Categories
a voice for men a woman is always to blame antifeminism men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA paul elam the spearhead whaaaaa?

The Spearhead: Paul Elam's dickishness is the fault of feminism

This picture makes more sense than WF Price's argument
This picture makes more sense than WF Price’s argument

So this is an … interesting reaction to that Buzzfeed piece about Paul Elam. And by “interesting” I mean “WTF?”

Over on The Spearhead — remember The Spearhead, home to some of the crankiest misogynists on the Internet? — our old friend WF Price offers a rather unique analysis of Elam’s life story.

Price admits right off the bat that Elam is indeed as much of an “asshole” as the Buzzfeed article makes him out to be, snarkily commenting that this fact “isn’t exactly news to anyone who has dealt with him personally, or read his articles.” And then he goes on to blame Elam’s assholery on feminism.

Wat.

Well, as Price sees it, Elam hasn’t exactly suffered for being an asshole. The fact that he basically got away with abandoning his daughter proves

that telling your wife and kids to screw off when your marriage goes bad is a better strategy if you’re concerned about yourself than trying to be a niceguy. What could be a more damning indictment of feminism than that?

Um, do you really want an answer to that?

Meanwhile, Price argues, the fact that Elam has had three failed marriages shows that ladies just love assholes. No, really. According to Price, Elam’s life story

proves that being an asshole doesn’t torpedo one’s prospects with women. Quite the opposite, in fact: Paul’s many walks down the aisle are testament to the fact that there’s something about the guy that contemporary women find appealing. Elam’s a major hit with women to this day.

Checkmate, feminism!

Price then works me into the  equation, for some reason.

And I don’t write this out of envy; on the contrary, I think his popularity with women has probably been his biggest problem in life (Futrelle wouldn’t understand).

Price concludes with this, er, zinger:

So if feminists were to say to me that Paul Elam proves that MRAs are terrible people, I’d respond by saying “he’s the product of your philosophy, not mine.”

It will take someone more versed in formal logic to explain exactly what logical fallacies Price is committing here, or if he’s somehow come up with a new logical fallacy all his own.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

260 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
6 years ago

@WWTH

Just had a quick Google of that Buchanan chap. Notice from his website hes associating himself with the AVFM and MGTOW lot (I know it’s inappropriate but I am soooooo patting myself on the back right now for learning all the terminology).

Funnily enough though, despite his page being the most read and influential one in the universe (might be paraphrasing a bit there, but not much) I’ve never heard of him

@ sunnysombrera

It appears he’s one of our own, so I’m afraid we wouldn’t be able to deport him. Maybe we can get him his own TV show in the States though; that’s how we got shut of Piers Morgan

Argenti Aertheri
6 years ago

“…identity politics…sexual identity politics…”

Hey Price? Those words don’t mean what you think they mean. And yeah, no shit sherlock, not being involved with kids is harder than being involved with kids — they’re messay snot covered tantrums… in an adorable little package that decent people love even if they haven’t a damned clue what that sticky stuff is.

Kids, they be sticky. They will pee on you. And puke. And probably poop too. They require dealing with jerks, and doctor visits, and an infinite amount of messes. But at the end of the day? That sticky messy kid is adorable. Exhausting, and frequently annoying, but adorable.

sparky
sparky
6 years ago

Alan: Oh no, don’t try to pawn Mike Buchanan off on us! We already have enough reality-challenged reactionary types in the USA already!

Perhaps you could convince him to move to some deserted island somewhere? You could even make a show out of it, the new Survivor>/em> or something. We could send Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter to keep him company.

Tasha Batsford
6 years ago

Best description of children EVER

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
6 years ago

@ WWTH
@ Sparky

Cheers for the link WWTH. Must confess I was a little disappointed. I was hoping he might at least bring a little Brit perspective into his stuff but he’s just regurgitating the bog standard MRA crap. Even down to the snideiness. The thread did have a raccoon eating some grapes though; so on balance I enjoyed it.

The thing is though, that despite his claims to be part of a major movement I’d never heard of him until now. Admittedly I’ve only been following gender politics for a short time, but I do have a bit of an interest in politics generally and he’s not crossed my radar.

wordsp1nner
wordsp1nner
6 years ago

MRAs really don’t think men should have to do any work, do they?

Newsflash: children are a shit-ton of work. Just because culture says that women do the lion’s share, especially when the parents are together, doesn’t mean you get to foist it all off on your wife. Especially if you aren’t together any more.

And then complain that you are alienated from your children.

ceebarks
ceebarks
6 years ago

“I wanted to be a decent parent, but it turns out, it’s really goddamned expensive and inconvenient!”

Really, though, it probably is easier to juggle the work/parent thing when one has a subordinate who follows you from place to place, cares for the kids whenever you need, and basically adapts her life around yours in order to preserve the family peace. I mean, that does sound pretty nice, now that I think about it.

Anything short of that isn’t actually misandry, though.

sunnysombrera
6 years ago

Oh for fucks sake what planet is this man living on.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11395576/Men-are-now-objectified-more-than-women.html

He demonstrably shows that he doesn’t know what sexual objectification is. And to try and prove that the male version is “everywhere” he examples 50 Shades, Magic Mike, David Gundy and David Beckham underwear ads. That’s it. That’s all he’s got. And 50 Shades barely fucking counts.

His argument that “we men are also objectified in porn but you don’t hear us complaining!” is just…I need a desk to bang my head on.

But why should I be surprised. The Telegraph is the newspaper embodiment of an old white man shouting at his television. (The Daily Fail is an old white man shouting at everyone who passes his house, especially if they’re immigrants).

Tracy
Tracy
6 years ago

That said, I’m done with sexual identity politics.

*weeps into her lace hanky* We will surely miss your insights, such as ‘parents who bugger off and have nothing to do with raising their kids have it much easier than parents who parent, if you consider it from an uncaring selfish standpoint harumph harumph blaggary bloo Atlas Shrugged them kiddos right outta his hair WOOT’.

@Alan Robertshaw Mike Buchanan used to stain the comment threads over at Ally Fogg’s blog as well, if you’re interested… though I haven’t been there in awhile, the comment threads could get pretty ugh. He thinks of himself… very highly. And often.

Tracy
Tracy
6 years ago

Nooooooo HTML gremlin WHYYYYY

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
6 years ago

“Mike Buchanan used to stain the comment threads over at Ally Fogg’s blog as well, if you’re interested”

Will there be raccoons eating grapes? If not might give it a miss.

Think I get what he’s about. I originally viewed the MRA types as a bit of a joke. On initially hearing about Gamergate for instance, I thought it might be just some variation on “Girls can’t understand the importance of the Kirk/Picard debate; and they give you cooties”.

But there’s just too much hate there for it to be amusing.

Bill Price
6 years ago

It seems you’re arguing a bit of a tautology here. Yes, dedicated parents put more effort and resources into their children than absentee parents. That’s…kind of the definition of a dedicated parent. I don’t feel that some deadbeat mom is beating me at the game of life because she’s got more time to herself (although admittedly that would be nice).

Yes, dedicated parents do indeed put more effort into kids. And I know from experience that the amount of work that goes into caring for small children is a significantly more onerous burden in terms of time and effort than a typical job (it always struck me as disingenuous when guys would say childcare is not real work — this could only come from someone who has never done it). However, you’d think that this being the case, courts would encourage men to take on more of that responsibility, and offer them some relief for doing so. But in fact it’s the opposite. Fathers are discouraged not only by the natural difficulties imposed on them by parenthood, but by added artificial ones imposed by courts.

Are you saying your ex-wife didn’t have to make alterations in her life to accommodate the custody arrangement, or follow schedules, or deal with you being unpleasant?

Not nearly as many as I did in the beginning, but as time went on she did have to make some concessions, although the balance remains in her favor (in Washington state custodial parents have an enormous advantage). As for dealing with me being unpleasant, sure, some, but mostly she used other people to deal with me, such as her parents, her lawyer and her paramour, when I was most upset.

Yes, it’s annoying that lazy-ass deadbeats like Elam can waltz into their adult children’s lives demanding love and attention (and, inevitably, money) they never lifted a finger to earn. But it’s not true, as you suggest, that a parent who blows the kids off will find it easy to get custody later if they change their mind. Elam didn’t get access to his daughter until she was an adult and chose to have him in her life. And you see how well that worked out.

I don’t think Paul sought his daughter out. As is typically the case, she found him because children often feel a need to know their origin. And I honestly don’t think Paul asked for anything, but I don’t know the specifics. It isn’t that he was using her so much as that he felt justified in cutting her out of his life. His support for “paper abortions” makes sense in light of this story. Personally, I couldn’t do that, but that’s because I grew up without really knowing my father for the first fourteen or so years of my life, and that was always a source of shame and sadness that I felt lowered my status among my peers. Actually, I was right about that. It does have that effect, despite incessant denials from the usual selfish suspects, and it’s an entirely natural phenomenon.

I guess I should feel like a failure in romance compared to Elam, since I only have the one marriage. Oddly, I don’t. Nor am I surprised that the figurehead of the Men’s Rights Movement turns out to be that relative we all dread getting a call from, the one who always has a sob story and is always working an angle and is a lovely person for exactly as long as it takes to get what they want.

Why do people here assume I or other guys who oppose feminism think having tons of girlfriends is awesome? Maybe it’s projection — I don’t know. All I can say is that I was very popular with women in “that way” as a youth and it brought me nothing but trouble. Today I look back on it with a lot of regret and shame. Is it better to love or to get laid? What if you got laid, but what you were really looking for was love? Nowadays, I try not to remember all the faces, because at my age it’s depressing to think of what I lost by simply getting off. I certainly would rather my kids don’t waste their youth that way.

No, the relative with a sob story isn’t Paul. Paul’s the guy who is humble in humble circumstances, and prideful when he has the upper hand. He’s a typical American radical individualist and fits right into his profoundly selfish generation — and that includes the women.

sparky
sparky
6 years ago

Why do people here assume I or other guys who oppose feminism think having tons of girlfriends is awesome?

Because you said this:

proves that being an asshole doesn’t torpedo one’s prospects with women. Quite the opposite, in fact: Paul’s many walks down the aisle are testament to the fact that there’s something about the guy that contemporary women find appealing. Elam’s a major hit with women to this day.

And this:

And I don’t write this out of envy; on the contrary, I think his popularity with women has probably been his biggest problem in life (Futrelle wouldn’t understand).

weirwoodtreehugger
6 years ago

Paul Elam is humble?

Humble?

What?

He’s about as humble as Kanye West.

sunnysombrera
6 years ago

No, the relative with a sob story isn’t Paul. Paul’s the guy who is humble in humble circumstances

Are you fucking kidding me? You’re saying this about a man who has blamed women or feminism for his woes EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. He calls for the doxxing and harassing of women who even slightly cross him by criticising the movement or simply looking like they did. He silently deletes posts that contain blatant lies as soon as he is rumbled. His response to the BuzzFeed article – which talked not just about his past but his financial activities and even some of his past actions – was to say “my ex wife was a lying drug user who cheated on me”. That’s it. He didn’t even address anything else.

sunnysombrera
6 years ago

Sorry, correction: he did address a couple of other points but very briefly and basically dismissed them as an attempt to slander him.

Tracy
Tracy
6 years ago

I grew up without really knowing my father for the first fourteen or so years of my life, and that was always a source of shame and sadness that I felt lowered my status among my peers. Actually, I was right about that. It does have that effect, despite incessant denials from the usual selfish suspects, and it’s an entirely natural phenomenon.

Maybe in your corner of the world… certainly wasn’t any sort of mark of shame in mine when I was younger. Certainly wasn’t uncommon either. Still isn’t. I’d say it’s not at all a natural phenomenon, but rather a product of the social mores/values etc that surrounded you at the time. Why assume the entire world experiences the same thing you did/felt? “I experiences this, therefore it is how things are” is, at best, inaccurate.

However, you’d think that this being the case, courts would encourage men to take on more of that responsibility, and offer them some relief for doing so. But in fact it’s the opposite. Fathers are discouraged not only by the natural difficulties imposed on them by parenthood, but by added artificial ones imposed by courts.

I am tempted to ask you how you go from there to fingering feminism as the core problem (and also to ask what natural difficulties are imposed on men by parenthood), but I suspect your answer would make my head hurt. If you do answer, would you be so kind as to accompany your response with a cute cat pic?* I fear it’s the only way I’ll cope.

* I will also accept a baby orangutan pic. That goes for all of you.

wordsp1nner
wordsp1nner
6 years ago

WWTH, that isn’t fair. Kanye is actually talented and successful.

wordsp1nner
wordsp1nner
6 years ago

Also, he usually has a point. Beyonce is the queen, after all.

theomegaconstant
6 years ago

Paul Elam doesn’t care about black people! (Or women.)

*Awkward cut to Mike Myers.*

Bill Price
6 years ago

@weirwoodtreehugger & sunnysombrera

You guys are missing my point. He’s humble when it serves his interests, and prideful when he can be. This is what I, personally, find distasteful about him (on top of that rejecting the kids thing), since it contravenes my sense of virtue, but I understand that you have other issues with him.

M.
M.
6 years ago

That said, I’m done with sexual identity politics.

Pretty sure “Sexual identity politics” pertains to LGBT+ rights, not feminism.

Tracy
Tracy
6 years ago

but I understand that you have other issues with him.

Yeah, the whole hating women thing kinda sticks in our craw.

suffrajitsu
suffrajitsu
6 years ago

@sunnysombrera: I know Gamergate is old news but this was just too good not to mention: http://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/2v2kv6/gamergate_tries_to_prove_women_are_less/

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
6 years ago

Being an asshole and blowing your kids off is a guy’s best option from a purely individualist standpoint during divorce. It gives him more leverage in the future should he choose to change his mind, he has all his time to himself, and in many cases he can use it as a ploy to lower and even eliminate child support, especially if the woman decides to remarry and the new husband is pressured to adopt the kids.

No, it doesn’t give him more leverage in the future. A father who maintains a healthy relationship with his family through a divorce has a far better position for… whatever it is you’re talking about gaining leverage for. Being an asshole and blowing your kids off burns bridges and makes it so that the only possible reason they would want to rekindle some form of relationship for you is if their desire to know you is stronger than their repulsion at you for what you did.

“Use it as a ploy to lower and even eliminate child support.” Child support laws don’t have a legal exception for assholes, as far as I know. IANAL, but I’m pretty sure. No, what you’re talking about here is being so abrasive and difficult to deal with that the woman decides to settle simply out of frustration. Again, completely burning bridges.

As for “all his time to himself,” sure. But don’t you also believe fathers seek to rekindle relationships with their kids because they would feel unfulfilled otherwise? And anyway, that time is going to sour if you got it by being a huge asshole to everyone you care/cared about. If you have any shred of decency in you, anyways.

Being an asshole is only the best option if you fixate solely on time and monetary costs and ignore practically everything else that makes relationships important.

sunnysombrera
6 years ago

@Bill

Ah I see. Sorry for the misunderstanding. And I admit I did read “isn’t” as “is”. (It’s the early hours in my timezone and I’m still wide awake :/ )

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
6 years ago

However, you’d think that this being the case, courts would encourage men to take on more of that responsibility, and offer them some relief for doing so. But in fact it’s the opposite. Fathers are discouraged not only by the natural difficulties imposed on them by parenthood, but by added artificial ones imposed by courts.

The role of divorce court is to oversee the division of resources as appropriate for the details of the marriage, and settle issues like custody. Why in the world do you think they would be in a position to, let alone be inclined to, provide incentives to get the father to contribute more to child-rearing? If there is no divorce, the divorce court is not involved. If there is, and there are custody issues, their purpose is to reach a fair and responsible arrangement, not to try to goad one side or the other into taking a certain role.

“Natural difficulties:” If you’re referring to the basics of child-rearing, mothers face them to. Usually mothers face them more often even in marriage, though thankfully that’s starting to turn around.

“Artificial difficulties:” Like what, exactly? Did you know that courts tend to award custody to the primary care-giver if custody is contested? I believe the split between sole custody to the father or to the mother is relatively even (in contested cases), but the most common result is joint custody.

But let’s ignore joint custody; if a father is more involved in the care of his children, that’s a stronger case before the court to grant him custody. Historically custody has favored the mother because the mother was, or was assumed to be, the most involved parent. How is that a difficulty that discourages fathers to be fathers? If anything, it’s an incentive (if you’re planning on divorcing and asking for sole custody, anyway).

Serious question time. How do you actually think divorce court works? No platitudes, no talking points, just step-by-step how the courts act to discourage men from being involved with their children?

wordsp1nner
wordsp1nner
6 years ago

O/T, but I have a new movie to watch:

http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/02/second-wave-feminists-documentary-shes-beautiful-when-shes-angry

I saw some news broadcasts from the sixties, a bunch of men talking about Helen Gurley Brown and the women’s movement… It was incredibly surreal. They were fascinated by the fact that Brown used a telephone. For work.

There were six college-age women and a fifty, sixty-something female professor, and we all turned to her and asked if they were joking. Because they had to be joking. Nobody could be that… obtuse and dismissive.

She assured us that no, it was real.

So as much as it feels like we aren’t making progress, I guess that little moment of culture shock showed us what we have to be thankful for.

suffrajitsu
suffrajitsu
6 years ago

“He’s humble when it serves his interests”

That’s not how humility works.

suffrajitsu
suffrajitsu
6 years ago

I saw that documentary’s campaign on Kickstarter! Also this, but I don’t know when this is coming out:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/889543128/equal-means-equal

sunnysombrera
6 years ago

@suffrajitsu Lol! Oh Gamergate, what are you like.

The Telegraph dude completely missed what objectification actually is by trying to use Magic Mike and 50 Shades as examples. They hardly count when the characters of Magic Mike are actually fleshed out as people and not just as strippers. Likewise, in 50 Shades Grey is fleshed out AND himself a manipulative controller who reduces Ana to a sex object – even though the characters in the book are mind-numbingly awful and two dimensional, how the hell can you reference one main character who objectifies the other main character as the one being objectified?

suffrajitsu
suffrajitsu
6 years ago

Gamergate’s an easy target, but in all seriousness, one of the early MRA talking points (Warren Farrell, I believe) was that men were objectified just as much as women, but as “success objects”. There’s a lot to critique in how our culture values material success, but 1) that’s not objectification, and 2) even if it were, it’s way preferable to being a “sex object”.

Sexualization =/= objectification. Women tend to be both sexualized and objectified but something can be sexualized without being objectified. But even if you were arguing men were sexualized as much as women that’d still be bunk. Studies have shown that 30% of female characters in movies are sexualized or dressed in sexy clothing–that’s nearly 1/3. I’m very, very certain that 30% of all male characters in film are not sexualized.

Bill Price
6 years ago

No, it doesn’t give him more leverage in the future. A father who maintains a healthy relationship with his family through a divorce has a far better position for… whatever it is you’re talking about gaining leverage for. Being an asshole and blowing your kids off burns bridges and makes it so that the only possible reason they would want to rekindle some form of relationship for you is if their desire to know you is stronger than their repulsion at you for what you did.

You aren’t taking “externalities” into account. Family courts will follow the letter of the law when it comes to visitation. The father, whether or not he’s blown off the kids in the past, has a right to some minimum visitation unless he’s been adjudicated dangerous to the kids. And this minimum visitation is pretty close to what most guys who fight like hell for their kids will get — on the order of 25-35%.

So if you just said “screw it” and took five years off when the kids were small and difficult, you can go back to court at a later date and get pretty much the same as you would have if you’d been taking care of them the entire time. And add to that the fact that a lot of mothers, especially if they are still single, would actually like the time off (who could blame them?).

So no, relinquishing your responsibilities for some time makes no real difference in the eyes of the law. As it stands now, I can simply tell my ex two days beforehand that I don’t have time and skip a weekend with the kids, and that’s my “right.” I’ve only done that twice in seven years, and one of those times was the weekend my father died and I had to take care of that, but if I’d done it dozens of times I’d still have every right to see my kids at my convenience.

The family court allows men an enormous amount of latitude as far as neglect is concerned, but not where cash money comes into play, and that’s exactly how feminists wanted it all along.

So if you tell your ex “screw you — you deal with the kids now and I’ll do no more than the minimum,” she’ll often make concessions later to get some help in raising the kids. It DOES pay to be an asshole. Of course, it hurts the kids, but hey, we adults have the right to “self-actualize” and all that.

“Use it as a ploy to lower and even eliminate child support.” Child support laws don’t have a legal exception for assholes, as far as I know. IANAL, but I’m pretty sure. No, what you’re talking about here is being so abrasive and difficult to deal with that the woman decides to settle simply out of frustration. Again, completely burning bridges.

See above. If you drive a hard bargain on other forms of assistance women will bend on the CS front.

As for “all his time to himself,” sure. But don’t you also believe fathers seek to rekindle relationships with their kids because they would feel unfulfilled otherwise? And anyway, that time is going to sour if you got it by being a huge asshole to everyone you care/cared about. If you have any shred of decency in you, anyways.

Yeah, I agree. Decent people find relationships with their kids fulfilling and purposeful. People who reject that are assholes. But who’s the bigger asshole: the guy who rejects it because he’s a selfish prick or the attorney or feminist who taxes people for being decent human beings? In my mind, the latter is the asshole to beat all assholes. Gloria Allred is the queen of assholes, and beats Paul Elam hands down.

Being an asshole is only the best option if you fixate solely on time and monetary costs and ignore practically everything else that makes relationships important.

You mean like how feminists do every single time?

Actually, I don’t want to antagonize people here at this point, but rather invite them to look at the bigger picture. I have a little baby right now (well, actually, he’s kind of a hefty one), and it’s pretty clear that my life isn’t just about “me.” But that applies even to the childless to some extent. Seeing sex in terms of “my team” can be extremely counterproductive when applied to intimate and fragile communities such as the family, and yet we don’t even take this into consideration, and thereby end up trampling the weak and helpless to whom this is entirely irrelevant. In aggregate, we’d be better off without this sexual jockeying for power, although I understand that some professional political actors and lawyers might take a hit (for some reason that doesn’t bother me too much).

suffrajitsu
suffrajitsu
6 years ago

RE: Christian Grey: I haven’t read Fifty Shades of Grey but main characters are awkward examples of objectification. The only examples I can think of are something like Lolita, who was intentionally written as someone objectified/dehumanized by an unreliable narrator.

And doesn’t Christian Grey have a fully fleshed out tragic backstory, replete with Freudian excuses explaining his behavior? Cuz that’s literally the opposite of objectifying someone.

Eliot Rodger Was A Terrorist
Eliot Rodger Was A Terrorist
6 years ago

He didn’t commit a logical fallacy, he committed a logical phallusy.

suffrajitsu
suffrajitsu
6 years ago

A logical fal…fal…falsity.

wordsp1nner
wordsp1nner
6 years ago

Again with the “Social Justice Words are magic spells” crap.

Objectification is literally treating a person like they are on object, like they have no internal subjectivity and are easily replaced by any other object. That is… not how male characters are usually presented in fiction.

Hell, even in advertising, they don’t objectify sexy men the way they objectify sexy women. Think of Old Spice Guy–he is one actor, with a character, who happens to be seriously hot. How many of the sexy women in advertisements can claim that?

isidore13
isidore13
6 years ago

And this minimum visitation is pretty close to what most guys who fight like hell for their kids will get — on the order of 25-35%.

Citation needed.

The family court allows men an enormous amount of latitude as far as neglect is concerned, but not where cash money comes into play, and that’s exactly how feminists wanted it all along.

(Emphasis mine) Citation needed.

But who’s the bigger asshole: the guy who rejects it because he’s a selfish prick or the attorney or feminist who taxes people for being decent human beings?

(Emphasis mine) Citation needed.

You mean like how feminists do every single time?

Citation needed.

wordsp1nner
wordsp1nner
6 years ago

All this “I’m perfectly willing to screw up my bond with my children in order not to pay a single cent more than absolutely necessary” is not really selling you as a good father.

ceebarks
ceebarks
6 years ago

The thing that drives me crazy with MRA notions of “family” and “equality” is that they’re either unbelievably two-faced or stupid. They don’t think there needs to be any consideration of childcare on a systemic level in this country: childcare is a private family matter and if it so happens that young couples can’t afford daycare and one parent stays home or cuts back work for a period of time (gee, how is that one parent so often the mother?) then that’s great. Childcare, after all, is a woman’s issue and thus trivial.

(Meanwhile, that freeloading bitch should be super grateful he’s providing for her and kiss his ass all the time, because, really, she’s basically useless deadweight.)

OTOH, when they get divorced, it’s super, SUPER unfair when courts look at the overall family situation and go, “hm, well, if it ain’t that broke, don’t fix it” and leave the kids with the parents who’s mostly been looking after them all along, and expect the parent who’s mostly been paying the bills to keep it up.

You’d think the MRA boys would have sorta put two and two together ’til now and started talking about being really, truly 50/50 on the childcare and work for both parents so that for the marriages that do “fall apart” without clear fault, the courts can go, “Well, it’s not that broke, so let’s not fix it” and make things completely 50/50 like the MRA boys claim to want (when divorced, anyway. I see no evidence they give two shits about equality when they have a serv– I mean wife, to dump on.)

Truly 50/50 coparenting arrangements would involve change on a societal level: workplaces would need to be more flexible, governments will probably need to subsidize daycare, etc. But it would be great in terms of equality. Really feminist.

Most women who drop out of the workforce to SAH aren’t doing it because it’s their dream to stay home with kids for years on end while careers dry up and (some) husbands learn to take them quite for granted.

weirwoodtreehugger
6 years ago

That reminds me, it’s my turn to draft the daily feminist tax on decent people bill. I’d better hop to it or the CIA won’t give me my paycheck. Being a feminist is hard. I don’t think I’ll even have time to spermjack tonight.

isidore13
isidore13
6 years ago

The thing that annoys me most about misogynists in general is that you cannot pin them down about how they view the role of women in their ideal society. They can’t even coherently state the role they think women *should* have in a way that is reasonably achievable. Sorry, that’s sort of random, but it does drive me fucking crazy.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
6 years ago

It’s perhaps worth noting that the relevant family laws are of course entirely gender neutral; they apply equally to men and women. Now of course MRA types will say that, notwithstanding that, they get a worse deal under the law because of its applicability in the real world.

But they don’t accept this argument when it applies to women generally. Then it’s all: “Women have the same rights as men”.

wordsp1nner
wordsp1nner
6 years ago

@isidore13,

Yeah, the MRAs are particularly bad at that. At least the traditionalists have a plan for women–granted, one where women give up most of their rights in exchange for benefits that they may not even receive and a heaping helping of second-tier status. But you know, it is something to do.

MRAs… they don’t even offer the fake give and take traditionalists do. It is all women give, men take.

Argenti Aertheri
6 years ago

“Pretty sure “Sexual identity politics” pertains to LGBT+ rights, not feminism.”

Those words you are using, you know what they mean 🙂

“And doesn’t Christian Grey have a fully fleshed out tragic backstory, replete with Freudian excuses explaining his behavior? Cuz that’s literally the opposite of objectifying someone.”

Well, I only survived one chapter, and read same snarking of the first ten or so, but yeah, that there be true.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
6 years ago

@WWTH

You really should be getting some rest prior to your interview, so for tonight I’ll cover for you and oppress myself.

If you need me I’ll be hiding in the corner in case feminists throw rocks at me. I know how you like to incite each other to do that.

mildlymagnificent
6 years ago

Kids, they be sticky. They will pee on you. And puke. And probably poop too. They require dealing with jerks, and doctor visits, and an infinite amount of messes. But at the end of the day? That sticky messy kid is adorable. Exhausting, and frequently annoying, but adorable.

QFT

Once you’ve added in the prime objective of most jurisdictions dealing with custody, domicile, child support matters — that they consider first and foremost, primarily if not entirely, the welfare of the child — it will follow that a couple who’ve allocated to the mother the majority of caring and organising tasks for child(ren) during their lives before separation will find the courts generally in favour of continuing that arrangement. Courts know that separation of parents disrupts children’s lives so they try to “rescue” as much stability and continuity as possible for the future.

Fathers (and quite a few mothers) who’ve delegated/ ignored or neglected/ rejected the down and dirty tasks of child raising can be at a disadvantage in these proceedings. But that disadvantage is (usually) largely of their own making.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
6 years ago

blockquote>
You aren’t taking “externalities” into account.

— snip —

And add to that the fact that a lot of mothers, especially if they are still single, would actually like the time off (who could blame them?).

Are you talking about just straight-up disappearing one day, then being hauled back to court 5 years later and asking for visitation rights? I was talking about a guy’s behavior during divorce proceedings when there is a custody battle, so already you’ve jumped to something different.

If I’m right about what you’re talking about, though, apparently courts can limit visitation if the non-custodial parent has been absent for a long period of time or otherwise failed to form a relationship with the child/ren. So if you just said “screw it” and popped off for 5 years, that’d be an excellent reason to not grant visitation.

It all depends on the circumstance though. Perhaps if you came back sorry you left, and wanted to do the work to form a relationship, both the court and your spouse might be more ammenable to joint custody/visitation. If you are an asshole, that could only serve to turn the court against you.

So no, relinquishing your responsibilities for some time makes no real difference in the eyes of the law. As it stands now, I can simply tell my ex two days beforehand that I don’t have time and skip a weekend with the kids, and that’s my “right.”

If you do this often enough, and your ex wants to address it in court, your truency could be fodder for reducing your visitation rights. It doesn’t exactly show that you are doing what you can for the child’s welfare, which is the most important thing in custody disputes.

But who’s the bigger asshole: the guy who rejects it because he’s a selfish prick or the attorney or feminist who taxes people for being decent human beings?

You mean like how feminists do every single time?

What? And no.

“Feminist who taxes people for being decent human beings” means absolutely nothing to me. There’s a reason I asked you to avoid platitudes. What “tax?” What do you mean by “being decent human beings?” So far you’ve been arguing that being an asshole was the best way to avoid responsibilities while still retaining access to your abandoned kids. So far you’ve pretty much ignored how the law actually works.

As for feminists fixating soley on money and time, the hell? The only feminists that I’ve heard fixating on child support and the like is the straw feminists that MRAs concoct. Actual feminists (well, actual women) express frustration at the guys who vanish, avoid due child support that would help enormously in providing care for their children, then come back years later feeling entitled to the children they abandoned.

I would think that women with child custody would want, in rough order of desirability:

1. A father that stays around and helps raise the kids, like a normal couple.
2. A father that stays involved with the kids through the divorce, and is generally helpful.
3. A father that at least follows the court orders (which may or may not include child support payments) and at least avoids being an extra burden on top of single parenthood.
4. A father that stays gone and lets her raise the children in peace.

But that’s just for the particular case of mothers with custody. Feminists want what’s best for the children in any situation, which may mean the father gets custody (and wouldn’t get it if the court continues to be sexist in automatically granting the mother custody).

No no, the people who fixate on money and time costs at the expense of all else is the MRAs, the ones who are afraid of sperm-jacking and being roped into child support payments for ever and ever amen hail satan. Also, you, when you argue that being an asshole is best because you get visitation without needing to spend money or time raising the kids.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
6 years ago

Blockquote Mammoth, why!?!?

Shaenon
6 years ago

What’s that? Sometimes being a total asshole is easier than being a halfway decent human being? In that case, I guess I renounce feminism forever.

I guess it’s technically true. If you just abandon your kids after the divorce, you don’t have to work out custody arrangements. If you burn down your house, that’s the last time you’ll have to mow your lawn. And one way to deal with the hassle of sending Mother’s Day cards is to kill your parents.