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.
“Actually, in the Vagina Monologues she was 16, the adult was 24. It is illegal, but I have seen that work with adult men and teenage girls *shrugs”
LOL caught you! Now all of a sudden it’s ok : )
“(She also wasn’t raping her, it was pretty consensual)”
LOL uh huh…it’s called statutory rape..consensual or not.
WOW, just helped another man. He is brave. VAWA law says that if men ever want a chance to see their children again they must admit they are guilty.
TO “KEVIN IN NEW YORK:
What you describe below is standard VAWA procedure. Here is a little more info:
http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-VAWA-Threat-to-Families.pdf
VAWA is used to separate men from their children……permanently! There need not be a trial. Restraining orders are extended indefinitely…they are permanent. They will tell you that if you ever want a chance to see your child again to admit you are guilty.
“Men are often battered by the taxpayer funded, domestic violence industry.”
So true! I have been saddled by an ex-girlfriend with a TEMPORARY restraining order that has been continued for over a year. (That is actually the equivalent of a one year PERMANENT restraining order, but since there still hasn’t been a trial, they just keep on renewing it and calling it “temporary.”) There must be some kind of violation of due process here.
In the last year, I have been to Family Court 10 times, have spent an inordinate amount of my time compiling documentation and notes to repel the false allegations, and have had a dozen meetings with my own lawyers.
She, of course, is represented for free by the multi-million dollar mens hate group called Sanctuary For Families, previously known as the Battered Women’s Center.
The only one being battered is me, as I have lost so much of my life this year to this outrage. One lawyer told me early on, “Just agree to the DV charge the first time you’re here, stay away for a year, and you won’t have to come back to Family Court.” I said, “Absolutely not! I haven’t done anything wrong. I want a trial.” He said, “It doesn’t matter that you haven’t done anything wrong. She just has to “feel” you did, and you will be found guilty of a family offense.”
There are two trial dates scheduled for July, and I can’t help but sense that it’s all been for nothing, that reason and sensibility will not prevail. At the same time, it would be a travesty if, after all I invested, I were to walk away from it now.
Nothing quite like having the choice of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”
You see, men will fight you and even if we don’t win children will LOSE!!!
@Arnie, I already corrected your bullshit claims about VAWA, with a DOJ source, so get a real source or stfu about VAWA.
On equal parenting and shared custody-which is it Arnie? Are women solely and specially meant to do nothing but have and raise babies due to biology, or are men just as capable of doing this labor? You throw out appeal to nature fallacies like confetti at a parade, but then turn around and play the constructionist only when the standards you have already supported wholeheartedly might (in theory, but not so much demonstrated in reality) potentially harm one side. That’s nothing put thinly nad poorly veiled bigotry.
(78 grown children), which is likely to skew the data – but one of the study’s major challenges was finding subjects who are currently adults who were raised by lesbians, something that was difficult to accomplish in the 80s and even for some of the 90s. And even now, given that lesbians still can’t get married and so children of lesbian couples cannot enjoy the full protection of the law. This is the first long-term study done on children of lesbian couples.
Wow, HTML fail of some kind. I posted a link to this article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/lesbians-child-abuse-0-percent_n_781624.html
which supports the idea that lesbian couples have about a zero percent abuse rate. One flaw of the study is the sample size rate, [insert rest of comment].
Arnie: Rates… Care to cite those relative rates you mean in the subject of divorce? In England, for example, it took an act of parliament to get a divorce (one of the side effect of Henry VIII), and women weren’t allowed to petition; so in England the relative rates were, Women… 0 percent, men 100 percent.
In Ancient Rome there was theoretical equality for divorce… and even at that, it was more men who did it than women (Julius Caesar divorced his wife because a man snuck into a gathering that was supposed to be limited to women. He thought that reflected badly on him).
Then again, in Rome the paterfamilias had the right to kill his wife, or children, so I suppose divorcing her was the kinder option.
In Greece women who left the house, were subject to death, so there wasn’t any “female divorce”. One was either married, and lived in familial seclusion, or a courtesan, who couldn’t marry.
In Islamic countries women have no right of divorce.
In Judaism a woman can sue for divorce, and if the rabbinic courts grant her one… her husband can’t be compelled to actually perform the ritual required to make it binding (or he can play games, so that it doesn’t take place and say she chose not to do it). But.. if he sues for divorce, she can’t do a thing to stop it. He tosses the get [i.e. decree of divorce] into her lap/basket, and it’s done (one of the things he can do to obey the letter of the law, is tie a string around the get… toss it in a basket she is holding, and hang onto the string. Unless she catches it, and manages to hang onto it… no divorce).
So this idea you have that women have always been the ones with the power to walk away… is nonsense.
Sorry, I should have said in “fundamentalist Islamic countries”, and perhaps even that needs more qualification.
Monogamy and marriage is more of a male idea. Men are naturally more committed to marriage and monogamy. It makes sense that men would have more power as to the dissolution of marriage.
Historically in the U.S. men retained custody of the children. I believe alimony still existed though. Even then men did not divorce, it was virtually unheard of.
Women don’t want marriage or monogamy so much as they want resources to support themselves and the young. If the resource constructs are there this is all that matters to them.
Matriarchy is the ideal female strategy. Typically she has children from multiple fathers all of which have little to no investment in the family. Under matriarchy women are not necessarily tied down to one particular man. We live in a matriarchy where the best aspects of patriarchy are retained by her. So in this case the law dictates that men toil in the fields and bring their harvest to her doorstep though they may scarcely see nor dare look at the grand matriarch as they scuttle up to the doorstep to drop off their earnings for her and her brood. She can do this to as many men as she likes.
Patriarchy involves marriage and monogamy. In this arrangement the woman bears some sort of liability and commitment to the man and in return he bears forth the fruits of his labor. Typically she brings forth children he can be assured are his, sexual fidelity and regular sex as well. Traditional custody is given to the man through father-right. This way he can assure she will not cheat on him dissolve the marriage without liability. The stable mated pair bond structure and sovereign family unit is achieved.
At this point I do know that patriarchal marriage is dead so I will not commit to it and matriarchal pseudo marriage is the rule so I will not commit to it either.
This means that patriarchal marriage is in effect only in illusion. Women hold all the cards. Men only exist as part of the family only at the sole will and discretion of the grand matriarch who at any moment can banish the man to status of slave and remove him from his children and property as well. Living under matriarchal law is brutal and harsh for mere males. The status of husband and father is very low under matriarchy.
I see us moving in the direction of full matriarchy as in the black community. As long as the resource constructs are made available to women by their own labor, support to women from the public treasury and support from Isolated Resource Producing Male workers she will follow through on her base instincts rather than form a family with an individual man. This is the future.
Living under matriarchal rule as we do I believe that the best thing for men and their wellbeing is to not have children and certainly not commit to a matriarchal marriage.
We must understand that the mere male is only allowed in the house and as part of the family if the grand matriarch allows it. Again, otherwise at any moment he can be stripped of his property, his children and forced into servitude.
It might be easier for men TO be when sexual fidelity is only expected of the wife, otherwise mistresses, courtesans, prostitutes, etc., would probably have found themselves out of jobs long ago.
So all this talk of fewer children being born as a bad thing is confusing to me. This is a GOOD thing. We NEED fewer children to be born because the world population need to stabilize. It can’t actually keep growing infinitely – our planetary resources are limited and in a lot of areas we’re already short of key things like fresh water and arable land.
And before anyone starts claiming feminists set up a cabal to engineer the world population I will state that this is my belief AS AN ENVIRONMENTALIST. I’m not even a feminist at all.
So, I’m finding statistics that say 22% of married men have had an affair at least once during marriage, but only 14% of married woman have done the same. If, as Arnie says, monogamy and marriage are a “male idea,” they sure don’t seem to think that idea applies to them.
Plymouth: True dat. For the record, I was also confused on the thread where “socialist” was being thrown out as an insult.
The point would be, the amount of space available on the lifeboats was divided equally, between ,men and women anyway. Somehow I doubt you’d find that between the rich and poor.
I don’t think there would have been a different outcome if there were more women on the Titanic was basically my point. We could also go into why women were less free to travel.
Being less likely to die on a ship like the Titanic was just a lucky upside to having less freedom to travel like that. There are upsides and downsides. A working class woman is less likely to die working in a coal mine. She’s also more likely to have less income.
The wage gap is sort of like the reason less women were on the Titanic. There is social pressure for women, when they have kids to be the main caretaker, even if two parents live in the same household.
For a mother to be able to focus more on her career, the father would have to focus a bit less on his and take up half the child rearing activities that pull mother’s from their jobs.
The change that would need to be made for earning parity for women is one that cannot be legislated, it has to be voluntary by fathers.
I personally would not have a problem with it if some of the fathers getting the benefit of ability to earn more by having less childcare to worry about would be more sharing of that advantage if the relationship with the mother ended.
Somehow I think if I called the police and told them the reason I called was my man won’t give me money for shoes, I would learn what a police officer dying of laughter sounds like.
Somehow I think if I called the police and told them the reason I called was my man won’t give me money for shoes, I would learn what a police officer dying of laughter sounds like.
[EDIT: I fixed a cut-and-paste fail here. I think this is what Xtra was trying to post. –DF]
@Arnie, please, just reasearch one actual matriarchy (yes, a real one, not a fictional one, where women do not actual have much political or social standing), such as the Iroquois or Musuo. Because no actual matriarchy I have ever heard of works in any way even remotely like your fantasy.
Also, I fail to see why (even if your bullshit were correct) women would ever, under your view, do anything but fight patriarchy tooth and nail, because it is against their interests. You portray women’s civil rights and men’s civil rights as a zero sum game-only one side can have human rights, then why do you suppose any woman would ever pick yours?
So Arnie: I’ve been paying attention as closely as I can, and I’ve figured out the disconnect:
You’re delusional. I don’t mean that as a cheap shot. I don’t even mean it as an insult. You are deluded. You actually believe the stuff you are spouting; religiously.
You seem to honestly believe all the nonsensical hyperbole you are spouting. As far as I can tell you really think men didn’t leave women (look up the term, “grass widow”. It means a woman who is still alive, even though her husband has left her). You seem to think there were people who went to a lot of work to make divorce 1: possible, and 2: no one ever did it.
In most places, all a man has to do to get a divorce, is leave. Women have a much harder time leaving, because the cultures are built in ways that impoverish them if they do.
It happens even here, in the US.
You call that matriarchy.
You say that most divorces are caused by women “abandoning their families,” that women can, “just walk away”, and the man has to pay for it.
Then you say men can’t get custody.
When told the law don’t support that (and actually shown the laws) you say 1: that we must all be lawyers; living off the overpriced services we offer to women, so they can suck men dry (never mind that 1: I at least am not a lawyer, and 2: that’s not the way it works), and 2: just ignore the facts; repeating the mantra, “VAWA and the Matriarchy oppress men.
So the facts are against you.
Logic is against you.
You own incoherence is against you.
And when presented with evidence of this you make up some fictional past where men and women lived in perfect harmony… but somehow the “evil feminists” got it into their head to make everyone miserable, and convinced the rest of the world to go along with their own destruction.
That’s delusional. It’s not that a group can’t manage to persuade persuade people to go against their actual interests (look at Germany in the ’30s).
But it takes some sort of unrest, unease. Something has to be out of whack for that sort of thing to be widespread enough to manage so dramatic an overturning as you are envisioning. This isn’t just the Conservatives trying to entrench themselves. You are arguing for a worldwide change in the way things are.
It didn’t happen.
So Arnie: I’ve been paying attention as closely as I can, and I’ve figured out the disconnect:
You’re delusional. I don’t mean that as a cheap shot. I don’t even mean it as an insult. You are deluded. You actually believe the stuff you are spouting; religiously.
You seem to honestly believe all the nonsensical hyperbole you are spouting.
This is what happens when one believes everything one reads on the internet. The best we could say is that at least he didn’t get sucked into Stormfront, but the tendency of abusive men to spend inordinate amounts of time justifying their appalling behavior and attempts to blame other people rather than taking responsibility for themselves and their unsocialized attitudes should never be underestimated.
It’s really too bad that places like Mediaradar dot com exist, but the religious followers of that kind of propaganda are just like any other religious followers – believe regardless of what you can see with your own two eyes.
How does Arnie know so much more about how women think and what woman want than I (certified, card-carrying woman) do?
Holly: Because he is a man; and hasn’t been brainwashed by the feminists into thinking things which are true, aren’t.
You, as a woman, with hamsters in her brains, have been led astray, but the other women with hamsters in their brains. This has caused you to support the bad way things are (where women walk away from marriages, and men would never leave them. The golden past (where men were eager to “provide the product of their labor” to women, and support them and be chivalrous toward them (THE TITANC, we can’t forget the TITANIC, the lifeboats, the humanity!) and no man ever left a woman, or did her wrong, or beat her, or sent her to work in a sweatshop and drank all the money, or killed her for her dowry.
No, those are all myths and lies, spread by the revisionist feminists.
But you don’t know better, because they have confused you. You need a man to set you straight.
Arnie would be glad to do that, if you would just be willing to let him, “abort” if he feels like it.
The Black community in the U.S. is neither a monolith nor a matriarchy. I realize that this assertion has gone unchallenged in this and other threads but I cannot continue to let this go.
Xtra, I fixed your last comment above– you pasted in a bunch of stuff twice. Let me know if it now says what you meant it to say.
Living under matriarchal rule as we do I believe that the best thing for men and their wellbeing is to not have children and certainly not commit to a matriarchal marriage.
We must understand that the mere male is only allowed in the house and as part of the family if the grand matriarch allows it. Again, otherwise at any moment he can be stripped of his property, his children and forced into servitude.
Women don’t see inequities toward men because it is not in their nature.
Read the Titanic quote from women’s representatives: “It must be admitted that the lives of women are more useful to the race than the lives of men.”
(New York Times, April 19, 1912)
The above is built into them. It’s not like women were standing there bickering on who was going to go down with the ship. We would not gladly send them down with it. It does not work that way with them. They knew who they wanted to go down with it and it was not themselves. Women are not programed to see inequities toward men. To them it is our biological place.
Biologically all that matters is the female. This is why in some species they eat the male for food after mating. Women are programmed to see men as a means to an end for themselves and their offspring. Hypergamy and gynocentricity is their nature. Male lack of welfare, suffering, pain, death, use and utility is part of the role she sees males are supposed to play to her.
It is the harsh truth of the matter when you take a step back and look at the objective picture. Females are more important than males and we are treated likewise.