So our excitable old friend MarkyMark (not the actor-singer) just put up a not-very-original rant of the “women are worse than Hitler because of abortion” variety. More interesting than his post — which is frankly not very interesting — is this comment from an anonymous fellow that takes misogynistic self-righteousness to a whole new (low) level:
This is one of the reasons that I use women for my convenience. They can kill with impunity – nothing I do to them comes close to that level of evil. So they are for my pleasure, then I ditch them although I do come back sometimes. (They aren’t very bright which is what makes it workable.)
Yep: He’s not just a self-righteous prick; he’s self-righteous about being a prick.
I can only hope his own “evil” is mostly of the “slept with a woman and didn’t call her back” sort — or is just imaginary internet boasting —Â because his “logic” could pretty much justify anything short of violent murder.
Suz: don’t you have a son to pimp instead of coming here and whining about David not writing what you want how you want it?
their supposed inability to bond ’cause penis
Stupid penises and their molecular-bond-destroying sperms!
Well, her buddy driversuz mentioned “logic”, so I’m wondering if judgybitch is attempting some sort of exercise at high-falutin’ Platonic reasoning. Like — why not kill “real babies” that can’t survive outside the mother’s body if we don’t forcibly retrieve people’s kidneys anyway? Which is logical, alright, but proves the opposite of what was intended.
driversuz, you hate women. We get it, you don’t need to repeat yourself.
Aha, driversuz is attempting to use reverse psychology against us. Very clever. If she can only convince David that his mockery is actually GOOD for the MRM, perhaps he will suddenly start doing the opposite of mocking. Now, where have I seen that technique used effectively before?
I know, I’d love to see the biology “textbook” that this comes from. Like, what is the neuropathway for making a woman incapable of bonding as a result of having had sexual experience? Is there some scientific literature that demonstrates that chemicals generated in the brain as a result of orgasms cause structural changes that prevent bonding? Wouldn’t that mean that masturbation would have the same effect? What, can’t sleep with anyone and can’t touch yourself, either? Or is the “logic” here that sperm somehow travels to the brain and wreaks havoc on the love center?
Amused, I think the “logic” is that there’s only but so much oxytocin to go around, so the more you slut it up, the less you have when you finally snag that poor beta husband. Then you leave him because hypergamy.
But doesn’t your body produce a ton of oxytocin when you have a baby? I think I see a flaw in this don’t have sex or babies thing.
Oxytocin, much like Elvis, is everywhere. Men have it too.
People care. It’s an emotional argument and its purpose is to confuse our feelings for cute widdle babies with incompletely formed, unconscious fetuses. “It’s not a baby” undercuts that and makes room for better arguments. Of course I agree with you, and so does just about everyone else here—even if they’re interpreting your argument as being to the contrary, given your other odious opinions—but that’s not the point.
I don’t know why MRAs whine about love anyway. They seem incapable of giving it and sure as hell don’t want it from women.
/hobbyhorse
JudgyB annoys the crap out of me, too, but her last post was actually right on the money. The double standard applied to pregnant women (NOT “mothers,” please! not every woman whose pregnancy test comes back positive can be/wishes to be identified as a “mother,” and surely you can see what the presumption of “motherhood,” immediately after a positive pregnancy test, implies), as opposed to absolutely every single other human who might ever be in the situation of being asked to give up his/her kidney, or blood, or any other bodily substance, to save the life of someone else is explicitly and clearly unequal and unjust.
JudgyB also puts her judgy little finger on another element that I think really is important, and that drives MRM types, Catholic authoritarians and most Xtian male supremacists insane: namely, YES, the determination as to whether a particular pregnancy – be it blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus – is a horrible parasite to be expelled with a huge sigh of relief, OR a beloved, longed-for and eagerly-anticipated baby is Entirely!! Up. To. One. Woman. And Nobody Else, Not Even Anyone Male, and Worse, Not Even Anyone Male and In Authority.
Only problem I have with JudgyB’s comments is, she seems to think there is something Bad about this. I don’t, and I challenge anyone who claims “libertarian” beliefs to explain to me why a specific, particular pregnant woman should not have the right to decide whether she’s (a) horribly infested with a revolting parasite that she wants to expel immediately, lest she be forced to gestate it at a huge cost to her body, mind, soul and life, or (b) eagerly awaiting a longed-for baby whose body she is overjoyed to create/develop/give birth to, no matter what it might cost her physically.
I don’t want to go all shrinky here, but I must say that I think a hefty portion of the right-wing “anti-abortion” – but also anti-condom, anti birth control, anti sex-ed, etc. – coalition is really ALL about their existential fear that, if their own mom had had a choice (i.e., a life of her own that wasn’t all about sacrificing for The Children), they might never have been born.
Crikey.
While JB is right that the bodily integrity argument makes the level of development in the fetus irrelevant, she’s wrong about the words “baby” and “fetus” meaning the same thing (as everyone else can see). It’s wrong if we are talking semantics, and it’s wrong in practice too since it is beyond dispute that anti-choicers use the word “baby” to emotionally blackmail vulnerable pregnant women into bearing the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy.
Even if the development of the fetus was relevant, late term abortions are incredibly rare, and most abortions take place within the first 20 or so weeks – and when I studied human embryology at university I was amazed at the difference, developmentally, between 20 weeks and a newborn – I would be telling a lie if I said I considered a 20 week old fetus to be a baby.
BigKitty: that existential angst of the anti crowd’s is more than a little silly, because if you’re not here, you’re not going to care.
I don’t start thinking of a fetus as a baby until it starts looking like a baby. It’s not a semantics thing, it’s that the first time I saw a picture of an early-stage fetus my first thought was “that looks like a seahorse”.
According to the CDC November 2002 report (sorry, no link on hand, but I’ll try to find it if anyone is interested), 50% of all abortions take place in the first 8 weeks, 88% in the first 12 weeks, and 98.6% in the first half of the pregnancy. Late-term abortions are EXTREMELY rare and undertaken only in the event of serious problems that threaten the mother.
Forgot to add: less than 0.02% of all abortions are performed in the third trimester.
Oh hell, I’m agreeing with judgybitch. Sorta.
Abortion needs to remain legal because each individual has an absolute right to control hir own body, and even if another person’s life is at stake, the state has no authority to subvert that right. Forcing a woman to stay pregnant against her will – or forcing a woman to have an abortion when she does not want one – is wrong for the same reason forcing someone to donate a kidney would be.
However. There is a difference between fetus and baby. Because, as everyone has said, words mean things. The medical definitions need to be used. It’s not a baby until it is breathing on its own and outside of a human body. And the main tactic of the forced birther camp is to ignore that reality.
“whining about David not writing what you want how you want it?”
Don’t be silly. I love what Boobzie writes! I despise feminism and he (with a lot of help from you Boolets) showcases the stupid desperation of feminists. This site does as much to discredit feminists as a number of men’s sites!
OK, suz, I’ll bite. Why the feminism hate?
I’m not sure how a site devoted to mocking misogyny shows the desperation of feminists, but you lot do live in your own realities.
Something Gloria S. said:
“And of course, allowing women the power to decide when and whether to have children is the only way to solve the 7 billion human load on this planet that threatens to destroy it. Women’s equality is also men’s survival.”
And no, I’m not saying people who have children are destroying the environment. Just that maybe every woman on the planet doesn’t have to have eight to 12 kids — or any kids at all. And when they don’t, it can be a good thing.
David, have you ever banned a troll for just being boring? If so, keep driversuz in mind.
I mean, seriously — Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Did someone mention elephants? They follow a matriarchal society. See: http://www.andrews-elephants.com/social-order.html.
*Chuckling* Driversuz, I can tell you’re desperate to be taken seriously…or something, because of your abuse of exclamation points. Stop shouting, knucklehead. And if you do, try to be interesting at least.
David? Seriously, that thing I said about boring trolls…
Yeah, if there was a Boring Troll of the Year category, driversuz would be right up there in the running, especially now wossname Nature doesn’t bother posting those obscure bits of nonsense.
Nature guy was at least funny in his randomness – he was the magic 8-ball of misogynist comments. Driversuz is just boring.