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
Luzbelitx
5 years ago

“Alos” should be “Also”. Typo Mammoth got me!

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

It’s pretty funny that this idiotic proposal came out in the same week that a story about more single men than women want kids.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/men-want-kids-more-than-women-new-york-magazine-article-affirms-studies/

Once again, MRAs think stereotypes perpetuated by TV, movies, and stand up comedy routines are scientific and eternal truths.

It’s not a surprise. Having children is physically risky for women (and others with uteri) and not for men (or others who provide the sperm). Mothers also end up as the ones who lose more and time than fathers.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ luzbelitx

“I do think it is a good argument as long as you’re talking to someone who doesn’t want to be an asshole.”

A none arsehole would though, by definition, support the aims of feminism anyway. They wouldn’t require any reward for doing so.

Sorry, this looks like I’m being really confrontational. I do see the thrust of your points; probably just me being pedantic.

The potential argument is a good one. I’ve used that myself. Even the most cynical heartless bastard should see that a society that excludes half of its potential geniuses, entrepreneurs etc. is an inefficient one.

I’m not particularly politically active, I stumbled across this site though and I enjoy the discussions. Everyone(well, you know what I mean) is so polite and reasonable; it’s like the anti-Youtube. I do of course support the aims of feminism; I should imagine any rational and/or fair person would. I wouldn’t use the term feminist to describe myself though. I am, at best, a pro feminist.

It is a really interesting subject though.

zoon echon logon
zoon echon logon
5 years ago

@opium4themasses

@zoon echo logon It doesn’t matter what support is offered for kids that helps alleviate the need for child support. The MRAs are just gonna find some other reason to be assholes. They already complain that WIC, SNAP, and welfare are forcing taxpayers to support kids. They blame the mothers almost exclusively thogu, when in many cases a man was involved as well.

Yes! Perhaps the defining feature of MRAs is their inconsistency. They don’t want to solve the problems they talk about, they just want to complain about and punish women.

Though there is something that bothers me about a few reponses here. I think we have fuck all idea what JB’s motivations are. Trying to say she is doing it for male approval strikes me as the same mistake MRAs make when they say feminist men are supporting feminism to get laid.

I think she sincerely holds some abhorrent views, motivations be damned. Her motivation could just as easily be a lack of empathy combined with her finding a deep sense of meaning and fulfilment in her daily life. Shitty views are shitty no matter if they are based on deeply held beliefs.

Sorry for the rant.

Not much to add, but QFT.

Luzbelitx
5 years ago

A none arsehole would though, by definition, support the aims of feminism anyway. They wouldn’t require any reward for doing so.”

I agree, but also it does not work in absolutes.

One thing is supporting the aims of feminism in theory, or in general, and quite a different one to agree how they should be put in practice in specific situations.

For example, I’ve met plenty of guys who are all for equality, but just “can’t see” how sharing half the leadership/decision making roles with women would benefit their organizations both immediately and in the long run.

But then again, since I’ve been for a few years within the activist community, I probably see and deal with more subtle ways of sexism and resistance to feminism, even from feminists themselves.

Bottom line is, I don’t think the world is split between assholes and decent people, I think most people in activism, myself included, are trying very hard to be decent people, and sometimes fail at it, often unknowingly.

Discussing theory is one thing, but discussing how to put that theory into practice can spark heated debates, because each person’s worldview comes into play and raises differences which otherwise might go unnoticed.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

“I think most people in activism, myself included, are trying very hard to be decent people, and sometimes fail at it, often unknowingly.”

Yeah, I’m a big believer that the human ‘default’ position is to be decent. Obviously though there are some exceptions to that.

It is the detail that’s so fascinating like you say. Feminists aren’t one homogeneous bloc (being as how I would imagine most women are feminists, even if they don’t identify as such, that’s hardly surprising). My most ‘radfem friend for instance is ‘gender critical’ so we’ve had a few debates about that (“Hang on, I’m the straight white bloke and you’re the left wing woman. How come I’m being the liberal one here!” etc.)

There’s also the big debate about how to achieve the aims of feminism (Quotas, all women shortlists? etc.)

Ironically, as I’d be quite happy in a matriarchy (so long as we had women like Boudicca leading) I’m not sure I count even as an egalitarian! 🙂

Luzbelitx
5 years ago

Ha! You remind me of my socialist friend who once told me: “I don’t get why feminists aim for equality. If I was a woman, I’d be after all the power!

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

🙂 Well, in all fairness it’s probably the women’s turn.

Actually I think that over here we’ve always done pretty well when a woman’s been in charge (Boudicca, Elizabeth 1, Margaret Thatcher). I realise there may be some controversy about the last one!

Of course that brings up another debate. I’m a big fan of confident assertive women who are willing to fight (and not in the metaphorical sense) for what they believe in. Edith Garrud is one of my heroines for example. Now some people would say that feminism would automatically lead to a more gentle, conciliatory society. I’m not convinced though that a willingness to be tough is the sole province of blokes. In the same way I think a guy has a right to be ‘gentle’ if he wants, a woman has a right to be aggressive. When people say Thatcher only succeeded because she adopted a male mindset I think that’s doing her a dis-service.

Similarly with the topic of ‘toxic’ masculinity. I don’t see anything wrong with living that sort of lifestyle if you choose; it’s denying men the right to live a non masculine lifestyle if they want that’s the issue. But women should also be allowed to make their own choices, even if they might be choices another woman wouldn’t make. So if a woman *chooses* to wear a burka that’s fine, as is bearing her breast on Page 3 if she wants.

If feminism is to mean anything it must be that women can do what they want.

Luzbelitx
5 years ago

Being from Argentina, I will kindly decline to answer a post containing “Margaret Thatcher” in it. No hard feelings, it’s just related to really painful times for our people and I can’t deal with it right now.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

I understand. It’s now a highly emotive issue here too. Ironic considering most people couldn’t have found the islands on a map before 1982. If you want to find something marginally uplifting from that whole affair you may wish to read up on the “Red Cross Box”; does support the contention that, given the choice, most humans are decent.

Luzbelitx
5 years ago

I will look it up, thank you 🙂

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

To save you the risk of stumbling across something upsetting whilst searching I’ll just post this for you:

Before British offensive operations began, the British and Argentine governments agreed to establish an area on the high seas where both sides could station hospital ships without fear of attack by the other side. This area, a circle 20 nautical miles in diameter, was referred to as the Red Cross Box (48°30′S 53°45′W), about 45 miles (72 km) north of Falkland Sound). Ultimately, the British stationed four ships (HMS Hydra, HMS Hecla and HMS Herald and the primary hospital ship Uganda) within the box, while the Argentinians stationed three (Almirante Irizar, Bahia Paraiso and Puerto Deseado).

Hecla at HM Naval Base Gibraltar, during conversion to a hospital ship for service during the Falklands War
The hospital ships were non-warships converted to serve as hospital ships. The three British naval vessels were survey vessels and Uganda was a passenger liner. Almirante Irizar was an icebreaker, Bahia Paraiso was an Antarctic supply transport and Puerto Deseado was a survey ship. The British and Argentine vessels operating within the Box were in radio contact and there was some transfer of patients between the hospital ships. For example, the British hospital ship SS Uganda on four occasions transferred patients to an Argentinian hospital ship. The British naval hospital ships operated as casualty ferries, carrying casualties from both sides from the Falklands to Uganda and operating a shuttle service between the Red Cross Box and Montevideo.

Throughout the conflict officials of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) conducted inspections to verify that all concerned were abiding by the rules of the Geneva Convention. On 12 June some personnel transferred from the Argentine hospital ship to the British ships by helicopter. Argentine naval officers also inspected the British casualty ferries in the estuary of the River Plate.

throwaway, via pharyngula
throwaway, via pharyngula
5 years ago

I can’t ever believe that people would write the words people like Judgy Bloomfield do. It comes from such a perverse realm of wingnuttery that is so foreign it burns. Physically makes me nauseous. And causes bouts of uncontrollable “WTF” and rage. I just don’t get where they’re coming from. Glad I never will.

Mwa
Mwa
5 years ago

Alan, I see that a lot of people have responded to you already, but I wanted to share a quote that has been very meaningful to me. This is from John Stoltenberg’s Refusing to be a Man. This book opened my eyes to a lot of feminist issues that I never knew existed and helped me to rethink a lot of my own ideas.
Anyway, here is the quote:
“All the time I was growing up, I knew that there was something really problematic in my relationship to manhood. Inside, deep inside, I never believed I was fully male–I never believed I was growing up enough of a man. I believed that someplace out there, in other men, there was something that was genuine all-American manhood–the real stuff–but I didn’t have it: not enough of it to convince me anyway, even if I managed to be fairly convincing to those around me. . . Then I read those words–those words that suggested to me for the first time that the notion of manhood is a cultural delusion, a baseless belief, a false front, a house of cards. It’s not true. The category I was trying so desperately to belong to, to be a member of in good standing–it doesn’t exist. Poof. Now your’e terrified you’re not really part of it; now you’re free, you don’t have to worry anymore. However removed you feel inside from “authentic manhood” it doesn’t matter. What matters is the center inside yourself–and how you live, and how you treat people, and what you can contribute as you pass through life on this earth, and how honestly you love, and how carefully you make choices. Those are the things that really matter. Not whether you’re a real man. There’s no such thing.”
Here is the link to a full-text pdf if you want to see more: http://www.xyonline.net/sites/default/files/Stoltenberg,%20Refusing%20to%20Be%20a%20Man.pdf
The quote I extracted is from pages 21-22.

I learned about Stoltenberg from two really awesome punk bands: Propagandhi and Fifteen. Both are worth checking out.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ mwa

Cheers for the link, I’ll have a look this evening.

I’ll also check out the bands. DO like me a bit of political punk (I was a big Crass fan back in the day) Have heard a bit about Propagandhi. Must confess I have a hard time believing any decent music could come out of Canada 😉

John
John
5 years ago

How… how is it possible to type the phrase “In the beginning, to be sure, we are going to end up seizing a lot of babies” and not at least briefly consider the possibility that you are the baddies?

Bina
Bina
5 years ago

I think we need to start calling Judgy Bitch something else. I propose “Judgy Baby-Snatcher”.

Skye
Skye
5 years ago

Alan, patriarchy also hurts boys before they become men. When our father died, I was 25, my sister was 19, and my brother was 12. Non feminists said my brother (a scared kid who had just lost his dad) needed to “take care of” our mom as he was “the man of the house. ” It’s a deeply flawed system that expects a prepubescent child to care for a 47 year old adult because male.

Danah Gaz
5 years ago

@Alan, it’s a lot more complicated than that.

Patriarchy rewards males who fit the patriarchal mold, and punishes those who don’t, often severely.

I’m not about to deny male privilege is a thing, but in many cases, it’s provisional, in a way that say, white privilege isn’t.

Some context – I’m a femboi, a pretty male that people generally mistake for a woman. And yes, passing privilege cuts both ways – “passing” as a woman subjects me to misogyny, but being clocked as a feminine male is often worse, at least in my lived experience.

Do I have a choice in terms of my gender expression? Of course I do, and so do at least some women – who choose to dress and present in ways that are traditionally masculine.

The choice however, is part of personal expression, and so isn’t an excuse to ignore the disadvantages to adopting a particular presentation – in other words, I can either choose to abdicate large swaths of male privilege and often cis privilege – which puts me at a disadvantage, or I can choose to deny myself my expression, and live in a way that suits other people, which also puts me at a disadvantage.

Patriarchy comes with the idea that men are supposed to be masculine, stoic, strong protectors and providers.

Any male that doesn’t fit that mold gets put at disadvantage, and the worst transgressors of that unwritten rule face violence at the hands of other men.

Again, I’m not denying that male privilege is a thing, or that females aren’t oppressed under the same system – I’ve been a feminist for about a quarter of a century. All I’m really saying here is that I wish people would be mindful of provisional privilege, and exercise a bit more thoughtfulness and nuance when speaking about male privilege in general.

*ducks*

ktrantingredhead
5 years ago

I wish someone had forced her mother to have an abortion.

contrapangloss
5 years ago

Hey, Ktrantingredhead, that last one is not cool.

I’m really, really not comfortable with any statements along the lines of wishing someone didn’t exist, or was killed.

Especially when partnered with making an innocent person suffer at the same time. Wishing a forced abortion on anyone, including JB’s mother, is awful.

Please don’t.

Really, please, just don’t.

Spindrift
Spindrift
5 years ago

Seconding what contrapangloss said. Not cool.

lith
lith
5 years ago

@Alan:

Even the most cynical heartless bastard should see that a society that excludes half of its potential geniuses, entrepreneurs etc. is an inefficient one.

Sadly this assumes that the people you’re trying to persuade are even capable of seeing women as anything other than housewives or prostitutes. Because no matter how many examples exist to prove otherwise their ignorance is proof that they’re right.

lith
lith
5 years ago

@Alan:

Actually I think that over here we’ve always done pretty well when a woman’s been in charge (Boudicca, Elizabeth 1, Margaret Thatcher). I realise there may be some controversy about the last one!

I’m just going to sit here and quietly glare at you. And vote Green.

lith
lith
5 years ago

Her nonsense in summary:

“I believe women have one thing that is not under the direct control of men, let’s take it away so they have nothing!
*maniacal laugh*
They’ll rue the day they did whatever it is that really pissed me off and turned me against the group that explicitly includes myself!”

I’m imagining someone in the background with one of those bendy boards you use to make thunder noises.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ lith

“I’m just going to sit here and quietly glare at you. And vote Green.”

Aw come on, Boudicca was brilliant! Say what you like about her policies but at least you can walk around St Albans now without being harassed by Roman legionaries. 🙂

Lea
Lea
5 years ago

I missed this post til now. Wow. I can’t even finish it. The self loathing it must take to write something like that. I can’t even. Such hatred of children. She’s happy to torture babies to punish their mothers. What a bitter, unhinged, boot licking kook.

lith
lith
5 years ago

I can’t work out if she considers herself to be not part of the ‘women’ group, considering how intensely she appears to hate everyone in it.
I don’t get the concept of hating people for something they have never had control over, and that ultimately doesn’t define them. Sorry – shouldn’t define them.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ Danah

Hi, must confess, had to Google that term but I see your point.

I’d like to see a society where people can live how they want without being judged on it (well, maybe draw the line at serial killers). You should be entitled to explore your feminine side with the same acceptance I get for being blokey. And it shouldn’t be a pigeon hole scenario in an “all or nothing” sense. A femboi could have an interest in some stereotypical ‘masculine’ pursuit and I can enjoy my donkeys.

Same for women, you should be allowed to dress conservatively or get your breasts out on Page 3; whatever you choose without being judged. Both women and men can be engineers or midwives if they want. It’s nobody’s business to say otherwise.

Lea
Lea
5 years ago

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.

She doubled down. I can’t believe I’m surprised. It’s shock and dismay-ception. She equates a woman’s mere bodily autonomy to a power held over men while she talks about children like livestock or some sort of point system. Whoever can control a woman’s body gets all the points! The world won’t be “fair” enough for JB until women belong to men at penalty of torture and imprisonment. (Taking a baby from it’s mother for the crime of not being properly owned by a man is fucking torture.)

You know she’s talking about girls too. Teen girls, rape victims…she would punish them all with glee.

These MRAs sure love to fantasize about abusing, imprisoning and murdering women, don’t they? How human rightsy of them.
0.o

The states can’t afford care for the children already in custody because of abusive and neglectful parents. Foster homes and group homes are scarce and I wouldn’t put my dogs in some of them.
Of course a bunch of abusers, pedos and rapists would want to overburden that system further. It’s a way to turn a protective service into another way to abuse. It’s win/win for MRAs.

JB’s ultimate goal is to get the creeps to cheer for her and they really get off on her calling little girls whores, supporting rapists and and telling abusive men their ex wives and other assorted victims deserve to be punished.

I need an Andromeda Strain shower.

lith
lith
5 years ago

@Alan:

From Perdido Street Station I really like (but can’t fully remember) the way one culture handled law. Something like – there was only one crime and that was taking away someone else’s choices. So stealing from someone took away their choice to use whatever you stole and killing someone took away all of their choices.
I like that it basically says anything goes as long as there’s consent from everyone affected.

lith
lith
5 years ago

@Lea:

she would punish them all with glee.

It’s not just me reading that tone into it then? She does come across as particularly pleased with herself for having thought of such a ‘wonderful’ ‘solution’ to the world’s problems. And gleeful at the thought of punishing the evil women (i.e. all of them except/including her?).

Lea
Lea
5 years ago

Caustic Soda covered pregnancy and childbirth. Maybe MRAs should listen to them before they call being the person who has to go through pregnancy and childbirth the one with all the “power”. Maybe they should pick up a maternity nursing text book while they’re at it.

http://www.causticsodapodcast.com/2014/11/17/pregnancy-childbirth/

I get JB’s shtick. She wants something. She thinks she’s competing with other women to get it and she has to go with her strengths.

JB believes that male approval is the end all be all and women without it should be punished. I think it’s safe to draw from that belief an intense desire on her part to receive male approval. Her own status as safe and valued in a world she sees as belonging to men hinges on her head pats. There are men who admire smart women, funny women, ambitious women, confident women, kind women, etc. She’s not any of those things. The kind of men who value those traits in a person aren’t impressed with her. So, she’s working the crowd who likes what she has to offer. To impress them all she needs to do is give lip service to being happily owned by a man and hating women who aren’t. She’s horrible because that’s where she really shines. That is her special skill.

She’d be the Uncle Ruckus of misogyny if she was serious about her beliefs. There is no way in hell she’d really want laws like that to apply to her. I don’t think even JB is that big a fool. She’s pandering for approval.

lith
lith
5 years ago

I think you’re probably right, nothing else seems to fit. I can’t imagine having so little empathy that I could do that. Or worse, having empathy and doing it anyway. She comes across as a Cruella DeVille type character, I wonder if that’s deliberate?

Lea
Lea
5 years ago

lith,
Oh yeah. She’s jubilant.

fruitloopsie
fruitloopsie
5 years ago

This is hypothetical but what if her husband left her? Would she have to give up her children?

Myriad
Myriad
5 years ago

Yes, Janet, because nothing would bring about society caring about men more (and the concept of society not care about men is bass aackwards in the first place) than yanking a newborn out of the hands of a woman and then cuffing her and sending her to jail. Yeah, OOOOKKKKAYYY. I also love that she thinks gender neutral means benefiting only the men and does not help f#@k all about the woman and child. Per usual, no sense at all.

Lea
Lea
5 years ago

She could be somewhat sincere.

We now know from her own account why she’s so invested in supporting rape culture. She’s a rapist. She relies on the mindset that dismisses rape of a young man as being something he probably wanted anyway because that’s how men are.
Patriarchy has been good to her. It allows her to believe the act of making sandwiches for her husband is revolutionary and bragging about it clever. She does seem to share the delusion of adequacy we see so often in bigots.

It is possible she doesn’t want to believe sexist men think of her the way they do other women. If they did, that would be terrible. Maybe she doesn’t want that so she does triple mental back-flips to explain it away. Maybe she just likes hanging out with dudes who hate ladies as much as she does.

Even if all that were true, I think this stuff is mostly just a put on. She has an easy audience to please. They’re hateful, misogynist scum and when she tells them what they want to hear they tell her she “rocks”. From what she’s written I think she needs to hear that, even if it’s only from scum. Without male approval she thinks she’s worthless. What wouldn’t she do then to get it?

Either she’s the sort of person who would call molested children “whores” because she means it or because she knows she can get some male validation for saying it. I can’t decide which is worse.

*hums Yer So Bad*

Buttercup Q. Skullpants

You know she’s talking about girls too. Teen girls, rape victims…she would punish them all with glee.

She’s an incredible hypocrite when it comes to her own children (as these judgmental types always are). Did you ever read her blog post about what happened when her 11-year-old daughter was the target of a lewd comment from a classmate one day while walking home from school?

Guess what her response was:

a) Boys will be boys! We can’t criminalize natural masculinity! Anyway, she probably had it coming to her, the harlot! What was she wearing?

b) RAAARRRRRRGH A BOY HAS THREATENED MY DAUGHTER I WILL DESTROY HIM CALL THE SCHOOL CALL HIS PARENTS CALL THE POLICE HIS LIFE IS **OVER**

If you guessed b, “ballistic-helicopter-mama-bear-Hulk”, you’re correct. She didn’t just follow up with the parents to make sure it didn’t happen again, she went out of her way to pursue a scorched-earth policy against the other kid, dragging every authority she could think of into the picture. Then she posted it on the internet to further humiliate him, and to brag about how she ruined his life. It’s a sickening read.

I wonder how she would have reacted if the MRAs had flooded her comments section, blaming her daughter for leading the kid on, blaming her for falsely accusing a male of wrongdoing, making death threats, and graphic suggestions of what they’d like to do to her. After all, she loves it when they do that to other women who have been the targets of harassment. Why should her daughter be the snowflake exception?

(Note, I am not advocating that people actually do this to her daughter…just, there’s a double standard here. I am advocating that JB transform herself into a decent human being and understand that if it’s not acceptable to do to your own daughter, it is not acceptable to do to other people’s daughters.)

Robert
Robert
5 years ago

Buttercup – clearly HER daughter is not like those OTHER girls. Her daughter didn’t deserve that treatment. I have no difficulty imagining JB as one of those clinic protestors who take a day off from waving posters of aborted fetuses to take her daughter in for hers, then go back to poster-waving the next day.

Just to clarify – nobody deserves that treatment, which is something JB has trouble with.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ Lith

“there was only one crime and that was taking away someone else’s choices.”

That’s an interesting concept. I’ve been thinking about how it would work in practice. It is superficially attractive. Some offences do indeed have at their heart a taking away of choice. One way you can be convicted of theft in England for instance is where you “appropriate the rights of the owner” in regard to property. The case law actually mentions not allowing the real owner to do what he chooses with it.

Such a jurisprudence though wouldn’t cover ‘risk’ based offending and incohate offences. I could for instance drive on the wrong side of the road at whatever speed I liked through a school zone and I’d only commit an offence if I actually ran over someone. In common law countries we tend to punish the actions not the consequences (as they can be random) hence it being an offence to drive carelessly even if no one is hurt (on the flipside, until very recently it didn’t matter if you did kill someone whilst driving carelessly, the penalty was the same as if no one had been affected)

Also attempted murder wouldn’t be a crime, no attempt would. Although that might not be an issue. To quote Sideshow Bob “You don’t get the Nobel Prize for Attempted Chemistry”. 🙂

booburry
5 years ago

Sorry, I’m late to the party. Alan, a few pages ago you said

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

Even if there were some way to do it that was as safe as termination, I feel like that conversation would be “Should we take away women’s bodily rights in favor of men who want babies?”. My answer to that conversation or almost any conversation about someone’s body is always going to be “Keep your hands off of it unless they say so or need desperate medical help”.
I realize you said a conversation and not a definitive statement, but I was a little bit surprised there no push back.

creepy cupcake
creepy cupcake
5 years ago

So where does JB suggest that all these babies go once they are seized? Who is going to take care of them? My only guess would be that all of these children once siezed would go off to state funded orphanages or institutions, and any person with a tad of common sense would understand the implications of this.

Yes Janet’s proposal would somewhat reduce the number of accidental pregnancies , but not enough for something like this not to have hideous consequences.

Taking the ethics out of it Janet’s proposal would still have dire consequences for society in other areas. (JB has no sense of ethics so there is no use arguing that point with her. Is there any use in arguing ANY point with her though?)

And for someone who hates the state JB seems pretty in favour of some rather totalitarian state intervention when it suits her bizarre beliefs.

JB is a very strange woman.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

I have so many thoughts after reading up on what the whole “choice-theft” thing was (I had heard of it before), but it’s based on only ever reading other people’s analyses of it and on lots of spoils, so, urk.

@Alan:

“Choice-theft” could be interpreted to include a lot of actions that don’t result in harm. I mean, if you literally talk about “theft of a choice,” a person driving recklessly on the wrong side of the road prevents other people from driving in certain ways lest they get hit and injured, and prevents children in the school zone from being able to navigate normally on the streets (for fear of a driver barreling through). It definitely could include risk.

There’s a huge swath of cultural baggage that comes with this law. Apparently the Garuda are nomadic, and view themselves as individuals in a matrix of interactions with others. They are acutely aware that every action they take affects others, and nobody is independent. Unless an attempt at murder was witnessed by nobody, and the victim never learned of it, even attempted murder would be an action that negatively affects others. Knowing that someone tried to kill you would force you to alter your life in one way or another, and therefore is, in a sense, a theft of choice.

On the other hand, I suppose there would be no legal sense of obligation to others… it would never be a crime to ignore cries for help or something.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

“Choice-theft” could be interpreted to include a lot of actions that don’t result in harm.

Well, from our perspective anyway, like physical harm or trauma. From the Garuda’s perspective, loss of choice is it’s own harm… really the only harm.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
5 years ago

@ kirbywarp

” it would never be a crime to ignore cries for help or something.”

Well, that’s the case in most common law jurisdictions anyway. Under English law you could stand by and watch a blind man walk off a cliff without any legal recourse. Generally you can only be liable for commissions if you owe a specific duty of care to the victim (parents to kids mainly).

It’s interesting what you say about inchoate offences having an effect on choice. That tallies with a lot of the discussions around here. If a fear of crime prevents a woman going out or choosing to walk alone for instance.

One thing I like about fictional legal systems is thinking how they’d play out in reality. I once got a really good mark in a jurisprudence essay for my explanation as to why Judge Dredd was the best exemplar of the American Realism school of legal analysis. 🙂

Ellie
Ellie
5 years ago

“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.”

Dat self esteem tho

booburry
5 years ago

Ellie
That’s why when I’m hard up for cash I just rob banks with the threat of withholding babies. I don’t even bother with a mask because I have gotten away with shit from time immemorial. I’m just like “Put the money in the bag or I’ll refuse to reproduce!!! Take me to the vault!” and they comply because..babies.

Lea
Lea
5 years ago

Dat self esteem tho

She tells a sad tale of self-hate, doesn’t she? Her only remaining value is in raising a man’s children so he doesn’t have to. She’s middle aged. She’s probably at the end of her usefulness as a walking womb. According to her MRAsshole buddies, her “value” as a sex toy has waned away to nearly nothing too. Once the kids are raised her husband is doing her a favor by keeping her around. A young Wife 2.0 could make sandwiches too. She could even have another litter for her new owner and raise them for him. Why not? According to JB, she’ll be a worthless old boner killer by then. If she gets sick and cannot fulfill her duties as boner pleaser, housekeeper and childcare provider she loses all value even before the nest is empty. Hers is not an enviable existence. No wonder she expends so much effort convincing herself she’s superior to common “whores”. It must be how she sleeps at night.

Myriad
Myriad
5 years ago

@Ellie

LOL! Yeah, she just overflows with self esteem, don’t cha know? You nailed it.

@booburry

Damn, I should have gotten my baby-making get out of jail free card while I had the chance. 🙂

@Lea It is a rather bleak picture she paints for herself (I mean polices other women with because none of this applies to her of course).

This is, however, the crux of a lot of blatherings that the MRA like to promulgate. That the only value women have is what they can give or do for a man (men’s very existence is like a golden shower of awe and that should be enough for you ladies).