Categories
antifeminism evil women feminism I'm totally being sarcastic men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny MRA precious bodily fluids the spearhead

>Feminists: Lizard-brained sperm-hunters

>

Men: Do not do this.

Our good friend Herbal Essence — the Spearhead commenter, not the shampoo — is back with some profound insights into the true nature of feminism. Forget all the stuff you may have learned in your Women’s Studies courses. Forget what you read about on Feministing. “Feminism” is just a convenient rationalization for a primal female hunger. A hunger for cupcakes? A hunger for shoes? No, silly — a hunger for sperm. Feminism is all about getting hold of sexy, sexy sperm. Herbal explains, in a comment that garnered him 81 upvotes from the manly men on The Spearhead:

Feminism is not a worldview based on coherent thought. It is the desires of the female lizard-brain rationalized. Feminism is based on a woman’s reproductive strategy – my vagina makes me special, I must obtain sexy sperm, I deserve to be protected, and I deserve to get resources.

I don’t know about “protection” and resources for women and their special vaginas, but you might think that there would have to be a more efficient way for the ladies to get sperm. After all, most guys produce that sexy stuff by the bucketful, and the vast overwhelming majority of the poor little sperms that men produce so prodigiously end up dying unsung and unrealized in condoms or kleenex.

Apparently, though, feminists only want sperm when it comes as a part of a package deal which involves being married to a captive sperm- and money-producer. Because there is nothing — besides sperm, of course — that feminists like better than the traditional nuclear family. That way they can sit on their asses eating bon bons and trying on shoes — all paid for by their long-suffering husbands — while waiting for the next injection of sperm. (You thought feminists likes paying their own way and having their own careers? Ha! Shows how much you know.) Here’s Herbal again:

The whole of Feminism was designed to “free” women from the “restrictions” of traditional society so she could obtain sexy sperm, and then providing a social construct so she could get security and resources without being in the confines of a nuclear family. Thus making more sexy sperm and self-indulgence available. Lastly, that she “deserves” all that because she has a vagina.

And all those traditional-nuclear-family-loving women who claim not to be feminists? Fellas, they’re either lying to themselves, or lying to you.

Women don’t choose to believe in feminism. Feminism is a rationalization of their lizard brain. That’s why you can talk to women who will swear up and down they are not feminists, yet they refuse to give ground on any of the privileges that feminism gave them. The programming is already in her, feminism is just the means to make it a reality. You might as well try to convince female peacocks not to mate with males with impressive plumage.

Fellas, I think Herbal here has made it pretty clear why you need to protect your sperm from the feminists. If you make the mistake of actually having sex with one of these creatures, keep a bottle of tabasco sauce handy, and squirt it into your used condoms to make sure she doesn’t fish them out of the wastebasket later to use for her own evil ends. And if you’re jizzing into kleenexes, flush those down the toilet, pronto. If you just throw them out, beware: gangs of feminists rove the alleys of America, much like raccoons, raiding trash cans in search of sexy, sexy manstuff.

Be careful out there.

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.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

84 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kratch
9 years ago

>“If you are truly about equality.”Elizabeth has already openly stated that she is only about equality so long as it only has positive effects for women.“Yes yes Richard, men are always the victims never the perpetrators.”You keep doing this. Equating an argument to being the entirety of the situation. At no point did Richard say women aren’t victims and men aren’t perpetrators. In fact, he acknowledged that fact by acknowledging you wouldn’t ever say women who are forced into motherhood aren’t a big deal and is acceptable. But your response actually suggests that you believe only women are victims and men are perpetrators, because merely acknowledging men’s issues (in the exact same way feminism acknowledges women’s issues, IE, as it relates to the gender being discussed.) gets you angry and irrational.“Did you see that 8.6% being outweighed by 14.1%?”And does this somehow prove that it doesn’t happen to men now? Does it negate the fact that, despite these alleged claims of being forced into pregnancy, they had a choice men do not have… they choose not to abort, not to abandon and not to adopt. They choose not to seek aid from an abuse shelter or police… and yet, still had enough choice to answer a survey about it. Seems odd to me, and makes me question how “unwanted” was determined in the survey.“men have options to prevent pregnancy.”So do women… but only women have options to prevent pregnancy from becoming parenthood. And not a one of them gives a man a say in the issue.“We've also presented the option of signing away all rights and responsibilities while the woman is still pregnant”When and where have you done this? Because this is very much what male reproductive rights activists are seeking.“in fact they have a contraception option in the works right now that is actually looking promising.”That’s not feminists that have it in the works. Furthermore, it has been in the works since the early 90’s, always being promised “5 more years”… Except nobody is willing to fund the research.The rest of the paragraph seems to be equating reproductive rights as being solely birth control…, which would mean you consider abortion, abandonment and adoption as forms of birth control as well? Or are they just privileges for women?“we need to fight the problem from both sides, not just one”I agree, but given woman already have options in the cases of birth control tampering (IE, Abortion Abandonment Adoption and Reporting of domestic abuse) regardless of whether they use it or not, and men have nothing, I think most of the solutions (short of making any kind of reproductive fraud a crime) are very different. I also feel this demonstrates yet another bias against men, not only do women have choices men don’t have, those choices are enforced and supported by domestic abuse laws and family courts. And men are left to suffer.As an aside, perhaps one of you can ask a lawyer friend and get an answer for me (I have no lawyer friends to ask)… If a woman signs away her child in an adoption, and the biological father successfully gets custody from the adopted parents (an incredibly difficult task, but this is hypothetical), is the mother responsible for child support, or has she successfully signed away her responsibilities?

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>Kratch: So you're angry with feminists because they personally are not researching or funding a male contraceptive pill? As a feminist guy, I would love for there to be a male contraceptive pill. But as a writer I don't exactly have the expertise to cook one up in my apartment. I think you really need to take that up with the pharmaceutical companies. Or, if MRAs feel strongly about this issue, they could always try engaging in some actual activism about it. AIDS activists have been able to influence AIDS research, etc.; presumably MRAs could have some sort of effect on male contraceptive research too.

Kratch
9 years ago

>"If by that you mean that they should have the option of formally relinquishing any responsibilities/rights they have to the child (in the cases where the foetus is brought to term), then basically yes, mainly for those cases where the pregnancy was absolutely unintended, but not in cases where, for example, he originally opts to take responsibility and then changes his mind further down the road. "that is precisely what is being asked for. the suggestion often comes with a time limit from the time he is first informed of the pregnancy/child, a limit that is actually shorter then the period in which a woman can safely abort (ranges from 30-90 days upon notification).No one has ever suggested a man be allowed the ability to abandon a child that he has been raising, or even agreed to pre-conseption. Correction, there may be some of the idiot grim on the bottom of the MRA who suggest it, and many feminists claim MRA's always suggest this, but it's not what is being sought for in male reproductive rights."And although you did not broach that particular topic, I have read on some MRA sites that they believe women (especially feminists) are angry when men opt to have vasectomies"two of my friends have gone to get a vasectomy. Both of them were asked if their wives were OK with it. that's a problem. It is none of the doctors business if the wives are OK with it or not, it is the man's reproductive rights, not his wife's.One of the two men was married. They had two children and agreed that was enough. The other friend had just started dating (a few weeks). he had informed her he had no intention of having children, but she claimed that was OK and continued dating. Immediately upon finding out he got a vasectomy, she became angry that he didn't talk to her about it first and broke up with him…I myself want to have children, but want to be very careful about who I have them with. That makes things difficult for me in dating life, as I am not willing to rely on just 1 form of birth control in which I have no control over (IE, the pill), and this has caused problems." there is NOTHING that points to it being a feminist conspiracy"Feminists come up, not as the cause of the male reproductive rights problem, but as the primary obstacle to a solution. You are truly the first feminist I have seen who has said men should have a method of opting out of a pregnancy they had no intention of producing, and have no desire to be involved in, rather then the more traditional "if you don't want to take responsibility for your actions, don't have sex… PS, MGTOW are stupid and paranoid"

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>Kratch, I never ever said that I do not want to work on men's reproductive rights. I said that I shall not focus on their rights to the exclusion of women's rights. Get it right. IF this is not a zero sum game as you claim, then why the fuck do I have to ignore women's rights in favor of men's rights?Because that is what you keep demanding I and the other feminists do. And if it is not, then stop asking for it.

Kratch
9 years ago

>"So you're angry with feminists because they personally are not researching or funding a male contraceptive pill?"Feminism has nothing to do with the male pill. they are not to blame, they are not expected to produce a solution. I never suggested they were. but reproductive rights aren't limited to pre-conception birth control, and feminist do routinely oppose any form of male reproductive rights, I have been involved in many debates right at this very site. The opposition to the male pill is pretty weak ("a man can't be trusted to take the pill", and so I often ignore it as being hateful. But other male reproductive rights issues are routinely opposed, such as a man's right to decline parenthood, and a man's right to be a father to a child, Including after divorce, or when the mother has abandoned or put the child up for adoption (both of which are incredibly difficult for a man to get, and typically must be started before the transaction is complete))

briget
9 years ago

>kratch, abortion and adoption are expensive, you do realize this yes? You do realize that many women who are dv victims do not have the money to even figure out how to obtain those services, and then they have the cultural stigma to deal with, etc, and that's once they are able to get away from the abusive asshole who forced pregnancy upon her. At this point the best thing men can do if they want to prevent pregnancy but would like to be fathers one day is to use condoms, and if they feel they can't trust the woman who they are sleeping with (which I would say is a bad plan anyway since you really shouldn't be sleeping with someone who you can't trust) not to intentionally become pregnant then they should dispose of used condoms in the toilet. Also men can only choose to sleep with women who are on the pill. (there are ways to check this you know, it's called asking to see the pill pack and watching her take the pill) For example, while I can't physically carry a pregnancy to term due to problems with my uterus I can still get pregnant, so my bf and I have to do things in order to avoid this. We both pay for my pill pack each month. We both set reminders on our phones an hour apart. When he gets his reminder he calls me and asks if I've taken my pill that day. We use condoms every time we have sex. as far as the availability of the male pill goes there is a company in sweden which is gearing up for the human tests, they just have to find men who are willing to test it and they are having problems finding men to do so. Why? because men are afraid that the pills might inhibit their sex drive (something which I might remind you women have been dealing with since the pill was first introduced in 1960)

Kratch
9 years ago

>" never ever said that I do not want to work on men's reproductive rights. I said that I shall not focus on their rights to the exclusion of women's rights. Get it right. "I never said you didn't. I said you are not about equality unless it has a positive impact on women. the two happen to be the same in this case (as male reproductive rights does not have a positive effect one women), but thats a coincidence. just for clarity, here is what you did say…"as a feminist I believe in helping women obtain things that they need not ignore their needs in favor of men."Seems to be exactly what I said it was, only being about equality if it is obtaining things women need.As you said this while actively opposing reproductive rights, you ether feel that child support is something a woman "needs", or else this comment wasn't relevant to our discussion and shouldn't have been made. because giving men reproductive rights should not impact a woman's needs in any way (and thus, if you were truly about equality, would not oppose male reproductive rights), unless you feel that a woman is not only entitled to, but "needs" a man's money when SHE chooses to have a baby."IF this is not a zero sum game as you claim, then why the fuck do I have to ignore women's rights in favor of men's rights?"You repeatedly make this accusation. you did it to Richard above, to me here, and have done it repeatedly in the past. That anybody speaking up for men's rights are demanding we ignore women. Please, quote me saying that women should be ignoring women's rights. Just once. I have said I will show no sympathy for the loss of funding for abortion clinics so long as feminists continue to oppose male reproductive rights, but that's something else entirely.I will repeat this so you can read it again…One does not need to stop helping women in order to help men too. Just because there are suggestions for male reproductive rights does not mean taking away women's rights is part of that. You seem to be so against men's rights (regardless of the MRM, MRA's MGTOW, etc) that you can not separate helping men from hurting women. You believe the two are synonymous, and that is not a good place to be at for one who claims to be about equality. For those interested in the original debate;http://www.manboobz.com/2011/02/family-planning-not-dude-issue.html?showComment=1298948597257#c8597857021027097098

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>Kratch, I don't remember seeing any feminists here (or anywhere, really) who actually oppose male contraception in any form. I have seen plenty who enthusiastically support any new contraceptive options for men. Someone might have suggested that a male contraceptive pill might not be 100% effective — men (and women) don't always take pills — but that's hardly opposition to it.

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>Also, Kratch, doctors often refuse to perform tubal ligations without the husband's permission.

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>Kratch, it is impossible to be 100% equal when it comes to reproductive rights. And when it comes to giving the woman the right to decide when she has the kid that she physically has to carry she gets final word. The day that we can tube babies (which I actually support), that is the day that men shall have 100% equal say in the matter. That forcing is what I cannot support-the rest of it is negotiable.

Kratch
9 years ago

>David. I'm going to reply to you by quoting my last post in response to you, because I have already addressed your point"…reproductive rights aren't limited to pre-conception birth control, and feminist do routinely oppose any form of male reproductive rights, I have been involved in many debates right at this very site. The opposition to the male pill is pretty weak ("a man can't be trusted to take the pill", and so I often ignore it as being hateful). But other male reproductive rights issues are routinely opposed"just for clarification, when I say opposition is weak, I am not limiting to just the strength of the argument (which is indeed weak), but also the strength of the opposition (as in not as many oppose it, but some have). That said, I have read an article (that I've spent the last hour and a half looking for but can't find) talking about how the male pill will reduce women's ability to trap a man in a relationship, and therefore is against women's rights. (I'm sure I even posted a link to it on this board before). it's crazy, and thats why I chalk it up as hateful, but it is out there."Also, Kratch, doctors often refuse to perform tubal ligations without the husband's permission."That is also a problem. Reproductive rights to close shop (so to speak) should not be dependent on someone else's consent. But right now, post conception, it is, for men. and pre-conception, the options are limited and sometimes impractical or fallible.

Kratch
9 years ago

>Elizabeth… you are changing the topic again. We aren't talking about the forcing a woman to have a baby end of the equation (there are those who argue for it, but I suspect it is just an attempt at bargaining for a more reasonable middle ground), nor are we discussing forcing a woman to have an abortion if she does not want one. We are simply discussing the ability for a man to "opt out", to sign over his rights and responsibilities, to the mother, when he first learns of the child. very much akin to an adoption (many even add paying for the abortion if his choice results in her deciding to terminate). Same as I was arguing on the other thread where you were posting opposition.

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>Ok, Kratch, you found one woman writing in the Daily Mail (not exactly a bastion of feminism) who doesn't like it. Is she a feminist? And did you notice this in the article itself?Or as Professor Richard Anderson of the University of Edinburgh says: ‘When we carried out surveys of women, they were enormously enthusiastic.‘The single most common reason was that they wanted to share the responsibility for contraception.’Meanwhile, here's a pretty smart discussion of some of the issues that have gotten in the way of an effective male contraceptive pill. It's on … feministing:http://community.feministing.com/2010/11/02/in-his-shorts-what-happened-to-male-birth-control/

Kratch
9 years ago

>David, I have no idea if she's a feminist or not, but it's irrelevant as I didn't say she was (I simply said I've read an article opposing the pill). I assume she is, being a writer in the "femail" section, but I can't claim she's a feminist. She is, however, opposition to the male pill, and may very well be a feminist. Also, I know she is just a single writer, plus her single editor, plus the other staff who have approved to keep it up. The point is that I have seen (weak) opposition to the male pill, opposition I am confident I have seen even here, as well as strong opposition to any other form of male reproductive rights, as evidenced by the very conversation the rest of us are having, despite your fixation on the pill alone. But do you understand what I mean when is say;"reproductive rights aren't limited to pre-conception birth control, and feminist do routinely oppose any form of male reproductive rights"Do you deny that reproductive rights, such as the option to "opt out", are being opposed by feminists, when it is evident ON THIS VERY PAGE!!!? Are you seriously prepared to argue that feminists don't oppose male reproductive rights?You seem to have picked up some idea about what I said that doesn't relate to what I've actually said. Starting with accusing me of being angry at feminists for not funding the pill. Let us look back and try to figure out where you went horribly wrong…"That’s not feminists that have it in the works. Furthermore, it has been in the works since the early 90’s, always being promised “5 more years”… Except nobody is willing to fund the research."This is likely where it started, but lets see where this response comes from;Bridget said "Yes, feminists would love for there to be more bc options for men, in fact they have a contraception option in the works right now that is actually looking promising"To which, I responded "that's not feminists." Feminists aren't the ones who have a male birth control in the works, as implied by Bridget. I was noting that error.I then move on to question her use of "that is actually looking promising" by noting that it has been in the works (and just 5 years away)for decades, and that funding is difficult to get, at best.You seem to have turned this into some kind of "blame feminists" tactic by me. And even after my stating openly feminism has nothing to do with it (the pill's delays), you still hold onto this like a pitbull. My problem is with feminist opposition to male reproductive rights, and yet again, that is not limited to pre-conception birth control. More specifically, it is the choice of when to become a father, or not, and the ability to be a father to a child, rather then a visitor. And both of these (male "opting out", which is usually what I refer to as reproductive rights, and shared parenting in divorce) are both efforts that have feminist opposition.

triplanetary
9 years ago

>The Daily Mail loves finding women who are willing to sing swan songs to traditional female domesticity and submission. And that whole article is idiotic.Feminists tend to be widely supportive of male contraceptive pills. I've been waiting for one for years, and I'll probably just give up and get vasectomized before the pills actually come out.The fact of the matter is, most non-feminist men don't want to have to worry about birth control. They'd rather shove the responsibility, not to mention the side effects, off on women. It's only MRAs, with their paranoia about wily, sperm-stealing cupcakes, who are the exception. MRAs want more male contraceptive options because they don't trust said wily cupcakes to use theirs.

triplanetary
9 years ago

>She is, however, opposition to the male pill, and may very well be a feminist.Based on virtually everything she says in that column, I'm going to have to conclude that she is not even close to being a feminist.

briget
9 years ago

>kratch, my wording was vague there and I apologize. On a side note my name is spelled briget not bridget, please spell it right. Furthermore, I do support men being able to opt-out in terms of rights and responsibilities while the woman is still pregnant whoever, what I do not support is women being forced to: 1) carry a pregnancy to term because the father didn't want her to have an abortion only to be told the day of the kids birth that he isn't going to support the childor2) have an abortion to make his life easier. Far too many men feel like they have the right to do these things. They do not. That is what I and most feminists fight against, not the idea of men not being forced into being fathers when they don't want to

Captain Bathrobe
9 years ago

>More specifically, it is the choice of when to become a father, or not, and the ability to be a father to a child, rather then a visitor. And both of these (male "opting out", which is usually what I refer to as reproductive rights, and shared parenting in divorce) are both efforts that have feminist opposition. So far, I've seen no evidence that feminists want men to have a lesser, rather than a greater, role in raising children, even in divorced families. Quite the contrary. Individual women may wish to prevent their ex-spouses from having a meaningful role in parenting (for either good or bad reasons), but I've never been aware of the feminist movement as a whole pushing the idea that fathers should be excluded from child rearing. I am aware of the quite pervasive attitude that women are always better, more important parents than men (especially with regard to young children), but this attitude is widespread and predates feminism. It is also, I believe, wrong. Indeed, it is often feminists who are the ones challenging this attitude; whereas traditional women (and men) are often the ones promoting it. The degree to which courts award custody based on this attitude suggests that traditional values die hard.

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>Briget summed up my view of the matter Kratch and I also think that you seem to assume that when I point out that I would rather support women's rights when I have to choose between the two that I hate equality or will fight against male reproductive rights.

Kratch
9 years ago

>“The fact of the matter is, most non-feminist men don't want to have to worry about birth control. They'd rather shove the responsibility, not to mention the side effects, off on women. “You have any evidence to prove this, or do you just assume feminist males are more enlightened then everyone else? Pretty misandric to claim most non-feminist males have that opinion.“my name is spelled briget not bridget, please spell it right.”My apologies. I have a friend named bridget (my best friend finance in fact), so it is habit to spell it that way. I will make a concerted effort to correct that.“what I do not support is women being forced to:1) carry a pregnancy to term because the father didn't want her to have an abortion only to be told the day of the kids birth that he isn't going to support the child”I virtually never see this come up as an MRA argument, other then to point out how unfair it would be to do to a woman, so why is it not only acceptable, but legally enforced to do to a man?“2) have an abortion to make his life easier. “I’ve never seen this suggested except by feminists who claim that is what MRA’s seek.“Far too many men feel like they have the right to do these things.” rebut tableCan you support that assertion? I think some men (abusive men) feel they can do these things, but I know of very few instances where these kinds of arguments occur. What I do see most often is what you have actually agreed upon. What is described under “reproductive rights” under the men’s rights page at wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_rights#Reproductive_rightsAnd what you will find under virtually every result of a “male abortion” search on google. Your points 1 and 2 are not things men argue for, they are strawmen made by feminist opposition to make the men’s rights sound extreme and unreasonable. And you will see it very clearly if you are willing to, in any future debate on the subject (or even going back to past discussions)."Individual women may wish to prevent their ex-spouses from having a meaningful role in parenting (for either good or bad reasons), but I've never been aware of the feminist movement as a whole pushing the idea that fathers should be excluded from child rearing."NOW, the National Organization for Women, as well as the Woman's Bar Association, both actively oppose efforts to establish shared parenting as a rebuttable presumption in divorce… I repeat, a rebuttable presumption (this is an important part of the proposed bills. if you don't understand it, look it up before replying). NOW also have made active attempts to actually ban the term “parental alienation” from courtrooms, as well as efforts to deny it even happens, as well as opposes efforts for family court reform that would result in more court enforcement against custodial interference. Note that these problems are suffered by woman as well as men, so there should be no reason for NOW to oppose these, except that men suffer more, and therefore the solution is more beneficial to men (and children) due to their current lower rate of primary custody.

Kratch
9 years ago

>"What is described under “reproductive rights” under the men’s rights page at wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_rights#Reproductive_rights "Seems I missed the side mention of the claim "There are also those who consider it a father's reproductive right to veto the woman's option of abortion."I examined the article sourced/cited for that quote, and the call for Veto is actually from Pro-lifers against abortion, not men's rights activists. it's actually a compromise for pro-lifers, saying that "an abortion should be stopped if ether party is against it, but can proceed if both parties agree". But overall, I (and pro-choice MRA's) disagree. Being the one to incur the pregnancy comes with the benefit of getting to keep the baby, even when the man absconds, while not allowing a man the same option, because otherwise would be unreasonable, but allowing a man to abscond would not impose an unfair will upon the woman, and should be allowed. IE, give as many equal rights as can be given without trampling the rights and health of the other party.

DarkSideCat
9 years ago

>The problem with Kratch's scenario is that he wants men to have all rights and no responsibilities. If a fetus and child is solely the responsibility of a woman for all points after conception, why should she not have the right to deny any access if the child is born if he has the right to deny any responsibility? Why should a woman have to take all of the responsibilty but loose partial rights when the man wants them? If allowing one's body to be used to gestate a fetus automatically means sole and total responsibility, it should mean sole and total rights. Let me say this again, responsibilities are the flip side of rights.You are upset because you cannot get pregnant and hence cannot get an abortion? Well, suck it up and get over your womb envy. You don't have control over a fetus while it grows in another's uterus? Cry me a river.

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>Steve-as I thought, he insulted and refused to prove his claim.He did not however run away. I suppose that is something.

Kratch
9 years ago

>Briget and/or Elizabeth, if truly agree with what's been suggested, perhaps you can answer DarkSidecat's concerns?

Captain Bathrobe
9 years ago

>Well, Kratch, your going to have to give me some kind of citation there, since I haven't been able to find anything via Google. A bill, an article from a reputable source…something. I need to know the context here, and I'm not an attorney. I'm not asking you to do research for me, just give me a place to look. Thanks.

Kratch
9 years ago

>Bill A330 has apparently garnered an action alert from NOW New York in the not to distant past. As has HB 5267 from Michigan's NOW. However, NOW doesn't seem to keep archives of action alerts.Here is an Article by NY NOW president Marcia Pappashttp://www.nownys.org/fathers_resp.htmlHere is an article by Michigan's NOW president Gloria Woods http://www.now.org/nnt/03-97/father.htmlThis books footnote (35) identifies NOW NY as one of the organizations that opposed shared parenting Legislation, according to Governor Carey.http://books.google.ca/books?id=WrrsVQWYPb8C&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=National+Organization+for+Women+on+Shared+parenting&source=bl&ots=I48VYfOuiZ&sig=Nh3hUyCuczslfqFRSWsUELHrdQk&hl=en&ei=i-h2TbSTE4WNrQH3moHjCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=falseA search on the NOW website for shared parenting will lead to a link herehttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/those-jointcustody-studies.htmlThese may all be a few years or more old, but I have not seen anything to make me believe they have changed their opinion on the matter.If you are seriously asking me for evidance of NOW's opposition to Parental Alienation, then you haven't even tried. Here's a hint, you'll see their alienation opposition on the results for shared parenting search.

Captain Bathrobe
9 years ago

>Thanks, Kratch. A brief review of what I've found so far–there's a lot of information there, obviously–suggests that the issue isn't quite as clear cut as you make it out to be. With regard to the efforts to institute a Rebuttable Presumption of Shared Parenting as the standard in divorce cases, there are reasonable arguments for and against. It is worth pointing out that this standard would replace the current standard in most jurisdictions, which is the Best Interests of the Child. There's a reasonable debate to be had over which is the best standard to apply in divorce cases, but to say that NOW's opposition to the presumption of shared parenting represents hostility to shared parenting by father's across the board is a bit disingenuous. With regard to the use of the term Parental Alienation, I assume you are referring to the use of Parental Alienation Syndrome in court cases. PAS is not recognized as a bona fide mental disorder by the mental health profession, nor is it supported by substantial research; thus, it should not be granted that status in a legal proceeding. I believe it is still permissible in court cases to talk about parental alienation as a general concept, but not to elevate it to the status of a recognized mental disorder.In sum, my general impression is that NOW has stood in opposition to pet policy initiatives of the Father's Rights Movement, for a variety of reasons, but to say that NOW and feminists generally are hostile to fathers' equal participation in parenting does not necessarily follow.I thank you, however, for the links, and I will follow up on those as time allows.

Kratch
9 years ago

>The argument against shared parenting is only reasonable if you are willing to believe that all divorce involve an abusive man and a victimized woman (and child). If you acknowledge that not all men are abusive, in fact, most aren't, then arguing against shared parenting is simply blaming all men for the actions of a few, and punishing those men and their children for it.But what's most important is if you acknowledge that sometimes woman are abusive too. In this particular case, arguing against shared parenting is to argue that abusive women should be granted 100% control, and the power to hurt the fathers that contains, and the child gets little or no time with the father for him to notice any abusive markers. All this power for women to be abusive all so that a handful of men can't be (despite there being a built in clause in the shared parenting legislature to protect against that very thing)."my general impression is that NOW has stood in opposition to pet policy initiatives of the Father's Rights Movement"Shared parenting is a "pet project"? I was under the impression it was the EQUAL thing to do. To allow fathers access to the caretaker gender role, instead of being relegated to provider (and being denied protector for those that want it)."but to say that NOW and feminists generally are hostile to fathers' equal participation in parenting does not necessarily follow."You are welcome to provide me sources to show your case. I would be happy to see examples of actions feminists and feminist organizations have taken to improve fathers rights, or even suggestions to make shared parenting work (that don't completely overturn men's right to due process). Otherwise, I can only see feminists as being apathetic at best, and hostile at worst.

Kratch
9 years ago

>"if truly agree with what's been suggested, perhaps you can answer DarkSidecat's concerns?"Didn't think so.DarkSideCat. There is a distinct difference between rejecting something and denying it from others.Under the current system, a woman has a choice to accept or reject parenthood, but she also has the ability to deny men the choice of rejecting parenthood, and only gives him the choice to accept it if she herself wants to allow him.Under the suggested system, Women would still have the choice to accept or reject parenthood, but now she could not deny the man the choice to reject parenthood as well. A man still couldn't accept parenthood without her first accepting, largely because to allow that would be to allow men the ability to deny women the choice, and in the case where one getting the choice denies the other the opposite choice, being the one to carry the child should have it's privileges.overall, however, your concerns have already been addressed. Just re-read the debate above.

Johnny Pez
9 years ago

>All I can say is, the General better keep a close eye on his mason jars.

Kendra
9 years ago

>This kind of paranoia reminds me of General Ripper on Dr. Strangelove. He kept worrying that the fluoride was added to our drinking supply to corrupt men's "precious bodily fluids".

Kendra
9 years ago

>Oops, sorry, I am new to your blog so I didn't know you had already made a Dr. Strangelove reference.

CakefulOfKittenmeat
CakefulOfKittenmeat
3 years ago

When I saw “bioshock reference” I automatically looked up at the citation parts to find “Is a man not entitled to the sexiness of his sperm? No, says the woman on bonbons, it belongs to muh ridiculous alimony fraudz…”