>
 |
| 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.
>Because it's always about the men. It could *never* be that a woman adopts feminism because she wants a career or chance to achieve or just the ability to be whoever she wants to be without some douchebag telling her she's doing it wrong because she's not catering to *his needs*. Women can be boiled down to one, overarching desire – because we're not really people. We're just ciphers that men can project whatever they want onto us, or demand whatever they want onto us. Herbal Essences can't conceive of a universe of which he is not the center. He cannot imagine that some people (women) are indifferent to him – so he must concoct an elaborate, misogynistic fantasy about how they're all secretly obsessed with him and the one thing he can still do that wome can't – make sperm.
>Oh, and I wonder how women who have chosen not to have children factors into his worldview. If women were using feminism as a front to get access to 'sexy sperm', then why do so many feminists fight so hard for reproductive choice? If it's all about having babies, then you'd think that things like access to contraception, education and abortion would be less important – because, after all, it's all about having babies.
>In this thread Richard asserts that a guy suing because his sperm were "stolen", child support, and the fact that men sometimes are mistaken about paternity (sometimes based on a woman's representation that she only slept with them) our facts to support the assertion that feminism is based upon the lizard brains desire to acquire sperm. That's amazing.
>Pam — Your comment is up now. (Everyone else following the sperm-stealing, birth control sabotage discussion should scroll up and take a look.) Steve — I saw that post too. Very strange, but I think I'm just going to leave that one alone.
>“If there is a legal system in place to handle fraud, the system is working.”But there isn’t, it was found that a fraudulent misconception claim was only available for “economic” wrongs. Paternity fraud is not only acceptable; it is actually enforced when perpetrated. As to what has happened in this case…see bellow…“If what he said happened did actually happen, that's pretty fucked up. But we don't know her side of the story.”But we don’t really need to know what actually happened. The fact is, what she was alleged to have done is not a criminal act (both the counts of fraud and coercion were thrown out, both by the original case as well as the appeal), and that even if conception was a result of this kind of action, a man is responsible for child support obligations (to the point that Dr Richards didn’t even bother contesting the child support obligation). The fact is, even in such an extraordinary and despicable situation, a man has absolutely no protection whatsoever. That is a very real problem.Elizabeth has defined planned parenthood as allowing women to have consequence free sex. What is available to men to allow that same result? Why must a man always risk consequences, consequences that don’t need to be incurred, as proven by the fact a woman always has a way out (3 in fact)?http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ODGvCY8zYdIJ:www.lasisblog.com/2011/02/26/man-receives-oral-sex-ordered-to-pay-child-support/+man-receives-oral-sex-ordered-to-pay-child-support&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&source=www.google.ca“If someone decides based on this one incident…”The problem is, this one particular case is only an extreme example of a bigger problem; that men have absolutely no protection or recourse except to swear off women altogether, and that, as you yourself basically admit, is an unreasonable expectation. And given women have several options, there is a significant discrepancy regarding reproductive rights between the genders. “But as David is saying with his falling piano analogy, it's just not this horrible epidemic like MRAs claim it is.…In reality, of course, these cases of sperm theft and fraud and such are extremely rare.”David is claiming blowjob sperm theft conceptions are rare, and thus avoiding blowjobs due to this event is an over-exaggeration, and I would agree. You, however, are equating that to denying that any form of deception for the purpose of becoming pregnant against a man’s will, or deceiving him as to his true paternity status in order to collect support, is rare. And that’s false in the extreme. Bethorie herself has posted claiming that 50% of pregnancies are unplanned. Given the pill’s failure rate is based solely on user error, that would imply almost half (I don’t equate the entire 50% because I acknowledge some women can’t take the pill for various reasons) of all pregnancies are due to these women being incapable capable of taking a pill daily (or realizing they failed to do so and taking alternative precautions), or it’s due reproductive coercion, of which only 15% are supposedly perpetrated by male abusers. Of the 50% of unplanned pregnancies, at most 15% are due to men being abusive, the remaining 35% are due to legitimate failure of other birth control methods (when the pill is unavailable for various reasons) which should be pretty rare given alternatives also have a high success rate, as well as these women’s incompetence and/or deception. And given that deception has no consequences for these women (if having a baby was a consequence for these women, they wouldn’t have deceived to accomplish that goal).It also seems hypocritical to claim these are rare and should be ignored, but then support draconian Domestic abuse laws because “600 women in the US are murdered by their Significant other. 600 is less then .0002% of the population of the US… that is what I would define as rare.
>Wow, that guy thinks that since the government has regulations that means women benefit more from his tax payments to the government then men do cuz it means women have the chance to work in the private sector.Gee, my lizard brain cannot understand this nor can my cat brain, shark brain, and all the other kinds of brains that they claim I have.
>Elizabeth, it's a strange derivative of a standard MRA argument that government spending and regulations benefit women so guys like him are "owed" something because they don't benefit from government spending and regulation. At least that's what I think that omega guy is saying. It's difficult to figure out.This is why I think you should do a post on this David. MRAs believe that they are owed something from women. It based off of liberatrian ideas about government. While that omega guy has a strange version of it, we all know it's a common MRA idea.
>Yeah, I made up a name and demanded he show me the proof he is owed the money and he has to factor in his own benefit from the taxes paid by other people.How much you want to bet he just insults me and runs away?
>Steve, I think it's an interesting topic, and I've seen variants of that argument elsewhere; I just don't feel like engaging with this particular person.
>Kratch, your comment was caught in the spam filter and is out now; you might want to scroll up and read Pam's long comment above yours because it gives some actual numbers on some of the things you'er specualting about.
>@ Sally StrangeIf both studies are true, then we could, for arguments sake, deduct the 15% from the 42% leaving a 27% duped into fathehood rate. Now if I remember correctly the 1 in 6 woman being raped in their lifetimes according to feminists = epidemic and a rape culture.So wouldn't over 1 in 4 women forcing men to be parents indicate a sort of fraud epidemic?Random Brother
>@ PamSo about 30% of men are forced into fatherhood when they aren't ready or don't want kids. So, shouldn't men have the option of a "paper abortion?"Random Brother
>@ triplanetaryI didn't think that even you were stupid enough to pull out the old, if the womyns were in charge there'd be no war canard, but you did.Is there anything that feminsts say (other that Dworkin) that you disagree with or are you that much of a yes woman that you've go no thoughts of your own?Random Brother
>Is there anything that feminsts say (other that Dworkin) that you disagree with or are you that much of a yes woman that you've go no thoughts of your own?I imagine feminists say lots of things I would disagree with. I'm sure somewhere out there is a feminist who doesn't like Arby's or thinks the movie AI is underrated.I mean I couldn't possibly agree with everything ever said by feminists.I didn't think that even you were stupid enough to pull out the old, if the womyns were in charge there'd be no war canard, but you did.Actually that's not what I said. What I said was that here in the real world, where men are in charge, men start the wars. They do this because they're the ones in charge. And just as anti-Semites like to blame Jews for all the wars, I've seen my share of misogynists who blame women for war (their "reasoning" usually being that they place such onerous material demands on their men that those men just have to go out and conquer other countries so that the women can have their diamonds and handbags and purses).
>Have these men never learned to keep their atavistic fears in their subconscious? What's next, the vagina dentata?
>Well, we've already seen the Mousetrap Vagina.
>Oh, good Lord!*weeps for humanity*
>So, shouldn't men have the option of a "paper abortion"?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. By the same token,I think the woman should take full responsibility if she originally opts for abortion or adoption and then changes her mind further down the road.For those cases where the father wanted to have a child, but pregnancy occurred too soon, I am far less inclined to give a general nod to that; if a man is in a long term hetero relationship, then there is a good chance that he is having sexual intercourse more frequently than if not in said relationship, therefore "risk" of pregnancy may be higher, and reliance on one method of birth control as the be all end all is neither the smartest nor the most responsible thing to do. There are quite possibly still (I know it was common back in my younger days, not as certain about now) a lot of men who rely on their partner's one method of birth control to be 100% effective, and this is not always the case. Even in non-long-term relationships, this same reliance on one's partner to be employing one method of birth control, if any, isn't too bright, either.Also, if using a condom, whether or not in conjunction with another method of birth control, clean up after yourself and flush the condom before drifting off into la la land, there's nothing wrong with that, and it can be done in a respectful way, not one that borders on complete paranoia.Having said that, I am all for development of a male birth control pill (if that is possible) or for men opting to have vasectomies if they are absolutely certain that they do not want to have any or any more children. 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 or are anticipating the arrival of a male birth control pill. Sure, there are quite possibly some women who would be angry about such things, but I wouldn't rush to say that they are all or mostly feminists.As for how those statistics might relate to the topic of men being deceived into fatherhood, they don't really seem to suggest that that is a situation that's running rampant, which is NOT to say that it never, ever occurs. And there is NOTHING that points to it being a feminist conspiracy if there are some women who are deceiving some men into paternity.And the Phillips v Irons case, well, it's another he said/she said case, which, though not proving that she did NOT impregnate herself after the two only engaged in oral sex, it is not proof positive that she DID, either. Personally speaking, I'm not inclined to believe either of them 100%.
>Pam's data indicates that less then 10% of men have experienced 100% unwanted pregnancies with their partners. So the 1 in 4 fraud (which would be an epidemic indeed) scenario does not exist.
>@ ElizabethStop that. You know better. Unless you're going to argue that a woman pressured to have a child before she is ready is not a big deal and is acceptable if she one day wants to have kids, then you can't make that argument. And I know you're not going to argue THAT as a feminist. So, if a woman should be allowed to be a mother or not be a mother WHEN she wants to, at the time period in her life that is most advantageous to her, you can and should argue the same thing for men. If you are truly about equality. Therefore, men are still forced into fatherhood at "epidemic" levels. Don't try to slip that one in there. Random Brother
>Yes yes Richard, men are always the victims never the perpetrators. We get it.And no, I am not arguing that it is a a good thing or not a big deal as the data Pam gave us shows that women are nearly doubly unwilling to have a pregnancy occur then men are. Did you see that 8.6% being outweighed by 14.1%? No? Now you do.
>richard, men have options to prevent pregnancy. It's called use a condom, or have a vasectomy. We've also presented the option of signing away all rights and responsibilities while the woman is still pregnant (this would be the male version of an abortion) 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. We are not at fault for there not being a contraceptive for men, but it just so happens that temporarily stopping sperm production is more difficult than temporarily stopping ovulation, because the way female bc works is by tricking a woman's body into thinking that it is pregnant, something that can't be replicated in the male body. Basically what they have to do is find something that will temporarily stop sperm from being healthy enough to survive the swim to the egg. This has proved difficult to do temporarily. also I'd like to link you to this, which states that the rates that men tamper with womens' bc is also 1 in 4 which would mean that they are equal and therefore we need to fight the problem from both sides, not just onehttp://www.endabuse.org/content/features/detail/1674/
>"Pam's data indicates that less then 10% of men have experienced 100% unwanted pregnancies with their partners. So the 1 in 4 fraud (which would be an epidemic indeed) scenario does not exist."I'm concerned with how they determined mistimed (even you seem to question it by noting the 100% unwanted). Does a man who wants to be a father, but had no intention to do so at that time or with the woman whom he got pregnant, count as mistimed or unwanted? Does a man like David or TriP, who thinks men should not have the right to choose, and should step up and be a father (AKA wanting it, even if he had no desire for it previously) if he knocks someone up, does he reply as unwanted or mistimed?The study is "further limited to pregnancies that the man was aware of at the time. Therefore, the data in the tables are for live births for which the man knew about the pregnancy", which would exclude Dr. Richards and men like him from the survey. This impacted 10.5% of respondents 20 years and under (11% of 18-19), who have since discovered they are fathers. Additionally, the results of "unwantedness" and "not asked" (due to learning of the child after birth) of boys under the age of 18 was somehow tainted, causing the figures to "not meet standard of reliability or precision". More importantly, if we look at the figures, 17.4% of all men aged 20-24, and 45% of all men aged 25-29 are fathers. 7.1% of the fathers aged 20-24 did not want to be fathers (and 3.3% didn't even learn they were fathers until after the child was born, meaning they had no choice ether), and 6.1% of those aged 25-29. That means that, almost 2% (1.7something) of all men aged 20-24 are being forced into fatherhoods they don't want or weren't given a chance to decide, or 200,000 men just between the ages of 20-24. It works out to almost 3% (2.75%) of all men aged 25-29 that have fatherhood forced upon them, or over 250,000 men just between the ages of 25-29. And it only gets worst from there, with about 7.4% of all men aged 30-44 being forced into fatherhood.600 women are killed by a domestic partner and we call this an epidemic. Almost half a million men, just in their 20's alone, are forced into wage slavery against their will, not to mention almost half a million children forced to grow up with a father who didn't want them (and her mother who didn't care about anything but her own selfish desire to have a child, regardless of the damage to the father and child that birth would cause), and the rejection that entails ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363145/Bad-girls-An-investigation-new-breed-young-women-bit-alienated-violent-brutally-sexualised-worst-male-yob.html# ). The numbers will apparently look even worst for women, despite them actually having a choice, but that should tell us that we need laws in place to protect people, everyone, from being forced into parenthood against their wills. Unfortunately, if this gets any more attention, you can be certain that only women's plight will be focused on, despite the fact that, again, they are the only ones who actually get a choice, and they're plight is already covered by laws regarding domestic violence, and so, they have solutions they just aren't choosing to use.
>Continued—Overall, however, the study's math concerns me. For example, the mistimed numbers for men based on age alone actually comes out to over 31.65%. But they total their tallies by totaling each group up, all together, and then averaging based on all aspects (meaning their counting the same person (at least) 6 times. Once (or twice) for age, once for race, once for religion, once for education, once for poverty level and once (actually twice) for marital status). This shouldn't be a problem, however, when looking over the results based on age alone, which accounts for all participants in the study, it's results should match up exactly with the averages for any other classification. For example, if all respondents who fit between the age of 20-44, have a 7.9% unwanted rate, and all respondents are ether living with the mother, cohabitating with the mother or living separate from the mother, given it's the same men that are between the ages of 20-44, you should still get 7.9% of these men having unwanted children… but we don't, if we base the numbers on marital status, 10.6% of all fathers who are living with the mother, cohabitating with the mother or living separate from the mother (which accounts for all), were forced into fatherhood. If we look at education, it works out to an average of 9.25% of fathers (based on poverty levels it's only 5.28%). The math isn't working out here, and it should be. They are off by several percentage points, and can be found throughout (just average the mistimed for under 18 and 18-19 and see if it match's the under 20 number… here's a hint… it won't, by about 3%). Richard: "So, shouldn't men have the option of a "paper abortion?""Just as an aside, I think the term paper abortion, or male abortion, are poor terms to use. It invokes the ire of pro-lifers, causes confusion in debates (with "you want to force women to have an abortion???") and really isn't indicative of what MRA's really seek. What MRA's are after in male reproductive rights is more akin to adoption then abortion, in that the child will still exist, but men using it would be signing away their rights and responsibilities to someone else who wants the child, in this case, the mother. The only problem with accomplishing this is the tendency of most people to feel the mother already has all the rights to the child (and the father none), and thus is only being given the fathers responsibilities (since he has no rights to relinquish anyways). Which is a pretty misandric, as well as one sided view.
>Some comments were caught in the spam filter; they're up now.