>Family planning: Not a Dude Issue
>
 |
| Note to MGTOW: Not actually how it works. |
Oh Men Going Their Own Way, why must you be so confusing? MRAs and MGTOWers complain all the time about how unfair it is for women who somehow magically get preggers after having sex with them to decide to actually keep the kids and saddle them with — gasp! — some of the cost of raising said kids. So you’d think manosphere dudes would all be fervently in favor of easy access to abortion or, at the very least, birth control.
Not so much. Because apparently for quite a few of these dudes, the desire to gloat over the misfortunes of women actually outweighs their desire to protect themselves from the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy.
Or so I am forced to conclude after reading this thread on MGTOWforums.com dealing with the recent passage in the House of a bill blocking funding of Planned Parenthood — an event that strikes many of the commenters as hi-larious.
Apeiron offers this nugget:
Yes i saw the femms frothing at the mouth on their boards.
Well you know what bitch, we have to make cuts, lots of cuts …
Good news is if the sluts see the cuts they might keep their legs shut and act accordingly.
The appropriately named womanhater presents his own analysis of the sexual politics of abortion:
Well – the twats replaced the husband and father with the state. Now they’ve bled that hubby and father dry. Of course, there’s no replacement cock/sucker for the state. Have fun girls!
Rock adds:
[F]eminism cannot be defeated without cutting out funding. … The neverending supply of manginas and white knights will keep it going unless these same people run out of money. And that is what’s happening. Who would’ve thought the bad economy could have a good side effect. :)
Forum moderator hasmat concurs:
Want an abortion cuz you couldn’t keep your legs shut? Fine, kill your baby, whore. But, I ain’t paying for it. Not a penny.
But it is intp who offers the most, er, original take on the issue:
Question. What percentage of women would give their daughters up for sacrifice if they could remain young-looking/beautiful in return? I’m guessing a considerable percentage would take the Devil up on that deal. The rationalization hamster in women is strong. They would probably tell themselves I’ll just have another baby later. Or “What about my needs? I have a right to be beautiful!” I ask this because per statistics most abortions occur due to non-health threatening reasons. The woman simply does not want to have a kid yet. She wants to keep screwing like a man (riding the carousel) until the last possible minute.
Ignoring the rest of intp’s, ah, speculation, I have to wonder: what exactly is wrong with “screwing like a man?”
–
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
Posted on February 22, 2011, in MRA. Bookmark the permalink. 162 Comments.
>Not to mention, there are a number of women who do not and have not supported feminists – the 'well behaved women' who have internalized cultural messages about the relative value of male opinions versus female opinions. Women like Natasha have decided that it is more important for men to think well of them and to earn the label 'Not like THOSE women,' and so they spend quite a bit of their time reassuring men that they are not a feminist and continually deferring to male opinion.
>Laughing at the idea of Paul Elam as "bright and articulate". He's small minded, full of hatred for women, and writes a lot of destructive trash. I can definitely see him in a tin foil hat.
>Lady Victoria von Sirius Black's mother said… "Why is it so hard for MRAs to grasp this concept?""If a woman chooses to abort, she is opting out of parenthood because there is not a baby that needs parenting." Because she killed it. "If she chooses to keep her child, there is a human being now in the world." WRONG. There is a human being whether she chooses to kill it or not. A child does not suddenly become a child just because leeettle Meeeeeees Entitlement decrees it so. "A man opting out of parenthood is a man abandoning a human being. It is not equivalent to an abortion."YES IT IS.You take a man's DNA to make a baby.You are NOT the sole proprietor.When you get an abortion you ARE making a decision for THREE (count them if you can count that high) people.Why is it so hard for feminists to grasp this concept?YOU'RE VAGINA IS NOT THE CENTER OF THIS GALAXY AND NEITHER ARE YOU."Le sigh""Men also need to understand that, if they don't want to have children, there are many, many things they can do to avoid that."Well duh! That's what MGTOW is about.
>YOU'RE VAGINA IS NOT THE CENTER OF THIS GALAXY Yet another t-shirt possibility! Briget, definitely have your friend get in touch with me.
>EWM, genuinely not trolling but are you really pro-life? I figured you'd be a fan of abortion both for its eugenic possibilities and for the leg up it'd give you in the gender wars (disproportionately aborting female babies, as they do in some parts of the world). Maybe I've got you figured wrong but I always thought you were one of those transhumanist guys who viewed technology like abortion as possible tools for male liberation. I could be confusing you with someone else tho, pardon me for asking.
>Huh, so I guess I ought to be properly offended the next time someone refers to me as Oriental. Thank you, I did not know that as it has never offended me. "Asian" encompasses more than just what has commonly be known as the Orient, and the study that I read found the results that I spoke of to be prevalent in men of that descent as opposed to other parts of Asia that were not formerly known as the Orient.The hilarity/incomprehensibility of the phrase "fluent in the Oriental language," is another pretty good reason not to say things like that.You're right, I should have pluralized it or said an Oriental language, as it wasn't limited to only one of the languages used in the area formerly known as the Orient. And more specifically, it was fluency in the written language. Guess that'll teach me to post here after a long day.
>"YOU'RE VAGINA IS NOT THE CENTER OF THIS GALAXY"Typo aside – the image that comes to mind is the flaming eye (looking suspiciously like a vagina) of the Lord of the Rings movies.
>Bwec, and men need to understand that child support isn’t something women do to men. Seriously. “Child support” laws have been in place in England since the late 1500s- they were meant to support “bastards”- and have only once been abolished in Victorian times. Can you guess what happened? Quote: “Enabled an unmarried mother to apply to the Petty Sessions for an affiliation order against the father for maintenance of the mother and child, regardless of whether she was in receipt of poor relief. This was probably in recognition that the 1834 Act had not reduced illegitimacy (by making it harder for mothers to claim maintenance), but in fact increased it (by enabling men to avoid some of the responsibility for their actions).” Source: http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/information_and_explanation/world/history_uk.html “Opting Out” has been done before. It didn’t work the first time- what makes you think it would now?
>The typo is what makes the quote great.Freudian slip.
>"You take a man's DNA to make a baby."Why, yes! The female standard spring-loaded vagina shoots out and sucks all of the precious, life-giving sperm straight out of a man's penis. I have to say, it was a little embarrassing when my spring would trigger haphazardly in public, but then I got it fixed, so it's all good now. Of course, I will have to discuss the revealing of this secret with the local Feminazi Cabal, as we've worked long and hard to perpetuate the myth that a condomless man willingly ejaculates into a female.
>Pam: "Guess that'll teach me to post here after a long day."Eh, happens to the best of us. I was posting after an endless and pointless argument with an MRA, so I apologize that some of my snark got on you.
>YOU'RE VAGINA IS NOT THE CENTER OF THIS GALAXY AND NEITHER ARE YOU.Well, damn. Guess I'd better rethink my life plan, then.
>Eh, happens to the best of us. I was posting after an endless and pointless argument with an MRA, so I apologize that some of my snark got on you.Hey, no prob….we're good. I had one of those kinda days, but with colleagues at work, and was one of those times when I really should have been going to bed instead of responding to blog articles.I can understand the thoughtfulness behind political correctness and all, because it's meant to not offend another person or group of people, but the study that I was referring to (and I've looked for it and can't seem to locate it online) was specific in their findings, as in the findings didn't necessarily apply to persons of other Asian countries outside of the Far East or Orient (or whatever it's being called these days….my parents left China with my brother and I many years ago, when I was young, and I haven't been back since)…. they believed it had something to do with the written language, in that those languages utilize whole word symbols and not letters or symbols used separately to spell words. Men with Far Eastern or Oriental heritage who hailed from elsewhere and were not fluent in one of their heritage languages did not display the same brain scan results as ones who were fluent in one of their heritage languages.I guess what I took from that study was that it was pretty good proof that people aren't necessarily BORN hard-wired to be right-brained or left-brained or using part A of brain to do task A, etc., depending upon one's sex, cultural influence appears to have some impact upon that. In my mind, it would be something worth pursuing to try to determine the reason for the difference, as men who have a tendency to be more narrowly focused in brain centers or sides suffer more deleterious effects of strokes because the other centers or side of the brain isn't well-equipped to assist with the functions that typically utilized the injured portion of the brain.
>I should have added to my comment that I wish someone(s) would pursue that angle of these brain scan type of studies, for example, rather than focusing on gender superiority/inferiority.
>I have heard about that study Pam but I have not seen it online either despite trying to find it. It was even mentioned in a Terry Pratchett book.
>@Elizabeth,I'm glad that you've heard of it, too… I was wondering there for a minute whether I had just imagined having seen it, because it was a little while ago when I read it and filed it away in the "huh, that's kinda interesting" portion of my brain.And the ramifications for, example, stroke victims if the results of that study were replicated, pursued, etc. far outweighs, in my mind, the "who has the bigger brain, men or women" gender superiority fixation stuff.
>Yeppers…I will see if I can chase down that comment of Pratchett's since it may give us an idea of a google search.Now back to being appalled by this proposed bill in Georgia.
>"“Opting Out” has been done before. It didn’t work the first time- what makes you think it would now?"because women have an ample supply of birth control options they didn't have in the past, plus you are capable of supporting yourselves and any children you choose to have (by not using the aforementioned birth control, as well as post conception options). it didn't work in the past because it left women who didn't have a means of preventing the pregnancy in the first place, with little in the way of a means to support that child. Are you suggesting that a woman is incapable of preventing herself from getting pregnant, and if she does, can not properly support herself? Times have changed and the laws need to change with them. You know what also didn't generally work in 1834? Women. You want to keep that trend too?I find this especially amuzing given the recent discussion on stating contradictory beliefs not too long ago. On one hand, feminists are irate about the abortion clinics having their funding pulled, meaning women will need to take more responsibility for their actions. And yet, they still insist men should not be given a post conception option of parental absolution (despite still having multiple themselves), and that they should take responsibility for their actions. Why is it only men need take responsibility, while women are given multiple options out? why the double standard?
>it didn't work in the past because it left women who didn't have a means of preventing the pregnancy in the first place, with little in the way of a means to support that child.And that would still be the case for women who can't afford an abortion. That's why our anger at the defunding of sexual health services is consistent with our overall message.Funding sexual health services helps people, fights child poverty, and makes good economic sense. Even if you don't give a shit about women you should support that.
>Actually, quite a few women were working in 1834. In agrarian families, they worked quite hard to help keep the farm running. Women also contributed to cottage industries – small home-based operations such as weaving, cheese making, candle-making or sewing. In Western cultures, it was the norm for a working class woman to work as a domestic servant or nanny for a rich family until she got married. Women were also teachers, nurses and entertainers. In 1834, the Industrial Revolution was also in full swing, providing work for women in factories. To say nothing of women engaging in the World's Oldest Profession, or the female slaves in America and elsewhere in the world. I doubt their masters let them loaf around all day. And while rich women were not expected to work for a wage, they were still expected to keep the household running – which, though unpaid, is still difficult. Women who had children certainly worked more than full time hours to take care of them. And while there weren't many women in government in 1834, Queen Victoria ascended the British throne in 1837. So, while women might not have been doctors or lawyers in 1834 (Elizabeth Blackwell would not become a doctor until 1845; Arabella Mansfield would not be admitted to the bar until 1869), they were certainly working quite hard.
>Uh, Kratch, women have always had abortion. It just wasn't called by that name. It was called "bringing on the bleeding" and other similar terms. It was largely the domain of women, and the few male herbalists/chirurgeons/etc that would provide the herbs that cause abortion. If you've read historical documents, old medical lore, or even historical fiction, you'll see in explanations for certain herbs usage that they "cause you to bleed, but if used too far along/over a certain quantity, the woman will die." That's ye olde abortion method. Men, for the most part, didn't know when it happened. It was largely used by unmarried women to prevent the shame, beating, or death that would come by having their premarital sex becoming public knowledge. Just some food for thought.
>@Kratch, federal funds already cannot be spent to pay for abortion save in the case of rape or incest(and, even with these, the procedure for procurring funds is so drawn out that it almost never happens). Less than fifty abortions for rape and incest were paid for by any federal funds (through medicaid) last year. Which means that, even if every single one of these women had their procedure at a planned parenthood, the amount of planned parenthood funds (not all of which are federal) used for these abortions is damned near zero. The programs being cut here are are explicitly not abortions (by federal law, no federal funds that go to planned parenthood are spent on abortion, planned parenthood uses donations for that). This means sex ed programs, free condoms, free to low cost gynecological exams, pregnancy tests, STD tests, STD treatments, etc. Over here in reality, things are not the way you seem to think that they are.Other than that, do you have a point that isn't jealous whinging about the fact that you can't get pregnant and can't control the bodies of other people when they are pregnant?
>"The fact that PP benefits both men and women is demonstrative of the scorched earth policy conservatives and misogynists are willing to employ. It's the same deal with healthcare reform. Sure, it would benefit them, too, but if it ALSO benefits a group they think of as undeserving, they'd rather see it destroyed."AMEN, AMEN, Triplanetary…TRUER WORDS NEVER SPOKEN. The sad thing is that they don't see how this scorched-earth policy is killing THEM.(Although, for the record, I'm opposed to ObamaCare–I wanted a genuine National Health System, the real deal–not enshrining of insurance agency power.)
>triplanetary said… O"oooh, he just accused you of failing to conform to socionormative standards of femininity. Ice burn!"Ooooh, translation: "I'm cool and stuff because I employ words like socionormative from my overpriced (and utterly useless) undergrad classes from the Liberal Arts Division!" Incidentally, Natasha, the differentiation between MRAs and MGTOWs is entirely semantic. They're all the same hateful assholes. The only arguable difference is that MGTOWs use MRA arguments in an attempt to justify their inability to get laid."I get laid and I'm still into MGTOW. Bet that causes your synapses to misfire—oh wait, they are doing that without that relayed information. Pam said… "ROTFLMAO!! I hope you didn't bust open your piggy bank, wytch, to pay for some lessons to increase your mad PUA skillz, yo!!"I'm not into piggies, hence the DO NOT DATE red flag that comes up every time you post. As far as female game is concerned, you've got the anti-game repellent down to a frickin' science. Bravo.
>"Guess I'd better rethink my life plan, then."—Unladylike Victoria Non Serious You should.
>"I'm not into piggies, hence the DO NOT DATE red flag that comes up every time you post."Wow, you really put her in her place. Calling her FAT.
>"I'm not into piggies, hence the DO NOT DATE red flag that comes up every time you post."As though that's such a *bad* thing…
>You know, Wytch, seems to me like you compulsively attack women you haven't even met on issues like fat and appearance. Do you imagine this scores points or make you look bigger?
>Yeah, folks, let's lay off the personal insults. kratch: More on non-working women in 1834. Conditions in the Lowell mills were severe by modern American standards. Employees worked from five am until seven pm, for an average 73 hours per week.[2][3] Each room usually had 80 women working at machineshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowell_Mill_Girls
>Kratch: "On one hand, feminists are irate about the abortion clinics having their funding pulled, meaning women will need to take more responsibility for their actions."I'm irate primarily because Planned Parenthood does a hell of a lot more than provide abortion services. Actually, what's going to happen is a lot of poor and uninsured women will lose access to (1) a cheap source of birth control and methods of stopping sexually transmitted disease, (2) cheap and free STD tests and treatment, and (3) cheap and free pap smears, colposcopies, uterine biopsies, and other methods of finding and treating cancer in its earliest stages. Planned Parenthood saves the lives of women and men.Supporting Planned Parenthood doesn't conflict at all with a view that implementing a widespread system of "financial abortion" would be a disaster. Two completely separate things.
>YOU'RE[sic] VAGINA IS NOT THE CENTER OF THIS GALAXYObviously not. Your mother’s vagina is the center of this galaxy, whoever “you” are, at least as far as you are concerned. (Explanation: in a universe that is, as far as we know, infinite, the "center" is anywhere you want it to be. Your personal point of origin makes as much sense as any other point.)
>Ooooh, translation: "I'm cool and stuff because I employ words like socionormative from my overpriced (and utterly useless) undergrad classes from the Liberal Arts Division!" Further translation: it bugs me that you might be more educated and smarter than me so I'm going to put you down for using words I don't understand.
>[I]n a universe that is, as far as we know, infinite, the "center" is anywhere you want it to be. Your personal point of origin makes as much sense as any other point.)Personally, I believe we're all the center of our own universe. I (and my vagina) are the center of my own universe, as are you the center of yours and Wytch the center of his. It gets a little cosmic, but I find it a much more uplifting belief than the idea that we're all fucked because our ancestors ate the wrong piece of fruit.
>I'm not into piggies, hence the DO NOT DATE red flag that comes up every time you post.I suppose there's a reason that I should care, but I can't think of a single one.As far as female game is concerned, you've got the anti-game repellent down to a frickin' science. Bravo.Hey, if it keeps Men's Rights Supremacists at bay, it's a skill well worth honing.
>Bee said:"I've always wondered why women would sign up for inclusion in a movement that calls women sluts and twats. Perhaps you could explain the appeal?"Because you are the only person who has bothered to ask (rather than assume I am a man, lol), I'll answer you. First, I'll tell you why I'm not a feminist. My historical experience with feminism has been positive–I enjoy being able to work, vote, hold property and marry whom I choose. I also enjoy being able to obtain birth control and get an education that goes beyond home ec. I like those things. And I am able to thank feminism for it without sarcasm or caveats. There are things that I MUST accept that I would rather NOT as well. I would rather earn my place – whether it be in an educational program, a promotion, a career etc — than have it handed to me for the SINGULAR fact that I have tits and having those tits fills some quota. I believe in promotion through merit only…if my work doesn't warrant getting a raise, don't give me one just because I'm in possession of a uterus ffs. I'm not a feminist because I have experienced FIRST hand how discriminating against men it can be; I've experienced how actively hateful it can be. Before you jump to conclusions, I come from a family where I am the only child, my dad worked and my mother stayed home until I was about 14 then started her own business and paid for me to go to an extremely competitive, east coast college. I have a fantastic relationship with my father — who never molested, raped, or ogled me or my friends; wasn't a drunk, didn't hit my mom, didn't hit me, paid me lots of appropriate attention and encouraged me to be daring and to go for what I wanted. I had a great, probably privileged upbringing. Back to why Im not a feminist. I have had a thesis rejected because it studied boys, "whose time has come and gone" and not girls. I was told to change the genders and present the results of boys as having come from girls, because "boys get enough attention". I am a D/V survivor and told by a therapist that all men were the same, that all men would endeavor to hurt me, and advised that I even stay away from my own father for 6 months because his very presence would somehow re-traumatize me. I have, in my field, seen boys continuously get passed over for services because there was a girl who needed them and it 'looked better' to help girls. The fact is, I have seen more discrimination towards men in the name of feminism than I have ever seen toward women. There is no right or wrong here, it is simply my experience.This was too long, so Im posting my second half separately–
>My response to Bee, cont. –Now, why am I an MRA? First off, it has nothing at all to do with hating my own gender, an act which I am often accused of. I am often attacked, by feminists, who say the following to me when they find out I am NOT a feminist:You must be uglyYou must be a manYou must be a whoreYou must like being the pet of all the MRA menYou must like getting a certain kind of attention from MRA menYou must hate womenYou must hate yourselfYou must have been molested by daddyYou must have been abused by your motherYou must have been brainwashed by your boyfriendYou're too stupid to understand feminismYou're a feminist, you just don't know it yetYou must be a feminist, you're a womanYou're a traitorDon't believe me? Go back and look at all the things you all have said to me in this thread. At least 5 are there. I advocate for rights for men. Men should have viable birth control options beyond condoms and vasectomies. I think it's crap that often the mother is the default custodial parent when the better parent is the father. I think divorce court has a long way to go re men receiving equal treatment. I think it's crap when a man and woman committ the same crime and she gets less time because shes a woman. I think gender roles are shit and need to be done away with, in an EQUAL manner…which, IME, most women don't really want unless it benefits them, but most men are happy to committ to.And Bee, none of the men I post with at MRA sites has EVER called me a slut or a twat…I have only had that experience posting with feminists.
>Supporting equal rights for men in custodial, divorce, birth control, criminal sentencing are worthy goals.However-much of what is posted on the MRA sites is hateful and nasty towards women. So why are you excusing it? You do not defend it, but you do excuse it.
>There are some sites out there that are just hateful, plain and simple…both mra sites and feminist sites. To say otherwise is just sheer lunacy. I can't see in my post where I made any excuses for any one side being hateful and nasty toward women. When I come across a poster – regardless of the kind of site Im at, be it feminist or mra – being hateful or attacking toward all men or all women, I either say something or I ignore it. If I say something, it's usually to chalk them up as an idiot who is hiding behind whichever ideology the site supports (mens rights or feminism) just so they can express hate, not because they necessarily believe in the cause. A few true woman haters will come to mra sites because they DO think that that's what mens rights is about….they either get quickly educated, banned, or, some places will allow for it citing the lack of public spaces which allow men to express their anger….the last of which I think is a ridiculous move that harms the site and is a detrement to the mens rights movement as a whole…but I don't make the rules at these sites. These same types of people show up at feminist sites…full of hate and anger at men because of what one man did to them (these types of men do the same, blame all of woman kind for what one did to him). This man hating woman is similarly treated by the other members of the site…educated, banned or allowed to 'feel her pain' and be supported in her anger.See how that feels and reads differently though?Idk…mostly, I base it all off personal experience, and mine has led me to the conclusion that I am not a feminist, not necessarily and anti-feminist, but rather, an mra.
>Natasha: Thanks for the answer. I can definitely agree with parts of what you've said. I've done some advocating myself in male prisons, and I think it's crap, too, when women who commit crimes get lighter sentences, to take one of your examples. I actually think that many of the complaints raised on MRA sites are valid; it's just when they're combined with the hateful rhetoric that Paul Elam and his like use that I know I am not welcome in their ranks. So I advocate for an end to prison rape and circumcision from a feminist position.when you say that MRAs don't call you names, I think (and perhaps I'm misunderstanding) you mean that they've never called you, personally, a name. When I look at Apeiron's analysis ("Good news is if the sluts see the cuts they might keep their legs shut and act accordingly"), I have to take that personally. I'm not a slut, but that's not important. I am a person who has used Planned Parenthood (whose life as been saved by PP, in fact), so Apeiron sees me as a slut. Why would I associate with a group that sees me like that?It looks like you've had bad experiences with feminism. I'm sorry for that. I've had mostly good experiences with feminism and feminists. And my experiences (online, mostly) with MRAs and MGTOWs are wholly negative. I won't change your mind about feminism, and I won't try, but I appreciate anyone who advocates for people's rights, so thank you.
>I have had a thesis rejected because it studied boys, "whose time has come and gone" and not girls. I was told to change the genders and present the results of boys as having come from girls, because "boys get enough attention".If this is true, that's appalling. My experience with feminist academics (I was ABD in history) was that they were as interested in studies of boys/men as in girls/women; my (unfinished) dissertation was in part about adolescence and my (feminist) advisors never pushed me to only study girls. As for your list, well, whoever called you those things was wrong. But the MRAs/MGTOWers say far worse of feminists, and have said far worse of me. For example: You must be uglyYou must be a womanYou must be a faggotYou must like being the pet of all the feministsYou must like getting a certain kind of attention from feminist womenYou must hate menYou must hate yourselfYou must have been abused by your motherYou're too stupid to understand You're a traitorYou're a manginaYou're a "fleshcreeping mangina." You're an advocate of violent pedarasty. (!??)You're "supplicating [yourself]before the feminist vagina."You're a nitwit, assclown, twerp. You're a "a dancing jackass for the matriarchy." You're "another typical Western Male Fucktard, thinking that even on-line sucking up to fembots will slather his withering pole."You're "kinda like a zit that won't pop or respond to Clearasil."You're a "Chickenshit Feminist Quisling." You're "covered in pin feathers and clucking." You're "a fucking moron."This is a very incomplete list. Oh, the last 4 were from Paul Elam, the guy you recommended as "bright" and "articulate."
>A few true woman haters will come to mra sites because they DO think that that's what mens rights is about….they either get quickly educated, banned, or, some places will allow for it citing the lack of public spaces which allow men to express their anger….the last of which I think is a ridiculous move that harms the site and is a detrement to the mens rights movement as a whole…but I don't make the rules at these sites. This is an outright lie. It's the same sort of claim as the one about Paul Elam being bright and articulate. It's just a simple piece of complete unreality.The MRA and MGTOW forums (both) are filled with hatred for women, hatred at women, and hatred for men who don't hate women. I've seen those forums myself. The kinds of stuff David posts on this blog are not exceptions. They're the norm.And you're full of shit. I don't believe for a second that a significant number of feminists have called you a whore or said any of the other things you listed. I don't believe for a second that your characterization of the reason for your dissertation's rejection is accurate. I'm not entirely sold on the notion that you're capable of writing a coherent dissertation.
>@Bee –Thanks for your response, this is an actual conversation, and I'm glad to have it. Good for you for advocating, thank you.As to your assumption that I meant I, personally, have never been called names on the mra sites….that's correct. I haven't. The first site I went on is fairly well established and run by a man I know from other forums. I lurked there about a week and then made a few tentative posts. I kept in mind that this was a men's site, dealing with men's issues and not women's issues. I kept in mind that I would more than likely be initially suspected of trolling or the like. I made thoughtful posts and asked questions rather than ranting and assuming. What I got back were thoughtful answers and more often than not, thanks for being inquisitive and for listening. That's my individual experience.I see people get called names…I see members of sites make posts like the one by Apeiron, and yes it's probably offensive. I say probably because I don't let it offend me. ANYONE, regardless of gender or political affiliation, who refers to women OR men in such hateful terms is NOT to be taken seriously. Why would you? Their words only have as much power over me as I allow them to have. You can call me a cunt all day long and it's not going to bother me because, well, for one, Im not one and secondly…big fucking deal if you think I am one, I really don't care. It does not offend me that this ass hat calls all women sluts…I am intelligent enough to know better and secure enough to dismiss him as an idiot. Why waste time fuming over someone whose only real power lies in name calling and trolling the internet? being called a slut by a stranger on the internet isn't real concerning for me.You're right, Bee, that we probably won't agree on too much in re to feminism vs. men's rights, but at least we've demonstrated that there is common ground, and that we can have intelligent and respectful conversation about relevent issues and NOT devolve into name callilng and ranting. Thanks ;)
>@David–You're right, it IS appalling. And it's not as uncommon as you may think. Mine was about identity achievement and reciprocity of social interaction with an emphasis on boys. I didn't have self identified (or at least publicly identified)feminist profs, but most academics are libs and IME, feminism seems to follow…so who knows?About your additions to my list — so we can agree that the name callers ON BOTH SIDES are infantile. That's progress. I tend to dismiss people whose only recourse to an intellectual challenge is name calling. We have most of us succumbed to it now and again when frustrated or angry (I know I have), but when it's the only drum that poster is banging, it becomes foolish.To me, and now that you've added to it from your side of the fence, hopefully to you as well, one side seems no better than the other when it comes to name calling and I think we can call this a wash. Some MRA's call names, some feminists call names..we've just proven that. Neither side can now point to the other (with any credibility at least) and say "But they call names! They are inferior!"No, they are simply human.
>David: “kratch: More on non-working women in 1834. “I said “didn't GENERALLY work”… Which leaves room for exceptions. In addition, I was talking about the difficulty in a woman’s ability to support herself, let alone a child as well, making a need for maintenance at that time. A need that is no longer as applicable given the ease of access to birth control and employment opportunities. As such, an ability for a man who does not wish to be a father, akin to options the mother already has, is not unreasonable based on the failure of a similar option attempted 180 years ago. It’s annoying that so many here choose to quibble over the minor details (which were accounted for with an acknowledgement that it was a generalization, a generalization that feminism itself has hinged off of) in order to dodge my point.Trip: “And that would still be the case for women who can't afford an abortion.”Those women should then take the same advice feminists give to men who can’t afford child support. Keep “your pants on”. If men must be responsible for their actions, so too must women. If they choose to ignore that advice, they can suffer the consequences like any man has to (except they still don’t, even without abortion (which is still available), they still have options to opt out of parenthood).Trip: “Funding sexual health services helps people, fights child poverty, and makes good economic sense. Even if you don't give a shit about women you should support that.”I live in Canada. I don’t need to worry about that. And I do support all that, but I think that 1: There still remains a LAW in the US regarding funding abortions, 2: Men require a means to opt out of parenthood in order to enforce their reproductive rights, and I don’t think that will come until women/feminists get a dose of the consequences of their actions that they have been taking for granted.DSCat: “federal funds already cannot be spent to pay for abortion”To my understanding, that’s why funding has been withdrawn from PP, because the federal tax dollars provided go to pay for PP’s operational budget, a budget that includes abortion services. They may claim those dollars go to other expenses, but presuming it is a single operational budget, it can not be so easily be differentiated. If PP’s regular services and it’s abortion services were funded and budgeted entirely separately, with no flow of money between the two, I highly doubt their funding would have been cut, and abortion would not have been affected (as it didn’t require the federal funding). Additionally, you would not have anybody agreeing with this cut, as those services (with the exception of abortion) are for both genders. It is the inclusion of abortion that garners the disdain of pro-lifers, as well as loses the sympathy from those seeking men’s reproductive rights.
>Natasha: “There are some sites out there that are just hateful, plain and simple…both mra sites and feminist sites. To say otherwise is just sheer lunacy. “Agreed. My experiences tend to coincide with your own. I suspect the general hate on for MRA’s on this site comes largely from the very nature of this site, IE, picking out the worst of the worst and shinning a bright light on them. This gives a particularly skewed interpretation of MRA’s, one David even has a disclaimer on the side near the top to claim otherwise. Between the hate he picks out, and his choice of sites to regularly link to, it makes it easy for someone who wants to hate MRA’s to do so. David himself has said that sites that post links to articles about the hateful acts of women do no good, yet, that is precisely the thing he’s doingDavid: "and have said far worse of me" this very site does the same to MRA's by allowing it's readers to think, despite your disclaimer otherwise, that all MRA's are like this. And as you go out of your way to antagonize MRA's with this site, you have likely earned a great deal more scorn and animosity then your average feminist. This doesn't make it right, but you can't claim innocence in this regards. All Natasha has done has speak up for men, hardly on the same level as what you do.
>@triplanetary –Part of your response to me was to tell me that my experience and my observation was…. "…an outright lie. It's the same sort of claim as the one about Paul Elam being bright and articulate. It's just a simple piece of complete unreality." It's utterly illogical to call someone's opinion or personal experience a lie, but really that's neither here nor there, just a funny little aside.You also said:"The MRA and MGTOW forums (both) are filled with hatred for women, hatred at women, and hatred for men who don't hate women. I've seen those forums myself. The kinds of stuff David posts on this blog are not exceptions. They're the norm."I could turn your words back on you and say that this is "an outright lie" but I wont because clearly you feel this is your experience. Unlike you, I will afford you the courtesy of allowing you to have your experience and expressing it without calling into question your integrity as a human being. It's simply unbecoming.you also said:"And you're full of shit. I don't believe for a second that a significant number of feminists have called you a whore or said any of the other things you listed."you don't have to…the validity of my experience is not dependent upon your opinion of it, and does not need your approval.You also said:"I don't believe for a second that your characterization of the reason for your dissertation's rejection is accurate."Again, you don't have to. I'm not actually asking you to, never mind attempting to compel you to. You weren't there, and technically, have no reason to, other than I am claiming it to be true. believe it or don't, my experience remains the same.And finally, you said:"I'm not entirely sold on the notion that you're capable of writing a coherent dissertation."Why don't you take a look back at the things I posted to Bee and David about name calling and the power of words? You might find something there to reflect on. You have no idea about my intellect, my education, what degrees I hold, or what I do for a living; you're angry and irritated with me and you've resorted to insults to express it rather than ask me or discuss with me rationally the reasons for my opinions. It's alright, we've all been there once or twice. When you're done with swearing at me and trying to insult me, and can read and understand what I'm actually saying in my posts, I'd be more than happy to have a conversation about why your assumptions are false.
>Arrrrghhh! Kratch you totally stole my next post! I was going to point out the same things! Ah well…Thanks for saying it better than I probably could
>Kratch-it is very easy to keep that money separate for PP. Have two bank accounts-money from everyone else, money from government. In my job we currently have three funds and they each fund different sections of our overall budget because certain fees collected have specific purposes written into them.The reason the funds were cut had very little to do with actual abortions and more to do with punishing women for engaging in consequence free sex. I once read a very detailed analysis of anti-abortion laws and their actual aims. In it, the author was trying to determine if it was anti-women or anti-abortion by seeing if states with harsh or very restrictive laws for seeking an abortion also had equally harsh penalties for harming a pregnant woman or harming a fetus while in utero as well as having strong support for women who are expecting. The conclusions were incredibly disappointing and at the same time, not surprising. When it comes to women's access to sex, it is morally repugnant to a great many men (and women) that she not suffer a consequence for her accessing it outside a certain parameter. Cutting off PP's federal funding to ensure that men and women have access to things like STI testing and treatment means that those women are punished for having sex outside those parameters. If it means harming males too, oh well, they should not be having sex with such sluts anyway.If PP tomorrow said "we will now end our abortion and other sex related services and only give women testing to prevent cervical cancers and the like…" perhaps they would not be persecuted. (I am dubious for other reasons on that though.) I really need to go reread David Eddings' Polgara's comment on women sexuality-it is very illuminating regarding the control men feel they need to have and sums up why we still have this fight, more than a hundred years after it started.
>"Further translation: it bugs me that you might be more educated and smarter than me so I'm going to put you down for using words I don't understand."—(She Wolf of the)SSYou're a sucker for overpaying for an education in hate, not me. And is that a self-projection I here, bon bon girl?
>"The MRA and MGTOW forums (both) are filled with hatred for women, hatred at women, and hatred for men who don't hate women. I've seen those forums myself. The kinds of stuff David posts on this blog are not exceptions. They're the norm."—trianythingTri is hatin' on the haters! Can you say hypocrite? I knew you could . . .
>Julie Canny said… "You know, Wytch, seems to me like you compulsively attack women you haven't even met on issues like fat and appearance. Do you imagine this scores points or make you look bigger?"—Julie UncannyI'm not the one who is "big" if you know what I mean, jelliebean. And it appears that overweight sore losers like SS and her ilk have zero problems with attacking others they don't know, either. Which makes you feminists look like annoying hypocrites and whinning imperial jackasses.
>"you're angry and irritated with me and you've resorted to insults to express it rather than ask me or discuss with me rationally the reasons for my opinions."—NatashaMy dear Natasha, don't you realize that feminists are the epitome of high intellect, turning the other cheek, and would never resort to slagging anyone?(Denote heavy sarcasm there. Love ya, N, but you are dealing with a fat monstrous crowd expunging their hate for men on MRAs because they are weak and foppish without each other. Hmm . .. they are weak and insecure with each other, too).
> Unlike you, I will afford you the courtesy of allowing you to have your experience and expressing it without calling into question your integrity as a human being.While that's very magnanimous of you, I'm not really interested in being courteous to privileged assholes. When you come into a public forum and promote rape apologists and patriarchal mansplainers, I'm going to call your integrity as a human being into question. To paraphrase another of your (entirely correct) points, your actual integrity is completely unaffected by my opinion of it. But my opinion nonetheless remains that you are a privileged asshole.So I mean, you can claim that you're interested in having an intellectually honest conversation, but given that most of your points are lies, I'm pretty sure that's not the case. What am I supposed to do with lies? Pretend that they're true so I can waste my time debating them? Or just dismiss them as lies and move on? The former may be more "courteous," but oh well.
>@tri –So, evidently, the real issue is that you appear to be a classic Marxist lib and are having the shits because you perceive me as being more privileged than you….you're probably right and I probably am.I've never gone hungry, been abused by my parents, or lived in poverty. I went to good schools and grew up in the 'burbs. I had great friends in school and wasn't socially crippled by outside influences. I have been extremely fortunate in my life and I am grateful every day to have had the opportunities and advantages Ive had. But you use privilege like a dirty word. My guess is that you have not been as fortunate, and for that, I am sorry. However, the fact remains that your insecurities aren't my problem, and I don;t feel a shred of guilt for not making them my problem. You've decided I'm a liar, a rape apologist, and a privileged asshole simply because my opinion is different from yours.You have called me names, insulted me, called my intelligence, integrity and credibility into question….and you wonder why I say my experience with feminists has not been pleasant?You have done two things for me though… 1)you have proven everything I have said to David about what fems have called me, the way a female mra gets treated (which you said you didnt believe happened) to be true and done it yourself. And 2) you have shown yourself to be quite irrational in your hatred, you're like a rabid little yappy dog just waiting in the sidelines to get a vicious little bite in thinking it's going to impact someone in some monumental way….it doesn't, but you'd look cute in my purse
>Natasha, Tri said you had PROMOTED rape apologists, not that you were one — which is pretty clearly a reference to Paul Elam, who you were promoting earlier as a sensible, clearheaded MRA> Also, if you call someone a "rabid little yappy dog" immediately after complaining about being insulted, that sort of makes you a little bit of a hypocrite.
>But you use privilege like a dirty word. My guess is that you have not been as fortunate, and for that, I am sorry. Oh, quite incorrect. I was raised white, male, middle class. I'm privileged as fuck. What you need to realize is that this isn't personal.When I use "privileged" as a pejorative what I mean is people who benefit from their privilege and yet deny that it exists, or that it's a bad thing. Or most often both.But your characterization of Marxists (of which I'm not really one) as being jealous of people with more privilege than them is laughably predictable. Marx himself was not underprivileged, you know. He was an academic, and by no means poor or working class. But conservatives do like to pretend that that leftists are really just jealous of the rich.
>Actually, during most of his adult life Marx was quite poor, and he was constantly begging money from Engels, who *was* quite privileged. Of course, it wouldn't have been hard for Marx to make a good living if he hadn't devoted his life to writing interminable Marxist treatises.
>"What you need to realize is that this isn't personal."Given the insults you have levied against Natasha, and in the past against me, I'd have to say you routinely make it personal. You have demonstrated repeatedly a vitriol towards anyone who speaks for men's rights, but doesn't do so in a manner that first prostrates themselves to the feminist ideology."When I use "privileged" as a pejorative what I mean is people who benefit from their privilege and yet deny that it exists, or that it's a bad thing. Or most often both."You mean like feminists with regards to anything woman and family? IE, Family courts, reproductive rights, child services…Or perhaps you mean like how government is packed with men like you and David, men who put feminist needs first, while also having a ministry dedicated to women's needs, and then denying women have any influence or advantage in government?
>David. I wrote a reply to Elizabeth yesterday and it still hasn't appeared. please let me know if it was caught in the filter or if I need to re-write it.
>IT was spam filtered and is up now.
>Kratch, do explain to me how women secretly dominate the world and yet still get stuck with guys like you, who think if they don't get blown and waited on every day it's like being abused. Yeah, feminist men dominate all over. Sure they do. This is why abortion is under attack everywhere, because women secretly love to have lots of babies they can't afford and they love the politicians who reduce them to walking incubators even more. Reading MRA tripe is like listening to the KKK whining about Black History Month. OMG, you mean there's one month out of twelve where white men don't get their asses kissed? Human rights violation!
>Kratch- I'm not trying to "have it both ways"; don't put words into my mouth. My question is only one of economic fairness and practicality: being as how the medical system/parental leave/wage differences are, how would "opting out" even work? Being as that 90% of welfare recipients are single mothers, and 50% live below the poverty line, I honestly have no idea how you came to the conclusion that children can be raised in a financially stable environment without any sort of child support. Wouldn't it be more sensible to assume that if men were given the right to relinquish their parental obligations (which, btw, I'm not opposed to the idea, if there was a way in which to make it work) there would be MORE need for government welfare, much like in 1834?
>*50% of single mothers, not welfare recipients. And source, from a (Canadian) MRA website: http://www.equaljustice.ca/cgi-bin/forum.cgi/noframes/read/35106
>"Kratch, do explain to me how women secretly dominate the world"I've never said women secretly rule the world, I said they have advantages in tat government officials are often feminist oriented, and thus, put their needs first, therefor, claims of "most politician's are men, therefor men have a voice" is denying the privilege women receive by having men like TriP, who has actually said "Men's issues get enough attention/money in our society" (despite virtually no men's abuse shelters, prostate cancer getting less then half the research funding (not to say anything of the awareness campaign funding), men still being denied their own children and any chance of fairness in family courts, etc etc).As to the personal assumptions about me and my character, I'll simply ignore them as an attempt to shame me into silence."Sure they do. This is why abortion is under attack everywhere"If you can't see the fact that abortion itself is controversial, and thus, even feminist men aren't immune to disagreement over the subject, add to that the fact that the government refuses to fund abortion (I presume it's due to the controversial nature), except in specific circumstances, an agreement PP violated, and you have a reasonable explanation for why their funding got cut, rather then relying on some conspiracy theory that the government is out to get women. Always the victims with you, isn't it?"because women secretly love to have lots of babies they can't afford"Women have an ample supply of birth control options. If that's not good enough, then I will reply with the exact same phrase given to any man who speaks up about men's reproductive rights and being forced to have children they can't afford…"If you don't want to take responsibility for your actions, keep your pants on and quit whining."
>Bathorie…The suggestion for male reproductive rights would not be something that could be done retroactively. Current fathers would not be able to suddenly opt out. The recommendation has always been for a man to be able to opt out only during the first few months after he was informed. This would leave the mother with the same options she had prior to informing him, just with the knowledge that she will not be getting financial support from the father. It has also often been suggested that the opting out include the fee's for any abortion the woman chooses to get as a result (and so many men would fight along side women to get inexpensive abortions back).Currently, there are two common scenario's men face when it comes to becoming fathers against their will… The first is simply the girlfriend gets pregnant and refuses to abort. The man currently has no choice and the woman can move forward knowing he doesn't and knowing she will get a paycheck from him (the fact you acknowledge that paycheck is so important to women shows it as an incentive. IE, if she thinks she's going to be living in poverty anyways, or she just wants to survive without working for a living…). men's reproductive rights should actually deter this kind of forced parenthood, and thus, should reduce the number of impoverished mothers (as being a mother isn't guaranteed the paycheck it once was). The second scenario is when the mother shows up after the child is 4-5 years old looking for backpay… If she could survive that long solo, she can keep going solo. It was her choice to have and raise the baby without the father, she should live with that choice.So my response is that I do not believe children can be raised in a financially stable environment without any sort of child support, but rather, without child support as an obligation forced to unwilling fathers, there will be less incentive to have children if one is not financially stable (ether individually or as a couple).Let me ask you this, if a woman is already going to be on welfare, because she can't or is unwilling to get a job, is she better off as a single recipient or as a single mother (with both child support and welfare)? Which option is more financially beneficial? The gains for having a child when it comes to those already living off social assistance are significantly high enough to actually encourage pregnancy, especially for those not truly familiar with the responsibilities of motherhood. Add in the benefit of having two children with two different fathers…
>bathorie: wouldn't it be more sensible to assume that if men were given the right to relinquish their parental obligations (which, btw, I'm not opposed to the idea, if there was a way in which to make it work) there would be MORE need for government welfare, much like in 1834?That's the big issue here. The point is that there is a child that needs care and attention and that costs money. The only way it would make sense to allow fathers to not pay child support would be if the govt itself offered enough child support for the kid to not be horribly deprived. And that would mean a lot more money to single moms. And I think we all can predict where most MRAs would stand on that issue. Heck, kratch has given us a pretty good clue with his contention that women are having babies to collect a "paycheck" so they can get by "without working for a living."
>"*50% of single mothers, not welfare recipients. And source, from a (Canadian) MRA website: http://www.equaljustice.ca/cgi-bin/forum.cgi/noframes/read/35106 "Be aware that, in Canada, money gained from child support is actually deducted from social assistance. If a single mother of 1 gets $400 in child support, her social assistance check will be $400 dollars less then a single mother of one who gets no child support. This is something that family groups are trying to change in Canada, but it explains the current poverty rate of single mothers here. IE, they effectively are already being denied child support unless it's higher then their social assistance would be. This, however, isn't a commonly known fact, as I only discovered it myself through Glen Sack's and fathers and families (a family advocacy group that David has criticized simply for fighting for fair family court reform, regardless of gender (it's just that fathers currently have so many disadvantages and feminist organizations (like NOW) don't want to change that).
>"That's the big issue here. The point is that there is a child that needs care and attention and that costs money."But that isn't necessarily the case. If a man was given the right to opt out (not of children already born as of the date implemented, but of any potential births going forward from that point on), then a woman would need to think very carefully before she even decided to keep the baby. If she choose to keep the child, despite knowing the father may choose not to support it, that is her choice and her responsibility. Not the fathers, not the governments, HERS. Why is this such a difficult concept for feminists to grasp, the idea that woman can and should be responsible for their own choices? Why is it the governments responsibility to support a mother and child? If she was not capable of supporting the child herself, she should not have had the baby, and it would likely be better off with a different family. "Heck, kratch has given us a pretty good clue with his contention that women are having babies to collect a "paycheck" so they can get by "without working for a living.""So you deny this happens? You deny that a woman who is living off social assistance anyways (particularly in the US) is better off financially with a child then without? I'm not claiming that that is the motive for all women, or even most, but I do believe that there are enough doing so, particularly those living on the poverty line or bellow, to explain the numbers you all keep providing to oppose men's reproductive rights.
>As my reply does indeed appear to be lost, I will try to re-write it…“it is very easy to keep that money separate for PP. Have two bank accounts-money from everyone else, money from government. In my job we currently have three funds and they each fund different sections of our overall budget because certain fees collected have specific purposes written into them.”When working with a single operational budget, there is a distinct difference between ensuring that money funds a particular department and ensuring money does not fund a particular department. So long as the particular department is getting at least the amount funded, it is receiving those funds. That is easily proven. But when you have a single operational budget, how do you prove that money from the restricted funding isn’t going to the restricted department? One way is to remove the money and see if that impacts, in any way, the restricted department. IE, if, after this PP funding cut, abortion clinics are affected, then federal funding was indeed going to abortion. Just because they claim it was going to other departments does not make that true, especially in a single operational budget. So long as the abortion clinics worked under that same budget, it benefited from the federal funding. And I think the current outrage over the loss of abortion clinics (look at ginmar’s response to me above as an example, sometimes, it is the loss of the abortion clinics that garners the outrage), proves my point, after all, if no federal funding was going to abortion clinics, nothing should have changed.“he reason the funds were cut had very little to do with actual abortions and more to do with punishing women for engaging in consequence free sex. “two things. 1: I want you to note the use of “consequence free sex” (not that any sex leading to an abortion is ever truly consequence free). Feminists often claim men should have to deal with the consequences of their actions when they have sex and a woman gets pregnant. Why then should you be federally funded to get the very opportunity you deny men? Why do you feel you should be so privileged as to not only get additional options, but also have those options federally funded? The answer, of course, is bigotry and female chauvinism. Be wary of that next time you entr into a male reproductive rights debate.2: Do you seriously believe that the idea of a government conspiracy is being implemented in order to control women’s sexuality (not that denying government funding to abortions actually do that) and punish them for having “consequence free sex”, is a far more reasonable explanation for the PP cuts then the idea that, the federal funding is not allowed to be used for abortions, and PP violated that agreement, and so, they are being punished for their inappropriate actions? Is a government conspiracy really the more logical, rational explanation here? Forever the victim I suppose.“If PP tomorrow said "we will now end our abortion and other sex related services and only give women testing to prevent cervical cancers and the like…" perhaps they would not be persecuted. (I am dubious for other reasons on that though.) “I suspect the other sexual related services had nothing to do with the cuts. And at this point, the damage is done, the trust lost. I’m not so sure simply claiming to end abortion clinics will fix things. That said, I do believe adamantly that, had abortion clinics not been there to begin with, PP likely would still have federal funding. Perhaps not as much (cuts are being made all over), but they’d have something.
>Prime example of why men should be given reproductive rights…http://www.lasisblog.com/2011/02/26/man-receives-oral-sex-ordered-to-pay-child-support/