 |
| Note to MGTOW: Not actually how it works. |
Not so much. Because apparently for quite a few of these dudes, the desire to gloat over the misfortunes of women actually outweighs their desire to protect themselves from the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy.
Or so I am forced to conclude after reading this thread on MGTOWforums.com dealing with the recent passage in the House of a bill blocking funding of Planned Parenthood -- an event that strikes many of the commenters as hi-larious.
Apeiron offers this nugget:
Yes i saw the femms frothing at the mouth on their boards.
Well you know what bitch, we have to make cuts, lots of cuts ...
Good news is if the sluts see the cuts they might keep their legs shut and act accordingly.
The appropriately named womanhater presents his own analysis of the sexual politics of abortion:
Well - the twats replaced the husband and father with the state. Now they've bled that hubby and father dry. Of course, there's no replacement cock/sucker for the state. Have fun girls!
Rock adds:
[F]eminism cannot be defeated without cutting out funding. ... The neverending supply of manginas and white knights will keep it going unless these same people run out of money. And that is what's happening. Who would've thought the bad economy could have a good side effect. :)
Forum moderator hasmat concurs:
Want an abortion cuz you couldn't keep your legs shut? Fine, kill your baby, whore. But, I ain't paying for it. Not a penny.
But it is intp who offers the most, er, original take on the issue:
Question. What percentage of women would give their daughters up for sacrifice if they could remain young-looking/beautiful in return? I'm guessing a considerable percentage would take the Devil up on that deal. The rationalization hamster in women is strong. They would probably tell themselves I'll just have another baby later. Or "What about my needs? I have a right to be beautiful!" I ask this because per statistics most abortions occur due to non-health threatening reasons. The woman simply does not want to have a kid yet. She wants to keep screwing like a man (riding the carousel) until the last possible minute.
Ignoring the rest of intp's, ah, speculation, I have to wonder: what exactly is wrong with "screwing like a man?"
--
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
And what is a rationalization hamster?
ReplyDeleteOh, the irony. Yes indeedy - "screwing like a man" is wrong, wrong, wrong. Except when men do it.
ReplyDelete***Want an abortion cuz you couldn't keep your legs shut? Fine, kill your baby, whore. But, I ain't paying for it. Not a penny.***
Hmmmm. I'm forced to conclude from this (and comments like it) that these guys must not know how women get pregnant. She couldn't keep her legs shut, huh?
Well sir, who do you think was in between them????
@jupiter
ReplyDeleteThat was my next question. LOL
So MRAs want to be able to have sex with women, but not have to pay for abortion OR child support should pregnancy occur, because that's what those women get for having vaginas.
ReplyDeleteSo the MRAs aren't really fighting a noble fight against misandry and anti-male bias, but are just old-fashioned sexists who condemn sexually empowered women as sluts? Well color me shocked.
I did see a "What about teh Menz" post from one of the guys on there.
ReplyDeleteYeah, the lady tweeting about it forgot to include men getting medical treatment from PP (in fact, I paid for one of my male friends to get treatment when he was out of a job. That is what friends do.) So obviously we should destroy PP.
The fact that PP benefits both men and women is demonstrative of the scorched earth policy conservatives and misogynists are willing to employ. It's the same deal with healthcare reform. Sure, it would benefit them, too, but if it ALSO benefits a group they think of as undeserving, they'd rather see it destroyed.
ReplyDeletewhat part of the fact that planned parenthood is not allowed to use federal funds for abortions don't these people understand? or the fact that for every $1 we give to pp we save $4? Do they not realize that if babies happen because women don't have access to bc that they are going to have to pay child support for that kid? You can't tell me that they all stay away from all women (I'm not suggesting that all of MRA's/MGTOW go out and have sex with women, but with the PUA's in those movements and their success you can't deny the fact that there are indeed people having sex in those movements) and since their lack of maturity is evident in everything they say I doubt that they provide the condoms for said sex, so if women can't get bc and the guys they are sleeping with won't use fucking protection there is an 85% chance that pregnancy is going to happen. Which means that they are going to be stuck paying child support, something which they don't want to have to do. How does any of this make sense?
ReplyDeleteAfter seeing the hamster bit, I read the rest of the passage in the voice of Darth Vader. "The rationalization hamster is strong in this one!"
ReplyDeletePlease allow Captain Awkward to lay down the fucking law:
ReplyDelete1. Are you a man who has sex with ladies?
2. Do you want to make a baby every single time you do that? Every single time? (That's a LOT of child support).
3. If the answers to the above are yes and no, respectively, vote for pro-choice candidates and for NOT defunding Planned Parenthood and vote against religious zealots who are overly concerned with making sexually active women "bear consequences" for their "slutty" actions.
It's not a fringe women's issue! Quit being crazypants and evil!
So MRAs want to be able to have sex with women
ReplyDeleteBut not all MRAs are like that!
but not have to pay for abortion OR child support should pregnancy occur
But not all MRAs are like that!
So the MRAs... are just old-fashioned sexists
But not all MRAs are like that!
who condemn sexually empowered women as sluts?
But not all MRAs are like that!
However, when you take everything that the entire movement says as a whole........
Quit being crazypants and evil!
ReplyDeleteWell, fine, if your going to take all the fun out of it...
Truly, the only consistency here is the hate. And, as we know from teh internets, haters gonna hate.
ReplyDelete(Cue the obligatory "but, but...feminists" response from our MRA friends.)
@Captain Bathrobe, I was as shocked as you to find a level of short-sightedness and stupidity so bad that I could no longer joke about it.
ReplyDeleteBIRTH CONTROL IS AWESOME.
It's just...awesome! We want everyone who wants it to have it all the time!
There is so much of this "well then they should just keep their legs shut!" and "paying for their mistakes!" and blah blah, but really, who is having sex with them?? And won't decreased funding for birth control make "white knights" (which I am thinking is actually translated to "guy who didn't try to disappear to avoid child support, possibly with a relationship with the mother") MORE necessary?
ReplyDeleteWait, I get it, they want a return to forcing children into orphanages or letting them starve to teach women a lesson on... having sex... with men ever...
So, more lesbianism for me? :D
Well, at least their anti-PP position is somewhat consistent with other MGTOW goals. If one wants to have sex, then perhaps one wishes to have available birth control and access to affordable health care (for themselves and their partners). If one has decided that one isn't going to have sex, then perhaps one doesn't care so much if that's available. Here's where it gets tricky: If one has decided to be a bitter little bastard about everything that has to do with women, sex, and people who have sex with women, then you get responses like the ones reposted above.
ReplyDeleteSo yeah. On the one hand, I get it. MGTOWs don't like women. Check. On the other hand, I can't help feeling like everything will be so much cooler--for everyone--once they start actually going their own way.
Oh, also: INTPs are logical and rational! In case you couldn't figure that out from what intp there said, I mean.
"MRAs and MGTOWers complain all the time about how unfair it is for women who somehow magically get preggers after having sex with them to decide to actually keep the kids and saddle them with -- gasp! -- some of the cost of raising said kids"
ReplyDeleteOh ffs could you have made any MORE inaccurate generalizations David? If I came here and posted about Dworkin and then ranted about how ALL feminists hate All men ALL the time and they ALL thought sex was ALWAYS an act of rape, your fucking head would explode and you'd not be able to get to the damn delete button fast enough Then you'd spend a good 20 minutes churning out the most PC user friendly gynocentric bullshit that your turgid little mind could manage and the boobz groupie girls would be singing your praises and raving about how it's your blog and you can post what you want...truth be damned
Great journalism there David, please continue
> Oh ffs could you have made any MORE inaccurate generalizations David?
ReplyDeleteYes. He could have written "What percentage of women would give their daughters up for sacrifice if they could remain young-looking/beautiful in return? I'm guessing a considerable percentage would take the Devil up on that deal."
"MRAs and MGTOWers complain all the time about how unfair it is for women who somehow magically get preggers after having sex with them to decide to actually keep the kids and saddle them with -- gasp! -- some of the cost of raising said kids"
ReplyDelete@ Natasha: But ... MRAs do say that all the time. David's found PLENTY of evidence that they say this all the time. Even a cursory glance at a Spearhead article about the evils of child support and going through literally hundreds of upvoted comments agreeing makes me believe that, yes, it is safe to make the generalization that MRAs think child support is unfair.
@Natasha, now I'm really confused, because I thought that a good portion of the "rights" in Men's Rights Activist was advocacy around child support and divorce laws. As in they think that women get too much control over whether to have kids in the first place (trapping men into paying child support for unwanted children, or in some cases ruthlessly aborting babies without consulting the fathers) and too much sway in custody hearings. Is this incorrect? Can you explain?
ReplyDeleteAlso, putting aside whether the comments David quoted widely reflect MGTOW or MRAs, can we at least agree that specific statements such as:
"Question. What percentage of women would give their daughters up for sacrifice if they could remain young-looking/beautiful in return? I'm guessing a considerable percentage would take the Devil up on that deal."
are pretty asinine? Where do you stand on the claim that a considerable percentage of women would support human sacrifice of their children in exchange for youth/beauty?
I'm sort of kidding, in that you are an individual, and I don't expect you to answer for "Random Internet Commenter Named INTP" or agree with him, just like how I would hope you would assume that I am an individual who has not somehow mind-melded with Andrew Dworkin.
Good Lord....no where did I say I agreed with MGTOW...I dont post there or frequent the place. Most of what I see there makes my eyes twitch. I never said they were correct or incorrect ....I never made a comment whatsoever about the content of their posts.....I was commenting on David's words only, get a grip, your hero still reins supreme....here.
ReplyDeleteNow I'll comment on MGTOW and what they said. It all pretty much idiotic. That's the place that angry men go to be angry. Most of them see the light and move on to better, more established groups and blogs that have more intellectually stimulating content. MGTOW is in no way representative, contrary to David's best efforts, of all, or even most, or even a good majority of MRA's and/or men in the MRM. Depicting them as such is ridiculous
"Great journalism there David, please continue . . ." Natasha
ReplyDeleteDave lost his edge in mad journalism skillz ages ago. But I dig your style, Natasha. Bet you're a babe, too. And unlike the feminist fodder that feeds on floundering falsehoods with fickleness.
"So MRAs want to be able to have sex with women."---Unlady-like Victoria Non Serious
No, ace, just not with *you*.
Natasha, this post was mostly about MGTOW. And I made clear in various ways that the guys I'm quoting don't represent ALL MGTOW.
ReplyDeleteThat said, MRAs complain about child support ALL THE TIME. They really do. Do you seriously doubt that?
Here are 190 discussions of the subject from reddit's Men's Rights subreddit alone:
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/search?q=child+support&restrict_sr=on
Unlady-like Victoria
ReplyDeleteOoooh, he just accused you of failing to conform to socionormative standards of femininity. Ice burn!
Incidentally, Natasha, the differentiation between MRAs and MGTOWs is entirely semantic. They're all the same hateful assholes. The only arguable difference is that MGTOWs use MRA arguments in an attempt to justify their inability to get laid.
No, ace, just not with *you*
ReplyDeleteWoot!
But I dig your style, Natasha. Bet you're a babe, too. And unlike the feminist fodder that feeds on floundering falsehoods with fickleness.
ReplyDeleteROTFLMAO!! I hope you didn't bust open your piggy bank, wytch, to pay for some lessons to increase your mad PUA skillz, yo!!
"But I dig your style, Natasha. Bet you're a babe, too."
ReplyDeleteso wytche is like a...reverse-'white-knight'! o lady who happens to agree with me, you must be so much more sexy than those 'feminist' ladies with their fucking...beards or whatever.
of course you're supposed take it as a COMPLIMENT when these guys say you're 'not like other women'. i remember reading a comment before where someone pointed out that it's like a training seminar for insurance salesmen where they are told 'insurance salesmen are the scum of the earth, they control the government and steal our money. except you guys, you guys are GREAT!'
no one's allowed to actually be happy about being a woman. heaven forbid.
Women have to learn that sex and conception is a mutual act requiring mutual responsibility. You can't just abort responsibility without allowing men the same choice.
ReplyDeleteMen are simply deciding to abort from an unplanned pregnancy. Women reserve the right to do likewise. Women need to understand that sex and conception is not something a man does to a woman.
Men have every right to abortion that women do.
ReplyDeleteNow I'll comment on MGTOW and what they said. It all pretty much idiotic. That's the place that angry men go to be angry. Most of them see the light and move on to better, more established groups and blogs that have more intellectually stimulating content. MGTOW is in no way representative, contrary to David's best efforts, of all, or even most, or even a good majority of MRA's and/or men in the MRM. Depicting them as such is ridiculous ~natasha
ReplyDeletebecause the spearhead would never ever say such awful things and no one there is angry or irrational.
Women have to learn that sex and conception is a mutual act requiring mutual responsibility. You can't just abort responsibility without allowing men the same choice.
ReplyDeleteMen are simply deciding to abort from an unplanned pregnancy. Women reserve the right to do likewise. Women need to understand that sex and conception is not something a man does to a woman.
Le sigh.
Why is it so hard for MRAs to grasp this concept?
If a woman chooses to abort, she is opting out of parenthood because there is not a baby that needs parenting. If she chooses to keep her child, there is a human being now in the world. A man opting out of parenthood is a man abandoning a human being. It is not equivalent to an abortion.
Men also need to understand that, if they don't want to have children, there are many, many things they can do to avoid that. For starters, abortion is the most common surgical procedure in the country, and something like 95% of straight women will use some form of birth control in their lives. Guys who don't want children should date those women.
@Natasha
ReplyDelete::: Oh ffs could you have made any MORE inaccurate generalizations David? If I came here and posted about Dworkin and then ranted about how ALL feminists hate All men ALL the time and they ALL thought sex was ALWAYS an act of rape, , your fucking head would explode and you'd not be able to get to the damn delete button fast enough... :::
Pardon me - but I've done plenty of reading over at the Spearhead and various other MRA blogs and that's the gist of what a rather surprising number (to me) of men say.
And many of the ones that come here say precisely that as well (especially about Dworkin and feminists) - so I guess David isn't as trigger happy with the delete button as you contend.
Nor, I guess, has his head exploded from reading such drivel.
@David--
ReplyDelete"Natasha, this post was mostly about MGTOW. And I made clear in various ways that the guys I'm quoting don't represent ALL MGTOW.
That said, MRAs complain about child support ALL THE TIME. They really do. Do you seriously doubt that?"
David...I know this post was mostly about MGTOW...that's why I POSTED about MGTOW. Feel free to go back and READ my post as many times as it takes until you grasp that.
Moving on
And no, you don't make it "...clear in various ways that the guys [you're] quoting don't represent ALL MGTOW". You lump all MRA's in with the most reprehensible, laughable, disorganized fringe men's groups as you can, then you do what you're doing right now and backtrack and whinge about how you never do it. It's pathalogical and old at this point.
In fact, you did it again RIGHT HERE IN THE POST WHERE YOU SAY YOU NEVER DO IT!!!!!!
"That said, MRAs complain about child support ALL THE TIME. They really do. Do you seriously doubt that?"
You don't sway some or most or a good portion of even....you just say MRA's.
Are you illiterate or just willfully obtuse?
@triplanetary--
yes, in much the same way all femionists are the same right love? ;)
@laura-magic--
Actually, I'm fkn THRILLED to be a woman, but thanks!
@Bwec--
Yep
@briget--
ok, show me where I mentioned the Spearhead in this thread? Thought not. I have NEVER asserted that the men's movement isn't without flaws...maybe if feminism conceded that PERHAPS it isn't the end-all be-all saviour of fkn humanity, men and women could actually have a conversation about the issues.
I'm not holding my breath on that one
@lady von whatever the hell--
MRA'S DO grasp this.....we're waiting for feminism to catch up. Bwec, I believe, is referring to the proposal LC4M, where the child isn't, in fact, born yet. Look it up.
And "le sigh"??? Really?
Natasha, you complained about a statement from me saying that MRAs and MGTOW complain about child support all the time. You said I shouldn't lump MRAs and MGTOW together on this issue, which suggests that you think MRAs don't complain about this issue. I pointed out that MRAs do in fact complain about this issue.
ReplyDeleteI did not intend to suggest that each and every MRA on this earth complains about it, and I don't think that anyone besides you or someone else fundamentally hostile to me would read it in that extremely literal way; I suppose I should have said that "lots of MRAs" or "the overwhelming majority of MRAs I've encountered online" complain about it.
Of course, you missed the qualifying remarks I used in the OP here ("apparently for quite a few of these dudes") and managed to conclude that I was smearing all MRAs; I guess I'm damned if I carefully qualify me words (which is what I generally try to do) and damned if I don't.
maybe if feminism conceded that PERHAPS it isn't the end-all be-all saviour of fkn humanity, men and women could actually have a conversation about the issues.
ReplyDeleteMen and women don't need to have a conversation about the issues. If you frame it in terms of men and women from the start, any intellectually honest person knows who's going to come out on top in that conversation. The privileged ones who have a vested interest in the status quo and the power to maintain the status quo, obviously.
The answer is to stop framing men and women as separate, ideologically opposed groups. Feminists, especially third-wave feminists, understand that. MRAs don't. Their misogyny is actually pretty old-fashioned, standard-issue stuff, based on gender essentialism and a lot of other funny notions that adults eventually grow out of. Their fantasies of a Western world caught in the grip of tyrannical, man-hating feminism are based on a complete lack of perspective that arises from that same misogyny. They claim not to be old-fashioned, obviously, but the only real difference between them and the old-school patriarchs is that they're detached from reality.
you said mainstream MRA natasha. the spearhead, by admission of MRA's on this site, is as mainstream as they get. In david's about me section he says specifically that concerning every single post he knows that not all MRA's agree with one another. Although if you were to ask an MRA what the top five talking points are of their movement you know just as well as I do that the top 2 would be unfair court laws concerning divorce and child support.
ReplyDeleteNatasha, and about the delete button: as carswell notes, antifeminists do say precisely those sorts of things you talk about in the comments here all the fucking time and I don't delete them. I delete spam. Once in a long while I will delete a comment that is a really vicious personal attack, or that uses really abusive language. I banned one poster here who was consistently disruptive.
ReplyDeleteFeel free to read through the comments on this and past posts; there nave been nearly 10000 of them so far, and my best guess is that at least half of them are from antifeminists.
@David --
ReplyDeleteOk, willfully obtuse it is...color me surprised
David, it's really hard to miss all your 'qualifying remarks' because that's what the bulk of your posts are - backpedalling paragraphs like these trying to explain how anyone who points out how you use your runaway feminist paintbrush from hell to describe MRA's is misreading you or not being fair to you or is aww shucks just not patient enough to read through 190 fucking links 'proving' how fair and open minded you are.
I'm not going through 190 links...Im not going to go through 9 links....If you have to constantly point people back to things then you really arent that memorable are you? If you had some consistency of character, you wouldn't need to constantly remind us of it darling ;)
@briget
none of the mens rightsd sites are mainstream, but yes, some are more fringe than others, MGTOW being one of them. Spearhead is not the most mainstream....check out Pelle Billing, Paul Elam (David prolly wont tell you about him tho), Christina Hoff-Sommers, Dr. Tara Palmers, Toysoldier etc etc etc. These people are bright, articulate and don't wear tinfoil hats.
As to your point about the top two issues being unfair laws concerning divorce and child support....so what? Are you honestly going to presume to tell another movement what it's ALLOWED to concern itself with? Feminism is presently concerning itself with the horrible and oppressive fact that contributors to Wikipedia are teh evil evil menz!
Hahaha, runaway paint brush from hell.
ReplyDeleteHee.
Also, hahaha, the 190 links are from an MRA board, not David.
They are 190 references to child support being awful. They directly disprove your point.
Man I love the crazy trolls who can't read and mix metaphors. The comedy is increased by at least five fold.
Natasha, I assume the phrase "willfully obtuse it is" refers to you, as your comment really is astonishingly obtuse. You don't have to read 190 links. You merely have to note that this is a lot of discussions about child support. Hence my conclusion that MRAs often discuss child support.
ReplyDeleteAs for the rest, your comments offer yet more proof that some people are going to project their own assumptions on me regardless of what I actually write. I make myself pretty clear. If people hostile to me and to feminism misread what I write, perhaps "willfully," well, there's not much I can do about that.
Given the ignorant and addled state of your comments (I "prolly won't tell" people about Paul Elam?!) there's not much point in arguing with you any more.
Oh, and Elam's post today is called "The Scourge of Rape. Yeah, whatever." Very "bright" and "articulate," that. You can find a link to it in my sidebar.
Natasha::: ...Paul Elam (David prolly wont tell you about him tho) ... :::
ReplyDeleteWrong. I learned about Paul Elam right here - and then went on to read some of his stuff elsewhere.
Articulate I'll give you. He can write a coherent sentence.
Bright - that's probably a matter of opinion. If one agrees with him, perhaps - but David links to a long attempted discussion with the man and he can't play fair by the rules of debate so I'd not describe him that way.
No tin foil hat? He believes in a lot of the same ridiculous anti-feminist nonsense that most MRAs buy into. I'd say his tin hat is pretty firmly ensconced on his head.
David you forgot to add a flirtatious wink. I'm sorry but this is your last infraction. Please hand over your "passive aggressive fucktard" license.
ReplyDelete"But I dig your style, Natasha. Bet you're a babe, too"
ReplyDeleteLMAO! Okay, 10 bucks says Natasha isn't actually a woman.
If Natasha IS a woman, I bet she does love it when misogynists hit on her. Maybe you can date him Natasha! Oh, but don't have sex with him. You might get knocked up and then it'll be all your fault you slutty, slutty hobag. And I'm sure you're not the type of woman to have him pay child support, no, you're way too cool for that.
But - still going with the idea that you might actually be female, I truly don't understand spineless women like you who don't identify with the feminist cause.
"Are you honestly going to presume to tell another movement what it's ALLOWED to concern itself with? Feminism is presently concerning itself with the horrible and oppressive fact that contributors to Wikipedia are teh evil evil menz!"
Yea no. That's not the main concern of feminism right now. If you knew anything about feminism, which you obviously don't, then you'd know. Actually we're more concerned with atrocities going on in the U.S military and oh, our government trying to take away our right to choose.
But you can believe whatever you want. Ignore all problems facing women and I'm sure they'll go away. Misogynists and Republicans are totally fighting for women like you. These "gentle" Beta lads who are forcing you back into the kitchen and calling you worthless once you reach your 30s or gain 5 lbs are TOTALLY thinking in your best interests.
@Natasha, thanks for your clarification.
ReplyDeleteA current thread with 24 pages (and counting!) on a site called MGTOW saying "Stupid Planned Parenthood! Stupid women!" vs. Andrea Dworkin quotes from decades ago that nobody actually refers to or quotes anymore (except for people trying to prove that feminism is bad)?
I would love to see an argument where Feminists and the best of the Men's Rights Movement argue in good faith without once mentioning Andrea Dworkin or making fun of the other side for not being able to get laid, but...Paul Elam? This Paul Elam?? THIS Paul Elam? THAT'S your example of one of the good guys? Gibberish Assumption Theater?
@David -
ReplyDeleteNo, David, what's astonishing is your penchant for making these huge, sweeping remarks then over the course of the discussion you water them down to what you want to be characterized as some kind of off the cuff observation. You didnt just remark that they have a lot of conversations about child support. You essentially characterized all MRA's as beingn a part of or at least supporters of the MGTOW statements. I'm simply calling bullshit on it.
As far as projecting about what you 'actually write'...no projection, I quoted you. "MRAs and MGTOWers complain all the time about how unfair it is for women who somehow magically get preggers after having sex with them to decide to actually keep the kids and saddle them with -- gasp! -- some of the cost of raising said kids"
Those are your words, not my projection.
I'm not addled David, I just took a shot at you using Elam. See? I can be honest about what I write.
@carswell
as far as the debate goes...have a look here--
http://linearthinker.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/weighing-in-on-the-domestic-violence-debate-a-response-to-david-manboobz-futrelle/
if nothing else its an interesting read.
@sandy -
Just because I know you'll pout until you get it --
;)
Thanks Natasha. At this point you have accumulated enough passive aggressive winks for a life time, irrevocable "passive aggressive fucktard" license. Use it thoughtlessly.
ReplyDeleteActually, Paul is now bringing in guest posters on his blog, and those are both guest posts. Amazingly, his guest posters often manage to be even more ridiculous than he is. But yeah, Paul Elam has posted lots of obnoxious shit. His stalker-ish attacks on Josh Jasper, for one. His posting of the contact information of Julian Assange's accusers.
ReplyDeleteAnd this shit:
women who drink and make out, doing everything short of sex with men all evening, and then go to his apartment at 2:00 a.m.. Sometimes both of these women end up being the "victims" of rape.
But are these women asking to get raped?
In the most severe and emphatic terms possible the answer is NO, THEY ARE NOT ASKING TO GET RAPED.
They are freaking begging for it.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/2010/11/14/challenging-the-etiology-of-rape/
And "Beat a Violent Bitch Month," and many many more.
If this is your idea of sensible men's rights advocacy, that says a lot about you and about the MRM.
To clarify, the first part of my last comment was referring to Capt. Awkward's comment. And the last remark was addressed to NAtasha.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I misspoke about Mr. Elam. It wasn't "Beat a Violent Bitch Month." It was "BASH a Violent Bitch month." As in:
In the name of equality and fairness, I am proclaiming October to be Bash a Violent Bitch Month.
I’d like to make it the objective for the remainder of this month, and all the Octobers that follow, for men who are being attacked and physically abused by women - to beat the living shit out of them. I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles.
And then make them clean up the mess.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/2010/10/22/if-you-see-jezebel-in-the-road-run-the-bitch-down/
keiko you snuck in there while I was posting.
ReplyDeleteActually I am a woman. And spineless? Spineless because I'm not a feminist? Do you think all women should be feminists? Jeez i'm all kinds of sorry that I don't need to cling to the sisterhood to get a sense of identity. Because I'm not a feminist you doubt my gender? Would you really want someone to be a feminist just because they have tits? Would you not want them to actually think for themselves and have their own voice rather than just sheeple-ing along drinking the kool-aid?
Oh wait....yeah you probably wouldnt want that
@David, oopsie! It is the law of stupid internet arguments that you will make stupid mistakes when trying to self-righteously point out the stupidity of others. :blush:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reminder about the women-are-begging-for-rape Paul Elam, truly a man to stake one's credibility on.
OMG Captain. That second link is priceless. The "Core Values of Feminism" indeed.
ReplyDeleteI particularly liked the projection evident in this little gem:
::: Resentment and misandry- Feminists are hypersensitive. They see female victimhood everywhere because their perceptions are colored by an overabundance of emotion. They are on a constant lookout for any perceivable slight against women and take everything personally. Feminists do not hold women responsible for anything and blame men for everything. They believe men are the demonic source of female agony. This resentment gives way to a hatred called misandry. :::
LOLOLOL
If those guys could ever get past thinking in caricatures it would truly be a serious advancement in their development.
just sheeple-ing along drinking the kool-aid
ReplyDeleteAnother possible t-shirt slogan! I gotta get working on that again.
@Natasha
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid your idea of what constitutes an interesting read is somewhat different from mine. My standards of what constitute factual argument are definitely different.
That was nothing but wankery.
run away feminist paintbrush from hell. I think I have a new t-shirt idea
ReplyDeleteI'm waiting for the "bad boy cock carousel" t-shirt myself.
ReplyDeleteI think you should commission Ampersand to do illustrations for these. I can't be the only one who thinks a fleeing paintbrush with flames painted on the side could be pretty amusing.
ReplyDeleteI would hope all women would be feminists. Because I would hope all women like doing things like voting, getting an education, being allowed to work outside of the home, or being allowed to choose if an to whom they will be married. These are all very basic feminist ideas.
ReplyDeleteWhen a woman says that she isn't a feminist, she's saying she doesn't agree with women voting, working, owning their own lives, or being educated. If that's really what you want for your own life, then hey. Whatever sinks your submarine. But if not, then you might have to come to terms with the fact that you believe the same things as feminists do.
While I disagree with Natasha on, well, pretty much everything else, attacking her gender identity is out of line. While there are less misogynistic women than misogynistic men, they do exist. Attacking Natasha's gender and suggesting that she " does love it when misogynists hit on her" is an unecessary personal attack. There is plenty to disagree with in what she has said. Shoot, even go ahead and call her a misogynist. But let's not go down the road of accusing someone of being a fake woman, okay.
ReplyDeleteTest the gender characteristics of writing samples: http://bookblog.net/gender/genie.php
ReplyDelete*Spoiler: GenderGenie also thinks Natasha is a man. The outcome is, of course, not definitive.*
@DarkSideCat:
ReplyDeleteI think you're right, generally, but there are female MRA supporters who comment here pretty often who do not get called out as men. It's seems what several people have picked up on a disconnect between who Natasha is representing herself to be and other signals in her presentation, probably word choice, syntax, voice, whatever.
I agree that it doesn't matter, to the argument, whether Natasha is male or female, but it is interesting that more than one reader has had the same thought.
I'm with Cat here. Challenge Natasha's arguments; I have. But there's no reason to call her gender into question or to even make that an issue.
ReplyDeleteBesides, I think most of the time when people challenge the gender of someone in the middle of some argument online, they're wrong. There are MRAs out there who are convinced I'm a woman because I do this blog, even though I'm, you know, a real person blogging under his real name.
> I guess I'm damned if I carefully qualify me words (which is what I generally try to do) and damned if I don't.
ReplyDeleteI just fed this comment into pirate genie and it flagged the phrase "me words".
David is a pirate!!!
Gender Genie always thinks I'm a man, as do most people I talk to over the internet. And Sandy isn't that common of a man's name.
ReplyDeleteAlso I third or fourth or whatever not questioning people's given genders because:
1. Who cares?; and
2. It's rude.
And spineless? Spineless because I'm not a feminist? Do you think all women should be feminists?
ReplyDeleteWell, you benefit daily from the social advances made by feminism. You benefit from the actual, boots-on-the-ground, ass-risking activism and work of more than a century of feminists. So those particular individuals certainly have more spine than you.
Let me assume something for a moment - I assume you support women's right to vote, own property, and sign a legally binding contract. It has nothing to do with your gender; most contemporary Western men support these things too. MRAs often don't, but they're batshit. Anyway, if I'm wrong, and you don't support these things, just let me know and I'll recant this paragraph.
But to support those things while denouncing the people and the ideology that brought them into existence is, yes, spineless. It's like the people - numerous at the time but still present today believe it or not - who say they totally support black civil rights but they don't agree with Martin Luther Kings's methods. It's basically a veiled way of saying he was a bit uppity, and black civil rights aren't as important to them as feeling secure against the threat they perceive in what an empowered, enfranchised black population can accomplish.
Voting rights and equal legal standing were not generously given to women by benevolent men. Women, specifically feminist women, had to hit the streets and demand these things, and stir shit up until they got those things, and at the time the men in power thought they were uppity, too.
I have actually, literally, laughed out loud about 12 times during this entire thread. This is awesome, guys, girls ... whatever. (I'm also drinking.)
ReplyDeleteI'd much rather make fun of someone for being deadass wrong about everything they say and think, than because they've possibly (probably) misrepresented themselves on the internet. So seriously, since we (may) have a real live woman-MRA in our midst, let me ask this: I've always wondered why women would sign up for inclusion in a movement that calls women sluts and twats. Perhaps you could explain the appeal?
OMG Captain. That second link is priceless. The "Core Values of Feminism" indeed.
ReplyDeleteMyself, I liked his interpretation of the brain scans of men and women:
"Brain scans show that the average male brain is highly compartmentalized when performing certain functions. When doing A, part A lights up. When doing B, part B lights up. It’s as though every part of a man’s brain has its respective job that it does extremely well and that is all it does. (This is an oversimplification, but it works for my purpose here.)
Could this division of labor in the male brain give us clues as to how men came up with science and mathematics?...
The female brain scans differently. When doing both A and B, the female brain lights up over a bigger, more general area. Some would say that women use more of their brains than men. I suggest that this functional ambiguity makes the female brain slightly less decisive."
Doesn't occur to him that the division of labour in the male brain might also give us clues as to how so many men seem to miss the forest for the trees.
In addition, the compartmentalized brain scan results don't necessarily hold true for non-Western men. Oriental men, in particular those who are fluent in the Oriental language, show brain activity similar to women. Hmmmmmmmm..... that must be why Oriental men suck at mathematics and science........ oh, wait......
"The comedy is increased by at least five fold."---Sandy
ReplyDeleteYour posting is comedy.
Oriental men
ReplyDeleteNot cool, Pam.
For funsies, I tried the "gender genie" on a couple of posts from feminist blogs. Apparantly, Venessa over at feministing is solidly a guy, as is Jill over at feministe. I also tried the headline stories on the Yahoo page. Mindy, writing about Glee, gets male, as does Rachel writing about Rush Limbaugh, as does Les writing about home pricing. The MRA comments exerpted in the post on Muslims end up with two as female and one as male. Accuracy is not this tool's strong point.
ReplyDeletetriplanetary, a lot of people don't actually understand why that isn't an acceptable term to use, so some clarification is necessary there. Pam, the reason that the term oriental shouldn't be used is because it is generally referenced in the same breath as turning those of an asian decent into something foreign and exotic. The acceptable term there is asian just FYI
ReplyDeleteincidently david I have a friend who is an artist and also a feminist who would like to do the graphic designs for you. If you are interested let me know and I'll have him get in touch with you
ReplyDelete"Pam, the reason that the term oriental shouldn't be used is because it is generally referenced in the same breath as turning those of an asian decent into something foreign and exotic. The acceptable term there is asian just FYI"
ReplyDeleteThe hilarity/incomprehensibility of the phrase "fluent in the Oriental language," is another pretty good reason not to say things like that.
Not to mention, there are a number of women who do not and have not supported feminists - the 'well behaved women' who have internalized cultural messages about the relative value of male opinions versus female opinions. Women like Natasha have decided that it is more important for men to think well of them and to earn the label 'Not like THOSE women,' and so they spend quite a bit of their time reassuring men that they are not a feminist and continually deferring to male opinion.
ReplyDeleteLaughing at the idea of Paul Elam as "bright and articulate". He's small minded, full of hatred for women, and writes a lot of destructive trash. I can definitely see him in a tin foil hat.
ReplyDeleteLady Victoria von Sirius Black's mother said...
ReplyDelete"Why is it so hard for MRAs to grasp this concept?"
"If a woman chooses to abort, she is opting out of parenthood because there is not a baby that needs parenting."
Because she killed it.
"If she chooses to keep her child, there is a human being now in the world."
WRONG. There is a human being whether she chooses to kill it or not. A child does not suddenly become a child just because leeettle Meeeeeees Entitlement decrees it so.
"A man opting out of parenthood is a man abandoning a human being. It is not equivalent to an abortion."
YES IT IS.
You take a man's DNA to make a baby.
You are NOT the sole proprietor.
When you get an abortion you ARE making a decision for THREE (count them if you can count that high) people.
Why is it so hard for feminists to grasp this concept?
YOU'RE VAGINA IS NOT THE CENTER OF THIS GALAXY AND NEITHER ARE YOU.
"Le sigh"
"Men also need to understand that, if they don't want to have children, there are many, many things they can do to avoid that."
Well duh! That's what MGTOW is about.
YOU'RE VAGINA IS NOT THE CENTER OF THIS GALAXY
ReplyDeleteYet another t-shirt possibility!
Briget, definitely have your friend get in touch with me.
EWM, genuinely not trolling but are you really pro-life? I figured you'd be a fan of abortion both for its eugenic possibilities and for the leg up it'd give you in the gender wars (disproportionately aborting female babies, as they do in some parts of the world). Maybe I've got you figured wrong but I always thought you were one of those transhumanist guys who viewed technology like abortion as possible tools for male liberation. I could be confusing you with someone else tho, pardon me for asking.
ReplyDeleteHuh, so I guess I ought to be properly offended the next time someone refers to me as Oriental. Thank you, I did not know that as it has never offended me.
ReplyDelete"Asian" encompasses more than just what has commonly be known as the Orient, and the study that I read found the results that I spoke of to be prevalent in men of that descent as opposed to other parts of Asia that were not formerly known as the Orient.
The hilarity/incomprehensibility of the phrase "fluent in the Oriental language," is another pretty good reason not to say things like that.
You're right, I should have pluralized it or said an Oriental language, as it wasn't limited to only one of the languages used in the area formerly known as the Orient. And more specifically, it was fluency in the written language.
Guess that'll teach me to post here after a long day.
"YOU'RE VAGINA IS NOT THE CENTER OF THIS GALAXY"
ReplyDeleteTypo aside - the image that comes to mind is the flaming eye (looking suspiciously like a vagina) of the Lord of the Rings movies.
Bwec, and men need to understand that child support isn’t something women do to men.
ReplyDeleteSeriously. “Child support” laws have been in place in England since the late 1500s- they were meant to support “bastards”- and have only once been abolished in Victorian times. Can you guess what happened? Quote: “Enabled an unmarried mother to apply to the Petty Sessions for an affiliation order against the father for maintenance of the mother and child, regardless of whether she was in receipt of poor relief. This was probably in recognition that the 1834 Act had not reduced illegitimacy (by making it harder for mothers to claim maintenance), but in fact increased it (by enabling men to avoid some of the responsibility for their actions).” Source: http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/information_and_explanation/world/history_uk.html
“Opting Out” has been done before. It didn’t work the first time- what makes you think it would now?
The typo is what makes the quote great.
ReplyDeleteFreudian slip.
"You take a man's DNA to make a baby."
ReplyDeleteWhy, yes! The female standard spring-loaded vagina shoots out and sucks all of the precious, life-giving sperm straight out of a man's penis. I have to say, it was a little embarrassing when my spring would trigger haphazardly in public, but then I got it fixed, so it's all good now. Of course, I will have to discuss the revealing of this secret with the local Feminazi Cabal, as we've worked long and hard to perpetuate the myth that a condomless man willingly ejaculates into a female.
Pam: "Guess that'll teach me to post here after a long day."
ReplyDeleteEh, happens to the best of us. I was posting after an endless and pointless argument with an MRA, so I apologize that some of my snark got on you.
YOU'RE VAGINA IS NOT THE CENTER OF THIS GALAXY AND NEITHER ARE YOU.
ReplyDeleteWell, damn.
Guess I'd better rethink my life plan, then.
@EWME, the complete biology failure of your personhood argument (and the fact that personhood would not necessitate the outcome you want, see here for a famous philosophy of ethics paper on that http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm)aside, even if we accept the notion that abortion should be illegal on these grounds, it would also follow that the man would be responsible for half of the cost of medical bills, as well as at least part of the cost for housing, food, etc. during the pregnancy. If the fetus is a child from conception and you have the right to demand that women be forced to let it use their bodies, then you owe financial support at the very least from conception onwards. It does not follow from your opposition to abortion that men should be allowed to opt out either. Quite the opposite, in fact.
ReplyDeleteEh, happens to the best of us. I was posting after an endless and pointless argument with an MRA, so I apologize that some of my snark got on you.
ReplyDeleteHey, no prob....we're good. I had one of those kinda days, but with colleagues at work, and was one of those times when I really should have been going to bed instead of responding to blog articles.
I can understand the thoughtfulness behind political correctness and all, because it's meant to not offend another person or group of people, but the study that I was referring to (and I've looked for it and can't seem to locate it online) was specific in their findings, as in the findings didn't necessarily apply to persons of other Asian countries outside of the Far East or Orient (or whatever it's being called these days....my parents left China with my brother and I many years ago, when I was young, and I haven't been back since).... they believed it had something to do with the written language, in that those languages utilize whole word symbols and not letters or symbols used separately to spell words. Men with Far Eastern or Oriental heritage who hailed from elsewhere and were not fluent in one of their heritage languages did not display the same brain scan results as ones who were fluent in one of their heritage languages.
I guess what I took from that study was that it was pretty good proof that people aren't necessarily BORN hard-wired to be right-brained or left-brained or using part A of brain to do task A, etc., depending upon one's sex, cultural influence appears to have some impact upon that. In my mind, it would be something worth pursuing to try to determine the reason for the difference, as men who have a tendency to be more narrowly focused in brain centers or sides suffer more deleterious effects of strokes because the other centers or side of the brain isn't well-equipped to assist with the functions that typically utilized the injured portion of the brain.
I should have added to my comment that I wish someone(s) would pursue that angle of these brain scan type of studies, for example, rather than focusing on gender superiority/inferiority.
ReplyDeleteI have heard about that study Pam but I have not seen it online either despite trying to find it. It was even mentioned in a Terry Pratchett book.
ReplyDelete@Elizabeth,
ReplyDeleteI'm glad that you've heard of it, too... I was wondering there for a minute whether I had just imagined having seen it, because it was a little while ago when I read it and filed it away in the "huh, that's kinda interesting" portion of my brain.
And the ramifications for, example, stroke victims if the results of that study were replicated, pursued, etc. far outweighs, in my mind, the "who has the bigger brain, men or women" gender superiority fixation stuff.
Yeppers...I will see if I can chase down that comment of Pratchett's since it may give us an idea of a google search.
ReplyDeleteNow back to being appalled by this proposed bill in Georgia.
"“Opting Out” has been done before. It didn’t work the first time- what makes you think it would now?"
ReplyDeletebecause women have an ample supply of birth control options they didn't have in the past, plus you are capable of supporting yourselves and any children you choose to have (by not using the aforementioned birth control, as well as post conception options). it didn't work in the past because it left women who didn't have a means of preventing the pregnancy in the first place, with little in the way of a means to support that child. Are you suggesting that a woman is incapable of preventing herself from getting pregnant, and if she does, can not properly support herself? Times have changed and the laws need to change with them. You know what also didn't generally work in 1834? Women. You want to keep that trend too?
I find this especially amuzing given the recent discussion on stating contradictory beliefs not too long ago. On one hand, feminists are irate about the abortion clinics having their funding pulled, meaning women will need to take more responsibility for their actions. And yet, they still insist men should not be given a post conception option of parental absolution (despite still having multiple themselves), and that they should take responsibility for their actions. Why is it only men need take responsibility, while women are given multiple options out? why the double standard?
it didn't work in the past because it left women who didn't have a means of preventing the pregnancy in the first place, with little in the way of a means to support that child.
ReplyDeleteAnd that would still be the case for women who can't afford an abortion. That's why our anger at the defunding of sexual health services is consistent with our overall message.
Funding sexual health services helps people, fights child poverty, and makes good economic sense. Even if you don't give a shit about women you should support that.
Actually, quite a few women were working in 1834. In agrarian families, they worked quite hard to help keep the farm running. Women also contributed to cottage industries - small home-based operations such as weaving, cheese making, candle-making or sewing. In Western cultures, it was the norm for a working class woman to work as a domestic servant or nanny for a rich family until she got married. Women were also teachers, nurses and entertainers. In 1834, the Industrial Revolution was also in full swing, providing work for women in factories. To say nothing of women engaging in the World's Oldest Profession, or the female slaves in America and elsewhere in the world. I doubt their masters let them loaf around all day.
ReplyDeleteAnd while rich women were not expected to work for a wage, they were still expected to keep the household running - which, though unpaid, is still difficult. Women who had children certainly worked more than full time hours to take care of them. And while there weren't many women in government in 1834, Queen Victoria ascended the British throne in 1837.
So, while women might not have been doctors or lawyers in 1834 (Elizabeth Blackwell would not become a doctor until 1845; Arabella Mansfield would not be admitted to the bar until 1869), they were certainly working quite hard.
Uh, Kratch, women have always had abortion. It just wasn't called by that name. It was called "bringing on the bleeding" and other similar terms. It was largely the domain of women, and the few male herbalists/chirurgeons/etc that would provide the herbs that cause abortion. If you've read historical documents, old medical lore, or even historical fiction, you'll see in explanations for certain herbs usage that they "cause you to bleed, but if used too far along/over a certain quantity, the woman will die." That's ye olde abortion method. Men, for the most part, didn't know when it happened. It was largely used by unmarried women to prevent the shame, beating, or death that would come by having their premarital sex becoming public knowledge.
ReplyDeleteJust some food for thought.
@Kratch, federal funds already cannot be spent to pay for abortion save in the case of rape or incest(and, even with these, the procedure for procurring funds is so drawn out that it almost never happens). Less than fifty abortions for rape and incest were paid for by any federal funds (through medicaid) last year. Which means that, even if every single one of these women had their procedure at a planned parenthood, the amount of planned parenthood funds (not all of which are federal) used for these abortions is damned near zero. The programs being cut here are are explicitly not abortions (by federal law, no federal funds that go to planned parenthood are spent on abortion, planned parenthood uses donations for that). This means sex ed programs, free condoms, free to low cost gynecological exams, pregnancy tests, STD tests, STD treatments, etc. Over here in reality, things are not the way you seem to think that they are.
ReplyDeleteOther than that, do you have a point that isn't jealous whinging about the fact that you can't get pregnant and can't control the bodies of other people when they are pregnant?
"The fact that PP benefits both men and women is demonstrative of the scorched earth policy conservatives and misogynists are willing to employ. It's the same deal with healthcare reform. Sure, it would benefit them, too, but if it ALSO benefits a group they think of as undeserving, they'd rather see it destroyed."
ReplyDeleteAMEN, AMEN, Triplanetary...TRUER WORDS NEVER SPOKEN. The sad thing is that they don't see how this scorched-earth policy is killing THEM.
(Although, for the record, I'm opposed to ObamaCare--I wanted a genuine National Health System, the real deal--not enshrining of insurance agency power.)
triplanetary said...
ReplyDeleteO"oooh, he just accused you of failing to conform to socionormative standards of femininity. Ice burn!"
Ooooh, translation: "I'm cool and stuff because I employ words like socionormative from my overpriced (and utterly useless) undergrad classes from the Liberal Arts Division!"
Incidentally, Natasha, the differentiation between MRAs and MGTOWs is entirely semantic. They're all the same hateful assholes. The only arguable difference is that MGTOWs use MRA arguments in an attempt to justify their inability to get laid."
I get laid and I'm still into MGTOW. Bet that causes your synapses to misfire---oh wait, they are doing that without that relayed information.
Pam said...
"ROTFLMAO!! I hope you didn't bust open your piggy bank, wytch, to pay for some lessons to increase your mad PUA skillz, yo!!"
I'm not into piggies, hence the DO NOT DATE red flag that comes up every time you post. As far as female game is concerned, you've got the anti-game repellent down to a frickin' science. Bravo.
"Guess I'd better rethink my life plan, then."---Unladylike Victoria Non Serious
ReplyDeleteYou should.
"I'm not into piggies, hence the DO NOT DATE red flag that comes up every time you post."
ReplyDeleteWow, you really put her in her place. Calling her FAT.
"I'm not into piggies, hence the DO NOT DATE red flag that comes up every time you post."
ReplyDeleteAs though that's such a *bad* thing...
You know, Wytch, seems to me like you compulsively attack women you haven't even met on issues like fat and appearance. Do you imagine this scores points or make you look bigger?
ReplyDeleteYeah, folks, let's lay off the personal insults.
ReplyDeletekratch: More on non-working women in 1834.
Conditions in the Lowell mills were severe by modern American standards. Employees worked from five am until seven pm, for an average 73 hours per week.[2][3] Each room usually had 80 women working at machines
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowell_Mill_Girls
Kratch: "On one hand, feminists are irate about the abortion clinics having their funding pulled, meaning women will need to take more responsibility for their actions."
ReplyDeleteI'm irate primarily because Planned Parenthood does a hell of a lot more than provide abortion services. Actually, what's going to happen is a lot of poor and uninsured women will lose access to (1) a cheap source of birth control and methods of stopping sexually transmitted disease, (2) cheap and free STD tests and treatment, and (3) cheap and free pap smears, colposcopies, uterine biopsies, and other methods of finding and treating cancer in its earliest stages. Planned Parenthood saves the lives of women and men.
Supporting Planned Parenthood doesn't conflict at all with a view that implementing a widespread system of "financial abortion" would be a disaster. Two completely separate things.
YOU'RE[sic] VAGINA IS NOT THE CENTER OF THIS GALAXY
ReplyDeleteObviously not. Your mother’s vagina is the center of this galaxy, whoever “you” are, at least as far as you are concerned. (Explanation: in a universe that is, as far as we know, infinite, the "center" is anywhere you want it to be. Your personal point of origin makes as much sense as any other point.)
Ooooh, translation: "I'm cool and stuff because I employ words like socionormative from my overpriced (and utterly useless) undergrad classes from the Liberal Arts Division!"
ReplyDeleteFurther translation: it bugs me that you might be more educated and smarter than me so I'm going to put you down for using words I don't understand.
[I]n a universe that is, as far as we know, infinite, the "center" is anywhere you want it to be. Your personal point of origin makes as much sense as any other point.)
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe we're all the center of our own universe. I (and my vagina) are the center of my own universe, as are you the center of yours and Wytch the center of his.
It gets a little cosmic, but I find it a much more uplifting belief than the idea that we're all fucked because our ancestors ate the wrong piece of fruit.
I'm not into piggies, hence the DO NOT DATE red flag that comes up every time you post.
ReplyDeleteI suppose there's a reason that I should care, but I can't think of a single one.
As far as female game is concerned, you've got the anti-game repellent down to a frickin' science. Bravo.
Hey, if it keeps Men's Rights Supremacists at bay, it's a skill well worth honing.
Bee said:
ReplyDelete"I've always wondered why women would sign up for inclusion in a movement that calls women sluts and twats. Perhaps you could explain the appeal?"
Because you are the only person who has bothered to ask (rather than assume I am a man, lol), I'll answer you.
First, I'll tell you why I'm not a feminist. My historical experience with feminism has been positive--I enjoy being able to work, vote, hold property and marry whom I choose. I also enjoy being able to obtain birth control and get an education that goes beyond home ec. I like those things. And I am able to thank feminism for it without sarcasm or caveats.
There are things that I MUST accept that I would rather NOT as well. I would rather earn my place - whether it be in an educational program, a promotion, a career etc -- than have it handed to me for the SINGULAR fact that I have tits and having those tits fills some quota. I believe in promotion through merit only...if my work doesn't warrant getting a raise, don't give me one just because I'm in possession of a uterus ffs.
I'm not a feminist because I have experienced FIRST hand how discriminating against men it can be; I've experienced how actively hateful it can be. Before you jump to conclusions, I come from a family where I am the only child, my dad worked and my mother stayed home until I was about 14 then started her own business and paid for me to go to an extremely competitive, east coast college. I have a fantastic relationship with my father -- who never molested, raped, or ogled me or my friends; wasn't a drunk, didn't hit my mom, didn't hit me, paid me lots of appropriate attention and encouraged me to be daring and to go for what I wanted. I had a great, probably privileged upbringing.
Back to why Im not a feminist. I have had a thesis rejected because it studied boys, "whose time has come and gone" and not girls. I was told to change the genders and present the results of boys as having come from girls, because "boys get enough attention". I am a D/V survivor and told by a therapist that all men were the same, that all men would endeavor to hurt me, and advised that I even stay away from my own father for 6 months because his very presence would somehow re-traumatize me. I have, in my field, seen boys continuously get passed over for services because there was a girl who needed them and it 'looked better' to help girls. The fact is, I have seen more discrimination towards men in the name of feminism than I have ever seen toward women. There is no right or wrong here, it is simply my experience.
This was too long, so Im posting my second half separately--
My response to Bee, cont. --
ReplyDeleteNow, why am I an MRA? First off, it has nothing at all to do with hating my own gender, an act which I am often accused of. I am often attacked, by feminists, who say the following to me when they find out I am NOT a feminist:
You must be ugly
You must be a man
You must be a whore
You must like being the pet of all the MRA men
You must like getting a certain kind of attention from MRA men
You must hate women
You must hate yourself
You must have been molested by daddy
You must have been abused by your mother
You must have been brainwashed by your boyfriend
You're too stupid to understand feminism
You're a feminist, you just don't know it yet
You must be a feminist, you're a woman
You're a traitor
Don't believe me? Go back and look at all the things you all have said to me in this thread. At least 5 are there.
I advocate for rights for men. Men should have viable birth control options beyond condoms and vasectomies. I think it's crap that often the mother is the default custodial parent when the better parent is the father. I think divorce court has a long way to go re men receiving equal treatment. I think it's crap when a man and woman committ the same crime and she gets less time because shes a woman. I think gender roles are shit and need to be done away with, in an EQUAL manner...which, IME, most women don't really want unless it benefits them, but most men are happy to committ to.
And Bee, none of the men I post with at MRA sites has EVER called me a slut or a twat...I have only had that experience posting with feminists.
Supporting equal rights for men in custodial, divorce, birth control, criminal sentencing are worthy goals.
ReplyDeleteHowever-much of what is posted on the MRA sites is hateful and nasty towards women. So why are you excusing it? You do not defend it, but you do excuse it.
There are some sites out there that are just hateful, plain and simple...both mra sites and feminist sites. To say otherwise is just sheer lunacy.
ReplyDeleteI can't see in my post where I made any excuses for any one side being hateful and nasty toward women.
When I come across a poster - regardless of the kind of site Im at, be it feminist or mra - being hateful or attacking toward all men or all women, I either say something or I ignore it. If I say something, it's usually to chalk them up as an idiot who is hiding behind whichever ideology the site supports (mens rights or feminism) just so they can express hate, not because they necessarily believe in the cause.
A few true woman haters will come to mra sites because they DO think that that's what mens rights is about....they either get quickly educated, banned, or, some places will allow for it citing the lack of public spaces which allow men to express their anger....the last of which I think is a ridiculous move that harms the site and is a detrement to the mens rights movement as a whole...but I don't make the rules at these sites.
These same types of people show up at feminist sites...full of hate and anger at men because of what one man did to them (these types of men do the same, blame all of woman kind for what one did to him). This man hating woman is similarly treated by the other members of the site...educated, banned or allowed to 'feel her pain' and be supported in her anger.
See how that feels and reads differently though?
Idk...mostly, I base it all off personal experience, and mine has led me to the conclusion that I am not a feminist, not necessarily and anti-feminist, but rather, an mra.
Natasha: Thanks for the answer. I can definitely agree with parts of what you've said. I've done some advocating myself in male prisons, and I think it's crap, too, when women who commit crimes get lighter sentences, to take one of your examples. I actually think that many of the complaints raised on MRA sites are valid; it's just when they're combined with the hateful rhetoric that Paul Elam and his like use that I know I am not welcome in their ranks. So I advocate for an end to prison rape and circumcision from a feminist position.
ReplyDeletewhen you say that MRAs don't call you names, I think (and perhaps I'm misunderstanding) you mean that they've never called you, personally, a name. When I look at Apeiron's analysis ("Good news is if the sluts see the cuts they might keep their legs shut and act accordingly"), I have to take that personally. I'm not a slut, but that's not important. I am a person who has used Planned Parenthood (whose life as been saved by PP, in fact), so Apeiron sees me as a slut. Why would I associate with a group that sees me like that?
It looks like you've had bad experiences with feminism. I'm sorry for that. I've had mostly good experiences with feminism and feminists. And my experiences (online, mostly) with MRAs and MGTOWs are wholly negative. I won't change your mind about feminism, and I won't try, but I appreciate anyone who advocates for people's rights, so thank you.
I have had a thesis rejected because it studied boys, "whose time has come and gone" and not girls. I was told to change the genders and present the results of boys as having come from girls, because "boys get enough attention".
ReplyDeleteIf this is true, that's appalling. My experience with feminist academics (I was ABD in history) was that they were as interested in studies of boys/men as in girls/women; my (unfinished) dissertation was in part about adolescence and my (feminist) advisors never pushed me to only study girls.
As for your list, well, whoever called you those things was wrong. But the MRAs/MGTOWers say far worse of feminists, and have said far worse of me. For example:
You must be ugly
You must be a woman
You must be a faggot
You must like being the pet of all the feminists
You must like getting a certain kind of attention from feminist women
You must hate men
You must hate yourself
You must have been abused by your mother
You're too stupid to understand
You're a traitor
You're a mangina
You're a "fleshcreeping mangina."
You're an advocate of violent pedarasty. (!??)
You're "supplicating [yourself]before the feminist vagina."
You're a nitwit, assclown, twerp.
You're a "a dancing jackass for the matriarchy."
You're "another typical Western Male Fucktard, thinking that even on-line sucking up to fembots will slather his withering pole."
You're "kinda like a zit that won't pop or respond to Clearasil."
You're a "Chickenshit Feminist Quisling."
You're "covered in pin feathers and clucking."
You're "a fucking moron."
This is a very incomplete list.
Oh, the last 4 were from Paul Elam, the guy you recommended as "bright" and "articulate."
A few true woman haters will come to mra sites because they DO think that that's what mens rights is about....they either get quickly educated, banned, or, some places will allow for it citing the lack of public spaces which allow men to express their anger....the last of which I think is a ridiculous move that harms the site and is a detrement to the mens rights movement as a whole...but I don't make the rules at these sites.
ReplyDeleteThis is an outright lie. It's the same sort of claim as the one about Paul Elam being bright and articulate. It's just a simple piece of complete unreality.
The MRA and MGTOW forums (both) are filled with hatred for women, hatred at women, and hatred for men who don't hate women. I've seen those forums myself. The kinds of stuff David posts on this blog are not exceptions. They're the norm.
And you're full of shit. I don't believe for a second that a significant number of feminists have called you a whore or said any of the other things you listed. I don't believe for a second that your characterization of the reason for your dissertation's rejection is accurate. I'm not entirely sold on the notion that you're capable of writing a coherent dissertation.
@Bee --
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response, this is an actual conversation, and I'm glad to have it. Good for you for advocating, thank you.
As to your assumption that I meant I, personally, have never been called names on the mra sites....that's correct. I haven't. The first site I went on is fairly well established and run by a man I know from other forums. I lurked there about a week and then made a few tentative posts. I kept in mind that this was a men's site, dealing with men's issues and not women's issues. I kept in mind that I would more than likely be initially suspected of trolling or the like. I made thoughtful posts and asked questions rather than ranting and assuming. What I got back were thoughtful answers and more often than not, thanks for being inquisitive and for listening. That's my individual experience.
I see people get called names...I see members of sites make posts like the one by Apeiron, and yes it's probably offensive. I say probably because I don't let it offend me. ANYONE, regardless of gender or political affiliation, who refers to women OR men in such hateful terms is NOT to be taken seriously. Why would you? Their words only have as much power over me as I allow them to have. You can call me a cunt all day long and it's not going to bother me because, well, for one, Im not one and secondly...big fucking deal if you think I am one, I really don't care. It does not offend me that this ass hat calls all women sluts...I am intelligent enough to know better and secure enough to dismiss him as an idiot. Why waste time fuming over someone whose only real power lies in name calling and trolling the internet? being called a slut by a stranger on the internet isn't real concerning for me.
You're right, Bee, that we probably won't agree on too much in re to feminism vs. men's rights, but at least we've demonstrated that there is common ground, and that we can have intelligent and respectful conversation about relevent issues and NOT devolve into name callilng and ranting. Thanks ;)
@David--
ReplyDeleteYou're right, it IS appalling. And it's not as uncommon as you may think. Mine was about identity achievement and reciprocity of social interaction with an emphasis on boys. I didn't have self identified (or at least publicly identified)feminist profs, but most academics are libs and IME, feminism seems to follow...so who knows?
About your additions to my list -- so we can agree that the name callers ON BOTH SIDES are infantile. That's progress. I tend to dismiss people whose only recourse to an intellectual challenge is name calling. We have most of us succumbed to it now and again when frustrated or angry (I know I have), but when it's the only drum that poster is banging, it becomes foolish.
To me, and now that you've added to it from your side of the fence, hopefully to you as well, one side seems no better than the other when it comes to name calling and I think we can call this a wash. Some MRA's call names, some feminists call names..we've just proven that. Neither side can now point to the other (with any credibility at least) and say "But they call names! They are inferior!"
No, they are simply human.
David: “kratch: More on non-working women in 1834. “
ReplyDeleteI said “didn't GENERALLY work”… Which leaves room for exceptions. In addition, I was talking about the difficulty in a woman’s ability to support herself, let alone a child as well, making a need for maintenance at that time. A need that is no longer as applicable given the ease of access to birth control and employment opportunities. As such, an ability for a man who does not wish to be a father, akin to options the mother already has, is not unreasonable based on the failure of a similar option attempted 180 years ago. It’s annoying that so many here choose to quibble over the minor details (which were accounted for with an acknowledgement that it was a generalization, a generalization that feminism itself has hinged off of) in order to dodge my point.
Trip: “And that would still be the case for women who can't afford an abortion.”
Those women should then take the same advice feminists give to men who can’t afford child support. Keep “your pants on”. If men must be responsible for their actions, so too must women. If they choose to ignore that advice, they can suffer the consequences like any man has to (except they still don’t, even without abortion (which is still available), they still have options to opt out of parenthood).
Trip: “Funding sexual health services helps people, fights child poverty, and makes good economic sense. Even if you don't give a shit about women you should support that.”
I live in Canada. I don’t need to worry about that. And I do support all that, but I think that 1: There still remains a LAW in the US regarding funding abortions, 2: Men require a means to opt out of parenthood in order to enforce their reproductive rights, and I don’t think that will come until women/feminists get a dose of the consequences of their actions that they have been taking for granted.
DSCat: “federal funds already cannot be spent to pay for abortion”
To my understanding, that’s why funding has been withdrawn from PP, because the federal tax dollars provided go to pay for PP’s operational budget, a budget that includes abortion services. They may claim those dollars go to other expenses, but presuming it is a single operational budget, it can not be so easily be differentiated. If PP’s regular services and it’s abortion services were funded and budgeted entirely separately, with no flow of money between the two, I highly doubt their funding would have been cut, and abortion would not have been affected (as it didn’t require the federal funding). Additionally, you would not have anybody agreeing with this cut, as those services (with the exception of abortion) are for both genders. It is the inclusion of abortion that garners the disdain of pro-lifers, as well as loses the sympathy from those seeking men’s reproductive rights.
Natasha: “There are some sites out there that are just hateful, plain and simple...both mra sites and feminist sites. To say otherwise is just sheer lunacy. “
ReplyDeleteAgreed. My experiences tend to coincide with your own. I suspect the general hate on for MRA’s on this site comes largely from the very nature of this site, IE, picking out the worst of the worst and shinning a bright light on them. This gives a particularly skewed interpretation of MRA’s, one David even has a disclaimer on the side near the top to claim otherwise. Between the hate he picks out, and his choice of sites to regularly link to, it makes it easy for someone who wants to hate MRA’s to do so. David himself has said that sites that post links to articles about the hateful acts of women do no good, yet, that is precisely the thing he’s doing
David: "and have said far worse of me"
this very site does the same to MRA's by allowing it's readers to think, despite your disclaimer otherwise, that all MRA's are like this. And as you go out of your way to antagonize MRA's with this site, you have likely earned a great deal more scorn and animosity then your average feminist. This doesn't make it right, but you can't claim innocence in this regards. All Natasha has done has speak up for men, hardly on the same level as what you do.
@triplanetary --
ReplyDeletePart of your response to me was to tell me that my experience and my observation was....
"...an outright lie. It's the same sort of claim as the one about Paul Elam being bright and articulate. It's just a simple piece of complete unreality."
It's utterly illogical to call someone's opinion or personal experience a lie, but really that's neither here nor there, just a funny little aside.
You also said:
"The MRA and MGTOW forums (both) are filled with hatred for women, hatred at women, and hatred for men who don't hate women. I've seen those forums myself. The kinds of stuff David posts on this blog are not exceptions. They're the norm."
I could turn your words back on you and say that this is "an outright lie" but I wont because clearly you feel this is your experience. Unlike you, I will afford you the courtesy of allowing you to have your experience and expressing it without calling into question your integrity as a human being. It's simply unbecoming.
you also said:
"And you're full of shit. I don't believe for a second that a significant number of feminists have called you a whore or said any of the other things you listed."
you don't have to...the validity of my experience is not dependent upon your opinion of it, and does not need your approval.
You also said:
"I don't believe for a second that your characterization of the reason for your dissertation's rejection is accurate."
Again, you don't have to. I'm not actually asking you to, never mind attempting to compel you to. You weren't there, and technically, have no reason to, other than I am claiming it to be true. believe it or don't, my experience remains the same.
And finally, you said:
"I'm not entirely sold on the notion that you're capable of writing a coherent dissertation."
Why don't you take a look back at the things I posted to Bee and David about name calling and the power of words? You might find something there to reflect on. You have no idea about my intellect, my education, what degrees I hold, or what I do for a living; you're angry and irritated with me and you've resorted to insults to express it rather than ask me or discuss with me rationally the reasons for my opinions. It's alright, we've all been there once or twice. When you're done with swearing at me and trying to insult me, and can read and understand what I'm actually saying in my posts, I'd be more than happy to have a conversation about why your assumptions are false.
Arrrrghhh! Kratch you totally stole my next post! I was going to point out the same things! Ah well...
ReplyDeleteThanks for saying it better than I probably could
Kratch-it is very easy to keep that money separate for PP. Have two bank accounts-money from everyone else, money from government. In my job we currently have three funds and they each fund different sections of our overall budget because certain fees collected have specific purposes written into them.
ReplyDeleteThe reason the funds were cut had very little to do with actual abortions and more to do with punishing women for engaging in consequence free sex.
I once read a very detailed analysis of anti-abortion laws and their actual aims. In it, the author was trying to determine if it was anti-women or anti-abortion by seeing if states with harsh or very restrictive laws for seeking an abortion also had equally harsh penalties for harming a pregnant woman or harming a fetus while in utero as well as having strong support for women who are expecting. The conclusions were incredibly disappointing and at the same time, not surprising.
When it comes to women's access to sex, it is morally repugnant to a great many men (and women) that she not suffer a consequence for her accessing it outside a certain parameter. Cutting off PP's federal funding to ensure that men and women have access to things like STI testing and treatment means that those women are punished for having sex outside those parameters. If it means harming males too, oh well, they should not be having sex with such sluts anyway.
If PP tomorrow said "we will now end our abortion and other sex related services and only give women testing to prevent cervical cancers and the like..." perhaps they would not be persecuted. (I am dubious for other reasons on that though.)
I really need to go reread David Eddings' Polgara's comment on women sexuality-it is very illuminating regarding the control men feel they need to have and sums up why we still have this fight, more than a hundred years after it started.
"Further translation: it bugs me that you might be more educated and smarter than me so I'm going to put you down for using words I don't understand."---(She Wolf of the)SS
ReplyDeleteYou're a sucker for overpaying for an education in hate, not me. And is that a self-projection I here, bon bon girl?
"The MRA and MGTOW forums (both) are filled with hatred for women, hatred at women, and hatred for men who don't hate women. I've seen those forums myself. The kinds of stuff David posts on this blog are not exceptions. They're the norm."---trianything
ReplyDeleteTri is hatin' on the haters! Can you say hypocrite? I knew you could . . .
Julie Canny said...
ReplyDelete"You know, Wytch, seems to me like you compulsively attack women you haven't even met on issues like fat and appearance. Do you imagine this scores points or make you look bigger?"---Julie Uncanny
I'm not the one who is "big" if you know what I mean, jelliebean. And it appears that overweight sore losers like SS and her ilk have zero problems with attacking others they don't know, either. Which makes you feminists look like annoying hypocrites and whinning imperial jackasses.
"you're angry and irritated with me and you've resorted to insults to express it rather than ask me or discuss with me rationally the reasons for my opinions."---Natasha
ReplyDeleteMy dear Natasha, don't you realize that feminists are the epitome of high intellect, turning the other cheek, and would never resort to slagging anyone?
(Denote heavy sarcasm there. Love ya, N, but you are dealing with a fat monstrous crowd expunging their hate for men on MRAs because they are weak and foppish without each other. Hmm . .. they are weak and insecure with each other, too).
Unlike you, I will afford you the courtesy of allowing you to have your experience and expressing it without calling into question your integrity as a human being.
ReplyDeleteWhile that's very magnanimous of you, I'm not really interested in being courteous to privileged assholes. When you come into a public forum and promote rape apologists and patriarchal mansplainers, I'm going to call your integrity as a human being into question. To paraphrase another of your (entirely correct) points, your actual integrity is completely unaffected by my opinion of it. But my opinion nonetheless remains that you are a privileged asshole.
So I mean, you can claim that you're interested in having an intellectually honest conversation, but given that most of your points are lies, I'm pretty sure that's not the case. What am I supposed to do with lies? Pretend that they're true so I can waste my time debating them? Or just dismiss them as lies and move on? The former may be more "courteous," but oh well.
@tri --
ReplyDeleteSo, evidently, the real issue is that you appear to be a classic Marxist lib and are having the shits because you perceive me as being more privileged than you....you're probably right and I probably am.
I've never gone hungry, been abused by my parents, or lived in poverty. I went to good schools and grew up in the 'burbs. I had great friends in school and wasn't socially crippled by outside influences. I have been extremely fortunate in my life and I am grateful every day to have had the opportunities and advantages Ive had.
But you use privilege like a dirty word. My guess is that you have not been as fortunate, and for that, I am sorry.
However, the fact remains that your insecurities aren't my problem, and I don;t feel a shred of guilt for not making them my problem.
You've decided I'm a liar, a rape apologist, and a privileged asshole simply because my opinion is different from yours.
You have called me names, insulted me, called my intelligence, integrity and credibility into question....and you wonder why I say my experience with feminists has not been pleasant?
You have done two things for me though... 1)you have proven everything I have said to David about what fems have called me, the way a female mra gets treated (which you said you didnt believe happened) to be true and done it yourself. And 2) you have shown yourself to be quite irrational in your hatred, you're like a rabid little yappy dog just waiting in the sidelines to get a vicious little bite in thinking it's going to impact someone in some monumental way....it doesn't, but you'd look cute in my purse
Natasha, Tri said you had PROMOTED rape apologists, not that you were one -- which is pretty clearly a reference to Paul Elam, who you were promoting earlier as a sensible, clearheaded MRA>
ReplyDeleteAlso, if you call someone a "rabid little yappy dog" immediately after complaining about being insulted, that sort of makes you a little bit of a hypocrite.
But you use privilege like a dirty word. My guess is that you have not been as fortunate, and for that, I am sorry.
ReplyDeleteOh, quite incorrect. I was raised white, male, middle class. I'm privileged as fuck. What you need to realize is that this isn't personal.
When I use "privileged" as a pejorative what I mean is people who benefit from their privilege and yet deny that it exists, or that it's a bad thing. Or most often both.
But your characterization of Marxists (of which I'm not really one) as being jealous of people with more privilege than them is laughably predictable. Marx himself was not underprivileged, you know. He was an academic, and by no means poor or working class. But conservatives do like to pretend that that leftists are really just jealous of the rich.
Actually, during most of his adult life Marx was quite poor, and he was constantly begging money from Engels, who *was* quite privileged. Of course, it wouldn't have been hard for Marx to make a good living if he hadn't devoted his life to writing interminable Marxist treatises.
ReplyDelete"What you need to realize is that this isn't personal."
ReplyDeleteGiven the insults you have levied against Natasha, and in the past against me, I'd have to say you routinely make it personal. You have demonstrated repeatedly a vitriol towards anyone who speaks for men's rights, but doesn't do so in a manner that first prostrates themselves to the feminist ideology.
"When I use "privileged" as a pejorative what I mean is people who benefit from their privilege and yet deny that it exists, or that it's a bad thing. Or most often both."
You mean like feminists with regards to anything woman and family? IE, Family courts, reproductive rights, child services...
Or perhaps you mean like how government is packed with men like you and David, men who put feminist needs first, while also having a ministry dedicated to women's needs, and then denying women have any influence or advantage in government?
David. I wrote a reply to Elizabeth yesterday and it still hasn't appeared. please let me know if it was caught in the filter or if I need to re-write it.
ReplyDeleteIT was spam filtered and is up now.
ReplyDeleteKratch, do explain to me how women secretly dominate the world and yet still get stuck with guys like you, who think if they don't get blown and waited on every day it's like being abused.
ReplyDeleteYeah, feminist men dominate all over. Sure they do. This is why abortion is under attack everywhere, because women secretly love to have lots of babies they can't afford and they love the politicians who reduce them to walking incubators even more.
Reading MRA tripe is like listening to the KKK whining about Black History Month. OMG, you mean there's one month out of twelve where white men don't get their asses kissed? Human rights violation!
Kratch- I'm not trying to "have it both ways"; don't put words into my mouth. My question is only one of economic fairness and practicality: being as how the medical system/parental leave/wage differences are, how would "opting out" even work? Being as that 90% of welfare recipients are single mothers, and 50% live below the poverty line, I honestly have no idea how you came to the conclusion that children can be raised in a financially stable environment without any sort of child support. Wouldn't it be more sensible to assume that if men were given the right to relinquish their parental obligations (which, btw, I'm not opposed to the idea, if there was a way in which to make it work) there would be MORE need for government welfare, much like in 1834?
ReplyDelete*50% of single mothers, not welfare recipients. And source, from a (Canadian) MRA website: http://www.equaljustice.ca/cgi-bin/forum.cgi/noframes/read/35106
ReplyDelete"Kratch, do explain to me how women secretly dominate the world"
ReplyDeleteI've never said women secretly rule the world, I said they have advantages in tat government officials are often feminist oriented, and thus, put their needs first, therefor, claims of "most politician's are men, therefor men have a voice" is denying the privilege women receive by having men like TriP, who has actually said "Men's issues get enough attention/money in our society" (despite virtually no men's abuse shelters, prostate cancer getting less then half the research funding (not to say anything of the awareness campaign funding), men still being denied their own children and any chance of fairness in family courts, etc etc).
As to the personal assumptions about me and my character, I'll simply ignore them as an attempt to shame me into silence.
"Sure they do. This is why abortion is under attack everywhere"
If you can't see the fact that abortion itself is controversial, and thus, even feminist men aren't immune to disagreement over the subject, add to that the fact that the government refuses to fund abortion (I presume it's due to the controversial nature), except in specific circumstances, an agreement PP violated, and you have a reasonable explanation for why their funding got cut, rather then relying on some conspiracy theory that the government is out to get women. Always the victims with you, isn't it?
"because women secretly love to have lots of babies they can't afford"
Women have an ample supply of birth control options. If that's not good enough, then I will reply with the exact same phrase given to any man who speaks up about men's reproductive rights and being forced to have children they can't afford..."If you don't want to take responsibility for your actions, keep your pants on and quit whining."
Bathorie...The suggestion for male reproductive rights would not be something that could be done retroactively. Current fathers would not be able to suddenly opt out. The recommendation has always been for a man to be able to opt out only during the first few months after he was informed. This would leave the mother with the same options she had prior to informing him, just with the knowledge that she will not be getting financial support from the father. It has also often been suggested that the opting out include the fee's for any abortion the woman chooses to get as a result (and so many men would fight along side women to get inexpensive abortions back).
ReplyDeleteCurrently, there are two common scenario's men face when it comes to becoming fathers against their will... The first is simply the girlfriend gets pregnant and refuses to abort. The man currently has no choice and the woman can move forward knowing he doesn't and knowing she will get a paycheck from him (the fact you acknowledge that paycheck is so important to women shows it as an incentive. IE, if she thinks she's going to be living in poverty anyways, or she just wants to survive without working for a living...). men's reproductive rights should actually deter this kind of forced parenthood, and thus, should reduce the number of impoverished mothers (as being a mother isn't guaranteed the paycheck it once was). The second scenario is when the mother shows up after the child is 4-5 years old looking for backpay... If she could survive that long solo, she can keep going solo. It was her choice to have and raise the baby without the father, she should live with that choice.
So my response is that I do not believe children can be raised in a financially stable environment without any sort of child support, but rather, without child support as an obligation forced to unwilling fathers, there will be less incentive to have children if one is not financially stable (ether individually or as a couple).
Let me ask you this, if a woman is already going to be on welfare, because she can't or is unwilling to get a job, is she better off as a single recipient or as a single mother (with both child support and welfare)? Which option is more financially beneficial? The gains for having a child when it comes to those already living off social assistance are significantly high enough to actually encourage pregnancy, especially for those not truly familiar with the responsibilities of motherhood. Add in the benefit of having two children with two different fathers...
bathorie: wouldn't it be more sensible to assume that if men were given the right to relinquish their parental obligations (which, btw, I'm not opposed to the idea, if there was a way in which to make it work) there would be MORE need for government welfare, much like in 1834?
ReplyDeleteThat's the big issue here. The point is that there is a child that needs care and attention and that costs money. The only way it would make sense to allow fathers to not pay child support would be if the govt itself offered enough child support for the kid to not be horribly deprived. And that would mean a lot more money to single moms.
And I think we all can predict where most MRAs would stand on that issue. Heck, kratch has given us a pretty good clue with his contention that women are having babies to collect a "paycheck" so they can get by "without working for a living."
"*50% of single mothers, not welfare recipients. And source, from a (Canadian) MRA website: http://www.equaljustice.ca/cgi-bin/forum.cgi/noframes/read/35106 "
ReplyDeleteBe aware that, in Canada, money gained from child support is actually deducted from social assistance. If a single mother of 1 gets $400 in child support, her social assistance check will be $400 dollars less then a single mother of one who gets no child support. This is something that family groups are trying to change in Canada, but it explains the current poverty rate of single mothers here. IE, they effectively are already being denied child support unless it's higher then their social assistance would be. This, however, isn't a commonly known fact, as I only discovered it myself through Glen Sack's and fathers and families (a family advocacy group that David has criticized simply for fighting for fair family court reform, regardless of gender (it's just that fathers currently have so many disadvantages and feminist organizations (like NOW) don't want to change that).
"That's the big issue here. The point is that there is a child that needs care and attention and that costs money."
ReplyDeleteBut that isn't necessarily the case. If a man was given the right to opt out (not of children already born as of the date implemented, but of any potential births going forward from that point on), then a woman would need to think very carefully before she even decided to keep the baby. If she choose to keep the child, despite knowing the father may choose not to support it, that is her choice and her responsibility. Not the fathers, not the governments, HERS. Why is this such a difficult concept for feminists to grasp, the idea that woman can and should be responsible for their own choices? Why is it the governments responsibility to support a mother and child? If she was not capable of supporting the child herself, she should not have had the baby, and it would likely be better off with a different family.
"Heck, kratch has given us a pretty good clue with his contention that women are having babies to collect a "paycheck" so they can get by "without working for a living.""
So you deny this happens? You deny that a woman who is living off social assistance anyways (particularly in the US) is better off financially with a child then without? I'm not claiming that that is the motive for all women, or even most, but I do believe that there are enough doing so, particularly those living on the poverty line or bellow, to explain the numbers you all keep providing to oppose men's reproductive rights.
As my reply does indeed appear to be lost, I will try to re-write it…
ReplyDelete“it is very easy to keep that money separate for PP. Have two bank accounts-money from everyone else, money from government. In my job we currently have three funds and they each fund different sections of our overall budget because certain fees collected have specific purposes written into them.”
When working with a single operational budget, there is a distinct difference between ensuring that money funds a particular department and ensuring money does not fund a particular department. So long as the particular department is getting at least the amount funded, it is receiving those funds. That is easily proven. But when you have a single operational budget, how do you prove that money from the restricted funding isn’t going to the restricted department? One way is to remove the money and see if that impacts, in any way, the restricted department. IE, if, after this PP funding cut, abortion clinics are affected, then federal funding was indeed going to abortion. Just because they claim it was going to other departments does not make that true, especially in a single operational budget. So long as the abortion clinics worked under that same budget, it benefited from the federal funding. And I think the current outrage over the loss of abortion clinics (look at ginmar’s response to me above as an example, sometimes, it is the loss of the abortion clinics that garners the outrage), proves my point, after all, if no federal funding was going to abortion clinics, nothing should have changed.
“he reason the funds were cut had very little to do with actual abortions and more to do with punishing women for engaging in consequence free sex. “
two things. 1: I want you to note the use of “consequence free sex” (not that any sex leading to an abortion is ever truly consequence free). Feminists often claim men should have to deal with the consequences of their actions when they have sex and a woman gets pregnant. Why then should you be federally funded to get the very opportunity you deny men? Why do you feel you should be so privileged as to not only get additional options, but also have those options federally funded? The answer, of course, is bigotry and female chauvinism. Be wary of that next time you entr into a male reproductive rights debate.
2: Do you seriously believe that the idea of a government conspiracy is being implemented in order to control women’s sexuality (not that denying government funding to abortions actually do that) and punish them for having “consequence free sex”, is a far more reasonable explanation for the PP cuts then the idea that, the federal funding is not allowed to be used for abortions, and PP violated that agreement, and so, they are being punished for their inappropriate actions? Is a government conspiracy really the more logical, rational explanation here? Forever the victim I suppose.
“If PP tomorrow said "we will now end our abortion and other sex related services and only give women testing to prevent cervical cancers and the like..." perhaps they would not be persecuted. (I am dubious for other reasons on that though.) “
I suspect the other sexual related services had nothing to do with the cuts. And at this point, the damage is done, the trust lost. I’m not so sure simply claiming to end abortion clinics will fix things. That said, I do believe adamantly that, had abortion clinics not been there to begin with, PP likely would still have federal funding. Perhaps not as much (cuts are being made all over), but they’d have something.
Prime example of why men should be given reproductive rights...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lasisblog.com/2011/02/26/man-receives-oral-sex-ordered-to-pay-child-support/
Kratch, thank you for a serious response.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what funding PP uses or how it is set up. I am too tired to go look it up. However, as it is with my current job, operational funds can be easily divided into different accounts and it can be kept separate. Therefore the issue of funding can be dealt with and may show there is little to worry about with PP.
As for the "government conspiracy" idea-government is made up of people. In the US it is made up by politicians elected after a period of campaigning that (in theory) means that the average person's wants and needs are represented at the various levels. Right now, many of those politicians have a certain opinion that has little to do with a national opinion and much to do with a local (if that) opinion that seems to view women having the sex as distasteful to the point of in fact doing a conspiracy type action...although it is out in the open and obvious to us all.
American society has always had issues with sex-especially women having sex that has no consequences (either getting pregnant, a disease or otherwise harmed in some way.) Despite the fact that PP helps men out with STI testing, testing for prostate cancer and other medical needs that have stuff beyond just plain reproduction, it is the fact it helps any woman out after she has sex that causes the government and other forces to fight it.
I would be more coherent but I went to Vegas this weekend and it was a pretty tiring time. :)
Kratch: I’m going to have to totally disagree with your premise. Child support, as a law, is based largely on economic circumstances. The reason why the abolition of child support failed in 1834 was because it was (and is) cheaper to hold individual men responsible for the upkeep of their children, than for the taxpayers to do so.
ReplyDeleteChildbirth, and raising a child, is not a economic decision, and therefore negative financial consequences aren’t effective. We know this because there are already negative consequences to having children for a woman in any circumstance, and yet women still have babies. (There was recently a very good study done on how much income potential a woman looses by not delaying a pregnancy for a year, but I can’t find it at the moment. Here’s an article on the “motherhood penalty”, at any rate[1].).) There are simply certain decisions that we make, or do not make, and endure the financial consequences because of it. (Another example: marriage. Married adults have faired better economically than unmarried adults since 1970[1]. Yet in Canada, we have one of the highest median (first marriage) marrying age in the western world and the lowest rate of marriage anywhere (Quebec).)
As to your question on welfare, I’d encourage you to read the Social Assistance Statistical reports that the government produces [2]. The questions you’re asking make me think you’ve never been on welfare, or done much procedural reading, and are listening to anecdotes. Firstly, there is no such thing as a person on welfare who is “unwilling to work”- from the Canadian government’s website: “Should a recipient choose not to pursue employment or retraining, he/she may be subject to penalties ranging from a specified reduction in benefits over a prescribed period of time to the full cancellation of benefits. […] Generally, single parents are considered as employable and required to actively seek and accept reasonable employment, where the parent and dependent child(ren) are physically and mentally healthy and when the dependants have reached a certain age.” A single woman would be on basic assistance, (assuming she has no disabilities or other circumstances) as would a woman with a child. The amount they would get would be in equal ratio to their circumstances. The difference is that a single mother could apply for childcare (as soon as mat leave is up, she needs to work, remember), transportation benefits, and school supplies. She would also get higher priority for subsidized housing, but she would not get “better” housing than the single woman. [3]
So, being as that women loose potential income when they have a baby, and that women on social assistance are given it on an equal ratio based upon their needs, single, low-income women would come out far and ahead in the long-term than low-income single mothers.
[1]http://www.businessweek.com/careers/workingparents/blog/archives/2009/06/the_motherhood.html
[2] http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1466/economics-marriage-rise-of-wives
[3] http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/welfare.htm#statistics
[4] http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/publications_resources/social_policy/sasr_2007/page03.shtml
David: I’d love to see a day when governments make steps to truly support the children they insist everyone have. Alas, I’m pretty sure I’d die before that happens- I can imagine everyone, not just MRAs bitching about supporting some slut and her illegitimate spawn, urgh. Also, I don’t get many attempts to mansplain- sorry about that.
ReplyDeletebathorie, thanks for the posts. The long one got spam-filtered (maybe because of the URLs? I don;t know; the spam filter is ornery and can't be turned off.) Anyway, it's up now.
ReplyDelete“a local (if that) opinion that seems to view women having the sex as distasteful to the point of in fact doing a conspiracy type action...although it is out in the open and obvious to us all.”
ReplyDeleteI see no such attitude, and if it is so obvious, you should be able to provide ample examples. Furthermore, as there is still access to abortion, and there are an abundance of birth control options available to prevent the need for abortion in the first place, I do not see how this cut could even succeed at controlling women’s sexuality. While I do acknowledge north America has a hang up regarding sex (in that any nudity makes a film rated R, while violence makes it PG14), but I don’t see that as evidence of gender bias, as a man’s bare ass incurs the same effect.
“it is the fact it helps any woman out after she has sex that causes the government and other forces to fight it.”
And perhaps when I start seeing feminists regularly advocating for men’s reproductive rights, I’ll show some sympathy, but again, until that happens, I will only offer the same advice men get when speaking of reproductive rights… “If you’re not prepared to take responsibility for your actions, keep your pants on”.
“The reason why the abolition of child support failed in 1834 was because it was (and is) cheaper to hold individual men responsible for the upkeep of their children, than for the taxpayers to do so. “
ReplyDeleteBut there are three significant differences.
1: what is being recommended, and I have already said this (not to mention it is a consistent attribute of any argument for men’s reproductive rights), is for men to be given a period of time to which he is capable of terminating his rights and responsibilities. It is not being recommended that all child support be abolished, only (all) responsibilities (and rights) to a child that he does not wish to have as of the time he is initially notified.
2: Birth control has become significantly more effective and available since the 1830’s
3: Women are now capable of supporting themselves and their children (if they choose to have a child without a man present). Thanks to feminism, a woman is no longer dependant upon a man to survive. The fact that you refuse to let that go makes me wonder just how effective feminism really was regarding women’s independence.
“Childbirth, and raising a child, is not a economic decision”
Are you suggesting women don’t know babies cost money? All those women and men who are holding off on having children until they are financially stable are very much making an economic decision.
“ We know this because there are already negative consequences to having children for a woman in any circumstance, and yet women still have babies.”
Those negative financial consequences are often enough handed off to the men, not the women. This fact makes the financial consequences for having a baby low to non-existent. For some, it is even profitable.
“(There was recently a very good study done on how much income potential a woman looses by not delaying a pregnancy for a year, but I can’t find it at the moment. Here’s an article on the “motherhood penalty”, at any rate[1].)”
I’m guessing that study never comes up during discussions of the gender pay gap?
“The questions you’re asking make me think you’ve never been on welfare”
I actually just got off welfare this month (new job, hence why I’m not posting all day now) after being on it since May of last year. But keep in mind I am in Canada, and the social assistance are different.
“no such thing as a person on welfare who is “unwilling to work””
As I have been on welfare for a while, I can assure you that there is very little in the way of checks to insure those on assistance are looking for work.
“So, being as that women loose potential income when they have a baby, and that women on social assistance are given it on an equal ratio based upon their needs, single, low-income women would come out far and ahead in the long-term than low-income single mothers. “
And again, none of that is relevant as nobody is suggesting that we allow child support agreements, already in place, to be terminated. I’ve said this in two previous posts already. Men are perfectly capable of determining if they are financially capable of raising a child at a given point in their lives, are you suggesting women don’t have this capacity? If they do have this capacity (and I assume you do), they isn’t the guarantee of a man’s income going to be a significant contributor to the decision to have a baby or not? If they guarantee is no longer assured, then that will change how the decision is made , and as such, would allow a man his reproductive rights, while still giving the woman the ability to make an informed decision for herself. This is not an unreasonable concept, you simply make it unreasonable due to your straw man exaggerations of the suggestions made, as well as your unwillingness to give up your privilege in the name of equality.
Kratch, this basically is where we have to part ways-as a feminist I believe in helping women obtain things that they need not ignore their needs in favor of men.
ReplyDeleteThat said-cutting the funding for PP harms male reproductive rights outside the abortion part. If a male has low or no access to health insurance and gets some kind of STI, it is very possible that he will become sterile from it because it is not treated timely. Other medical conditions may not be addressed before it becomes too late to either stop sterility or terminal illness.
For the US though, take a peek at the book I referenced, it is a fascinating look at the reasons behind abortion laws and attacks like the one on PP. The fact is that by dressing it up in a lot of words like "pro-life" "it is about the child" it makes it easy to ignore the fact that it is about sex. If it was really, truly, about the child, those laws may still exist but so would state funded day care centers, child health insurance up to age 18, high quality schools for all children regardless of socioeconomic background, family friendly policies that let both parents take time off from work to care for their children...stuff like that would be much more prevalent instead of disappearing or never have existed in the first place.
" this basically is where we have to part ways-as a feminist I believe in helping women obtain things that they need not ignore their needs in favor of men."
ReplyDeleteAnd that's why Feminism isn't, never was, and never will be about equality. It is about female empowerment, and female only. When it comes to giving up something (not that assurance of child support is a "need" before the choice to have a child is even made) for the sake of equality, well, not going to happen. Not if feminism has anything to say about it.
"That said-cutting the funding for PP harms male reproductive rights outside the abortion part. "
Oh, I don't disagree, despite the cut's being refereed to as a women's issue almost exclusively, except when it's beneficial to acknowledge it's impact on males (like now). With that said, what I have argued is that there is a valid reason why the cuts were made, as far as I'm concerned (IE, abortion is not allowed to be funded by federal dollars). As well as pointing out the hypocrisy of complaining about women's access to abortion and, thus, reproductive rights, while still denying men even a consideration of equality with regards to their reproductive rights.
"The fact is that by dressing it up in a lot of words like "pro-life" "it is about the child" it makes it easy to ignore the fact that it is about sex."
Funny, "best interests of the child is regularly used in the same way in family courts to disguise bigotry and discrimination against men. Even when a man is the primary caregiver, it is apparently in the child's best interest to be given to the mother upon divorce, and that househusband required to get a job and pay support.
http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=13316#more-13316
As to the rest, I'm not sure how not funding daycare somehow restricts or controls women's sexuality. You keep making these connections but you are unable to explain them. I have asked several times now how restricting funding of abortion, but still having it legal, controls women's sexuality, when they continue to have an abundance of options available to them? It seem to me that your problem is that the state isn't taking (full) responsibility for women's sexuality, which is an entirely different concept to controlling it. And to be honest, I don't blame it, women are entirely capable of taking responsibility for their own choices and actions, despite the apparent feminist goal to shirk all such (financial) responsibility onto others. For all the feminist efforts to provide financial freedom for women, it often still comes down to wanted to be supported by someone else, but not to be accountable to that someone anymore.
So you are saying that feminists should ignore their needs (as women or feminists) and focus solely on men. After all, it would not be equal if we dared try to make sure that our reproductive rights are respected, it might mean men are not the sole focus of any group.
ReplyDeleteWe should immediately cease all efforts to secure funding for our health needs and fully fund every single male oriented reproductive need until men are 100% taken care of. Only then, may we focus on ourselves.
--------------
Here is how it is connected and maybe this time you will get it:
If access to birth control is restricted it means that a pregnancy might result from a woman having sex.
If access to abortion is restricted it means that a woman might have a baby (or die, having a kid is still dangerous.)
If a baby is born, it needs food, shelter, schooling, clothing, love, attention, caring, and a host of other things.
If this issue with PP was about making sure that babies in utero are safe and secure from conception to adulthood, every single person talking about cutting the funding would be talking about making sure that the baby resulting from restricting birth control and abortion has everything it needs to become a healthy productive adult (and no, it actually does not need to come from government-simply paying workers well enough to ensure they can afford the things their kids need would render that needless really.)
It would not matter what kind of mother it had or what kind of father-that kid would have access to the food, shelter and clothing it needs at the very least. And the policies the people talking about ending would not matter as much because all of those unwanted babies being born would have what they need after birth.
But they are not talking about expanding funding for those things. Instead they are cutting them. Again and that is why when I say is not about the baby or the child, it is because it is not. If it was, those unwanted babies would be taken care of regardless of the reason they came into being.
It is about the sex the mother had and now they want to punish her for having that sex. By forcing her to have a child that may be neglected or harmed by a resentful mother. Letting her have birth control or an abortion means that she is not punished. She gets away with it. And that makes them angry to the point of wanting to end things that help everyone, not just women.
This is the final effort I am going to make-you either can see that if there is no assistance (such as the things I described) for the unwanted child then it is not about saving a life but about punishing a woman for stepping out of line.
Oh and about that fathers families thing? Not quite as simple as you make it out to be.
"So you are saying that feminists should ignore their needs (as women or feminists) and focus solely on men."
ReplyDeleteI've never said anything of the sort. In fact, it is you who are demanding the reverse, that all a woman\s needs be met before even considering men's issues. Equality isn't just one way, and you need to realize this. Just because I say there are men's issues that need to be addressed, in no way presumes that women's issues should be put aside, this is not a zero sum issue, both men's, and women's issues can be worked on simultaneously, or is the assumption that women are better multitaskers and organizers then men also a lie?
In addition to that, what "need" is being taken away from "women" by allowing a man to say "if you ***CHOOSE*** to keep and raise this child, you will need to do so without my support". Do you seriously believe that simply having sex, sex that, by your own words, can be consequence free, if she so chooses, should result in a "need" for a man to financially provide (at least in part) for that choice, a choice that did not need to be made? Is this, a situation in which the man needs to provide and the woman needs to be provided for, an example of how feminism has broken down the gender roles?
"We should immediately cease all efforts to "
Straw man argument, I won't debate it further.
"If access to birth control is restricted it means that a pregnancy might result from a woman having sex. "
No access has been restricted. Birth control is still available, it is just more expensive.
Furthermore, feminists have been telling men for ages "if you don't want to risk having a baby, then keep your pants on."
"If access to abortion is restricted it means that a woman might have a baby (or die, having a kid is still dangerous.)"
Access is again not restricted, just more expensive.
Again, feminists have been telling men for ages "if you don't want to risk having a baby, then keep your pants on."
As for the pregnancy being dangerous... provide me figures on the death rate of women due to complications in pregnancy. Until such point, I Suspect you are exaggerating based on the standards of 200+ years ago.
"If a baby is born, it needs food, shelter, schooling, clothing, love, attention, caring, and a host of other things. "
If a baby is born, there is still adoption and relinquishing it at any number of places.
Therefore, all those responsibilities you list are a result of personal choice (choice to have sex in the first place, choice not to use proper birth control, choice not to pay the expense of abortion, choice to keep the child upon birth. A man only has a say in the first two choices, and you (and virtually all other feminists) would specifically deny him a choice regarding the rest (or a similar choice for himself). And yet, you feel he is not only equally responsible for the outcome (the baby), but responsible for the woman's "needs" on top of that.
The answer is simple..."if you don't want to risk having a baby, then keep your pants on.". You're not going to escape the past. these are your (feminism's, but I believe you specifically have recited them or something similar) own words, and your demand for government funded access to abortion is direct contradiction to your refusal of male reproductive rights. And you know I'm right, that's why you attacked that strawman at the beginning of your post so viciously.
Lunch break is over. I'll respond to the rest later.
But there are three significant differences.
ReplyDelete1. I understand that you aren’t arguing for a retroactive abolition of child support; neither am I. I brought up the point about 1834 as a past example of how the abolition of child support in general has failed before.
2. True, but half of all pregnancies are still unplanned, as are 25% of births, which is a rather large portion of the population. [1]
3. Less capable, certainly. I already posted a link to stats on single mothers and welfare- considering them, I think its safe to say that single mothers are less capable of financially providing for their children than mothers who are partnered, and have sufficient resources through child support. On a personal note, I don’t actually believe feminism has been wholly effective in justice for women, especially in regards to children. I believe there is much more breaking down of old and patriarchal processes before feminism’s work is complete.
Are you suggesting women don’t know babies cost money?
I left out a word, I think: childbirth is not wholly an economic decision. Women know babies cost money, its that women (and men) who have children accept that consequence, because they are rewarded (socially, spiritually, mentally, emotionally, etc) for it. Or, in comparison to my other example, MRAs know that staying single costs money; some just accept that consequence of not being married.
Those negative financial consequences are often enough handed off to the men.
Honest question: did you read the article? Do you have stats for men vs. women in regards to income and children?
I’m guessing that study never comes up during discussions of the gender pay gap
Absolutely it does. It’s even a part of the Wikipedia article on the pay gap. It’s a feminist issue because discrimination against mothers is discrimination against women, full stop.
I actually just got off welfare[...]
Then I’m sorry I made a wrong assumption- I assumed that someone with experience in the system would know how basic assistance was calculated, including income and dependants. I definitely phrased the last part wrong- SA has it’s downfalls, but you can’t deny that a single mother is required, by the rules, to work. I know you’re Canadian; so am I, which is why I gave Canadian stats in our discussion.
And again, none of that is relevant[...]
Then why did you ask me the question? I answered to my knowledge.
Men are perfectly capable of determining if they are financially capable of raising a child at a given point in their lives, are you suggesting women don’t have this capacity?
I’m suggesting that largely for both men and women, having a child is not a decision made based purely upon finances, and that it would be ignorant to assume so, and further, change child support laws based off that assumption.
[...]you simply make it unreasonable due to your straw man exaggerations of the suggestions made[...]
What would those be? I’m honestly curious- I’ve provided citations for the facts I have, and if there is one, its slipped by me.
[1] http://www.ehow.com/about_4611925_unplanned-pregnancy-statistics.html
Kratch,
ReplyDeleteEssentially your view boils down to this: feminists should be in favor of letting men skip out on their responsibilities whenever men want to since men do not get to determine when a woman has a baby. Since feminists do not, they are being unequal to men and hence are wrong.
“If this issue with PP was about making sure that babies in utero are safe and secure from conception to adulthood”
ReplyDeleteI’ve never even suggested that’s what this is about. If anything, your claims of “trying to control women’s sexuality” comes far closer then anything I’ve said. I merely acknowledge that the government does not want to fund something so controversial, or whatever the reason is for the “no federal funding for abortion” law, and that PP violated that Law. It is a punishment for violating an agreement, as far as I’m concerned.
The rest of this seems to be an attempt to justify your opinion that a woman who ***CHOOSES*** to have a child should be provided for by others.
“But they are not talking about expanding funding for those things. “
But as you yourself said, these cuts aren’t about making sure babies are cared for in every way needed (again, not that I ever suggested otherwise). That shouldn’t be government’s responsibility, and I can’t fathom what level of privilege and entitlement one needs in order to believe it is.
“It is about the sex the mother had and now they want to punish her for having that sex. By forcing her to have a child that may be neglected or harmed by a resentful …”
Does that mean that women are trying to punish men who have sex? If you are suggesting that being forced to have a child that one does not want is some kind of punishment, then it applies equally to what men endure from feminists. The situation is no different then the reproductive rights men are calling for. Reproductive rights you feminists deny. The one significant difference is that women still have options, several options, while men still have none. Do you not see the hypocrisy in your argument?
“ Letting her have birth control or an abortion means that she is not punished.”
Nether of these have been denied women. Abortion and birth control are still accessible to women. You’re exaggerating the impact of these cuts to be a complete denial of any kind of reproductive rights for women, when it was simply a single source that had their funding reduced (it wasn’t solely government funded, otherwise their abortion clinics were undeniably funded by federal funds).
“you either can see that if there is no assistance (such as the things I described) for the unwanted child then it is not about saving a life but about punishing a woman for stepping out of line.”
Again with the strawmen. Your entire post was riddled with them. I’ve never claimed this to be about saving children’s lives. I’ve never suggested it. I’ve never believed it. And I’m getting tired of repeating myself. If you’re not willing to read my posts and debate what I actually say, rather then simply debating an argument you feel you can win, regardless of whether I’ve said it or not, then please let me know, so I can stop wasting my time.
I don’t deny there are those against abortion who are likely revelling in this cut, but I don’t stand by those people’s opinion, for the same reason you described (plus I would like to see men’s reproductive rights, and that will be easier if abortion is reasonably available). But I also don’t think for a second that “punishing women” is not only the most reasonable explanation, but the only one. I’ve said it before, PP violated an agreement, and they are suffering the consequences of that violation. And that is a far more reasonable and rational explanation then some persecution complex about government run control, by men like David and Trip, to control women's sexuality. This has nothing to do with punishing women.
“Essentially your view boils down to this: feminists should be in favor of letting men skip out on their responsibilities whenever men want to since men do not get to determine when a woman has a baby.”
ReplyDeleteFor the forth time, it is not whenever men want to. It is only during a short period upon finding out he is going to be a father. This is no different then women’s choice to skip out on their responsibility when they abort, abandon or adopt. The later two of which ALSO leaves a child in the world without a parent, and can be done without the fathers consent (IE, denying the father the opportunity to be a primary caregiver in order to avoid child support payments.).
“Since feminists do not, they are being unequal to men and hence are wrong.”
This is correct.
For some reason the spam filter keeps grabbing comments in this topic; I'll unfilter them as soon as I see them.
ReplyDelete“True, but half of all pregnancies are still unplanned, as are 25% of births, which is a rather large portion of the population. [1]”
ReplyDeleteBut not all of those are unwanted. Unplanned and unwanted are two completely different things. Only a portion (not sure how many) of those are born against the fathers wishes, and without the guarantee of a child support check, it is not unreasonable to think that this number would decrease, not increase.
“ Less capable, certainly.”
1: Having a child is still a choice. A woman is not forced to have a child. EVER.
2: This does not mean that she is incapable. She is still capable of supporting herself and her child, if she chooses to have a child without the support of a man (women do this all the time already, when they choose not to inform the father (for whatever reason))
3: This does not make it men’s responsibility to provide for them simply because they choose not to use birth control (properly) and choose not to have an abortion and choose not to give the child up for adoption. A man should be given a choice whether or not to be a father as he deems fit, and if he deems no, that does not change any of the women’s options (only the degree of one of the consequences)
“ its that women (and men) who have children accept that consequence,”
But the difference is, women have a choice to reject those consequences, if she so chooses. A man does not.
“because they are rewarded (socially, spiritually, mentally, emotionally, etc) for it.”
Men who do not want to be a father (for whatever reason), don’t get those rewards. Especially if the mother cuts the father out of the child’s life (or chooses not to tell him for years, then come after him for backpay).
The rest of this sounds like trying to enforce marriage onto men. Get married or suffer the financial consequences (this of course ignores the women’s choice whether they want to marry or not. As well as ignoring the fact that a marriage forced upon a man will not be healthy for anyone. As well as the vast majority of divorces are by women, and there is a very high assurance that she will get the kids and child support, leaving him right where he was pre-marriage. It also enforces, rather then breaks down, the male provider gender role, which is contradictory to the supposed goal of feminism).
“did you read the article? “
No, I did not. I don’t think it’s relevant enough to the discussion to dispute. But are you denying that men are required to pay child support? Does not that child support offset the financial loss a woman faces (and then some)? So if any pay lost due to having a child is returned, and then some, by the father via child support, is that not handing off the negative financial consequences to the men? Why should men be required to pay the (financial) consequences of the woman’s choice, a choice he had no say in, a choice she was not required to make?
“because discrimination against mothers is discrimination against women, full stop. “
Lost financial earnings due to the choice of having a baby are not examples of discrimination.
“I assumed that someone with experience”
And your experience with the system is?
“Then why did you ask me the question?”
That didn’t answer any question I’m aware of making. Quote me please.
“What would those be?”
The Strawman is the assumption that Men’s reproductive rights would have any impact on the babies already born (and the parents supporting and raising them) by applying it’s impact on the current system. You can quote all you want the statistics of how things are now (all you prove is the current system doesn’t work), but they all made the choice to have a baby, knowing the man would have to pay child support. Going forward, women would not have that assurance, so there would be more reason to consider alternatives. More importantly, it would encourage women to have children with men who wanted to be a father, and that would only be a plus for the child.
"For some reason the spam filter keeps grabbing comments in this topic; I'll unfilter them as soon as I see them."
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure it's the links. I don't seem to have problems unless ether I have a link, or my "character (with spaces)" count (based on MSWord) is over 4000.
Kratch- The very first sentence of my last comment was I understand that you aren’t arguing for a retroactive abolition of child support; neither am I.” I am not putting up a strawman. My actual argument is: given what we learned from the reform in 1834; given that currently, women have children despite the negative financial consequences; given that single mothers are the most likely people to be on welfare, even with the current child support laws, you have not made a convincing argument that the birth rate to single mothers would drop enough as to be economically sustainable for everyone.
ReplyDeleteI’m taking about how things are now because it is a better predictor of how things would be in the future, than playing a game of lets-pretend.
without the guarantee of a child support check, it is not unreasonable to think that this number would decrease, not increase.
Do you have any facts to argue this point? References to theories as to why birth rates fall in countries with available birth control?
Having a child is still a choice. A woman is not forced to have a child. EVER
Where did I ever say or imply that women should be forced to have children?
This does not mean that she is incapable.
Which is why I said “less capable [...] than mothers who are partnered”.
This does not make it men’s responsibility to provide for them simply because they choose not to use birth control (properly) and choose not to have an abortion and choose not to give the child up for adoption.
It is at this moment because there is no other viable way. If you had an actual solution to the economics of this problem, I’d be happy to agree with you.
Men who do not want to be a father (for whatever reason), don’t get those rewards.
That’s a rather simplistic view of human nature. And do you have any statistics of how many women cut their children’s fathers out of their lives?
The rest of this sounds like trying to enforce marriage onto men.
Now there’s a strawman. My point is that there are certain life events that we do despite the financial hit. Some women have children. Some men don’t get married. I don’t want anyone forced into anything- it is entirely their choice to accept the consequences of that.
No, I did not. I don’t think it’s relevant enough to the discussion to dispute.
It’s my second “given”, actually.
But are you denying that men are required to pay child support?
Where did I ever say anything to imply that?
Does not that child support offset the financial loss a woman faces (and then some)?
I don’t know- does it? You’ve given me no actual information for which that assumption is based on.
Lost financial earnings due to the choice of having a baby are not examples of discrimination.
It is a loss men will never have to face, being as that they can’t give birth. It is a loss only applicable to women, and therefore, unfair at the very least.
And your experience with the system is?
Are you asking me this because some of my information is wrong?
Quote me please.
“Let me ask you this, if a woman is already going to be on welfare, because she can't or is unwilling to get a job, is she better off as a single recipient or as a single mother (with both child support and welfare)?” From your post on Feb. 27, 5:11PM
Sorry. This is a long couple posts: Part 1
ReplyDelete“From your post on Feb. 27, 5:11PM “
Thanks.
I just looked over that article you linked earlier and am amassed that you would even provide it as a source. It’s a joke. It says women get paid $11,000 dollars less…. $11 K less then what? $30,000? $100,000? It’s not a particularly helpful number. In addition, it doesn’t make mention of other factors that may have been offered instead, such as additional vacation time or family benefits.
Fortunately, the link (that worked) to the study explains that a little further. It says on average a 5% per child decrease (which would mean that $11K less was based on a $220K/year job application). As most child support is at least 10%, and women generally seek a man who is an equal or higher earner then themselves, not to mention child support doesn’t get taxed… We can see that any income lost due to being a mother is more then made up for by child, not to mention the rewards of having a “wanted” child you mentioned earlier.
As to welfare: In the states, Welfare for a single person is significantly lower then welfare for a single mother + child support. In Canada, Welfare for a single mother results in at least twice as much money from assistance[1] as that for a single individual [2] (it seems to be around $10K/year more for having a child. This conflicts directly with your assertion they get an equal ratio based upon their needs), plus eligibility for national child benefit supplements, this more then amply offsets the costs of having a child. Not to mention the rewards of having a “wanted” child you mentioned earlier.
[1] http://www.cnb-ncw.gc.ca/l.3bd.2t.1ilshtml@-eng.jsp?lid=331&fid=27
[2] http://www.cnb-ncw.gc.ca/l.3bd.2t.1ilshtml@-eng.jsp?lid=331&fid=25
So, based on this, the answer to my question “is she better off as a single recipient or as a single mother “, is that she is better off as a single mother, except in the rare circumstances that she makes over twice as much money as the babydady. So, as far as this shows me (your own sources), what I claimed earlier, that any financial consequences are passed onto the man or government, is correct.
Therefore, the lack of financial consequences due to child support and/or government support, combined with the rewards of having a “wanted” child, actually encourages women who want a child to have one, whether the chosen man actually wants it or not. I don’t think it is reasonable to deny a man the right to choose whether he is willing to allow
Part 2
ReplyDelete“given what we learned from the reform in 1834;”
Given that was almost 200 years ago and things have changed dramatically (women’s ability to support themselves, birth control options and availability, government support, abortion), not to mention the suggestion for male reproductive rights is not the same as a uniform ability to abandon your support obligations, regardless (as was the case in 1834), I don’t see how anything relevant can be taken from that example.
“given that currently, women have children despite the negative financial consequences;”
As I showed above, government and child support negate the negative financial consequences you have listed.
“given that single mothers are the most likely people to be on welfare”
And men are the most likely to be homeless and/or dead (via Workplace death, suicide or street violence).
“you have not made a convincing argument that the birth rate to single mothers would drop enough as to be economically sustainable for everyone. “
And you haven’t proven that it wouldn’t drop “enough”, or that women who choose to have a child against the fathers will, shouldn’t incur the financial consequences. And as equality would demand male reproductive rights, I don’t see the validity of your argument, other then to maintain the status quo of female privilege, the very argument regularly used against men who seek change. Furthermore, As far as social assistance is concerned, in Canada, nothing would change for the mothers. In the US, women would lose part of a significant financial incentive to trap and force men, against their will, into financial servitude, and I don’t see this as a bad thing. An unjust system should not be maintained simply because the solution “may” not be economically sustainable for those who choose to abuse that unjust system. If they choose to have a baby, even though the man doesn’t want to, it is her choice to do so, and she should be the one to carry the burdens. If she wanted help, she’d find a man who wanted a baby.
“Do you have any facts to argue this point?”
No, I don’t (though I suspect they are out there). That’s why I presented it the way I did, IE, a thought.
“Where did I ever say or imply that women should be forced to have children?”
By the assertion that her having a baby means there is a child that must be supported (by the man). There is only a baby because she made a choice, several in fact, to get there. If she had no choice in the matter, then I would agree the responsibility should be 50/50, but she isn’t forced, therefore he should not be ether.
“It is at this moment because there is no other viable way.”
There is a viable way… GIVE MEN A CHOICE!!! Your arguments have not even come close to proving that a woman can not support a child without a man’s support, and as such, as a woman is capable of supporting a child on her own, without a man, there is a viable option… IE if she really, really wants the child, she can do it on her own, because as even you acknowledge, she is not incapable of doing that.
“If you had an actual solution to the economics of this problem”
But I do. If a woman insists on having a child, against the wish’s of the man involved, make her as accountable for the responsibilities of raising that child as she was for the choice to have the child in the first place.
Part 3
ReplyDelete“My point is that there are certain life events that we do despite the financial hit. Some women have children.”
But currently, there isn’t really a financial hit for a woman to have a child with a man who does not want one.
“I don’t want anyone forced into anything it is entirely their choice to accept the consequences of that.”
Except men forced into child support, so women can “do” that life event without the need to sustain that financial hit. A married couple takes a financial hit for having a child, as their income before child ether doesn’t change or decreases (due to time taken off or downsizing career), yet, you don’t think it’s reasonable for a single woman to incur this same thing if she chooses to do so without the support of a man. Does this not actually encourage women to stay single and have a child (and then find a man to be with)?
“It is a loss men will never have to face,”
Not true. If men were given equal rights and responsibilities with regards to their children, IE, equal parental leave (UK) and Equal shared custody in divorce (not to mention a choice as to whether or not to have a child), plus if women were more willing to consider men who make less then them (and thus, the men would make the career sacrifices for children, that is the economically sound decision), then the reasons for women making less due to being a mother may very well be incurred by men as well. Separated fathers tend to HAVE to work more just to pay the support plus cost of living… Plus they tend not to have much to do most nights due to not having their kids. Fathers who are still with their child’s mother tend to be the one who makes (more due to hypergamy (generalization, not meant to be indicative of all cases)), and thus are the ones who stay at work when additional money is needed or wanted (After all, are you going to get the higher earner to come home early to take care of the kids while the low earner gets overtime?). These are why men are typically considered better options. This is changing, but will require men to be considered equal in family regards before women can truly benefit. Feminism has demanded equality in the workplace, but still hordes dominance of the family influence. That dominance of the family influence will always have an impact on the workplace, unless that dominance in family is given up in favour of equality. I have no sympathy for this kind of “unfair” treatment of mothers, so long as it is a consequence of men’s discriminatory treatment in family regards.
“Are you asking me this because some of my information is wrong?”
As I’ve shown above, in the links to welfare payments by province, yes, you are very wrong when you claim single women and single mothers get the same (basic or otherwise) assistance. Simply having a child tends to increase the base amount (not including child benefits) by 50% or more. Further child based benefits effectively doubles (or more) the total potential assistance.
Oh, I forgot. I was under the impression it was illegal to ask in an interview if a person has children?
ReplyDelete