all their money, simply because they're not studly Alpha types :((((
Posted by: Peter at Mar 16, 2006 10:58:57 AM
Hahaha. Yeah, "alpha males" control the entire supply of women, nerds! *That's* why you can't get any!
Posted by: Barbar at Mar 16, 2006 11:20:18 AM
Its simply unfair to allow women the sole discretion to keep or abort a child but afford men no option on whether to be financially responsible.
sorry Zac but your definition of "unfair" leaves much to be desired. In this case, I think it is pretty clear that it is more unfair to leave a child lacking in financial support. The child gets the priority. Child support is a duty owed to the child, not the ex-partner.
Posted by: Kathleen at Mar 16, 2006 11:41:52 AM
darn close tag.
Posted by: Kathleen at Mar 16, 2006 11:42:30 AM
argh make it stop!
Posted by: Kathleen at Mar 16, 2006 11:43:17 AM
"Hahaha. Yeah, "alpha males" control the entire supply of women, nerds! *That's* why you can't get any!"
You're an idiot, stud boy. Alphas may not control the world's entire supply of women, but thanks to _de facto_ polygamy and serial monogamy they actually DO take more than their fair share. Someone's got to lose, and in most cases that someone is the typical non-Alpha nerd.
Posted by: Peter at Mar 16, 2006 11:43:43 AM
boo hoo hoo.
Posted by: joshg at Mar 16, 2006 12:04:34 PM
hope that fixes the italics
The talk of "Alpha males" here is an example of how evolutionary psychology inspires a lot of sloppy biology, sloppy psychology, and sloppy thinking. In the wild, alpha males _do not_ get all the sex. Among primates, the beta males and out-of-group males are often sneaking into the bushes with females from the alpha harem. Yes, there are some species where the alpha males really do control the mating opportunities, but even then there is often turnover between alpha and beta.
IMHO a better analogy for the lonely nerd is if you raised a monkey in a skinner box, released it into the wild, and found it didn't even know how to make small talk with other monkeys. If you can get to the point of having beta status, you'd actually be doing pretty well.
Posted by: DK at Mar 16, 2006 12:12:31 PM
Stud boy. *snicker* Sure, somebody's got to lose.
I'm laughing at you because you think the dividing line between winners and losers is the line between alpha male studs and non-alpha nerds.
I'm laughing at you because you seem to think that there are a lot of guys out there who are shut out of the dating market just because girls overwhelmingly prefer macho studs, the guys who played quarterback in high school and slept with the entire cheerleading squad.
Yeah, it has nothing to do with these guys lacking social skills, or having a hard time relating to women, or having unreasonable expectations.
Blame it on Derek Jeter and George Clooney.
Posted by: Barbar at Mar 16, 2006 12:14:12 PM
social skills are relative. alpha males have unusually large amounts of them, and so are the most popular, and desirable. its not about 'macho.'
Posted by: dan at Mar 16, 2006 12:42:26 PM
I'm laughing at you because you seem to think that there are a lot of guys out there who are shut out of the dating market just because girls overwhelmingly prefer macho studs, the guys who played quarterback in high school and slept with the entire cheerleading squad.
Wrong again. What you seem to forget is that the number of males and females is approximately equal, at least among people in their 20's and 30's. We're not talking about, say, Britain in 1919, where a whole generation of males was devastasted by war. Each time an Alpha male takes two or more women "out of circulation," whether through _de facto_ polygamy or serial monogamy, two or more non-Alpha males are left out in the cold. It's a simple matter of numbers. And the fact that some of the non-Alpha males may be that way because of poor social skills, well, that doesn't make them any less deserving.
Moreover, if there really weren't this shortage of available women, why would there be a huge gender imbalance on dating sites like eharmony.com? Why would every singles bar and nightclub have to use costly "ladies' night" promotions in a usually futile attempt to get enough women? Why would there be a huge and growing mail-order bride industry? Can't answer these questions, can you.
Posted by: Peter at Mar 16, 2006 1:01:29 PM
What percentage of the population is "alpha males"? What percentage of the population is "nerds"? How are we defining these categories?
Is the outgoing guy who got a 1580 on his SAT, went to Harvard and graduated with honors, and is now working at an investment bank and making serious buck an alpha male or a nerd?
Is the illegal immigrant who was on his country's national water polo team and is now working as a waiter in the US an alpha male? What if his English is terrible?
If we re-define "alpha male" to mean "a guy who can hold a conversation with a woman," then it becomes more likely that this is true:
[It's sad that a man who happens to be nerdy is relegated to such a debased condition when it comes to getting sex. It's women who are really to blame, the way they all seem to want Alpha frat boy types.]
But then it becomes even more pathetic than it was before.
Posted by: Barbar at Mar 16, 2006 1:03:07 PM
[And the fact that some of the non-Alpha males may be that way because of poor social skills, well, that doesn't make them any less deserving.]
I know some of these "poor social skills" guys. A lot of them could afford to lower their standards, rather than thinking the equivalent of "Jessica Alba would really love me, if only she weren't so superficial."
[Moreover, if there really weren't this shortage of available women, why would there be a huge gender imbalance on dating sites like eharmony.com? Why would every singles bar and nightclub have to use costly "ladies' night" promotions in a usually futile attempt to get enough women? Why would there be a huge and growing mail-order bride industry? Can't answer these questions, can you.]
Nonsense. You may as well ask, "If there really weren't this shortage of available men, why would women have to put so much more effort into their physical appearance than men do?" The fact that women have an easier time procuring sex than men has nothing to do with hypothetical shortages you discuss.
Posted by: Barbar at Mar 16, 2006 1:13:26 PM
You may as well ask, "If there really weren't this shortage of available men, why would women have to put so much more effort into their physical appearance than men do?"
Women are vain about their physical appearances because they're trying to impress other women. And not, in most cases, because they're competing for the same man, or for reasons of a Sapphic nature. Women are far more cognizant of each other's appearances than men are. It's a rare man who will notice that the woman who catches his eye in a singles bar weighs 140 pounds when 130 normal for her height, or that her nose is a few millimeters too wide, or that she has a B cup instead of a C. And if he does notice, he won't care. In contrast, a typical woman is almost certain to notice these things in other women. Sheer vanity leads women to obsess about how they look to other women.
Posted by: Peter at Mar 16, 2006 1:31:22 PM
Well, Peter, you seem to be quite the expert on the ladies.
Let me rephrase things this way: women will be choosier than men even without any gender shortages. I'm sure you're aware of the evolutionary psychology reasoning on this point.
Posted by: Barbar at Mar 16, 2006 1:40:56 PM
And by the way, this notion that emphasis on female physical attractiveness is purely driven by women's vanity, and has nothing to do with men's interests, is also pretty laughable. We don't have magazines with half-naked women on the covers just because women are vain.
Posted by: Barbar at Mar 16, 2006 1:45:41 PM
We don't have magazines with half-naked women on the covers just because women are vain.
Funny, the magazines which seem to feature half-naked women on the covers include such titles as Cosmopolitian and Vanity Fair - both of which are women's magazines.
If you're referring to the "lad rags" such as Maxim and FHM, I'll point out that the primary readership seems to consist of non-Alpha males who think reading such magazines will somehow make them studly.
Lastly, if what you have in mind is the Swimsuit issue of Sports Illustrated, it should be obvious that nerdy non-Alphas don't read sports magazines. Duh.
Posted by: Peter at Mar 16, 2006 2:01:02 PM
Impeccable logic, Peter. Nerds read Maxim because they want to feel studly, therefore men really don't judge women by their looks after all. Nerds least of all.
Posted by: Barbar at Mar 16, 2006 2:26:35 PM
Is the outgoing guy who got a 1580 on his SAT, went to Harvard and graduated with honors, and is now working at an investment bank and making serious buck an alpha male or a nerd?
Probably an Alpha. If he's severely overweight, totally unathletic, or has noticeable deficient hygiene standards he might be considered nerdy, or if he's totally obsessed with science fiction or video games, but if either situation were the case he probably wouldn't be working at an investment bank. You may, however, have a complete nerd earning a good income, usually in the IT industry.
Is the illegal immigrant who was on his country's national water polo team and is now working as a waiter in the US an alpha male? What if his English is terrible?
This is a difficult one to call. A temporarily low income might not always be a bar to Alphaness. If he's nonwhite, however (suggested by the immigrant part), I won't try to guess because there seem to be different rules in the nonwhite communities. I'm white, and that's pretty much all I know.
Posted by: Peter at Mar 16, 2006 2:39:34 PM
