«

»

Mar 10 2006

“Roe v. Wade For Men” My Ass

I’ve had it up to here with this deadbeat-dad-guy currently being promoted by some men’s rights group (poor, rightless men!) as a poster child for how to behave like a stupid white male 20-something jerk. I allude to this so-called “Roe v Wade for men” dealio, wherein the MRA group claims, apparently without grasping that there are over 387 fundamental differences between pregnancy and money, that since women can have abortions, men should be able to bag on child support.

This scenario would restore the natural order, which has been dangerously out of whack ever since Roe v. Wade gave women that extra little measure of human dignity, by returning the financial responsibility for child-rearing to anybody but the father. If the mother can’t pay and the kid ends up on food stamps, it’s no skin off the deadbeat’s nose; society owes him the right to boink anything that moves, and ought to foot the bill.

So all this is is a laughably whiny attempt at financial retribution against women who dare to flaunt their humanity by claiming personal autonomy. “What! Women claiming ownership of their own uteruses? We’d better sock it to those lying, entrapping cuntalinas where it really hurts: their fashionably tiny handbags!”

Speaking of lying, entrapping cuntalinas, Amanda observes with her usual clarity that the mythical Conniving Bitch character is central to this, and every other, deadbeat-dad-guy’s argument.* The Conniving Bitch is always trying to trick some poor feckless dude into coughing up his precious bodily fluids because lard knows if she can produce a son and heir she’ll be entitled to half the Quartermain fortune! Or, if she’s not a character in a soap opera, she’ll be set for life with that princely $500 a month in child support she’ll be lucky to ever see. And, because the only way to avoid this grievous inequity is to stop boinking women without condoms, the feckless dudes of America are obviously powerless to stop this juggernaut of bitchly evil.

Pedestrians on the Sidewalk of Average Intelligence, hie thee to the nearest underpass. It’s raining baloney.

*Because I have officially acquired chemo-brain, I seem to have written one of those poorly-structured sentences that inadvertently says something more or less antithetical to the intended point of the sentence. I’m too lazy to fix it, though. Sorry, Amanda!

217 comments

4 pings

  1. Betsy

    Assigning child support responsibilities to biological fathers is, in fact, a product of the patriarchy. Namely, it links a child’s financial and social status to the child’s paternity — and so is patriarchal by definition.

    A non-patriarchal system would support children without regard to their paternity.

    A non-patriarchal system would not award higher or lower child support depending on whether the bio father has a high or low income (thus linking the child’s status to that of the father, which is an arbitrary arrangement, although we are accustomed to it as the normative)

    There are a few societies left in the world that don’t do this — where, for example, a woman’s brother is responsible for the support of her children. This is arguably better than paternal child support, but not ideal, because clearly it still presupposes a system where men have acccess to financial resources and women don’t.

    Now, what I am looking for (maybe in my next lifetime?) is for women to control enough financial resources that women and children have what they need to survive without regard to their attachment to a high- or low-status male.

    Then the payoff for seeking high-status males will be a lot less, and women can focus on the things that make their lives truly satisfying and worth living.

    Until we enter that state of bliss, I guess enforcing paternal child support is what we have to aim at.

  2. annamaria

    The only good thing about this case is that it’s happening in Michigan. While my state might be rapidly succumbing to all kinds of ridiculous godbaggery, Attorney General Mike Cox (who may or may not still be considering a run for Governor) has spent his entire tenure in office going after deadbeat dads. And it’s been wildly popular in Michigan…well, with everyone who isn’t an MRA douchebag.

  3. Mandos

    Why even link a child’s status to the economic status of the mother, for that matter? Your suggestion would still end up with a world wherein women would be saddled with the childcare responsibilities. There’s a strong argument that even in an egalitarian society, there should be a mechanism for given men responsibility for children so that women aren’t assumed to be the Natural Parenting Unit, which is also, IIRC, a patriarchal claim.

    And as long as biological fathers retain an interest in their children, those children who manage to achieve paternal (or even avuncular!) support will have, under all situations, an advantage over those who don’t simply because there’s twice as many people to take care of them. Your proposal would end up with a world where men are wholly separated from childcare, which I think is the opposite direction in which to go.

    I agree that the community should bear a far greater responsibility for childcare. But your proposal sounds like a ham-handed attempt to create a gynocentric society that would probably backfire badly. There’s a reason why matrilocal societies still expect avuncular support. And I suspect that you wouldn’t be able to form an avuncular society, since you’d have to convince men in existing societies to abandon paternity claims.

  4. antiprincess

    Betsy said: There are a few societies left in the world that don’t do this — where, for example, a woman’s brother is responsible for the support of her children. This is arguably better than paternal child support, but not ideal, because clearly it still presupposes a system where men have acccess to financial resources and women don’t.

    it also presupposes that all women have brothers. I guess a child with seven aunties and no uncles would be SOL.

  5. Twisty

    Betsy in #1: I would hope that a post-patriarchal system would contain only people who acknowledge the hubris and folly in all human reproduction. But I get your point.

    My little niggle here is that if biological fathers skip out based on some kind of nutjob conniving bitch theory, the community is left holding the bag, which to me seems less fair than if the guy who couldn’t keep it in his pants is left holding the bag.

  6. Mandos

    Um, that was to Betsy.

    Also on the larger matter, there is precisely one important analogy between men and women in the matter of pregnancy: the fact that both, after birth, will be saddled with (usually welcome) financial burdens. In real life the burdens aren’t equal, so you can make a case against “choice for men”. But were the (financial) burdens equal, then your ability to make an argument against giving men limited choice in the financial domain would be a lot weaker, unless you also want to argue that women shouldn’t be able to have an abortion for financial reasons, which obviously you don’t. Since, for example, both men and women are equally likely to have prior children. But we have not yet reached financial equality, so it would probably be bad policy.

    Agreed that once again this is a by-product of our society’s limited community support for children’s well-being. One can blame that on the patriarchy, I guess.

  7. CafeSiren

    They don’t want us to have abortions. No, wait: now they want us to have abortions, or else!

    If anyone tries to pretend that this is all about turning women into virgins (no sex, no abortions) or whores (sex on male demand, with no inconvenient obligations for said man) — in other words, one of the two culturally acceptable roles in a patriarchy — then I invite them to pull their heads out of their asses. None of these is about protecting innocent little foeti. It’s about protecting men’s right not to have to think of women as human.

    ((head explodes))

  8. Mandos

    it also presupposes that all women have brothers. I guess a child with seven aunties and no uncles would be SOL.

    The child would have seven aunties though. In theory, in an avuncular society, all the mother’s siblings would help out, and so the difference would be minimal….unless all the aunties had a gazillion children, of course. Which once again highlights the problem with letting men off the hook in a matrilocal/matrilineal society.

  9. ginmar

    They’re controlling women so they don’t have to control themselves. I can’t think of any more monstrous demonstration of selfishness than that. “Oh, well, I don’t like condoms, I can always make the bitch have an abortoin. Or I can leave town.” They’re so damned lazy and selfish that abandoning women is for them nothing but birth control.

  10. Kelley

    Stupid whiny-ass piece of crap. He’s looking to place the burden of birth control squarely on the woman, meanwhile, he gets to go screw anything he wants without having to worry about any consequences. Bullshit! If he’s that worried about getting someone pregnant, he should have used birth control. If he really didn’t want to have a child, he should have used birth control. It’s really sad that these morons are trying to equate personal autonomy with a little cash.

    Now, I do recognize that this is the same argument that anti-choice people use against women who seek an abortion. My answer is that the two situations are not analogous. Birth control can, and does fail, even when both parties are careful. Once the deed is done, the choice belongs solely to the woman. However, if a man is adamant that he does not want children, he should insist on birth control, even if the woman claims she cannot get pregnant.

    So, this guy, a 25 year-old computer programmer, is claiming “fraud in the inducement”. Let’s assume, arguendo, that women really do try to trick men into getting them pregnant in order to force child support payments (as if!). Child support is based on the man’s income. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but a computer programmer is not going to make the money that say, an NFL player would, or a CEO. Why would a woman choose a computer programmer, whose likely isn’t making six or more figures annually, when she could choose to fraudulently induce a much wealthier man into her bed, and thus receive higher child support payments?

    (Apologies to the computer programmers out there; I don’t mean to denigrate your occupation. It’s just an example to highlight the idiocy of this moron’s claim).

    “Forcing” a man to pay child support is in no way equivalent to forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. It’s an idiotic argument. It likens the sexual act to a contract, and uses the aforementioned contractual defense of fraud in the inducement. It reduces sex and/or relationships to a business relationship.

    Fortunately, family law looks to the best interests of the child, so I’m hoping that any rational family court judge unfortunate enough to have this case assigned to her/his docket will see through this pathetic attempt to avoid resonsibility, and toss it out. At the very least, I hope the judge doubles the child support.

  11. Lorenzo

    Mandos,

    Why even link a child’s status to the economic status of the mother, for that matter? Your suggestion would still end up with a world wherein women would be saddled with the childcare responsibilities. There’s a strong argument that even in an egalitarian society, there should be a mechanism for given men responsibility for children so that women aren’t assumed to be the Natural Parenting Unit, which is also, IIRC, a patriarchal claim.

    There is a couple of ways I could respond to this:

    1) Women are already saddled with the childcare responsibilities and are the primary custodial parents in the overwhelming majority of cases anyway.

    2) Socializing the costs of social reproduction doesn’t necessarily entail socializing the responsibility if that fathers could still certainly be parents in their kids lives, what would be different is that the individual parents would not longer be responsible for a large share of the financial burden of social reproduction

    3) You are factually wrong. Fathers are not automatically given parenting responsibility as per #1. This case is about child support, which, last I checked, wasn’t parenting.

    And as long as biological fathers retain an interest in their children, those children who manage to achieve paternal (or even avuncular!) support will have, under all situations, an advantage over those who don’t simply because there’s twice as many people to take care of them. Your proposal would end up with a world where men are wholly separated from childcare, which I think is the opposite direction in which to go.

    Yeah, now they are just mostly seperated from childcare. Its amazing how you subtly equate dollars with parenting, but, sadly, a child-support check *already* doesn’t equal parenting.

    I agree that the community should bear a far greater responsibility for childcare. But your proposal sounds like a ham-handed attempt to create a gynocentric society that would probably backfire badly. There’s a reason why matrilocal societies still expect avuncular support. And I suspect that you wouldn’t be able to form an avuncular society, since you’d have to convince men in existing societies to abandon paternity claims.

    Well, of course not. The very backbone of patriarchy is controling social reproduction so that women, as a class, can be used by men to reproduce a society hostile to them. We already see that the limited amount of control over social reproduction women have taken back with BC and abortion cause hysteria on the part of patriachy, and for good reason. Without control of social reproduciton, patriachy is doomed.

  12. kelleybell

    Hey there Twisty and Twisty friends!

    Im just dropping in to call the troops to Arms, and here you are ranting on the abortion issue.

    Life is full of syncronicity, aint it?

    Anyway, here’s a link to a protest we had in Columbus, Ohio yesterday. I would be grateful to you all if you would pass the word and help rally the troops.

    Women Arise

    Thanks much,

    Joan of Arc

    (AKA: Kelley Bell)

  13. vmarinelli

    After reading this, I had to update my own entry (here) on the subject (which features a mug shot of the chief promulgator of this "Roe vs. Wade for Men," who was peddling his horseshit on CNN this morning – feel free to print image and use for target practice!) with a link to your post.

    Chemo or no, you consistently kick ass.  (To belabor the obvious.)

    Yours in struggle (& all that) – V.

    (Who fervently hopes that the wee bit of html here will neither befoul this, my first effort to post a comment on this blog, nor annoy its benevolent host.)

  14. txfeminist

    This is more of that “equality under the law” crap that I was arguing about with some jerk named Darren at Happy Feminist.

    He said, magnanimously, that he was willing to pay “pregnancy restitution” to a woman if she would refrain from an abortion so that he could then keep, and raise, the child himself.

    (and I’m so sure he wouldn’t file a child support claim against the mom in that case, right.)

    Then, in the next breath, he said he didn’t want to pay child support for his current, existing son: that he wanted to raise him, and that he would never pay child support to the mother.

    And we’re supposed to beleive, after hearing that, that he’s willing to pay a woman for a year of her life??(Whatever that’s worth)…..

    And that somehow this equals, in his twisted brain, “equality under the law”. Wow. Amazing.

    Paying a woman to be pregnant is not equality under the law. It’s indentured servitude.

    All I can get from this new twist in Father’s Rights Fuckwadery is what we already knew about them to begin with:
    They want total control of women.

    - Men get to decide if she will have an abortion or have a pregnancy
    - Men get to decide who will raise the resulting child, and
    - Men who don’t want the baby, and who don’t want to pay the imaginary “pregnancy restitution”, and who don’t want to pay for an abortion, can also not pay child support when said baby is born.

    Um, guys? You already have equality under the law. Here it is:

    If a woman has a baby, and doesn’t put you on the birth certificate and doesn’t name you (read: doesn’t want you around) you don’t have to pay child support and you don’t have to be a daddy!

    If she does “make you pay support”, as is her right to do if she feels it is necessary for the best interest of the child, you get to be a daddy and have a role in the life of the child you are supporting, just like mom!

    That’s equality under the law!

  15. ryan

    I don’t think legal paternity=patriarchy. It just acknowledges that there’s two parties involved – it’s a legal connection to the baby – not ownership or custody. Because the woman can’t step away from her responsibility (obviously) I think it’s a fine compromise to legally bind the man to the kid with money. It’s not putting him in a position of power – just denying him the privilege of walking away.

    heterosex is scary.

  16. teffie-phd

    In my perfect world, guys who don’t want to have children, or even risk the chance of having children shouldn’t fuck women.

    Because women do what they want with their bodies and that doesn’t have to involve the men she has sex with.

    I’ve told this to men many times and it is amazing to see their horror when they contemplate the idea that having sex with women doesn’t mean they get to control them. It bugs them so much that women (could) have more reproductive control options than them (ie have sex or not, use birth control or not, use Plan B or not, have abortion or stay pregnant, give child up for adoption or raise baby and demand child support). Of course a lot of those choices are pretty shaky–we all know who’s to blame.

    And I get to see that deep down most guys are so much part of the patriarchy that at least some part of them believes that controlling women is okay, especially for sex. Fuckers.

  17. Nymphalidae

    It would help if men had more birth control options than the condom. That way they couldn’t whine about evil tricksy women lying to them about the pill.

    Conservatives are so fucking eager to lecture pregnant women about responsiblity. Where are the conservatives who are so interested in personal responsibility on this issue? Not-so-strangely silent. Unfortunately, they aren’t at all interested in personal responsibility or children. They are interested in punishing sluts.

    I’m willing to bet that if/when abortion is made illegal in this country men will still want the “right” to abdicate responsibility.

  18. Luckynkl

    Phyllis Chesler did a 7 year study on child custody. After extensive research she found that in 83% of cases, fathers are awarded child custody. Contrary to patriarchal propaganda, only 17% of mothers are awarded custody when there is a custody dispute. If a mother happens to be one of the fortunate in those 17% of cases, the father can challenge the judge’s decision, in which case he has a 90% chance that the decision will be reversed and custody will be awarded to him. In fact, a Philadelphia lawyer informed me that she hasn’t seen a case yet in a which a father didn’t get custody. Abusive men are 9 x as likely to seek custody of children. So he can continue to control and abuse the mother. And chances are, he’ll get it.

    It is a big fat lie that mothers get custody and fathers have to pay child support. In the vast majority of cases, it is the opposite way around. If a father is paying child support and doesn’t have custody, then the overwhelmingly odds are that you are looking at a father who wasn’t interested in custody and couldn’t be bothered with going to court and disputing it. Keep this in mind when you when you listen to the hot air being blowing out of the asses of men’s rights’ groups. These are the men who weren’t interested in custody and couldn’t be bothered with going to court. They just wanted their cake and eat it too. They don’t want custody and they don’t want to pay either. When it comes to women, they just want to find them, feel them, fuck them, and forget them.

    In cases of kidnapping, Chesler couldn’t find a single case of a father being pursued or prosecuted. 80% of mothers who do the same thing, however, are hunted down like dogs by law enforcement and prosecuted.

    Chesler took actual transripts taken from the witch trials during 1692 and compared them to the trials and tribulations mothers face in the courtroom today. Almost word for word, they are one and the same. The same tactics and attacks that were used on women to find them guilty of witchcraft over 400 years ago are still being used on women today to prove them guilty of being unfit mothers.

  19. Mandos

    It would help if men had more birth control options than the condom. That way they couldn’t whine about evil tricksy women lying to them about the pill.

    Fortunately, there are actually increasingly clever male contraception alternatives in the works. So this might actually come to pass and this might come true.

    1) Women are already saddled with the childcare responsibilities and are the primary custodial parents in the overwhelming majority of cases anyway.

    I’m aware of the point that you are raising that childcare != $$$. However, I hope you’ll agree that $$$ is still pretty important in our society—as food may be in a subsistence or hunter-gatherer society. So if you have a choice between women receiving $$$ and women not $$$…

    In other words, my point is true regardless.

    Well, of course not. The very backbone of patriarchy is controling social reproduction so that women, as a class, can be used by men to reproduce a society hostile to them. We already see that the limited amount of control over social reproduction women have taken back with BC and abortion cause hysteria on the part of patriachy, and for good reason. Without control of social reproduciton, patriachy is doomed.

    So in other words, you are claiming that paternity claims, male inheritance, etc, are all essentially components of patriarchy, and a just society would necessarily be matrilineal, among other things. There are a lot of implications that unfold from that.

  20. terry

    The notion that men who do not want to have children should either use birth control or not have sex is, as we all know, the same argument that anti-choicers use regarding women. I don’t think that is the best argument to use against this whole ridiculous notion of a man’s right not to pay child support.

    Now I’m certainly no expert on Roe v Wade, but my understanding is that the court stated that the government has an increasing interest in protecting the rights of the fetus as it nears viability, and that the state could place some restrictions on abortion later in the pregnancy. (Roe experts – feel free to correct me if this is wrong.)

    Just as the court found that government could limit a woman’s reproductive right as the fetus nears viability, then surely the government has some right to limit a man’s “reproductive rights” (ugh!) once the child is born. The government requires these men to pay child support. It does not require them to visit or see their children, change dirty diapers, give the kids a bath, schlep them to music class, etc. It simply requires some measure of financial support. It seems pretty certain that in balancing the rights or interests of the two parties — the father and the child — (and yes, it is the child interest here, not the mother’s) that paying some measure of financial support strikes an appropriate balance.

    Oh, and to hell with these assholes!

  21. Lorenzo

    Mandos,

    So in other words, you are claiming that paternity claims, male inheritance, etc, are all essentially components of patriarchy, and a just society would necessarily be matrilineal, among other things. There are a lot of implications that unfold from that.

    No. It isn’t that paternity is inherently patriachal it is the socialy constructed dependence of women upon men for social reproduction that is patriachal. That isn’t to say that a just society would necessarily be matrilineal, etiher, however.

  22. R. Mildred

    The notion that men who do not want to have children should either use birth control or not have sex is, as we all know, the same argument that anti-choicers use regarding women.

    Actually it’s not, the abstinence only religion expects a inhuman level of arbitrary perfection from it’s followers and is hypocritical, and patriarchally biased all up the wazoo to boot, whereas on the other hand the “if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime” theory of child support obligations rests purely on the idea that a woman, because she has agency and opinions (well, us BAAAAD, unladylike women have opinions, often ones above our playstations, whatever that means) will have a good idea whether or not she will carry any unintended pregnancy to term or not before she actually gets pregnant.

    This means that, due to women having agency and opinions, men also gain the magical ability to discern whether or not coming inside any particular woman might lead to them getting stuck with child support through a magical sparkly power called: Pre-Coital Conversation.

    Now as a man has the ability to discern the full risks of the act of having sex, before he has sex, and chooses to have sex anyway, he basically consents to the pre-existing risks. This means that men do not have to forgo sex completly if they do not want to end up paying child support, they merely have to forgo sex with women who’ll make them pay child support if they get pregnant, much like how not-yet-convicted peadophile john derbyshire does not currently (to the best of my knowledge) fuck small boobyless children, using the amazing power of not sticking his cock inside them.

    on the other hand, if he says to a woman, before conception occurs, “See here honey, I want to have sex with you, but if having sex with you means that I might end up paying for a child I can’t handle taking care of, with a woman who I do not think is the woman I want to raise a child with, I must point out that I cannot morally consent to having sex, does this present us with a problem?” and she says “nope, now eat me, bitch” (or words to that effect) then she has waivered her right to ask him to pay for or to, in any other way, help take care of any resulting children.

    Of course as the men who whine loudest about this sort of stuff still ask “what do women want?” of each other on a regular basis, the idea of setting down a verbal contract before sex if it worries them so fucking much, or sucking it the fuck up and accepting responsibility for their actions, seems unlikely to occur to them.

    Because that would require actually talking to their “whores” in sentences that haven’t been preordained by whatever sleazoid written “dating system” book they’ve been reading this week, and that just won’t do.

  23. Mandos

    No. It isn’t that paternity is inherently patriachal it is the socialy constructed dependence of women upon men for social reproduction that is patriachal. That isn’t to say that a just society would necessarily be matrilineal, etiher, however.

    I’m not intelligent enough to discern the difference between “the socially constructed dependence of women upon men for social reproduction” and “paternity”. It seems to me that (DNA testing aside) it’s hard to ensure the latter without some (perhaps very mild) version of the former.

  24. Mandos

    on the other hand, if he says to a woman, before conception occurs, “See here honey, I want to have sex with you, but if having sex with you means that I might end up paying for a child I can’t handle taking care of, with a woman who I do not think is the woman I want to raise a child with, I must point out that I cannot morally consent to having sex, does this present us with a problem?” and she says “nope, now eat me, bitch” (or words to that effect) then she has waivered her right to ask him to pay for or to, in any other way, help take care of any resulting children.

    Is this true? I really mean that. I don’t know. Can a woman precoitally waive support obligations?

  25. Luckynkl

    Fortunately, there are actually increasingly clever male contraception alternatives in the works. So this might actually come to pass and this might come true.

    Actually Mandros, birth control for men has been around for decades. Men won’t use them. And if I was a woman, which I am, I sure as hell wouldn’t take any man’s word for it that he’s using birth control. Because a hard cock knows no conscience. It will say and do anything it has to in order to gain access to pussy.

    I’m aware of the point that you are raising that childcare != $$$. However, I hope you’ll agree that $$$ is still pretty important in our society—as food may be in a subsistence or hunter-gatherer society. So if you have a choice between women receiving $$$ and women not $$$…

    In other words, my point is true regardless.

    Actually Mandros, the animal kingdom gets along just fine without any money or bank accounts, as humans did for countless milleniums.

    What are $$ anyways? Dead guys drawn on the bark of trees whose value is based on shiny little rocks. Only men could think this was really, really important and had value. In short, the system is only as good as those who believe in it. So consider it nothing more than a religion.

    So in other words, you are claiming that paternity claims, male inheritance, etc, are all essentially components of patriarchy, and a just society would necessarily be matrilineal, among other things. There are a lot of implications that unfold from that.

    Of course it’s patriarchy. Men think they can own things. The air, the sea, the earth, and everyone and everything on it. Of course it’s nothing more than male fantasy. Men don’t own anything other than their own hairy dicks. But they continue to dream up fantasy laws in a fantasy system whose purpose is to give them power they’re not entitled to and take away and own that which doesn’t belong to them. And imprison and put to death anyone who won’t go along with their warped little fantasy. Again, consider it nothing more than a religion. It relies on a belief system.

    But I don’t believe in God, (who sounds suspiciously like Santa Claus — always checking his list and checking it twice and gonna find out who’s naughty or nice), I don’t believe in religion, I don’t believe in the Easter Bunny or the Toothfairy, and I don’t believe in men or their absurd little fantasy system.

    I’m not looking for equality, bud. That’s an insult. I wouldn’t lower myself to the level of a man. And as Audre Lorde put it, “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.” So reversing everything won’t solve a thing. Neither will working within the system. Because those are the master’s tools. And it’s still his house. IOWs, he made up the rules and the system. To favor HIM.

    What if we decided the system was based on how many human beings one could produce? For each baby one could have, they got water. Water has value now. Not money. Men would be shit out luck, now wouldn’t they? Cuz they can’t produce any babies. Well that’s in essence what patriarchy is all about, Mandros. What men value. Not what women value. And the system is stacked to benefit him. No matter how much “equality” is given to women within this system, it’s a system that never had her or anything she valued in mind.

    But you can’t imagine a world without patriarchy, can you, Mandros? You can’t imagine a world without money and bank accounts and hierarchies. You can’t imagine a world that doesn’t value what you’ve been taught to value. You can’t think outside the box. Like Pavlov’s dog, you just salivate at the ring of the bell.

    But the animal kingdom does it every day. Humans did it for milleniums. Until patriarchy arrived and said, “I call I own it!”

    All I can say is, look in the mirror, bud. That’s what you own. Nothing more, nothing less.

    I’m not interested in equality. Equality is for underachievers. I’m not interested in lowering myself to men’s standards. I want liberation. Liberation from men’s system, men’s rules, and men’s values.

  26. Kelley

    Nope, support obligations cannot legally be waived. The only time a biological parent can “opt-out” is if he or she voluntarily terminates parental rights, AND there is another adoptive parent waiting in the wings to adopt the child. For example, A and B conceive a child. If A decides to marry C, C wants to adopt the child,and B does not want to continue paying child support, only then would a court consider letting the biological parent out of paying child support. There is no opt-out provision. A court will always look to the best interests of the child.

  27. Mandos

    But the animal kingdom does it every day. Humans did it for milleniums. Until patriarchy arrived and said, “I call I own it!”

    You’re mistaken if you think that there are no territorial animals nor like compensatory strategies. There’s no currency, yes…but there are transactions. You seem to have an idealized view of “nature”.

    What if we decided the system was based on how many human beings one could produce? For each baby one could have, they got water. Water has value now. Not money. Men would be shit out luck, now wouldn’t they? Cuz they can’t produce any babies. Well that’s in essence what patriarchy is all about, Mandros. What men value. Not what women value. And the system is stacked to benefit him. No matter how much “equality” is given to women within this system, it’s a system that never had her or anything she valued in mind.

    You’re assuming that there are values that are essential to men and women that are also different, without justifying them. Maybe I’m taking you too literally.

  28. CafeSiren

    I just realized a serious error in my post, way above. When I wrote:

    “If anyone tries to pretend that this is all about turning women into virgins or whores…”

    What I meant to write:

    “If anyone tries to pretend that this is about ANYTHING BUT turning women into virgins or whores…”

    Not that anyone has called me on it. But I want to set the record straight, for my own satisfaction. Cut-and-paste is not always my friend.

  29. Sibyl

    I know women who claim to have tricked their significant others into impregnating them — claim it as a point of pride. You can see posters discussing the best way to do so on message boards for the “TTC” (trying to conceive) crowd — and the terminology here is impressive: they have to “plan an oops” because “hubby” won’t “babydance” with them unless they’re using protection. Flushing birth control pills, sticking pins into their wrapped condoms, saving used condoms and transferring the contents into themselves with turkey basters; there are all kinds of ways for women to get what they want.

    I’m pretty sure, however, that “what they want” is not child-support payments. They’re doing it because they think that having a baby will prevent their men from leaving them, or because they’ve been told all their lives that they will never be truly fulfilled without experiencing the joys of motherhood, or for some equally nonsensical reason — but I very much doubt that they would be so eager to conceive if they thought they would only get a monthly check for it. They want the father to stay with them, not run off and have his paycheck garnisheed. When the patriarchy has raised you to believe that Mommy Daddy Baby = Happiness, that’s what you’re going to aim for.

    It’s not fair to dismiss this guy’s claims outright. On the other hand, she might have thought she couldn’t get pregnant — a doctor might have told her as much, and she, having no reason to doubt him (probably a him), might not have asked for a second opinion. Regardless of the facts — and I’d like to hear from the mother, because she isn’t showing up at all here — I don’t think challenging the child-support system is the answer. Don’t they have enough trouble?

  30. emjay

    Lckynkl, the purpose of birth control for men (whose partners don’t have reason to trust them completely) would not be to prevent women from having to worry about it. The purpose would be so men could control whether they were likely to cause a pregnancy. Then both parties could take precautions to prevent pregnancy if they did not desire it, and the man could not blame the woman for an unplanned pregnancy if he didn’t use birth control. Actually, it’s pretty much the same deal now. If he doesn’t use a condom, what is he complaining about? I think I have a point here. If I donate eggs to an infertile friend, and I don’t like how she raises her child, I don’t have the right to say later that I want the child or I want a role in the child’s life. Once I give up my gametes, they become the property of whomever I gave them to. If you want control of what happens to your sperm, don’t give it away.

  31. amaz0n

    Terry:

    The notion that men who do not want to have children should either use birth control or not have sex is, as we all know, the same argument that anti-choicers use regarding women. I don’t think that is the best argument to use against this whole ridiculous notion of a man’s right not to pay child support.

    Yes, that is an argument the anti-choicers use. The twist, however, is that it is logically applicable to men who don’t want to pay child support but not to women who want abortions.

    All people have the right to, within the boundaries of their own bodies, use birth control. A woman is entitled to do whatever she pleases to her own body – whether that means taking BC, using a condom or having an abortion – to prevent a child from being born. If a child were to be born to a woman because she chose not to use birth control, or because birth control failed, she would have obligations to that child.* A man has the exact same rights (bodily autonomous birth control) and obligations (parental obligations to born children).

    The thing is, anti-choicers and these “men’s rights advocates” are trying to do the exact same thing: force the legal system to give men rights that women don’t have. In the case of the anti-choicers, they’re trying to deny women the right to control the natural processes of their bodies in order to prevent childbirth, a right that most are not attempting to deny men (the “most” excludes psychos who are trying to get rid of all birth control). In the case of the MRAs, they’re trying to give men the right to either control a woman’s bodily autonomy (by forcing them to/preventing them from aborting) or to void obligations that women can’t void (parental obligations).

    * Yes, I know that women’s “right” to give children up for adoption or abandon them at hospitals/firestations/etc. is supposedly not a right men have. However, this situations apply only when the father is not present or not fit. If there are two parent’s names on a birth certificate, women’s “right” to abandon or adopt out children without cooperation from the father no longer exist.

  32. txfeminist

    LuckyNkl,

    You are 100% right about custody situations and the way the cards fall . Fact is, moms who have custody have it for one of two reasons: Dad didn’t want it, or Dad “let” her have it. (or both) And that’s why more moms walk away from uncontested custody disputes with custody than from contested disputes. It’s very sad, but it’s true. Moms having any control at all over this is simply an illusion.

    So in a sense, all this discussion about child support is purely theoretical – as is, at this point, mens’ roe v wade.

    In fact, Fathers’ Rights groups teach men all sorts of clever ways to escape having to pay child support – such as fighting for custody. Or fighting for a 50/50 time split, in which case, most judges will waive support. That’s even become a law in Georgia , thanks to FRA lobbying.

    So what we’re talking about here really goes back to control. Not really about the nit picky details of what’s “fair” to some, “unfair” to others. Or what’s “equal”.

    I respect your point about liberation. Well said.

  33. Catharine

    If men were truly interested in the determination of where and when they became fathers, they would have invented a male birth control pill by now. The fact that they can’t stomach the inhibition of their precious, all-potent sperm without losing their erections is just so freakin’ typical.

    WEAR A GODDAMNED CONDOM!!!!

    ~C~

  34. mrs_enid

    amaz0n, you have made the most articulate, logical argument that I’ve heard on this issue. I appreciated reading your comment.

    I have no plans to have any kids. So I, feel that this issue doesn’t really apply to me personally. However, I’m a little unpleasantly surprised by how many folks in childfree online communities buy the men’s rights advocates arguments on this issue hook, line and sinker. Everyone knows sex can lead to babies. Maybe men get a little bit of a raw deal in that they can’t biologically terminate an unwanted pregnancy. However, women get a raw deal in a whole lot of other ways. Most of the deadbeat dads I’ve encountered aren’t downtrodden vitims who were dupe dinto supporting some greedy, lazy woman’s extravagant lifestyle. It is laughable that anyone who lives in the real world with their eyes open would even make that argument. People sitting around fretting about all of the poor, victimized men out there stuck paying child support is as silly as it is infuriating.

  35. Erin

    Mandos: “Can a woman precoitally waive support obligations?”

    Not in my state, at least, and I’m willing to bet not in most jurisdictions. The reason the woman can’t waive support obligations is that the father isn’t obligated to the woman, his obligation is to the child, and the mother isn’t entitled to waive those obligations on the child’s behalf. I assume (though IANAL) that the reason for this is that, in the absence of parental support, support often falls on the community-at-large, as represented by the state, in the form of subsidized insurance, school lunches, etc. When the state goes after deadbeat dads, it isn’t doing so on behalf of the woman, and occasionally it doesn’t seem to be on behalf of the child either. The state wants to recoup what it pays out. This is why parents whose life circumstances change (they lose a job, or have a health emergency) can be in trouble with the state for non-payment of support even when an agreement exists between both parents that support amounts will be temporarily reduced. It’s not common, but it is unfortunate that parents who are able to communicate amicably about support issues can get in trouble, given how rare amicable decision-making seems to be in many circumstances. I think I recall the blogosphere discussing one such case several months ago, though I can’t recall where I read of it to provide a cite.

  36. Sophist

    Actually Mandros, the animal kingdom gets along just fine without any money or bank accounts, as humans did for countless milleniums.

    Only if you consider “might makes right” to be “[getting] along just fine”. You’re right, animals don’t buy–they take. I fail to see how that is any better. As for humans, although paper money is a recent development, the trade of scarce or useful commodities has been going on as long as people have been people.

    What if we decided the system was based on how many human beings one could produce? For each baby one could have, they got water. Water has value now. Not money.

    Ok, so water has value now. What do you do when you want to trade your water? Do you carry it around in buckets? People will get tired of that fairly quickly. After all, water is heavy, and there is always the risk of spilling your valuable resource. You would probably just leave the water somewhere safe, and exchange it by contract. I agree to give you X quantity of food in exchange for Y volume of water, we draw up the contract, and then we gather our respective items and make an exchange. The thing is, providing a sound, secure storage area for you water is a bit of a burden, as is all that moving it around. It’s really more trouble than it’s worth. So people get together and pool(heh) their water in large storage facilities, and instead of physically transferring the water, they leave it where it is and simply keep track of who owns what on paper. Now when we make a contract, instead me giving you water, I transfer control of that amount of water in the community tank to you. But writing all those contracts sure is a bother, especially for small stuff. So the people in charge of looking after the community water issue little pre-written contracts for various volumes of water, one gallon, ten, a hundred, and fractions of a gallon for minor exchanges. Now when you want to buy something, you just hand over the right number of pre-written contracts.

    Hey, look at that! We’ve got banks and money again.

  37. Sophist

    Oh, and as for the would-be “John Roe,” he’s right–it isn’t fair. It’s also not fair that some people have the metabolism of a hummingbird on speed and I need to bust ass to maintain a healthy weight.

    Biology isn’t fair. Deal with it.

  38. derekeddy

    It is easy to pass judgement until you are in the situation. I agree that a man should have a choice. Take my situation. My husband dated a girl for a short time and found out she was married so he stopped seeing her. 4 years later and two months before our wedding, we got papers in the mail demanding he pay child support. Apparently, she went back to Colorado – had a baby and my husband knew nothing of it. However, her husband knew the child wasn’t his and refused to pay child support upon their divorce – so she came after us and won. You want to talk about a disruption in your life. The part of not being fair is not giving the father a choice. How would you like to find out you have a 4 year old roaming around that you weren’t even asked to take part in his life – now you are just asked to pay for it. You can’t call this guy selfish if he and the ex-girlfriend had talked about children. I believe she is selfish in getting pregnant when she lied to him and said it wasn’t possible. We pay our child support every month like we are supposed to – but I will say that we aren’t happy about it. Mostly because the mother of my husbands child has 3 kids with 3 different daddy’s, doesn’t work and lives off of child support and state funding. Tell me that is fair for women to do. It would be nice if all Americans were responsible and would do the right thing in waiting to have kids, etc. but it doesn’t work that way. Unfortunately, women definitly have more rights and know how to beat the system. I fully support what this guy is doing, men should have a choice somewhere in there and I hope he wins.

  39. BetaCandy

    Sibyl,

    I know women who claim to have tricked their significant others into impregnating them — claim it as a point of pride. You can see posters discussing the best way to do so on message boards for the “TTC” (trying to conceive) crowd — and the terminology here is impressive: they have to “plan an oops” because “hubby” won’t “babydance” with them unless they’re using protection. Flushing birth control pills, sticking pins into their wrapped condoms, saving used condoms and transferring the contents into themselves with turkey basters; there are all kinds of ways for women to get what they want.

    When I was young, I knew a woman whose husband kept stealing her birth control pills and raping her because she was on her way to becoming a fairly successful country singer, and he wanted her to stay home and raise his babies. Which is neither here nor there with the point you’re making, really: I just think of this incident every time someone brings up the scenario of women tampering with their own BC, because I seriously doubt this incident was unique.

    It’s not fair to dismiss this guy’s claims outright. On the other hand, she might have thought she couldn’t get pregnant — a doctor might have told her as much, and she, having no reason to doubt him (probably a him), might not have asked for a second opinion.

    Actually, the medical industry is still learning so much. I was told in the late 80′s by two OB-GYNs that I would never get pregnant without fertility drugs, if then. I only knew they were wrong because my mother had the same condition, worse than I had it, yet here I am. NOW most doctors have learned from new research that women with my condition usually can get pregnant. So it’s very possible this woman AND her doctor(s) sincerely believed she was infertile.

    But my doctors did tell me that technically, if you have your ovaries and uterus, there’s always a chance in hell, and advised me to use birth control as carefully as anyone else. If she didn’t get that advice, then her doctor(s) was remiss.

    And even if she lied flat out to the father of the child, she didn’t force him into sex of any sort, and more particularly unprotected sex. That he put his sensory pleasure ahead of his desire not to be a father… well, I’m just getting the feeling he didn’t really object to causing a pregnancy until he got a look at what he was going to be expected to pay for support.

  40. antelope

    There are plenty of times on this blog that one or another of us has said that some guy is within his legal rights, but still an asshole. So maybe this woman is also an asshole, and lied for any number of reasons. Totally possible, but so what? If a woman tried to sue some guy for claiming that he’d had a vasectomy when he really hadn’t, she would become a nationwide laughingstock, and NOBODY would be trying to defend her right to believe what she was told.

  41. Luckynkl

    Excuse the pun, Sophist, but your argument holds no water. Because what I was giving value went completely over your head. It’s not the water that was given value, silly. The water is neither here nor there. What was given value was ability to produce life. And how this could then be used to stack all the cards in women’s favor to hoard resources. Just as patriarchy has done. I was giving an example of patriarchy, silly. And merely flipped the coin to show why there could be no equality in such a system. So of course you were able to arrive at the conclusion you did . Because it’s the very patriarchal system you so know and love!

    Only if you consider “might makes right” to be “[getting] along just fine”. You’re right, animals don’t buy–they take. I fail to see how that is any better. As for humans, although paper money is a recent development, the trade of scarce or useful commodities has been going on as long as people have been people.

    You’re of course wrong. On every point you make. But I do find your comments interesting. What animals were you thinking of? I’ll bet the farm you were thinking of predators. Interesting that you should compare man to a predator. That tells me a lot about you.

    I, however, had the bonobo in mind. Our nearest living relative. Humans and bonobos share 98.4% of the same DNA. They live in a matriarchal society. Forget that macho “might makes right” horseshit. Bonobos are sensitive, affectionate, peace-loving and cooperative. And *gasp* they have no money, plastic, bank accounts or commerce and survive just fine! Which totally blows your theory all to hell. Especially considering they are our nearest living relative.

    But I do find it interesting how far out on a limb you will go to support your beloved patriarchy and act as if it’s “natural.” **chuckle** Nothing could be further from the truth.

    What I also find interesting, is how many people here act as tho reproduction is a 50/50 proposition. Only a man would consider that his 5 seconds of involvement was equal to all a woman goes through to reproduce. Men couldn’t possibly be overvaluing themselves, could they? lol.

    When a man is able to pull a baby out of his ass, then he can claim it is 50/50 and have equal say-so. Until then, have a seat boys. You get what you put into it. 5 seconds of say-so.

    Slavery was abolished in 1865 and it is illegal to buy human beings. Stop trying to put a monetary value on a child. You don’t get to buy them.

    As for thinking that courts have the best interest of the child in mind, go sell that swampland elsewhere. We live under patriarchy, silly. So what courts have the best interest of is the interest of the fathers. Who of course are the ones who created the damn system in the first place. For THEIR benefit.

    And while we’re at it, let’s set the record straight on welfare. At the turn of the 20th century, women often worked long grueling hours to make a few pennies. And had to put their children into nurseries to do it. Children weren’t cared for properly and were dying in alarming numbers. Especially when the flu epidemic hit. The patriarchs freaked out. And finally recognized just what mothers do and gave motherhood value. And so they offered to pay mothers if they would stay home with their children. IOWs, motherhood was recognized as a job and given monetary worth.

    Welfare became negative because men despise anything women do. They feel entitled to free labor and services from women.

    So the next time someone goes off about welfare, recognize what they are saying. That what mothers do has no value or worth. They feel entitled to the free labor and services of women. Even tho these women are providing the patriarchy with its greatest resource. Children. We have a word for people who toil without pay. They’re called “slaves.” We also have a word for people who feel entitled to the free labor and services of others. They’re called “slave owners.”

  42. Sara

    Twisty, for somebody with “chemo brain,” you do all right. You do all right for someone without chemo brain.

    I love the image of “raining baloney.” Love it.

  43. hedonistic

    This guy is from the UK, yes? Whew. If he were from the US, given todays trend, he might just win his case (wipes sweat from brow).

    Meanwhile I’m flipping the hell out over news about my birth control pills:

    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=35663

    Bottom line: Pumping your body up with synthetic hormones may cause long-term, possibly permanent (?) damage to your sex drive.

    FUCK. Back to bugging my obgyn for a tubal. That I actually have to get PAST the fertility gatekeepers for “permission” to go ahead with the operation (I’ve approached the System TWICE in the last 7 years) just blows my MIND.

  44. amaz0n

    It is easy to pass judgement until you are in the situation. I agree that a man should have a choice. Take my situation. My husband dated a girl for a short time and found out she was married so he stopped seeing her. 4 years later and two months before our wedding, we got papers in the mail demanding he pay child support. Apparently, she went back to Colorado – had a baby and my husband knew nothing of it. However, her husband knew the child wasn’t his and refused to pay child support upon their divorce – so she came after us and won. You want to talk about a disruption in your life. The part of not being fair is not giving the father a choice.

    I’m sorry, but your husband did have a choice. Did he choose to have sex? Did he choose not to use his own birth control? Did he choose to cut off contact with the woman after having sex with her, thereby putting himself in a situation to not know that he had a child until long after it was born?

    How would you like to find out you have a 4 year old roaming around that you weren’t even asked to take part in his life – now you are just asked to pay for it.

    A child is not an ‘it,’ and he or she has needs, irregardless of the circumstances surrounding his or her birth.

    You can’t call this guy selfish if he and the ex-girlfriend had talked about children. I believe she is selfish in getting pregnant when she lied to him and said it wasn’t possible.

    Have you bothered to read this thread at all? Because as it was pointed out, it’s quite likely that the woman did think she couldn’t have children, and that the doctor who told her as much was simply wrong. Not to mention the fact that the man still put the responsibility for birth control or lack thereof on the woman, instead of choosing to take responsibility for his own desire not to have children by using birth control himself.

    Unfortunately, women definitly have more rights and know how to beat the system.

    Wrong. See post #13 for more information.

  45. Betsy

    Erin — you said “the reason woman can’t waive support obligations is that the father isn’t obligated to the woman, his obligation is to the child, and the mother isn’t entitled to waive those obligations on the child’s behalf. I assume (though IANAL) that the reason for this is that, in the absence of parental support, support often falls on the community-at-large, as represented by the state,”

    IAAL and that is basically correct.

    “This is why parents whose life circumstances change (they lose a job, or have a health emergency) can be in trouble with the state for non-payment of support even when an agreement exists between both parents that support amounts will be temporarily reduced”

    This, OTOH, is not generally so; a person can’t be held in contempt of court for failure to pay a judgment or child support payments if they are unable to make their payments. Now, the determination of that inability can be the rub; when people are unable to pay, they also tend to have a reduced ability to go to a court and prove that they’re unable to pay …

  46. Mandos

    I, however, had the bonobo in mind. Our nearest living relative. Humans and bonobos share 98.4% of the same DNA. They live in a matriarchal society. Forget that macho “might makes right” horseshit. Bonobos are sensitive, affectionate, peace-loving and cooperative. And *gasp* they have no money, plastic, bank accounts or commerce and survive just fine! Which totally blows your theory all to hell. Especially considering they are our nearest living relative.

    (emphasis mine)

    The reason why they have none of these things is because they can’t conceive of these things and that’s because they have no way to talk about them. This I call the Utopian Fallacy From The Nice Animal, or UFFTNA. Actually, all analogies with animals that are supposed to be instructive for humans are deeply flawed. Aesop used animals because he was afraid to talk about humans, partly.

    The reason why UFFTNA is problematic is that—aside from the fact that no two animal species can really be models for one another—utopias are easily disrupted. As soon as a single person decides that s/he wants a free ride, the very idea immediately poisons the utopia. As soon as a single person decides that s/he likes the predatory mode, the better (flawed) analogy is chimp, not bonobo. We can get cooperative, utopian animals because the range of expression for new thoughts is extremely limited. If we want utopia in humans, we have to establish dissipatory systems for thoughts that threaten the utopia. There’s no liberation without a price of some kind. Banks and money are merely one way of formalizing this insight and making it convenient for those positioned to take advantage of it.

    As soon as, say, humans become aware of male biological heredity, which they did a long long time ago, someone (male) is likely to think that they want to know their offspring, for whatever reason—and there could be many. As soon as they want to know their offspring, there’s the possibility of forming systems to control sexuality. Does patriarchy immediately follow? I guess if the control system is strictly on male sexuality, maybe not. But then there’s still the problem of free-riders…

    (And it doesn’t even require “social” awareness as there are animals who equivalent behaviours, but it’s possible that in humans it is a purely social event…)

  47. Pony

    Hedonistic

    I hunted this down for you because a then 28 year old friend had her tubes tied and went into menopause shortly after. If I were you I’d do some research.

    Sorry we don’t have better options.

    http://www.earlymenopause.com/causes.htm
    “…some women experience premature menopause after tubal ligation (getting your “tubes tied” as it’s commonly called). Again, this is a result of the surgery interfering with blood flow to the ovaries — which ends up causing eventual ovarian failure.”

    http://www.wdxcyber.com/nbleed9.htm

    “Many studies in the literature have looked at this problem and they can be lined up on both sides of the question. Doctors have seemed to focus on the studies that show no difference after tubal ligation and some women’s groups, e.g., Vasectomy-Tubal Coalition and have felt this is a biased literature evaluation and that adverse effects are being ignored or hidden from women to make informed choices. With that in mind, and a recent message board question about menopause occurring after a surgery for diagnosis, I thought it would be helpful to review as many abstracts as I could find on Medline addressing this subject. This review has helped answer the following questions:”

  48. Pony

    Hedonistic

    Just in case you missed this link within one of the paras:

    http://members.tripod.com/~sterilization_rights/

  49. Nymphalidae

    Anybody who thinks that living in non-human primate society is a walk in the park doesn’t know anything about primate behavior. Primates are often extremely violent.

  50. amaz0n

    Furthermore,

    Mostly because the mother of my husbands child has 3 kids with 3 different daddy’s, doesn’t work and lives off of child support and state funding. Tell me that is fair for women to do.

    It is absolutely fair for any woman who has three children and no spouse to help out to choose to stay home with her children and provide them with primary care, and to expect therefore that the father(s) of those children will fulfill their parental obligation financially. I’m curious what you think that this woman’s other options are, if none of the fathers choose to pursue custody (and therefore a share of the primary care responsibilities). Should she put her three children in daycare in order to get a job, which quite possibly will not cover the cost of the daycare, much less additional expenses? Should she have some way to legally force primary care responsibilities onto the unwilling fathers of her children? Should she simply let the children starve to death, because she and an equally responsible man had a kid but the man wasn’t willing to provide for the child afterwards?

    Do you think that your husband’s child support payment gets up on two legs and changes diapers, cooks meals, cleans the house, sends the kids off to school, reads a child a bedtime story, or tells a child “good job” when they got an “A” on a test? And if not, do you think that children do these things for themselves?

  51. Summer

    Luckynkl:

    I’ve really enjoyed the information you’ve brought into this conversation. That said, I have a nit to pick:

    This may be too tangential to matter much to anyone, but when you wrote “Because a hard cock knows no conscience. It will say and do anything it has to in order to gain access to pussy.” I nearly jumped out of my seat. Doesn’t intelligent, informed debate demand that we *not* reduce human beings to their genitalia? And does it not also demand that we dismiss the patently patriarchal assumption of heterosexuality?

    When it’s the shitbag, fuckbag, godbags doing the fetishizing, I sure as hell don’t appreciate being reduced to the sum total of my reproductive organs. And again, not that it matters, but it hardly seems reformative or even progressive to suggest men are all simply giant, pussy-seeking cocks.

    Or did I misunderstand your intent?

    (I hope I did.)

  52. amaz0n

    Wrong. See post #13 for more information.

    Ooopps! That should have been post #18, by Luckynkl.

  53. Mandos

    luckynkl generally speaks in expansive, sweeping generalizations because she thinks it clarifies her point rather than obfuscates it. Among other interesting rhetorical habits.

  54. Pony

    Mandos

    Here’s a male physician answering a woman about HIV risk after she had unprotected intercourse with a man whom she later found was positive.

    “How do you know when a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving.

    {snip HIV test explanation}

    “And by the way: that observation about lawyers applies with
    astonishing frequency also to men who are trying to get you in the
    sack. Surely your mommy told you this? “

  55. Mandos

    Amusing joke but…?

  56. Pony

    Seems self explanatory to me.

    1. Guys will say anything to get women into the sack. (ref. Luckynkl)

    2. It’s her fault if she’s now HIV positive (or, pregnant?) because she believed him.

    3. It’s also her mommy’s fault.

    Is there never any end to this?

  57. Mandos

    Are you saying that the joke is more than a stereotype but an inescapable reflection of necessary human life?

  58. Sophist

    Excuse the pun, Sophist, but your argument holds no water. Because what I was giving value went completely over your head. It’s not the water that was given value, silly. The water is neither here nor there. What was given value was ability to produce life. And how this could then be used to stack all the cards in women’s favor to hoard resources.

    And my point is that by focusing on banks and money and credit cards and men’s love of shinny rocks you’re making the wrong argument. Money isn’t the result of what men value, it’s part of a more-or-less inevitable progression towards fungibility.

    If you’re going to make the argument that what is considered to have value in our society was explicitly set up to benefit men at the expense of women, then make it, instead of getting bogged down in snark about how only a man would value a piece of paper.

    What animals were you thinking of? I’ll bet the farm you were thinking of predators. Interesting that you should compare man to a predator. That tells me a lot about you.

    Actually, I was thinking about pretty much all animals. Competition between two herbivores for limited resources is no less deadly than that between predator and prey. When one species come along and pushes another out of it’s habitat, that species ends up just as dead as one that was hunted to extinction.

    I, however, had the bonobo in mind. Our nearest living relative. Humans and bonobos share 98.4% of the same DNA. They live in a matriarchal society.

    Oh. So when you said “the animal kingdom gets along just fine,” what you really meant was that a tiny fraction of a percent of the animal kingdom gets along just fine.

    By the by, the only reason they can maintain that idyllic, egalitarian lifestyle is that they are geographically isolated form the much more violent chimpanzee.

    Forget that macho “might makes right” horseshit.

    Despite the fact that it’s 99.99999% of how nature works?

    And *gasp* they have no money, plastic, bank accounts or commerce and survive just fine!

    Yeah? What’s the infant mortality rate among bonobos? What happens to bonobos born with birth defects? Genetic disorders? How many die of diseases that could be cured with a dollar’s worth of antibiotics? How long does the average bonobo live? How much longer could they live if they had developed the concept of medicine?

    If your definition of “[surviving] just fine” is that the species still exists then you might be right. Personally, I want more than that.

    Oh, and you’re wrong about the “no commerce” part. They will exchange sexual favors for food.

    But I do find it interesting how far out on a limb you will go to support your beloved patriarchy and act as if it’s “natural.” **chuckle** Nothing could be further from the truth.

    You’re the one singing the praises of “nature” here, not me. Whether or not patriarchy is “natural” or not matters not one whit to me. Getting eaten by a tiger is also natural. That doesn’t mean I’m in favor of people being eaten by tigers.

    “Nature” holds no special moral force for me.

  59. Sibyl

    Mandos:

    Thank you, THANK YOU for pointing this out. Perpetuating the myth of men as brainless, sex-crazed cock-zombies only serves to further absolve them of responsibility for their actions; it’s “boys will be boys” writ large, a self-fulfilling prophecy that ensures men will continue to behave badly and then claim they can’t help it.

    I know many men who believe that they seriously, literally have no control over their actions once their sex drives are engaged. This is not a good thing to believe. We can’t afford to let men off the hook, even in jest — no, especially in jest, because this is serious shit and it has consequences.

    I do think, however, that Pony was not describing an inescapable condition of human life but rather lamenting the continued wrong-headedness that leads people to believe it’s a woman’s fault if she trusts a man and he lies — the wrongheadedness which makes such a joke possible.

  60. Kate

    # 14 “Then, in the next breath, he said he didn’t want to pay child support for his current, existing son: that he wanted to raise him, and that he would never pay child support to the mother.”

    I hear this consistently among men who have children from previous marriages/relationships of whatever kind. whether ten days or ten years. It speaks clearly of the patriarchal notion that women and children are property owned and under their control and responsibility while they still have fucking rights. Once the woman becomes unavailable, then his ownership ends and thus his responsibility and connection.

    The fact that children are thrown into this exchange game repeatedly illustrates that in the patriarchy, children are nothing more than an appendage of women, and/or a right to claim exclusive access to that woman. Once access is denied, everything connected to that women is denied, including the children.

    The discussion here focuses mostly on the premise of the ‘trapped’ man. Fact is that most men don’t fall under that premise. Most often they will attempt to get a woman to marry them, because frankly, that guarantees them love, care and maintenance for free for life. What could be better? What I find most interesting, again, is that these same men will, when the relationship ends, use the ‘trapped’ argument’s premises and oftentimes win in court. And also repeatedly gain a sympathetic audience.

    That is, they make the claim that since the relationship has ended (albeit, the pussy ain’t open for them), then they are due a suitable replacement prize to compensate. To share the care and cost of raising the children they spawned is not justified in and of itself.

    They want compensation, they want something back for the cash they give out. If they can’t get pussy, they want the kids. The kids are nothing but trophies, prizes won in compensation for something else lost. Of course this usually occurs in two instances 1) Punishment 2) To assert dominance/control of the dispute.

    Therefore, it only follows that men who never claimed or wanted to claim ownership of the woman’s body, feel righteous anger when she comes back and says he must pay for what came popping out after he screwed her. He doesn’t own or want her, why should he claim the kids?

    Women regularly have children without marriage and choose not to pursue the man for child support and often times will even choose not to have the man involved in the child’s life at all. Some even go so far as to never even notify the man of the child’s existance, for a variety of reasons, thus foregoing support altogether. These women are playing along the patriarchy lines by accepting full responsibility and the men who spawn these children and most often more than happy to stay out of the way. This is why the Welfare Deform Act mandates paternity testing; because many women don’t want to deal with a custody battle/abuse or other negative consequences.

    #25 Lucky says: “I’m not looking for equality, bud. That’s an insult. I wouldn’t lower myself to the level of a man. And as Audre Lorde put it, “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.” So reversing everything won’t solve a thing. Neither will working within the system. Because those are the master’s tools. And it’s still his house. IOWs, he made up the rules and the system. To favor HIM.”

    You haven’t yet clarified what proposal you have to alleviate the plight of children raised in poverty, that could be applied, say, within the next ten years; that is within the patriarchy we all know we aren’t going to change today. I like deconstruction too, but I also live in the real world and personally have had to raise three children alone in this godbag, patriarchy. I am not sure that my children could live off philosophy alone.

    In the patriarchy a woman has no agency at all, never. The agency lies with the man and the man alone. The Men’s Rights groups are all in a tissie because women are asserting agency and they damn well don’t like it. The only tools available now are the patriarchy’s tools and to gain control, you have to take away the gun or point it the other way. Deconstruction starts with gaining control of the existing tools and going from there.

    #38 Derekkeddy: “My husband dated a girl for a short time…. Apparently, she went back to Colorado – had a baby and my husband knew nothing of it. However, her husband knew the child wasn’t his and refused to pay child support upon their divorce – so she came after us and won.”

    Of course she won because the child was conceived with his sperm. He had a choice to believe her claims and take his chances or put on a cap, but he gambled and lost. So did she. Maybe they both could sue the physician and get him to pay some too? I don’t think so as both had the ability to use birth control and didn’t. She has to care for the child, ponying up the cash to assist is the least he should do, whether you like it or not is not really the issue.

    “Mostly because the mother of my husbands child has 3 kids with 3 different daddy’s, doesn’t work and lives off of child support and state funding. Tell me that is fair for women to do.”

    So that woman is really a slut and she doesn’t deserve anyone’s support is that what is said here?

    Does this thinking not align beautifully within patriarchal parameters of dismissing entirely the women’s experience?

    You have absolutely no idea why this woman has three kids, or why she has a history of failed relationships and you insinuate that her having three children somehow reduces the import of your husband’s obligation. Dismissing her experience entirely sure serves the patriarchy well. Give yourself a star for being a good soldier in the war against women.

    Your underlying message is that she’s a whore three times over. She’s used goods. In other words, be careful about devaluations made by a man who has an agenda to meet. If we assume what is said about her is true anyway, how does that reduce the husband’s obligation one wit? It doesn’t in reality, but in the patriarchy it does because she has no value.

    So here we are again to another example of how woman are nothing more than another commodity that has only the value placed by its owners and since the nearest thing to virginity increases value, then the farther from virginity a woman gets, the less value she has.

    She has no value because she is no longer of use to him, thus since she is no longer of use to him, what does the child mean to him? Why should he pay for something that gives him no gain? In other words, men have a right to expect that they should receive direct and immediate reward for their expenditures; an exchange should take place. Rearing children in the godbag patriarchy, has no value or reward, therefore paying for something that you no longer receive reward from (social status, sexual gratification), makes no sense in the patriarchy. So men regularly have no problem not paying, women regularly have no problem not asking and the patriarchy hums along beautifully.

    It all begs the question of how we rise above our most innate functions. So many men dream of and deeply yearn for the virgin who offers the best guarantee of making his sperm into a full fledged healthy human. Hence, the farther from the virginal ideal a woman becomes, the less value she has. Obviously many men rise above this constriction using their intelligence to overcome what seems to be a functioning as deeply encoded as the will to live.

    Patriarchy is primitive and it doesn’t work well when the participants have higher brain function than chimps. Too bad so many don’t seem to though.

    So, in conclusion, in the interest of deconstructing the patriarchy, we must first ensure that the majority of the succeeding generations are healthy and have the ability to function cognitively on a level higher than just average. Therefore, for the immediate, those who wish to move this deconstruction must first and foremost push hard for as many children as possible having as high a standard of living as possible. This will indeed require working with the tools of the patriarchy.

    I have no problem in starting a revolution by raiding the enemies war chest.

  61. amaz0n

    Last post in this thread, I swear!

    I’d like to provide this post with a manual trackback from my very first blog entry. It’s a manual trackback because I can’t figure out how to make it happen automatically.

    http://disgruntledamazon.blogspot.com/2006/03/dear-men-who-forgo-birth-control-but.html

  62. Luckynkl

    Luckynkl generally speaks in expansive, sweeping generalizations because she thinks it clarifies her point rather than obfuscates it. Among other interesting rhetorical habits.

    Sweeping generalizations? Oh, you mean like how white men enslaved an entire group of people and denied them human status just cuz they were black? Or like how white men rounded up entire group of people and stuck them on reservations and denied them human status just cuz they were native american? Or like how white men rounded up an entire group of people and put them in death camps and denied them human status just because they were Jews? Or like how men denied women human status by denying them the right to vote, education, the right to inherit or own property, a right to a bank account or a wage or even autonomy over their own bodies just cuz they were women? Are those the kind of expansive, sweeping generalizations you’re talking about that go clear over your head and you claim are confusing to your little boy brain?

    So what game would you like to play now, white boy? That we’re all individuals? ROFL. Ok, I see. White men want to be seen as individuals. With human status of course. While they deny everyone else human status because of their sex, race, color, ethnicity, class, nationality, religion or sexuality, among other expansive, sweeping generalizations.

    I do believe you speak with forked tongue, white boy.

  63. Pony

    What she said.

    But add age. Particularly if you are an old woman, add age in the list of the dispossessed.

    Luckynkl you are worth gold.

  64. Summer

    Luckynkl, that was me, Summer–a woman, thanks–who brought it up (in comment 51) in the first place. And my question stands: did I misunderstand your intent?

    Is this a case of sweeping generalizations for everyone (good for the goose, good for the gander)? Or was there a point–a point I clearly missed–to your reductive men-as-pussy-seeking-cocks approach?

  65. Luckynkl

    First off, hat’s off to you, Kate for comment # 60. Touche. Nail. Hammer. Bang.

    You haven’t yet clarified what proposal you have to alleviate the plight of children raised in poverty, that could be applied, say, within the next ten years; that is within the patriarchy we all know we aren’t going to change today. I like deconstruction too, but I also live in the real world and personally have had to raise three children alone in this godbag, patriarchy. I am not sure that my children could live off philosophy alone.

    Off the top of my head, I can offer up what I think are some viable solutions. Are you game to hear it?

    One of our biggest problems is that men have been successful in isolating women from each other. And that is maybe one of the first things that women might want to undo and reverse. Because of that isolation, women are dong 100 x the amount of work they were doing 100 years ago, even despite all the so called modern conveniences.

    But that’s not how it use to be. It use to be (and still is this way in some cultures) that women lived with extended family. Mothers, grandmothers, sisters, aunts, etc… So that all the burden wasn’t placed on one woman. They all pooled their resources and raised the children together. If one went down sick, or she was tired, the other women in the family would tell her to go lie down and rest, and they would take care of the children, the work and the meals. Economically, they were viable. Because they all were pooling their resources and contributing. They could easily work different shifts without having to worry about the care of the children, and if they were short on cash, the bills wouldn’t go unpaid, nor the children go unclothed, nor would they starve because the rest of the group could step up to the plate and cover it.

    I know it works and how the dynamics all play out because my mother was one of 15 children. Her father died when she was young and her mother was left in dismal poverty with all those children to raise. Welfare didn’t exist at that time. All they had was each other. But there was a lot of them. They all pooled their resources and worked together. The older children took care of the younger children and worked. They all contributed to the cooking, cleaning, repairs and maintenance and the paying of the bills and necessities needed. When one went down due to illness, the others stepped up to the plate and took care of her as well as her end of things. As for emotional support, one couldn’t ask for much more. They were all for one and one for all. That’s not to say that they didn’t fight. Of course they did. But when times got hard, they put self aside and pulled together.

    They didn’t live high off the hog, but they always had warmth, shelter, food, their necessities, and knew they could depend on each other. Another interesting phenomenon occurred. Men and their violence were held in check. If a man became aggressive or violent or tried to assert dominance, the group would pull together and put that noise out of its misery on the spot. Because a lone man is no match for a group. Interestingly enough, it was the women who were dominant and ran the show. And that’s not the first time I’ve seen that occur. Women in a cooperative group tend to be pretty powerful. Little wonder men went on a mission to isolate women from each other. Because they couldn’t be dominant unless they did.

    I’ve seen women in cooperative groups take on a few men. The power that emerges from them is quite a sight to behold. They tend to crush men and all that postering, noise and racket they make with ease. In my experience, it is not men who are dominant. Nor is it that way in the animal kingdom. Contrary to male myth and patriarchal propaganda, it’s the opposite way around. The planet is female created and female centered. Not male created and male centered as the patriarchs would like us to believe. Males are so insignificant that 99% of males could be eliminated and life wouldn’t skip a beat.

    What men have that animals don’t is the ability to bullshit. Which looms large when one realizes that humans are the only species on the planet that rely on a belief system to survive instead of by instinct. The entire patriarchal system is built on pure and utter bullshit. As Mandros and Sophist so clearly display. What is their purpose here? Other than to lay a line of bullshit on women? Oh, no doubt men are experts at bullshit. Which is why we call it bullshit instead of cowshit.

    But that’s getting off the subject. You asked for a proposal which could help women and children as we speak under patriarchy. And that is my proposal. Women can pull together and pool their resourses and live in cooperative groups. These groups don’t necessarily have to consist of relatives. But famial relationships tend to be already established so everyone knows their place and what dynamics can be expected. Women who aren’t related or familar with each other will have to undergo the process that families have already undergone in order to establish their place within a group or community. Which takes work. And a lot of it. Especially since the patriarchs have conditioned us to compete against each other rather than to cooperate. But I think when women learn to pull together and cooperate, we will have men by the short hairs, and the end to patriarchy will be within sight.

  66. Jezebella

    Hedonistic, look into the IUD. Insurance covers it, it’s a one-time painful insertion (not gonna lie to you), and best of all, NO HORMONES. And it’s good for ten years. Back it up with condoms for STD protection and your chances of getting knocked are even less than with the Pill.

    I swear I do not work for the IUD industry. Millions of women all over the world use them, but women in the US don’t hear about them from our gynos. Don’t think “Dalkon shield,” either, because it’s a whole new product.

    Prerequisite blaming: the patriarchal medical establishment for pushing Pill, Pill, Pill, when there are other options. The pharma industry certainly makes a lot of money off the Pill (what is it, like $90 a month?), and none of the IUD user. Maybe we should blame Big Pharma too.

  67. Arianna

    Jezebella:

    Does the pill really cost that much in the states? Holy crap, and here I was whinging about the $21.50 it was setting me back because I just got cut off my mom’s drug plan for only being a part-time student (I really loathe how the whole system of universities and everything else punishes those of us trying to work our way through school, but that’s another rant entirely).

  68. Luckynkl

    Luckynkl, that was me, Summer–a woman, thanks–who brought it up (in comment 51) in the first place. And my question stands: did I misunderstand your intent?

    Is this a case of sweeping generalizations for everyone (good for the goose, good for the gander)? Or was there a point–a point I clearly missed–to your reductive men-as-pussy-seeking-cocks approach?

    I quoted comment #53. That was not you. That was Mandos who said it. I’m pretty sure that Mandos is a man. I’ll eat my hat if he isn’t.

    So what you apparently want my attention over is my comment that “a hard cock knows no conscience?”

    Well first off, it’s a very old saying. I think I picked it up from my grandparents. So it would be rather ridiculous for you to pretend you never heard the word before and act like it shocks you. I’m not in the habit of thinking of women as frail little flowers that wilt at the sound of a harsh word and faint dead away when they hear the word “cock.” So I rather doubt that’s what’s bugging you.

    So what about it are you pretending not to understand?

    I hope you’re not going to play the “all men are individuals” game? Because under patriarchy, men are about the most conformist species on the planet. Show me a guy who has reached adulthood, and I’ll show you a guy that stayed within the limited range of patriarchal standards for masculinity and complied. Because, in case you haven’t noticed, the brotherhood isn’t in the habit of letting non-conformists survive. At least not in one piece.

    I hope you’re also not going to pretend that men as class haven’t reduced women as a class into a sex class? Just what do you suppose that means in relation to men and their cocks? Surely you’re not going to pretend you don’t know the phallocracy worships the almighty cock? Especially a hard one? And that men are terrified of impotency? Look no further than viagra for evidence of that. Do you really think it was invented to get women off?

    In fact, let’s just take a good hard look (pardon the pun) at the current situation. The billion dollar porn industry is blitzkrieging our senses 24/7. Women are being raped to the tune of 1 every minute in the U.S. and it has been all but condoned and legalized. Just who do you think is reading all this porn and raping all these women? 3 men in a dark alley on skid row? Women are being denied birth control and abortion and autonomy over their bodies. And now here comes viagra to make sure that cock has a perpetual, insatiable, hard on. And just who do you think that cock will be primarily used on?

    Are we going to pretend these cocks aren’t being used to fuck women that don’t want to be fucked, or children, or dogs, or sheep or basically anything that moves? (So I highly recommend that you don’t fidget). And don’t act so shocked. I wish I had a nickel for the number of men I’ve heard bragging about fucking their dog.

    Yes, I know cocks are attached to men and they don’t get up and walk around all by themselves. But you’d have to be in one helluva state of denial to not recognize just how much men’s egos and identitites are wrapped up in their cocks. It is, in fact, the God of the patriarchs. And what it is symbolic of is being the fucker.

    The fuckee cannot dominate or rule, ok? As Germaine Greer says, “Not in prison, not in the army, not in business, not in the suburbs. The person on the receiving end is — fucked, finished, unserviceable, degraded. Not actually, you understand, but figuratively, which, language being a metaphor, is what counts.”

    So is any of this symbolic to you of conscience?

    Then what about “a hard cock knows no conscience” don’t you get?

  69. mythago

    Prerequisite blaming: the patriarchal medical establishment for pushing Pill, Pill, Pill, when there are other options.

    There are two brands of IUD manufactured in the US: ParaGard, which is produced by Duramed Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of Barr Pharmaceuticals (manufacturer of Seasonale, a brand of the Pill) and Mirena, produced by Berlex, which ALSO manufactures the Pill in the form of Levlen, Levlite, Tri-Levlen and Yasmin. That sounds an awful lot like Big Pharma to me, and it seems rather strange to posit a pro-Pill/anti-IUD conspiracy involving companies that manufacture both.

    And as for “hormone free,” while ParaGard is hormone-free, Mirena is advertised as a “a safe and 99.9% effective hormone-releasing intrauterine contraceptive”.

    I’m sure the IUD works well for many women, but let’s not pretend having a piece of wire stuffed into your uterus a feminist solution to the evil, patriarchal alternatives. It’s another method of birth control that puts no burden on men, and does zilch to protect against STDs.

  70. Summer

    Luckynkl,

    In all my 30 years of living, I had never heard the phrase “a hard cock knows no conscience” before you invoked it, and I can assure you, my “shock” as you call it (I call it “curiosity”) was not an “act” by any stretch of the imagination. Further, your inistence that I am denying anything is ridiculous.

    I don’t play those sorts of games; I ask questions, in earnest, because I want to know the answers. For you to presume I meant otherwise not only belies your own belligerence, it also suggests that you’re genuinely disinterested in engaging in actual dialogue–dialogue which might actually require a degree of explanation on your part–with anyone. Perhaps you prefer preaching to the converted. (Now there’s a saying I *did* pick up somewhere along the way.)

    I’m sorry I asked.

  71. ginmar

    Oh, christ, summer, get a different tactic, becuase it’s one we’ve all seen before. “But I was just asking an incredibly obvious, simple-minded question!” doesn’t fly. The phrase you asked about is self explanatory to anyone who isn’t being dense, and if there was any doubt that you were playing games, bitching about ‘belligerance’ and ‘preaching to the converted’ pretty much seals the deal. Not original phrases; any feminist has heard those before. If you add in, “You’re so mean to me I’m going to hate feminism forever” or some variation you get the prize.

  72. Hysterical Woman

    My problem with “a hard cock knows no conscience” is it asserts the myth of the Rampaging Male Sex Drive. Interestingly enough, when people believed it was women who had the rampaging sex drive, this was used by men as proof of their inferiority.

  73. ginmar

    Yeah, but why not turn their own excuses against them? You’ll notice that when men use this excuse, it’s used to keep women in doors for fear of getting righteously raped by these macho men.

  74. Summer

    Ginmar, did you even bother to read my initial inquiry? It doesn’t sound like you did. Further, for you to attempt to paint me as some antifeminist simpleton instead of speaking directly to my question, again, reeks of minset which prefers reactionary belligerence over informed dialogue. Co-opting the patterns of the oppressor is what you’re doing, plain and simple. Congrats–that’s really revolutionary.

    You don’t have to believe the questions I asked were in earnest; I can only tell you that they were. And here they are again, just in case you missed them the first time:


    Luckynkl:

    I’ve really enjoyed the information you’ve brought into this conversation. That said, I have a nit to pick:

    This may be too tangential to matter much to anyone, but when you wrote “Because a hard cock knows no conscience. It will say and do anything it has to in order to gain access to pussy.” I nearly jumped out of my seat. Doesn’t intelligent, informed debate demand that we *not* reduce human beings to their genitalia? And does it not also demand that we dismiss the patently patriarchal assumption of heterosexuality?

    When it’s the shitbag, fuckbag, godbags doing the fetishizing, I sure as hell don’t appreciate being reduced to the sum total of my reproductive organs. And again, not that it matters, but it hardly seems reformative or even progressive to suggest men are all simply giant, pussy-seeking cocks.

    Or did I misunderstand your intent?

    (I hope I did.)

  75. Luckynkl

    Oh, christ, summer, get a different tactic, becuase it’s one we’ve all seen before. “But I was just asking an incredibly obvious, simple-minded question!” doesn’t fly. The phrase you asked about is self explanatory to anyone who isn’t being dense, and if there was any doubt that you were playing games, bitching about ‘belligerance’ and ‘preaching to the converted’ pretty much seals the deal. Not original phrases; any feminist has heard those before. If you add in, “You’re so mean to me I’m going to hate feminism forever” or some variation you get the prize.

    Precisely. Thank you, Ginmar.

    My problem with “a hard cock knows no conscience” is it asserts the myth of the Rampaging Male Sex Drive. Interestingly enough, when people believed it was women who had the rampaging sex drive, this was used by men as proof of their inferiority.

    Hysterical Woman, it isn’t about sex or sex drives. Any more than rape is about sex. The cock under patriarchy is about POWER.

  76. ginmar

    Yeah, summer, did you read what I wrote? Asking disingenous questions has a history on feminist blogs and so does getting defensive when you get called on it. Plus you do love to use catchphrases. Where did those come from? What next? Stifling dissent? That’s one that’s closely related to one of the ones you used.

    The thing that scares me about this case is that this dipshit is enabled by a lot of patriarchs who like equality—when it happens in an unequal world, and iwth women on hte low end of the scale. He might just win.

  77. Delphyne

    My favourite of those catchphrases is “reactionary”. Radical feminists are always getting called “reactionary”. It’s the buzzword du jour for anti-feminist tosspots.

  78. Summer

    I don’t know about catchphrases, buzzwords, standard protocol on “feminist blogs” and the like. I speak only for myself using the language I’ve acquired thus far in my life.

    (Right here is where you’re probably all rolling your eyes.)

    Ginmar, Luckynkl: I’m amazed at the amount of presumption you have attempted to present as factual evidence of my purportedly anti-feminist intent. You’ve ascribed a ridiculous amount of untrue BS to me, both as a feminist (though you’d prefer I not call myself that, I suppose), and as a human being. You’ve continually insisted I have an agenda, and refuse to accept that I have none. Your pompously cynical, “seen it all before” attitudes are blinding you from seeing the truth here.

    And what is the truth? Will you even deign to acknowledge it? I’m a soon-to-be-30-year-old woman from rural southern Illinois, I’m an active feminist, I’m a liberal, I’m a mother, I’m a scholar, and I’m always asking questions. I don’t spend a lot of time reading/commenting-to feminist blogs, though I did spent a goodly amount of time in college taking feminist theory classes and pursuing its application to Medieval texts. I compost. I challenge local authority. I write letters to my governmental representatives. Presently, my politics require I re-plan my summer vacation: I had planned to visit South Dakota, but chose to ditch that plan when I read about their governor’s recent anti-woman, anti-choice fuckwadery. I’ve even gone so far to try and choose a destination that will allow me to travel a route that avoids the chunk of midwestern states merely considering a ban on abortion because of what they’ve seen in SD. THAT’S how strongly I feel. That, you see, is MY truth.

    When I asked my initial series of questions, I figured I had missed or misunderstood something. (Which is why–hey!–I asked if I had done precisely that, and added that I hoped I had.) If your particular brand of feminism doesn’t have time/energy to waste on explaining things or in pointing people in the *right* direction when they’ve clearly missed the point, a simple, “No, Summer, you don’t get it.” would have sufficed. Instead, you’ve unnecessarily chosen to drag me through the mud and pin labels on me that don’t apply.

    That’s not radical, it’s wrong.

  79. ginmar

    Let’s see, Summer….walks like a duck, talks like a duck….What do you want, a fucking cookie? If you use the word ‘nigger’ I’m going to call you a racist. If you use the phrase ‘welfare momma’ I’m also going to call you a racist, and both times I’ll be accurate. Ignorance is no excuse. You’re too damned growed up to be that ignorant.

  80. Becker

    Summer, I’m on your side for what it’s worth. You didn’t ask or say anything to deserve the meanness.

    But now I have to figure out how to change my nickname to cockzombie. It has a ring, you know?

  81. derekeddy

    Why do women have the right to give up a newborn child without any child support obligation or parental responsibility whereas men do not have such options? its just not right.

  82. Rene

    I’m with Becker. I thought that Summer’s query was perfectly reasonable, and if that makes me some kind of Auntie Tom apologist, whatev, as the kids like to say.

    I appreciate the allure of hyperbole as much as anyone, but I don’t think reductive biology = destiny rhetoric is the antidote to the patriarchy. It strikes me as nothing but an inversion of the current paradigm. If that’s Lucky and Ginmar’s post-patriarchal utopia–pussies = good, pee-pees = bad–count me out. At the very least, it seems like a colossal waste of effort to ridicule and belittle someone simply because she doesn’t subscribe to your particular brand of take-no-prisoners feminism. The house of feminism has many rooms, to paraphrase a dead white man; just because a woman dares to question the characterization of all men as conscienceless throbbing cocks looking to rape somebody doesn’t make her Ann Coulter.

    I know a lot of men who are feminists, men who sincerely want change, men who recognize that patriarchy damages the oppressing class as well as the oppressed. I know a lot of men who read I Blame the Patriarchy, men who think Twisty is a genius, men who don’t deserve to be dismissed through simplistic generalizations. One of patriarchy’s most insidious evils is the tendency to deindividuate the Other, to turn an individual into a hunk of meat. The fact that Summer demurred when this kind of turn-the-tables tactic was employed doesn’t make her a traitor, and it’s really disappointing to see women who purport to care about other women jumping her shit like that. We have real enemies out there, remember.

    Speaking of which, I just read in the paper today that Alec Baldwin is writing a book about fathers’ rights. Hoo boy.

    Rene

  83. Pterodactyl Woman

    And everyone knows the problems women face day in day fucking out pale into comparison when faced with generalisations!

    As usual, I’m with Lucky, Ginmar and Delphyne.

  84. Delphyne

    “Ginmar, Luckynkl: I’m amazed at the amount of presumption you have attempted to present as factual evidence of my purportedly anti-feminist intent. You’ve ascribed a ridiculous amount of untrue BS to me, both as a feminist (though you’d prefer I not call myself that, I suppose), and as a human being. You’ve continually insisted I have an agenda, and refuse to accept that I have none. Your pompously cynical, “seen it all before” attitudes are blinding you from seeing the truth here.”

    Well you’ve done a good job of paiinting yourself as the victim of those “reactionary” radical feminists who only like “preaching to the converted here”, Summer and taking the focus of the sexist entitled men we were discussing.

    But let’s move on. Lets agree with you that your questions were entirely sincere.

    Why don’t you respond to the points that Luckynkl made in post 68. I’d say her arguments are strong. What do you think?

  85. Betsy

    “A hard cock knows no conscience.” I find it difficult to believe that a live person outside of a convent doesn’t know this basic principle. (Not that nuns aren’t wise to it, too.)

    What the hell *else* would be the driving force behind date rape, “comfort women” for Japanese soldiers, international child prostitution cartels, and 10,000 other things I care not to dwell on, that permeate society at every level and in every nation?

    Is there some _other_ body part or appetite we can point to?

    These things didn’t arise because of someone’s hungry tummy.

  86. Grace

    Also with Summer, although I have no credibility on this blog because I believe in God. Nevertheless, what is so difficult to understand about the idea that: objectifying men as throbbing uncontrollable cocks is anti-feminist and merely legitimizes their own patriarchal perception of themselves as entitled to all the sex they want, anytime, anywhere? I prefer to believe that men, who apparently have brains, can use them to control their physical urges, and merely choose not to because they are not socialized to do so. If they were socialized differently, they would choose differently. The project of dismantling patriarchy is precisely that of changing that socialization.

    My husband, in the four and a half years between meeting me and marrying me, did not have any sex. He did not go mad or start raping virgins, nor did his testicles explode. He may have the lowest sex drive on the planet, but our post-wedding sex life would indicate otherwise. If he can do it, presumably others can. I am grateful to my proud feminist mother-in-law for raising a man who is NOT an ambulatory throbbing cock. Others can do it too.

  87. Delphyne

    “Nevertheless, what is so difficult to understand about the idea that: objectifying men as throbbing uncontrollable cocks is anti-feminist and merely legitimizes their own patriarchal perception of themselves as entitled to all the sex they want, anytime, anywhere?”

    You’re confusing description with prescription. Many men do think they are entitled to sex and many women have suffered because of it. Do you think the problem will go away if we just don’t talk about it?

  88. ginmar

    Shorter Grace: WAH! Nobody said anytihng about God, by why let that stop me? I’ve got to be victimized somehow!

    Grace, who gives a shit, really? I mean, what does your hubby have to do with the discussion, other than it makes it about you and your ever-so-virtuous man? And again…who gives a shit?

  89. Delphyne

    I also knew a man who wasn’t an ambulatory throbbing cock. He doesn’t have anything to do with this discussion however.

  90. Luckynkl

    I more than explained what I meant by “a hard cock knows no conscience.” So if anyone reads anything more into it, it says more about you than it says about me. It’s not me that is reducing men into “conscienceless throbbing cocks looking to rape somebody.” That would be you. (I believe the word you’re looking for tho, Rene, is “unconscienteous.” But it’s a little disturbing to me that you actually do think it has a brain).

    You’d also be a might bit naive if you didn’t know that all men fantasize about rape. They all benefit by it as well. Rape is not about sex. It’s about power and domination. Sex is just one of the weapons the patriarchary uses to achieve it. And yeah, it gets them off.

    The “radical” in radical feminism does not mean “extreme.” It means “going to the root of.” In this case, it means “going to the root of women’s oppression.” To be more specific, it “goes to the root causes of male domination, defines men as responsible for and gaining from women’s subordination, with emphasis on the sexual and reproductive exploitation of women.”

    There are no other kinds of feminism. That was just a nasty little rumor the media made up. And who owns the media again? Here’s a hint. Not women!

    This strategy is as old as dirt. It’s called, “divide and conquer.” Do we really think the patriarchy is going to teach us how to dismantle it? Then why in the world would we go to men or their institutions in order to learn about feminism?!

    But the fact of the matter is, feminists are not divided. What we have are liberals and libertarians, among others, attempting to co-opt feminism, and that is what deceptively makes feminism appear divided. Tho liberals, libertarians and even conservatives may ally with feminists on certain issues, that does not make them feminists. That is just liberalism and libertarianism applied to women. There is a difference. Liberalism and libertarianism are politics which were created by men for men and is led by men. Radical feminism is the only social/politcal/economic/cultural movement which is created by women for women and is led by women.

    Men are not feminists. There is no “man” in the French word “femme.” Which means “woman” and is where the word “feminism” comes from. Men can be pro-woman. But they cannot be women. And I shouldn’t have to point out that there is a conflict of interest. Or the fact that men were the whole problem to begin with.

    I personally don’t like the word “feminism.” Because of how confusing the word is to so many people which opens the door to co-optation. Which is precisely what is happening. That is why I prefer to call the movement what it use to be called, which is, “Women’s liberation.” Not too many people get confused about what that means.

  91. joolya

    Not wanting to pay child support to the mother – that’s the crux of the matter, isn’t it? Not paying child support to the child, but paying to the bitch of a mother?. It shows how the concern that this dude and dudes like him have for their offspring outweigh their own selfishness . . . Pathetic.

  92. joolya

    Also – my momma once said, “When a man is interested in a woman, he’s interested in her kids. When he’s not interested in the woman, he’s not interested in her kids.”

    Now, I actually know a number of men (most of them under 40, as it happens) who are not like this – they and their babymama are no longer together but they are devoted to their children. These men give me hope.

    But they are the excpetions that prove the rule.

  93. Pony

    “…not wanting to pay child support to the mother”

    Not fucking you? Not paying the kid’s mother without being forced to. Because it’s a fucking fee. See? Hasn’t anything to do with the kid. It’s a fucking fee.

  94. Mandos

    Luckynkl, why do you assume that I am white? Because I am most definitely not.

  95. Sophist

    Luckynkl: The entire patriarchal system is built on pure and utter bullshit. As Mandros and Sophist so clearly display. What is their purpose here? Other than to lay a line of bullshit on women?

    Yup that’s me, water carrier for the patriarchy. It couldn’t be that I found your panegyric on the superiority of nature silly and factually incorrect. No, it’s clear I just couldn’t let a strong woman go unopposed. Because I’m evil like that.

    mythago: I’m sure the IUD works well for many women, but let’s not pretend having a piece of wire stuffed into your uterus a feminist solution to the evil, patriarchal alternatives. It’s another method of birth control that puts no burden on men, and does zilch to protect against STDs.

    Out of curiosity, what would be the ideal birth control method? Other than condoms, pretty much all the options seem to involve monkeying with hormones, physically intrusive procedures, or being able to trust your partner.

    ginmar: If you use the word ‘nigger’ I’m going to call you a racist.

    Where exactly did she use the feminist equivalent of ‘nigger’? Or was it having the unmitigated gall of questioning you that marks her as a patriarchal running dog?

  96. Mandos

    But that’s getting off the subject. You asked for a proposal which could help women and children as we speak under patriarchy. And that is my proposal. Women can pull together and pool their resourses and live in cooperative groups. These groups don’t necessarily have to consist of relatives. But famial relationships tend to be already established so everyone knows their place and what dynamics can be expected. Women who aren’t related or familar with each other will have to undergo the process that families have already undergone in order to establish their place within a group or community. Which takes work. And a lot of it. Especially since the patriarchs have conditioned us to compete against each other rather than to cooperate. But I think when women learn to pull together and cooperate, we will have men by the short hairs, and the end to patriarchy will be within sight.

    Though luckynkl, in her desire to make points by using broad, sweeping generalizations that she believes don’t obfuscate her points (this despite the effort she must expend in clarifying her grandparents’ “hard cocks” saying that I have never heard of—but then, I come from a very different cultural background), jumps to interesting and incorrect conclusions about me, she also says very interesting and valuable things. The above quoted is one of them. Taken in the context of her entire post, it is even more fascinating.

    So she proposes that her solution to patriarchy will involve one group getting together based on a biological characteristic and, in these cooperative groups—women’s clubs?—assert power. Of course, they will use power only for just ends, primarily to overthrow the patriarchy, and thenceforth they will establish a utopia of cooperation, where they will only ever use their power to act when the new outgroup, whose solidarity will now presumably have been shattered by the solidarity of the new groups, attempts to disrupt this utopia. The new outgroup, of course, will never have anything to complain about in this situation, because the new ingroup will only ever use their power for good.

    All solidarity of course, must belong to the new ingroup, otherwise patriarchy will be restored. Because patriarchy is a reflex of group solidarity used to achieve and maintain power whose basis of distribution is a biological characteristic.

    That’s a very fascinating vision.

  97. ginmar

    Sophist, you’re being obtuse. Is that a tactic or just your natural level?

  98. Betsy

    I know I’m in my own little world, here, but … wouldn’t it be great if breasts turgid with mother’s milk didn’t have a conscience?

    If our whole society were oriented around nursing women’s need to release their life-giving fluid into the appropriate receptacles? If the discharge of said fluid were a celebrated act, and the relationship between the receiver and the giver were a sacrament?

    The Turgid Breast Without a Conscience would insist upon nurturance … open and systematic caregiving networks … dominance of the principle of sustaining love, instead of hostility among nations and up-and-down power relationships between individuals …

    If the organizing principle of our society were the Breast Without a Conscience, instead of the Cock Without a Conscience, there would be fat-and-happy babies with buoyant immune systems, instead of sex slavery.

    (This is why I never felt the need to smoke dope, you see)

  99. Rene

    I’m not going to bother arguing with Luckynkl anymore because she’s obviously not interested in a conversation. Let her sing her incoherent arias to the choir if that’s what turns her on. Perhaps she and Ginmar can set up a mutual admiration society if their backs don’t get sore from all the self-patting.

    I would, however, like to make two more points before I go back to reading Twisty’s posts and ignoring her less cogent admirers:

    Re Luckynkl in #90: If you’re going to put words in my mouth, you should probably learn how to spell them. It’s “unconscientious,” not “unconscienteous,” and if I meant “unconscientious,” that’s what I would have said. Ordinarily I don’t bother to correct a stranger’s spelling on a message board because it’s extremely rude, as well as irrelevant, but you opened the door.

    And the more I think about your pithy little phrase, “a hard cock knows no conscience,” the more idiotic it strikes me. Well, fucking duh, it has no conscience. It can’t have a conscience because it’s a sex organ. Vulvas have no conscience. Neither do feet.

    Don’t tell me what feminism means. Your personality deficits doesn’t qualify you as an expert, and your inarticulate anger doesn’t make you interesting.

    The only reason I weighed in on this in the first place is that I wanted to let Summer know that the most vocal members of this blog aren’t necessarily representative of the entire community. I’m lucky enough to know Twisty personally, unlike so many of her other fans, and I can assure you that her opinions about the patriarchy have never turned her into an asshole. Some of her best friends are men! (I can’t wait for someone to tell me that I’m a racist now).

    Rene

  100. Rene

    Whoops — better correct this typo in my last post before Luckynkl does. I meant “personality deficit,” not “personality deficits.” I too have some deficits, but subject/verb discrepancies aren’t usually among them.

    Rene

  101. kreepyk

    Just a word on birth control…

    I have an IUD and it works beautifully. There are many different models but mine (a) lasts five years (b) is hormone free (c) was dead cheap (d) is more effective and safer than The Pill with no yucky sex drive destroying side effects.

    Many people have bad associations with IUDs because of the Dalkon Shield (a defective, hazardous, poorly designed model from the 70s and early 80s) but the newer ones are a delight.

    Talk to your doctor about them. They make a great alterative to tubal ligation.

  102. ginmar

    Gee, Betsy, you get the prize for being the idiot of the day.

    Christ, what are all the MRA trolls doing here with the registration? It’s like a Promise Keepers auxillary or something in here.

  103. kreepyk

    Oops. Looks like that territory was covered.

  104. kreepyk

    Sophist asked:

    “Out of curiosity, what would be the ideal birth control method? Other than condoms, pretty much all the options seem to involve monkeying with hormones, physically intrusive procedures, or being able to trust your partner.”

    I have non-hormonal IUD and aside from insertion (which is only slightly more painful than a ham-handed Pap smear) I wouldn’t call it “invasive.” I mean, it is inserted and removed every FIVE YEARS. And as far as having some wire in your uterus, it is about the size of a quarter (or so I’m told).

    I was recommended the IUD by my abortionist, who is an old guard Feminist of the highest order.

    Also, am I the only person who is a bit creeped out by the Man Pill? How could one be certain they’d actually taken it, or remembered to take it properly? Everyone (het) need his and her own BC AND safe sex equipment or techniques. In this day an age, doing otherwise is madness.

  105. Betsy

    Ginmar, sorry you didn’t like my post. I feel bad now from being called an idiot.

    Otherwise, I thought your comments were pretty interesting.

  106. Mandos

    Also, am I the only person who is a bit creeped out by the Man Pill? How could one be certain they’d actually taken it, or remembered to take it properly? Everyone (het) need his and her own BC AND safe sex equipment or techniques. In this day an age, doing otherwise is madness.

    The point is that it isn’t intended as an assurance to women, but as a way for men to take responsibility for their own fertility and avoid unwanted siring of offspring. If a woman doesn’t know a man real well, I wouldn’t recommend relying on it were it to exist. And were it to exist, vice versa.

  107. Betsy

    Plus, ginmar, I don’t even think you got my joke.

    And anyway, how did you get to be the one to hand out the prizes?

  108. ginmar

    Because, gee, Bets, we live in a male-dominated society which makes jokes about a rampaging breast an incredibly stupid retaliatory tactic when the original slight was against the ruling class that actually kills and rapes, not nurses. That might have had something to do with it.

  109. Sibyl

    Of course feminists aren’t divided — look at us, we agree on everything.

    It’s not the patriarchy getting in the way of women presenting a united front. It’s our humanity.

    Also, I’d like to apologize to my friend Jenn right now, for not believing her when she complained about how white people will jump on any opportunity to use the n-word when they can get away with it, even when the conversation has nothing to do with race or racism. Sorry, Jenn. You were totally right. Hand me that bingo card, will ya?

  110. ginmar

    Yeah, it must be SYG emptying out, becuase that was a lame shot, Sybil. After all, comparing racism to sexism is just so shocking—-if you’re stump stupid, that is.

  111. Betsy

    I see now that I was much misunderstood.

    I was in agreement with you and luckynkl, basically. And now look, you keep flinging gee’s at me! ouch!

    My admittedly baroque (I did admit it when I originally posted it, after all!) flight of fancy was merely an attempt to imagine a world other than a phallocentric one, where some female symbol might be revered, and breastfeeding would be a proud public act, or some such alternative reality … only my attempt to indulge my feminist imagination: indeed, what WOULD be the consequences of an alternative to the phallus?

    Now that you have clarified, I see the risk I took in my attempt to turn the tables on the Cock. The problem here may be that the breast has been so “tittified” in our culture that we can’t even imagine a society where it would occupy a different symbolism altogether.

  112. Kate

    First may I conduct Lesson #4202 of Feminism 101:

    In post 81 : “derekeddy “Why do women have the right to give up a newborn child without any child support obligation or parental responsibility whereas men do not have such options? its just not right.”

    Women have no more option to abandon a child than any man does. It is a crime called child abandonment and will usually land you in jail, or at least serve you some probation time. Recently, some states have passed legislation that allows women to abandon their infants without fear of reprisal, based on the idea that young women need that alternative if they are unable to care for the infant; an alternative hoped to dumping the infant in the dumpster. The law has certain stipulations in place to ensure that all women don’t dump their kids wholesale, although I’d certainly be interested in seeing figures to support the idea that they would, being that such an exercise would engender them extreme social criticism from all fronts (bad mother mantra), women just don’t do that.

    If they did, then who the hell would raise the kids? Most men aren’t going to step up to the plate if we judge from the attitudes we see everyday.

    Biological mothers and fathers can most certainly relinquish their parental responsibilities by giving the child up for adoption. But such an arrangement usually requires that someone will step in to take the place of that absent parent. In other words, no one, save the exception to the law for newborns noted above, can ‘abandon’ their child without reprisal and no one can or should be able to do such.

    Now might I inform you that you are sadly misinformed about child support enforcement in this country, which is lax to say the least and those men who wish to abandon and leave their children to the care of one parent, bad parents, grandparents, foster parents, the state or the streets, can and do all the time. Most states are innundated with cases of non paying parents, most often men and are not properly funded to chase after such scum because most legislatures that fund them (mostly men) don’t see child support enforcement as worthy of the money it costs opposed to say, highway building, statue construction or policing women aborting their fetuses.

    #65: Lucky says: “One of our biggest problems is that men have been successful in isolating women from each other. And that is maybe one of the first things that women might want to undo and reverse. Because of that isolation, women are dong 100 x the amount of work they were doing 100 years ago, even despite all the so called modern conveniences.”

    First off, thanks for getting my post. Secondly, practice what you preach. Banging up Summer hard over a question about hard cock hyperbole ain’t gonna build the revolution.

    We are so ingrained to distrust and to lay judgement on eachother that even in feminist posts we exercise the same behavior. Yes, criticism is healthy and we all need a kick in the head, but lets not stomp eachother to death over the crumbs.

    The cake is out there my friends, not here.

    As for your comments about women working together, you are absolutely right. I was raised upper mid-class midwestern. I have lived low and lowest social strata since then. Like most women who suffer from the effects of abuse, I married down and then when I divorced, I fell further down.

    And that ain’t all bad. I’ve learned alot. I haven’t had the time to go to school and take feminist studies. I bought into the patriarchy and got stuck with the kiddies. Takes a lot out of you. Especially when you still buy into the bullshit you learned in the middle class world about ‘self – sufficiency’ and were afraid or didn’t know how to make kinships and associations and allies. I learned, but boy whatta learnin’! I paid a hard price with time wasted thinking I had some stupid damn thing I had to hold onto that kept me from being where I should have been.

    When I was an activist against Welfare Deform, I used what I learned in my classist upbringing to my advantage when lobbying or whatever. But I learned also from the members, many of whom lived in projects. You know what they did? The single women would get together and bake stuff in big batches and then share it with eachother over the week so they’d all be able to work and eat, they pooled child care, they called eachother and commisserated when they were sick or some assbag gave them some shit at the grade school, or their kid didn’t have any shoes.

    Oh those women taught me so much!

    My best friend in the world was a man who was in his seventies. He was like a grandfather to my kids. He grew up in a family of 13. His mother raised her family alone as his father died in prison, charged with bootlegging. Once when my son was acting up against me while he was visiting, he railed at him, “Respect your mother you hear?!” I never heard a man say such a thing. He was bent up for a week because my son was disrespectful. He said it wasn’t right, I shouldn’t allow it.

    My man friend now that I have grew up in a family of eleven. Helping out is expected. I have learned from the years, so he sees eye to eye with me. He also was raised by a single mother.

    Over the years I taught my children respect for me and hopefully taught them they ahve a responsiblity of care, not exploitation. They are older now but they understand the ideal of connectedness to others and networking and sharing resources and energy for mutual survival — at least from what I’ve observed. I learned from those women and also from those men how to teach my children to not think of themselves as the center of the universe or that mutual assistance and sharing is somehow a negative.

    It is practiced all the time among many poor folks, white or brown, but not among the white American middle class and upper who by virtue of their economic comfort, see no value in connection and see it as a weakness; “dependency” they call it.

    Sharing are seen as weaknesses in a social system that only respects the ability to emulate Caesar, “I saw, I came, I conquered.”

    Although I must also make the statement that sharing and connectedness go on all the time in business. Men exhibit this ability in the business world where survival oftentimes means networking for resources and sharing and pooling of energy and skills to acheive a shared goal. It is acceptable for men to behave in such a way in the business world. Men who are totally exploitive tend to not have success as they will soon find themselves isolated and distrusted.

    Therefore, I posit that sharing of resources is not an entirely new thing or an extinct behavior. Men practice it all the time for their survival in the business world, but of course, in order to ‘score’ a few points along the way. But that is the goal that the mechanization of patriarchy and capitalism forces upon us. If we wish to eat, we must play within the system.

    But women(white middle, married) on the other hand, by virtue of being dependent upon a man who obtains the resources, is removed from this and often becomes self involved and trivial. Her existance is meaningless outside the construct of serving ‘her man’. Take away her man and what is she? She has no allies because they might compete with her and take away the core of her existence. Other women threaten to ‘break up the home’, carry away the goods, which mostly would be the bread winner. With their entire existence hinged on their sexual appeal and their baby raising skills, they hone these to perfection and spend countless hours per day making themselves up and divying up their homes to exude the aura of wive and mother of the year.

    Most often these women may delve deep into fundamentalism or conservatism to justify their energies or they will engage in petty and passive aggressive behaviors in order to meet their frustrated need for power and fullfillment. Those are the women that the movement must talk to and they are the ones who have their heads firmly stuck up their husband’s asses or their fingers plugged into their ears.

    I also posit that many men hate their wives who behave in this way and yearn for women who are intelligent and independent. Neither the men nor the women involved in these relationships have any idea how to acheive that. They are threatened continually by oral teachers like Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, Ann Coulture and the urban folklore of the day; television sitcoms and news, that to question their position or to search for other happiness will lead them to the road of sin and other frightful consequences. They are scared out of their fucking wits. Not all of them, but I think more than people want to realize.

    When women are able to conjoin with eachother to share caring responsibilities, or even more so, share those with the male, and also share the breadwinning, then the woman takes on her own sense of identity and no longer exists solely to serve the man.

    This of course only works if power is shared, which many women still don’t get as they rush home from work to vaccum the house, do the dishes and put on dinner while daddy watches the news. How many suburban garages have I been in that are full of man toys, I always ask, “Do you have one (motorcycle, boat, sportscar, etc.) they answer meakly and with the brevity that tells you they wish not to elaborate, “No, I don’t, its all his.”

    Mind you, its not about the Harleys or the boats, its about who is given the right to assert themselves, who counts. We need to speak to them. We can hone our arguments here, but if we fight and belittle eachother and then what have we done?

    We need to strengthen, teach and nurture here because the fight is out there.

  113. Betsy

    Sister Kate!! I can’t say it, but you can — and I can understand it when you say it. Hallelujah & well done.

  114. ginmar

    Kate, don’t lecture me about feminism and how I should treat people who mouth the standard anti-feminist cliches. Reactionary? Preaching to the converted? You’re wasting their time. If they’re here in good faith, they’ll have some grounding in feminism. Bitching and moaning about the poor men is not a good sign.

    Betsy, I’ve dealt with trolls who pulled exactly that comparison out of their hats, like breast feeding and erections are somehow comparable.

  115. Ron Sullivan

    It was worth wading through all the horizontal hostility* to get to Kate’s #112. Thanks, Kate.

    *Why can’t I find a complete Flo Kennedy** anthology? I blame the patriarchy.

    **Don’t get that? Find what you can of hers and read it. Feminism 201, for advanced beginners.

  116. kreepyk

    Manos, I am not creeped out by the Man Pill being used for the purposes you describe. Its abuse however, freaks me bigtime.

  117. Kate

    Ginmar: I wasn’t lecturing you about feminism, since you are so well enlightened, you certainly don’t need my words to help you along.

    I don’t bitch and moan by the way, a patriarchal phrase made to belittle women who have something to say.

    I included men in my post because they make up half the population and women are going to be attracted to them, breed with them, live with them, share with them. Any other idea that fails to include this reality is about as foolish as thinking of ways to get the skies to rain roses.

    Those who enjoy the patriarchy and find any change a threat certainly love it when feminists start talking about separatism or about how awful all men are. The patriarchy is a primitive structure that suits hunters and gatherers, not thinking, humanistic individuals who wish to work toward a better more humane social structure.

    I have no interest in serving the patriarchy and I also have no interest in making absolute generalizations that feed stereotypes and stifle growth.

    “Betsy, I’ve dealt with trolls who pulled exactly that comparison out of their hats, like breast feeding and erections are somehow comparable.”

    Elaborate for us simpletons oh Great One.

  118. Sophist

    ginmar: Sophist, you’re being obtuse. Is that a tactic or just your natural level?

    Pretend that I really am that stupid, and explain to me, slowly and using small words, how not agreeing with you about the applicability of the phrase “a hard cock knows no conscience” makes a person the equivalent of someone who slings around grossly offensive racial epithets.

    Gee, Betsy, you get the prize for being the idiot of the day.

    You know what, you’re a somewhat unpleasant individual. You’ve gone Bill O’reily on two different women in this one thread, for no good reason.

    Besides, I think I deserve that Idiot of the Day award. After all, I’m still talking to you like I expect substantive response. You probably can’t get much dumber than that.

  119. Kate

    “Bitching and moaning about the poor men is not a good sign.”

    Is this an effort to troll for support for division and alienation? Explain your point or don’t make it, lest observers conclude that your only intention is to carve out some kind of heirarchy here.

  120. Twisty

    Gentlemen, please. You can’t fight in here. This is the War Room.

  121. ginmar

    Well, seeing as how Kate has asked for enlightment even though she’s more usually prone to lecturing, here’s my take on it.

    Someone used the phrase, “A hard cock knows no conscience.” Whereupon a couple people popped up and whined, “But what about the men? I’ve never heard that, that’s sexist, blah blah blah. OMG, I’m an Xtian, you all hate me.”

    Lucky dealt with this phrase at least once. It’s pretty obvious. However, a couple people would not let it go, protesting the unfairness of turning men’s own excuses against them, OMG! The humanity of being sarcastic about the way men use their dicks as their excuse for shit!

    Whereupon Betsy came up with the rampaging breast post. Given that we live in a rape culture where breasts are often the object of attack rather than weapons….

    So. As twisty has requested, I’m dropping it. You have anything else to say to me you can say it via email.

  122. Mandos

    Hahaha. I love the Marx Bros. reference.

    (As usual, IIRC…)

  123. Chris Clarke

    Mandos, Mandos, Mandos.

    Kubrick, Kubrick, Kubrick.

  124. mythago

    Out of curiosity, what would be the ideal birth control method?

    Homosexuality.

    I kid! But really, there is no ‘ideal birth control method’ for everyone and every situation. The rah-rah-IUD-ness of some posters here weirds me out, but obviously they’re very happy with their IUDs. It is not, however, a good method for a teenage girl or someone not using condoms. The Pill works great for some women, especially those who have hormonal problems that it helps; it’s a very bad idea for others. I, myself, am a huge fan of condoms, but they are not an option for women who are not in a position to insist on their use. Etcetera.

    So, to waffle, the ideal birth-control method is one that a person chooses because s/he is fully informed about the risks and benefits, makes a choice based on something other than “if I get this, I can’t afford food,” is safe for that person, and is not something imposed on them by a partner whose attitude is ‘birth control is YOUR problem’. And, of course, one that the manufacturer was honest about and didn’t, say, lie on the subject of side effects.

  125. Mandos

    Ooops, you’re right, I’m mixing up my references. It seems like such a Marxist thing to say, though. I generally associate Strangelove with Precious Bodily Fluids and fascist hands.

  126. Kate

    Ah shucks Twisty, it was just gettin’ fun. Ginmar was gonna teach me sumpim ’bout feminism.

  127. Sophist

    She taught me that femme means woman in French, and there’s no “man” in it either. Which proves men can’t be feminists.

    That’s so, like, deep. And stuff.

  128. derekeddy

    To Kate, Your preceptions about men

    “Now might I inform you that you are sadly misinformed about child support enforcement in this country, which is lax to say the least.”

    I live in Massachusetts and misandry is alive and well here. The Child Support Enforcement here is relentless in its collection practices to the tune of 27% of a man’s income for one child. I took custody of my son after his mother abandoned him and his two siblings several years ago. She resurfaced several years later and claimed that I was also the father of her other two children. The results for the other two came out negative and I retained custody of my son then 8 years old. When I tried to get support payments from the mother I was told that she really did not have any money and it wasn’t worth the effort. Conversely, men here in the Commonwealth are put in jail or ordered to report to court daily if they are not working.

    There are many books written by men and women on the “Myth of the Deadbeat Dad.” Do a search and examine the research if you want to see the truth. Men bashing is currently the most pervasive and socially acceptable hate crime in America today.

    # Throwaway Dads: The Myths and Barriers That Keep Men from Being the Fathers They Want to Be by Ross Parke

    Trudy W. Schuett The Myth of the Deadbeat Dads I http://www.fathers.ca/the_myth_of_the_deadbeat_dad.htm

    The Myth of Deadbeat Dad
    http://www.stephenbaskerville.net/The Myth of Deadbeat Dads.pdf

    I realize that people like you do not like it when the facts get in the way of a view but are just as nurturing and caring as women:

    *According to the US Department of Justice, 70% of confirmed cases of child abuse and 65% of parental murders of children are committed by mothers. Police investigators and academics believe that 15% of the roughly 7,000 Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) cases reported each year in the United States are really cases of suffocation, primarily committed by the mother. This alone accounts for at least 1,000 homicides a year. Criminologists point out many if not most cases of SIDS aren’t reported and, because autopsies are rarely able to distinguish between suffocation and SIDS, the actual number of murdered infants is probably much higher.

    *In 1999, according to the American Assn. of Blood banks, 280,000 paternity tests were conducted, and in nearly one third of cases, the man was found not to be the father.

    *According to the Census Bureau, only 10 percent of non-custodial fathers fall into the “deadbeat dad” category. Fathers with joint custody pay 90.2 percent of all child support ordered. Those with visitation rights pay 79.1 percent of all child support ordered. Forty-four percent of those with no visitation rights support their children financially. Which is to say, the deadbeat-dad problem isn’t quite the plague we’ve been led to believe it is.

    Women do not have the high ground when it comes to being responsible non-custodial parents:
    Females not paying Child Support
    · Custodial mothers who receive a support award: 79.6%
    · Custodial fathers who receive a support award: 29.9%.
    · Non-custodial mothers who totally default on support: 46.9%.
    · Non-custodial fathers who totally default on support: 26.9%.

  129. Twisty

    Derekeddy, I care not what you think about the poor bashed men. Put a sock in it.

  130. Branjor

    As to the child abuse and murder cases, they mostly don’t take note of how much *time* is spent with children by the mothers as opposed to the fathers. If you correct for the *time* spent, the fathers abuse and murder children more than the mothers.

  131. ginmar

    Kate, you know, I said I’d shut up, but evidently you don’t know what that means.

    What a wonderful existance you must have to have never before encountered female trolls.

  132. Sibyl

    I wasn’t questioning your comparison per se, ginmar — only your decision to use an offensive racial slur to illustrate said comparison. Was it for the shock value? Did you think we’d be too appalled to argue with you further?

    Or do you just like saying that kind of shit where you can get away with it?

  133. pslade

    As for really effective birth control….I liked the diaphram with lots of spermicide. Then when AIDS appeared…I insisted on condom use as well. And more spermicide. The Pill and I did not get along. Are diaphrams no longer popular? Of course, you need the correct size or it’s uncomfortable.

    BTW…Kate, liked your post #112. The women stuck in suburbia with all the boy’s toys in the garages….it must take a hell of a lot of energy on their parts to keep in a constant state of denial. I don’t know how to reach them though. Anyone have ideas on that?

  134. ginmar

    Sybyl, I use it because it’s the only way to mkae some people get it. Racists these day think if they say everything BUT ‘nigger’ they can evade being called racist. They use code words instead—”welfare mother’ and so forth. They believe that “The Bell Curve” is the Bible—and so forth. Meanwhile, anti-feminists, especially women, have become even more subtle, knowing that using the term ‘feminazi’ will result in instant banning. Instead they use a variety of phrases that indicate that they’re not there in good faith. They claim that all feminists think alike—’preaching to the choir’ or ‘stifling dissent.’ They’ll claim they’re just innocently asking obvious questions, but where someone who’s really asking for information would use some kind of a disclaimer, these often just assume the worst and try and make it about the poor, downtrodden males. They don’t even try and google it. They act like trolls and then proclaim innocence. Any time one sees someone trying to get offended over a joke against males, as if men exist in bondage somewhere, you have to be wary. I mean, men rule the world. Now they’re mopping up and somebody bitches about a phrase that a man actually invented to legitimize male sexual iressonsponsibility! “A hard cock knows no conscience” makes the male sex drive into a mighty and uncontrollable thing, and the little ladies should stay out of its way if they don’t want to get punished by it.

    If the woman in this case had been told by the guy in this case th at he’d had a vasectomy, that he was sterile, and she believed him, the standard sexist response would be to jeer at her and ask her why she even trusted the guy, because of course that hard cock has no conscience. However, what would happen if she frankly admitted she didn’t trust the guy? She’s a ball busting bitch. Meanwhile, the guy claims the girl lied, and people are flocking to believe him, because our society thinks that men don’t lie, even while it gives them every reason to do so. Women are told not to trust men and then made to feel guilty if they don’t. And if they do and wind up getting hurt, well, there’s little truisms about that male sex drive that make excuses for men and their wild-oats sowing. All of them make a joke out of amle irresponsibility and legitimize it. The guy in this case is acting on that history. He sowed his wild oats. He shouldn’t have to pay for it.

    Oh, yeah, and another thing; I get female trolls on my blog all the time who claim that they’ve never experienced sexism and that therefore feminists are just over-sensitive ugly harpies or some variation of that theme. They always claim they only know wonderful men—-what’s the matter with you lot? I find it impossible to believe that anyone who’s older than twenty can notice sexism in the world. It’s everywhere.

  135. ginmar

    “I find it impossible to believe that anyone can NOT notice sexism in the world.”

  136. amaz0n

    Derekeddy, earlier in this post you were waxing poetic about your “husband,” who “dated a girl for a short time and found out she was married so he stopped seeing her. 4 years later and two months before our wedding, we got papers in the mail demanding he pay child support.”

    Now you’d like us to believe that you are a man who “took custody of my son after his mother abandoned him and his two siblings several years ago”?

    Get your pathetic attempts to fabricate evidence-via-personal-anecdotes straight.

  137. Brandon Sherwood

    As most of you will hate me after reading this, mainly because I am a man, I am going to give you the male perspective on this.

    [Balance of comment deleted for spelling and WATM infractions---Twisty]

  138. Pony

    Damn. And here I logged on this morning thinking “Oh I hope there’ll be a male perspective today.” I haven’t *had* a male perspective, for oh, about 12 seconds.

  139. hedonistic

    (yawn) more whiny-privelege-masquerading-as-victim. Cleanup crew anyone?

  140. Kyle

    To avoid the risk of being censored for having an opposing view on your opinion of Roe V Wade For men, I’ll just provide a scholarly quote:

    Karen DeCrow, former president of the National Organization for Women, writes:

    “If a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring a pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support … autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice.”

  141. Twisty

    I do not “censor” opposing views. Nothing I can do will prevent you from airing them on your own blog.

    Trolls who can’t spell, however, are banned from this blog.

    By the way, AmazOn, first-rate collar on Derekeddy!

  142. johnieb

    Twisty, even with chemo brain, is still one of the best commenters on the web.

  143. Luckynkl

    Interesting, Kyle. So what are you trying to imply? That if one woman gives you permission to be a deadbeat piece of shit, it’s ok for you to ignore the 4 billion other women on the planet?

    Personally, I’m all for it. I’m all for women and children having as little to do with men as humanly possible. What I’d really like to see is for women and children to cease having relationships and sex with men altogether. Men are obsolete anyways. They’re no longer necessary or in the least bit useful to anybody or any thing on the planet at this point in time.

    This saying about sums it all up: “A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.”

  144. Mandos

    That’s an interesting teleology you’ve got there, lucky. Anyway you should clarify and say “women and girls”.

  145. Luckynkl

    So what about women and children don’t you understand, Mandros? Seriously, I consider you to have the intellect of a door knob. Stop wasting my time. If you need attention, call your mommy.

  146. Mandos

    “So what about women and children don’t you understand, Mandros?”

    Well, children is a gender-neutral term, so it isn’t clear how it doesn’t contradict your desire for women to have as little to do with men as possible, since presumably some of the male children will grow up.

    “Seriously, I consider you to have the intellect of a door knob. Stop wasting my time.”

    You’re always free not to respond to me.

    “If you need attention, call your mommy.”

    We phone each other regularly, but the conversation rarely turns to these particular interesting topics.

  147. flynngrrl

    Hey, I just wanted to let you know that your post inspired a rather involved post / conversation at my LJ. So thank-you. You’ve made me formulate how I want to say things.

    Also, I am an official Blame-fan.

    I’ll be lurking around.

    http://flynngrrl.livejournal.com/263627.html

  148. mythago

    Kyle, again, misses that the financing is not a “choice”–it’s support for a minor child. Kyle makes it sound as though men are being forced to pay for cruise trips to the Caribbean or root perms.

  149. Hank

    I anticipate taking a beating here, but I have a few questions anyway.

    Should a woman, faced with an unintended pregnancy, be able to refuse motherhood for purely economic reasons (“I” or “We just can’t afford a baby right now”)?

    Should a man, faced with an unintended pregnancy, be able to refuse fatherhood for purely economic reasons (“I” or “We just can’t afford a baby right now”)?

    If your answers to these questions are different, isn’t that unfair?

    I look forward to any replies.

  150. amaz0n

    Should a woman, faced with an unintended pregnancy, be able to refuse motherhood for purely economic reasons (”I” or “We just can’t afford a baby right now”)?

    Yes, by bringing herself to PP and having an abortion.

    Should a man, faced with an unintended pregnancy, be able to refuse fatherhood for purely economic reasons (”I” or “We just can’t afford a baby right now”)?

    Yes, by bringing himself to PP and having an abortion.

    If your answers to these questions are different, isn’t that unfair?

    Nope.

  151. Luckynkl

    **grin** Touché, amazOn.

  152. mythago

    Actually, Hank, the answer to your questions is no–you can’t ‘refuse parenthood’ because you don’t have the bucks. If you are a pregnant woman, you may be able to obtain an abortion; if both parents consent, or if the consent of the father cannot be obtained/is not necessary (e.g. the father can’t be located) and the parents are unmarried, the child can be offered for adoption; but if there is a born child nobody has yet adopted, you can’t simply say “I break with thee” and be freed of your parental obligations. That’s true of male or female.

    amaz0n’s answer was way funnier than mine, though.

  153. Hank

    Thanx for the replies.

    I read “The Moron Section” after I posted my first comment. I guess I’m raising “Men experience ______, too! What about them?” questions, so I appreciate that you allowed me to ask them.

    amazOn, while I enjoyed the humor of your answer to my second question, should I assume that your answer really is “no” (since a man cannot have the conception aborted)? Please correct me if I’m mistaken.

    Mythago, I agree completely that the man in this case should be ordered to continue paying child support, because the child is here and needs to be cared for.

    “the answer to your questions is no – you can’t ‘refuse parenthood’ because you don’t have the bucks. If you are a pregnant woman, you may be able to obtain an abortion”,

    I’m thinking the contradiction I see in your answer has something to do with my use of “refuse parenthood”. Let me try again this way:

    Should a pregnant woman, who wishes not to become a mother for purely economic reasons (”I” or “We just can’t afford a baby right now”), be obligated by law to contribute in any way to raising the child?

    Should a man who impregnates a woman, who wishes not to become a father for purely economic reasons (”I” or “We just can’t afford a baby right now”), be obligated by law to contribute in any way to raising the child?

    I hope you’ll find the time (or desire) to answer again.

    I’ve surfed a few sites looking into what’s being said about this issue. I’m having trouble understanding how feminists and liberals are using the old conservative line “If you don’t want to face the consequences, keep it zipped.” Isn’t this argument as senseless regarding this issue as it is regarding abortion?

    Although I probaby disagree with most of you here on the questions raised by this case, I join you in blaming a great many of society’s ills on The Patriarchy. I hope I’ll be accepted here in spite of my radical views. Maybe you can show me the error of my ways.

  154. RandomThug

    Saying men should “keep it in their pants” is like blaming women for not “closing their legs.”

    If you can have sex with no consequences, then I can do the same thing.

    I’m kind of surprised that any feminist would oppose this. This is what you wanted the whole time, being treated as an equal, your own choices, your own consequences, nobody to answer to but yourself. If you CHOOSE to have the child, you have nobody to answer to, the responsibility should fall squarely on your own shoulders for that child’s support.

    As I suspected feminism is simply a front. It is an attempt to achieve more rights while keeping the privileges that women had in the past of being treated with kid gloves.

    This is it, this is equality, step up to the plate and support it if you want it. Or go back to the kitchen and be a protected coddled Leave it to Beaver mom where dad spends his whole life taking care of the family.

    There is no escape from the fact that life is hard. Nobody gets something for nothing, the child support gravy train worked because pregnancy was unavoidable, now you have absolutely no excuse to bring an unwanted child into this world.

    Your body, your choice, your responsibility.

  155. Erin

    Men and women both have the right to do what is within their power to prevent a pregnancy. Unfortunately, men’s choices happen prior to ejaculation: they can, if they’re truly committed to not being a father NOW, wear a condom or, if they’re committed to not being a father EVER, they can have a vasectomy. Women have contraceptive choices prior to ejaculation, but they continue to have choices after the man’s orgasm: they can take emergency contraception, or they can have a surgical or medical abortion of the pregnancy. That’s what happens when conception and subsequent processes occur in your body.

    The idea that contraception is entirely or mostly the woman’s responsibility, and that the failure of contraception is entirely or mostly the woman’s fault, is so ingrained, that this is seen as a non-starter, but it’s the way it is. It’s not a “keep it in your pants” argument (though that is indeed foolproof), it’s a “take control of your own damn fertility” argument. If you don’t have nearly foolproof, non-intrusive, reversible options for contraception, take it up with Pfizer, not with the women here.

    The other part of the issue, and the one that make me angry, is creating an equivalent relationship between what a woman chooses to do with her BODY and what a man chooses to do with his MONEY. I’m so insulted by this assumption of equivalence that it makes me not want to discuss it at all.

  156. RandomThug

    If you break it down far enough logically, money is just a storage medium for life.

    You can deride “stuff” as insignificant but you need baby food and pampers for the baby, you need building material for its crib and its home, without stuff the baby can’t live.

    The baby needs care, which usually the mother provides, and “stuff” which traditionally the father provides.

    Well since the baby’s birth is now optional, so is the need for “stuff.”

    If a baby is born from a woman now, it is an optional choice for her, hence the reponsibility of the father should also be an optional choice for him.

    You can just leave your baby at the hospital and walk away. You can fuck and run. You have all rights and no responsibilities.

    And anyway, this is only about the 0-@ of women who use pregnancy to trap men into child support to provide a living for themselves. No child should have to be mommy’s moneymaker. These kids are being pimped out for a child support check, 3 or 4 or 5 children by different men, providing mommy with a nice car and nice shoes.

    I bet you anything this programmer’s girlfriend prolly has kids by other men too or plans to have children by other men to supplement her income.

    I tell you what, let’s reverse the roles.

    Men all get custody of their kids, and women all get to go out in the competative job market and bust their ass to support those kids.

    Go ahead, go work to pay for some kid you never get to see, to a man who rejected you, pay him for being the father.

    Sounds very unfair doesn’t it.

    Well it is, and men are on the receiving end of that.

    If women do not support our rights, we will not support their right to abortion. We are not your financial slaves.

    Be fair to us if you want us to be fair to you.

  157. Erin

    Who are these women who are living entirely off of child support? Anyone I’ve met (payer or payee) gives/receives a particular amount of money per month that represents part of the care and upkeep of the child. I have never, in my entire life, met someone whose sole support was from the other parent of a child.

    Is that straw I smell burning?

  158. kactus

    Oh ho ho! Five different kids, five different daddies, five different checks! New shoes for the hos! All right!

    Why didn’t I get in this scam when I had the chance? And all this time I’ve been struggling in obscurity, wearing the same freaking pair of sneakers for three years, only raising two kids, when if I’d just squirted out some more babies I could have been rolling. But now menopause raises its ugly head and I’m past the baby-squirting, new-shoe-buying, bling-blinging heydays of my fertility.

    If I’d only known it was that easy. Damn, I was dumb.

  159. Jodie

    Randomthug, you really are a thug.

    You know what? Know your sexual partner. If (and that’s a big “if” because I’ve never met any woman who did so) the woman in question has 3 kids by 3 different fathers and is “living off child support” — don’t have sex with her! Use a freakin’ condom! Duh!

    Women don’t use the paltry amounts they get for child support to “supplement their income”. They use it to provide food and housing and clothing and transportation for the child. No way would I have 3 more kids even though, gosh! I would get 1200 per month! But could I also work? No, because $1200/month would cover childcare only. So how would I feed and clothe them, much less house them? I suppose this works if we live in a cardboard box.

    You know, kids are expensive. You must not have any (or if you do, you must not be involved in their lives), or you’d realize this.

    PS You’d never get my exhusband to take custody of his kids — that might interfere with his trips to exotic destinations with his date-of-the-month. Hell, he can’t even be bothered to call them on their birthdays.

  160. hedonistic

    Random Thug, are you refusing to see the total LACK of equivalency because you’re obstinate, or because you’re just stupid? Perhaps both?

    Let me break it down for you: Women get pregnant. Men DON’T. It’s not a child until it is BORN or at least viable, after which point our options, male or female, are limited as we spend the next 18 years In Service to the Spawn.

    It’s not “fair” but tough shit, we don’t OWE you fair. Our pro-choice stance has NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING “FAIR.” What part of “OUR bodies, OUR choice” don’t you understand? YOU SIMPLY HAVE NO SAY. GET OVER IT.

    Obstinate Stupid = MORON. So go read “The Moron Section” in Twisty’s FAQ and put a sock in it.

  161. Luckynkl

    Cockaludicrous comment:

    If you break it down far enough logically, money is just a storage medium for life.

    Comparing women to storage containers and money to wombs is what you call logic?

    I think Wickedary is more spot-on:

    Ill logic: the normal/mormative, sick and sickening “logic” of snooldom: invalid reasoning characterized by doublethink, reversal, erasure, and other common forms of distortion and deception.

    You can just leave your baby at the hospital and walk away. You can fuck and run. You have all rights and no responsibilities.

    I think it’s time for you to put down the crack pipe. Crack isn’t good for you. It tends to make one delusional and apt to get things half assed backwards.

    I tell you what, let’s reverse the roles.

    Deal. You get pregnant and do all the work. I’ll sit home and fantasize about how I work and whine. Btw, while you’re up, hon, could you get me a beer? And when’s dinner gonna be ready? I’m starved. And could you wash my tennis shoes when you get a minute? I stepped in dog shit today. Speaking of which, the toilet looks as tho it could use some scrubbing. And can you please shut that kid up? I can’t hear the game.

    If women do not support our rights, we will not support their right to abortion.

    I hope you’re not thinking that intercourse is one of your rights? **chuckle**

    Pssst… there are a million and one ways people can make love without intercourse. It’s not like women need it. The majority of women don’t achieve orgasm in that manner anyways. Just ask lesbians! So don’t worry. We can live just fine without it. And you’ll be fine too. Cuz blue looks good on guys.

    We are not your financial slaves.

    As if you ever were, lol. What’d I tell you about that crack?

    Besides the fact that 83% of men get custody in disputes, and 90% when apppealed, and you’ve got everything half assed backwards, it also becomes obvious to me that you skipped that class in school on government and how are laws are made. No doubt in part due to that 15% more spinal fluid you boys carry around that renders you unable to sit still and learn.

    So here. Let me explain it to you. Laws are created, legislated and passed or not passed in our Legislature. Otherwise known as Congress. Which overwhelmingly consists of men. In 2006, only 15% of members in all of Congress are women. At the time The Child Support Enforcement Act was passed, there were even less women in Congress. Something like 3% in the House and 4% in the Senate.

    Anyways, after a bill get passed through Congress, it then goes to the desk of the president, who can sign a bill into law or veto it. It has always been up to a man because no woman has ever been president.

    The Supreme Court, which also consists mainly of men, can then decide whether a law is Consitutional or not.

    In short, my fine young snool, you boys are the ones who created and legislated this law, your president boy didn’t veto it, and your boys in Supreme Court didn’t think it was unconstitutional. You boys are the ones who passed it. Women had little to no say so in the matter. Same as always.

    So why are you boys now blaming women for these laws? Look no further than the mirror. It is none other than you boys who passed this bill into law and you have no one to blame but yourselves.

    Knowing all of this, I seriously doubt any of you boys have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting out of child support. Besides the fact that it’s not in your best interests to change the law because the majority of child support payers are women, it’s also big business. And the gov’t is making quite a nice profit off of it. I don’t think they’re ready to give up that nice big chunk of change, do you?

    Now go peddle your cockaludicrous propaganda to someone else.

  162. Hank

    It seems Random Thug has hijacked the debate. Please do not feed The Trolls! I think my earlier post was lost in the furor created by the Thug, so I’ll re-ask my questions.

    Should a pregnant woman, who wishes not to become a mother for purely economic reasons (”I” or “We just can’t afford a baby right now”), be obligated by law to contribute in any way to raising the child?

    Should a man who impregnates a woman, who wishes not to become a father for purely economic reasons (”I” or “We just can’t afford a baby right now”), be obligated by law to contribute in any way to raising the child?

  163. Twisty

    The thug has been terminated. In his final post he accused me of “censoring” him. Ha!

  164. amaz0n

    I’ll re-ask my questions.

    Your questions have been answered. As has been indicated, men and women are considered equally responsible for supporting a born child, regardless of their enthusiasm for parenthood. The law is fair in this regard.

  165. amaz0n

    amazOn, while I enjoyed the humor of your answer to my second question, should I assume that your answer really is “no” (since a man cannot have the conception aborted)? Please correct me if I’m mistaken.

    No, you are mistaken. Men really are more than welcome to have abortions if they become pregnant. I am unaware of any law that states otherwise.

  166. Hank

    amazOn,

    I’m not talking about what happens after the child is born. Of course the child is entitled to support from both parents.

    My question is posed after the woman becomes pregnant, but before the child is born. I hope that you’ll look at my questions in this different light, and reply to them again (or for the first time).

    Saying the questions have been answered is not the same as answering the questions. I’m not looking for a fight here. I just see a double standard but am willing to concede I may be wrong. So far many have told me I’m wrong, but have not explained why.

    P.S. I’ll be happy to answer any questions you may have for me that might help explain why I see this double standard.

  167. amaz0n

    I’m not talking about what happens after the child is born.

    Yes, you are. You asked if a man/woman should “be obligated by law to contribute in any way to raising the child.” A child is a born human being. Clearly, therefore, no double standard exists.

    Saying the questions have been answered is not the same as answering the questions.

    I didn’t say that I personally answered “the questions,” which appear to actually be a set of insinuations in which you imply that allowing women to use birth control via abortion gives them special rights to opt out of parenthood that men don’t have, which is a logical fallacy. That (non-)issue has been addressed in this thread* and others that I see you have trolled in, yet you have resolutely chosen to ignore any of that information and insist that your “questions” have not been “answered.”

    Since it is quite clear that you have no interest in actually reading this thread (or any other), and that your priority is to draw attention to yourself and the brilliance of your “abortion as special right” hypothesis (which is neither brilliant nor unique and had been conveniently debunked in this thread before you even arrived), I would like to assure you that you will recieve nothing but snark from me, and quite probably others.

    *See posts #18, #22, #31, and #155, among others. For the convenience of such obtuse readers as yourself, Twisty has even clipped #155 and placed it on the top of her front page in its own special post.

  168. Hank

    Hey amazOn

    Post #18 didn’t answer my questions. It’s about custody disputes.

    Post #22 comes pretty close. It states that if man tells a woman the he has no desire in fathering a child with her and she still chooses to have sex with him “then she has waivered her right to ask him to pay for or to, in any other way, help take care of any resulting children.”

    It doesn’t quite answer my questions regarding a woman being legally responsible for any child (or fetus) she concieves, but it sounds fair to me. Does it sound fair to you?

    Post #31: “If a child were to be born to a woman because she chose not to use birth control, or because birth control failed, she would have obligations to that child.”

    I agree. But she has the ability to opt out of those obligations before the child is born. Why can’t a man opt out of those obligations before birth, too?

    Post #155. “Women have contraceptive choices prior to ejaculation, but they continue to have choices after the man’s orgasm: they can take emergency contraception, or they can have a surgical or medical abortion of the pregnancy.”

    Once again, I agree and I wouldn’t have it any other way. Why can’t a man have similar choices to reject parenthood after his orgasm?

    I hope you’ll take the time to answer me again (especially my question about post #22).

    Thanx.

  169. amaz0n

    Isn’t it amazing what you can learn when you actually read, Hank?

    However,

    Post #22 comes pretty close. It states that if man tells a woman the he has no desire in fathering a child with her and she still chooses to have sex with him “then she has waivered her right to ask him to pay for or to, in any other way, help take care of any resulting children.”

    No, that’s not what post #22 says. Post #22 is a post by R. Mildred, which you should clearly read again.

    Post #31: “If a child were to be born to a woman because she chose not to use birth control, or because birth control failed, she would have obligations to that child.”

    I agree. But she has the ability to opt out of those obligations before the child is born. Why can’t a man opt out of those obligations before birth, too

    He can, by using birth control. That fact is clearly detailed in the post you quote, so I’m afraid that I’ll have to encourage you, once again, to read more thoroughly.

    Post #155. “Women have contraceptive choices prior to ejaculation, but they continue to have choices after the man’s orgasm: they can take emergency contraception, or they can have a surgical or medical abortion of the pregnancy.”

    Once again, I agree and I wouldn’t have it any other way. Why can’t a man have similar choices to reject parenthood after his orgasm?

    For the second time, the answer to your question is in the very post you quote. In fact, it’s in the sentence following the sentence you cut-and-pasted into your own post, so it’s likely that simply chose to ignore it. And if you choose to ignore information, dear Hank, that is your own problem.

  170. amaz0n

    Post #22 comes pretty close. It states that if man tells a woman the he has no desire in fathering a child with her and she still chooses to have sex with him “then she has waivered her right to ask him to pay for or to, in any other way, help take care of any resulting children.”

    No, that’s not what post #22 says. Post #22 is a post by R. Mildred, which you should clearly read again.

    Since I’m sure you’ll be confused, allow me to clarify. The section of R. Mildred’s post you directly quoted is accurate to what she said; however, your summation of what she said – “if man tells a woman the he has no desire in fathering a child with her and she still chooses to have sex with him” – is not an accurate reflection of her post.

  171. Erin

    Biology is a cruel, cruel mistress, Hank. See also: unfairnesses of life, existential crises, we’re all gonna die, Bill O’Reilly is a rich man, etc.

    I thought I laid out the choices pretty clearly. Men have choices; the fact that you’d like a choice between the little death and the little birth will never make it so. Your choices precede your orgasm. Your body doesn’t house and build a fetus to the detriment of its own health. That’s anatomy. Mistakes happen, condoms break, and apparently women hold semen in their mouths for an indefinite period of time until they can get to the turkey baster. That’s life. Or it’s at least a Law & Order episode, which is practically just as good as real life.

    If you don’t trust women, and you’re a heterosexual male, well, then you’re kinda in a bind. If I have to type the words condom and vasectomy again, or explain their purposes, I’m really going to lose it, so let me lay it out for you on an emotional, rather than a physiological level, since anatomy and physiology don’t seem to be advancing the discussion much. Have sex with people you can talk to, people you trust, or with whom you’re willing to reproduce, or save up for a Real Doll. Can’t knock ‘em up, don’t have to pay support, and you can pick what you want ‘em to wear. They may cost a couple of thousand bucks, but it’s probably less than a year of child support.

    Women have always had to take sex seriously. We’ve been mistrusting the men we fuck for millenia, so we’re really really far ahead of you guys in terms of the sex-is-serious-business thing. Women have always had the shit end of the reproductive deal. Oral contraceptives didn’t change that, and legal abortion didn’t change that. They made more women available for heterosexual sex, but they didn’t change the basic biological and social responsibilities thar are all tied up in where babies come from (hint: it’s worse for us than it is for you — physically, financially, emotionally, you name it).

    The advent of paternity testing and the apparent aggressiveness of government in pursuing child support payments are relatively recent occurrences that have placed some of this responsibility, and some of the anxieties that come with responsibilities, on the shoulders of the other party. Which, from where I sit, seems entirely fair. Welcome to our world, guys. If we could share morning sickness or birth-control induced weight gain and depression with you, rest assured that we would. Heck, I’d be appreciative if you’d just take the menstrual cramps.

    It’s too bad that you think it’s a downer, and that men need to think twice (and maybe one more time for good measure) before sowing their wild oats with a potentially fertile woman — and you really should be agitating for effective non-barrier male birth control that will allow you to control your own fertility if you take this as seriously as you seem to.

  172. mythago

    Should a pregnant woman, who wishes not to become a mother for purely economic reasons (”I” or “We just can’t afford a baby right now”), be obligated by law to contribute in any way to raising the child?

    She is obligated. I really don’t know how I can make this any clearer, Hank. If a child is born, the biological mother and biological father are financially and legally responsible for that child. There are some exceptions, such as sperm donors, but that’s the rule.

    The rule does not change because the woman wanted an abortion but couldn’t get one, or was raped, or just doesn’t really want a kid right now.

    You seem to be confusing ‘father pays child support’ with ‘father is 100% responsible for the child’s financial needs, mother is 0% responsible.” That’s not the case.

    But she has the ability to opt out of those obligations before the child is born.

    Actually, she doesn’t. She has the legal right, under some circumstances, to opt out of giving birth to the child. (That’d be due to the fact that only the mother, not the father, has the child inside of her body.)

  173. Hank

    amazOn,

    regarding post #155: you’re right.

    “Women have contraceptive choices prior to ejaculation, but they continue to have choices after the man’s orgasm: they can take emergency contraception, or they can have a surgical or medical abortion of the pregnancy. That’s what happens when conception and subsequent processes occur in your body.”

    What is the “that” in “That’s what happens”? And why do women have “that” avaiable to them and not men?

    Regarding post #22. I’ll quote it directly to avoid muddying the waters:

    “on the other hand, if he says to a woman, before conception occurs, “See here honey, I want to have sex with you, but if having sex with you means that I might end up paying for a child I can’t handle taking care of, with a woman who I do not think is the woman I want to raise a child with, I must point out that I cannot morally consent to having sex, does this present us with a problem?” and she says “nope, now eat me, bitch” (or words to that effect) then she has waivered her right to ask him to pay for or to, in any other way, help take care of any resulting children.”

    I agree with R Mildred. Do you?

  174. Hank

    erin,

    I just realized that you were the author of post #155 that amazOn referred me to. The questions I posed to amazOn regarding your post would be better answered by you, I guess. I’d appreciate it if you would.

    I sense your frustration with me for not getting it (I’m trying, I really am). I hope I don’t give you a heart attack, but I’ve got a few more questions.

    “Have sex with people you can talk to, people you trust, or with whom you’re willing to reproduce, or save up for a Real Doll.”

    Since I’m not willing to reproduce, that leaves me with the other two options (I’ll pass on the Real Doll, but thanx for the suggestion). I am having sex with someone I can talk to and I trust her (we’ve been together for 8 years). We agree that we don’t want children (she has two from a previous marriage, I love ‘em to death, and am happy to contribute to their care any way I can). We started with condoms but later switched to a diaphragm at her request (she doesn’t like condoms). We have also agreed that if she becomes pregnant anyway (it happens), she will have an abortion.

    As the law now stands, if she gets pregnant, she can change her mind, have the child, and legally obligate me to fatherhood of the child that she agreed we would not have.

    I see that as unequal rights between the parents (as I cannot legally obligate her to motherhood of that same unborn child – nor should I be able to).

    I’m willing to concede I may be wrong. Please explain why you think I am (preferably using small words – I seem to be a little slow regarding this debate).

    Thanx.

  175. Hank

    mythago,

    My question was unclear. I’m talking about the rights both parties have after conception, but before birth.

    I’ll re-ask my questions thusly:

    Jane and John are our hypothetical unmarried couple. Despite their use of birth control (they agreed on the method used) she becomes pregnant anyway (it happens).

    Jane, for purely economic reasons (”I” or “We just can’t afford a baby right now”) does not wish to become a mother (that’s why they used birth control). Should Jane legally be obligated to contribute in any way to the raising and care of the (still unborn) child?

    John, for purely economic reasons (”I” or “We just can’t afford a baby right now”) does not wish to become a father (that’s why they used birth control). Should John legally be obligated to contribute in any way to the raising and care of the (still unborn) child?

    I appreciate your continuing the debate.

    Thanx.

  176. Rene

    Hank,

    Have you considered having a vasectomy? I’m not trying to be snippy, but it seems to me as if it’s the perfect option for you, since you know that you don’t want to have children and since diaphragms, alas, are among the more fallible methods. Also, all your hypothetical scenarios suggest to me that you don’t entirely trust your sex partner, and diaphragms are not the ideal method for men who like to be in total control of their reproductive destinies but who nevertheless like to ejaculate inside women of reproductive age. Unless you’re the one who checks the diaphragm for holes, smears it with spermicide, and inserts it, how do you know that some conniving potential incubator isn’t trying to steal your precious fluids? For all you know, she could be sticking an old potato chip up there or something.

    Aside to Erin: You rock.

    Rene

  177. Hank

    Rene, no snippiness taken. I appreciate the reply.

    After having three kids, my brother got a vasectomy. Two years later, his wife got pregnant. The fourth child is a boy who looks just like him, so I’m fairly confident it’s his. But if I did get a vasectomy and still impregnated my girlfriend (it happens), should I be legally responsible for the unintended child?

    I did not stop using condoms “because I like to ejaculate inside women of reproductive age”. I stopped at her suggestion because she likes being ejaculated into by me – it’s one of her turn ons (you don’t know how many times I’ve heard “fill me up, baby” in the heat of passion). Too much information, certainly, but I had to refute your implication.

    I do trust my girlfriend, and do not think she will get pregnant on purpose. Although she agreed that she will have an abortion in the event of a pregnancy, I think that it’s entirely reasonable for her to change her mind for moral or emotional reasons (it’s easy to say you’ll have the abortion as a hypothetical, but harder to actually go through with it). But I think it’s unreasonable for me to be legally responsible for the child that she agreed we would never have.

    P.S. I misspoke earlier. She uses an IUD, not a diaphragm. Is that more reliable (my area of expertise in birth control is limited to condoms)?

  178. amaz0n

    What is the “that” in “That’s what happens”?

    Oh, Hank. Now you’re just being deliberately obtuse – which, by the way, does not make you seem as clever as you obviously believe.

    We’ll continue this discussion when you can figure out the answer to your own question. Unless you’re either a non-native English speaker or have a disorder that causes you to read only half of the words that you see, it’s pretty plain.

    And why do women have “that” avaiable to them and not men?

    Sigh.

    Hank, sit down. It’s time for you to learn some important stuff about girls and boys and where babies come from.

    You see, Hank, girls and boys are different in some important ways. Underneath their clothes, in their bathing suit areas, there are special private parts. And those special private parts are different for boys and girls.

    Boys have a part that sticks out, called a penis. The penis connects to another special boy part, called the testicles. The testicles produce sperm, which are one-half of how a baby is made.

    Girls have a special part called a vagina. The vagina is an opening that begins inside the vulva, the name for a girl’s front bathing suit area, and connects to more special parts inside the girl, called the uterus and the ovaries. The ovaries are full of eggs, which are the other half of how a baby is made. An egg is released once a month or so into the uterus, which is a chamber inside the woman that connects the vagina and the ovaries together.

    When a man and a woman love each other very much* in the special** way that only grown-ups can love each other, they give each other a special hug called “intercourse.” The special hug pushes the girl’s vagina and the boy’s penis together so that the outside of the boy’s penis touches the inside of the girl’s vagina. When that happens, the boy’s penis can release a fluid called semen, which contains the sperm produced by the testicles, inside the woman’s vagina. The sperm travel up the vagina and into the uterus and the woman’s follopian tubes, which are tubes that connect the uterus and the ovaries together.

    If an egg from the woman’s ovaries comes in contact with sperm from the man, the egg will choose the sperm it likes best and suck it inside. When the egg and the sperm meet and mix with each other, it’s called conception or fertilization. The fertilized egg then travels into the uterus, where it sometimes sticks onto the wall of the uterus. When that occurs, the fertilized egg begins to develop and grow. When a fertilized egg implants in a woman’s uterus and begins to grow, pregnancy begins.

    If the woman wants the developing growth, called a fetus, to remain in her body, and the woman and the fetus are heathly, the fetus will continue to develop and grow inside the woman’s uterus. Over a period of nine months, the fetus will grow from a litte tiny cluster of cells until it is developed enough and big enough to leave the woman’s body and exist independently as its own little tiny body, called a baby. When that happens, the woman pushes the baby out of her uterus through her vagina.

    That’s how babies are made. Everyone came into the world this way, Hank, even you.

    *Or any number of other scenarios
    ** Fact: t’s impossible to give The Talk without saying the word “special” at least fifty times

  179. Hank

    amazOn,

    I guess I’ll leave the question regarding post #155 to erin, its author. I wasn’t trying to be clever. I may be obtuse, but it’s not deliberate. Please don’t condemn me for it. My question was an honest one. I still don’t know what “that” refers to. But thanx, anyway.

    How about R Mildred’s quote from post #22 to which you referred me? You didn’t answer that one.

    “on the other hand, if he says to a woman, before conception occurs, “See here honey, I want to have sex with you, but if having sex with you means that I might end up paying for a child I can’t handle taking care of, with a woman who I do not think is the woman I want to raise a child with, I must point out that I cannot morally consent to having sex, does this present us with a problem?” and she says “nope, now eat me, bitch” (or words to that effect) then she has waivered her right to ask him to pay for or to, in any other way, help take care of any resulting children.”

    I agree with this. Do you?

  180. amaz0n

    Sorry Hank, no go. Since we’ve basically established that you can’t process anything you’ve read unless it’s been repeated at least once, allow me to refresh.

    We’ll continue this discussion when you can figure out the answer to your own question.

    Sorry Hank, no go. Since we’ve basically established that you can’t process anything you’ve read unless it’s been repeated at least once, allow me to refresh.

    We’ll continue this discussion when you can figure out the answer to your own question.

  181. Hank

    amazOn,

    Ok, let’s just drop erin’s post. I’ll take it up with her.

    I did answer my own question regarding R Mildred’s quote (#22). I agree with it.

    I’m asking if you agree, too (since you were the one who recommended I read it).

    I’m sorry I appear to be angering you. I don’t mean to. I’m just trying to understand those with a different opinion to mine. As I said earlier, if you have any questions for me that might help me understand your point of view, I’d be happy to answer them.

    Please don’t quit the debate because I’m not as smart as you.

  182. Twisty

    Hank, it’s time to put a sock in it. Or put it in a sock. I Blame The Patriarchy does not exist to explain stuff to men, particularly those who say stupid shit like “I’m not as smart as you.” Either you’re playing bait-the-feminist, or you really aren’t smart. In neither case are you useful.

  183. Erin

    I don’t know how many more times or how many more ways in which I can say: Take control of your own fertility: this is your job, not a woman’s job — not any woman, no matter how much you love her or she loves you and your ejaculate. You have babymaking equipment, and you need to be responsible for its babymaking abilities. The end. You can get neutered and she can get spayed and you’ll have covered all your bases the best you can (I have dogs and not kids, can you tell?). Why is that not a solution, if you’re both so committed to the child-free life?

    That, for Hank and anyone else who may be unenlightened about physiology, is the extension of pregnancy avoiding options past the point of male orgasm. Though it seems like the world would like to make ejaculation some sort of bright shining line when it comes to heterosexual sex, the biological facts say otherwise. If women’s orgasms had the potential to make an embryo develop in your body, then you’d be able to make the choices that occurred after her orgasm. It happens the other way around, though — and if you willingly put your viable semen in the vicinity of her viable ovum, you’re waiving your reproductive options and leaving her with several, and you’d better hope that the way she wants to handle the situation is in tune with yours. You can what-if it all you want; it is how it is.

    Now, a far more interesting question is, once there is no more legal abortion, who the hell will you guys whine about when you knock women up and have no other options but 18 years of some kid cramping your style? It won’t be the bad, semen-stealing woman and her hustling spawn then. How will we make that women’s fault and women’s responsibility?

    Thanks for cutting that one short, Twisty.

  184. Luckynkl

    I think the answer Hank is looking for is, “Yes sir. You are so right sir. You have absolute power and control over yourself, over women over reproduction, over money, over government, over the sun, the stars, the moon and the entire planet. It’s your birthright.”

    Anything short of that will not be satisfactory to Hank or any other patriarch. Because absolute power and control is what the patriarchy is after. And always has been. At its core is something so insidious and terrifying that most people can’t even think it, let alone say it. The patriarchs really do truly believe that they and god are one and the same. But the patriarchs cannot fully achieve that status until they are able to reproduce life. Once the patriarchs are able to accomplish that, women will be completely annihilated. It’s foretold in his religions, in his symbolism, in his government, in his culture, iin his prophecies, in his science, and in his history, if you care to look with eyes that see and ears that listen.

  185. mythago

    I’m talking about the rights both parties have after conception, but before birth.

    Then let’s talk about the responsibilities, as well. The father has none, the mother has all of them. As for rights, in some circumstances, the mother has the right to abort the pregnancy. That’s it. In your hypothetical, the answer for Jane is “yes, unless and until she has an abortion.” The answer for John is “no, unless he lives in Oregon and doesn’t want the child given up for adoption, in which case he’d better show some interest or he will have no rights post-birth.”

    But I think it’s unreasonable for me to be legally responsible for the child that she agreed we would never have.

    You know, I often remind my kids that “It’s not fair!” is not actually a synonym for “I’m not hapy with the outcome.” Now I’ll remind you.

    You’re aware that, because of the nature of pregnancy, only the pregnant person has the right to terminate a pregnancy; that if your girlfriend has a child, you and she will be legally and financially responsible for that child unless and until the child is adopted by someone else; and you acknowledge that saying ‘we would abort’ now is neither binding nor even something you can predict will be the case if a pregnancy results.

    Given that, the definition of “unreasonable” is: continuing to have sex with your girlfriend and whining that if the birth control she alone uses fails, you might share responsibility if she carries a pregnancy to term.

  186. amaz0n

    “I think the answer Hank is looking for is, “Yes sir. You are so right sir. You have absolute power and control over yourself, over women over reproduction, over money, over government, over the sun, the stars, the moon and the entire planet. It’s your birthright.”

    Oh, let’s give Hank some credit. He doesn’t really want to be told he’s right. He doesn’t even want to discuss this topic. He just wants attention, preferably female attention, and lots of it. He’s not being coy about the function of demonstrative pronouns and feigning ignorance about the human reproductive system because he actually wants the discussion to move forward. Nor do I think he really wanted to prove a point when he lept on the opportunity to tell us that he, a fellow who obviously spends an excessive amount of time on the computer and doesn’t understand basic parts of speech, has been told many times that a lady would like him to “fill her up.”

    Hank, learn to use Friendster. I assure you, you can find all sorts of attention there, and you won’t have to pretend that you can’t read or brag about your sexual prowess.

  187. kathy a

    mythago, you are so right. every parent has had a million “it’s not fair” conversations with any child old enough to employ the phrase.

    stuff happens, and sometimes someone is not happy with the outcome. live with it. the fact is that while humans can control or change some things, there are other things that just need to be dealt with, and responsible people deal with them as best they can.

    my kid began driving at 18. he had 2 accidents in the first 2 months. he is off our insurance and not driving. they were accidents, not intentional — he still can’t drive. amazingly, he is coping. if he ever drives again, it will cost him personally a bunch of money.

    my nephew got brain cancer. nobody to blame there. he struggled a long time, and then he died. no one signed up for that — it wasn’t fair — we all did what decent humans do, and made the best of the time he had. it still hurts.

    i was the oldest of a passle of kids. our mother became a flaming homicidal lunatic in the home. she looked good enough to outsiders that nobody stepped in to intervene. late in his life, my dad was very regretful that he looked aside. it was not fair to any of us. my sibs and i did not have a lot of choices.

    i can’t work up sympathy for possible future child support payments if birth control fails. that’s just money, dude, and a risk of having a certain kind of romantic life. real people are busy dealing with the business of managing real lives — we are all constrained by the things that happen over which we have no control.

    nobody but the owner of a uterus should dictate what happens in there; no forced pregnancy, no forced abortion. the times of big reproduction-related choices for men are before sex and after birth — that is the nature of the beast, since men don’t carry fetuses in their bodies. you can use fail-safe birth control [vasectomy plus condom, or abstinance], and you can decide after birth whether to be a check-only dad or a real dad. them’s the breaks.

  188. Kyle

    Doesn’t the concept of child support inherently KEEP women subservent to and dependent upon men? That might be why all of those “male” senators and presidents and supreme court justices keep it that way.

  189. Frumious B

    I just can’t jump on this bandwagon. I’m not responding to whoever the troll is, I haven’t even read his stuff. I’ve read the responses, though, so I’ll respond to them.

    I still hear the “men need to use birth control or be abstinant” refrain, now couched as “take responsibility for their fertility.” Condoms alone have a 20% failure rate. Vasectomies have a non-zero failure rate. All contraceptives have some failure rate. Even a man who is trying to take control of his fertility can get a woman pregnant without wanting to. Acknowledging this does not equate to blaming the woman for a pregnancy. And don’t even start with the “keep it zipped” argument. I wouldn’t say that to a woman, and I won’t say it to a man.

    I don’t want to hear the “it’s not fair so deal with it” argument either. Slavery wasn’t fair, denying women and blacks the vote wasn’t fair, but we didn’t say “deal with it” now did we? Being a member of the oppressed class is not license to oppress others, even if the others are the oppressors. The right to control fertility, control one’s body, and control one’s parenting choices is a human right. That’s all humans, not just the ones with uteri. In Andrea Dworkin’s words, we must be humans first.

    I don’t want to hear the strawman “money != body” argument anymore. Of course money does not equal body, that’s not the point. The point is 18 years of commitment. Yes, sex can result in children. That does not mean that everyone who has sex is interested in 18 or more years of commitment. Nor does that mean that everyone who has sex has consented to parenting. Forcing someone into a parenting role which they have expressed a lack of interest in and have taken steps to avoid is wrong (see paragraph above).

  190. mythago

    Condoms alone have a 20% failure rate.

    Wrong. The user failure rate is 15%. The ‘perfect’ failure rate is 2%. (The difference between the two is that the ‘perfect’ rate is what you would expect if the condom was used perfectly every time; the user failure rate includes things like forgetting to put the condom on at all, or having intercourse for a while and then putting the condom on before ejaculation.)

    Slavery wasn’t fair, denying women and blacks the vote wasn’t fair

    Are you saying that slavery, racism and sexism are biological facts, like the biological fact that only women can become pregnant?

    When anti-abortionists shriek “Keep it zipped,” they aren’t merely acknowledging that pregnancy–and perhaps parenthood–can be a consequence of heterosexual sex. They’re insisting that pregnancy is a just punishment for improper sex and that nobody should be allowed to do anything to stop it. That’s why they don’t like contraceptives or abortion. Listen to them long enough and you’ll hear them sneer about “consequence-free sex”. It’s not about responsibility for them, it’s punishment.

    “Keep it zipped” really is unfair. Try “Once there’s a kid involved, your right to whine about the condom breaking goes out the window.” That applies to both sexes, by the way.

  191. amaz0n

    Condoms alone have a 20% failure rate.

    Wrong.

    All contraceptives have some failure rate. Even a man who is trying to take control of his fertility can get a woman pregnant without wanting to … I don’t want to hear the “it’s not fair so deal with it” argument either. Slavery wasn’t fair, denying women and blacks the vote wasn’t fair, but we didn’t say “deal with it” now did we?

    And? Even a woman who is trying to control her fertility can get pregnant or have a child without wanting to. The natural risks that are associated with intercourse are not a function of society, as slavery and denying people the right to vote are; intercourse and the risks inherent are a function of biology. I don’t get to wake up every morning and say, “I never wanted to be a 5’5 tall woman! I wanted to be a 6’4 tall man! The fact that biology dealt me a hand I’m not comfortable with is oppression and comparable to slavery!” Such a comparison would be stupid and offensive.

    Being a member of the oppressed class is not license to oppress others, even if the others are the oppressors. The right to control fertility, control one’s body, and control one’s parenting choices is a human right.

    And do you know what else is a human right? The right to be supported by your parents, or by a surrogate if those parents choose to pass along the responsibility. Men are given the same opportunity to control their fertility, their body and their parental choices that women are: the opportunity to abstain, the opportunity to use birth control that is suitable to their personal anatomies, the right to give a child up for adoption with the cooperation of the other parent, and the right to choose to financially support a child rather than being the primary caretaker. No one, in this thread or otherwise, has been able to explain what special rights women are given that men don’t have. Several people, including apparently yourself, have insisted misguidedly that the inherent biological differences between men and women’s reproductive systems are equivalent to a difference in rights. This is a crock. I cannot claim that I have been “oppressed” or “denied rights” because I was born short instead of tall, brown eyed instead of blue eyed, or even if I was born disabled instead of healthy. The realities of biology are not a function of what society does or does not allow, which is the definition of a right.

    Of course money does not equal body, that’s not the point. The point is 18 years of commitment … Nor does that mean that everyone who has sex has consented to parenting.

    Saying “commitment” instead of “money” does not make it any less about money. No one is legal forced to “parent” or provide primary care. Not men, not women. What all parents are legally obligated to do, however, is choose to either provide financial support or primary care or both. Those who do not give up their children for adoption, and do not choose either primary care or primary care money, must support financially. And providing financial support is very distant from any common definition of “parenting,” unless my employer is parenting me.

  192. Trixie N

    As a woman, I can be 100% sure that for the next 18 years, I will not be responsible in any way for a child I don’t want.

    Why can’t a man be 100% sure, too?

  193. mythago

    As a woman, I can be 100% sure that for the next 18 years, I will not be responsible in any way for a child I don’t want.

    Actually, no, you can’t, unless you are physically unable to have children for some reason. That’s not a function of being a woman.

  194. Trixie N

    “Actually, no, you can’t, unless you are physically unable to have children for some reason. That’s not a function of being a woman.”

    Yes I can. As a woman, I can have an abortion, or I can put the child up for adoption. In either case, I am 100% sure that I will not be responsible in any way for the child I do not want.

  195. amaz0n

    Yes I can. As a woman, I can have an abortion,

    Unless it isn’t possible for any number of reasons, including health restrictions, financial restrictions, religious beliefs, moral beliefs, lack of access to a clinic, etc.

    I can put the child up for adoption.

    Which requires the consent of the father as well. Women cannot just give their children up for adoption willy-nilly. Why is this such a commonly held misconception?

    In either case, I am 100% sure that I will not be responsible in any way for the child I do not want.

    Nope.

  196. amaz0n

    And Trixie, since I notice that you’re actually our banished friend Hank, please learn something about reproductive rights before you attempt to discuss them. You’ve been informed, repeatedly, of the facts that I just cited. Why do you need to be told again?

  197. amaz0n

    Furthermore, Trixie/Hank,

    Why can’t a man be 100% sure, too?

    He can. He can choose to be abstinent, or choose an alternative sexual activity that doesn’t involve intercourse. Babies don’t appear out of nowhere.

  198. Trixie N

    “Unless it isn’t possible for any number of reasons, including health restrictions, financial restrictions, religious beliefs, moral beliefs, lack of access to a clinic, etc.”

    In my case, only a medical condition that I’m not aware of could prevent me from having an abortion. But I’ll give you that one.

    “Which requires the consent of the father as well.”

    If I wanted to give the child up for adoption, could the father gain custody and sue me for child support?

    If he can, I could give the child up for adoption without letting him know of my pregnancy. I could dump him and move out of town – a horrible thing to do, but it is my right, isn’t it?

    If I told the adoption agency that I did not know who the father was, would they do a dna test to find out who the father was and try to find him?

    If not, I am still 100% sure that I will not be responsible in any way for the child I do not want.

  199. amaz0n

    If I wanted to give the child up for adoption, could the father gain custody and sue me for child support?

    Yes.

    If he can, I could give the child up for adoption without letting him know of my pregnancy. I could dump him and move out of town – a horrible thing to do, but it is my right, isn’t it?

    It is of course possible, but it is not legal, which means that no, it is not your right.

    If you wish to give a child up for adoption, you are legally bound to contact the father of the child if it is at all possible and inform him of your wish to give the child up for adoption, and obtain consent to do so. If you do not do so and give the child up for adoption anyway, the father can upon discovering the existence of his child gain custody from the adoptive parents, on the grounds that he did not give consent for the adoption. He can then sue you for child support. Furthermore, you can be prosecuted for making false statements (among other things) if you claimed during the adoption proceedings that the father’s whereabouts were unknown to you if that is not the case.

  200. Trixie N

    Ok, it seems ya got me on adoption too.

    Back to abortion before I concede defeat.

    If I want to have an abortion, is there any way I can be legally compelled to have the child against my wishes (even if an abortion may be dangerous for me due to some medical complication)? Also assume that it is early enough in my pregnancy to satisfy restrictions against late-term abortions.

  201. Luckynkl

    MALE PRIVILEGE
    by D. A. Clarke

    Privilege is simple.
    Going for a pleasant stroll after dark.
    Not checking the back of your car as you get in,
    sleeping soundly,
    Speaking without interruption
    and not remembering dreams of rape, that follow you all day,

    that woke you crying,
    and Privilege is not seeing your stripped, humiliated body

    plastered in celebration
    across every magazine rack.

    is going to the movies and not seeing yourself terrorized,
    defamed,
    battered, butchered
    seeing something else.

    Privilege is
    Riding your bicycle across town without being screamed at

    or run off the road,
    not needing an abortion,
    taking off your shirt on a hot day, in a crowd,
    not wishing you could type better just in case,
    not shaving your legs,
    having a decent job and expecting to keep it,
    not feeling the boss’s hand up your crotch,
    dozing off on late-night busses,

    Privilege is being the hero in the TV show not the dumb broad,
    living where your genitals are not denied
    knowing your doctor won’t rape you.

    Privilege is
    being smiled at all day by nice helpful women
    it is the way you pass judgment on their appearance with magisterial authority,
    the way you face a judge of your own sex in court

    and are over-represented in Congress
    and are not strip searched for a traffic ticket or used as a dart board

    by your friendly mechanic,

    Privilege is seeing your bearded face reflected through the history texts
    not only of your high school days but all your life,
    not being relegated to a paragraph every other chapter,
    the way you occupy entire volumes of poetry
    and more than your share of the couch unchallenged.
    It is your mouthing smug, atrocious insults at women

    who blink and change the subject politely

    Privilege is how seldom the rapist’s name appears in the papers
    and the way you smirk over your PLAYBOY.

    It’s simple really,
    Privilege means someone else’s pain,
    your wealth is my terror,
    your uniform is a woman raped to death here, or in Cambodia or wherever
    wherever your obscene Privilege writes your name in my blood,
    it’s that simple,
    you’ve always had it,
    that’s why it doesn’t seem to make you sick to your stomach,
    you have it,
    we pay for it,
    now do you understand?

  202. Twisty

    Hank-Trixie appears to have misconstrued the spirit of the blog, and has ignored my request to put a sock in it. This creates extra work for me, and I dislike extra work. Jackass.

  203. Betsy

    Hey Hank,

    I understand your point and sympathize. It isn’t right that, simply because gestation takes place in one of the two bodies that got the process started, that body has an extra opportunity to prevent birth. A “second bite at the apple,” if you will (allusion intentional). Really, it isn’t right.

    So, accordingly, the other body, the male one, should have the right to enforce its will (since it sincerely prefers not to have responsibility for a child). The non-gestational person should be able to force the gestational person to undergo an abortion.

    Clearly, this is preferable to execution of the live child shortly after birth.

  204. Kyle

    Well, since no woman here would answer me, then it must be true. The mere concept of child support does indeed keep wome under the thumbs of men. I think men and women like it that way.

    Kyle

  205. hedonistic

    Kyle, poor numbskull, the money is not for the woman, it’s for the CHILD. And for the most part, child support payments only barely offset the actual cost of raising one.

    Bottom line: Breeding-as-money-making-scheme is a delusional fantasy cooked up by misogynistic, cheap assholes.

  206. Pony

    Child support, if you’ll look at the wording of the actual legal awards is indeed for the mother to use for the child’s needs. But if one of the child’s needs is a mother to take it thither and yon for it’s eduction, c’est la vie. That costs. Another of the child’s needs may be for a mother (or hired adult) to stay home from work when he/she has chicken pox. What, her employee won’t cover it? Child support will.

    Alimony, which some seem to confuse with child support, is the money/support/property a woman who parked her career/working life/eduction gets, because she worked primarlily for room during the years of the family business. As is the situation when any business is dissolved, when the family business is dissolved in divorce court, both partners shall get a share.

  207. Erin

    I believe that the earth was created by magical green unicorns with popsicle horns who breathe out clouds of cherry-scented pipe smoke. And since no one (unicorn or not) has told me otherwise, it must be because it’s true.

  208. amaz0n

    I want to have an abortion, is there any way I can be legally compelled to have the child against my wishes (even if an abortion may be dangerous for me due to some medical complication)? Also assume that it is early enough in my pregnancy to satisfy restrictions against late-term abortions.

    No, you cannot be legally compelled to have the child against your wishes, even if the procedure could threaten your life or worse. Then again, men are not legally prevented from shooting themselves in order to avoid parental responsibility, either.

    Furthermore, please note that what you are essentially asking is “if a birth control method (abortion in this case) is effective, can I still be compelled to support a child?” The answer is naturally no. If you wore a condom, and it didn’t fail and was effective in preventing parenthood, could you still be legally compelled to support a child? I think even you know that the answer is naturally “no,” since there is no child.

    The right to abortion is not a 100% fail-safe way to avoid parenthood. The procedure itself, when used to end a pregnancy, is pretty much 100% guaranteed to do so, but there’s no guarantee that access to the procedure is a means for all women to end all unwanted pregnancies. First off, a woman must know she is pregnant, at least within the period of time in which it is legal to have an abortion. The “failure rate” of abortion in this regard, meaning the number of times that abortion cannot end a pregnancy because the pregnancy was too far advanced before the woman knew about it, is probably alone as high as the failure rate for vasectomy. Secondly, the woman must be physically and mentally capable of undergoing the procedure. Third, the woman must be financially capable of undergoing the procedure. And the list goes on.

    Repeat: The right to an abortion, like all other birth control methods, is not a 100% fail-safe way to avoid having a child. Men and women both face risks and responsibilities when they have intercourse. The lack of knowledge surrounding these risks and responsibilities can be attributed to the patriarchy, which strives to put all risk and all responsibility upon women and leave men with none. If you believe that women should bear a greater burden of responsibility regarding the care of children, you are complacent in women’s oppression. End of story.

  209. Kyle

    Well……is Karen DeCrow, your feminist leader correct when she says that if women can opt out of parenthood via abortion, then men should be treated as equals (what a concept, eh?) and be able to opt out of parenthood as well?

    Kyle

  210. kathy a

    what is this — troll week?

  211. Kyle

    No answer? How can women be leaders if you can’t answer simple questions, much less support your female leadership?

    Kyle

  212. Kyle

    Scholarly quotes from Camillile Paglia, Feminist Leader:

    “Anita Hill was not harassed.

    “Pornography is sexual reality.

    Certain forms of rape “are what used to be called unbridled love. ”

    “Prostitutes like their work.”

    Stripping is “a sacred dance of pagan origins” and the money men stuff into G-strings is a “ritual offering.” “The more a woman takes off her clothes, the more power she has ” and feminists hate strippers because “modern professional women cannot stand the thought that their hardwon achievements can be outweighed in an instant by a young hussy flashing a little tits and ass.”

    The reason other feminists don’t like me is that I criticize the movement, explaining that it needs a correction. Feminism has betrayed women, alienated men and women, replaced dialogue with political correctness. PC feminism has boxed women in. The idea that feminism–that liberation from domestic prison–is going to bring happiness is just wrong. Women have advanced a great deal, but they are no happier. The happiest women I know are not those who are balancing their careers and families, like a lot of my friends are. The happiest people I know are the women–like my cousins–who have a high school education, got married immediately graduating and never went to college. They are very religious and they never question their Catholicism. They do not regard the house as a prison.

    The far right is correct when it says the price of women’s liberation is being paid by the children.

    What I’m doing is pointing out the bind the women’s movement has created not only for women but for the culture as well. Children are abandoned.

    Of course, the other thing the women’s movement has done is caused a destructive division between the sexes. Men are in a terrible position.

    The reason women earn less than men is that women don’t want the dirty jobs. They aren’t picking up the garbage, taking the janitorial jobs and so on. They aren’t taking the sales commission jobs that require you to work all night and on weekends. Most women like clean, safe offices, which is why they are still secretaries. They don’t want to get too dirty. Also, women want offices to be nice, happy places.

    I began to realize this in the Seventies when I thought women could do it on their own. But then something would go wrong with my car and I’d have to go to the men. Men would stop, men would lift up the hood, more men would come with a truck and take the car to a place where there were other men who would call other men who would arrive with parts. I saw how feminism was completely removed from this reality.
    Feminism has created a privileged, white middle class of girls who claim they’re victims because they want to preserve their bourgeois decorum and passivity.

    I maintain that Thomas flirted with Anita Hill, who batted her eyes at him and was a little embarrassed and didn’t know what to do. Come on, he was looking for a wife. But how uncomfortable was she? She followed him from job to job. Feminists get around that by saying, “Well, she was ambitious.” I say, “Apparently her ambition was greater than any sexual harassment that occurred.” She chose her ambition. Anita Hill is just a yuppie. I’m the only leading feminist who went against her, and history will bear me out.

    After the Sixties there was a collapse in almost everything we believed in. It culminated in the biological disaster of AIDS–an answer to every one of us who preached free love.
    The people who are pro-abortion–I hate the cowardly euphemism of pro-choice–must face what they are opposing. The left constantly identifies the pro-life advocates as misogynists and fanatics, but that doesn’t represent most of those people. They are deeply religious and they truly believe that taking a life is wrong. If the left were to show respect for that position and acknowledge the moral conundrum of unwanted pregnancy, the opposition to abortion would lessen. We must acknowledge that people should be a little troubled by abortion. Not to acknowledge that this is a difficult decision is wrong. The procedure snuffs out a potential personality.

    Kyle here: Now you ladies go slit her throat! LOLOLOL

  213. mythago

    Kyle, if watching women fight gets you off, I recommend you rely on the porn sites that are probably even now in your Bookmarks folder.

  214. Twisty

    Great scott, whence cometh this Kyle jagoff? Camille Paglia, “feminist leader?” That’s a hot one.

    You are invited to put a sock in it, young Kyle.

  215. hedonistic

    (Camille Paglia a feminist? Is he high?)

    Kyle, put down the crack pipe.

  216. amaz0n

    Kyle, Larry Flynt calls himself a feminist, too. That doesn’t make him one.

  217. Pony

    I think Kyle would be happier here, with a “real” feminist:
    http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/56/3653/2006-02-03.asp?nid=3653&wid=56&pv=1

  1. Men already have all the options in paternity

    [...] Some other bloggers have done this story more justice than I can: Amanda Marcotte and Twisty Faster, and no doubt others I didn’t see. [...]

  2. Feminist Law Professors » Blog Archive » That “Men’s Reproductive Rights” Suit

    [...] “Shakespeare’s Sister” has posted some related commentary here, and Twisty at “I Blame the Patriarchy” comments here. –Ann Bartow [...]

  3. Pacific Views

    Some Of His Favorite Relatives Are Women

    Preemptive Karma is a generally excellent liberal blog that, for reasons passing my understanding, has a men’s rights agitator in their lineup. Kevin makes this passionate plea for the liberation of oppressed men based on the recent case of a…

  4. Meanwhile, I get trolled « Touchingly Naive

    [...] The part I liked was where he said that if a man says he doesn’t want a child he fathers, and the mother refuses to have an abortion, then he’s entitled to refuse payment of child support. I’m not even going to engage with that kid of crass stupidity, but it did remind me of a great Twisty post from the archives. Enjoy! [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>