Poor Arnold Schwarzenegger!
Picture the scene.
It’s January 1997. Arnold’s in a good mood, sitting in his den, paging through the latest issue of Variety. He chuckles to himself. Fuck the critics! Jingle All the Way is putting asses in the seats of the multiplexes of America, and that means money in the bank to the Terminator.
Suddenly, he hears the door to the room click shut behind him. It’s that devious maid again, with her wily, sexy Latin ways! “Que pasa?” she says, running her hands through his hair. He’s still not quite sure what that phrase means, exactly, but it seems to have a hypnotic effect on him, and his penis. He pulls the maid to him.
The next minute and a half are a blur. “Curses!” he mutters to himself, as he realizes that, once again, the wily maid has lured his hapless penis into her vaginal cavity. But it’s too late. The penis has released its precious load. “Me han robado tu esperma,” she hisses. “¿Dónde está la biblioteca?”
This, give or take a few of the details, seems to be how the author of the Rebuking Feminism blog imagines the events that led to the birth of Arnold’s love-child 14 years ago. Yep: in his version of events, it’s the women – both the maid, Patty Baena, and wife Maria – who are responsible for Arnold’s indiscretions:
Maria Shriver should have known better than to let any half way decent looking woman spend so much time in the house. The whole ballgame changes when a man reaches Arnold’s status. Women come begging to be f***ed by you. Women practically disrobe and spread when guys like Arnold walk in the room. I’m sure he abstained plenty of times but women like this maid wait for her opportunity when in such close proximity.
It’s tough, I guess, to be a freakishly huge, fabulously wealthy alpha male who wants to fuck everything in sight. But tougher indeed to be a beta:
As is quite common with the type of situation that took place with Arnold, I’m sure this little whore took her prized bastard back home to be raised by her oblivious, committed, and cuckolded beta male husband.
Some people might say, hey, isn’t Arnold partially to blame for cuckolding that little whore’s cuckolded beta male husband? No. It’s important to remember: he’s a victim too, and obviously not responsible for the sexual activity that Mrs. Baena lured him into with her fiery Latin vagina.
Maria may now file for divorce. The only people to end up completely fu*ked here will be the two men…Arnold for engaging in adultery (and the price only men have to pay for it) and the man that was cuckolded by his adulterous whore wife and will have to pay for it as well. Men bear liability to women on both sides of the equation. Men have no rights.
Now all Maria and Patty need to do is sit back and collect the cash. Ka-ching-gle All the Way!
EDITED TO ADD: The author of the post has added a response to my post as a addendum to his original post. The gist of it:
Arnold and his impropriety was not the intended focus of this article. I take it as common knowledge among my readers that what Arnold did was obviously wrong. This was not the point of the article.
The point of this article was to illustrate how adultery is supported by law on one end (the female end) and not supported by law on the male end.
All a woman needs to do is say you are a bad father and all rights are removed immediately.
Uh, NO, women still have to prove their cases in court, and sometimes they lose. I know a woman who accused her ex of bad fathering and lost. Granted he was not a stellar father but the court standard of proof is a lot higher than you think.
Try having a child with him
No thanks. See how that works! I met him, we clicked, and we talked about kids. Neither of us wants one. It’s awesome! It’s not like I chose, and forced him to go along with what I wanted. It’s more like, how one goes about finding a partner with any traits that complement their own. Amazing!
or live with him long enough to constitute common law marriage
Not a possibility where we live.
or…actually marry and see who’s ass is OWNED by the other. He will be legally bound to be a provider to an independent woman and HER children.
Interesting. (1) We’re not getting married because we don’t really see the need to right now, but also because he doesn’t want me to have to be responsible for paying all his debt. If we married, I would be legally bound to pay it off. (2) I actually am fairly independent. Financially and otherwise. Which means, among other things, that there has never been a time when I’ve even needed to ask him for any financial help. Independent, for the record, implies, um, independence. (3) A hypothetical: A guy marries a woman. They accrue debt together. They amass wealth together. They divorce. Both the debt and the wealth is seen as marital property, as far as I know. This is not the same as the guy being “legally bound to be a provider to the woman.” In the odd chance that the guy has to pay alimony, perhaps you are right. But then, alimony is uncommon. In the case where the man and woman had a kid and split, the noncustodial parent is obligated to support the child financially. Because the child needs financial support. Not because the child is the woman’s property or whatnot. (Because it isn’t.) But because both parents of a child are responsible for it.
We are not talking about your life we are talking about the LAW. Which it’s fairly obvious you don’t understand.
Accepting, arguendo, the number you cite as being true… what percentage of the people required to provide suport who are failing to do so is that?
According to the US Census Bureau, 47.3% of custodial mothers (as “obligees”) received all child support that they were owed and 77.5% received some. Additionally, 46.2% of custodial fathers (as “obligees”) received all child support that they were owed and 74.5% received some.[1] (wikipedia).
Less than half of all people who were awarded support got all of it. Almost 25 percent got none.
Of those people not paying, 50,000 are in jail.
Now, lets look at the federal staute (since there are 50 states, each with their own statutes on the subject;
18 U.S.C. § 228a) Offense.–Any person who- (1) willfully fails to pay a support obligation with respect to a child who resides in another State, if such obligation has remained unpaid for a period longer than 1 year, or is greater than $5,000; (2) travels in interstate or foreign commerce with the intent to evade a support obligation, if such obligation has remained unpaid for a period longer than 1 year, or is greater than $5,000; or (3) willfully fails to pay a support obligation with respect to a child who resides in another State, if such obligation has remained unpaid for a period longer than 2 years, or is greater than $10,000; shall be punished as provided in subsection (c).
What has to happen?
Elements of the Offense
In order to convict a defendant accused of violation the Dead Beat Parents Punishment Act, the United States must prove that the defendant:
1. Had the ability to pay;
2. Willfully failed to pay;
3. A known and past due child support obligation;
4. Which has remained unpaid for longer than one year OR is an amount greater than $5,000; and
5. For a child who resides in a different state than the defendant.
That’s a pretty high bar. Inability to pay = “get out of jail free”.
Crap… some other notes got pasted. Dave, if you can snip everything before “We are not talking about your life, I’d appreciate it.
Edited. I was wondering what the heck that was.
Such interesting word choices here: “Slave,” “Cage,” “Owned.” Anyone else getting the impression that MRA’s are a bunch of closet subbies?
Was wondering about that, pecunium :-p
Also, this is from up above and probably not cared about my many people here (since it’s a stupid point that wasn’t actually backed up by the crappy screen grabs he posted), but financial ability actually has almost no effect on potential sexual partners:
http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/conleys-casual-sex-research-sexual-strategies-theory/
Warning, giant article, but it’s a great breakdown. Of course, it’s a feminist blog, so according to egohan it’d all be false.
Dave: Thanks. It was me using a notepad sheet to compose, and forgetting I had another couple of lists on it.
Oh, and for clarity, this is the actual breakdown of research, that first article is just a summary.
http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/gender-differences-and-casual-sex-the-new-research/
I live in the US. Here custody is worked out between the parents on a case-by-case basis. Courts love when rational parents can work out their own plans or who use a mediator in a collaborative divorce – and collaborative law is on the rise. For couples who can’t see eye to eye when one or both are assholes, the court is forced to decide based on accusations backed up by proof.
Conception and marriage only have consequences for men.
Um, What? O_o
I don’t know what planet you live on, but here on earth, carrying a child to term alters a woman’s financial and physical status permanently. Never for the better.
I am a childfree woman who went through a divorce and I certainly didn’t get rich off of it; my ex stiffed me money he owed me, I left him with a house, two cars, and money in the bank. I get by no thanks to him as he was a drain on my finances but I certainly made nothing on the transaction. There were certainly financial consequences to my marriage and absolutely emotional ones.
For women they are choices that can be walked away from.
And for men, they are choices that don’t even need to be made to begin with. Get the snip, use condoms, or choose your partners wisely.
Just because women have DIFFERENT choices than you have doesn’t mean you don’t have any.
Nobby: I sent that to one of my former pysch profs, because the primary conclusion is both wonderful, and in keeping with my experience: Women will say yes if they think they will have a good time.
He is using it in his psych of sex class.
law1204: the physical isn’t always for the worse. Lactation reduces breast cancer risk. I know one woman who’s arches got higher, which was a good thing. She stopped needing orthotics.
But, that’s no the case for everyone, and one can’t know for certain what one is going get.
The thing which amazes me is the callous way in which Arnie keeps talking about the decision to not get an abortion as if it was some sort of whimsical decision, instead of one with consequences for everyone.
Holy fucking god, even having an abortion is not WALKING AWAY. It’s a fucking MEDICAL PROCEDURE that also has side effects. This is serious shit and even pro-choice women do not come by their decision to abort lightly – even if in the instance of an actual pregnancy it seems like the decision is fast it’s almost certainly because she spent a long time thinking about what she might do in that eventuality beforehand.
And a lot of us. A bloody FUCKING lot of us. Take a whole lot of responsibility for birth control. I took the pill for years, even though it had awful side effects. I’ve been fitted for a diaphragm, which is a pain to use but I used it. I just recently got an IUD, which is something I was fairly terrified of but I decided it was the best option for my fiance and I. The insertion was painful and there have been other side effects, but now I’m set for the next 5 years. I DO NOT want to have kids and I DO NOT want to have to go through an abortion procedure. So I deal with it.
And, yeah, in the times between me trying those various options my fiance wore condoms. ‘Cause he takes this shit every bit as seriously as I do. He could also get fixed and maybe someday he will, but in the meantime we’re not absolutely 100% sure we won’t eventually decide to have kids so we’re going for the less permanent options.
speedlines: Don’t forget “spat upon.”
Birth Control isn’t that hard. I’ve, I think, been involved in using every form of non-surgical BC there is.
Condoms
Sponge
Diaphragm
Nuva-Ring
Spermacidal Inserts
The Pill
Depo-provera
The Patch
IUD
Non-PIV Sex
Nope… the one that went in the arm… I don’t think any of my lovers has used that.
I’ve also had a lover be late… The first time it was a partner who’d already had one child while on the pill.
The second time it was someone whom I wasn’t the only person seeing. My question wasn’t, “Why do you think I’m the father.” It was, “how did this happen”. I wanted to know what failure of BC might have taken place.
In neither case was my partner pregnant.
Like STDs, pregnancy is one of the risks we take when we have sex. Part of that risk is that there will be a child. It’s not my call. I’d like to be consulted, but if I’m not, I’m not.
Dave: Something seems strange. I keep being told I’m duplicating a comment, but I can’t see it posted. It’s about BC.
Spam filter caught it, probably b/c of the birth control references, but it’s up now.
“What happened within your family isn’t normal.”
“It’s your choice now to change your families cycle or not. You have some choices to make.”
There is nothing I can do to change the law. I understand what place men hold in the family.
“Uh, NO, women still have to prove their cases in court, and sometimes they lose. I know a woman who accused her ex of bad fathering and lost. Granted he was not a stellar father but the court standard of proof is a lot higher than you think.”
No VAWA and restraining orders set the precedent. They remove the man from the home immediately and without trial. He must admit guilt if he is to see his child. Why don’t you read up on it. It happened to my brother who was accused of sexual abuse toward his newborn infant.
She kidnapped the child and he was not allowed to see the child for months. When he was it was only under supervision at a State appointed “safe house”. He emptied his life savings of $120,000 in order to win joint custody.
Yea, went to the site. I will read the study. Anyway, what is feminists obsession with rape. Violent pathological rape is exceedingly rare to the point where worrying about it is negligible.
Besides if feminists were serious about stopping violent pathological rape the would have campaigns to stop child abuse by females toward young boys. It is female violence against boys that creates the mental pathology of rape. Most men, a good 95+ % if not more are INCAPABLE of obtaining an erection by attacking and hurting someone…it just doesn’t turn us on you know…go figure.
“There is an alarmingly high rate of sexual abuse by females in the backgrounds of rapists, sex offenders and sexually aggressive men – 59% (Petrovich and Templer, 1984), 66% (Groth, 1979) and 80% (Briere and Smiljanich, 1993).
Oh and there are very little sex offenders. Read the link to learn more about what constitutes a “sex offender”
http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2011/05/there-are-no-sex-offendersnot-any-more.html
Wait, so he won joint custody? Doesn’t that mean that justice eventually prevailed?
To answer some other of your questions:
Why don’t men have the choice to stay home?
Men certainly do have that choice, and in fact I know a few stay-at-home dads whose wives provide financial support. They’re fairly happy, stable marriages with some pretty awesome kids. I also know many women who are expected to work by their partners, kids or no.
Regarding your claim that women don’t want a SAHD as a partner – I suppose the solution to this is, as Amanda Marcotte said, ‘more feminism.’ Tell girls that when they grow up, it’s okay for dads to be primary caretakers and that makes them no more or less awesome than a dad who has a full time job.
Why don’t men have rights to our own bodies and the fruits of it’s labor?
Men can certainly do whatever they wish with their own bodies, and no one will try and stop them. What they *can’t* do is interfere with someone else’s own body. And isn’t the idea that a man should have full access to the fruits of his labor a Marxist idea?
Also, what’s your idea on ‘best interests of the child’? What you don’t seem to understand is that a woman who bears a child is still on the hook for providing for that child. It’s more than just a check every month, it’s making sure that child is fed, clothed, healthy and educated. She could conceivably be hauled before the court and have her kids taken away if she fails in any one of those regards.
There was once a time when men could just walk away from pregnancy. They could knock up any woman they cared to. If they were both single and of the same social status, they might have been forced to marry (but how is that in anyone’s best interests?), but if he was of higher social status, well, then, it was just unthinkable that he should marry one of *those* sorts of women. Or perhaps he was a priest, in which case it was her fault for seducing a man of God.
Those children were not considered his heirs, and had no legal right to their father’s protection. He might give it, if he was the magnanimous sort, but he wasn’t obligated to provide it. And then people kind of thought about it, and realized that it was kind of shitty for a man to fuck a woman, knock her up and then abandon her and THEIR child.
TL;DR: There have been so-called ‘paper abortions’ in the past, and they ended when people figured out they were kind of a raw deal.
Oh, I see now. Rape, pregnancy, parenthood, child support… it’s all unimportant when it happens to a mere woman; but when a MAN is the victim (or just unhappy with how things are), NOW it’s a problem.
I guess women should just stop having opinions, I bet you think the world would be a much better place if all the women just shut up and stopped asking for so much shit.
There are places where single adults can get cash assistance.
http://www.alamedasocialservices.org/public/services/financial_assistance/general_assistance/index.cfm
MRA’S claim to want equality so why complain about the Titanic, according to the spearhead
324 women survived
325 men survived
More men than women survived, that’s not equal!
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/04/11/when-titanic-sank-99-years-ago-this-week-people-were-more-honest-about-gender-roles-than-they-are-today/
Xtra, to be fair, there were a LOT more men on the Titantic than women; a much greater percentage of women survived than men.
But, you know, that *was* 100 years ago. And really, the bigger issue is why the ship didn’t have enough lifeboats to hold anywhere near the total number of people on board.
Well what probably happened with the Titanic is that men wanted more lifeboats but women wanted more room for makeup and other girl stuff. Typical.