Category Archives: oppressed men
Oh, Men’s Rights subreddit, will you ever learn? (Probably not.)
Sometimes I ask myself: what is it that I really hope to accomplish with this website, aside from entertaining myself and my readers, and exposing misogynist assholes for who they are. There’s a part of me that still hopes that someday, something I write will cause some misogynist and/or Men’s Rightser out there to develop a modicum of self-awareness, look at what they’ve been saying or doing, and say to themselves, “I’m really kind of a tool, aren’t I? Maybe I should stop.”
When the Southern Poverty Law Center report on the Men’s Rights movement came out, I hoped it might have a similar sort of effect. Or that, even if it didn’t persuade any MRAs out there that they were wrong, it might at least convince a few that they were going about things the wrong way. Nope. On the Men’s Rights subreddit, at least, it seems to have sent many of the regulars into an indignant tizzy, and they have doubled down on their peculiar brand of politics-by-whining-online.
Consider this post:
Yes, that’s right. Some Men’s Rights Redditors seem to think that the best way to convince the world that they’re not part of a hate group is to continue to celebrate a self-admitted child abuser who urged men to firebomb courthouses and police stations and kill people.
Then there’s this post, currently the top post on the subreddit:
Wow, if the Men’s Rights subreddit had anything to do with that, that would indeed be a victory. As one regular put it:
Thing is, I read r/mensrights pretty regularly, and I don’t remember any campaign there to protect the rights of fishermen in New Zealand.
Turns out that’s because the campaign, such as it was, consisted of one post some months back, which got all of 11 upvotes at the time. The current post in which r/mensrights congratulates itself for its “victory” has gotten, last I checked, 120 upvotes, more than ten times that. Simplecosine’s self-congratulatory comment in the new thread has gotten 36 upvotes. The comment in the original thread asking r/mensrightsers to send an email to the US Secretary of State’s office got … one upvote. In other words, only a handful of Men’s Rights Redditors even noticed the original post, much less sent along an email.
Reading one of the linked news articles makes clear the real reason the State Department opened an investigation: a six-month long, three-continent wide investigation by Bloomberg Businessweek revealing abuses in the industry.
The Men’s Rights subreddit: Taking Credit for Shit They Didn’t Do Since 2008.
And then there’s this post:
I’ve got nothing to say about this one — it’s basically self-refuting — except that I’m sort of bemused by the notion that the Southern Poverty Law Center is a “semi-women group.” Uh, what is that exactly? A group with some women in it? A group that doesn’t think women are all a bunch of evil bitches? The horror!
Oh, Men’s Rights movement. You’ll never change, will you?
EDITED TO ADD: And speaking of never changing, here’s how one Men’s Rights redditor responded to my comments there suggesting that maybe, just maybe, MRAs should actually denounce and distance themselves from someone calling for terrorism:
Let me just highlight that bit at the end again:
[T]he cost to the establishment to maintain the status quo in regards to divorce, custody, etc. must be made so high that it’s just no longer feasible. If that means instilling abject fear into the hearts of judges, cops and legislators by making them think their careers and/or lives could be forfeit unless they change their attitudes towards men, then so be it.
Trying to instill fear for one’s life in your opponents: that is the very definition of terrorism.
Hey ladies! The Men’s Rights movement needs you. Like, really, really needs you.
The Men’s Rights subreddit is a gift that keeps on giving!
In response to a woman pledging her support to the Men’s Rights movement, someone calling himself Nephilim_Hunter offers his thanks:
Because men have been relegated to a what of a what now?
Because males are already relegated to a position of non-participant in society
Because males are already relegated to a position of non-participant in society
Because males are already relegated to a position of non-participant in society
Because males are already relegated to a position of non-participant in society
Just wanted to make sure I understood that you really, actually did just say that.
Oh, by the way,I’m starting a new feature here at Man Boobz. It’s called: Random Pictures of Boards of Directors.
Here’s a picture of the board of directors of Wal-Mart:
Oh, and here’s the board of directors for GE:
And here’s the board of directors of Duke Energy:
Oh, and the board of directors at Dynasty Financial Partners:
And these fellas are the board of directors at The Rea Magnet Wire Company:
And, while we’re at it, here’s the board of directors of Man Boobz:
A Voice for Men responds to the Southern Poverty Law Center. With love.
Welcome to the fifth and final day of the Man Boobz Pledge Drive. If you haven’t already, please consider clicking the little button below and sending a few bucks my way.
Thanks! And, once again, big thanks to all who’ve already donated. I’ve been amazed and humbled by the response, which was greater than I had ever expected. Seriously, you rock. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming:
The look of love, AVFM-style.
[TW for rape apologism and domestic violence.]
Paul Elam of A Voice for Men has responded to the Southern Poverty Law Center report on the Men’s Rights Movement with an letter to the organization’s head. Apparently, the SPLC is confused, and AVFM isn’t hateful at all! Indeed, it’s like the opposite of hateful. Loveful, you might call it. Here’s Elam:
Contrary to what readers of your site may be led to believe, the goals of SPLC and AVfM are quite similar: We both work to identify groups who seek to oppress others, and inform the public of the inequities they would perpetuate. … The work of AVfM is vital and, despite what you may think, not dissimilar from the goals and aims of the SPLC.
Indeed, AVFM might better be thought of as “a human rights organization.”
Elam also clears up a little matter of terminology:
[T]he term “mangina” is not a euphemism for “weak men,” but rather a label for men who enable and excuse female misconduct – ranging from physical violence to exculpatory false reporting of crimes … – solely because the offender is female (and to gain women’s approval).
I think I can speak for all manginas when I say, thanks for the clarification, Paul!
At the end of the letter, Elam gets all Martin Luther King on us:
Those who fear truth, and brand it as hatred and bigotry, hide behind the worst kind of cowardice – the sniveling complacency that for generations allowed the rich to starve the poor, for one person to own another because of the color of their skin, and for the officers at Nuremberg to claim they were “just following orders.” …
This movement will grow, as it has since its inception, and the time will come when the SPLC (and other groups) must admit our fundamental similarities and aspirations. I am inviting you, with open arms, to do just that.
The alternative, I fear, is that you come down on the wrong side of history, with the likes of Dred Scott as your legacy.
Inspiring stuff, Paul. Nazis, Dred Scott– you totally nailed it. Who could possibly doubt your passion, or your deeply moral vision?
Here’s a link to his letter.
Oh, wait, that wasn’t a link to his letter. That was a link to a post of his in which he tells a feminist that:
I am not going to stop. You see, I find you, as a feminist, to be a loathsome, vile piece of human garbage. I find you so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of fucking your shit up gives me an erection.
Here’s the link to his letter.
Oops! That was actually a link to a post in which he suggests that “vermin” like me (and another feminist writer who has also been critical of the Men’s Rights movement) deserve to be killed. Or have something awful and permanent happen to us that would solve “the problem” that is us. He’s a little vague.
Here, at long last, is the link.
Oh, sorry, that’s actually a link to a post in which Paul puckishly suggested that October, currently designated as Domestic Violence Awareness Month, should be renamed “Bash a Violent Bitch Month.” As he explained:
I’d like to make it the objective for the remainder of this month, and all the Octobers that follow, for men who are being attacked and physically abused by women – to beat the living shit out of them. I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles.
And then make them clean up the mess.
What a wit!
Anyway, here’s the letter.
Gosh darn it. I’m not doing too well with links at the moment. That’s actually a link to a post in which Elam suggests that women who drink and go home with men are “freaking begging” to be raped:
Damn near demanding it.
And all the outraged PC demands to get huffy and point out how nothing justifies or excuses rape won’t change the fact that there are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.
I guess that’s what they call “human rights advocacy” right there.
Ok, finally, the letter:
Damn. That wasn’t even by Paul. No, that was a guest post on A Voice for Men by a fellow named Keith, with an explanation for why men don’t just beat women all the time. (It’s not why you’d think!)
Let’s face it guys if it was about size or domination, or patriarchy or anything other than power, wouldn’t we be kicking the shit out of women on a daily basis in the streets? The only reason men don’t randomly pound the shit out of women who can’t keep their mouths shut, is because they don’t mean anything to us and they have no power over or in our lives. They are not worth the trouble! That’s the only reason there isn’t bodies strewn all over the streets.
That’s enough human rights advocacy for me for now. Here’s the actual link to Elam’s letter.
–
This post contains some
Gucci Little Piggy: Sandra Fluke is a lesbian pirate because one of her fingers is longer than the other
Welcome to Day Three of the Man Boobz Pledge Drive. If you haven’t already, please consider clicking the little button below and sending a few bucks my way.
Thanks! And big thanks to all who’ve already donated. The response has been amazing so far. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming:
Leave it to the manosphere to further elevate the national discourse about Sandra Fluke. On Gucci Little Piggy, a blog loosely aligned with the alt-right/racist/PUA wing of the manosphere, blogger Chuck Rudd suggests that Rush Limbaugh might have been wrong to call Fluke a slut. Sounds good,eh? Not when you hear the, er, reasoning behind it:
I think the term “slut” is too arbitrary to have much meaning in a political context, especially when we don’t actually know anything about the so-called slut’s sexual history. It doesn’t fit Sandra Fluke anyway as we don’t know for sure that she’s heterosexual.
Go on.
Fluke is not a “slut”, nor is she a “good citizen” which is what President Obama called her in a press conference held today. Based upon readily observable behavior and on her beliefs about what she and her favorite groups have a right to grab from tax payers and employers, it’s best to call her what she is: a pirate
Uh, what?
Apparently, in Chuck’s world, putative lesbians who suggest that insurance should pay for birth control that they personally don’t need to prevent babies, though they or people they know might need it to treat other medical conditions, are pirates.
Later in the post, Chuck links to a review of a book that suggests many pirates engaged in sodomy. Which is evidently proof in his mind that lesbians are pirates, or at least that it is hilarious to call them pirates.
Anyway, the best part of the piece is how Chuck, using the magic of SCIENCE, proves that Fluke is gay:
[P]eople who have a longer ring finger (4d) than index finger (2d) have more testosterone and, some argue, a higher sex drive.
Pointing to a news photograph that appears to show that Ms. Fluke does indeed have a long ring finger, Chuck concludes:
her ring finger is quite a bit longer than her index. It’s almost as long as her middle finger. In general, a low 2d:4d ratio in women indicates a greater proclivity towards homosexuality or bisexuality and greater tendency towards aggressiveness and assertiveness. So, yeah, pirate fits.
Thanks, Chuck.
Most of the commenters to his article seem to agree with his basic thesis.
Stickman writes:
forget the fingers… shes got strait up MAN HANDS. But look on the bright side, if she survives the up coming second dark ages, I’m sure she will do a fine job of pulling a plow.
Note: The “coming second dark ages” is a familiar trope among manospherians; the idea is that men will get so fed up with the gynofascist matriarchy we evidently all live in today that they will stop working, civilization will crumble, and the ladies will be put in their proper place, behind pulling plows.
SOBL1 adds:
As a fellow Cornellian, my guess is lesbian. Cornell has a decent les population.It also speaks more to a les to demand free birth control as a hand out from the government speaking on behalf of all women when she has no shot of getting pregnant. That’s just the thing lesbians like to do: consider their opinions the worldview of all “womyn”. At a minimum, she was a LUG [Lesbian Until Graduation]. Her face and hair are so masculine, she could pass for a male supporting character in “All the President’s Men”.
Did he mention he went to CORNELL?
One free-thinking fellow actually challenges Chuck’s analysis. Nick digger writes:
This finger length analysis from candid photos is nonsense. There are too many knuckle-bends in all directions, combined with skewed camera position, to get an accurate measurement. There has to be some standard for this, such as hands pressed flat against a flat surface, with all fingers together, or each finger extending in a straight line from its source carpal (or metacarpal, whatever it is).
Having said that, she looks like a fat, ugly cunt — which is what Rush should have called her, as it does not imply sluttiness. He’s entitled, because libs call him a fat ugly cunt all the time.
Such is the nature of the discussion amongst some of the internet’s most steadfast advocates for the rights of men.
Chuck himself adds a few parting thoughts in a comment suggesting that Fluke’s biggest crime was that she didn’t ask for birth control coverage nicely enough:
When you ask for something from someone you don’t demand it and then demonize someone who doesn’t cave in to your demands. You ask and the other person chooses whether to reciprocate. All of this is akin to someone asking a stranger for a hitch across town and then screaming and yelling when rebuffed
It’s true. In the past, activists have always been extremely polite about their demands requests. You may recall the famous anti-war slogan: “Heck no, we would prefer not to go.” The “Excuse us, fellas, but we would also like to be able to walk around at night” marches. And of course, Martin Luther King’s famous, “Guys, would any of you like to hear about this dream I had” speech.
All Chuck and his friends are asking is that fat ugly dyke cunts stop being so darn rude when they call on insurance companies to provide certain kinds of medical coverage. Is that really too much to ask?
-
I’d better put that blinking
gif here, just in case.
Men’s Rights Redditors to Rebecca Watson: How dare you say we hate women, you cunt!
NOTE: Today is Day Two of the Man Boobz Pledge Drive. If you haven’t already, please consider clicking the little button below and sending a few bucks my way.
Thanks! (And thanks again to all who’ve already donated.) Now back to our regularly scheduled programming:
So the other day, the atheist blogger Rebecca Watson, aka Skepchick, had this little conversation on Twitter:
Watson, you may recall, got herself onto the Men’s Rights radar a few months back, after a brief comment she made in a podcast — suggesting that perhaps it wasn’t such a good idea for a guy to hit on woman he’s never spoken to before while the two of them are alone in an elevator at 4 AM – somehow turned into a Big Fucking Thing on the Internet, because how dare she say such a thing, it’s creep-shaming, she must hate men, bla bla bla.
So, anyhoo, one Men’s Rights Reddit noticed this little Twitter exchange, and posted it to the Men’s Rights subreddit. And there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth. MRAs hating women? How dare she suggest such a thing!
Here are some of the things that assorted Men’s Rights Redditors posted in response, to remind us all that the Men’s Rights movement isn’t all about shitting on women. Let’s start with this lovely rebuttal, boasting nearly 60 net upvotes:
This comment inspired a long and winding discussion of the word “cunt,” and why it’s like totally ok to use it all the time, because in England the UK people call men “cunts” as well.
Some got a little carried away:
This little exchange came with a side order of irony:
Speaking of fantasy, here’s a strange bit of paranoia, which nonetheless drew upvotes from the very same people who are outraged that Watson was a bit creeped out by a dude she didn’t know asking her to come to his hotel room at 4 AM:
And here’s still more evidence that MRAs, despite their many egregious flaws, do at least have vivid imaginations:
Some other comments, all of which got at least a few upvotes from the MR regulars:
Let’s end with this eloquent plea for people to not give a shit if MRAs hate women:
The folks in the Men’s Rights subreddit are currently debating whether or not to change the subreddit’s slogan, which is currently: “Mens’ Rights: Earning Scorn from Bigoted Feminists and White Knights Since 2008.”
So let me humbly suggest:
Mens’ Rights: Like it’s even relevant if mens rights is anti women in regard to if mens rights is a movement about addressing mens issues.
Or the even punchier:
Men’s Rights: i’m tired of not using the term “cunt”.
MRAs, you’re welcome.
MRAs: The way to defeat feminism is not through debate but by “inflicting … pain” on feminists.
Men's Rights "Activism"
What can you do when you realize that you’re losing the war of ideas? You can rethink some or all of your ideas, seriously considering the unnerving possibility that you might be, well, wrong. You can reconsider how you present your ideas.
Or you can give up on ideas entirely, and attempt to pressure or harass or even terrorize others into some form of surrender. That’s what the the uber-radical Weathermen did in the 1960s and 70s, turning first to violent direct action in the aptly named “days of rage” and then to bombs when the revolution that many in the New Left had been prophesying failed to materialize. That’s what the anti-abortion movement has been doing for decades now, with some in the movement harassing women trying to get abortions while more radical antis bomb clinics and kill doctors. .
And now we’re seeing rhetoric from Men’s Rights Activists that suggests some in that movement may also be giving up on talk. Consider A Voice for Men’s Paul Elam, who declared in a fundraising letter a couple of months back that:
Progress for men will not be gained by debate, reason or typical channels of grievance available to segments of the population that the world actually gives a damn about. The progress we need will only be realized by inflicting enough pain on the agents of hate, in public view, that it literally shocks society out of its current coma.
Elam is – presumably deliberately — vague about what exactly he means when he talks about “inflicting … pain,” and as far as I know he has never explicitly endorsed violence. But he has spoken openly about “stalking” individual feminists and otherwise “fucking their shit up” by, among other things, posting personal information about them on the AVfM-sponsored site Register-Her.com for all would be vigilantes to see. And in the “activism” section of his website he has reprinted a manifesto explicitly calling for the firebombing of courthouses and police stations.
Elam isn’t the only MRA who has officially given up on “debate and reason” in favor of “inflicting … pain” on feminists. The “counter-feminist” wannabe philosopher who calls himself Fidelbogen makes a similar argument in a recent post on his blog:
Feminism is your enemy, and the obligation to treat feminists as fellow human beings is officially waived. They are not fellow human beings, they are ALIENS.
Dehumanizing the enemy always a good start.
[L]et’s not hear any crap about so-called “hate speech”. You see, there is simply no way that you can resist evil, denounce tyranny, or call pernicious things by their right names, without crossing a fine line into “hate speech” or something very like it. Extremism against a bully is no vice, and since bullies have their own moral economy, you are entitled to pay them in their own coin.
It’s not hate speech if you really do hate them?
The important thing to understand about the feminists is, that they will not change their outward behavior unless social heat and pressure are inflicted upon them.
Fidelbogen, a sometime contributor to A Voice for Men, is also vague about what exactly he means by this “social heat and pressure.” He continues:
What, do you think they will stop what they are doing just because somebody intellectually convinces them they are mistaken? They will do no such thing, because they are people with an agenda who know they are “right”, and they lack the gift to see themselves as the rest of the world sees them.
IRONY ALERT. IRONY ALERT.
Over on Reddit, meanwhile, the charming JeremiahMRA – who used to post comments here as Things Are Bad – thinks the “inflict pain” policy should be extended to all women, any time they engage in “bad behavior.” Responding to a poster asking how to handle a disagreement with his mother, he explained his theory in (sometimes redundant) detail, receiving several dozen net upvotes for his post:
The ONLY way you change women’s bad behavior is by punishing them if they won’t start acting like adults. …
The only way you change a woman’s bad behavior is by making sure they know it hurts them. …
Reasoning with her will not work. The only answer is to use the power he has as her SON to threaten to hurt her emotionally. Women are emotional creatures. Nothing else will work. This is what it means to be a man: you do what you have to do so that things will be better in the end, even if you don’t like it. …
It isn’t about convincing her what’s right, it’s about showing her she will suffer if she doesn’t do what’s right. That is the only thing that will work.
The Men’s Rights Movement likes to pretend that is it a civil rights movement. But threats, harassment, hate speech, and emotional blackmail aren’t the tactics of a legitimate civil rights movement. These are the tactics of angry narcissists clinging to retrograde prejudices, who have given up on the war of ideas because on some level they know that history is against them, and that they will never win.
Reddit MRA: “College women [are] humping their way through entire sports teams not only guilt free but feeling justified in doing so.”
I am devoid of wit today, so here without comment is a heaping slab of “women are whores” courtesy of the Men’s Rights subreddit. The whole thread is full of poop; check it out.
In case anyone has forgotten, Alpha Cock Carousel T-shirts are available for purchase at the Man Boobz store on Zazzle.
That’s right, motherfucking ALPHA COCK CAROUSEL T-SHIRTS.
Thanks to Shit Reddit Says for pointing me to this poop.
Listen lady, a WOMAN’S vagina is like a MAN’S money! Why oh why won’t anyone date me?
Let me explain once more why your vagina is like my money.
The A(n)nals of Online Dating blog manages to unearth some astoundingly awful and creepy online dating profiles. Looking around on the site’s archives the other day, I came across one profile that reminded me of so many discussions here I felt I needed to share it with you. Here’s some unnamed OKCupid dude explaining just what he looks for in a woman.
He starts off almost reasonably:
Message me if you are intelligent and can hold chopsticks and are not racist.
Ok, that’s a little confrontational, and the bit about chopsticks is odd, but there’s nothing wrong with wanting your date to be smart and not a bigot.
It’s at this point he careens off the road:
Also message me if you can understand that a WOMAN’S vagina is like a MAN’S money.
Go on.
Meaning if we are NOT dating and if I do not KNOW who you are, you will have to be able to provide for yourself.
Are there really a lot of women on dating sites that expect men they don’t know to pay their rent or electric bills?
I am not going to give a little unless you can give a little.
Ah, the transactional model of dating. What’s the over/under on this guy also being a raving Ron Paul fan?
Most women dont want to feel like a whore by giving it up on the first night and dont want to be used just for sex. They also dont want to give it up and then be afraid the man will leave. Thats the SAME way I FEEL about spending my hard earned money on you.
Because women don’t want to feel like whores, you’re going to treat them exactly like whores, by equating vaginas and money?
A lot of women in this town dont follow through with anything they say and a lot of them have A LOT of insecurities along with expecting a guy to buy them food and drinks and then completely walk over them.
By “walk[ing] over them” I presume he means that the women are not having sex with every guy who buys them a dinner while explaining at length about how vaginas and money are the same thing and why Ron Paul is the only hope for our nation.
I dont play that and I’ve dated a few women who are gorgeous who happen to understand what I am talking about.
So why the OkCupid profile? I guess these gorgeous women must not be returning his calls any more.
So if you u understand that my money and time is just as valuable as your body, then we’ll be in agreement to not share anything until there is an understanding.
You’ll need to sign the “sex for dinner” contract here and here, and initial here. And you’re ready to go!
Oh, and if you fellas here (of the heterosexual persuasion) are feeling a little left out, remember, there are some terrible, terrible women out there in online dating land for you as well.
If you like prescription drugs, weird bird feet, and fistfights with jealous Juggalo ex-boyfriends, send this little lady a note.
EDITED TO ADD: Holly Pervocracy has a great post on the wrongness of the vaginas = money equation here.
Your penis, your choice — not your responsibility!
Ladies use these to extract money from helpless men.
When men and women have consensual sex, who is responsible? If you said “both, because they both agreed to and participated in it,” you might be some sort of misandrist feminazi. Because, as W.F. Price explains in a recent Spearhead post, it’s really women who are responsible for consensual heterosexual sex.
If you’re wondering how that could be, well, keep reading. Price starts off by considering what he calls “the feminist claims of mass rape throughout society.”
If as many rapes happen as they claim, chances are someone on your street has been raped recently. There must be multiple simultaneous rapes occurring at any given time within your zip code. Can you hear the silence screaming around you? (this is probably what goes through the minds of feminists).
Why yes, Mr. Price, chances are that someone on my street has been raped recently. Indeed, I know numerous women who have been raped. I’m guessing most women don’t share the intensely personal fact that they’ve been raped with you, Mr. Price, because you’re the sort of person who likes to go around talking dismissively about “the feminist claims of mass rape throughout society.”
Let’s continue:
Anyway, the point is that if men are so irrepressibly prone to rape and so sexually voracious, and women so prone to being unwilling, then who really is most responsible when consensual sex does happen?
Well, that’s an interesting approach to logic: snidely dismiss the fact that rape is common, then go ahead and assume it’s true for the sake of the rest of your argument:
One of the most sacred and cherished rights of feminists is the right to say “no” — that is, the right to deny sex. Do men value the ability to deny sex as much as women? Perhaps when it comes to forced sodomy, but that isn’t a common issue. One rarely sees men marching down the street with placards declaring that “NO MEANS NO,” and when they do, they are generally just holding signs for women. So, if women actually like denying sex, and are more likely to exercise that power, who has more choice when it comes to whether or not a given sex act will occur?
I cannot help but marvel at the twisted logic here. Women want the right to say no to sex they do not want to have. But getting this “no” to be taken seriously is such a problem that some women organize actual protests in the streets to declare that “no means no,” and this means that … they are the ones responsible for sex.
And if women are more responsible for sex than the men they have sex with, just who should bear the responsibility for the pregnancies that sometimes follow? I think you see where Price is going here, but let’s let him spell it out:
Let’s break it down:
Men have a higher sex drive than women
Men have less control over their sexual impulses
Women value the ability to deny sex
Women are far more likely and able to deny sex than men
If the above are true, then barring outright rape, surely women are more to blame for pregnancy than men. So why does the law treat males and females as equal participants in the sex act, and why does policy hold the man to be more responsible? Clearly, the female has more control.
Since women sometimes say no to sex, they should bear all the costs of raising children?
It’s the strangest evo-psych argument I’ve seen so far: Since men are hardwired to be horndog sex-havers, they shouldn’t have to take responsibility for the consequences of this sexual activity, at least when it comes to contributing something to support the children that sometimes show up about nine months later. Ladies: think of the poor men, at the mercy of their boners! How dare you expect that they pay their share of the costs of raising a child?
In Price’s mind, child support is not only unfair to poor horndog men, it’s a cancer destroying civilization as we know it:
There’s been a lot of hand-wringing over the disintegration of the American family and marriage, but few people dare to point out the obvious reason America is fast becoming a nation of bastards. It’s actually fairly clear: women are not being held to the appropriate level of responsibility where their sexual choices are concerned. In the old days, it was understood that, barring rape, women were more responsible for who they slept with than men, and if they screwed up they had to deal with it. This is why the rate of illegitimacy was so low for so long. However, today, women can get pregnant and receive guaranteed support from not only the government, but whatever random man they permitted to have sex with them.
Raising a child as a single mom is apparently the easiest thing in the world. But making men pay for a portion of the costs for this child is tyranny!
Holding men more responsible than women for sex has been an abysmal failure, yet the policy remains in place despite thousands of years of received wisdom that lets us know it is a bad idea. Holding men and women equally responsible would be inappropriate as well, but we’ve gone past even that. Without some change in policy soon, the majority of all births in the United States will be illegitimate in a decade or so. The current system, which absolves women of responsibility for a choice that is largely in their hands, and for which they have even more options and tools at their disposal to deal with the consequences than ever, is unsustainable.
Despite his own handwringing about the state of The Family, Price doesn’t’ spell out how married men fit into his sex-responsibility equation. Are married men considered as responsible for babies as their wives? Is this responsibility retroactively nullified if they get divorced? It’s all very complicated. Which is, I guess, inevitable, once you arbitrarily decide that two consenting adults who have sex with one another are somehow not equally responsible for this sex.
Naturally, the Spearhead peanut gallery provided many more nuggets of wisdom. WGMOW – apparently a woman herself – gave Price’s bizarre argument a big ditto:
I don’t even see anthing debatable here. It is entirely the females who make the decision when and where to get knocked up, and then get child support from a man with the means to provide her with a bank account and credit cards seemingly for life. It there is no such man available she gets handouts from Big Daddy Government in the form of welfare, Sec 8 housing, free utilities, food stamps, free health care, free college education, and in some states, even a car.
These are the females that feminists say are “strong, powerful, and smart.” Bullshit. They are just as dependant as the females of the Victorian age. Then, they went from the care of their fathers into the care of their husbands. Now, they go from the care of their welfare mothers into the care of the government. All courtesy of our tax dollars.
AfOR put it even more bluntly:
The law fucks men over because they can be made to bleed more than a wimminz, they make better hosts for the parasites of society than wimminz.
Who exactly are the parasites here? The babies?
Hf seemed annoyed that women are allowed any autonomy at all:
Women typically struggle with knowing what exactly it is that they want. The “No Means No” movement is just as much trying to convince themselves and each other as it is trying to convince men. Deception is very much a part of a woman’s autonomy.
Nehalem provided a new slogan for the no-male-responsibility-for-sex-or-babies movement:
To get the point across more easily I suggest we modify a common liberal slogan and say:
Her body, her choice, her responsibility.
This being The Spearhead, it sort of goes without saying that each of these comments got dozens of upvotes.
Apparently, then, the only responsible course of action for unmarried women today is to never ever have sex with men. No sex, no consequences, no responsibilities to share with force upon men! But somehow I suspect that the MRAs of the world wouldn’t be happy with this solution.
Uteruses Versus Duderuses
Apparently a lot of ladies have these things living in their lady regions.
Today, more insight into the enigma that is ladies. Our topic? The uterus and its discontents. The uterus, for those who have not heard of it, is a lady organ that ladies who were born ladies have down in their lady regions. It is used for two purposes: making babies, and oppressing men.
Some ladies, you see, like to trick men into giving up their sperm (or to steal it from them without their knowledge). The ladies somehow use this sperm to grow babies in their uteruses — I’m not sure on all the details here — which they then use to extract money from men. As is well known, it really doesn’t cost anything to raise a child, and the ladies use most of the so-called child-support they get from men to pay for bon bons and Cadillacs.
It gets worse. According to a dude called Joe Zamboni over on The Spearhead, some of these uterus-having ladies are at risk of developing something called Golden Uterus Syndrome, or GUS. First described by Dr. Tara J. Palmatier, Zamboni notes,
Golden Uterus Syndrome (GUS) occurs when a woman thinks she deserves special privileges just because she has given birth to a child. … Supposedly all sorts of things (like a mother not taking a job, and instead staying at home) are for the benefit of the child, when in reality they are simply a cover for the woman manipulating others to get her way. … So many of these mothers just take, take, take — like parasites.
Even worse, Zamboni explains, is that some women deliberately infect themselves with Golden Uterus Syndrome, thus guaranteeing them a life of ease as a stay-at-home or single mother:
[W]omen all over world are blatantly getting pregnant so that they don’t have to work at a job, so that they can be supported by a man. I’m not going to act like I approve of their behavior to ensnare and enslave a man, so that this man is then forced to pay eighteen years of child support at the very least.
GUS is rampant in the United States. And it’s time for an intervention.
Mothers now enjoy many unwarranted preferences, and it’s time to reestablish a new and more equitable balance.
Luckily, Zamboni explains, we can combat many of the evil effects of GUS simply by acting like assholes.
The fact is that other people, be they men or women, owe nothing to mothers. As the recent Italian ocean liner accident (Costa Concordia) dramatically revealed, chivalry is dead. I won’t give my seat on the bus to a mother who’s standing, and I certainly won’t give my sinking-ship lifeboat seat to a mother.
The social contract between men and women is dead, and feminist women are the ones who killed it. Mothers in general don’t do anything for me (although I appreciate my own, God rest her soul).
Men shouldn’t feel guilty for treating mothers badly. Because feminism.
Once upon a time, there may have been good reason to protect mothers, to support mothers, etc. (I don’t know, I wasn’t there). But that is one hundred or more years ago. Today’s American women claim to be the equals of men, if not better than men. At least in this instance, I am pleased to give them what they say they want (equal treatment).
Motherhood is, after all, a choice, and men really shouldn’t be burdened by any of the costs of human reproduction.
The fact is that modern mothers have a choice to have a child or not. When they have a child, it is their own personal burden that they are taking on — it is their decision to have that baby. I had no part in their past baby making decisions (unfortunately even if I was the contributor of DNA material), and I do not now agree to allow them to off-load the baby-related responsibilities and costs onto me. …
This is fundamentally a question of self-responsibility, and women in general seem loath to take on true self-responsibility. A friend of mine calls it “congenital female selfishness,” but I think it is more like an acculturated selfishness, and a “pussy pass” so that they can get out of trouble, so that they don’t need to grow-up. As long as we men keep playing the mangina and white knight roles, as long as we keep giving all sorts of special treatment to mothers, going out of our way to protect mothers, doing all sorts of special favors for mothers, we feed and perpetuate the GUS fantasy.
And really, why should men have to pay just because some lady wants to take up babymaking as a hobby?
The fact is: the world doesn’t need more children. … Women don’t need to have children. They want children. Having children is a preference, and men are supposed to endlessly indulge women in the fulfillment of this wish. It’s time that the women-having-babies conversation was brought into the realm of public conversation, and then dealt with rationally and responsibly.
It’s time that men got a backbone and refused to endlessly indulge women in their desire for, and rearing of children. In large measure, it is the continued willingness of men to indulge this selfish female desire that has led to our overpopulation problem.
Exactly! It has nothing to do with governments and religious institutions campaigning against birth control and abortion, or any of that stuff. It’s female selfishness, plain and simple.
It’s time for all men to say “no” to women that selfishly keep having babies. It’s time for third party men to say “no” to providing support and protection to mothers who have quite clearly rejected any sort of partnership with a man. It’s time for all men to say “no” to the exploitative demands of these GUS-infected self-serving mothers.
Stirring words indeed.
Naturally, Zamboni’s argument found receptive ears over at The Spearhead.
“Great article Joe,” wrote Pendelton.
The living hell a man goes through where the golden uterus lives on his back and shoulders 24/7, also using his children to dump on and chump off him has got to be comparably unbearable.
And it’s always to be remembered that this type of woman, being a natural mercenary and hostage maker, has the legal violence of the law to back up her nastiness.
Why do people put up with these nagging hoyhums ?
Stonelifter added:
woman have the golden everything syndrome. They think you owe them for life if you had sex with you once; sex which they also enjoyed as well as you.
They make you diner once, you owe them for life
Admittedly, if a woman builds you an entire diner, I think you probably do owe her for that.
Durandal worked in a bit of “we hunted the mammoth for you” as well:
Women’s value is defined by what they have. Which is a vagina, uterus, and babymaking capability. Hence the self-entitlement and the probable evolutionary adaptation of selfishness and reliance on emotional solipsism and manipulation.
Men’s value is defined by what they do. Which is build absolutely everything, provide everything and advance civilization through their effort, rationality, intelligence, courage and sacrifice.
When our fiat monetary system falls apart and our economy winds down (and it will, if it hasn’t already), watch as government mandated entitlements for women from education & employment quotas to divorce court payouts go up in smoke and an immediate desire to reinstate productivity and real wealth (brought to you by patriarchy) returns for good.
Orecret also predicted the end of the world as we know it (and he feels fine):
Sometimes I wonder how much of the tension between women and men and the consequent breakdown of the social contract between them are due to overpopulation on the planet.
A greater population is no longer needed. Babies and children thus have a lower social value… as do WOMEN… and the male-female bond generally.
Women have gained more power due to prosperity and technology. They are currently experiencing what to them seems like a moment of glory. Only they are poised for a great fall as the effects of overpopulation on the planet become more acutely felt.
As elbow room becomes significantly impinged, men will find themselves even less inclined to take on any sort of partnership with a woman, especially where children are concerned. This effectively frees up men to use their time as they see fit as they are not to be burdened with the expenses and responsibilities of marriage, etc.
Men will act less and less in the public sphere. Corporations will have a hard time hiring men to jobs that they neither need nor want having been freed from the burden of family. Armies will shrink due to the lack of will the everyman has in protecting a society where the social contract has broken down much to the detriment of men everywhere.
The society will crash around us. Women will find themselves without male partners in an increasingly harsh social and natural environment. Life will become increasingly difficult for them and they will be (evermore) unhappy.
The MEN will be free and feral. Returned once again to a natural state where the majority of them are the happiest.
It seems a collective Wile E. Coyote moment is about to take place on a global scale.
It’s a good thing that THIS roadrunner has already gone ghost.
Each of these comments got dozens of upvotes on The Spearhead. Spearheaders know good sense when they see it!
There is some here.
