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.
“Alos” should be “Also”. Typo Mammoth got me!
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.
@ 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.
@opium4themasses
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.
Not much to add, but QFT.
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.
“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! 🙂
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!
🙂 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.
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.
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.
I will look it up, thank you 🙂
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.
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.
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.
@ 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 😉
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?
I think we need to start calling Judgy Bitch something else. I propose “Judgy Baby-Snatcher”.
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.
@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*
I wish someone had forced her mother to have an abortion.
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.
Seconding what contrapangloss said. Not cool.
@Alan:
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.
@Alan:
I’m just going to sit here and quietly glare at you. And vote Green.
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.