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.
Lady Victoria von Syrus
Talk to me again about child abuse after reading this.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm08/cm08.pdf
There can be no doubt and no bias as to who the perpetrators are. mother alone 28.8%, father alone 12.6%. If you dare to say thats because the mother has custody more often than YOU are blaming the victim and excusing the mothers bad behavior.
Also Relative (female) 2.4%, relative (male) 1.3%
Notice also partner of parent (female) 0.3% Partner of parent (male) 2.7%. Women inviting violent offenders into their homes men dont.
Page 61 is an excellent graph. Although I’m sure a bad man is the heart of the problem. Let the excuses begin.
Either way, any culture which firsts moves it’s men to the margins of social influence and thereby cuts off the connection the next generation of young men have to fatherhood, masculine values and culture will serve to create a generation of floundering men who express their undeveloped errant masculinity in ways which we will increasingly witness.
Men deserve to be members of the family and thereby members of society. Marginalize and cut of your men from enfranchisement in your culture and community you will have they type of men witnessed in other well known matriarchies. The most prominent matriarchy here in the U.S. is the black community. The most prominent matriarchy in Great Britain is the “Chav” community. Look at the aimless errant masculinity that pervades and ask yourselves if it is worth it to push men to the margins of the family and associated enfranchisement in the development of society.
I’ve seen what these young boys have said with their own mouths. They don’t know what a father is or how to be one. Close knit roving gang bands of males are their family. They have no place in the home. Destroy men’s place in the family and society will crumble with it.
“You insist that custody is always in the mother’s favor, even in the face of evidence that proves to you that it’s NOT TRUE.”
Believe that there is no bias toward mother custody and you lying to yourself. Around 90% of men lose custody.
You know, all I want is to be able to have a family where the woman can’t just pick up the kids, walk away and then demand I send her money to support her…that’s all. Is that so hard to understand?
I want an equal and fair commitment and not a one sided one…is that so hard to understand?
If you dare to say thats because the mother has custody more often than YOU are blaming the victim and excusing the mothers bad behavior
No, it’s not. It’s asking the question, “What percentage of mothers who are primary caretakers end up abusing their children; as opposed to fathers who end up as primary caretakers.” It’s about proportions. Blaming the victim in this case would be saying something like, ‘well, preschoolers just need to learn to be more sensitive to their mother’s needs. And do they really need to eat three times a day, that seems excessive.’ Those abusive mothers deserve to have their children taken away – but that doesn’t mean you can cite statistics in bad faith.
For what it’s worth, families with two mothers (i.e., lesbian couples) have a child abuse rate of basically zero.
I know several people who were abused by their mothers growing up, but they don’t see it as justification for hating an entire gender.
@ Arnie:
By disenfranchised men, do mean that you don’t think there are enough men in positions of political, economic, social and religious leadership?
“By disenfranchised men, do mean that you don’t think there are enough men in positions of political, economic, social and religious leadership?”
You speak as if these few men represent an entire gender. Men are in positions of leadership because for some reason the female majority vote overwhelmingly prefers men to be their workhorses. After all, I don’t think women can picture female leaders treating men like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdafJpieIJ0
Never….Men are better chivalrous servants to give women what they want other wise women would vote women into office. Men are in other positions of power because status gets us approval from women and so does monetary success. Unlike women, men are not valuable for the simple fact that we exist. Men are not men by default but must “be a man”. Men and masculinity is defined by action. Action is defined by use and utility.
Everything about masculinity revolves around male use and external utility. Put in feminist terms men are are “use objects”.
Men are also in more competition with others to better use objects. What drives men to the top ranks is competition to be of better use to women.
Here’s a hint: Women don’t vote as a bloc. There are Republican women, Democrat women, Green Party women, Libertarian women, etc. Sarah Palin and Hilary Clinton are not interchangeable politicians just because they share a double-X chromosome. The only reason that many women tend to vote left/liberal is because the right is usually dripping with contempt for women’s issues. And even still, there are women who are staunch Republican supporters. I used to regularly hang out with a woman who was convinced Bush could do no wrong and any criticism of him was tantamount to treason, and I promise you, our ballots looked very different on election day.
Men are also in more competition with others to better use objects. What drives men to the top ranks is competition to be of better use to women.
So tell me, what would your ideal society look like?
Here is more about the driving forces behind male “use”.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/2011/04/30/men-are-a-disease-a-critique-of-george-carlin/
“Here’s a hint: Women don’t vote as a bloc. There are Republican women, Democrat women, Green Party women, Libertarian women, etc.”
Doesn’t matter, women hold 56% of the vote in all realms. Who ever is in office is because women put them there.
Just to fill in the reality/practice part, b/c I know that a lot of the stuff going on is v theoretical and done by layreading of google searches 🙁 The abuse model is used for all genders (if you dun believe me, as I keep saying there’s an entire real actual life you can go out to to see how it’s implemented xD Since I actually WORK in this field, I can tell you it’s not true… I know many abused male friends who have been helped by this resource and ppl working from the model and helped them realize and escape an abusive relationship 🙁 None of this is theory, it’s REAL and REAL ppl are being abused and also helped by more knowledge of abuse and the ways it manifests 🙁
I encourage ppl to volunteer in men’s shelters tho if they doubt the awful reality of abuse and homelessness and assault (but more importantly b/c I encourage ppl to help out in the community as much as they can in general 🙂 And b/c shelters for all ppl need any and all help ppl are willing to offer 🙂 ) but the model is used in both male and female (and ppl who ID as neither) cases AND in terms of parents abusing children OR adult children abusing elderly parents, and caretakers abusing the elderly (or disabled ppl). In terms of the way it’s taught and implemented, that abuse model relates to PEOPLE and not specific genders (also ppl who work w/ the model understand the context with which it exists 🙂 as I said, practice/reality vs theory developed via google xD )
Enuf Berra.. let’s have some Ali 😀 “I wish people would love everybody else the way they love me. It would be a better world.”
It would be 🙂 Esp if ppl loved each other like they love me 😀 I am the vampire girl of super love! 😀
Doesn’t matter, women hold 56% of the vote in all realms. Who ever is in office is because women put them there.
Oh, my gods, do you even listen to yourself?
If 30% of voting women are Republican, 40% are Democrat and the other 30% are small parties/no party, then they’re not going to be able to “give” the vote to anyone (note: I have not checked these stats for accuracy, I have no idea how many women are in each party, I’m just trying to illustrate a point).
To put it a different way: if 30% of women in the last election voted for McCain, 40% for Obama and 30% for other candidates, then Obama still had to rely on male votes to secure the presidency.
Women, being actual people, have interests and political ideas beyond just being female. Some women are screaming racists, and vote that way. Some women are deeply religious, and want to vote for candidates who share their beliefs. Some women are neon-blue liberals, and vote that way. There is no one monolithic Woman’s Vote.
“So tell me, what would your ideal society look like?”
An ideal society can not be described here but we are welcome to discuss individual issues. In short however I believe that men being “use objects” we must define what makes men of best use to women and society. This is how all societies have been structured.
Women being innately valued for being women we must define how best to keep her innate value to men so that men are inspired to be the best “use objects”. Men will work FOR women if the system allows it. Making men disposable is not a good recipe.
Society should be structured on the best way to create a fair competitive echelon for male production and give incentive for men to produce. Men should have security in the rewards gained from being “use objects”. This security can be brought by making it so that men are NEEDED in the mated pair bond and not disposable and expendable.
Despite what feminists might think men are not inspired to produce for themselves alone but men will work hard to be worthy of something to produce for if the rewards he gains are made worthy of his efforts. Historically this was driven by the prospect of being able to be worthy of the best female of his affections…you know kind of like how it works in nature if we bother to notice.
Arnie: Believe that there is no bias toward mother custody and you lying to yourself. Around 90% of men lose custody.
Wrong again. Boy, it’s like you’re trying to be wrong! And here, the facts even support you … it’s just that you can’t help lying.
Best figures from 2002:
Fathers having sole physical custody – 11%
Parents having joint custody – 9%
Parents having split custody or other arrangement – 5%
That’s 25% of fathers having either sole or joint custody. Not great. Room for improvement. But better than the 10% figure you were citing.
And that’s from nine years ago – according to anything I’ve read on the subject, joint custody decisions are increasing. The other thing to note is that in custody disputes, when fathers ask for custody, they win custody in the majority of cases.
we must define how best to keep her innate value to men
But what about what the woman wants for herself?
So contrary to feminist belief society historically has been structured to maximize male production and incentive to produce, the role women played in that was paramount.
Monogamy and marriage is the best structure to utilize male production and incentive effectively and so is creating a structure to which males are able to but also RELIED upon to place parental investment in their offspring. Men having families is the cornerstone to stable society.
“But what about what the woman wants for herself?”
Well quite frankly successful civilizations that beat out competition with others over territory and resources didn’t much care what either of us wanted for ourselves. Females are the constant. Societies are and were structured around utilizing the male variable to produce. Much of it centers on the innate worthiness of females to males and the by default unworthiness of males.
So for production sake everything around the female role was centered around keeping her the constant so that males would work for everyone including her with a promise of a reward. It is male incentive to produce that builds civilization.
Under matriarchy men’s rewards are not a given and even then many men will not be able to have a wife and family because like every other mating structure only the top males get to have mating opportunity. Much of societal structure is based around allowing all males to mate. Having a bottom third of unenfranchised males is a bad recipe for societal stability. Having a large contingent of unenfranchised males is a net drain on society especially in our evolving past when we were at MUCH greater competition with other countries and tribes for territory and resources.
The ONLY civilizations that won out where the ones that had the highest birth rates and the highest male production which comes with male incentive to produce. It’s really that simple.
The truth is that in the past, much more than now, men were and are still now the beasts of burden, we are the workhorses. I know it is invisible to most women but societies core infrastructure is held up by male production. As you follow the road back down from the chair you are sitting on to the power that flows into your office to the climate control, to the brick and mortar, to the wiring, the water flow etc, as you go down the line backward you will find more and more men AT THE BOTTOM.
Way way down at the base level you will find virtually all men.
So why not encourage more women to get involved in production, rather than insisting they have to remain objects ‘for the good of society’? Why don’t instead we retrain men so that they pursue worthy goals for reasons other than ‘so I can have a woman,’ as if a woman was a reward given for hard service like a gold watch or Most Valuable Employee plaque. What about the women who aren’t picked or aren’t desirable by men? Is their value just utterly destroyed now?
Women are people. Women have just as much due consideration for their beliefs, goals, wants and desires as men do. Some women want to marry up, some women just want to marry, some women want to marry other women and some women just don’t want to get married at all. Some women want careers, others are happy with a paycheck that can sustain them for now. Some women are awful lying people, some women are incredibly compassionate and some women even manage to be both. Some women are terrible mothers, some women are great mothers and sometimes women go from one to the other. Women can be politicians, artists, leaders, junkies, mothers, criminals, wives, con artists, philanthropists and sometimes, women even grow up to become men. Women are equal participants in society, as capable of being problematic as they are at devising solutions.
The problem with the MRA movement is that they can’t take women seriously. What women want doesn’t matter to them, because women aren’t really people in your eyes and whatever SHE wants is never as important as what HE wants. Your social deconstruction is bullshit, and just another pseudo-intellectual argument that bullies use to try and convince women to be complicit in their own oppression. It’s a shame what happened to you as a kid, but it’s time to get the fuck over it and realize that just because your family was unhappy, doesn’t mean that *all* families are, or that if a family is unhappy, it’s automatically the woman’s fault for being a woman.
Arnie: Way way down at the base level you will find virtually all men.
And virtually all women. Seriously? If you want to make this a discussion about class, be fricking honest about it.
Some women may see it as unfortunate that males over all produce more and some of these men are also driven to the top ranks but there are many reasons for it.
Men work longer hours
Men work more overtime
Men work more dangerous and demanding jobs and men have more opportunity within low skilled labor to make more money
Where ever you find bat shit insane or dangerous work you will find men willing to do it if the pay is good enough. Men have a much higher return on investment value for work output.
It really doesn’t matter how much a woman makes, what status she has etc. She holds the same relative value to men. I’ve seen women rock stars talking about why it is that they do not have male groupies following them around pandering to fu*k them and mentioned that it is quite the opposite, it’s a ghost town after the show.
Well men don’t generally pander after high status females, their biology tells them that they are unworthy and they look for another female that needs him.
Societal structures have all been based upon exploiting and utilizing some of the base elements of human nature in order to thrive. In our past history this was more important than ever because when you do not have settled economies that are developed and mutually dependent you will have a war party of men heading your way at the first sign of shortage or even just for conquest and plunder to bring back to the tribe. Things were much more like this before the world economy.
ONLY those who best utilized male production and those who fu*ked females, did so often, matched them up quickly and had high birth rates won. Unlike todays economy human beings WERE the unit of production. Having more of us whs an asset. 15 children meant wealth. Women, just like men were utilized for our best use to suit the circumstances.
So sure, I have no problem with women being anything they want to be but as long as they do it on their own without special laws, funding, resources etc. This is not the case.
My state STILL has “women first” affirmative action policy in college admissions. The one thing about feminism I am against is the constant lobbying for more and more protection and provision for women. This is not what the public sphere is supposed to be about. The public sphere is supposed to be one of equal opportunity not unequal outcome by unequal means whenever and where ever you see men producing more.
I said it before and it is true, men produce more and have a higher incentive to do so. Men are also different. We are attracted to different types of work. Just because men predominate in the material sciences does not mean women are oppressed there.
“What about the women who aren’t picked or aren’t desirable by men? Is their value just utterly destroyed now?”
Yes actually it’s interesting you mention that because I read an article that clearly outlined why these women are also clear losers in our changed structure. In times past they were ensured a husband.
In general patriarchy ensured that virtually everyone would be able to get married, mate and have a family. Again it had nothing to do with male dominance so much as it had to do with creating the means to an end that allowed civilizations to survive over others.