>
 |
| 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.
>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.