 |
| Men: Do not do this. |
Feminism is not a worldview based on coherent thought. It is the desires of the female lizard-brain rationalized. Feminism is based on a woman’s reproductive strategy – my vagina makes me special, I must obtain sexy sperm, I deserve to be protected, and I deserve to get resources.
I don't know about "protection" and resources for women and their special vaginas, but you might think that there would have to be a more efficient way for the ladies to get sperm. After all, most guys produce that sexy stuff by the bucketful, and the vast overwhelming majority of the poor little sperms that men produce so prodigiously end up dying unsung and unrealized in condoms or kleenex.
Apparently, though, feminists only want sperm when it comes as a part of a package deal which involves being married to a captive sperm- and money-producer. Because there is nothing -- besides sperm, of course -- that feminists like better than the traditional nuclear family. That way they can sit on their asses eating bon bons and trying on shoes -- all paid for by their long-suffering husbands -- while waiting for the next injection of sperm. (You thought feminists likes paying their own way and having their own careers? Ha! Shows how much you know.) Here's Herbal again:
The whole of Feminism was designed to “free” women from the “restrictions” of traditional society so she could obtain sexy sperm, and then providing a social construct so she could get security and resources without being in the confines of a nuclear family. Thus making more sexy sperm and self-indulgence available. Lastly, that she “deserves” all that because she has a vagina.
And all those traditional-nuclear-family-loving women who claim not to be feminists? Fellas, they're either lying to themselves, or lying to you.
Women don’t choose to believe in feminism. Feminism is a rationalization of their lizard brain. That’s why you can talk to women who will swear up and down they are not feminists, yet they refuse to give ground on any of the privileges that feminism gave them. The programming is already in her, feminism is just the means to make it a reality. You might as well try to convince female peacocks not to mate with males with impressive plumage.
Fellas, I think Herbal here has made it pretty clear why you need to protect your sperm from the feminists. If you make the mistake of actually having sex with one of these creatures, keep a bottle of tabasco sauce handy, and squirt it into your used condoms to make sure she doesn't fish them out of the wastebasket later to use for her own evil ends. And if you're jizzing into kleenexes, flush those down the toilet, pronto. If you just throw them out, beware: gangs of feminists rove the alleys of America, much like raccoons, raiding trash cans in search of sexy, sexy manstuff.
Be careful out there.
--
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.
"I Must Obtain Sexy Sperm" would be a T-Shirt WIN
ReplyDeleteThe worst is when a woman messily slaughters you with her talons so she can lay her eggs in your grisly remains. And they want *us* buying them drinks first?!
ReplyDeleteWait, he actually said "sexy sperm." That just made my day.
ReplyDeleteHe said sexy sperm EVERY TIME he mentioned sperm. He must like sperm more than my feminist lizard brain does.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. There are many ways I might choose to describe sperm. Sexy isn't one of them.
ReplyDeleteAnd ewwwwwww to the used condom and sperm thing. No thanks, not this feminist.
One could make a case for semen being sexy (subjective, I suppose), but sperm isn't. Too strongly associated with having babies, and having babies is not sexy. Unless it's just me.
ReplyDeleteNope, it's not just you, triplanetary. I liken that to much the same thing that ichinichinemuru outlined in their own post. Parasitic humans just waiting to attach themselves to you, uncaring if they kill you (the host) at the end. :)
ReplyDeleteMan, that did make my day too. "Sexy sperm"? Dude, I only see that in crazy-ass cybersex.
ReplyDelete@ David
ReplyDeleteDavid said: "Fellas, I think Herbal here has made it pretty clear why you need to protect your sperm from the feminists. If you make the mistake of actually having sex with one of these creatures, keep a bottle of tabasco sauce handy, and squirt it into your used condoms to make sure she doesn't fish them out of the wastebasket later to use for her own evil ends. And if you're jizzing into kleenexes, flush those down the toilet, pronto. If you just throw them out, beware: gangs of feminists rove the alleys of America, much like raccoons, raiding trash cans in search of sexy, sexy manstuff.
Be careful out there."
*AHEM*
http://www.glennsacks.com/sperm_theft_ruling.htm
Saturday, March 5, 2011
(Partial)
‘Sperm Theft’ Ruling a Step Forward for
Men’s Reproductive Rights
By Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks
All’s fair in love, war, and paternity cases. When child support is sought, there is scarcely any deceit that courts won’t push aside under the “best interests of the child” test.
Courts have ruled that boys who were statutorily raped by older women must pay child support. Courts have ruled that when a woman has taken the semen from a condom a man used for sex with a different woman and has inserted it in herself, the man must still pay child support. Courts have ruled that when a woman has concealed her pregnancy (denying the man the right to be a father) and then sued for child support a decade later, the man must still pay child support. Courts have ruled that when a woman has deceived her husband into believing that her baby is his child, he must still pay child support. Few if any men are relieved of child support obligations due to the circumstances of the pregnancy, no matter how bizarre or unjust.
Recently, however, the Illinois Appellate Court took a step towards fairness by ruling that an Illinois man can sue his former lover for emotional distress over her pregnancy. Dr. Richard O. Phillips alleges that six years ago Dr. Sharon Irons secretly kept his semen after the two had oral sex, and then impregnated herself with it. Phillips claims he didn’t learn of the child’s existence until two years later, when Irons went to court to get child support. Irons now receives $800 a month in tax-free child support from Phillips. . .
*********************************************
Ah, those pesky facts, and real world examples keep tripping femnation up.
Random Brother
"my vagina makes me special, I must obtain sexy sperm, I deserve to be protected, and I deserve to get resources."
ReplyDeleteThis will go on my you tube channel and blog in the about me sections. Wonderful.
Also, Mr. Futrelle, tabasco, well spermicide.
And of course, I find the rationalizations that Herbal gives here for maintaining the restrictions over women of yesteryear. What a snake.
And to Richard. If there is a legal system in place to handle fraud, the system is working. It seems medically impossible to get pregnant from sperm kept in someone's mouth. I wonder what the other side of the story was. In any event, why a case like that would have ANY bearing on feminism, is beyond me. What in the world does that have to do with feminism? Good lord, the delusions these lizard brained power deprived bitter boys have.
"And of course, I find the rationalizations that Herbal gives here for maintaining the restrictions over women of yesteryear. What a snake."
ReplyDeleteI find them...positively reptilian? Anyway, I forgot a word, apologies.
Richard, the original source of that story is a 2005 associated press article with very few details:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7024930/ns/health-sexual_health/
There are lots of references to the story online, but they all (like the Glen Sacks column) seem to rely on that one story. I couldn't find any followup articles that would tell us if he did indeed sue (and, if so, what was the result of that suit).
If what he said happened did actually happen, that's pretty fucked up. But we don't know her side of the story. And I'm not sure that there's any way to determine what did happen. Certainly not with the scanty details we've got. (The court didn't offer an opinion on the truth of his claims, just that he had the right to sue.)
If someone decides based on this one incident that may or may not have actually happened that he needs to stop engaging in oral sex with women, I suppose that's his right. Or, I suppose he could simply try to sneak a bit of tobasco sauce into her mouth immediately after oral sex. Either way, seems a little paranoid.
I mean, there seem to have been several people in the history of the planet who've been killed by falling pianos:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-168501.html
But I don't think that's a good reason to forever avoid walking past buildings more than one story tall, just in case a piano should fall out the window of one of them.
...and, hate to sound like a broken record, but the tie in to feminism would be? ... Are feminists stealing sperm? I mean we haven't really established that anyone has done this let alone that I would have anything to do with feminism. The idea that parents are responsible for children is a feminist idea? Well, god bless those lovely feminists, getting paternal involvement set as a priority.
ReplyDelete..and, hate to sound like a broken record, but the tie in to feminism would be? ... Are feminists stealing sperm? I mean we haven't really established that anyone has done this let alone that it would have anything to do with feminism. The idea that parents are responsible for children is a feminist idea? Well, god bless those lovely feminists, getting paternal involvement set as a priority.
ReplyDeleteYes, fraudsters and deceivers should be punished. There's no question about that. But as David is saying with his falling piano analogy, it's just not this horrible epidemic like MRAs claim it is. It's easy for them to believe it is, because women are all deceitful bitches in their worldview. It all makes sense in their mind: fuck a dude, steal his sperm, get preggers, demand child support, profit! Because as we all know, raising a child costs practically nothing at all, so all that child support money is probably going to pedicures and shoes and all that vain stuff women like.
ReplyDeleteIn reality, of course, these cases of sperm theft and fraud and such are extremely rare. MRAs love to seize on every instance of it, and the media helps them with that because the media loves reporting on sensationalistic outliers like that, and that way the MRAs get to pretend that this is happening way more often than it is. Like the people who seize on every story of a person who might be cheating the welfare system, they want to use them as an excuse to punish the vast majority who benefit from the system legitimately.
But of course, that's the idea, I suppose. If a woman is receiving child support payments, that means she's had sex but is not in the man's possession anymore. Thus she is a slut and must be punished. Old-fashioned sexism.
@ David, Triplanetary and zbutterscotch pudding.
ReplyDeleteFor those of you who think 1)There's a system in place to punish this sort of fraud. Men are trying to achieve this but guess which is the main group that keeps fighting it? I'll give you a hint, they tend not to shave their legs and hate men.
2) For the whole, it's so rare argument. From further in the same article I previously posted:
"Research shows that men are often deceived into paternity. A recent poll of 5,000 women conducted for That’s Life! magazine in the United Kingdom found that 42% of women say they would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, regardless of the wishes of their partners. According to research conducted by Joyce Abma of the National Center for Health Statistics and Linda Piccinino of Cornell University, over a million American births each year are the result of pregnancies which men did not intend."
Paranoid?
Random Brother
:::According to research conducted by Joyce Abma of the National Center for Health Statistics and Linda Piccinino of Cornell University, over a million American births each year are the result of pregnancies which men did not intend.:::
ReplyDeleteOne is left to wonder just exactly what they did to prevent these unintended pregnancies.
I'm sure they weren't all the result of sperm stealing feminists.
http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/635254.html
ReplyDelete"This study highlights an under-recognized phenomenon where male partners actively attempt to promote pregnancy against the will of their female partners," study author Elizabeth Miller, an assistant professor of pediatrics in the University of California at Davis School of Medicine, said in a news release from the school. "Not only is reproductive coercion associated with violence from male partners, but when women report experiencing both reproductive coercion and partner violence, the risk for unintended pregnancy increases significantly."
The study was conducted from 2008-2009 at five health clinics that deal with reproductive issues in Northern California. About 1,300 women aged 16 to 29 took part by responding to a computerized survey.
About 15 percent said they'd experienced birth-control sabotage, and more than half reported physical or sexual violence from a partner. More than one-third of those who said they had been the victim of partner violence also acknowledged experiencing either pregnancy coercion or birth-control sabotage, the researchers found.
"We have known about the association between partner violence and unintended pregnancy for many years," study senior author Jay Silverman, an associate professor of society, human development and health in the Harvard School of Public Health, said in the news release. "What this study shows is that reproductive coercion likely explains why unintended pregnancies are far more common among abused women and teens."
...but guess which is the main group that keeps fighting it? I'll give you a hint, they tend not to shave their legs and hate men.
ReplyDeleteSo then, that would be men.
A recent poll of 5,000 women conducted for That’s Life! magazine in the United Kingdom found that 42% of women say they would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, regardless of the wishes of their partners.
So then saying that they would is now equated to saying that they did in order for that research to show that men are, not that they could be or might be, often deceived into paternity.
According to research conducted by Joyce Abma of the National Center for Health Statistics and Linda Piccinino of Cornell University, over a million American births each year are the result of pregnancies which men did not intend.
Is that referring to the analysis of portions of Cycle 5 of the National Survey of Family Growth, the analysis having been done in 1995 for data collected over the few years previous to the analysis? What Abma and Piccinino published seems to only reflect the results of the women that were surveyed, not the men.
A more recent one, The 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth has been conducted, but it may be that the results of the data on intended and unintended pregnancy have not yet been compiled and released, as the statistics for intended pregnancy in the Key Statistics list appear to be from the 2002 survey.
Those results can be found here. It shows:
Births reported by females
Percent of births that were intended, mistimed, or unwanted by the mother (births in the 5 years before the 2002 interview):
Intended (i.e., pregnancy that the mother wanted to have when she became pregnant): 64.9%
Mistimed (i.e., pregnancy that the mother wanted to have but it occurred too soon): 20.8%
Unwanted (i.e., pregnancy that the mother did not want ever): 14.1%
Births reported by males
Percent of births that were intended, mistimed, unwanted by the father (births in the 5 years before the interview in 2002):
Intended (i.e., pregnancy that the father wanted to have at approximately the time partner became pregnant): 65.2%
Mistimed (i.e., pregnancy that the father wanted to have but it occurred too soon): 24.8%
Unwanted (i.e., pregnancy that the father did not want ever): 8.6%
A comment I recently posted must have been caught in the Spam Filter.
ReplyDeleteThe average yearly child support payment for a child is $3,600 for a man and $ 2,400 for a women (income discrepancies explain this difference). If you think you can raise a child on that, you should stop doing drugs.
ReplyDeleteSallyStrange: Thank you! It seems to have slipped everybody else's mind (including mine) to point out that abusive men force children on their partners all the time.
ReplyDeleteSo basically it's yet another of those crimes where MRAs try to turn it around and be all "nuh uh, women do it even more but you never hear about it because of FEMINISM!" See: rape, domestic violence, starting wars
OT but when are you going to write about this MRA who thinks women collectively owe him money?
ReplyDeleterichard, I think that their lizard-brain women thing comes from here: http://www.truthism.com/
ReplyDeleteoh oops, that was supposed to be to david, not richard. This is what I get for reading and commenting while I'm sick
ReplyDeleteBecause it's always about the men. It could *never* be that a woman adopts feminism because she wants a career or chance to achieve or just the ability to be whoever she wants to be without some douchebag telling her she's doing it wrong because she's not catering to *his needs*. Women can be boiled down to one, overarching desire - because we're not really people. We're just ciphers that men can project whatever they want onto us, or demand whatever they want onto us.
ReplyDeleteHerbal Essences can't conceive of a universe of which he is not the center. He cannot imagine that some people (women) are indifferent to him - so he must concoct an elaborate, misogynistic fantasy about how they're all secretly obsessed with him and the one thing he can still do that wome can't - make sperm.
Oh, and I wonder how women who have chosen not to have children factors into his worldview. If women were using feminism as a front to get access to 'sexy sperm', then why do so many feminists fight so hard for reproductive choice? If it's all about having babies, then you'd think that things like access to contraception, education and abortion would be less important - because, after all, it's all about having babies.
ReplyDeleteIn this thread Richard asserts that a guy suing because his sperm were "stolen", child support, and the fact that men sometimes are mistaken about paternity (sometimes based on a woman's representation that she only slept with them) our facts to support the assertion that feminism is based upon the lizard brains desire to acquire sperm.
ReplyDeleteThat's amazing.
Pam -- Your comment is up now. (Everyone else following the sperm-stealing, birth control sabotage discussion should scroll up and take a look.)
ReplyDeleteSteve -- I saw that post too. Very strange, but I think I'm just going to leave that one alone.
“If there is a legal system in place to handle fraud, the system is working.”
ReplyDeleteBut there isn’t, it was found that a fraudulent misconception claim was only available for “economic” wrongs. Paternity fraud is not only acceptable; it is actually enforced when perpetrated. As to what has happened in this case…see bellow…
“If what he said happened did actually happen, that's pretty fucked up. But we don't know her side of the story.”
But we don’t really need to know what actually happened. The fact is, what she was alleged to have done is not a criminal act (both the counts of fraud and coercion were thrown out, both by the original case as well as the appeal), and that even if conception was a result of this kind of action, a man is responsible for child support obligations (to the point that Dr Richards didn’t even bother contesting the child support obligation). The fact is, even in such an extraordinary and despicable situation, a man has absolutely no protection whatsoever. That is a very real problem.
Elizabeth has defined planned parenthood as allowing women to have consequence free sex. What is available to men to allow that same result? Why must a man always risk consequences, consequences that don’t need to be incurred, as proven by the fact a woman always has a way out (3 in fact)?
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ODGvCY8zYdIJ:www.lasisblog.com/2011/02/26/man-receives-oral-sex-ordered-to-pay-child-support/+man-receives-oral-sex-ordered-to-pay-child-support&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&source=www.google.ca
“If someone decides based on this one incident…”
The problem is, this one particular case is only an extreme example of a bigger problem; that men have absolutely no protection or recourse except to swear off women altogether, and that, as you yourself basically admit, is an unreasonable expectation. And given women have several options, there is a significant discrepancy regarding reproductive rights between the genders.
“But as David is saying with his falling piano analogy, it's just not this horrible epidemic like MRAs claim it is.
…
In reality, of course, these cases of sperm theft and fraud and such are extremely rare.”
David is claiming blowjob sperm theft conceptions are rare, and thus avoiding blowjobs due to this event is an over-exaggeration, and I would agree. You, however, are equating that to denying that any form of deception for the purpose of becoming pregnant against a man’s will, or deceiving him as to his true paternity status in order to collect support, is rare. And that’s false in the extreme. Bethorie herself has posted claiming that 50% of pregnancies are unplanned. Given the pill’s failure rate is based solely on user error, that would imply almost half (I don’t equate the entire 50% because I acknowledge some women can’t take the pill for various reasons) of all pregnancies are due to these women being incapable capable of taking a pill daily (or realizing they failed to do so and taking alternative precautions), or it’s due reproductive coercion, of which only 15% are supposedly perpetrated by male abusers. Of the 50% of unplanned pregnancies, at most 15% are due to men being abusive, the remaining 35% are due to legitimate failure of other birth control methods (when the pill is unavailable for various reasons) which should be pretty rare given alternatives also have a high success rate, as well as these women’s incompetence and/or deception. And given that deception has no consequences for these women (if having a baby was a consequence for these women, they wouldn’t have deceived to accomplish that goal).
It also seems hypocritical to claim these are rare and should be ignored, but then support draconian Domestic abuse laws because “600 women in the US are murdered by their Significant other. 600 is less then .0002% of the population of the US… that is what I would define as rare.
Wow, that guy thinks that since the government has regulations that means women benefit more from his tax payments to the government then men do cuz it means women have the chance to work in the private sector.
ReplyDeleteGee, my lizard brain cannot understand this nor can my cat brain, shark brain, and all the other kinds of brains that they claim I have.
Elizabeth, it's a strange derivative of a standard MRA argument that government spending and regulations benefit women so guys like him are "owed" something because they don't benefit from government spending and regulation. At least that's what I think that omega guy is saying. It's difficult to figure out.
ReplyDeleteThis is why I think you should do a post on this David. MRAs believe that they are owed something from women. It based off of liberatrian ideas about government. While that omega guy has a strange version of it, we all know it's a common MRA idea.
Yeah, I made up a name and demanded he show me the proof he is owed the money and he has to factor in his own benefit from the taxes paid by other people.
ReplyDeleteHow much you want to bet he just insults me and runs away?
Steve, I think it's an interesting topic, and I've seen variants of that argument elsewhere; I just don't feel like engaging with this particular person.
ReplyDeleteKratch, your comment was caught in the spam filter and is out now; you might want to scroll up and read Pam's long comment above yours because it gives some actual numbers on some of the things you'er specualting about.
ReplyDelete@ Sally Strange
ReplyDeleteIf both studies are true, then we could, for arguments sake, deduct the 15% from the 42% leaving a 27% duped into fathehood rate.
Now if I remember correctly the 1 in 6 woman being raped in their lifetimes according to feminists = epidemic and a rape culture.
So wouldn't over 1 in 4 women forcing men to be parents indicate a sort of fraud epidemic?
Random Brother
@ Pam
ReplyDeleteSo about 30% of men are forced into fatherhood when they aren't ready or don't want kids. So, shouldn't men have the option of a "paper abortion?"
Random Brother
@ triplanetary
ReplyDeleteI didn't think that even you were stupid enough to pull out the old, if the womyns were in charge there'd be no war canard, but you did.
Is there anything that feminsts say (other that Dworkin) that you disagree with or are you that much of a yes woman that you've go no thoughts of your own?
Random Brother
Is there anything that feminsts say (other that Dworkin) that you disagree with or are you that much of a yes woman that you've go no thoughts of your own?
ReplyDeleteI imagine feminists say lots of things I would disagree with. I'm sure somewhere out there is a feminist who doesn't like Arby's or thinks the movie AI is underrated.
I mean I couldn't possibly agree with everything ever said by feminists.
I didn't think that even you were stupid enough to pull out the old, if the womyns were in charge there'd be no war canard, but you did.
Actually that's not what I said. What I said was that here in the real world, where men are in charge, men start the wars. They do this because they're the ones in charge. And just as anti-Semites like to blame Jews for all the wars, I've seen my share of misogynists who blame women for war (their "reasoning" usually being that they place such onerous material demands on their men that those men just have to go out and conquer other countries so that the women can have their diamonds and handbags and purses).
Have these men never learned to keep their atavistic fears in their subconscious? What's next, the vagina dentata?
ReplyDeleteWell, we've already seen the Mousetrap Vagina.
ReplyDeleteOh, good Lord!
ReplyDelete*weeps for humanity*
So, shouldn't men have the option of a "paper abortion"?
ReplyDeleteIf by that you mean that they should have the option of formally relinquishing any responsibilities/rights they have to the child (in the cases where the foetus is brought to term), then basically yes, mainly for those cases where the pregnancy was absolutely unintended, but not in cases where, for example, he originally opts to take responsibility and then changes his mind further down the road. By the same token,
I think the woman should take full responsibility if she originally opts for abortion or adoption and then changes her mind further down the road.
For those cases where the father wanted to have a child, but pregnancy occurred too soon, I am far less inclined to give a general nod to that; if a man is in a long term hetero relationship, then there is a good chance that he is having sexual intercourse more frequently than if not in said relationship, therefore "risk" of pregnancy may be higher, and reliance on one method of birth control as the be all end all is neither the smartest nor the most responsible thing to do. There are quite possibly still (I know it was common back in my younger days, not as certain about now) a lot of men who rely on their partner's one method of birth control to be 100% effective, and this is not always the case.
Even in non-long-term relationships, this same reliance on one's partner to be employing one method of birth control, if any, isn't too bright, either.
Also, if using a condom, whether or not in conjunction with another method of birth control, clean up after yourself and flush the condom before drifting off into la la land, there's nothing wrong with that, and it can be done in a respectful way, not one that borders on complete paranoia.
Having said that, I am all for development of a male birth control pill (if that is possible) or for men opting to have vasectomies if they are absolutely certain that they do not want to have any or any more children. And although you did not broach that particular topic, I have read on some MRA sites that they believe women (especially feminists) are angry when men opt to have vasectomies or are anticipating the arrival of a male birth control pill. Sure, there are quite possibly some women who would be angry about such things, but I wouldn't rush to say that they are all or mostly feminists.
As for how those statistics might relate to the topic of men being deceived into fatherhood, they don't really seem to suggest that that is a situation that's running rampant, which is NOT to say that it never, ever occurs. And there is NOTHING that points to it being a feminist conspiracy if there are some women who are deceiving some men into paternity.
And the Phillips v Irons case, well, it's another he said/she said case, which, though not proving that she did NOT impregnate herself after the two only engaged in oral sex, it is not proof positive that she DID, either. Personally speaking, I'm not inclined to believe either of them 100%.
Pam's data indicates that less then 10% of men have experienced 100% unwanted pregnancies with their partners. So the 1 in 4 fraud (which would be an epidemic indeed) scenario does not exist.
ReplyDelete@ Elizabeth
ReplyDeleteStop that. You know better.
Unless you're going to argue that a woman pressured to have a child before she is ready is not a big deal and is acceptable if she one day wants to have kids, then you can't make that argument. And I know you're not going to argue THAT as a feminist. So, if a woman should be allowed to be a mother or not be a mother WHEN she wants to, at the time period in her life that is most advantageous to her, you can and should argue the same thing for men. If you are truly about equality. Therefore, men are still forced into fatherhood at "epidemic" levels.
Don't try to slip that one in there.
Random Brother
Yes yes Richard, men are always the victims never the perpetrators. We get it.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, I am not arguing that it is a a good thing or not a big deal as the data Pam gave us shows that women are nearly doubly unwilling to have a pregnancy occur then men are. Did you see that 8.6% being outweighed by 14.1%? No? Now you do.
richard, men have options to prevent pregnancy. It's called use a condom, or have a vasectomy. We've also presented the option of signing away all rights and responsibilities while the woman is still pregnant (this would be the male version of an abortion) Yes, feminists would love for there to be more bc options for men, in fact they have a contraception option in the works right now that is actually looking promising. We are not at fault for there not being a contraceptive for men, but it just so happens that temporarily stopping sperm production is more difficult than temporarily stopping ovulation, because the way female bc works is by tricking a woman's body into thinking that it is pregnant, something that can't be replicated in the male body. Basically what they have to do is find something that will temporarily stop sperm from being healthy enough to survive the swim to the egg. This has proved difficult to do temporarily.
ReplyDeletealso I'd like to link you to this, which states that the rates that men tamper with womens' bc is also 1 in 4 which would mean that they are equal and therefore we need to fight the problem from both sides, not just one
http://www.endabuse.org/content/features/detail/1674/
"Pam's data indicates that less then 10% of men have experienced 100% unwanted pregnancies with their partners. So the 1 in 4 fraud (which would be an epidemic indeed) scenario does not exist."
ReplyDeleteI'm concerned with how they determined mistimed (even you seem to question it by noting the 100% unwanted). Does a man who wants to be a father, but had no intention to do so at that time or with the woman whom he got pregnant, count as mistimed or unwanted? Does a man like David or TriP, who thinks men should not have the right to choose, and should step up and be a father (AKA wanting it, even if he had no desire for it previously) if he knocks someone up, does he reply as unwanted or mistimed?
The study is "further limited to pregnancies that the man was aware of at the time. Therefore, the data in the tables are for live births for which the man knew about the pregnancy", which would exclude Dr. Richards and men like him from the survey. This impacted 10.5% of respondents 20 years and under (11% of 18-19), who have since discovered they are fathers. Additionally, the results of "unwantedness" and "not asked" (due to learning of the child after birth) of boys under the age of 18 was somehow tainted, causing the figures to "not meet standard of reliability or precision".
More importantly, if we look at the figures, 17.4% of all men aged 20-24, and 45% of all men aged 25-29 are fathers. 7.1% of the fathers aged 20-24 did not want to be fathers (and 3.3% didn't even learn they were fathers until after the child was born, meaning they had no choice ether), and 6.1% of those aged 25-29. That means that, almost 2% (1.7something) of all men aged 20-24 are being forced into fatherhoods they don't want or weren't given a chance to decide, or 200,000 men just between the ages of 20-24. It works out to almost 3% (2.75%) of all men aged 25-29 that have fatherhood forced upon them, or over 250,000 men just between the ages of 25-29. And it only gets worst from there, with about 7.4% of all men aged 30-44 being forced into fatherhood.
600 women are killed by a domestic partner and we call this an epidemic. Almost half a million men, just in their 20's alone, are forced into wage slavery against their will, not to mention almost half a million children forced to grow up with a father who didn't want them (and her mother who didn't care about anything but her own selfish desire to have a child, regardless of the damage to the father and child that birth would cause), and the rejection that entails ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363145/Bad-girls-An-investigation-new-breed-young-women-bit-alienated-violent-brutally-sexualised-worst-male-yob.html# ). The numbers will apparently look even worst for women, despite them actually having a choice, but that should tell us that we need laws in place to protect people, everyone, from being forced into parenthood against their wills. Unfortunately, if this gets any more attention, you can be certain that only women's plight will be focused on, despite the fact that, again, they are the only ones who actually get a choice, and they're plight is already covered by laws regarding domestic violence, and so, they have solutions they just aren't choosing to use.
Continued---
ReplyDeleteOverall, however, the study's math concerns me. For example, the mistimed numbers for men based on age alone actually comes out to over 31.65%. But they total their tallies by totaling each group up, all together, and then averaging based on all aspects (meaning their counting the same person (at least) 6 times. Once (or twice) for age, once for race, once for religion, once for education, once for poverty level and once (actually twice) for marital status). This shouldn't be a problem, however, when looking over the results based on age alone, which accounts for all participants in the study, it's results should match up exactly with the averages for any other classification. For example, if all respondents who fit between the age of 20-44, have a 7.9% unwanted rate, and all respondents are ether living with the mother, cohabitating with the mother or living separate from the mother, given it's the same men that are between the ages of 20-44, you should still get 7.9% of these men having unwanted children... but we don't, if we base the numbers on marital status, 10.6% of all fathers who are living with the mother, cohabitating with the mother or living separate from the mother (which accounts for all), were forced into fatherhood. If we look at education, it works out to an average of 9.25% of fathers (based on poverty levels it's only 5.28%). The math isn't working out here, and it should be. They are off by several percentage points, and can be found throughout (just average the mistimed for under 18 and 18-19 and see if it match's the under 20 number... here's a hint... it won't, by about 3%).
Richard: "So, shouldn't men have the option of a "paper abortion?""
Just as an aside, I think the term paper abortion, or male abortion, are poor terms to use. It invokes the ire of pro-lifers, causes confusion in debates (with "you want to force women to have an abortion???") and really isn't indicative of what MRA's really seek. What MRA's are after in male reproductive rights is more akin to adoption then abortion, in that the child will still exist, but men using it would be signing away their rights and responsibilities to someone else who wants the child, in this case, the mother. The only problem with accomplishing this is the tendency of most people to feel the mother already has all the rights to the child (and the father none), and thus is only being given the fathers responsibilities (since he has no rights to relinquish anyways). Which is a pretty misandric, as well as one sided view.
Some comments were caught in the spam filter; they're up now.
ReplyDelete“If you are truly about equality.”
ReplyDeleteElizabeth has already openly stated that she is only about equality so long as it only has positive effects for women.
“Yes yes Richard, men are always the victims never the perpetrators.”
You keep doing this. Equating an argument to being the entirety of the situation. At no point did Richard say women aren’t victims and men aren’t perpetrators. In fact, he acknowledged that fact by acknowledging you wouldn’t ever say women who are forced into motherhood aren’t a big deal and is acceptable. But your response actually suggests that you believe only women are victims and men are perpetrators, because merely acknowledging men’s issues (in the exact same way feminism acknowledges women’s issues, IE, as it relates to the gender being discussed.) gets you angry and irrational.
“Did you see that 8.6% being outweighed by 14.1%?”
And does this somehow prove that it doesn’t happen to men now? Does it negate the fact that, despite these alleged claims of being forced into pregnancy, they had a choice men do not have… they choose not to abort, not to abandon and not to adopt. They choose not to seek aid from an abuse shelter or police… and yet, still had enough choice to answer a survey about it. Seems odd to me, and makes me question how “unwanted” was determined in the survey.
“men have options to prevent pregnancy.”
So do women… but only women have options to prevent pregnancy from becoming parenthood. And not a one of them gives a man a say in the issue.
“We've also presented the option of signing away all rights and responsibilities while the woman is still pregnant”
When and where have you done this? Because this is very much what male reproductive rights activists are seeking.
“in fact they have a contraception option in the works right now that is actually looking promising.”
That’s not feminists that have it in the works. Furthermore, it has been in the works since the early 90’s, always being promised “5 more years”… Except nobody is willing to fund the research.
The rest of the paragraph seems to be equating reproductive rights as being solely birth control…, which would mean you consider abortion, abandonment and adoption as forms of birth control as well? Or are they just privileges for women?
“we need to fight the problem from both sides, not just one”
I agree, but given woman already have options in the cases of birth control tampering (IE, Abortion Abandonment Adoption and Reporting of domestic abuse) regardless of whether they use it or not, and men have nothing, I think most of the solutions (short of making any kind of reproductive fraud a crime) are very different. I also feel this demonstrates yet another bias against men, not only do women have choices men don’t have, those choices are enforced and supported by domestic abuse laws and family courts. And men are left to suffer.
As an aside, perhaps one of you can ask a lawyer friend and get an answer for me (I have no lawyer friends to ask)… If a woman signs away her child in an adoption, and the biological father successfully gets custody from the adopted parents (an incredibly difficult task, but this is hypothetical), is the mother responsible for child support, or has she successfully signed away her responsibilities?
Kratch: So you're angry with feminists because they personally are not researching or funding a male contraceptive pill? As a feminist guy, I would love for there to be a male contraceptive pill. But as a writer I don't exactly have the expertise to cook one up in my apartment.
ReplyDeleteI think you really need to take that up with the pharmaceutical companies.
Or, if MRAs feel strongly about this issue, they could always try engaging in some actual activism about it. AIDS activists have been able to influence AIDS research, etc.; presumably MRAs could have some sort of effect on male contraceptive research too.
"If by that you mean that they should have the option of formally relinquishing any responsibilities/rights they have to the child (in the cases where the foetus is brought to term), then basically yes, mainly for those cases where the pregnancy was absolutely unintended, but not in cases where, for example, he originally opts to take responsibility and then changes his mind further down the road. "
ReplyDeletethat is precisely what is being asked for. the suggestion often comes with a time limit from the time he is first informed of the pregnancy/child, a limit that is actually shorter then the period in which a woman can safely abort (ranges from 30-90 days upon notification).
No one has ever suggested a man be allowed the ability to abandon a child that he has been raising, or even agreed to pre-conseption. Correction, there may be some of the idiot grim on the bottom of the MRA who suggest it, and many feminists claim MRA's always suggest this, but it's not what is being sought for in male reproductive rights.
"And although you did not broach that particular topic, I have read on some MRA sites that they believe women (especially feminists) are angry when men opt to have vasectomies"
two of my friends have gone to get a vasectomy. Both of them were asked if their wives were OK with it. that's a problem. It is none of the doctors business if the wives are OK with it or not, it is the man's reproductive rights, not his wife's.
One of the two men was married. They had two children and agreed that was enough. The other friend had just started dating (a few weeks). he had informed her he had no intention of having children, but she claimed that was OK and continued dating. Immediately upon finding out he got a vasectomy, she became angry that he didn't talk to her about it first and broke up with him...
I myself want to have children, but want to be very careful about who I have them with. That makes things difficult for me in dating life, as I am not willing to rely on just 1 form of birth control in which I have no control over (IE, the pill), and this has caused problems.
" there is NOTHING that points to it being a feminist conspiracy"
Feminists come up, not as the cause of the male reproductive rights problem, but as the primary obstacle to a solution. You are truly the first feminist I have seen who has said men should have a method of opting out of a pregnancy they had no intention of producing, and have no desire to be involved in, rather then the more traditional "if you don't want to take responsibility for your actions, don't have sex... PS, MGTOW are stupid and paranoid"
Kratch, I never ever said that I do not want to work on men's reproductive rights. I said that I shall not focus on their rights to the exclusion of women's rights. Get it right. IF this is not a zero sum game as you claim, then why the fuck do I have to ignore women's rights in favor of men's rights?
ReplyDeleteBecause that is what you keep demanding I and the other feminists do. And if it is not, then stop asking for it.
"So you're angry with feminists because they personally are not researching or funding a male contraceptive pill?"
ReplyDeleteFeminism has nothing to do with the male pill. they are not to blame, they are not expected to produce a solution. I never suggested they were. but reproductive rights aren't limited to pre-conception birth control, and feminist do routinely oppose any form of male reproductive rights, I have been involved in many debates right at this very site. The opposition to the male pill is pretty weak ("a man can't be trusted to take the pill", and so I often ignore it as being hateful. But other male reproductive rights issues are routinely opposed, such as a man's right to decline parenthood, and a man's right to be a father to a child, Including after divorce, or when the mother has abandoned or put the child up for adoption (both of which are incredibly difficult for a man to get, and typically must be started before the transaction is complete))
kratch, abortion and adoption are expensive, you do realize this yes? You do realize that many women who are dv victims do not have the money to even figure out how to obtain those services, and then they have the cultural stigma to deal with, etc, and that's once they are able to get away from the abusive asshole who forced pregnancy upon her. At this point the best thing men can do if they want to prevent pregnancy but would like to be fathers one day is to use condoms, and if they feel they can't trust the woman who they are sleeping with (which I would say is a bad plan anyway since you really shouldn't be sleeping with someone who you can't trust) not to intentionally become pregnant then they should dispose of used condoms in the toilet. Also men can only choose to sleep with women who are on the pill. (there are ways to check this you know, it's called asking to see the pill pack and watching her take the pill) For example, while I can't physically carry a pregnancy to term due to problems with my uterus I can still get pregnant, so my bf and I have to do things in order to avoid this. We both pay for my pill pack each month. We both set reminders on our phones an hour apart. When he gets his reminder he calls me and asks if I've taken my pill that day. We use condoms every time we have sex.
ReplyDeleteas far as the availability of the male pill goes there is a company in sweden which is gearing up for the human tests, they just have to find men who are willing to test it and they are having problems finding men to do so. Why? because men are afraid that the pills might inhibit their sex drive (something which I might remind you women have been dealing with since the pill was first introduced in 1960)
" never ever said that I do not want to work on men's reproductive rights. I said that I shall not focus on their rights to the exclusion of women's rights. Get it right. "
ReplyDeleteI never said you didn't. I said you are not about equality unless it has a positive impact on women. the two happen to be the same in this case (as male reproductive rights does not have a positive effect one women), but thats a coincidence. just for clarity, here is what you did say...
"as a feminist I believe in helping women obtain things that they need not ignore their needs in favor of men."
Seems to be exactly what I said it was, only being about equality if it is obtaining things women need.
As you said this while actively opposing reproductive rights, you ether feel that child support is something a woman "needs", or else this comment wasn't relevant to our discussion and shouldn't have been made. because giving men reproductive rights should not impact a woman's needs in any way (and thus, if you were truly about equality, would not oppose male reproductive rights), unless you feel that a woman is not only entitled to, but "needs" a man's money when SHE chooses to have a baby.
"IF this is not a zero sum game as you claim, then why the fuck do I have to ignore women's rights in favor of men's rights?"
You repeatedly make this accusation. you did it to Richard above, to me here, and have done it repeatedly in the past. That anybody speaking up for men's rights are demanding we ignore women. Please, quote me saying that women should be ignoring women's rights. Just once. I have said I will show no sympathy for the loss of funding for abortion clinics so long as feminists continue to oppose male reproductive rights, but that's something else entirely.
I will repeat this so you can read it again...
One does not need to stop helping women in order to help men too. Just because there are suggestions for male reproductive rights does not mean taking away women's rights is part of that. You seem to be so against men's rights (regardless of the MRM, MRA's MGTOW, etc) that you can not separate helping men from hurting women. You believe the two are synonymous, and that is not a good place to be at for one who claims to be about equality.
For those interested in the original debate;
http://www.manboobz.com/2011/02/family-planning-not-dude-issue.html?showComment=1298948597257#c8597857021027097098
Kratch, I don't remember seeing any feminists here (or anywhere, really) who actually oppose male contraception in any form. I have seen plenty who enthusiastically support any new contraceptive options for men.
ReplyDeleteSomeone might have suggested that a male contraceptive pill might not be 100% effective -- men (and women) don't always take pills -- but that's hardly opposition to it.
Also, Kratch, doctors often refuse to perform tubal ligations without the husband's permission.
ReplyDeleteKratch, it is impossible to be 100% equal when it comes to reproductive rights.
ReplyDeleteAnd when it comes to giving the woman the right to decide when she has the kid that she physically has to carry she gets final word. The day that we can tube babies (which I actually support), that is the day that men shall have 100% equal say in the matter.
That forcing is what I cannot support-the rest of it is negotiable.
David. I'm going to reply to you by quoting my last post in response to you, because I have already addressed your point
ReplyDelete"...reproductive rights aren't limited to pre-conception birth control, and feminist do routinely oppose any form of male reproductive rights, I have been involved in many debates right at this very site. The opposition to the male pill is pretty weak ("a man can't be trusted to take the pill", and so I often ignore it as being hateful). But other male reproductive rights issues are routinely opposed"
just for clarification, when I say opposition is weak, I am not limiting to just the strength of the argument (which is indeed weak), but also the strength of the opposition (as in not as many oppose it, but some have). That said, I have read an article (that I've spent the last hour and a half looking for but can't find) talking about how the male pill will reduce women's ability to trap a man in a relationship, and therefore is against women's rights. (I'm sure I even posted a link to it on this board before). it's crazy, and thats why I chalk it up as hateful, but it is out there.
"Also, Kratch, doctors often refuse to perform tubal ligations without the husband's permission."
That is also a problem. Reproductive rights to close shop (so to speak) should not be dependent on someone else's consent. But right now, post conception, it is, for men. and pre-conception, the options are limited and sometimes impractical or fallible.
Elizabeth... you are changing the topic again. We aren't talking about the forcing a woman to have a baby end of the equation (there are those who argue for it, but I suspect it is just an attempt at bargaining for a more reasonable middle ground), nor are we discussing forcing a woman to have an abortion if she does not want one. We are simply discussing the ability for a man to "opt out", to sign over his rights and responsibilities, to the mother, when he first learns of the child. very much akin to an adoption (many even add paying for the abortion if his choice results in her deciding to terminate). Same as I was arguing on the other thread where you were posting opposition.
ReplyDeleteFound it...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1251868/Of-course-women-dont-want-male-pill--end-happy-little-accidents.html#ixzz0fufaUmIS
Ok, Kratch, you found one woman writing in the Daily Mail (not exactly a bastion of feminism) who doesn't like it. Is she a feminist?
ReplyDeleteAnd did you notice this in the article itself?
Or as Professor Richard Anderson of the University of Edinburgh says: ‘When we carried out surveys of women, they were enormously enthusiastic.
‘The single most common reason was that they wanted to share the responsibility for contraception.’
Meanwhile, here's a pretty smart discussion of some of the issues that have gotten in the way of an effective male contraceptive pill. It's on ... feministing:
http://community.feministing.com/2010/11/02/in-his-shorts-what-happened-to-male-birth-control/
David, I have no idea if she's a feminist or not, but it's irrelevant as I didn't say she was (I simply said I've read an article opposing the pill). I assume she is, being a writer in the "femail" section, but I can't claim she's a feminist. She is, however, opposition to the male pill, and may very well be a feminist. Also, I know she is just a single writer, plus her single editor, plus the other staff who have approved to keep it up. The point is that I have seen (weak) opposition to the male pill, opposition I am confident I have seen even here, as well as strong opposition to any other form of male reproductive rights, as evidenced by the very conversation the rest of us are having, despite your fixation on the pill alone. But do you understand what I mean when is say;
ReplyDelete"reproductive rights aren't limited to pre-conception birth control, and feminist do routinely oppose any form of male reproductive rights"
Do you deny that reproductive rights, such as the option to "opt out", are being opposed by feminists, when it is evident ON THIS VERY PAGE!!!? Are you seriously prepared to argue that feminists don't oppose male reproductive rights?
You seem to have picked up some idea about what I said that doesn't relate to what I've actually said. Starting with accusing me of being angry at feminists for not funding the pill. Let us look back and try to figure out where you went horribly wrong...
"That’s not feminists that have it in the works. Furthermore, it has been in the works since the early 90’s, always being promised “5 more years”… Except nobody is willing to fund the research."
This is likely where it started, but lets see where this response comes from;
Bridget said "Yes, feminists would love for there to be more bc options for men, in fact they have a contraception option in the works right now that is actually looking promising"
To which, I responded "that's not feminists." Feminists aren't the ones who have a male birth control in the works, as implied by Bridget. I was noting that error.
I then move on to question her use of "that is actually looking promising" by noting that it has been in the works (and just 5 years away)for decades, and that funding is difficult to get, at best.
You seem to have turned this into some kind of "blame feminists" tactic by me. And even after my stating openly feminism has nothing to do with it (the pill's delays), you still hold onto this like a pitbull. My problem is with feminist opposition to male reproductive rights, and yet again, that is not limited to pre-conception birth control. More specifically, it is the choice of when to become a father, or not, and the ability to be a father to a child, rather then a visitor. And both of these (male "opting out", which is usually what I refer to as reproductive rights, and shared parenting in divorce) are both efforts that have feminist opposition.
The Daily Mail loves finding women who are willing to sing swan songs to traditional female domesticity and submission. And that whole article is idiotic.
ReplyDeleteFeminists tend to be widely supportive of male contraceptive pills. I've been waiting for one for years, and I'll probably just give up and get vasectomized before the pills actually come out.
The fact of the matter is, most non-feminist men don't want to have to worry about birth control. They'd rather shove the responsibility, not to mention the side effects, off on women. It's only MRAs, with their paranoia about wily, sperm-stealing cupcakes, who are the exception. MRAs want more male contraceptive options because they don't trust said wily cupcakes to use theirs.
She is, however, opposition to the male pill, and may very well be a feminist.
ReplyDeleteBased on virtually everything she says in that column, I'm going to have to conclude that she is not even close to being a feminist.
kratch, my wording was vague there and I apologize. On a side note my name is spelled briget not bridget, please spell it right. Furthermore, I do support men being able to opt-out in terms of rights and responsibilities while the woman is still pregnant whoever, what I do not support is women being forced to:
ReplyDelete1) carry a pregnancy to term because the father didn't want her to have an abortion only to be told the day of the kids birth that he isn't going to support the child
or
2) have an abortion to make his life easier.
Far too many men feel like they have the right to do these things. They do not. That is what I and most feminists fight against, not the idea of men not being forced into being fathers when they don't want to
More specifically, it is the choice of when to become a father, or not, and the ability to be a father to a child, rather then a visitor. And both of these (male "opting out", which is usually what I refer to as reproductive rights, and shared parenting in divorce) are both efforts that have feminist opposition.
ReplyDeleteSo far, I've seen no evidence that feminists want men to have a lesser, rather than a greater, role in raising children, even in divorced families. Quite the contrary. Individual women may wish to prevent their ex-spouses from having a meaningful role in parenting (for either good or bad reasons), but I've never been aware of the feminist movement as a whole pushing the idea that fathers should be excluded from child rearing. I am aware of the quite pervasive attitude that women are always better, more important parents than men (especially with regard to young children), but this attitude is widespread and predates feminism. It is also, I believe, wrong. Indeed, it is often feminists who are the ones challenging this attitude; whereas traditional women (and men) are often the ones promoting it. The degree to which courts award custody based on this attitude suggests that traditional values die hard.
Briget summed up my view of the matter Kratch and I also think that you seem to assume that when I point out that I would rather support women's rights when I have to choose between the two that I hate equality or will fight against male reproductive rights.
ReplyDelete“The fact of the matter is, most non-feminist men don't want to have to worry about birth control. They'd rather shove the responsibility, not to mention the side effects, off on women. “
ReplyDeleteYou have any evidence to prove this, or do you just assume feminist males are more enlightened then everyone else? Pretty misandric to claim most non-feminist males have that opinion.
“my name is spelled briget not bridget, please spell it right.”
My apologies. I have a friend named bridget (my best friend finance in fact), so it is habit to spell it that way. I will make a concerted effort to correct that.
“what I do not support is women being forced to:
1) carry a pregnancy to term because the father didn't want her to have an abortion only to be told the day of the kids birth that he isn't going to support the child”
I virtually never see this come up as an MRA argument, other then to point out how unfair it would be to do to a woman, so why is it not only acceptable, but legally enforced to do to a man?
“2) have an abortion to make his life easier. “
I’ve never seen this suggested except by feminists who claim that is what MRA’s seek.
“Far too many men feel like they have the right to do these things.” rebut table
Can you support that assertion? I think some men (abusive men) feel they can do these things, but I know of very few instances where these kinds of arguments occur. What I do see most often is what you have actually agreed upon. What is described under “reproductive rights” under the men’s rights page at wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_rights#Reproductive_rights
And what you will find under virtually every result of a “male abortion” search on google. Your points 1 and 2 are not things men argue for, they are strawmen made by feminist opposition to make the men’s rights sound extreme and unreasonable. And you will see it very clearly if you are willing to, in any future debate on the subject (or even going back to past discussions).
"Individual women may wish to prevent their ex-spouses from having a meaningful role in parenting (for either good or bad reasons), but I've never been aware of the feminist movement as a whole pushing the idea that fathers should be excluded from child rearing."
NOW, the National Organization for Women, as well as the Woman's Bar Association, both actively oppose efforts to establish shared parenting as a rebuttable presumption in divorce... I repeat, a rebuttable presumption (this is an important part of the proposed bills. if you don't understand it, look it up before replying). NOW also have made active attempts to actually ban the term “parental alienation” from courtrooms, as well as efforts to deny it even happens, as well as opposes efforts for family court reform that would result in more court enforcement against custodial interference. Note that these problems are suffered by woman as well as men, so there should be no reason for NOW to oppose these, except that men suffer more, and therefore the solution is more beneficial to men (and children) due to their current lower rate of primary custody.
"What is described under “reproductive rights” under the men’s rights page at wikipedia
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_rights#Reproductive_rights "
Seems I missed the side mention of the claim "There are also those who consider it a father's reproductive right to veto the woman's option of abortion."
I examined the article sourced/cited for that quote, and the call for Veto is actually from Pro-lifers against abortion, not men's rights activists. it's actually a compromise for pro-lifers, saying that "an abortion should be stopped if ether party is against it, but can proceed if both parties agree". But overall, I (and pro-choice MRA's) disagree. Being the one to incur the pregnancy comes with the benefit of getting to keep the baby, even when the man absconds, while not allowing a man the same option, because otherwise would be unreasonable, but allowing a man to abscond would not impose an unfair will upon the woman, and should be allowed. IE, give as many equal rights as can be given without trampling the rights and health of the other party.
The problem with Kratch's scenario is that he wants men to have all rights and no responsibilities. If a fetus and child is solely the responsibility of a woman for all points after conception, why should she not have the right to deny any access if the child is born if he has the right to deny any responsibility? Why should a woman have to take all of the responsibilty but loose partial rights when the man wants them? If allowing one's body to be used to gestate a fetus automatically means sole and total responsibility, it should mean sole and total rights. Let me say this again, responsibilities are the flip side of rights.
ReplyDeleteYou are upset because you cannot get pregnant and hence cannot get an abortion? Well, suck it up and get over your womb envy. You don't have control over a fetus while it grows in another's uterus? Cry me a river.
Steve-as I thought, he insulted and refused to prove his claim.
ReplyDeleteHe did not however run away. I suppose that is something.
Briget and/or Elizabeth, if truly agree with what's been suggested, perhaps you can answer DarkSidecat's concerns?
ReplyDeleteWell, Kratch, your going to have to give me some kind of citation there, since I haven't been able to find anything via Google. A bill, an article from a reputable source...something. I need to know the context here, and I'm not an attorney. I'm not asking you to do research for me, just give me a place to look. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteBill A330 has apparently garnered an action alert from NOW New York in the not to distant past. As has HB 5267 from Michigan's NOW. However, NOW doesn't seem to keep archives of action alerts.
ReplyDeleteHere is an Article by NY NOW president Marcia Pappas
http://www.nownys.org/fathers_resp.html
Here is an article by Michigan's NOW president Gloria Woods
http://www.now.org/nnt/03-97/father.html
This books footnote (35) identifies NOW NY as one of the organizations that opposed shared parenting Legislation, according to Governor Carey.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=WrrsVQWYPb8C&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=National+Organization+for+Women+on+Shared+parenting&source=bl&ots=I48VYfOuiZ&sig=Nh3hUyCuczslfqFRSWsUELHrdQk&hl=en&ei=i-h2TbSTE4WNrQH3moHjCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
A search on the NOW website for shared parenting will lead to a link here
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/those-jointcustody-studies.html
These may all be a few years or more old, but I have not seen anything to make me believe they have changed their opinion on the matter.
If you are seriously asking me for evidance of NOW's opposition to Parental Alienation, then you haven't even tried. Here's a hint, you'll see their alienation opposition on the results for shared parenting search.
Thanks, Kratch. A brief review of what I've found so far--there's a lot of information there, obviously--suggests that the issue isn't quite as clear cut as you make it out to be.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to the efforts to institute a Rebuttable Presumption of Shared Parenting as the standard in divorce cases, there are reasonable arguments for and against. It is worth pointing out that this standard would replace the current standard in most jurisdictions, which is the Best Interests of the Child. There's a reasonable debate to be had over which is the best standard to apply in divorce cases, but to say that NOW's opposition to the presumption of shared parenting represents hostility to shared parenting by father's across the board is a bit disingenuous.
With regard to the use of the term Parental Alienation, I assume you are referring to the use of Parental Alienation Syndrome in court cases. PAS is not recognized as a bona fide mental disorder by the mental health profession, nor is it supported by substantial research; thus, it should not be granted that status in a legal proceeding. I believe it is still permissible in court cases to talk about parental alienation as a general concept, but not to elevate it to the status of a recognized mental disorder.
In sum, my general impression is that NOW has stood in opposition to pet policy initiatives of the Father's Rights Movement, for a variety of reasons, but to say that NOW and feminists generally are hostile to fathers' equal participation in parenting does not necessarily follow.
I thank you, however, for the links, and I will follow up on those as time allows.
The argument against shared parenting is only reasonable if you are willing to believe that all divorce involve an abusive man and a victimized woman (and child). If you acknowledge that not all men are abusive, in fact, most aren't, then arguing against shared parenting is simply blaming all men for the actions of a few, and punishing those men and their children for it.
ReplyDeleteBut what's most important is if you acknowledge that sometimes woman are abusive too. In this particular case, arguing against shared parenting is to argue that abusive women should be granted 100% control, and the power to hurt the fathers that contains, and the child gets little or no time with the father for him to notice any abusive markers. All this power for women to be abusive all so that a handful of men can't be (despite there being a built in clause in the shared parenting legislature to protect against that very thing).
"my general impression is that NOW has stood in opposition to pet policy initiatives of the Father's Rights Movement"
Shared parenting is a "pet project"? I was under the impression it was the EQUAL thing to do. To allow fathers access to the caretaker gender role, instead of being relegated to provider (and being denied protector for those that want it).
"but to say that NOW and feminists generally are hostile to fathers' equal participation in parenting does not necessarily follow."
You are welcome to provide me sources to show your case. I would be happy to see examples of actions feminists and feminist organizations have taken to improve fathers rights, or even suggestions to make shared parenting work (that don't completely overturn men's right to due process). Otherwise, I can only see feminists as being apathetic at best, and hostile at worst.
"if truly agree with what's been suggested, perhaps you can answer DarkSidecat's concerns?"
ReplyDeleteDidn't think so.
DarkSideCat. There is a distinct difference between rejecting something and denying it from others.
Under the current system, a woman has a choice to accept or reject parenthood, but she also has the ability to deny men the choice of rejecting parenthood, and only gives him the choice to accept it if she herself wants to allow him.
Under the suggested system, Women would still have the choice to accept or reject parenthood, but now she could not deny the man the choice to reject parenthood as well. A man still couldn't accept parenthood without her first accepting, largely because to allow that would be to allow men the ability to deny women the choice, and in the case where one getting the choice denies the other the opposite choice, being the one to carry the child should have it's privileges.
overall, however, your concerns have already been addressed. Just re-read the debate above.
All I can say is, the General better keep a close eye on his mason jars.
ReplyDeleteThis kind of paranoia reminds me of General Ripper on Dr. Strangelove. He kept worrying that the fluoride was added to our drinking supply to corrupt men's "precious bodily fluids".
ReplyDeleteOops, sorry, I am new to your blog so I didn't know you had already made a Dr. Strangelove reference.
ReplyDelete