>
 |
| 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.
>And what is a rationalization hamster?
>Oh, the irony. Yes indeedy – "screwing like a man" is wrong, wrong, wrong. Except when men do it. ***Want an abortion cuz you couldn't keep your legs shut? Fine, kill your baby, whore. But, I ain't paying for it. Not a penny.***Hmmmm. I'm forced to conclude from this (and comments like it) that these guys must not know how women get pregnant. She couldn't keep her legs shut, huh? Well sir, who do you think was in between them????
>@jupiterThat was my next question. LOL
>So MRAs want to be able to have sex with women, but not have to pay for abortion OR child support should pregnancy occur, because that's what those women get for having vaginas.So the MRAs aren't really fighting a noble fight against misandry and anti-male bias, but are just old-fashioned sexists who condemn sexually empowered women as sluts? Well color me shocked.
>I did see a "What about teh Menz" post from one of the guys on there.Yeah, the lady tweeting about it forgot to include men getting medical treatment from PP (in fact, I paid for one of my male friends to get treatment when he was out of a job. That is what friends do.) So obviously we should destroy PP.
>The fact that PP benefits both men and women is demonstrative of the scorched earth policy conservatives and misogynists are willing to employ. It's the same deal with healthcare reform. Sure, it would benefit them, too, but if it ALSO benefits a group they think of as undeserving, they'd rather see it destroyed.
>what part of the fact that planned parenthood is not allowed to use federal funds for abortions don't these people understand? or the fact that for every $1 we give to pp we save $4? Do they not realize that if babies happen because women don't have access to bc that they are going to have to pay child support for that kid? You can't tell me that they all stay away from all women (I'm not suggesting that all of MRA's/MGTOW go out and have sex with women, but with the PUA's in those movements and their success you can't deny the fact that there are indeed people having sex in those movements) and since their lack of maturity is evident in everything they say I doubt that they provide the condoms for said sex, so if women can't get bc and the guys they are sleeping with won't use fucking protection there is an 85% chance that pregnancy is going to happen. Which means that they are going to be stuck paying child support, something which they don't want to have to do. How does any of this make sense?
>After seeing the hamster bit, I read the rest of the passage in the voice of Darth Vader. "The rationalization hamster is strong in this one!"
>Please allow Captain Awkward to lay down the fucking law:1. Are you a man who has sex with ladies?2. Do you want to make a baby every single time you do that? Every single time? (That's a LOT of child support).3. If the answers to the above are yes and no, respectively, vote for pro-choice candidates and for NOT defunding Planned Parenthood and vote against religious zealots who are overly concerned with making sexually active women "bear consequences" for their "slutty" actions. It's not a fringe women's issue! Quit being crazypants and evil!
>So MRAs want to be able to have sex with womenBut not all MRAs are like that! but not have to pay for abortion OR child support should pregnancy occurBut not all MRAs are like that! So the MRAs… are just old-fashioned sexistsBut not all MRAs are like that! who condemn sexually empowered women as sluts?But not all MRAs are like that!However, when you take everything that the entire movement says as a whole……..
>Quit being crazypants and evil! Well, fine, if your going to take all the fun out of it…
>Truly, the only consistency here is the hate. And, as we know from teh internets, haters gonna hate.(Cue the obligatory "but, but…feminists" response from our MRA friends.)
>@Captain Bathrobe, I was as shocked as you to find a level of short-sightedness and stupidity so bad that I could no longer joke about it. BIRTH CONTROL IS AWESOME. It's just…awesome! We want everyone who wants it to have it all the time!
>There is so much of this "well then they should just keep their legs shut!" and "paying for their mistakes!" and blah blah, but really, who is having sex with them?? And won't decreased funding for birth control make "white knights" (which I am thinking is actually translated to "guy who didn't try to disappear to avoid child support, possibly with a relationship with the mother") MORE necessary?Wait, I get it, they want a return to forcing children into orphanages or letting them starve to teach women a lesson on… having sex… with men ever…So, more lesbianism for me? 😀
>Well, at least their anti-PP position is somewhat consistent with other MGTOW goals. If one wants to have sex, then perhaps one wishes to have available birth control and access to affordable health care (for themselves and their partners). If one has decided that one isn't going to have sex, then perhaps one doesn't care so much if that's available. Here's where it gets tricky: If one has decided to be a bitter little bastard about everything that has to do with women, sex, and people who have sex with women, then you get responses like the ones reposted above. So yeah. On the one hand, I get it. MGTOWs don't like women. Check. On the other hand, I can't help feeling like everything will be so much cooler–for everyone–once they start actually going their own way.Oh, also: INTPs are logical and rational! In case you couldn't figure that out from what intp there said, I mean.
>"MRAs and MGTOWers complain all the time about how unfair it is for women who somehow magically get preggers after having sex with them to decide to actually keep the kids and saddle them with — gasp! — some of the cost of raising said kids"Oh ffs could you have made any MORE inaccurate generalizations David? If I came here and posted about Dworkin and then ranted about how ALL feminists hate All men ALL the time and they ALL thought sex was ALWAYS an act of rape, your fucking head would explode and you'd not be able to get to the damn delete button fast enough Then you'd spend a good 20 minutes churning out the most PC user friendly gynocentric bullshit that your turgid little mind could manage and the boobz groupie girls would be singing your praises and raving about how it's your blog and you can post what you want…truth be damnedGreat journalism there David, please continue
>> Oh ffs could you have made any MORE inaccurate generalizations David?Yes. He could have written "What percentage of women would give their daughters up for sacrifice if they could remain young-looking/beautiful in return? I'm guessing a considerable percentage would take the Devil up on that deal."
>"MRAs and MGTOWers complain all the time about how unfair it is for women who somehow magically get preggers after having sex with them to decide to actually keep the kids and saddle them with — gasp! — some of the cost of raising said kids"@ Natasha: But … MRAs do say that all the time. David's found PLENTY of evidence that they say this all the time. Even a cursory glance at a Spearhead article about the evils of child support and going through literally hundreds of upvoted comments agreeing makes me believe that, yes, it is safe to make the generalization that MRAs think child support is unfair.
>@Natasha, now I'm really confused, because I thought that a good portion of the "rights" in Men's Rights Activist was advocacy around child support and divorce laws. As in they think that women get too much control over whether to have kids in the first place (trapping men into paying child support for unwanted children, or in some cases ruthlessly aborting babies without consulting the fathers) and too much sway in custody hearings. Is this incorrect? Can you explain?Also, putting aside whether the comments David quoted widely reflect MGTOW or MRAs, can we at least agree that specific statements such as:"Question. What percentage of women would give their daughters up for sacrifice if they could remain young-looking/beautiful in return? I'm guessing a considerable percentage would take the Devil up on that deal." are pretty asinine? Where do you stand on the claim that a considerable percentage of women would support human sacrifice of their children in exchange for youth/beauty? I'm sort of kidding, in that you are an individual, and I don't expect you to answer for "Random Internet Commenter Named INTP" or agree with him, just like how I would hope you would assume that I am an individual who has not somehow mind-melded with Andrew Dworkin.
>Good Lord….no where did I say I agreed with MGTOW…I dont post there or frequent the place. Most of what I see there makes my eyes twitch. I never said they were correct or incorrect ….I never made a comment whatsoever about the content of their posts…..I was commenting on David's words only, get a grip, your hero still reins supreme….here. Now I'll comment on MGTOW and what they said. It all pretty much idiotic. That's the place that angry men go to be angry. Most of them see the light and move on to better, more established groups and blogs that have more intellectually stimulating content. MGTOW is in no way representative, contrary to David's best efforts, of all, or even most, or even a good majority of MRA's and/or men in the MRM. Depicting them as such is ridiculous
>"Great journalism there David, please continue . . ." NatashaDave lost his edge in mad journalism skillz ages ago. But I dig your style, Natasha. Bet you're a babe, too. And unlike the feminist fodder that feeds on floundering falsehoods with fickleness. "So MRAs want to be able to have sex with women."—Unlady-like Victoria Non SeriousNo, ace, just not with *you*.
>Natasha, this post was mostly about MGTOW. And I made clear in various ways that the guys I'm quoting don't represent ALL MGTOW. That said, MRAs complain about child support ALL THE TIME. They really do. Do you seriously doubt that? Here are 190 discussions of the subject from reddit's Men's Rights subreddit alone:http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/search?q=child+support&restrict_sr=on
>Unlady-like VictoriaOoooh, he just accused you of failing to conform to socionormative standards of femininity. Ice burn!Incidentally, Natasha, the differentiation between MRAs and MGTOWs is entirely semantic. They're all the same hateful assholes. The only arguable difference is that MGTOWs use MRA arguments in an attempt to justify their inability to get laid.
>No, ace, just not with *you*Woot!
> But I dig your style, Natasha. Bet you're a babe, too. And unlike the feminist fodder that feeds on floundering falsehoods with fickleness.ROTFLMAO!! I hope you didn't bust open your piggy bank, wytch, to pay for some lessons to increase your mad PUA skillz, yo!!