Categories
antifeminism antifeminist women crackpottery evil single moms FemRAs FeMRAsplaining imaginary backwards land irony alert judgybitch misogyny MRA taking pleasure in women's pain

Janet "Judgy Bitch" Bloomfield: Make it a felony for a woman to give birth if the father doesn't want a child.

In Janet Bloomfield's world, this guy would be on the government payroll.
In Janet Bloomfield’s world, this guy would be on the government payroll.

Janet “Judgy Bitch” Bloomfield, A Voice for Men’s pseudonymous PR genius, is definitely an out-of-the-box thinker.

Unfortunately, she seems to be an out-of-the-box thinker in the same way that some cats are out-of-the-box poopers, leaving odorous and disgusting little “gifts” everywhere she goes.

Today I want to take a look at one of her recent gifts: her, well, ingenious attempt to answer the question “How do we make society care about men as much as they care about women?”

I’m going to ignore the fact that even the basic premise of this question is backwards. Because her solution is even more backwards, if it’s even possible to be more backwards than completely backwards.

So what is this solution? Make it a felony for a woman to give birth, if the father doesn’t want a child.

Er, what? I’ll let her explain, because I sure can’t:

I’ve written before about legal parental surrender and allowing men to walk away from children they have contributed genetic material to, just as women may do, but having given the issue more thought, I am convinced that will only lead to increased hatred of men, not less. For a law surrounding reproductive rights to create a society that genuinely cares about men, the law needs more bite. …

Here it comes:

No human child may be born without the on going and affirmative consent of the adults involved.

What? What on earth does this even mean?

Gender neutral and perfectly clear. To give birth to a child without the explicit consent of everyone who contributed genetic material should be a felony and the child should immediately be seized and placed for adoption by the state.

Really? Yes, really:

In the beginning, to be sure, we are going to end up seizing a lot of babies under equal reproductive rights, but it will not take long for reality to sink in: make this choice and you will suffer for it.

I’m pretty sure the kid will suffer, too, but that never seems to be an issue with most MRAs.

So does Bloomfield’s, er, ingenious solution mean that men who don’t want children will be able to force women they’ve impregnated into having abortions? Oh, don’t be silly. They can give birth to all the babies they want, assuming they don’t mind nine months of pregnancy and, oh yeah, having the government seize their babies after they’re born.

[N]o one will be forced into abortions they do not want. If a woman falls pregnant with a child the father does not consent to, she will not be forced to abort that child. She is free to follow her conscience and give birth to that child. She will not be allowed to keep it, but she may give birth to it. Marital status will make no difference. If you do not have the consent of the father, the infant will be seized.

Uh, JB, what about those felony charges? You just said that doing this would be a felony. Is it too much for me to ask that your crackpot solution at least be internally consistent?

Apparently so, since she forgets about the felony bit and moves on to some of the wonderful things she thinks will happen if her proposal were to become law.

The most immediate effect of a law like this is that a market for male reproductive services emerges. A 35-year-old woman that no man on the planet has consented to reproduce with has a choice: she can pay a man to consent to parenthood. His consent means that he is obliged to support the resulting child so his fee will be:

Child support + ongoing expenses over 18 years + premium for looks, intelligence, height, etc.

That could be a very sweet deal, and men will suddenly be rather valued by women who choose to forgo any efforts towards attracting men into a mutually beneficial pair-bond.

The always classy Bloomfield illustrates this last point with a picture of feminist writer Jessica Valenti, a woman whom Bloomfield seems just a teensy bit obsessed with. It’s an odd choice, given that Valenti is married and a mother.

Bloomfield goes on to endorse “the presumption of shared parenting” in the wake of a divorce. This is a bit of an old chestnut with the Men’s Rights crowd, but Bloomfield has some, well, original thoughts about the possible consequences of making this the law.

Wanna break up your relationship? Have at it. But you will not take the children with you.

Really? What if your ex has never shown any interest in raising these children? What if your ex is an abuser? Apparently, in Bloomfield’s world, all accusations of abuse directed at men are false accusations. She skips merrily past this issue and indulges in more fantasizing:

This also creates a market. Let’s say a woman whom no man has consented to have a child with desperately wants children. She will have to prove her worth to the man by parenting his existing children brilliantly. This is gender neutral, of course. A man who wishes to have more children will also have to parent a woman’s existing children very well to prove his worth.

Bloomfield’s repeated attempts to claim that her proposals are “gender neutral” are a bit odd, given that the whole point of both proposals is to punish women. I’m not reading between the lines here: she states it outright.

Women have gotten away with shit from time immemorial because we have the babies. No society can live without us. It is the sole source of our value and always will be.

Wait, what? The only reason women have value is because they can give birth? What about those women who can’t have children?

Actually, wait a minute: if women’s worth is determined solely by popping out babies at regular intervals, why am I even bothering to read a blog post by a woman – a blog post the author evidently thinks is worthless, because it’s not a baby?

A society in which all women are brilliant engineers and not one of them will have children is a dead society.

Huh? A society in which all men are trapeze artists and not one of them will have children is also a dead society. You can’t really have much of a society if half the population works a single job. Or if no one in the society ever has kids.

Reproductive equality is the key to making a society that cares about men as much as women. Equality leads to more equality?

Yep.

Lots of women ain’t gonna like that. Tough shit.

Yeah, I don’t think that “equality” is the reason that no decent or sensible person of any gender is going to like Bloomfield’s “solution” here. Somehow I think the whole baby-seizing business is going to be a bigger sticking point. Hell, even a few of the commenters at AVFM had a problem with that part of her proposal.

So the obvious question is: Does Bloomfield really want the government to go into the baby seizing business? Or is this a sort of “outrage clickbait,” an attempt to garner attention by saying the most outrageous thing she can think of?

I’m guessing the truth lies somewhere between these two poles; it’s reminiscent of Roosh’s “stop rape by legalizing it” post not that long ago. Sure, she’s interested in driving traffic to her blog and to AVFM. But she seems to actually believe at least most of the nonsense she posts. And, for what it’s worth, the commenters at AVFM seem to think she’s sincere.

One thing this clearly isn’t is satire – at least not using any definition of the word that anyone outside of AVFM would agree with.

Indeed, the only way this could be considered “satire” would be if Bloomfield was attempting to satirize the sort of terrible person who would actually propose baby seizing as a way to bring about equality.

But Bloomfield isn’t satirizing that sort of terrible person. She is that sort of terrible person.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

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

201 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

I’m picturing the job applications if this law went into effect. Have you ever been convicted of a felony? If yes, please explain.

Well, I was convicted of giving birth.

me and not you
me and not you
5 years ago

@Nequam –

If I could upvote that comment I would have.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

@sn0rkmaiden:

Trans men can have wombs and can have kids.

But the rest is right. Rape is a crime, a baby is not a crime. MRAs think a woman having a baby and then expecting the father to provide support in one form or another is a crime as well, which is why they think the metaphor works.

Somehow, as much as they think women should “take responsibility” for when they get raped (whatever the fuck that means), that goes out the window when talking about a man accidentally impregnating a woman. All of a sudden the man should not be held responsible for the child he helped create.

me and not you
me and not you
5 years ago

Maybe JB just has some stock in private prisons…

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

Here’s another fun thought… You know how intensely obsessed MRAs are with gender determinism and how each gender as their place in the world? How “separate but equal” is perfectly fine if it’s based on biological differences?

Why is it that they are so angry about women having more choice with regards to pregnancy? It’s just biology, right? The person with the baby inside their body gets to choose if they want to discontinue that pregnancy, otherwise the baby is a child that both a responsible for, right?

Are they trying to rebel against nature?

/somuchsnarcasm

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

Welp, read some of the comments. JB has clarified things.

Janet Bloomfield

Remember what the goal is here, though. We are trying to create a world in which men have equal value to women. Women control which of your children live and they have the right to deny you access to your own biological offspring. This is the source of women’s power.

If we want men and women to be equal, men must have the power to deny women access to their own biological offspring. This is the mechanism to do so.

I just… *sigh*

*shakes head*

No.

shietka
shietka
5 years ago

You know, aside from the general horribleness, I’m just struck by how absurd and nonsensical it is. I had to read it twice before I really understood it. I mean, every time she writes about the effects I have to go, “wait… how does what you’re proposing do that again?” Especially when she talks about how it would create a “market this,” or “worth that.” I’m kinda curious what an economist would think about what she’s saying, I have a feeling it would hurt your brain to actually attempt to follow her logic as a serious economic theory.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Which men are actually being denied access to their kids? I don’t know about other countries, but in the US parents who seek partial custody are not typically denied it unless they’re extremely unfit. Even parents who have been found unfit tend to get visitation if they want it.

Seriously. Every one I’ve known who was raised by a single parent was raised as such because they had a dad who chose not to be involved. Except for my friend whose mother died when she was a kid and was raised by her dad after that.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

@shietka:

It’s like the only way JB can imagine men being considered worthwhile as human beings is if they had power over another human. Her “economic theories” are just fantasies where women she doesn’t like end up having to beg a man for something.

Huh. So basically, when JB looks at reproduction laws, she sees women seeking power over men. To balance this, she suggests ways to give men similar power over women. When feminists look at reproduction laws, they see women seeking power over themselves. No need to balance this, because men already have pretty much all the power they could want over themselves.

Kind of revealing, isn’t it?

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Actually, I do know of someone who lost custody. It was the mother though. My cousin’s stepdaughter has a mom who is a meth addict who’s been in and out of jail. So her dad and my cousin have custody. So much for the misandric family courts.

Bico
Bico
5 years ago

I’m actually convinced that this was an attempt at satire, or at least that’s how it struck me. Now, it’s not very good satire as it’s based on one of the conservative myths on why abortion is legal. See, some people think that the right to abortion is the right to “consequence-free sex,” the consequences in this case being babies. Now, for someone thinking this way, it can seem like a woman having an abortion is simply taking a baby away from a man who wants the baby without his consent, so JB is trying to turn it around by saying that a man can take a baby away from a woman who wants her baby, too; therefore, equality. Obviously she, like many conservative types, fails to grasp that the issue is about bodily autonomy rather than forfeiting parental rights.

friday jones
friday jones
5 years ago

And she wants the government to take care of all these babies that are seized because their fathers didn’t want them? The same government that these doofuses consider feminized and nannyish? OK player.

seraph4377
5 years ago

@Body crimes – oh, no. JB is hardly the first, and she won’t be the last. The only thing about her that’s at all unusual is how loud she is, and how bizarre she’s willing to act.

Shalimar
Shalimar
5 years ago

I know Bloomfield tweeted frequently from the AVFM conference last year, but was she actually attending? Journalists like Jeff Sharlet talked to her and confirmed she is a real person, right? There are pictures from the conference that look like the pictures she has used online?

Her writing always reads like a man pretending to be female to me.

KSRay
KSRay
5 years ago

@Shalimar:

She has a YouTube channel that I’m not going to link and she looks like she does in the pictures she posts. She really is just an anti-feminist woman. Wish those were more rare than they are.

zoon echon logon
zoon echon logon
5 years ago

Ignoring JB’s stupidness, a real question (if anyone feels like answering it):

An unmarried couple, unprotected sex, unexpected pregnancy. The person with the uterus wants to have and raise the child, the person without the uterus doesn’t want a child and doesn’t want to support it. Stipulate any other details you think are important.

Does anyone know how this would actually play out in the courts (the real courts, not MRA fantasy courts)? (I know, IANAL.)

How should this situation play out?

Paradoxical Intention
5 years ago

Shalimar | March 20, 2015 at 4:16 pm
Her writing always reads like a man pretending to be female to me.

I find that I think that way about a lot of female anti-feminists, mostly because my mind can’t wrap itself around the idea of a woman hating themselves and/or other women so much that they’d become anti-feminist, or try to fight against what feminism tries to fight for.

Granted, feminism has failed lots of women in lots of ways (transwomen and women of color), and I understand why those groups would shy away from white, cisgendered feminism.

But when you have someone fighting tooth-and-nail because they legitimately believe that they’re “different from those other girls” and “they don’t hate men”, you have to wonder where they get their information from, and how it got to the point that they were so terribly misinformed.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ zoon

Can only speak for England but here the father would have to pay child support. That would of course be money for the child, not the mother. Generally you pay child support up to the end of tertiary education (if the child chooses to go to uni). The amount payable is worked out on a combination of the child’s needs and the father’s means. Generally the parents would be expected to chip in 50/50 but obviously that can be varied depending on things like who actually takes care of the child/work patterns etc.

Salty
Salty
5 years ago

@Nequam

I think you mean stupider, otherwise you’d be implying that Ann Coulter isn’t an idiot.

Charles RB
Charles RB
5 years ago

I can’t wait for her next proposal, that since all crimes are committed by women then being a woman is itself a crime.

ceebarks
ceebarks
5 years ago

@zoon: here the courts would not be at all interested in whether or not the kid was wanted or by whom, since the question is just how to support the existing child/ren, not how to mete out punishment or whatever, which I think is what the MRAs want family court to be– a place where righteous punishment is rained down women who have defied their men.

LBT (with open writeathon!)

You know, I’m reading a book about adopted twins. Apparently the system Judgy describes is a thing in South Korea. The stigma against single mothers is so intense that some of them hide out in birthing clinics for a whole year, pretending they’re sick with something else, and the kids get adopted out.

Shockingly, South Korea is not the utopian wonderland Judgy seems to imagine.

RE: Macho Pig

Janet Bloomfield rocks!!!!

Go tell her yourself. She ain’t here.

RE: WWTH

Also, what if a woman becomes pregnant from rape and doesn’t want to get an abortion? Does she have to seek the consent of her rapist?

Don’t be silly! Women don’t get raped! And they don’t get pregnant from that either, didn’t you know the female body has ways of shutting that down? It’s trufax.

RE: David N-T

She somehow fails to see that the distinction that she makes between herself and other women is not made by the men that “support” her.

It’s like anti-vaxxers. The only reason they can believe the bull is because the thing they fight against was so successful they no longer realize its benefit.

ceebarks
ceebarks
5 years ago

to me the more interesting question is what happens when the father does want to parent the child and the mother does not.

That does happen; there’ve been a few recent cases where the mother runs off to Utah, which plays extremely fast and loose with unwed fathers’ consent to adoption, and the results have, imo, been genuinely infuriating.

I would wonder why the MRAs don’t get behind those guys, but as we all know it’s not really about supporting men, it’s about shitting on women.

Spindrift
Spindrift
5 years ago

Wouldn’t this system just mean that all those men who don’t want to pay child support are instead paying extra taxes alongside every other man to support those confiscated babies? They’re basicly punishing pregnant women who’s partners don’t want a child, the children themselves and on top of that all taxpayers. So by this system everyone is made to pay into child support regardless of wether they have children of their own, and it’ll cost more per child cause the goverment will have to pay for the children’s food/clothes/etc and hire people to look after them? Doesn’t sound ideal…at least not to anyone who isn’t a deadbeat dad.

sn0rkmaiden
5 years ago

@Ceebarks, I agree, there is something very cruel about not giving a man the option of raising a child who has already been born. Except in cases where the birth father is violent/abusive etc,

I also have compassion for men who don’t wish a foetus they’ve helped conceive be aborted, though in that instance I think the choice must still rest with the mother given it’s her body.

I referred to it in an earlier comment, but what Judgypants and her ilk like to ignore is that with the ‘privilege’ of being able to choose to end or continue a pregnancy, come a hell of lot of risks to one’s health, whether it be carrying to term or having an abortion; babies don’t just pop out like a bagel from a toaster. I can’t imagine any MRAs signing up for pre-eclampsia or an emergency c-section.

LBT (with open writeathon!)

RE: sn0rkmaiden

Yeah, it’s a shitty situation, for sure. But unfortunately, the person whose body is supporting the fetus, regardless of gender, is the one who gets to decide, because it’s THEIR health on the line. The partner isn’t the one risking a miscarriage or other health problems. It may not be fair, but until we come up with something safer, that’s what we’re stuck with.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

“but until we come up with something safer”

If there ever comes a time when there’s a procedure that’s as ‘safe and convenient’ as termination that allows a foetus to gestate outside the womb then maybe that’s a conversation that can be had. but until then; your body, your choice.

katz
5 years ago

She will have to prove her worth to the man by parenting his existing children brilliantly.

Sooo…apparently the plan is to take children away from the parent who wants to take care of them, give them to the parent who doesn’t want to take care of them, and then make that parent’s SO do all the work?

LBT (with open writeathon!)

I can think of many folks, myself included, who would absolutely LOVE to be able to have kids without the risks and expenses of pregnancy.

isidore13
isidore13
5 years ago

So maybe the MRA’s favor the method in The Giver, where birthmothers are selected by the Elders, pop out three kids, and then are put into hard labor for the rest of their working lives (as punishment for having children, of course).

Bina
Bina
5 years ago

To give birth to a child without the explicit consent of everyone who contributed genetic material should be a felony and the child should immediately be seized and placed for adoption by the state.

I have a better idea: How about any man who doesn’t want to risk a pregnancy, take equal responsibility for birth control, go halfsies for an abortion, or be pursued for child support, keep his zipper done up and never have sex?

Yes, I know, not a nice idea. But still a damn sight better and more humane than hers.

sn0rkmaiden
5 years ago

I’m wondering if it’ll ever be possible to safely remove a live foetus from one body and safely implant it in someone else’s? I mean, I can see a lot going wrong with that scenario, but I can also see a lot of benefit. Like when for example, a woman has a wanted pregnancy but discovers halfway through there’s some terrible risk to her health, but there’s someone else willing to carry her baby to term for her. But it could also be form of adoption several months early, or IVF several months late.

But I don’t think many of the pro lifers or MRAs would like that development, not the ones who regard pregnancy as a punishment for sex.

LBT (with open writeathon!)

RE: sn0rkmaiden

Seeing as how we’re 3D printing some skin and such, I see no reason to believe we can’t come up with a better baby incubator one day.

contrapangloss
5 years ago

@snorkmaiden

At the moment, not really. Maybe someday in the distant future, but I’ll be surprised.

There’s a lot of prep work a uterus does to be ready for a kid. A lot. And to get a kid in, the most likely approach would probably be cutting into the womb, which is kind of a huge muscle.

Somehow I don’t see cutting through a uterus (a bunch of muscle) and then telling it to instantly heal so that it won’t reject the kid trying to attach to it going really, really well.

Maybe? Someday?

fruitloopsie
fruitloopsie
5 years ago

http://media.giphy.com/media/vxV6moJKyrv32/giphy.gif
Ok mras/Antifeminists complain about them and the government paying child support/being in the kids lives but now JB is saying that the government should take the children away, JB flat out admits that she raped a man and now she cares about “consent”? Guys, make up your minds.

Macho Pig
Trolling -1/10
http://www.aperfectworld.org/clipart/academic/fcircle.gif

Sunnysombrera
A lot of them really don’t care about the children at all, they call them their “seed” and they compare paying child support to slavery. “Property” is all they are to them.

Nicoluna and Paradoxical intition
I’m so sorry to hear that, I hope things will be better for you two.
http://www.dazzlejunction.com/greeting/hugs/hug_7.gif.html

JB seriously doesn’t care about men or anybody (but it seems she does care about her children) in evidence that she admitted that she stalked and raped men.

It’s something else that women shouldn’t change their mind about sex but men can change their mind about having children.

About the feminism failing I agree to that. We really did fail them. Evidence: take a look at Jessica R Williams and Tina Fey. We need to speak more about WOC, Trans women, fat women, etc. I really do hope that Femnisim will get better.

M.K. Hajdin
5 years ago

Women like Bloomfield throw other women under the bus because they value the short-term goals of male approval and access to male-controlled resources more than they value the long-term goal of justice for women.

fruitloopsie
fruitloopsie
5 years ago

Snoorkmaiden
I thought about that before. Maybe we could place the fetus in a artificial womb? So no one has to risk their health and lives. That I would fund.

Ellesar
5 years ago

I am guessing that JB absolutely does not care about the MOUNTAINS of evidence that say that a child, in almost all cases, is best off being raised with biological family, and that state raising of children leads to higher rates of criminality, addiction and general poor outcomes.

Women ‘giving up the power’ of giving birth only makes sense in the Marge Piercy novel Woman on the Edge of Time, where women and men have true equality (in the ‘utopian’ part of the world she creates) and defining as male or female has lost most of its importance.

The ‘equality’ that this dreadful woman proposes comes with no advantages that I can see. It would lead to extraordinary family fracture and suffering, (particularly for children), raised taxes to pay for all that care as adoptions often fail. Plus there would be unlikely to be enough people wanting to adopt, as presumably JB would only want married heterosexual couples to be adoptive parents. Also, it isn’t just the parents who suffer loss when giving up a child for adoption – other family members are affected too.

There is loads of other stuff, but it is all just too disgusting to contemplate – she is definitely going for complete out there rubbish with this one.

ceebarks
ceebarks
5 years ago

@snork: Dunno, but it’d be pretty cool. I think detaching/reattaching a placenta without damaging or killing the fetus would be super-dicey… but I’m no surgeon.

I’ve talked to a couple of guys whose partners aborted “their child” and who were bummed about it. one I felt a little sorry for, but the other struck me as a total disaster and fundamentally not fit to be a parent at all. If his partner HAD had the child, she’d have been on her own anyway, barring some major, major life changes and substance abuse counseling on his part. Which anyone sensible knows not to COUNT on.

Anyway, you can feel sorry for someone without necessarily wanting there to be some kind of draconian law written or enforced about it. Hell, we do it with women all the time: husband left you with three little bitty kids and didn’t turn up for a solid month til you found him the next state over with a new GF? Well, that sucks! What an asshole! File for divorce and take him to court for child support!

but no one’s like RAH RAH HE OUGHTA BE IN JAIL or whatever When it comes to men I think people (generally) understand that there’s a difference between enforcing reasonable levels of support for dependent children and getting revenge on behalf of a wronged ex. MRAs have never really seemed to untangle the distinction there for themselves, and I doubt very much they’ll ever understand it for women either.

Paradoxical Intention
5 years ago

M.K. Hajdin | March 20, 2015 at 6:22 pm
Women like Bloomfield throw other women under the bus because they value the short-term goals of male approval and access to male-controlled resources more than they value the long-term goal of justice for women.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7vspmbbj61qa6g1m.gif

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Maybe AVFM should start a campaign to turn men into seahorses so they can carry the baby. Equality!

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

I’ll see your “Twins” and raise you one “Red Dwarf” (actually this episode is quite interesting on gender politics)

Robert
Robert
5 years ago

I wonder how many people realize that abortions are safer (medically) than childbirth? Somehow, I imagine a lot of MRAs indignantly denying that such a thing could be true. It doesn’t match the 8-bit model of reality they keep in their heads, you know.

N.P.S.
N.P.S.
5 years ago

I suppose I’ll always wonder… how great are the perks for selling out your own gender? Just throwing every other woman on the planet under the bus so you can get head-pats from men who hate you and would turn on you the minute you stopped slavering at their feet for one nanosecond? Those must be some damn good dog biscuits they make her lap up off the ground, ’cause damn.

When her Totes Alpha Man hubby dumps her in the post-wall hag bin and jets off with a 19-year old girl who would never consider aging or having an opinion (as their whole group keeps insisting is an inevitable and utterly natural part of every married couple’s journey through life), I’m sure she will graciously retreat in a suitably quiet and feminine manner and starve alone in a gutter since of course she would never, ever fight for any kind of support or for her own children. Oh wait, sorry. The Totes Alpha Hubby’s children. Have we even proved that children are in any way actually related to their biological mothers? Someone please ask an MRA for me.

Shalimar
Shalimar
5 years ago

@KSRay

Thanks for the info on Bloomfield’s Youtube channel. Regrettably, I can’t look into it myself before I recover from my last Youtube visit, when I was unfortunate enough to hear Jordan Owen talk about Fifty Shades of Grey while naked in the tub.

It might be a long, long time.

fruitloopsie
fruitloopsie
5 years ago

Shalimar
Oh wow that is awful Im so sorry I dont there is enough brain bleach in the world to wash that out of your mind but here’s one anywaycomment image?maxWidth=800&maxHeight=600

Bina
Bina
5 years ago

Remember what the goal is here, though. We are trying to create a world in which men have equal value to women. Women control which of your children live and they have the right to deny you access to your own biological offspring. This is the source of women’s power.

Uh, men already HAVE “equal value to women”. But women are paid 70 cents to a man’s dollar, and treated as disposable sex toys and incubators and gruntwork-doers and scullery maids combined. We don’t in fact control anything outside our own bodies, and even that is oftentimes sketchy. We don’t HAVE any fucking power. And you want to penalize us still further? Fuck you and the right-wing high horse you rode in on.

Tina S
Tina S
5 years ago

Why does it seem to be so difficult for these men to simply take responsibility for their own sex lives and just use a condom or abstain.

loganbacon
loganbacon
5 years ago

Fortunately, I don’t foresee this happening any time soon. Women are having a hard enough time choosing not to give birth when they genuinely don’t want to because of the old men in legislatures determined to make them carry babies to term. They aren’t suddenly going to give that freedom back.