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.
Oh, Arnie, such a romantic!
More than you know.
Never married, queer call out.
I’ve been lurking and reading a while (I think I found the blog from a link from a feminist site), only occasionally contributing.
Enjoy the mocking, am finding myself more appreciative of my students’ writing skills after seeing some of the stuff spewed out by the conspiracy dudes, but am also noting a definite het tone to it all.
I’m a queer woman — mid-fifties — never married (never wanted to be married, not after growing up in northern Idaho during the 1950s-60s, looking around and seeing all the work the women did inside as well as outside the house, many of them in fact working to help support their families). So I never got married, even though I didn’t realize I was queer until I was nearly thirty.
But I’ve been in a lifetime partnership with a woman since 1995–longer than many het marriages in this country–and although we do deal with men in our professional areas (most of academia is still pretty much controlled by white men–white women like us have benefitted more from the affirmative action programs in some areas–mostly humanities which, arguably are not socially important enough these days to care about–compared to the Science Technology Engineering Math (STEM) fields). But our lives outside work–few if any men involved in any way–and certainly not in supporting us (outside our fathers–who divorced our mothers!–no men have supported us financially ever).
I define as a feminist; she does not.
And amazingly enough we have perfectly good lives and are happy much of the time (had a flooded house last month which was not happy making, but into every life).
So–any other queers lurking around Manboobz?
“This is why in some species they eat the male for food after mating.” (Arnie)
I’m pretty sure most of those species are either arachnids or insects, if not all of them. Don’t think it really makes sense to compare bug sexuality to human sexuality.
If you’re going to compare creatures with completely different reproductive structures to humans, I might as well mention that male seahorses carry the eggs, and somehow this has profound implications for human reproduction.
So, you’re a male who likes to fuck females and also has a vested interest in lauding as ideal a system that requires perpetuating the belief that “good” females, marriageable ones, DON’T like to fuck (though they’ll begrudgingly allow it for, say, procreation, for example). How backasswards is that?? And what about females who would like to be married AND like to fuck the male that they are married to, do they not exist, or is the insecurity about the paternal origin of children so strong that you cannot allow those “exceptions” to exist? After all, if SHE enjoys fucking me, she’ll want to be fucking MORE than just ME, right?
““good” females, marriageable ones, DON’T like to fuck”
Correct, any women who fucks indiscriminately is a slut.
So, in a stable mated pair bond structure, the male chooses to marry a female who doesn’t like to fuck him, but will in order to provide him with children, and this provides him with incentive to work hard in order to pay for, amongst other things, the services of unmarriageable females who will pretend to like fucking him. Yep, it is hard to beat biology.
Listen it will all be over soon enough. This is the end game. Women’s policies are designed to advance them ahead of men. My goal would be for every woman in the land to make more money than every man. This way if women still marry men will have all the rights and if they don’t then women will be responsible for their own bastard children.
Either way men will win because we will be independent and liberated from obligation to women which is essentially the other half of the whole in terms of what feminism set out to create i.e. independence and liberation from men. The goal should be complete and mutual dis-need.
I smell it around the corner, it is the logical next step…emancipation, liberation and independence of men from women.
“Listen it will all be over soon enough.”
Thank god.
Which leads me back to my original point which is what else is there we have with each other besides fucking?
What else do we have? Well, my husband is starting a batch of bread, and I’ll probably make a salad and some green beans later on, so I think the answer is dinner.
Nothing, Arnie, absolutely nothing, because we’re polar opposites in every way, including fucking (since, in your Utopia, males are allowed to enjoy it and females are not).
Scrabble, watching “The Soup,” mocking MRAs.
Hey, you hit on something that WE both have in common!! Wanna get hitched, so we can fuck (though I promise I won’t enjoy it, but I’ll do it for, y’know, my country so that we can have kids)?
Not to worry kids, since I’m post-menopausal, getting married to have and raise children is not on my agenda.
Pam who ever said women have to marry men they don’t like? The whole point all along was to marry a man you do like. You must be talking about a time when women had a difficult time securing economic independence on their own and in this case women have been working for quite a long time so the truth is they certainly could. However, society was structured around the family but more pertinent, male production. Although it was rare, women did not have to marry anyone. However, marriage was the better deal.
It is a lot easier to have bastard children now though. Isn’t that what women wanted? Don’t the unequal divorce laws women have passed provide you with that option not only to have bastard children but do so without marrying at all? However, under matriarchal law it is better to marry, have children then divorce as he is now required to keep you “independent”.
You’ve got all the choices with no liability or reciprocal obligation now, not even to share parenting. You have shifted everything upon the shoulders of men to enable those choices…..happy yet?
However, I’ve been looking into it and despite women’s bitter rejection of fatherhood many states are moving toward joint physical custody:
http://www.jacksonvillefamilylawattorneys.com/2011/02/more-states-presume-joint-physical-custody-is-best.shtml
However, this does not stop women from using DV laws to attempt to gain full custody through false allegations. As feminists have seen joint custody legislation approaching they focused heavily on their wild card…DV allegations. The goal is to remove due process of law and place the burden of guilt upon the accused who must prove themselves innocent. Feminists have been instrumental in this. However, I am hoping we can fight them and stop the progression.
Men will fight to the death in order to be fathers to our children. I think the motivation is high on both sides. Women will continue to fight men and in many cases are winning. Men must push at both aspects if we are going to win the right to have children and be a father.
I can’t speak for Pam, but I’m pretty happy. And for the love of all retrograde empires, I cannot figure out what on earth you’re complaining about.
If you’re right -and for the sake of argument I’m going to go along with your predictions- then what, again, is the problem? Don’t get married or have children and encourage men who agree with you to do the same. Couldn’t be simpler. And it will all shake it out in the end. Already joint custody has become the defacto decision in more and more states when custody disputes occur. I’ve seen women on those dead beat parent lists that some jurisdictions publish. What difference could it possibly make to you that unmarried people have children. Don’t be one of them.
In fact one good way to ensure that you won’t accidentally aid conception without placing undue burden upon yourself in regards to contraception is to limit sexual relationships to post menopausal women. That’s what I’d do if I were a man.
HTML fail. Sorry.
Oh see you have it wrong, this is about equality under law and policy. Inequality under law and policy precludes men from having equal relationships with women.
Do you agree with presumed joint custody of children? If so are you willing to cast a vote toward equality and sign the shared parenting petition. Go to ACFC.org and make your feminist voices heard.
Two things, because I’m on my way to a party. (As an aside, you might consider undertaking some analog socializing yourself young man.) I’ll be happy to take a look at the petition and if I agree with it, sign it. I believe that a presumption of joint custody, in those situations where parents/partners ask the courts to intervene, is in many cases in the best interests of the child. I’ve known lots of couples, those dissolving marriages and those who’d never been married, who have managed to work this out without involving the legal system. Still, I certainly understand that this is not always a possibility.
The only time I don’t agree with joint custody is when one parent, mother or father, can be proven to be abusive. Which is, admittedly, tricky. Abusive parenting is not restricted to either gender and people have made false allegations in attempt to obtain sole custody. We need more social workers and a better system for investigating allegations. But we need a lot of things.
As for what I have wrong, I’ll have to wait until I’m looking at this thread again for any clarification you can provide. I’m currently having a relationship with a man who I’m pretty certain will be my husband. And the law is not involved in anyway. Again, your inability to do the same sounds like a personal problem.
Men will fight to the death in order to be fathers to our children.
What do you mean OUR children? You don’t have children. Do not presume to speak for men who do.