Gary and His Guys: Anti-Choice Masculinity Passion Play


Last week Gary Bauer, the GOP 1992 “also-ran” presidential candidate and current president of American Values wrote a column for the Christian Science Monitor that asked “what about dad?” Bauer focused his column on one of the Christian Right’s favorite missions: inciting men to reclaim their “lost masculinity.” Bauer declared that society must acknowledge a third group of “abortion victims.” This is another thinly-veiled call-to-action to the lone wolves that regard their sexual partners’ abortion as a threat to their masculinity.

It’s nothing new—in an age where men and women are moving closer to equality, the traditional gender-inequality holdouts are positioning themselves as the ones who will “make men, men again.”

Ironically, Bauer’s column accomplishes this through a non-aggressive touchy-feely approach. He disguises his real purpose by camouflaging it under the guise of caring about men’s mental health. This is the first time I’ve heard the anti-choice-created “post-abortion syndrome” used as a male ailment, but when you’ve made up an illness you can infect anyone you want to.

During my time as a clinic escort at Planned Parenthood, I identified three types of men that came to the clinic on termination of pregnancy days. There were the supportive boyfriends and husbands, the friends and fathers of our clients, and the men who accompanied those they impregnated because they felt a sense of ownership.

This third group paced back and forth in the parking lot, sat in their cars and hinted at their ability to become violent after being energized by the chants of the anti-choice protesters who told them to “be a man,” go into the clinic and “take back” what’s theirs.

On more than one occasion these men entered our screening area and demanded we bring back their women. One went so far as to call the police and to allege that we were keeping his car keys. They were enraged—they saw their women not as partners, but as things, which included the fertilized egg inside them.

Sadly, these men are not unique to the clinic where I escorted and in fact can be much worse. In Jacksonville, Florida, a man went beyond the usual insults, humiliation and physical abuse and murdered his girlfriend who had an abortion. Once he found out that she was no longer pregnant, she became an empty vessel with no value of her own.

To strengthen his position Bauer throws in a bunch of statistics and cites a study on how miscarriage affects men. This is of course is one of the only times anti-choicers love “science”-–when it is within their own narrow perception and can be used to justify their Neanderthal behavior. In fact, the way of life Bauer seems to advocate is not too far from cavemen choosing a woman, hitting her over the head, dragging her back to the cave, raping her and then holding her hostage until he can claim his offspring.

The woman whose “man” lost his car keys told me it was the second time she had been in this situation. The first guy had demanded she keep the child because it was his and then fled once he was asked to help. This man was similar and they had only been dating for a few weeks. She kept nervously peering out the window at him as he paced the parking lot. After another one of his failed attempts to remove her she asked me what I would do.

I told her that I couldn’t tell her what I would do because I would never be in her situation. But I did tell her that if my girlfriend were in the same place, we would discuss it and then I would support her through whichever decision she made. As a man, I do want my voice heard but ultimately the change that occurs to me will never be the same as the one that occurs to her.

Likewise, the first group of men, those who were in the clinic with their girlfriends, holding their hands, comforting them or even making them laugh, displayed real love and commitment between two people. For the most part, you could tell they had come to a decision together and were there to support each other.

Certainly, as a man, I can understand the desire to feel a part of my girlfriend’s life and hope to someday play an active role in the decision of having a child. But people like Bauer who make men out as the victims of abortion are attempting to justify the continued segmentation of women into unequal relationships.

There is something to be said about creating an environment where men and women in relationships shape their reproductive destiny together. However, the answer is not ratcheting up the already high level of control and power men exhibit over women—it’s about truly empowering women and stopping the process of intimidation and the physical and emotional abuse they endure when it comes to decisions about their bodies and futures.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • crowepps

    Bauer focused his column on one of the Christian Right’s favorite missions: inciting men to reclaim their “lost masculinity.”

    I suppose it’s no surprise that homosocial organizations would come up with this – after all, the whole POINT of pregnancy is to prove to other guys that your sperm work.  It would be really depressing to have to cope with the notion that the woman who was lucky enough to get them wasn’t willing to do the mere 99% of the remaining ‘work’ of creating your child.  After all, your 1% was the WHOLE POINT!

     

    If men are denying their own psychological needs in order to squeeze themselves into the role that is considered impressive as a display to other men, how can they possibly acknowledge the woman’s psychological needs?

     

    I highly recommend the book “Manhood in America” by Michael Kimmel. Unfortunately, most of the sociological research on the web is pay per view. These sites may be informative to those who haven’t heard the term:

     

    http://hugoschwyzer.net/2009/12/10/if-they-could-see-me-now-sex-homosociality-and-the-internalized-male-audience/

     

    http://www.xyonline.net/content/homosociality

    • lbsimon

      “I think they are refering to the growing awareness that men actually have emotional pain following the abortion of their unborn child.  Since a man’s emotional pain is taboo these unfeeling fascists make fun of men in pain and try to shame them.  Here’s a thoughtful article on men’s emotional pain following abortion:

      http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/ijmh/vol3n2/abortion.xml

    • jenk

      ” after all, the whole POINT of pregnancy is to prove to other guys that your sperm work. “

       

      ??

       

      What is a homosocial organization anyway? Would you likewise then say that the point of women getting pregant is to prove their eggs work? This make little sense if you actually know many men. Maybe in some inner city areas where there have been no male role models for 3 generations and teens are using pregnancy as status ranking (both boys and girls) this is the case. But in most of the US men do not see getting a woman pregnant out of wedlock as a good thing anymore than most women do.  

  • prochoiceferret

    The first guy had demanded she keep the child because it was his and then fled once he was asked to help.

    Sounds like someone out there needs to “man up”….

    • lbsimon

      Oh sure! None of this has anything to do with the individual age of the parties described in this xenophobic-like smear job; with their individual levels of maturity; their individual mental health issues; their individual ethnicity; their individual family dynamics. Nahhh! Let’s just do what every good feminst does … go global and link it to Fundamentalist Christianity, misogyny, junk science and, of course, that ubiquitous trump card “rape” (for purposes of Feminist “Street Cred”). Piffle!

  • crowepps

    I find it really sad that this young woman has now gotten pregnant TWICE and that both times were with guys who apparently see her as a reproductive object.  Obviously, the clinic providing her with kind, respectful assistance in making her OWN choice cannot say ‘why are you having unprotected sex with guys who seem borderline abusive’ but I think I would have to bite my tongue.

  • squirrely-girl

    Obviously, the clinic providing her with kind, respectful assistance in making her OWN choice cannot say ‘why are you having unprotected sex with guys who seem borderline abusive’ but I think I would have to bite my tongue.

     

    From a legal standpoint, I’d have to agree. But coming from a mental health background, I’m always curious as to why we don’t ask exactly that… or at least make a referral to a mental health agency who can ask that. Our intense desire, as a society, to be politically correct… fails us.

  • invalid-0

    Don’t abortionists make more money if she goes out and gets pregnant again?  I think statistics show that somewhere around 50% of abortions are from repeat business.  

    • rebellious-grrl

      Abortions are done by a doctor or other health professional (not abortionists) who has been trained to do the procedure. A woman’s regular doctor may perform abortions. If not, he or she may be able to recommend someone who does. The state’s medical society, the local health department, or a family planning clinic also can provide information about abortion services. 

    • colleen

      don’t Catholic hospitals make A LOT more money if they insist on ignoring DNR orders for elderly people. And how about their unremitting efforts to assure that every fertile woman in the country is pregnant as often as possible by denying vasectomies, tubal ligations, effective contraception, and a decent standard of reproductive medical care?

      I mean Terri Schiavo alone racked up over a million dollars in medical and nursing care expenses after she lost 40% of her brain. Not to mention the legal expenses incurred by the good and decent man she had the good fortune to marry.

    • amyc

      First of all, there is no such thing as an “abortionist”. All OBGYN’s (and most other docters) are trained in performing safe abortions. Second, there’s no such thing as an “abortion clinic”. There are clinics that provide abortions, but that’s not all they do. Usually those clinics provide a wide range of services–abortion being just ONE of the services provided. Saying that  they want you to get pregnant for economic reasons is like saying that your kid’s pediatrician wants your child to get the flu constantly so he/she can get more business.

  • ahunt

    Oh that MUST be it! Women have more than one abortion because of the influence of DOCTORS! Who knew?

  • crowepps

    That might be a good point, if the motivation of medical personnel who provide abortions was making money.  But since it isn’t, I don’t think it’s relevant.

     

    If their motive was making money, they’d go into one the specialties that makes close to half a million a year –

     

    http://healthcareers.about.com/od/compensationinformation/f/TopPayDoctors.htm

  • bj-survivor

    if borshunists aren’t on that list its becuz of a PRO-DETH kunspearusy to hide teh trooth!

  • squirrely-girl

    Don’t cardiologists make more money if their patients go out and eat more fast food right after bypass surgery?

    Doesn’t ANY doctor make more money if their patients don’t follow treatment recommendations?!?!

     

     

    • gwallan

      Yes. I’m likewise dubious about fire brigades. Isn’t it in their interests for there to be more fires?

       

  • amanda-marcotte

    What is so funny to me about the anti-choice conspiracy theory that doctors want women to get pregnant so they can make money aborting is this—if you follow your own logic, you should never, ever, ever go to a doctor. After all, by your own logic, the doctor cannot actually take steps for you to get all better because that would cut off the cash flow. So he will work to make you sicker so you keep coming back, right? If you can’t trust any doctor who charges a fee for services, then you really shouldn’t go to doctors. Or mechanics, for that matter. Or the Apple Store.

    But antis do all these things, demonstrating neatly that they don’t believe their own nonsense.

  • invalid-0

    why do they prescribe contraception

    I think we both know the answer to that question… Contraception has this thing called a failure rate, genius.  And guess what, every “failure” is an “unwanted” failure.  Guess who’s there to save the day!  The abortionist!

    he will work to make you sicker

    No they won’t. Hypocritical oath and all.  And I’m not accusing abortionists of making anyone sicker, other than the human being that they kill.  The question was asked by squirrely girl why abortion providers act simply as chop-shops and don’t treat the real reason the women are forced into those difficult positions.  To the extent a heart surgeon tells you to eat healthier I do have this to say: a heart surgeon is a respectable human being, while an abortionist is not.  And if you’ve ever paid for a maintenance plan on your Apple product or purchased a warranty on your vehicle, you know darn well that many of today’s products are built to fail, at least a little.  If not, I suggest you take another sip of your Naive Soda.


    On squirrely girl’s question though, I provided one theory.  You have not.

    • squirrely-girl

      …but I accidentally deleted it while moving my laptop so I’ll try to be nicer this time around :)

      Contraception has this thing called a failure rate, genius.  And guess what, every “failure” is an “unwanted” failure.  Guess who’s there to save the day!  The abortionist!

      LOGIC FAIL! My son is the result of a birth control failure and although he wasn’t “planned” he certainly wasn’t unwanted. I’m not alone in this belief/experience either. Not every unplanned pregnancy is unwanted. 

      To the extent a heart surgeon tells you to eat healthier I do have this to say: a heart surgeon is a respectable human being, while an abortionist is not.

      DOUBLE LOGIC FAIL!! Are you seriously purporting that a person can be deemed a “respectable human being” by virtue of their job title?!?!?! Really arex? So as long as a doctor is NOT an abortionist, they’re okay and “respectable?” Do you not see ANY problems with this? Exceptions maybe? Points of order – priests that molest kids, doctors that rape patients, doctors that lie to patients, doctors that defraud insurance/patients, daycare workers that hurt kids… oh… maybe… ANY PERSON WITH ANY F’N JOB THAT HAS DONE SOMETHING BAD TO PEOPLE… maybe? With your reasoning maybe we shouldn’t trust garbage collectors (cause they touch dirty trash), or morticians (cause they work with icky dead people). Do you think all lawyers are crooks too? Have you ever met an “honest” politician? For that matter, I guess it goes without saying that people who work at any level or with any element of “sex” in their job are automatically heathens, sinners, and just plain BAD people. Hell, as long as Mengele wasn’t performing abortions, I’m sure we can consider him “respectable” too, right?!

      While I’d love to say I expect more from you, I’m starting to realize it’s about par for the course in terms of debating abortion with the “pro-life”/anti-choice crowd. I’m really trying to not be a dick here, but that argument perfectly framed an incredibly shallow understanding of humanity you apparently possess. 

       

      The more I “debate” with this crowd, the more I become convinced that logic is like a mystical fairy dragon that just somehow eludes them… because instead of logic, they’ve got gut-instinct (’cause that’s NEVER failed ANYBODY), religion (’cause God… or some random people that “speak” for God said so), and personal preference (well if I don’t like it, then it must be bad). 

       

      Some fun reading if you’re bored -

      Epley, N., Converse, B. A., Delbosc, A., Monteleone, G. A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2009). Believers’ estimates of God’s beliefs are more egocentric than estimates of other people’s beliefs. PNAS, 106 (51), 21533-21538.

      http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21533.full

  • goatini

    Contraception has this thing called a failure rate, genius.  And guess what, every “failure” is an “unwanted” failure.  Guess who’s there to save the day!  The abortionist!

     

     

    So… if I have an alarm system in my home to protect my person and property (let’s call this “birth control”),

     

    and the alarm system fails, and/or if intruders disable the alarm system, and my person/property is harmed, stolen, or destroyed (let’s call this the “failure rate”),

     

    every failure would, logically, be an unwanted failure.  (What sane person WANTS their protection to fail?)

     

    Guess who’s there to save the day?

     

    The insurance company, who sold me a homeowner’s policy to protect me in the case of such unwanted failures (let’s call this the “abortionist”, or as I prefer, the “licensed physician performing a legal procedure”).

     

    The concept that one might, or should, WANT protection to fail, is sadistic at best, and in your example, misogynistic and cruel at worst.  


    • invalid-0

      If the women that we’re talking about were victims of crimes (you know, like burglary or rape) then your analogy would make sense.  But they’re not.  They participate in an activity (it’s called sex, ask your parents about it) which has a known possibility of resulting in a pregnancy.

       

      The insurance company does not have the ability to counsel a young woman about putting herself in situations where she is likely to be robbed.  A home alarm is pretty much the best they can do.  

       

      And here’s a funny thought – if the woman does get robbed, the insurance company LOSES money.  If a woman becomes pregnant and wants an abortion, an abortionist MAKES money.

       

      What was that you were saying about a ‘logic fail’?

  • mechashiva

    Why would an office that provides abortion offer contraception to its patients on the off-chance it will fail when they could just… not prescribe birth control? You know, that’s an option.

     

    I worked at a clinic that did nothing but provide abortions. In the first year and a half I worked there, we offered birth control and often sent patients home with a pack. After the economic recession kicked in we had to make a lot of changes, and one of them was that we stopped prescribing birth control to patients (I’m not sure why, because I don’t know how prescribing birth control costs the clinic money). Explaning this to patients was the worst part, because they were often very upset about the idea of being unprotected after their experience of an unwanted pregnancy. Still, the bottom line was the most important thing, and the higher ups told us that we might have to close another clinic if we didn’t cut costs somewhere. Some of the staff actually quit their jobs over that, and there was considerable muttering about our status as a private, for-profit abortion clinic that no longer provided birth control.

     

    Point is, prescribing birth control is not going to increase profits. In fact, it will do the most to decrease profits… by costing the clinic money and by reducing the chance of the patient returning for another abortion. Now, for full-service reproductive health centers, I could perhaps see you arguing that prescribing birth control is a way of establishing brand loyalty so that the patient would keep returning for other services, but I don’t see anything sinister about that.

    • invalid-0

      Point is, prescribing birth control is not going to increase profits. In fact, it will do the most to decrease profits… 

      Apparently the ‘higher-ups’ at your clinic didn’t think so.  That’s an interesting insight though, thank you.

      Just to focus the point, I’m not of the belief that providing or not-providing condoms and pills will affect pregnancy rates one way or the other.  The issue we are discussing is why these centers don’t provide counseling to women who may be putting themselves in unnecessarily difficult positions.  … which I think is a great service and should be provided at your clinics. 

  • lbsimon

    “During my time as a clinic escort at Planned Parenthood, I identified three types of men that came to the clinic on termination of pregnancy days. There were the supportive boyfriends and husbands, the friends and fathers of our clients, and the men who accompanied those they impregnated because they felt a sense of ownership.”

     

    You are using the fallacy known as Appeal To Authority. You just set yourself up as an authority, as though objective and dispassionate field observation was conducted on your part. In point of fact, this is a solipsistic assessment of other people you don’t even know, especially the third type.

    • mechashiva

      Oh, like that’s not “Attacking the Motive” (aka Circumstantial Ad Hominem).

       

      Seriously, stop with the Critical Thinking 101 crap. You’re doing it wrong.

    • crowepps

      …and the men who accompanied those they impregnated because they felt a sense of ownership…

       

      … In point of fact, this is a solipsistic assessment of other people you don’t even know, especially the third type.

      And your defense of them then would be based on — exactly the same solipsistic assessment, since you weren’t there and you ignored the evidence of WHY they were assessed that way.

       

      A personal witnessing of loud statements of “There’s no way MY woman is  going to be aborting MY child” and explicit threats of violence for disobedience seems to me pretty fair evidence on which to base an opinion. But then, I wasn’t there, and of course, neither were you.

  • lbsimon

    “Oh, like that’s not “Attacking the Motive” (aka Circumstantial Ad Hominem).”

    It’s not Mech! Setting himself up as an authority on the identities, motives and thought-processes of others he does not know intimately is the fallacy here. Not one time does he qualify what he writes as being an opinion (for what it’s worth), an initial impression, a hunch, etc.

     

    Seriously, stop with the Critical Thinking 101 crap. You’re doing it wrong.”

    No mech, YOU stop fallaciously trying to deflate me with a bad combination of misinformation and impatience.

  • lbsimon

    “And your defense of them then would be based on — exactly the same solipsistic assessment, since you weren’t there and you ignored the evidence of WHY they were assessed that way.”

     

    Do you realize that YOU just asserted what I would do? Piffle! Do you realize that buzzwords like “Neanderthal” and knee-jerk reflex comparisons to rape are not in any way supported by what you so quaintly call “the evidence”?

     

    “A personal witnessing of loud statements of ‘There’s no way MY woman is  going to be aborting MY child’ and explicit threats of violence for disobedience seems to me pretty fair evidence on which to base an opinion. But then, I wasn’t there, and of course, neither were you.”

     

    Whoopdee-do! Using a jingoistic projection to support a jingoistically written article leaves you with egg on your face crowepps.

  • arekushieru

    She did not assert anything.  She witnessed your knee-jerk reaction which supported her theory.  Why do you have so much trouble understanding that terms you use can be applied to you, as well, LB?

  • mechashiva

    You’re right. I do get impatient with people who do nothing but nit-pick fallacies rather than attack the (generally easy to decipher) logic behind poorly-constructed arguments. I feel that it detracts from debating the actual subject matter.

     

    If you are good at constructing arguments, by all means present your case to whoever you’re replying to, but I tend to think it is just bratty to finger-point errors of rhetoric and argumentation. It’s effectively the same as replying to everyone who has a spelling or gramatical error even though you understand what they were trying to communicate. It’s just unneccessary and snotty.

  • kk

    No offense, Mr. Copeland, but I read Bauer’s column and I didn’t see any ‘guise’ of caring about men’s mental health. I saw actual compassion, towards a segment of men who wanted children with their partners and were refused–and given a psychic slap in the face with the fact that they had no say in the matter whatsoever. (Moreover, the readers of the CSM doubtlessly have stronger feelings about abortion than the society at large.)

    I’m 100% pro choice but I know abortion takes a toll on men and women alike. You see it all the time, obviously. Not all men sigh “Whew, glad she did that!” when women opt for abortion; Bauer spoke up for some of the men that don’t. I saw more cavemen rhetoric in your words than his.

    (But don’t take my word for it, read both columns and draw your own conclusions.)

  • gwallan

    I do find myself wondering if Mr Copeland feels men should have any say in their destiny where parenthood is concerned.

     

     

  • lbsimon

    “You’re right. I do get impatient with people who do nothing but nit-pick fallacies rather than attack the (generally easy to decipher) logic behind poorly-constructed arguments. I feel that it detracts from debating the actual subject matter.”

     

    This is a good point, one well-taken. I strongly disagree that I’m nit-picking RATHER than attacking the logic. The author employs metaphors and other verbiage to hype the subject matter, in a manner that is snotty or bratty in itself. “Neanderthal”, “caveman” … Come on, is this a GEICO commercial? And, true to script, the ubiquitous reference to rape MUST be made … for purposes of feminist “Street Cred”.

     

    “If you are good at constructing arguments, by all means present your case to whoever you’re replying to, but I tend to think it is just bratty to finger-point errors of rhetoric and argumentation. It’s effectively the same as replying to everyone who has a spelling or gramatical error even though you understand what they were trying to communicate. It’s just unneccessary and snotty.”

     

    With all due respect Mech, you are trivializing these errors of rhetoric and argumentation. The easiest way to describe it is in a comment I wrote on another board … too many writers here make too many broad strokes when they present their arguments (i.e., Pro-lifers think women are sub-human; men who come here to debate are exhibiting their “male priviledge”; Christian Fundamentalists are equivalent to terrorists, etc., etc.). Some of these discussions are based on absurd premises, only serve to reinforce the demonization of the other party and constitute pure propaganda. They certainly need to be fleshed out in rational discussion, not acerbic retorts and evasion.

     

  • invalid-0

    1.

    Point conceded.  I was also a ‘mistake baby’, so I withdraw my “unwanted” comment and replace with “unintended”.  Nevertheless, can we agree that a woman who conceived with BC is at least a slightly higher risk to consider getting an abortion than those who conceive naturally?

    2.

    Perhaps I was wrong to consider all heart surgeons respectable persons (or human beings – same thing :-) ).  You’re right, I don’t know them.  And I am a lawyer, so I agree that we shouldn’t judge based solely on occupation.  Then again, my job doesn’t require that I destroy and dispose of tiny human bodies of various stages.

  • squirrely-girl

    1. Thank you. Although, I’m not entirely sure on a primary direction for this. I’ve met and know enough women who have gone in either direction on this that I’d be pressed, without real statistics, to make a claim here.

     

    2. Fair enough… I’ll agree to disagree :)

  • squirrely-girl

    1. Thank you. Although, I’m not entirely sure on a primary direction for this. I’ve met and know enough women who have gone in either direction on this that I’d be pressed, without real statistics, to make a claim here.

     

    2. Fair enough… I’ll agree to disagree :)

  • rebellious-grrl

    And, true to script, the ubiquitous reference to rape MUST be made … for purposes of feminist “Street Cred”.

    What?

  • rebellious-grrl

    exactly Arekushieru!

  • captcourageous

    Ditto!

  • crowepps

    And I am a lawyer, so I agree that we shouldn’t judge based solely on occupation.  Then again, my job doesn’t require that I destroy and dispose of tiny human bodies of various stages.

    Your lack of empathy is only what we should expect of someone whose job (as everybody knows) requires him as a criminal lawyer to get pedophiles and murderers off the hook so they can abuse more children and/or kill more people, OR requires him as a civil lawyer to enable big business to get away with ripping people off and/or sticking it to ‘the little guy’.

     

    Of all people, you certainly should know better then to buy into and repeat stupid stereotypes about occupations.

  • mechashiva

    Point is, prescribing birth control is not going to increase profits. In fact, it will do the most to decrease profits… 

     

    Apparently the ‘higher-ups’ at your clinic didn’t think so.

    Oh, you misunderstood. That’s exactly the conclusion they came to. That’s why the clinic stopped providing birth control once the economic crisis started effecting the company.

     

    I disagree with you about the effectiveness of contraceptives in decreasing the rate of pregnancy. There will always be some level of unwanted pregnancy, but it’s easy to see the effect of contraceptives when you compare pregnancy rates in areas with less access to those with greater access.

     

    Most “abortion clinics” do actually provide counseling of various types to their patients, because most “abortion clinics” are offices that provide a full range of reproductive health services. Relatively few places are abortion-only clinics like the place where I worked.

  • lbsimon

    And your defense of them then would be based on — exactly the same solipsistic assessment, since you weren’t there and you ignored the evidence of WHY they were assessed that way.”

     

    She did in fact assert something.

     

    She tried to pull that trite, hackneyed maneuver of deflating me with an accusation – one that applied to her as well. (She ended up tongue-tied as a result.)

    Her “theory” missed what I pointed out about the author’s jingoistic style  of writing.

     

    You, on the other hand, are trying to get away with using a tactic straight out of grade school (“I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I? … nyah,nyah,nyah!).

     

     

  • crowepps

    (She ended up tongue-tied as a result.)

    Actually, I had something else more important to do and decided to stop wasting my time with someone whose posts are typical of the verbal tactics used by abusive men.

     

    ‘When you made your accusation you dangled a participle so I’m derailing the conversation to discussing how stupid it is of you to do that instead of the original subject.’

     

    I’d point out that shutting somebody up, or having them walk away from you as a hopeless case, is not the same thing as being right, something other abusive men could also stand to learn.

  • crowepps

    It depends on whether the homosociality is inclusive or exclusive – in some homosocial groups where machismo is a prerequisite, the enforcers of the “men don’t have emotional pain” taboo are the other men who use mockery to exclude ‘wimps’ from the group.

     

    Certainly you seem to be asserting that for a man to feel emotional pain is an unacceptable burden.   Why?   What solution do you suggest?  Are women supposed to ignore their own emotional pain over the unwanted pregnancy and privilege the emotional pain of men?  Doesn’t that imply that men’s pain is more important than women’s, or that it’s acceptable if women are in pain so long as men are not?

  • lbsimon

    How do you intellectually justify turning this into a competition between men and women, based on whose pain is more important? Could it be your indoctrination is showing?

     

    Abortion not only affects the father of the baby, but the grandfather, the siblings, and other relatives. Men who marry women who have had abortions are also affected by their wife’s pain, even if they did not father the aborted child.” http://www.rcpc.org/formen/pasmen.html

     

    “There is a myth in society that says men don’t care. People seem to believe that men are only involved in abortion decisions as forcers or abandoners. The belief is that men are untouched by the experience and that men are simply sperm donors who then walk away.” http://www.menandabortion.info/

  • crowepps

    Everybody feels pain, so just what is the point? It would be equally true to say “Having a child not only affects the father of the baby, but the grandfather, the siblings, and other relatives.” And now that we know that we have the blindingly obvious on the table, what? Why even bring it up for discussion unless something follows from that?

     

    If we tip over to the other extreme and proceed on the assumption that rather than all being “untouched by the experience” or “simply sperm donors” instead every single man ‘feels pain’ or ‘cares’, then what changes or should change?

  • catseye71352

    If you do, you will probably find that LBSimon, captcourageous, and gwallan have the same one.

  • gwallan

    No. As a matter of fact you won’t.

     

     

     

  • lbsimon

    Tsk-tsk-tsk (shakes his head in disbelief)! 

  • rebellious-grrl

    LBSimon/captcourageous (same person) and gwallan all post at the “men’s rights” websites. LBSimon/capt dorkus post the same crap and use the same dorky emoticons. They troll here to post our responces to make fun of us. They must have a lot of free time.

  • arekushieru

    Yeah, of course he does.  At the point EVERYone does, but ProLifers would only like to exclude WOMEN from doing.  When his body is involved.  DURRRR!!!!

  • arekushieru

    Who saw these people, Mr. Bauer or Mr. Copeland?  The latter?   That’s what I thought….

  • crowepps

    And Mom’s probably at work

  • gwallan

    Maybe Mr Copeland could speak for himself. I’m sure he could provide a sensible answer.

     

  • gwallan

    Actually I don’t have much spare time, particularly at this time of year. It’s just that you make the little time I do spend here such a pleasure.

     

  • jenk

    Wow, what a slanted, biased, and cynical view of the world! Maybe some men look at the women they date as their possessions, but most do not in my experience. Maybe some of the men who accompany women to the abortion clinic are there because they claim ownership, but not many. Most men, just like most women, are decent folks trying to do the right thing.

    When a woman chooses to abort her offspring, she is also choosing for the father of that offspring. If he sees that fetus as his living child, as most expectant parents do who actually want the pregnancy, the mother is in effect choosing to murder his child. Most of those men you accuse of “demanded we bring back their women” are likely not concerned about the women, but the child/fetus which they are carrying which the men had part in creating. Just because the woman does not want a child does not mean the man agrees.

    I do not think being supportive IS a prerequisite of one’s girlfriend having an abortion. Men who want to be fathers, who are fathers of unborn children, should not be forced to pretend they are supportive of a decision which kills their child. Even if the law says she has the right to do so, why are you adding insult to injury by saying the men must be happy about it? You have a right to change laws, you have no right to demand men have no feelings.

    Lets frame this differently. If I were to have my fertilized eggs implanted into a surrogate, and then the surrogate a few months later decides to have an abortion, I am supposed to accompany her and make her smile which she kills my child? The first time we see a case like this I imagine you and other bloggers will start singing a different tune. It is only a fetus when it isn’t wanted by a woman.

     

  • lbsimon

    You do what feminists on this forum like to pull. You immediately link my replies to “abusive” men anywhere and everywhere. You know, that vast, amorphous, ubiquitous army lurking out there, behind every rock! You set yourself up as a phoney-baloney expert on this phenomenon, tag me with a defamatory slur and figure you’ve made a valid cunterpoint.

    “I’d point out that shutting somebody up, or having them walk away from you as a hopeless case, is not the same thing as being right, something other abusive men could also stand to learn.”

    That’s very xenophobic of you crowepps. You are projecting your own abuse on to me.

  • lbsimon

    … including more of it, better and without the egocentric bias of Copeland!

  • lbsimon

    We’re getting tired of people like you, in this instance, begging the question with “Straw Man” comparisons that are saturated with anger and jealousy and little that is objectively substantive.

  • ahunt

    Oh Geez…lemme just pull out my miniature strativarius, and play Boo-Hoo for you, LB.

     

    You come in here swinging your dick around…obnoxious and insulting, and when no one is impressed, and you get called on your crap…you come up with the above whine…

     

    Puh…leeeeze!

  • otaku1960

    It is only a fetus when it isn’t wanted by a woman.

    WHAT??!!

  • mechashiva

    It’s just another tired anti-choice meme. Basically, JenK is doing a bad job accusing us of cognitive dissonance.

  • lbsimon

    Stop making excuses to encourage your comrades-in-arms to insult, ridicule and ignore us rather than debate and discuss. The xenophobia here is rampant.

  • lbsimon

    The sky is falling … the sky is falling!

     

    Tell me. Precisely what “men’s rights” sites do I post on?

  • lbsimon

    Because she doesn’t have a viable one to make in the first place.

     

    Sorry Mech, this has nothing to do with “sour grapes” on JenK’s part. It’s an awfully lame pro-choice meme on your part.

  • mechashiva

    I didn’t bother trying to make a rebuttal because I decided long ago that JenK isn’t worth responding to. Also, with rare exception (like now), I don’t dignify absurd claims with a response.

     

    I was only interested in explaining to otaku, who I haven’t seen before and assume to be unfamiliar with the, “pro-choicers think it’s a baby when it’s wanted, but not when it isn’t,” bullshit.

  • jenk

    http://machinegunkeyboard.com/shao/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/mbipc.jpg

     

    Not a fetus. A baby. Straight from the ‘pro-choicer’s’ mouth.

     

    Because ‘it’ is wanted.

     

     

  • arekushieru

    Hmm, I could show you pictures of women who call a fetus a fetus, even when they want to continue their pregnancy.  MUCH more than ONE single picture, OF course.

  • arekushieru

    If a man views an abortion as ‘murder’ of his ‘child’…?  Then, yes, he does think of the woman as his ‘possession’.  Why would it be any other way, when men think a woman’s uterus and its contents belong to them, because that is the only plausible reason that could enable them to make decisions over a woman’s body when NO one else is ever allowed to do so over any other group of people, EVEN WHEN it involves another’s life?  Hmmm…? 

  • arekushieru

    Hmm, let’s see.  Bauer is ProLife, why would he be working at an abortion clinic?  Gee, that’s what I thought….

  • jenk

    Your point?

     

    They may call it a fetus to others, but they are not thinking of it that way to themselves. When a woman or a man is invested in being a parent that fetus is a baby from the moment it is known, as is natural and normal. There is a great deal of bonding which occurs prior to the birth of a baby.  No one bonds with a fetus. We bond with the human we are going to meet at the birth. It is very telling that only when abortion became a social issue did anyone in society outside of medical circles refer to the unborn as a fetus

    In any case, the original point is that a man should shut up and support the choice of the woman to abort whether or not he agrees otherwise he is a controlling bastard. I think that is wrong. One can argue that he cannot have a choice (I do not necessarily agree but an argument can be made). There is no rational argument, however, which says he should support the action of killing his offspring. It is callous and sexist to insist men not be allowed to have feelings about their offspring being terminated. It is yet another attempt to take men’s feelings and turn it into a power play. Men do have emotions other than control and power. Men are being shoved into the gender role of either neutered supporter or controlling chauvanistic pig. Isn’t it time we got ride of the stereotypes and treated men as emotionally important and developed as women? At least give them the right to their feelings.

     

  • bei1052

    You immediately link my replies to “abusive” men anywhere and everywhere.

     

    It’s called a persecution complex.

  • arekushieru

    Really, then WHY is it that not ONE of you PLers, can come up with a comprehensive argument against it?  If it’s a “Straw man”, it should be easy.  The fact that you can’t, makes me think that it’s not.  That you are simply unwilling to look at it too closely, in case the misogyny of the movement becomes apparent.  You should, then, be able to tell me how a woman controlling who uses her uterus and when and how it is used is ANY different from a man (or even a corpse) controlling who uses his lungs, kidneys, liver, etc, and when and how they are used, even WHEN another’s life is involved, withOUT falling on the old standby that it’s ‘natural’ (which PLers glaringly fail to apply anywhere else), that it’s a result of sex (when consent to one action isn’t consent to another in the same accepted manner, anywhere else), that it’s a deliberate choice (how is that the woman’s fault?  She didn’t choose how her body functions, and neither did anyone else, which, of the latter, we have never tried to modify the original behaviour [punish] by restricting their freedoms), etc… etc…, after all. 

     

    Falling back on these standbys constitutes sexism (we don’t enforce other biological functions on other people, why should the largest physical burden ever placed on, and most life- and health-threatening harm to, one’s body – which it seems I must remind you that you were born without, by pure LUCK – be the ONLY one enforced in this manner) and ignorance of the woman’s own life, qualitatively and quantitatively (by inherently devaluing women, considering the position that they are placed in with pregnancy, while valuing feoti for the exact same reason you devalue the latter, granting moral, physical, social, emotional and intellectual agency and wants, wishes, dreams, desires and hopes to feoti while denying them to women and equalizing harms and physical burdens when they should not be).   

     

    Please do enlighten me as to how this is a ‘moldy’ argument, when, so far, it has frustrated PLers such as yourself (which I say because you increasingly resemble them with every word that comes out of your mouth) from deceiving others from being stripped of their rights…?  Hmmm…?

  • arekushieru

    Umm, if you’ve noticed, he hasn’t responded to any of the messages, here, inCLUding ProChoicers…?  Thanks.

  • bei1052

    It’s just another tired anti-choice meme. Basically, JenK is doing a bad job accusing us of cognitive dissonance.

     

    In America, babies are magic and can appear and disappear many times while still in their mommy’s womb.

     

    • If the woman wanted to get pregnant, it’s a baby.
    • If the woman decides she ditching the guy and doesn’t want his kid, it’s a fetus.
    • If the woman remembers that the man has a great job and will have to pay child support (Alakazaam!) it’s a baby again.
    • If the woman sees that the guy quit his job so as to duck support, the baby can be a fetus again.
    • If the woman gets depressed and uses cocaine to cheer up, she can be prosecuted for harming (Voila!) her baby! By American law, you can remove your fetus, but you cannot harm an unborn baby.
    • If the woman gets tired of all this baby disappearing and re-appearing crap, she can drive to an abortion clinic, and it’s just a fetus again.
    • If she is hit by a drunk driver on the way to the abortion clinic, and the guy is a rich doctor, she can sue him for the loss of her (Presto!) magically re-appeared baby!
  • arekushieru

    Umm, still missing the point, are you…?

     

    Baby is an emotional term.  It is an emotional for the infant stage of development.  Guess what, people can use emotional terms however they please.

     

    Get over it.

  • bei1052

    Guess what, people can use emotional terms however they please.

     

    Yes, and pro-choicers use the word “baby” when the fetus is wanted. Otherwise, it’s just a fetus. QED.

  • arekushieru

    And, again, my point is that makes a difference, how, to what you or JenK have said…?

  • ahunt

     

    • If the man wanted his woman to get pregnant, it’s a baby.
    • If the man decides he ditching the woman and doesn’t want his kid, it’s a fetus.
    • If the man remembers that he has a great job and will have to pay child support (Alakazaam!) it’s a fetus again.
    • If the man  sees that the woman can quit her job so as to get support, the baby can be a fetus again.
    • If the man gets depressed and uses alcohol to cheer up, and subsequently beats his pregnant girlfriend/wife, he can be prosecuted for harming (Voila!) his baby! By American law, women can remove a fetus, but the dad cannot intentionally harm an unborn baby…
    • Horseshit
    • More horseshit
  • harry834

    Isn’t it time we got ride of the stereotypes and treated men as emotionally important and developed as women? At least give them the right to their feelings.

    Is it possible to respect men’s feelings without

    A.) insisting that a woman carry a pregancy against her will?
    B.) calling her a murderer if she doesn’t?

    I’d really believe supporting women requires both A and B, but having at least A would protect a woman’s right to choose

  • lbsimon

    You either engage the dialogue or you don’t.

     

    None of us are missing your point. You have yet to make one that is substantive. and grounded in Reality.

     

    I strongly suggest you lay off intoxicants of any kind while you’re posting.

     

     

  • lbsimon

    “Is it possible to respect men’s feelings without

    A.) insisting that a woman carry a pregancy against her will?
    B.) calling her a murderer if she doesn’t?

    I’d really believe supporting women requires both A and B, but having at least A would protect a woman’s right to choose.”

     

    1) Is it possible to respect men’s feelings without insisting that a woman carry a pregnancy against her will?

     

    and

     

    2) Is it possible to respect men’s feelings without calling her a murderer, if she doesn’t?

     

    Ergo: A) Insisting a woman carry a pregnancy against her will respects men’s feelings,

             B) Calling her a murderer, if she doesn’t, also respects men’s feelings.

     

    [In your mind, are these "givens"? Are they rhetorical questions? They seem short-sighted and indicative of some sort of indoctrination you have received.]

     

     

  • lbsimon

    You’ve all been empowered to employ a virulently passive-aggressive form of Argumentum ad Baculum, when you can’t formulate a counterpoint.

  • lbsimon

    Hmmm, let’s see. Bauer is ProLife, therefore he’d have no first-hand experience of an abortion clinic. None, of anykind whatsoever, you’re sure? Hmmm-Hmmm, let’s also see. Why would Copeland have to perform the function of an “escort” for patients? Gee, that’s what you didn’t think … LOL!

     

  • lbsimon

    If the man gets depressed and uses alcohol to cheer up, and subsequently beats his pregnant girlfriend/wife, he can be prosecuted for harming (Voila!) his baby! By American law, women can remove a fetus, but the dad cannot intentionally harm an unborn baby… ” [??????]

     

    I’m watching the regulars here try and copy what the opposition writes; only to end up getting just plain tongue-tied in the process.

     

    We got the obligatory reference-to-assault rebuttal. Interesting that the ubiquitous when-in-doubt-reference-rape rebuttal wasn’t used.

  • lbsimon

    SEXIST FEMINISM

    Stereotyping men and the women who choose to live with them won’t help the quest for equality

     

    “If a man – any man, apparently they’re all the same – says he hates women, he’s being sexist. But some women have no qualms about pigeonholing all men into one category of violent, abhorrent brutes and calling it feminism. And that’s when feminism becomes nothing more than another form of sexism.”

     

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/04/gender-women

  • jenk

    “Is it possible to respect men’s feelings without

    A.) insisting that a woman carry a pregancy against her will?
    B.) calling her a murderer if she doesn’t?

    I’d really believe supporting women requires both A and B, but having at least A would protect a woman’s right to choose “

     

    I am not here to suggest repealing the abortion laws. I am suggesting men have independant feelings. You can respect a man’s feelings by allowing him to yes, think that the woman murdered his child. Or not. To be supportive, or not. To accompany the woman to the abortion, or not. Or to feel upset. Or to call her a murderer. Or to walk away from the woman and never see her again. The most important part? To respect his choice and right to do any of the above without shaming him or assuming malicious motivations. None of the above reactions impeded her choice to have an abortion.

    Why is it more important for the woman to get support anyway?

    Two people choose to have sex with each other. A child/fetus is concieved. The woman chooses to have an abortion. The man has no choice. While it is her body which is incubating the child/fetus, the child is part of each of them.

    So if the man wants to be a father, wants the child/fetus, he also has strong emotional issues related to the pregnancy.  Why is the woman more valuable and deserving of emotional support? If we are equal, men and women, then isn’t the woman equally responsible for supporting the man?

    Even if she goes through the abortion, as is her ability via US law, expecting the man to be supportive regardless of his feelings is ignoring his need for support.

    Shouldn’t the woman at the very least not expect him to pretend he is in agreement with this decision while she kills his future as a father, kills his child/fetus? Some men are fine with abortion, some are not. Don’t they have the right to choose at least how they feel about it? Shoudn’t we be sensitive to how our actions affect others around us? How audacious to think that women are so much more important that men’s feelings must take a back seat to a woman’s.

     

    As I said in my first post, if my eggs were implanted in a surrogate and the surrogate changed her mind and wanted an abortion, you would expect me to sit and hold her hand and make her laugh while she kills my baby? Maybe if it concerned two women there would be more compassion for the party which has no choice.

     

     

  • julie-watkins

    Shouldn’t the woman at the very least not expect him to pretend he is in agreement with this decision while she kills his future as a father, kills his child/fetus? Some men are fine with abortion, some are not. Don’t they have the right to choose at least how they feel about it?

    It depends on the relationship. If it is a relationship of equals and it’s an honest difference of opinion, I think the couple will have listened and know each other’s feelings, and they are dealing with it the best they can & it’s private. On the other hand, if the relationship is unequal then I don’t empathize with the man if he thinks of the fetus and the rebellious woman as his property — or if the woman is annoyed her boytoy isn’t being properly behaved — I wouldn’t be sympathetic with the abuser. And the person on the loosing side of a relationship that isn’t worth saving, I think it would be better if she or he realized that and could find a way to get out.

    As I said in my first post, if my eggs were implanted in a surrogate and the surrogate changed her mind and wanted an abortion, you would expect me to sit and hold her hand and make her laugh while she kills my baby?

    That would depend on if the surrogate is someone you paid or is a friend who volunteered to help and but later didn’t feel she could continue.

  • bei1052

    Wow, ahunt. That was so totally unfunny and uninspired. And non-sensical, considering men don’t get to redefine a baby as a fetus when it’s unwanted and a fetus as a baby when it’s wanted.

  • crowepps

    Xenophobia: an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/xenophobia

    That’s kind of bizarre – are ‘men’ foreigners or just strange?  I will admit that the violently mental ill like batterers seem pretty strange to me, but I don’t think fear of them is unreasonable at all since they’re obviously dangerous.

     

    My comment was that your communication style is like that of abusive men, which it is.  Including this comment.  Since I don’t know you personally I have no idea if you express the rest of the pattern, but based on your comments here it wouldn’t surprise me.

  • crowepps

     Isn’t it time we got ride of the stereotypes and treated men as emotionally important and developed as women? At least give them the right to their feelings.

    I agree that the ‘feelings’ and ‘emotions’ of men and women should be equally important, but that wouldn’t change anything at all.  The ProLife opinion has been stated repeatedly to be that the woman’s ‘feelings’ and ‘emotions’ and squishy concepts like ‘mental health’ should have zero input into reproductive decisions, so from a ProLife point of view, fairness would mean that the ‘feelings’ and ‘emotions’ of men should also be considered irrelevant.

  • crowepps

     I am suggesting men have independant feelings. You can respect a man’s feelings by allowing him to yes, think that the woman murdered his child. Or not. To be supportive, or not. To accompany the woman to the abortion, or not. Or to feel upset. Or to call her a murderer. Or to walk away from the woman and never see her again. The most important part? To respect his choice and right to do any of the above without shaming him or assuming malicious motivations. None of the above reactions impeded her choice to have an abortion.

    I don’t have any problem at all with ‘respecting’ a man’s feelings in most of the ways that you have outlined.  He has a right to his feelings, he has a right to his opinions, and if he wants to walk away and never see her again, that’s also certainly his right.

     

    What I do have a big problem with is the idea that any of that should be a factor in her decision or should include ‘shaming’ HER by calling her a ‘murderer’ or his ‘assuming malicious motivations’ on HER part.  He has exactly the same right to his emotions as she does to hers and his emotions are just as important than hers, but NOT more important.

     

    And, frankly, in my opinion two people whose relationship is so superficial that they are unaware of  being poles apart in their attitudes toward reproduction and birth control and using abortion as backup birth control and the importance of children don’t know each other well enough to be having sex in the first place.  Members of either sex who have casual promiscuous sex with people they don’t know well are apt to experience very unpleasant emotions when they find out what fools they’ve been to do so.  Pregnancy isn’t the only shocking surprise announced by ‘the test came back positive’.

    As I said in my first post, if my eggs were implanted in a surrogate and the surrogate changed her mind and wanted an abortion, you would expect me to sit and hold her hand and make her laugh while she kills my baby?

    Well, since she’s agreed to risk her life for you, wouldn’t her reasons for doing so be pretty important?  I would assume that the enormous favor she was willing to do for you would prompt you to act like a decent human being and comfort her as she went through such a distressing experience.  Has she been diagnosed with breast cancer?  Developed dangerous complications?  Dicovered the fetus is grossly malformed?

     

    Do you think so little of women that you are proceeding on the assumption that she’s a frivilous idiot and acting on impulse?

  • crowepps

    If all men were abusive brutes we wouldn’t even be having a conversation about it, because it would be as much a ‘fact of nature’ as people having eyebrows or walking on two feet.

     

    The reason there is a conversation about the problems caused by violent, abhorrent brutes is because the majority of men, who do not act like that, join women in deploring the damage they cause to relationships.  The victims of the minoirity of violent, abhorrent brutes include beside the woman her father, brothers,  sons and every other male who would never dream of  acting that way and yet who has to cope with being treated suspiciously because women cannot tell who is whom and so have to be guarded and wary with all men.

     

    If you believe domestic violence increases sexism, direct your scorn properly, at the batterers and rapists who fuel the problem by assaulting and killing women.

  • quentin0352

    It is simple, men have ZERO reproductive rights to abortion but they are held fully responsible if a woman decides to keep the child. The case law shows that rape, molestation and even stealing the contents of a condom from the trast are no excuse for his not being responsible. So if the male is responsible no matter what he case, then shouldn’t he have a choice?

     

    No matter what, most any argument will likely be labled as mysogonist but that is a common attempt to silence the debate on men have actual rights in reproduction. Present standards and society seem to hold the belief that a child is property and the sole property of a woman while ignoring that men have rights and feelings as well. As a father I love my children dearly, have always been responsible for them and have shown much more care for them than their real mother. While the first pregnancy was not intended on my part, it was later found out she had bragged about intentionally getting pregnant, now what rights would I have if I had wanted to not have the children? Could I have waled away and not have to pay support, take care of health and medical issues or anything? No. I would be “responsible” no matter what and told how a failure in birth control that I used was my own problem with no out.

     

    So shouldn’t BOTH parties have a choice and say in the matter and for those who support men having no say in abortion, then shouldn’t they have an option for a “legal” abortion? Or should we keep holding men who are raped, boys who are molested and men who are lied to and scammed responsible?

  • crowepps

    My experience is that instead men use the alternate phrasing when it’s wanted of MINE and when it’s unwanted as NOT MINE as in ‘I can’t stop you from having it but as far as I’m concerned it’s not my kid and you better not expect me to act like a father’.

  • rebellious-grrl

    That’s funny, seriously funny. LB, you’re playing dumb again. Let’s take a look the comments posted at http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/03/17/when-reproductive-rights.

    Here’s a quote from “captdorkus.” MANY comments from you, and others were deleted for being really highly inappropriate. I’m sure crowepps, ahunt, and wendy remember. 

     

    “Sincere invitation”
    Please, go to SYG. You can even register and login as a member. I am quite certain you will be welcomed and treated well there. The same goes for AM and mens-rights.net. It would help to eliminate a lot of unfounded assumptions and stereotypes on both sides. Submitted by Captcourageous on March 26, 2010 – 2:16pm.
    Here’s another one, LBSimon is right! All you’re LBSimon is right! All you’re interested in is your own brand of snotty oneupmanship and getting the last word in. Submitted by Captcourageous on March 26, 2010 – 11:15am.

     

     

     

     

  • mechashiva

    Actually, I used “baby” all the time while working at an abortion clinic. My patients did, too. None of them minded.

     

    Nice try, though.

  • mechashiva

    Ignoring someone is not the same thing as acquiescing to their claims.

     

    Speaking of which…

    <ignore>

  • rebellious-grrl

    Only if it’s a well you’re drinking from. Ha! Do you know what xenophobia means? Don’t think so. Why don’t you give us your best shot at defining that for us.

     

    My comrades don’t need any of help from me. They win debates/discussions with you easily.

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    Well said ahunt. Thanks!

  • bei1052

    I’ve already tried the above. They just call it misogynistic, claim that life isn’t fair and then mention something about equality.

  • bei1052

    My comment was that your communication style is like that of abusive men, which it is.

    See? Persecution complex.

  • crowepps

    AGGRESSIVE COMMUNICATION is a style in which individuals express their feelings and opinions and advocate for their needs in a way that violates the rights of others. Thus, aggressive communicators are verbally and/or physically abusive. Aggressive communication is born of low self-esteem (often caused by past physical and/or emotional abuse), unhealed emotional wounds, and feelings of powerlessness.

    Aggressive communicators will often:

    - try to dominate others
    - use humiliation to control others
    - criticize, blame, or attack others
    - be very impulsive
    - have low frustration tolerance
    - speak in a loud, demanding, and overbearing voice
    - act threateningly and rudely
    - not listen well
    - interrupt frequently
    - use “you” statements
    - have piercing eye contact and an overbearing posture

    The impact of a pattern of aggressive communication is that these individuals:

    - become alienated from others
    - alienate others
    - generate fear and hatred in others
    - always blame others instead of owning their issues, and thus are unable to mature

    The aggressive communicator will say, believe, or behave like:

    - “I’m superior and right and you’re inferior and wrong.”
    - “I’m loud, bossy and pushy.”
    - “I can dominate and intimidate you.”
    - “I can violate your rights.”
    - “I’ll get my way no matter what.”
    - “You’re not worth anything.” 
    - “It’s all your fault.”
    - “I react instantly.”
    - “I’m entitled.”
    - “You owe me.”
    - “I own you.”

    http://serenityonlinetherapy.com/assertiveness.htm

    Sound familiar?  How about this:

    A verbally abusive relationship is one in which one person tries to dominate, manipulate or control a partner through the use of hurtful and demeaning words, expressions, threats and intimidation. 

    This type of behavior usually reveals an insecure, repressive and manipulative personality. Definitely not someone you want to be around!

    Ask yourself these questions, and the more often your answer is yes, the more likely you are to be headed for a verbally abusive relationship.

    • Does he call you insulting or demeaning names?
    • Does he “take your inventory,” i.e., list your shortcomings in rapid fire fashion?
    • Does he raise the volume of his voice quickly when there is a disagreement or even just a discussion?
    • Does he say things like “How could you be so stupid?” or “I can’t believe you did something that dumb?”
    • Does he make outrageous demands of you?
    • Does he threaten you with physical harm or some form of emotional, psychological or even financial retribution if you don’t do what he tells you?
    • Does he nullify or minimize every objection you raise?
    • Does he shoot down every attempt you make to justify your actions or feelings?
    • Does he demand vociferously that you apologize for something you’ve done?
    • Does he deny any request you make to explain your point of view?

    http://www.ishouldhaveknownbetter.com/verbally-abusive-relationship.html

    There is a solution!  It is possible to learn effective communication

    http://www.angriesout.com/fairfigh.htm

  • lbsimon

    “If all men were abusive brutes we wouldn’t even be having a conversation about it, because it would be as much a ‘fact of nature’ as people having eyebrows or walking on two feet.”

     

    First of all, I hope someday to actually witness a conversation between the regulars here, like you in this instance, and anyone who does not completely tow the party line. Secondly, men-as-abusive-brutes is a staple of the a priori assumptions and snooty retorts served up fresh and hot by the regulars here, on a daily basis.

     

    “The reason there is a conversation about the problems caused by violent, abhorrent brutes is because the majority of men, who do not act like that, join women in deploring the damage they cause to relationships.  The victims of the minoirity of violent, abhorrent brutes include beside the woman her father, brothers,  sons and every other male who would never dream of  acting that way and yet who has to cope with being treated suspiciously because women cannot tell who is whom and so have to be guarded and wary with all men.

     

    I’m sorry, but this appears to be a run-on sentence that makes no sense and seems to be irrelevant to the article posted.

     

    “If you believe domestic violence increases sexism, direct your scorn properly, at the batterers and rapists who fuel the problem by assaulting and killing women.”

     

    Yes – don’t dare direct it at the feminists who portray all men as being violent and abusive brutes!!!

  • crowepps

    Secondly, men-as-abusive-brutes is a staple of the a priori assumptions and snooty retorts served up fresh and hot by the regulars here, on a daily basis.

    Oh, not a daily basis at all, unless of course we are having a visit from the ‘real men are SUPPOSED to be abusive brutes’ brigade whose members, such as yourself, are such excellent exemplars of the type.

  • lbsimon

    As I said in my first post, if my eggs were implanted in a surrogate and the surrogate changed her mind and wanted an abortion, you would expect me to sit and hold her hand and make her laugh while she kills my baby?

    Well, since she’s agreed to risk her life for you [FOR MONEY], wouldn’t her reasons for doing so be pretty important? (PER THE CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT?)  I would assume that the enormous favor she was willing to do for you (AND GET HANDSOMELY REMUNERATED FOR SO DOING) would prompt you to act like a decent human being and comfort her as she went through such a distressing experience (YEAH, JenK, SUCK IT UP … HOLD HER HAND, MAKE HER LAUGH … AND PAY HER ANYWAY!)

     

     Has she been diagnosed with breast cancer?  Developed dangerous complications?  Dicovered the fetus is grossly malformed? (OR IS SHE GOING TO TAKE THE MONEY, FLIP YOU THE BIRD AND RUN?)

     

    Do you think so little of women that you are proceeding on the assumption that she’s a frivilous idiot and acting on impulse? (ARE YOU ‘THAT’ ADDICTED TO PLAYING THE VICTIM CARD AND RELYING ON RED HERRING ARGUMENTS?)

     

    Honestly, crowepps, you make it sound as though the “Rh” in Rh Reality Check stands for “Red herring”.

     

  • lbsimon

    And what a seriously distorted view you have. Careful, crowepps, your misandry is beginning to show!

  • bei1052

    There is a solution! It is possible to learn effective communication.

    You could drop the persecution complex ;)

  • crowepps

    I don’t hate or fear or feel contemptuous of men.

     

    I will admit I do have a low tolerance for abusive jerks and feel a lot of contempt for them, but that’s not misandry – most men are neither abusive nor jerks and I dislike abusive jerks who are female just as much.

  • rebellious-grrl

    opps double post

  • rebellious-grrl

    “Yes – don’t dare direct it at the feminists who portray all men as being violent and abusive brutes!!!”

    Is that a command LB? You the hell are you to give such commands? You are such a whiner.

     

  • crowepps

     

    Aggressive communication is born of low self-esteem (often caused by past physical and/or emotional abuse), unhealed emotional wounds, and feelings of powerlessness.

  • crowepps

    Aggressive communicators will often:

     

    – try to dominate others
    – use humiliation to control others
    – criticize, blame, or attack others

  • crowepps

    You make it sound as though the whole issue is about the money.

  • ahunt

    You could drop the insufferable superiority complex…

    But you obviously derive such great pleasure from writing and reading your own long-winded, pompous, and frequently insulting screeds,  utterly oblivious to the fact that you bore the shit out of people….so by all means…wallow in that big ol’ IQ of yours…it is cheap entertainment.

  • crowepps

    As I recollect, he was appalled by my failing to get the fact that he was just kidding around — let me find that:

    And I’m guessing you wouldn’t recognize facetiousness even if it were spelled out for you. I mean, the whole 169 IQ thing should have been a dead give away. Or, at least, one would have thought so. Ah well…

    because it was ‘ludicrous’ to believe anybody who knows someone in the top few percentage points of the bell curve would be posting here –

    I highly doubt the people you spend your time with have IQ’s in excess of 160. Approximately 97% of the population falls within 2 standard deviations of the mean (100). People having over 160 IQ would be in the top .0001% percentile, and I think that’s overstating it.

    So the whole IQ thing was a joke.  He assumed we’d get it right away because it’s so obvious he’s not that smart.  As a bleeding heart liberal I gave him the benefit of the doubt but I guess he was correct — he’s not.

  • bei1052

    You could drop the insufferable superiority complex…

    Didn’t know I had one. Indeed, I don’t ever remember claiming to be smarter then someone… Are you sure you’re not trying to deflect away from the fact that you might have an inferiority complex (to go along with that persecution complex)?

    But you obviously derive such great pleasure from writing and reading your own long-winded, pompous, and frequently insulting screeds, utterly oblivious to the fact that you bore the shit out of people….so by all means…wallow in that big ol’ IQ of yours…it is cheap entertainment.

    Actually, I derive great pleasure from blatant hypocrisy, and you guys and gals are a never-ending source of it. Plus, your propensity to have your arguments devolve into petty insults when you find you can’t actually respond to the things I type out is also is quite amusing.

  • ahunt

    Ah…blew by that, crowepps…but the boy has only himself to blame…

     

     

  • bei1052

    So the whole IQ thing was a joke. He assumed we’d get it right away because it’s so obvious he’s not that smart. As a bleeding heart liberal I gave him the benefit of the doubt but I guess he was correct — he’s not.

    …Because IQ tests measure how smart you are…

  • ahunt

    Well gee, Bei…don’t keep us in suspense.

  • ahunt

    Snerk…rest my case.

  • crowepps

    but it’s only fair to point out that you missed on that one. I’m waiting for his admission that my correction was because I’m fair and unbiased — but I’m not holding my breath.

  • bei1052

    In suspense of what?

  • bei1052

    Correction of what?

  • ahunt

    It is not like you to pass on a chance to wax eloquent, Bei. Do tell us alllll about what IQ tests measure, because I am absolutely certain no one here has ever researched the question.

  • bei1052

    You had a case?

  • bei1052

    IQ tests measure cultural and social biases.

  • ahunt

    Stop scaring me, Bei.

  • crowepps

    So far as I know, IQ tests do not measure how tall you are, or your blood pressure, or whether you have been exposed to a germ. I believe the purpose of them is to measure the particular type of intelligence valued by our literate culture, although some tests can also measure ‘comparative processing speed’.

     

    IQ ranking is not necessarily the same thing as ‘educated’ since a person can have a lightening fast comparative processing speed without ever having been exposed to book learning. It has little to do with who will make a suitable employee since it does not measure ability to get along with others, ability to handle pressure or ability to make logical decisions in real world situations. It is also not necessarily the same thing as ‘smart’, although certainly ‘smart’ (mentally alert) might fit with ‘quick comparative processing speed’ so long as the other necessity for ‘smart’, resourcefulness, was present, something which IQ tests might not measure.

     

    In short, IQ tests are actually pretty useless for much of anything except allowing one to rank the members of a group that takes the test compared to one another to see how useful they MIGHT be to society in doing the particular tasks our civilization needs to have done.  And being ‘more useful’ is NOT the same thing as ‘a better person than’.  The American president with the highest IQ is believe to be the paranoid racist Richard Nixon.

  • crowepps

    Yes, that’s right.

     

    In our culture we set a high value on people who can read and write and do math really well.  There is a social bias as well, since people who can read and write and do math really well tend to end up in jobs that are considered higher ‘prestige’ and pay more money.

     

    In a country with an equitable and fair education system where merit was encouraged and rewarded, this would have no connection whatsoever to gender, color, religion or parentage, but in America, whose very expensive colleges give a preference to the children of alumni, no matter how high your IQ, it is very difficult to move from one ‘class’ to another.

  • crowepps

    “wallow in that big ol’ IQ of yours”

     

    “No, no, the IQ thing was a joke”

  • equalist

    I rather like the idea of men being able to have what you refer to as a “legal abortion”.  Although, I think if we’re going to go in that direction, it should have the same limitations as an abortion has for a woman.  Only one or two providers per state, if that many.  The lawyers trained in legal abortion should have massive restrictions placed on them by the system to try and run them out of business.  The men going through the process should be subjected to the same waiting periods, viewing of ultrasounds, paperwork, etc that women are subjected to in the case of an actual abortion, just to make sure that they’re really really sure they don’t want to keep the baby.  And there should be a time limit on how far into the pregnancy the legal abortion can be obtained, as in a few weeks.  I’m actually not trying to be completely sarcastic here.  I do think it would be a fair option such as for cases of rape, molestation, and the old “stealing the condom contents from the trash can” and could be used as a deterrent to the latter instance (if not the other two), but it should be designed in such a way that men who are not inclined to paying child support cannot use it to father multiple children, with multiple women (many times purposely, in order to show their “manliness”) and avoid being responsible for their actions.  It should also be designed in a way to prevent men who already have children with their spouses, partners, etc from using it as a tool to skip out on child support when the relationship fizzles out.

  • princess-rot

    Men should also be required, upon claiming “she stole my sperm/oopsed me”, to submit to a paternity test, which they will have to pay for and get done at a CPC, who are in their entire right to lecture on the merits of abstinence and sexual purity, and require the man to watch a video about the pains of vasectomy vs. the joys of fatherhood. They will be required also to submit an enhanced disclosure to the police, and attend for an interview in which they will have their sexual habits, job, and lifestyle scrutinized, and asked what they were wearing before coitus happened, and how much they’d had to drink, with every perceived infringement of ‘proper’ behavior counting against the seriousness of their claim. The paternity test results will be processed by a Catholic hospital, which may or may not choose to dispense the results unless proof of chastity and/or monogamy can be given, and in the meantime the claimant will pay a year’s premium on child support upfront, which is non-refundable in the unlikely event of a successful claim. Non-payment of this toll will result in incarceration, and shackling face-down to a bed, as it is in the interests of all that the claimant is not tempted and does not sire any more fetuses until the claim is processed. The bureau cannot be held responsible for any traumas, losses, breaches, runny noses, infringements, assaults, hair loss, employment or financial strictures.

  • jenk

    No, you are not right.  Seeing the fetus as a child does not necessarily make the man view the woman as his possession. If my child was in an incubator in the hospital I do not view the hospital, or the incubator as mine. I view the child within these mine. The man can very much respect the woman as a separate entity which happens to be incubating his child. She likewise should respect his view as the parent of a child she happens to be incubating.

     

    This is not an easy topic, because there are equally valid, conflicting needs here. The woman’s ability to have say in what happens to her body, and the man’s ability to have say in what happens to his offspring which happens to reside temporarily in her body. I am not going to make a call on whose need should trump whose, as this is not the topic. We should, however, all respect that men have a stake in this issue which is not necessary motivated out of power and control.

  • jenk

    But you don’t agree with that, so why are you using it to prove your point?  If you distain that point of view why are you trying to force it on men?  Seems hypocritical to me.

  • jenk

    But you don’t agree with that, so why are you using it to prove your point?  If you distain that point of view why are you trying to force it on men?  Seems hypocritical to me.

  • jenk

    And do you think so much of women that you assume they never have frivolous reasons for doing things? They are human, just like men.

     

    You are right, in an ideal world people would not have sex until they were in a place to understand all the consequences, each others views, and have a plan in case something went haywire. In a perfect world abstintence-only education  would work, too. Making rules based on the ideal is foolish. You agree when it is absinence-only education, but suddenly when it comes time to defend your view it is ok?

     

    People change their minds. A woman who says she would never get an abortion may decide when pregnant that she just doesn’t think she can handle having a baby. A man who thinks he is fine with abortion may realize that he really cares about the baby when he knows it is his. Or vice versa. We can all pretend we know what we would do when hard times strike, but we aren’t always right. Also, people do sometimes lie, both men and women.

     

    The author of this article shamed men who wanted their baby and dared to show it. He put malicious intent on them and branded them oppressors. Apparently the people who are in agreement of this article support his right to say such a thing.

    If a man calls his girlfriend a murderer because she aborted his baby,  he is telling her what he thinks she has done. He has a right to do so according to you, who agree the author here can do the same thing. If you do not think he has a right to do so, then you should likewise denounce the author.

     

    In my hypothetical case, I am not paying the surrogate. There are no underlying health issues with the baby or the woman.  She is not communicating her reasons to me other than “I just don’t want to do it.”

    This is another thing. Would it matter what her reason is? The pro-abortion side is always saying it is a woman’s choice which she does not need to defend to anyone. So it really should not matter why she is having an abortion.

    There is a difference between a woman or man saying something in private to their partner and an author painting a wide group of people with a negative brush. I personally think it is acceptable to call a woman a murderer if she murdered your child. I would have no problem with calling a man a deadbeat if he walked away from your child. If I am not the mother or father it really is not my business.

  • jenk

    So what about debate? It can get aggressive, or assertive rather. I enjoy the parry and thrust of a good debate. The intellectual stimulation, the creation of well written ideas, and hearing what other people have to say are all reasons I post on sites where people dissagree with each other. I get bored posting where everyone agrees with each other. Seems like mental group masturbation.

  • jenk

    In most states abortion is not this difficult to attain. In NY you don’t even need to show ID-you walk in with your cash and get your abortion. You fill out a medical history form on which you can lie through your teeth if you wish. You can give a fake name if you wish.  You do not need to prove you have been raped, you do not need to lay out your personal sexual history. Every effort is made to make the woman feel comfortable and not judged. 

     

    Men already must pay for their own DNA tests.

    There are more than one or two abortion providers in many states.  Catholic hospitals do not provide abortions, so I have no clue why you included that.

     

    I would say that men should have a 3 month window from the point they were informed they had a child to decide. If the woman chooses not to tell them until the child is 5, they still have that 3 month window. The father should not be on the birth certificate unless he has signed it, which means he has been informed. If there is no father on the birth certificate then officially he has not been informed. I would personally support manditory DNA testing at every birth, and manditory signing of the birth certificate upon positive tests-IF men had the paper abortion option.

    I have no problem with a man having to sit through a 30 minute presentation on the effects of fatherlessness on children, and I have no issue with a man having to come back 2 days later to confirm his decision after having watched the presentation. These are fair demands.

    I personally wish no woman would ever have an abortion and no man would ever walk away from his child. But as long as we allow one party this ‘right’,  we must, in the name of equality, allow the other.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Being assertive is different than being aggressive and abusive. And for the group masturbation comment, not cool. If you were a regular reader/poster of this blog you would understand that people on the same of an issue debate the nuances of that issue and do have opposing views and will discuss/debate in a healthy respectful way. I don’t have to demean another person to make my point or feel good about myself.

    There is a huge difference in discussing an issue in a respectful way and how some posters here use insults, innuendo, and downright rude comments to get their point across. Several of LBSimon’s comments have been deleted by the moderators in the past for being abusive. If you can’t recognize some of the comments by LBSimon (and the like) as being abusive and vindictive than we have nothing to discuss. (Notice, I didn’t say ALL comments.) I am happy to debate an issue without using name calling and insults but when insulting abusive comments are posted I will stand up for myself and others and fight back with the same firepower. Jenk I think we have had some good discussions in the past and I don’t think the group masturbation comment was fair or accurate and I think you know that too. 

  • colleen

    I get bored posting where everyone agrees with each other. Seems like mental group masturbation.

    Odd because I find your trolling and what you call ‘debate’ profoundly boring.

  • rebellious-grrl

    In most states abortion is not this difficult to attain.

    I disagree. There are many barriers to getting an abortion. There is the cost. It’s not like abortions are free. There are mandatory 24 hour waiting periods, there is a lack of abortion providers in many states. For example, in North Dakota I believe there is only one clinic in Fargo that offers abortion services. Once a woman gets to a clinic to have an abortion she is often harassed by anti-choice protesters outside the clinic. So no abortion is not always easy to attain.

    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/507404_3

    There are 32 states that have laws subjecting women to biased counseling and/or mandatory delays to getting an abortion. Eight of these laws are fully or partially unconstitutional and unenforceable. Eight states also have unconstitutional laws that require women to give notice to here husband prior to receiving an abortion.

    http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/choice-action-center/in_your_state/who-decides/maps-and-charts/

  • rebellious-grrl

     

    Aggressive communication is born of low self-esteem (often caused by past physical and/or emotional abuse), unhealed emotional wounds, and feelings of powerlessness.

     

    Ain’t that the truth.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Thanks for posting this definition. Very helpful in defining what is verbal abuse. 

  • rebellious-grrl

    To take your example,

    If I were to have my fertilized eggs implanted into a surrogate, and then the surrogate a few months later decides to have an abortion, I am supposed to accompany her and make her smile which she kills my child? The first time we see a case like this I imagine you and other bloggers will start singing a different tune. It is only a fetus when it isn’t wanted by a woman.

    If I was in this situation and the surrogate didn’t want to remain pregnant, yes I would accompany her to the doctor for an abortion. I would never force a woman to be pregnant or force her to give birth. I trust that she would have a good reason for not wanting to remain pregnant. I would go with her and be supportive.

  • crowepps

    What is a homosocial organization anyway?

    The term was created by sociologist Jean Lipman-Blumen in 1976 and describes a pattern of social structure of segregated social roles, where men spend most of their time with each other and enforce the group consensus of what ‘masculinity’ means and women spend most of their time with women and enforce the group consensus of what ‘feminity’ means.

     

    Men & Masculinities is available through Google books, and I highly recommend it.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=jWj5OBvTh1IC&pg=PA396&lpg=PA396&dq=homosocial+groups&source=bl&ots=Xw0lS7Ry0y&sig=zz6JDQPax3p0k7_J52Sb0yZUJ6Q&hl=en&ei=fh4yTJXVLdORnwe5pLHcAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=homosocial%20groups&f=false

     

    Would you likewise then say that the point of women getting pregant is to prove their eggs work?

    It’s usually phrased as ‘being a real women’ or ‘being a total woman’.  Isn’t that precisely what underlies the pity expressed by women for the ‘spinster’ or the childless woman? 

     

    ‘Oh, poor Sally, she wasn’t able to give her husband children – she’s failed as a woman’.

     

    Isn’t that where women’s contempt for and even fury arises when women are voluntarily childless?  Because it’s outrageous for them to opt out of the ‘real women are  mothers’ competition and decide to do something else with their time?

     

    Ever heard the disdain expressed by women towards mothers who allow the father to have physical custody of the children?  No matter what the reasons?

     

    Isn’t that what is being expressed when a woman undergoes years of infertility treatment in order to experience pregnancy and birth rather than adopting?  Because wanting to raise a child isn’t the point, the point is ‘proving the eggs/uterus works’ and ‘celebrating fertility’?

     

    Isn’t that what the Duggards are doing?

    But in most of the US men do not see getting a woman pregnant out of wedlock as a good thing anymore than most women do.  

    Then why do studies pretty consistently show that they don’t bother to use or even resist using birth control?

  • bei1052

    Thanks for posting this definition. Very helpful in defining what is verbal abuse.

     

    Would the following count as verbal abuse?

     

    Really, Princess Rot what can you expect from some fuck-tard that come from a 3rd world country like Nigeria (isn’t that right Mr Salley???). A country that is about 50% muslim, and a hive for crime, disease, human-rights issues. Too bad I.C.E can’t pack his ass up and ship him out of here, or have you over stayed your visa?

     

    :)

  • crowepps

    The woman’s ability to have say in what happens to her body, and the man’s ability to have say in what happens to his offspring which happens to reside temporarily in her body.

    Except that you are failing to recognize one thing here – his offspring does not “reside temporarily in her body”, instead her body is actually under heavy stress CONSTRUCTING that offspring by dissassembling her own body for the materials.  There is absolutely no effect on his body whatsoever and he could have multiple girlfriends all simultaneously gestating “his offspring” while he spends his time down at the sports bar with his buddies and grouses about how inconvenient it is for him when he crashes at one of their places and a bout of morning sickness wakes him up early and how she should be quieter when she’s throwing up.

    We should, however, all respect that men have a stake in this issue which is not necessary motivated out of power and control.

    However we should also recognize that sometimes it is indeed motivated out of power and control.  How can we distinguish one motivation from another?  Well, beating her up seems to me to be a broad hint.

    Edited to add one question:
    You do realize, I hope that your use of the possessive pronoun in the repeated use of term “his offspring” seems to indicate that he ‘owns’ or ‘possesses’ the ZBEF? And implies that she doesn’t have any ‘offspring’ but is just an unrelated incubator?

  • lbsimon

    … payment for services rendered out of the picture altogether. Who does this free of charge?

     

    Wait a minute here! Did I just read a comment from you that didn’t include an insult? Shazaam!

  • lbsimon

    Passive-aggressives (like You in this case) typically provoke frustration and anger in others, due to their intractability, and this is a result … not a precedent intention (now, go back and consult some more with the female attorney that’s apparently coaching you). 

  • crowepps

    But as long as we allow one party this ‘right’,  we must, in the name of equality, allow the other.

    The rights only have to be equal if the parties are in equal situations, and here they are not.

     

    Man: ejaculate and receive letter 10 months saying you’re a Dad.  Send checks (if you have any spare cash that month).

     

    Woman: Divert entire body to development of ZBEF, setting aside any incompatible activities during the 10 month process, risk complications that can include permanent mutilation or death, and give birth.  Raise and support child for rest of your life.

     

    Aside from the problem of withholding support from a woman who completed her pregnancy and produced an offspring because OTHER women chose to have abortions (no support thereafter necessary), which frankly sounds to me like they are being punished for NOT having an abortion, the one most affected is actually going to be the child who isn’t supported.

     

    It seems to me your ‘solution’ would have only one effect – it would allow men to feel ‘in control’ without their actually having to take the responsibility to EXERCISE control at the point where they have real power over potential offspring – at the point of ejaculation where they can personally take steps to CONTROL whether or not a pregnancy occurs.

  • jenk

    Then ignore my posts.

  • crowepps

    If you’ll go back and look at the original post, you will see it didn’t contain anything about “payment for services rendered”. 

     

    Sisters do this for sisters, mothers do this for their daughters, and sometimes friends do it for friends.  They do it out of love and compassion, not for money.

  • lbsimon

    ‘Yes – don’t dare direct it at the feminists who portray all men as being violent and abusive brutes!!!’

    “Is that a command LB? You the hell are you to give such commands? You are such a whiner.”

     

    Careful Reb, you’re paranoia is showing.

     

    Here’s a command – Go take your feminist cliche about whining and try to apply it to something that is actually relevant and coherent. You make yourself sound as though you haven’t had an original thought in your whole life, Reb.

  • lbsimon

    “I don’t hate or fear or feel contemptuous of men.

     

    I will admit I do have a low tolerance for abusive jerks and feel a lot of contempt for them, but that’s not misandry – most men are neither abusive nor jerks and I dislike abusive jerks who are female just as much.”

     

    You’ve just received a small taste of what it’s like for a male ‘dissident’ to be accused of misogyny – a priori.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Bei1052 the context of the comment would be important in making that judgement. I can say, your comment is immature and ignorant.

  • crowepps

    There is a difference between a woman or man saying something in private to their partner and an author painting a wide group of people with a negative brush.

    No, being abusive to your partner in is not okay just because you do it in private, and if you’ll reread the original article you will see that the author wasn’t talking about private behavior, which the author wouldn’t have been aware of because it WAS private, but instead about verbal abuse and threatening behavior that happened IN PUBLIC, where it was witnessed.

     

    People who are publicly abusive and threatening, who put bystanders in a situation where the bystanders have to make a choice between endangering themselves by interferring or feeling they have enabled an abuser, deserve all the negative publicity and public condemnation possible, because those actions are an offense to public order and civility.  There is little sympathy once past the age of about 7 for people who handle their issues by throwing public tantrums, and it doesn’t matter whether those screaming, cursing and making threats are male or female.  The predominant reaction of people who have their peace and safety invaded by these adult brats is GROW UP.

  • lbsimon

    My experience is that instead men use the alternate phrasing when it’s wanted of MINE and when it’s unwanted as NOT MINE as in ‘I can’t stop you from having it but as far as I’m concerned it’s not my kid and you better not expect me to act like a father’.

    My experience is that men refer to it as a baby. The only exceptions to this are found in the medical and legal professions.

  • crowepps

    When making statements, there is a huge difference between making a statement about “abusive men” and making a statement about “women” with no qualifier that you’re referencing a small subclass who exhibit behavior that’s equally reprehensible in men.

     

    So, just for instance, talking about how “promiscuous women” are this or that, or “single mothers” are this or that, and ignoring the fact that in both cases there’s a man involved who is just as promiscuous and just as single, or worse yet, excusing the same behavior by the men because ‘it’s ‘normal’ for men to be promiscuous but not ‘normal’ for women’, tends to sound like misogny.

  • bei1052

    Bei1052 the context of the comment would be important in making that judgement. I can say, your comment is immature and ignorant.

     

    And, pray tell, under what context would calling someone a “fuck-tard” and lamenting the fact that they haven’t been deported (even if they’re a U.S. citizen) to not be, as you would say, abusive? Because I’m curious. I really am (especially when you consider the fact that the comment has been deleted now, along with my response to it because it quoted the comment).

     

    You guys and gals have this knack for screaming abuse at every little thing, yet somehow attempt to rationalize away comments which clearly are abusive in nature. Hypocrisy really is a bad thing.

  • lbsimon

    My … how utterly unctious of you Mech. About as slick as a newborn baby.

  • lbsimon

    … “The Socratic Method”; so, what have you got to teach?

  • ahunt

    The victims of the minority of violent, abhorrent brutes include, beside the woman… her father, brothers,  sons and every other male who would never dream of  acting that way and yet who has to cope with being treated suspiciously because women cannot tell who is whom and so have to be guarded and wary with all men.

     

    Try again, LB. Quite simply, men are also victims of abusive men.

  • rebellious-grrl

    I consider this an example of abusive aggressive language.

    “Passive-aggressive (like You in this case) typically provoke frustration and anger in others, due to their intractability, and this is a result … not a precedent intention (now, go back and consult some more with the female attorney that’s apparently coaching you).” – Posted by LBSimon.

    He is blaming his actions and the actions of others on crowepps (and anyone he deems passive-aggressive.) Therefore, he is not responsible for his actions because it’s the fault of the passive-aggressive commentator. The final sentence is a command, an order to do what he wants.

     

    Swearing and using four letter words (foul language etc.) is not by itself abusive. It’s who you say it to and the context of the situation and conversation.

  • lbsimon

    If you’ll go back and look at the original post, you will see it didn’t contain anything about “payment for services rendered”. [TELL ME, WHY WOULD A PATIENT ESCORT BE INVOLVED IN ANY MONETARY TRANSACTIONS? DID HE SEE THE BOOKS TOO?]

     

    Sisters do this for sisters, mothers do this for their daughters, and sometimes friends do it for friends.  They do it out of love and compassion, not for money. [OH Piffle! THIS IS MORE THAN YOUR USUAL RED HERRING, CROWEPPS, THIS IS DOWNRIGHT DELUSIONAL! YOU'RE GRASPING AT STRAWS, TO SAY THE LEAST.]

  • lbsimon

    That was a very lousy translation job. Perhaps you could let her write her own reply.

     

     

  • lbsimon

    Attacking your opponent’s mental health is fallacious to the max. Who advised you to pull this one out of your … ????

     

    Careful, Crowepps, your sado-masochist tendencies are showing (again).

  • crowepps

    My statement was a quote from an article about aggressive communication.  Which of the commentors here are you identifying as aggressive communicators?

  • jenk

    I am sorry that it came out as if I were insulting you. I had not intended it that way. I enjoy our conversations, which is why I occasionally post here on interesting threads. I am not here when everyone is in agreement, so I have no idea if there are even threads like that.

     

    I was speaking more to places like Feministing, or The Female Mysogynist, both of which heavily shame or outright ban posters who do not tow the partyline (I’ve been banned from one and run off the other), and some sites I enjoy but which sometimes lack dissenting views just because everyone there usually agrees with each other. This obviously is a bipartisan problem; MRA sites do both of these as well as feminist sites.

     

     Again, I apologize for not being more careful in how I explained myself. I appreciate the ability to debate here. While I disagree with many of the bloggers I do enjoy the conversations here and think the admins are to be commended for allowing robust discussion.

  • crowepps

    She expressed exactly what I was trying to say.

  • crowepps

    I apologize if I leapt to the wrong conclusion about to which part of the thread this was referring.

     

    I thought this comment was part of the discussion on surrogacy.  It is to that topic that I was referring, and certainly that has nothing to do with patient escorts.

  • jenk

    And men are also victims of abusive women.  And children are victims of abusive men. And children are victims of abusive women. And children are victims of abusive children.

     

    People abuse each other. To pretend only men are the abusers is niave or dismissive. In either case it is innacurate.

     

    I do not think women have any reason to be guarded and wary with all men. 

     For every way a man has to be hurtful or dangerous to a woman, women have a way to be abusive or dangerous to men. They just are sometimes different or more subtle ways, but no less effective. I feel sorry that the ways men are abused is often not recognized as abuse to men, when the same action would be considered abuse if done by a man.

  • jenk

    I am sure some people do it for money, but I think you are correct that typically people do this for their loved ones. I know I would do it for one of my sisters if they needed me. None of them seem to need it though…last birth was triplets!

    On a side note:

    My 5 foot tall diabetic sister in law carried triplets to 36 weeks…nearly unheard of in triplets. She had no health issues with the pregnancy and the babies were all 5 pounds and healthy. She was completely housebound and in pain at the end, but she was determined to give those babies the best start she could. She rocks! It is so great to see something that heroic in someone you love. Of course now there is no arguing over who gets to hold the baby next :-)

  • crowepps

    anyone who does not completely tow the party line. Submitted by LBSimon on July 4, 2010 – 8:56pm.

    both of which heavily shame or outright ban posters who do not tow the partyline Submitted by JenK on July 5, 2010 – 5:13pm.

    I really try not to waste everybody’s time by being grammar police but this one keeps coming up from different posters and it’s DRIVING ME NUTS!! One is not ‘towing’ (pulling) the line. One is standing with ones TOES at the line.

    Toe the line – The most likely origins of the term go back to the usage of the wooden ships in the Royal Navy. Barefooted seamen had to stand at attention for inspection and had to line up on deck along the seams of the wooden planks, hence to “toe the line” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_the_line

  • lbsimon

    … What You Post … For Once!

     

     

  • lbsimon

    … “Tow” as in pull their weight and carry or support the program.

  • crowepps

    I don’t ‘own’ a comment that I didn’t compose and which I posted in full with the attribution first, and then posted a quote from.  If there are people here whom the style description fits, hopefully they can identify themselves.

  • lbsimon

    “You come in here swinging your dick around…obnoxious and insulting, and when no one is impressed, and you get called on your crap…you come up with the above whine…”

     How is it that wrestling passive-aggressive efforts to deflate and deflect is synonymous with swinging one’s genitalia … with an aim to impress, no less?

    Careful, ahunt, your latent penis-envy is starting to show … once again.

  • crowepps

    I agree with you 100% that abusiveness is a problem from all kinds of people with the behavior pattern and that we as a society ought to do a great deal more to identify all the different forms of it and discourage it.

    I do not think women have any reason to be guarded and wary with all men.

    I disagree.  Most self-defense and situational awareness instructors encourage women to be guarded and alert to threats to their safety in all situations.  Men assault and rape women and sometimes kill them.  The men who rape women look pretty much just like the ones who don’t.  If you’re not guarded and wary, you’re more likely to be a victim.  Once you have been a victim, you will BECOME guarded and wary.

  • squirrely-girl

    My experience is that people also refer to it as a baby when they lack an understanding or awareness for alternate definitions. People who have minimal exposure to an area will use more simple terms. In other words, it’s hard to use the terms zygote, embryo, fetus, or blastocyst if you don’t know what those words mean (as people in medical and legal professions would). This doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t perceive or assign different statuses for the various stages of pregnancy. I too have met men who are exceptions to this concept, but outside the medical and legal professions they were non-normative in other ways (family member owned a daycare growing up, spent a lot of time around children, etc.). Honestly, I think this would be an interesting study… :)

     

    I would also postulate that women are more likely to use these terms if only because, in general, women receive and transmit more information about pregnancy and childbirth than do men. In addition to the vast amount of info transmitted culturally and anectdotally by other women, the pregnant woman is the only person guaranteed to be present at prenatal appointments and generally the woman is the party most invested in learning any and all information about pregnancy and childbirth (because it’s happening to/in her body). Additionally, basic sex education programs are often segregated by sex, particularly in younger grades, with males and females receiving mostly sex-specific information. 

     

    None of my commentary above is meant to derogate men or dismiss their (potential) concerns or involvements. But like I’ve said before, there is a difference between being committed and being involved with a pregnancy. Similar to the way a chicken is involved and a pig is committed to a breakfast of eggs and bacon. I’m all for men being involved with a pregnancy… but at this point in time in evolution they just can’t physically be committed to the pregnancy in the way the woman has to be. 

  • jenk

    Who said anything about abusive?  Who said anything about threatening or verbal abuse? The author said these men “demanded their women”, or what could be said in other words “asked to talk to their girlfriend when they were obviously upset.” You and I were not there. The author assumed they were demanding because they were oppressive, but he also just has that worldview that men are just like that. I would argue it was equally or more likely the men were emotionally upset because he wanted to keep their unborn children, and when a man is emotionally upset he tends to tighten his voice harshly to try to maintain control over himself. Maybe a few men were doing this out of a sense of ownership, but asking to see someone, no matter how angrily, is not abusive.

     

    The author did not talk about tantrums, he talked about men who were not in agreement with the woman’s decision and wanted to talk to them.

     

    Saying to your partner that you disagree with them is not abuse.

     

    Calling your partner a name as you are leaving them is not abusive. Women do this all the time. You honestly think that a woman whose boyfriend cheated on her is not allowed to call him every name in the book for what he did? I think killing a man’s fetus/child is at least as important. If you agree that a woman is allowed to confront and accuse a man of cheating, and call him  names and insult him, then you must agree that a man is allowed to do the same about abortion. 

     

    Having a choice does not make you exempt from any consequences.  Honest abuse is one thing, and I don’t condone it. Going after her with a golf club for example would be abusive. Bringing it up over and over for years when she is financially dependant on him may or may not be abusive, there is an arugument to be made there. Telling her what he thinks of what she did? That is his opinion and right to do so.

     

    If you want to define verbal abuse, you must maintain the same standard for women as for men.

     

    btw, when Tiger Wood’s wife chased him down the street and beat him with a golf club over cheating, not one single organization denounced her.

  • squirrely-girl

    Attacking your opponent’s mental health is fallacious to the max.

    …but not always. From both a logical and forensic/legal perspective, there are plenty of scenarios where a person’s mental health would be sufficient cause for dismissing their arguments. However, this is entirely situation/person specific and unfortunately many people lack the necessary training to make these judgments. 

  • crowepps

    It makes perfect sense to “support” the platform or even to “carry” it (through), but what happens to it when you try to “tow” it?  The lateral motion involved in towing it causes it to fall apart.

     

    Like I said, I know it’s picky and I probably shouldn’t have posted it, but if you believe that language MATTERS it’s kind of a fingernails down the blackboard thing — I spend my work days figuring out precisely how to spell people’s normal speech so I’m hyperalert to choosing the correct antonyms.

  • lbsimon

    Other than gratutitous name-calling, done in spite, that is!

  • squirrely-girl

    I appreciate the point you’re trying to make here, but I believe it would also be rather naive and dismissive to pretend that there isn’t a gender imbalance here with men perpetrating a rather significant portion of violent crimes as compared to women. Just because both can and do abuse, doesn’t mean that abuse is normally distributed. Personally, I think ignoring or purposefully underestimating the role of sex and gender in social issues is just as bad as overestimating. 

     

  • lbsimon

    … It’s more like a massive psychological blindspot for your own passive-aggressive writing, combined with major denial about it.

  • crowepps

    One does not have a ‘good ear’ for WRITING.  Instead one has a lot of practice LISTENING and then transcribing.  I make no claims to be a good writer.

  • lbsimon

    Every time I’ve come here, whether to post or to just read, I’m given the distinct impression that male posters are uncomfortably foreign or strange, particularly to the regulars … to a degree that fits the definition of xenophobia. 

     

    My comment was that your communication style is like that of abusive men, which it is.

    Notice that I use “appears”, “gives the impression”, “reads as though”, etc. Whereas you (and other regulars here) just make over-simplifications and generalizations in a carte blanche fashion. You were the first to imply that I’m a child, on vacation from school and unsupervised by my mother; then to write that therapy was indicated for me, in your opinion. Reacting to crap like that is neither abusive, aggressive, dominating or dick-swinging. You set the tone and tenor for the subsequent interactions, then scurry into denial about it later on. First you’re being dominated by me and acquiesing to my claims, then I’m christened with the title of whiner. I would have to speculate that xenophobia is at the root of this.

     

  • lbsimon

    … You’re “a day late and a dollar short” at this point (a painfully redundant).

  • squirrely-girl

    It’s called playing devil’s advocate. Sometimes to point out the hypocrisy or flaws of an opponent’s arguments, a person will employ those same arguments in differing scenarios. If it seems hypocritical… that’s because the original premise usually is. 

     

    I don’t think she’s all that far off either – I too have noticed when the PL camp runs out of ideas and arguments against abortion they like to bring out the men’s mental health, feelings and concerns… like they really cared about anybody’s mental health, feelings, and concerns other than their own to begin with.  It seems obviously hypocritical to me.

     

    Likewise, I don’t get the impression she’s trying to force it on men, but rather force it on the people who want to be “concerned” about men when it suits them but aren’t really all that concerned about women. So, how do these people feel about men that are uber-supportive of their partner’s abortion decision? Do the mental health, feelings, and concerns of these men matter? Or is it just about the men who don’t support abortion?

  • crowepps

    Well, I disagree.  People have every right to disagree about things but they don’t have a right to demand the other person present themselves while they state that disagreement or to use FORCE or the THREAT OF FORCE to scare the other person into doing things their way.  Especially after a ‘relationship’ of THREE WEEKS.

     

    I do think “calling your partner a name” is abuse.  I do think screaming and yelling at people is abuse.  I think insulting people is abuse.  I think chasing people with golf clubs is abuse.  Bringing up past actions over and over again for years is abuse unless you possess a time machine in which the person can go back and make the different decision you would have preferred.

     

    I think it’s abuse whether the person doing it is a woman or a man or a child and whether the person to whom they are talking is a woman or a man or a child.  I do not think people have a right to tell other people what they think of what they did just because their opinion just HAS to be expressed.  If they have to keep their opinion to themselves is their head going to blow up?   For sure I don’t think people have a right to physically hit each other, and I would note that if 100 women hit 100 men and 100 men hit 100 women, it’s the women who are going to end up at the ER.

     

    If the disagreement or action changes your emotional relationship to the other person so that you can’t stand being around them anymore, leave.  If your husband cheats on you and that’s a dealbreaker, leave.  If your girlfriend gets an abortion and you feel revulsed, leave.  It already happened, it can’t be changed, rather than being abusive either GET OVER IT or leave.

     

    The purpose of abusive communication is to shame and belittle the other person for not coming up to the abusers expectations and get them to abandon the behavior they want to perform and substitute behavior the abuser would better like.

     

    The purpose of physical abuse is to punish the other person for doing what they wanted to do instead of the behavior the abuser would better like.  Or, in extreme cases, just because the abuser really ‘gets off on’ causing pain.

     

    Then of course there’s the joys of being a big DRAMA QUEEN as though the insight into your EMOTIONS is something that everybody in the area wants to hear about because YOUR emotions are so much MORE important to the universe than those of everyone else.

     

    The world and people in it could get along just fine without that abuse, although the abuser might finally have to reach the developmental milestone he/she should have reached at about age 4 and realize that the world does NOT revolve around them and other people don’t have to do what they want.

  • lbsimon

    … English is your second language, and all men, in your mind come, from the remote mountains of Romania.

     

    [Gad! Is the construction of Straw Man arguments your main propaganda technique?]

  • lbsimon

    …. better, if I had specified fallacious for the purposes of this forum. Thank you!

  • crowepps

    Your use of weasel words were part of the reason your posts seemed to fit the pattern, actually. 

    You were the first to imply that I’m a child, on vacation from school and unsupervised by my mother;

    I suppose those jokes weren’t very nice, and perhaps I shouldn’t have made them (see, I too can use weasel words) but I think if just about anybody looked at a time line of the posts, they’d see that by that time you’d been quite a snot with lots of personal insults and condescending remarks.  Therapy might indeed help with what seems to be a pretty massive cloud of free-floating hostility.

    male posters are uncomfortably foreign or strange

    And yet oddly enough there are male posters on here who do not get that reaction, some of them ProLife, because the exchange of views in those psots is about actual issues, and instead it is only the “women should be doing what they’re told and having our babies whether they want to or not” male posters that are considered ‘strange’.  The problem with labeling that ‘xenophobia towards men’ is that in order to do so the assumption has to first be made that you and your ‘fellow travelers’ from the MSM define both ‘male’ and ‘normal’.

  • lbsimon

     If there are people here whom the style description fits, hopefully they can identify themselves.

     

     

     

    Very Cowardly Of You, Crowepps. 

     

    You’re in denial, now …

    You’re not behind the plow …

    You’re diggin’ a ditch …

    You’ll never get rich …

    You’re in denial now!

  • crowepps

    I’m not a man, LBSimon.  You can say cowardly all day long and it can’t jerk me around because I don’t care.  That’s the nice thing about being a ‘girl’ – there’s nothing to fall off.

  • lbsimon

     

    Aggressive communication is born of low self-esteem (often caused by past physical and/or emotional abuse), unhealed emotional wounds, and feelings of powerlessness.

     

    Exactly who is this quotation intended for? Come on, Crowepps, spit it out … ‘fess up.

  • arekushieru

    Completely missed my point, again!  He wasn’t there, so he couldn’t provide as clear a picture of the situation then Mr. Copeland could.

     

    Are you saying that Mr. Copeland was there because of Mr. Bauer?  If not, then that has no relevance to this thread.  Sorry.

  • lbsimon

    I’m not a man, LBSimon.  You can say cowardly all day long and it can’t jerk me around because I don’t care.  That’s the nice thing about being a ‘girl’ – there’s nothing to fall off.

    I don’t care if you’re OK with acting cowardly. Your view of males in general isn’t simply biased, it’s antiquated.

  • crowepps

    Both those persons who suffer from that problem and those who have to deal with them.  It’s important to remember that just because a person is acting like an abusive, self-important jerk with a huge sense of entitlement, that doesn’t mean there isn’t underlying pain and emotional wounds that could be healed.

     

    Batterer’s intervention programs have a 60% success rate!

    http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/AtAGlance/BIPRAAG.pdf

  • arekushieru

    Umm, sure, if you totally read something I DIDN’T WRITE.  Which would NOT be surprising.  My dad is not from Romania.  I very much respect him.  Why?  Because he happens to believe that women can control their own bodies, JUST like everyone else, which I CLEARly stated.  So much for ASSumptions, eh?

     

    I don’t think you even know what a ‘straw man’ is.  If you did you would have responded to my last post I made in reply to your OTHER comment about this.  But I guess that’s too much to hope for, since you really don’t have any case to make.

  • crowepps

    Have they come up with a new and improved model that I haven’t seen yet?

     

    You might want to keep in mind that I’m 62 – most of the males I know well ARE antiques.

  • lbsimon

    I know you are a court reporter. Your point re: Tow is taken. I’m a stickler for certain things myself.

  • arekushieru

    Not if he’s denying a woman the same rights as anyone else, he can’t.  And a fetus on life support can be terminated if they infringe on one’s financial rights.  Financial rights which are far less fundamental to the human condition than the right to bodily autonomy. 

     

    Even if it was ‘temporarily residing’ in the body of a woman, she still has every right to deny consent.  After all, a man’s penis may ‘temporarily reside’ in a woman’s body, that doesn’t give her any less right to remove it if she says no and he continues.

  • jenk

    Let me tackle this one paragraph at a time. You said a lot here. I may split this into separate posts.

    “The rights only have to be equal if the parties are in equal situations, and here they are not.”

    But no one is really ever in an equal situation as anyone else. Law and equality are not situational.

     

    “Man: ejaculate and receive letter 10 months saying you’re a Dad.  Send checks (if you have any spare cash that month).”

    Wow, this is not exactly descriptive of many men!

    Not all or even most abortions are from one night stands. You are assuming the sex boils down to mindless and meaningless ejaculation.  You are assuming men have zero emotional reactions to the pregnancy and baby. You are assuming that the mother and the father are not in contact at all. You are assuming dad has no contact with the baby (babies can hear in the womb and can recognize voices after birth.) You are assuming child support is optional (it is not; men can and are jailed and otherwise punished even if the reason they do not pay support is out of their control) You also have indicated how you feel about fatherhood and the importance of fathers.

     

    You said a lot in that one tiny sentance. None of which is really true for most men.

     

    Next:

    “Woman: Divert entire body to development of ZBEF, setting aside any incompatible activities during the 10 month process, risk complications that can include permanent mutilation or death, and give birth.  Raise and support child for rest of your life.”.

     

    The last sentance is not a given. Women have the option to adopt the child or abandon the child to a hospital or fire station without legal consequences. So I would agree to the rest of the paragraph but after the birth of the child the woman’s right to claim special consideration for being a mother vs a father ends.

    Now I have posted this before, but I will do so again. If you take 17% (average child support order) of an average man’s time working over 18 years to pay support it comes out to almost exactly the same time a woman is pregnant.

    42 hours a week X 50 weeks a year X 18 years=37,800 hours

    Divided by 24 hours =1575 days

    Divided by 17% which is the normal child support = 268 days

    Comparatively 9 months of pregnancy = 9 months

    Or = 40 weeks

    Or =280 days

     

    So 268 days vs 280 days is looking pretty darn close.

    Consider some men work dangerous jobs which have a high likelyhood of injury.  Just like pregnancy, many are at little to no risk of danger, some are at greater risk. Even a safe job or pregnancy can suddenly become dangerous. Men are more likely to take jobs which are less safe because they pay more, especially if they have to pay child support. This is not even factoring commuting, which is also very dangerous and can be up to 2 hours a day more.

    Also consider that men are perfectly capable of having emotional connections with the baby prior to birth. They are capable of loving a child at conception as well as the mother.  Until the baby actually moves enough that the mother can sense it responding,  which is around 5 months, the mother really has no way of forming a bond outside of her own emotions. Yet mothers very much do bond with their babies even before they can feel them. Men can go through all the feelings of attachment, guilt, helplessness, weight of responsibility, etc that women do.

     

    So for you to cavelierly claim men have no personal stake in parenting is inaccurate at best. Not only do they have the potential for the same emotional pain, they also have stake in an equitable physical danger. Sure, some men are sperm donors. And some women are incubators. That does not mean most are.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • lbsimon

    I appreciate the point you’re trying to make here, but I believe it would also be rather naive and dismissive to pretend that there isn’t a gender imbalance here with men perpetrating a rather significant portion of violent crimes as compared to women. Just because both can and do abuse, doesn’t mean that abuse is normally distributed. Personally, I think ignoring or purposefully underestimating the role of sex and gender in social issues is just as bad as overestimating.

     

     

    Spot on!  Too many women are under the impression that the gender imbalance of which you write is men 100% and women 0%. When pressed by MRA’s, they’ll agree to men 99.9% and women .01% … maybe. Every month, members on MRM sites contribute current media articles about women in physical altercations, who are the attackers – not the victims. I’m not even suggesting that this constitutes formal research. It simply shows that women are capable of attacking men, sneaking up on them and even ganging up on them … and not at the .01 percentile. 

     

  • jenk

    “Aside from the problem of withholding support from a woman who completed her pregnancy and produced an offspring because OTHER women chose to have abortions (no support thereafter necessary), which frankly sounds to me like they are being punished for NOT having an abortion, the one most affected is actually going to be the child who isn’t supported.”

     

    OK, first of all, child support is NOT woman support. The woman gets no support for having had a child. The child gets child support. Once the baby is born all women are personally responsible for their own care. The baby, on the other hand, is the one who gets the support.

     

    I have said before that in my ideal world no woman would abort and no man would walk away from a child.

    I do not personally like the idea of either parent walking away from a child. But women won the right to walk away from their pregnancies via abortion. They also won the right to walk away from their pregnancies vis adoption and abandonment.

    So considering men face equitable dangers and emotional trials from paying 18 years of child support for a child in which he did not have a choice  compared to a woman carrying and delivering a child she did not want, we must allow men the same choice.

    Once the child is born, the woman has a choice to stay or walk away. Once the child is born how is it viable to deny men the very same choice?

     

    And as for the last sentance there, the one to be most affected by the abortion is also the child. Yet that cannot be a consideration when looking at abortion.

     

     

     

  • ahunt

    Chuckling here, crowepps….tossing the “Deadly Male Wimp” card at you was supposed to cause a manly eruption of…macho?

     

    Let’s see what happens.

     

    LB, the fact that you are very nearly unable to post a single civil comment is about as chicken-shit as it gets. Sack up, act like an adult instead of high school bully.

     

    sits back and sips ice tea….

  • jenk

    “It seems to me your ‘solution’ would have only one effect – it would allow men to feel ‘in control’ without their actually having to take the responsibility to EXERCISE control at the point where they have real power over potential offspring – at the point of ejaculation where they can personally take steps to CONTROL whether or not a pregnancy occurs”

    Oh, I was waiting for someone to dredge up this old one. Usually it is phrased “He should keep it in his pants!”

    First of all, you are correct that people need to be more careful to use proper birth control when having sex in which a baby is not wanted.

    That said, accidents happen. Birth control is only 99% effective or so, which means every 100 times a person has sex a pregnancy can occur even with proper birth control methods. Condoms break. Birth control pills are affected by antibiotics. Diaphrams are incorrectly inserted. A man can be very careful and still end up having a pregnancy.

    Women can (not often but it happens)prick a hole in the condom, or fish it out of the wastebasket. They can (not many but enough) lie about birth control pills or forget to take them.

    Women can (not often but it happens) molest an underage boy which can result in a pregnancy. The cases I have heard about were babysitters and teachers.

    So all of these reasons, none of which are the result of the man’s willful disregard for procreation, are ways a man can find himself in the position of father. All of these reasons, including the rapes by older women, in the real world resulted in the boys/men paying child support dispite either not having say in the sex or having taken procautions.

    So yes, men out there choose to willy nilly have unprotected sex without thought of the consequenses. But are we going to punish all the men out there who either did exercise choice but failed, or weren’t given a choice, because some men were irresponible?

  • arekushieru

    Again, why are you comparing such unequal and disparate rights?  (Disparate and unequal because men can and do walk away from financial support much more easily than a woman can walk away from her own body.)  The woman would also be on the hook for financial support if the situation were reversed.   There is nothing unequal about this.

     

    I have heard of these cases that you mentioned, JenK.  If the woman decided to continue a pregnancy from a rape, I assure you her rapist can and has been able to get custody of the resultant child.  If she is not forced to pay child support then I absolutely believe that men in the same position should not be forced to.  However, if women are legally required to do so, why should men not be treated the same?  This is about the child, now, remember….

  • arekushieru

    I disagree, Equalist.

     

    Financial rights should not be equated with the right to bodily autonomy.  Here, one would simply be giving a man more rights.  (Why that doesn’t equate with misogyny to Bei, I’ll never know.)

     

    A woman’s financial rights = a man’s financial rights.  A woman’s bodily autonomy = a man’s bodily autonomy.  IF a woman’s financial rights are far more extensive than the man’s then this could be made an argument, but one would have to include an equitable arrangement for the child, because the existing child is the focus, here, not the woman or man.

     

    Besides, women are more often given primary caregiver status than the men.  She has to support the child through their formative years, school, college, hospital visits, etc… which means she will be providing most of the financial support, anyways.  Women are paid much less on the wage scale compared to men, as well.  And most men can and will default on their child support payments.  So, really, it isn’t all that unfair anyways.

     

    The only acceptable circumstance that I can see where the man has a legitimate complaint is when he is primary caregiver and the woman makes more money than he does and she would pay less percentage-wise in child support than he would if their situations were reversed.  But, then, that shouldn’t throw out the child’s right to financial support, it should mean that a more equitable arrangement for the CHILD’S sake.

     

    Continuing with a pregnancy is far more expensive than obtaining an abortion, anyways.  But only the woman (shocked, LB, I hope not because you SHOULDN’T be) should be on the hook for financial support DURing pregnancy, otherwise I would be equating consent with non-consent, in this case.

  • quentin0352

    I waited to see what the replies to my post would be and I find it interesting how fast some jumped to insult fathers in general and to go off on an attack in an abusive manner. When common sense replies were made showing that a child is not the sole possession of a woman and that men have feelings towards their children too, suddenly the idea of attempting some kind of equality vanished.

     

    A good example is a local case in the news right now though. She didn’t have an abortion but instead lied and went the adoption route. He found out in time, jumped through all the legal hoops and etc to try and gain custody of his daughter. Even though it broke the law for the mother to lie and for the agency to keep moving with the adoption, he still does not have custody and has only seen the daughter he wants once in two years. Now think about this for a second, here is a man who stands up and does what another here said and “manned up” yet how do we as society treat him? He is still disposable as a parent with no real rights even though he has done everything he can to be a good father. I have also seen men hammered for child support when they had full legal custody so claiming child support is strictly to help the child doesn’t really fly anymore when it is used as backdoor alimony by the courts now, others jailed for failing to pay support while held as a POW or in jail for rape DNA shows they didn’t commit and even for children that DNA shows is not their own and courts refuse to look at.

     

    So to claim that men are not helpd responsible is untrue at best. Men are held responsible and restricting a “legal” abortion to things along the lines of one women have is fine but the present system where a boy is molested, she can brag about raping him while he is passed out drunk or brag about stealing the condom from the trash and that all not being relevent at all seems to say men are held as walking sperm banks with wallets for women who wish that in our society.

     

    http://www.childsupportguidelines.com/articles/art199903.html

     

    Here is some interestingt reading on the case law for some of this and it is all still in effect.

  • crowepps

    “The rights only have to be equal if the parties are in equal situations, and here they are not.”

    But no one is really ever in an equal situation as anyone else. Law and equality are not situational.

    I’m sorry, did you really mean that the situations people are irrelevant to the law?  Really?  The whole purpose of having laws is to outline the SITUATION in which something is or is not permitted.  The whole purpose of having a court system is to see if in this PARTICULAR situation the person accused of a crime is guilty or whether one person’s rights are unfairly impacted by the other person asserting their rights.

     

    You can’t say “no one is really ever in an equal situation” without also recognizing that that’s precisely the reason why it’s difficult to BALANCE the rights of one person against those of another.

    Not all or even most abortions are from one night stands. You are assuming the sex boils down to mindless and meaningless ejaculation.  

    No, I said that the man’s contribution to the PREGNANCY was mindless ejaculation.  After that, he’s all through with the PHYSICAL process.

    You are assuming men have zero emotional reactions to the pregnancy and baby. You are assuming that the mother and the father are not in contact at all. You are assuming dad has no contact with the baby (babies can hear in the womb and can recognize voices after birth.)

    Hey, I’m sure all those things may be true.  Those things being true, however, I find it puzzling that you assume the woman would then just blow him off and go get an abortion without taking his emotional reactions and that contact into consideration.  Whether babies can hear in the womb is pretty irrelevant in 99% of abortions which happen before or at the ‘kidneybean’ stage.

    You are assuming child support is optional (it is not; men can and are jailed and otherwise punished even if the reason they do not pay support is out of their control)

    I am very well aware of just how ‘optional’ child support is from a number of cases in which it takes the heroics of Hercules to pry out a penny.

    You said a lot in that one tiny sentance. None of which is really true for most men.

    But then, we’re not talking about ‘most men’ are we?  ‘Most men’ don’t have a hysterical, abusive hissy fit about their wives and girlfriends having an abortion, and are part of the decision making process.  ‘Most men’ don’t consider themselves ‘economic slaves’ because they have to support their children.  ‘Most men’ don’t think the whole thing is ALL ABOUT THEM.

    So I would agree to the rest of the paragraph but after the birth of the child the woman’s right to claim special consideration for being a mother vs a father ends.

    I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a woman getting an abortion “after the birth of the child” and that’s what we’re discussing here – ENDING the PREGNANCY.

    So for you to cavelierly claim men have no personal stake in parenting is inaccurate at best. Not only do they have the potential for the same emotional pain, they also have stake in an equitable physical danger.

    I find it a little difficult to understand just why a man with a personal stake and the potential for the same emotionally pain would express that by worrying about whether he’s going to have to pay child support.

     

    As to the equitable physical danger, I’m afraid that actually supports my point instead of yours, because if it becomes too risky and he’s no longer willing to face doing the work, HE CAN QUIT THE JOB just as she can end the pregnancy.

     

    Now, to do full disclosure, the population of ‘Dads’ that I deal with is way out there on the dysfunctional end — and I’m sure that prejudices my view.  After you’ve heard somebody explain how very VERY important it is to him to have custody and then admit that during the current visitations he’s down at the sports bar with the guys while his MOM takes care of the kid you kind of get cynical about that emotional connection.   But the point under discussion was ‘is pregnancy and its inherent physical risks equivalent to having to unwillingly pay money for a real and existing child afterwards’ and in my opinion it is not.

  • lbsimon

    When making statements, there is a huge difference between making a statement about “abusive men” and making a statement about “women” with no qualifier that you’re referencing a small subclass who exhibit behavior that’s equally reprehensible in men.

     

    So, just for instance, talking about how “promiscuous women” are this or that, or “single mothers” are this or that, and ignoring the fact that in both cases there’s a man involved who is just as promiscuous and just as single, or worse yet, excusing the same behavior by the men because ‘it’s ‘normal’ for men to be promiscuous but not ‘normal’ for women’, tends to sound like misogny.

    On this forum, the regulars like yourself seem to convey an atmosphere of smoldering resentment toward men.  I use terms like oneupsmanship and passive-aggressive in reaction to what seems to be an incessant barage of hypothetical examples; entailing comparison with men, jealousy of their perceived perks and resultant recriminations. 

  • arekushieru

    Not all or even most abortions are from one night stands. You are assuming the sex boils down to mindless and meaningless ejaculation.>>

     

    You are assuming that is what she is saying.  She’s not.  She is saying that a man’s involvement in pregnancy is far less, if there is any, than that of the woman.

     

    <<But no one is really ever in an equal situation as anyone else. Law and equality are not situational.>>

     

    It seems to me that you are missing the point, here, too.  You are not talking about the same kind of equality.  I believe crowepps is talking about the rights themselves (not that I want to put any words in your mouth, crowepps, so correct me, if I’m wrong.  :)).  You are talking about the application of rights.  A woman and man have the same right to bodily autonomy.  Men and women have the same financial rights.  She is saying that you cannot conflate the two because they are unequal, they are unequal because the situation is different.

     

    <<it is not; men can and are jailed and otherwise punished even if the reason they do not pay support is out of their control)>>

     

    And men can and do default on those payments without consequence.  Next.  Also, as I’ve said, women who do continue their pregnancies often have much higher expenses than their counterparts who abort, so now she is on the hook for financial support during pregnancy and afterwards, let alone the fact that is yet another conflation of those rights that I have said should never occur.

     

    <<Just like pregnancy, many are at little to no risk of danger, some are at greater risk.>>

     

    Disagree entirely with this statement.  Pregnancy is the second leading cause of death in women worldwide, attributable only to FALSE reduction of risk.  Thus, there is a very HIGH risk of danger.

     

    <<Yet mothers very much do bond with their babies even before they can feel them.>>

     

    We are not talking about emotions, here.  Even if we were, I would think that the more intimate connection would be between the woman and the fetus not the man and the fetus, after all the fetus is more intimately connected with the woman.  Also, she is given no choice BUT to ‘bond’ if she decides to continue with a pregnancy.  Men… not so much.

     

     

  • crowepps

    OK, first of all, child support is NOT woman support. The woman gets no support for having had a child. The child gets child support. Once the baby is born all women are personally responsible for their own care. The baby, on the other hand, is the one who gets the support.

    And I suppose, even though you were all agonized over how the guy’s EMOTIONS were involved in the pregnancy and how the selfish woman wasn’t being sensitive to his PAIN, you don’t think that it’s going to affect the woman’s emotions or that the decision about what to do next mightn’t just maybe have some link to ‘what happens next’?

     

    Knowing that Daddy MIGHT decide he has better things to do with his money after he gets a look at the kid, and there might not BE any support for this child except what she manages to scrape up herself, you don’t think that knowing babies are expensive and Daddy might disavow the kid and wander off might not encourage her to just say, “Well, forget it then. If my going through pregnancy isn’t valuable to society, the heck with it. Being a single mother means I’ll likely live in poverty even WITH the child support and I’d rather get an abortion than watch the kid starve later.”

    But women won the right to walk away from their pregnancies via abortion. They also won the right to walk away from their pregnancies vis adoption and abandonment.

    Good golly, this is just such a PERFECT example of homosocially enforcing motherhood that I am AWESTRUCK! How DARE women “walk away from pregnancy” by getting an abortion just because of frivolous things like life threatening complications. How dare they “walk away from pregnancy” by giving their child up for adoption. Aside from the fact that you have to actually FINISH the pregnancy to give up for adoption, don’t they know that the point isn’t the giving the child the best possible life but instead that REAL WOMEN sacrifice everything for their children? Doesn’t she know that the point is for her to MARTYR herself on the altar of motherhood? If she’s going to actually put the CHILD first hopefully she’ll just throw herself off a bridge for being so ‘unnatural’.

  • arekushieru

    Nothing you’ve said tells us how we were ‘wrong’ and you were ‘right’, Quentin.  See, your scenario has nothing to do with abortion.  Everything to do with adoption.  And you have failed to point out how this would not be applicable to women, as well.  The comparison of equitable rights with one coming down on the side of women would underline your theory.  Of course, you have not done this, so there is no argument for what you have stated.

  • crowepps

    And there you were, saying ‘MOST men aren’t like that’ over and over about pregnancy and fatherhood, and yet here we are, with you saying that because 1% of 1% of pregnancies are caused by ‘predatory females’ or 1% of pregnancies are birth control failures, then all the men ought to be off the hook even if they didn’t bother to use birth control at all.

     

    Look, I’m not talking about ‘keep it in your pants’.  Instead I am talking about ‘when something is really really important to you be responsible for it yourself’.  Don’t try to take control by expecting the other person to be your sockpuppet.  If it’s really important, do NOT hand it over to someone else and expect them to take care of it.  It does matter whether a man is careful about birth control because he loves kids or he hates kids or he’s paranoid about women — in ALL cases being careful is just the smart thing to do.

  • crowepps

     But are we going to punish all the men out there who either did exercise choice but failed, or weren’t given a choice, because some men were irresponible?

    Well, shoot, isn’t that what you want to do in reverse, by punishing the children of all women because different and arguably ‘irresponsible’ women have either children or abortions without permission from their boyfriends?

  • ahunt

    I’d just like to remind folks that “Dad” has to sign off on the adoption, and that while a man may be obliged to contribute financially, there is no law nor any real social pressures that can force a man to be an involved parent.

  • lbsimon

    Chuckling here, crowepps….tossing the “Deadly Male Wimp” card at you was supposed to cause a manly eruption of…macho? [LOL here; so, you've revealed yourself as a sh-t stirrer eh? Smooth move Ex-lax!]

     

    Let’s see what happens. [Feminist codespeak for "Keep the ball rolling!"]

     

    LB, the fact that you are very nearly unable to post a single civil comment is about as chicken-shit as it gets. Sack up, act like an adult instead of high school bully. [ahunt - spare me the silly sloganeering, stop projecting and try to follow your own advice re: future behavior!]

     

    sits back and sips ice tea…. [Then lets out a long, loud fart ... a macho eruption ... and thus eases her tension ...]

  • crowepps

    Actually, my resentment isn’t smoldering, it’s pretty much an open flame.  It is not, however, directed at “men”.  It is directed at men AND women who visit the board to instruct women in what our behavior should be, because they “know what’s best”, and what’s REALLY important isn’t our replaceable and disposable selves but rather the ZBEF.

     

    Most people tend to get resentful after being told repeatedly that their lives have so little value that letting them die even when the ZBEF can’t be saved is ‘the best thing to do morally’.

  • lbsimon

    Have they come up with a new and improved model that I haven’t seen yet?

     

    You might want to keep in mind that I’m 62 – most of the males I know well ARE antiques.

     

    Well, that explains it! [holding sides from laughter ... needing to pee ... again].

  • ahunt

    Heh…works every time.

     

    Oddly enough, LB… been on these boards for awhile, and it is only recently that the discussion has focused on more gender relations and less on reproductive rights.

     

    Tossing bombs in a relatively new development.

  • arekushieru

    Actually, they are.  Even if they weren’t, how do you know?  That can also be reversed right back atcha.  How do you know, then, that they actually think of it as a baby and not a fetus?

  • crowepps

    Even though it broke the law for the mother to lie and for the agency to keep moving with the adoption, he still does not have custody and has only seen the daughter he wants once in two years. Now think about this for a second, here is a man who stands up and does what another here said and “manned up” yet how do we as society treat him? He is still disposable as a parent with no real rights even though he has done everything he can to be a good father.

    The child, of course, has now formed tight bonds with the adoptive parents, and removing the child from their care to place the child with a person a stranger to him would cause psychological trauma.  I really don’t know what can be done about these rare cases except to come down like a ton of bricks on the adoption agencies so ‘dad unknown’ signals a much higher level of care.

    I have also seen men hammered for child support when they had full legal custody

    I have seen this too, and in almost all cases it was BACK support which went unpaid before custody changed.  There are really difficult situations, where the mother has the kids and receives welfare but neglects/abuses them, the support is going to repay the welfare, the Dad is paying huge attorney’s fees in an effort to change support, and after he receives support is financially crippled not just by the back support but also by the attorney’s fees.  Clarifying the law about change of custody in neglect/abuse cases would sure help there!

    others jailed for failing to pay support while held as a POW

    Recently?  Or does your laundry list of anecdotes about ‘men suffer’ go all the way back to the Korean war?

    where a boy is molested, she can brag about raping him while he is passed out drunk or brag about stealing the condom from the trash and that all not being relevent

    Is your argument that since those things happen ALL THE TIME child support should be abolished?

  • lbsimon

    sits back and sips ice tea…. [Then lets out a long, loud fart ... a macho eruption ... and thus eases her tension ...]

     

  • crowepps

    This is precisely the type of comment which led me to believe you were 13.

  • rebellious-grrl

    LB whine much?

  • crowepps

    it is only recently that the discussion has focused on more gender relations and less on reproductive rights.

    I suppose those obsessed with ‘men’s rights’ google the word every once in a while so they can jump in on boards focused on something else entirely and ‘explain’ that really all that abuse is either perpetrated or caused by the women involved and men never, ever should be blamed.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Oooo, another tired old cliche from LB. 

  • lbsimon

    In short, IQ tests are actually pretty useless for much of anything except allowing one to rank the members of a group that takes the test compared to one another to see how useful they MIGHT be to society in doing the particular tasks our civilization needs to have done.  And being ‘more useful’ is NOT the same thing as ‘a better person than’.  The American president with the highest IQ is believe to be the paranoid racist Richard Nixon.

     

     

    … that’s what people who are jealous of the gifted always claim; as well as people who have never taken any of the tests involved.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Thanks JenK, I appreciate your honesty. I hope all is well in your garden and the horses are doing well.

  • lbsimon

    Are you trying to write: “Do you whine much?”

     

    Got writer’s cramp?

  • ahunt

    It is an adolescent rite of passage into manhood, crowepps: memorization of “The Complete Idiot’s Guide To Fart And Pee Jokes.”

  • crowepps

    Since I, my sisters and my children all qualify as ‘gifted’ or ‘top 2%’ or whatever other ‘aren’t we more special than thou’ ranking you want to use, I don’t think that I am jealous, and I have indeed taken the tests involved several times, as have my children (to qualify and requalify at school), so it’s just really hard to guess the motivation behind remarks, isn’t it?

     

    In this case, the motivation was that the consensus of those qualified to comment who are NOT making money off of promoting them is that IQ tests are useful but extremely ‘iffy’ in predictability.

     

    And I also stand by my comment about Nixon, who may have been a genius but was also pretty much waaaaay out there. Another highly intelligent weirdo was Howard Hughes, and of course we all know of the brilliance of Theodore Kaczynski.

  • ahunt

    Uh LB…did you actually take any time to think before posting this?

     

    Let us review:

     

    And being ‘more useful’ is NOT the same thing as ‘a better person than’.

  • crowepps

    I just thought that after COMPLETING the passage and becoming an adult, these childish things were left behind one.

  • squirrely-girl

    I deal with statistics and probability on a regular basis so I’m perhaps overly aware of them and tend to be a stickler on the interpretation of those statistics. By virtue of my education and work, I’ll never pretend that a scenario is wholly one-sided. Maybe statistically it could be… but due to individual variation and error, reality and logic are such that it just won’t be. There will always be outliers. But other relevant concepts in statistics concern differential weighting and outcomes. We can’t pretend that outcomes will be equal or even comparable between groups.

     

    For example, research has suggested that psychopathy is more prevalent in men than women. So is this a purely biological difference? Is a sociocultural difference? Are women socialized not to be this way? Maybe we’re just not socialized to look for it in women. Social science and public policy (necessarily?) tend to focus on the majority as opposed to the minority in situations of negative effects. If more men are doing something than women and/or men cause more damage when they do something than women… it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t pay attention to when women do it… it means resources are being allocated to those most disproportionately affected by problem. 

     

    Being aware that a small percentage of women engage in the same behaviors is important… particularly when making individual legal determinations. But using these outliers as a justification for changing ALL policy/law doesn’t make a lot of sense either. I’ve said several times before that I think plenty of exceptions exist for which the current systems of child support and custody are ill-equipped to deal. But if changes occur I can pretty much guarantee you they’ll be specific designated exceptions rather than sweeping changes those that tout these examples are usually demanding.

     

  • lbsimon

    You have perfect 20/20 hindsight, now that we’re well into a couple of hundred comments. Apparently, you get to revise your rationale for rankouts retroactively. At the same time … your sense of proper chronological or timeline sequence is impaired. 

     

    I read posts here long before I joined in. Regulars, notably you, routinely try to run off male posters first, then justify their behavior with false claims about bullying, male priviledge, etc. It’s pathetically transparent.

     

    You’re determined not to take any crap from male commenters. I am determined not to take any crap from anyone here. Crap is hereinafter defined as carte blanche defamation of the sex to which I belong. Anyone who feels the need to incessantly slander men with specious sophistry is going to be answered … like it or lump it.

     

     

  • ahunt

    Crap is hereinafter defined as carte blanche defamation of the sex to which I belong.

     

    Um…okay. My definition of crap is pretty much anything you’ve written to date…so to each their own.

  • crowepps

    I am determined not to take any crap from anyone here. Crap is hereinafter defined as carte blanche defamation of the sex to which I belong.

    Because when we’re talking about pregnancy and reproduction the really, REALLY important thing is to remember that, like everything else, this issue too is all about making sure men get appropriate respect

    Anyone who feels the need to incessantly slander men with specious sophistry is going to be answered … like it or lump it.

    I think I’ll take the third option — ignoring the complaints that I’m not sufficiently respectful of male wonderfulness

     

  • arekushieru

    I haven’t seen anyone claim that they were being bullied unless the one you claim made that comment was responding to the other poster’s OWN claims. 

     

    Male privilege is a fact of life.  Deal with it.

  • crowepps

    Male privilege is a fact of life. Deal with it.

    He doesn’t want to deal with it. He’d rather assert it.

  • bei1052

    And yet oddly enough there are male posters on here who do not get that reaction, some of them ProLife.

     

    Oh? Which ones? $100 says they’re all pro-choice, ‘cuz I’ve yet to see you not levy the same accusation against every single male poster who happens to be pro-life.

  • lbsimon

    … somewhat of a craven opportunist here.

  • crowepps

    And yet astonishingly my withers are not wrung –

  • lbsimon

    … chew, chew, chew!

  • lbsimon

    Breaking wind to relieve tension is no joke and should not be mocked. Many women have privately admitted to me that it clears up their headaches … and is considered  fun to do too!~

  • lbsimon

    I suppose those obsessed with ‘men’s rights’ google the word every once in a while so they can jump in on boards focused on something else entirely and ‘explain’ that really all that abuse is either perpetrated or caused by the women involved and men never, ever should be blamed.

    How did we get to “those obsessed”? And what are you … mildly interested about women’s rights? You’re a coward, Crowepps. Own your snottiness, your insults and the misandry on which they are predicated.

  • crowepps

    Is the idea to be so obnoxious that they kick you off the board, and that way instead of admitting that you couldn’t actually convince anyone that any of your points were valid, you can complain that you were banished because we were all afraid of you?  You’re doing really well on the obnoxiousness.

    Happened to run across this old post and it made me think of your complaints.  As you will see, I’ve actually been pretty mellow here:

    Monday, June 15, 2009 12:28 AM ET
    Original article: How to talk about abortion

    Why do you women despise us men so much anyway?

    Golly, I don’t despise men at all. I know lots of them that I think are terrific.

    You have managed, however, in only three or four posts, to convince me to despise YOU, not because you are male but because you are vulgar, foul-mouthed, whiney, don’t take responsibility for your own dysfunction and are trying to deflect a fairly lively and intelligent conversation to how total strangers are responsible for your sordid failure.

  • rebellious-grrl

    I could kick your butt at a fart contest. Unfortunately it doesn’t clear up headaches, I wish. If you can let off a “stink bomb” in a crowd of people and see who notices, it’s really funny. I do enjoy some juvenile pleasures in life.

  • lbsimon

    … abusive … self-important jerk … a huge sense of entitlement …

    One of the finest examples of passive-aggression ever written,

  • lbsimon

    Is the idea to be so obnoxious that they kick you off the board, and that way instead of admitting that you couldn’t actually convince anyone that any of your points were valid, you can complain that you were banished because we were all afraid of you?  You’re doing really well on the obnoxiousness.

     

    I consider your consistent self-fulfilling prophecy arguments-in-a-circle to be obnoxious, especially the misandrist premises on which they are based. I further consider your intractable egocentric projections to be obnoxious as well, especially the xenophobic premises on which they are based. Your passive-aggressive style of insulting people compounds your obnoxiousness ten-fold. Your martyr-complex of perpetual victimhood compounds it a hundred-fold. “Vulgar?” “Foul-mouthed?” You have reached the point of utter fabrication here! 

     

     

  • lbsimon

    Most people tend to get resentful after being told repeatedly that their lives have so little value that letting them die even when the ZBEF can’t be saved is ‘the best thing to do morally’.

    How does this justify YOUR resentment (self-described “open flame”)? It has the strong and distinct appearance of amounting to a canard. Would you be so kind as to take another trip to the archives and pull out some posts by males who have written words to that effect?

     

  • lbsimon

    I could kick your butt at a fart contest. [I dunno ... give me a can of beans and a beer and I'm a biological weapon!] Unfortunately it doesn’t clear up headaches, I wish. If you can let off a “stink bomb” in a crowd of people and see who notices, it’s really funny. I do enjoy some juvenile pleasures in life.

    Did you hear the one about the guy on his first date?

  • bei1052

    When common sense replies were made showing that a child is not the sole possession of a woman and that men have feelings towards their children too, suddenly the idea of attempting some kind of equality vanished.

     

    Of course. As I’ve pointed out about a kajillion times, the notion of equality only gets invoked when it suits the woman to do so. Otherwise, it’s scoffed at and disregarded.

  • bei1052

    Financial rights should not be equated with the right to bodily autonomy. 

     

    So are you saying a woman shouldn’t be allowed to have an abortion because “she can’t afford the child”, which constitutes the reason for a large percentage of abortions? It only seems fair if you’re going to tell a man that he can’t absolve himself of parental duties because he can’t afford a kid, you do the same to the woman.

  • jenk

    I can certainly buy that people who are in the scientific community would use more specific terms. I do not think that this means people who do not use those terms are lacking in understanding or awareness. Many continue the the labeling by refering to their child as an infant, toddler, pre-adolescent, adolescent, post-adolescent. Yet while these stages may be scientifically correct, most people refer to their baby as a baby and their child as a child. It is not a lack of understanding but a reflection of their relationship. It is not necessary to be specific. I may undertstand my just concieved zygote is simply a cell, or that after a few splits it becomes considered an embryo, and at some point after that it is considered a fetus…by the scientific community. But there is never a bright light in the developement of this creature when it becomes a baby. Some say the moment of birth, but there really is no physical difference between a 9 month old fetus and a 9 month old baby other than it can breath through its lungs. So for the vast majority of people there is no reason to be more specific, as the result will be their baby when it is born.

     

    Your second idea is an important one. Yes, there is a difference between being committed and being involved. Yes, a man cannot be physically involved in the pregnancy in the same way the woman is. Yet in the US he IS physically involved, it just is spread out over 18 years. His body is used over the next 18 years to earn money to pay for the child or he faces public humiliation, loss of license and livelyhood, garnished wages, and jail. Even if he is disabled on the job, or unemployed through no fault of his own, he is still responsible and no government agency will be available to assist him. 

    Now if he wants to have the child then it is his choice to be involved and his choice to use his body to provide. But if it is NOT his choice, then his body is being used against his will to provide for something in which he had no choice.

    The woman has the choice to continue to be involved once she realizes she is pregnant. The man does not.

     

    And yes, there is a simple biological factor which means that women will always have to physically bear the burden of incubating the child of an accidental pregnancy. Men will not have to experience an abortion. No it is not fair. On the other hand *most* men (at least until science overcomes this) will never get to be pregnant or give birth to a child, or breastfeed. Having two children I can say they are missing out on an incredible experience. So yes, things will never be exactly equal here. But we must equitable.

    .  

  • arekushieru

    Ugh, Bei.  Here, let me provide a scenario so that you can CLEARly understand this time.  A man gets a vasectomy, he does not consider the woman’s feelings on whether he should get one or not.  That is perfectly acceptable to me.  Why?  Because it is HIS body he is making the decision about.  Hmmm, now how does your comment about equality getting invoked ONLY when it suits the woman to do so fit with your theory, *now*?  Pretty fallaciously, huh?  Because you are trying to equate two things that are never equated anywhere else.

  • arekushieru

    Besides, I DO believe crowepps already addressed this.  What is the point of admitting that men have feelings towards their ‘children’ unless you want to make the claim that this should provide them with more of a say over a woman’s body (which is granted nowhere else and does not approximate equality of any kind).  If you just want to acknowledge that men have feelings about them, too, so what?  We never said they didn’t have them and it’s rather pointless to simply state it that way, anyways.

  • jenk

    If we consider women’s feelings we must consider men’s feelings. If we do not consider men’s feelings we should not consider women’s feelings. I believe we should consider  both.

    Yes, the pro-life camp does pull out the male feelings card as an argument, but I would say they do care about women’s feelings. Most women have emotional issues after an abortion. I think the pro-abortion and the anti-abortion side care more about their side than anyone’s feelings. One side is against murder and one side is against forced pregnancy.

     

    I think the men who are supportive of their girlfriends are probably going to have the same issues the women have. Men who are not ok with the abortion would have those issues plus the issue of someone intentionally killing his child. Since he did not meet and know the child it may not be as bad as a parent whose born child is murdered, but I don’t know that.

     

    I think all men should be offered the same counciling as all women who get an abortion. The man has lost exactly the same thing the woman has, even if it did not reside in his body. That we don’t even consider that he might care is sad.

     

    I think you are correct, many pro-lifers do not care about men’s mental health. Most groups, including feminism, do not care about men’s mental health. THAT is an issue which should be addressed. Men actually commit suicide many times more than women, yet we don’t consider this a crisis? Men don’t ask for help, yet we don’t ask why not? When they do ask for help or when they show need we shame them or belittle them.

    The Christian right, of which I feel am a part, fails as much as feminists to care one iota for men’s health unrelated to any woman or child. THAT is a shame.  Men are no less important than women or children.  Men as a group perpetuate the idea that men do not need help. Yet the outside facts show differently.  

    That my sons are not valued in this society is frightening. That they may not feel they are worthy of value is heartbreaking.

  • jenk

    Yet men are 3 times as likely to be assaulted and twice as likely to be murdered as women are. Shouldn’t it be MEN who are more guarded and wary of men?

    There is a huge difference between being smart (not walk alone at night in the city, not go home with a person you just met) and being paranoid. These things are equally as important for men as for women. Being beat to heck and robbed is more likely than being raped, and men are just as likely to be victims.

    Most men do not assault women, and contrary to inflated numbers most women are never assaulted. I would guess most of the rapes could have been prevented with some common sense awareness and precautions such as pairing up with friends when out at night. Unfortunately most people don’t think to do so until something happens. No I am NOT blaming the victim here. Nothing changes the culpability of the attacker, yet it would be foolish not to learn from the experience.

    I refuse to go through life guarded and wary. I will be smart about it-I will assess situations as they come up and if I feel a situation is too dangerous I will make changes to how I navagate it, but to look at all men as potential rapists is to live in fear. That would be like a man looking at all women as potential false accusers.  Might as well just stay at home or join a convent.  

     

    Using victimhood as a reason to resent or fear all men, including those online who pose zero physical danger, is not healthy. 

     

     

     

     

  • jenk

    Not so. A man has no choice in abortion yet the author publicly admonished men for not being emotionally supportive of the women. He didn’t just ignore men’s feelings, he twisted and shamed them.

     

    If a man cannot have a choice, he should at least be respected in his feelings. The author here shamed these men for having feelings contrary to total and complete agreement with the woman and her decision.

     

    This is so completely sad that a man cannot even have the right to his own emotional reaction if it runs contrary to a woman’s.

     

    And actually, yes, people did write in such a way as to imply men had no reaction. The author accused the men of being possessive and oppressive, rather than allowing they may feel conflicted, hurt, devistated, betrayed, guilty, or any of a myriad of emotions which come with this.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • quentin0352

    First, all the cases of a custodial father paying “child support” were ones I know for a fact were not any back support. Yes that is common too but these are not in that group. The logic the judges used was that the child should have the same living standards when visiting their mother as when living with their father. I have yet to see a single case where that is reserved though and know plenty of cases where the father is struggling to make ends meet while the mother has a much higher living after marrying someone with money or getting a much better job after he had supported them while she went through higher education.

     

    Now as to claiming the cases are too old or etc, I see that the link I provided was not even looked at. Also note that the case laws are SET so unless specific laws are written to over turn the cases, they are the law of the land. No matter what, men are rarely if ever excused from paying their end though there are many cases where women ARE excused even if a father gains custody from an abusive mother. Also there are plenty of cases showing where men not only have no choice but are assessed back support for children not their own. Under federal law, even if DNA clears him as the real father later on, that back support can NOT be removed from his obligation.

     

    So men have no choice at all on abortion but ARE responsible for the child no matter what. It makes no difference if he was lied to, is a crime victim or etc, he IS responsible. Now saying these things do not matter would be like saying that a rape or molesting victim that gets pregnant is not important in the laws and should not be part of the debate for women having access to abortion. Unless we take both parents and look at them equally, allow equal options and not only enforce laws on things like the adoption agency I mentioned and the MOTHER WHO LIED on legal paperwork committing a felony perjury in this state, then how can we demand men be responsible?

     

    BTW, think about this, why are women who do rape and molest still given custody of the child in the first place? They obviously are not fit, should be in jail just like a father who committed these kinds of crimes and they sure as heck should not be getting paid child support from their victims!

     

    http://www.canadiancrc.com/Female_Sex_Offenders-Female_Sexual_Predators_awareness.aspx

     

    Also remember that the mother can lie or just leave without his having any knowledge of the child, keep and raise the child for their entire childhood and then demand child support with back support for the entire time while he has had zero chance to be involved in the life of his child with no laws against this. If he fails to pay the demanded support for a child he has never had a chance to see though he wanted to, he is jailed. We need a much better balance where fathers have rights too beyond just as a sperm bank and walking ATM for women who want that. Telling males they are disposable as we are now will only increase the numbers of those who just leave which I see complaints about. After all, if he has no rights to even see his child and is only there to pay support or be jailed, then why would he care at all? He obivously has no feelings and no worth the way some here and much of society treats fathers no matter how much he cares.

     

    BTW, yes I am a custodial father after one child died, numerous reports found I was the better parent, our daughter was repeatedly raped and molested byt the boyfriends and even now husband of my ex and I was refused access to our children for years. So far the only one ever jailed has been me for “denial of parenting time” once when the children refused to go out of fear and even stated to the judge this as well as numeorus reports that show she abused the children physically, mentally and emotionally. The same courts felt her monthly, being tired from work and my supposedly being 5 minutes late were all good reason to refuse me access to our children but their being afraid with reports to back it all up is not acceptable? Sorry but fathers are now thought of as a disposable item and children as the possession of the mother so I am finding it hard to feel sympathy for a woman that gets pregnant and does not want the child for any reason when men have no rights over their bodies beyond incarceration and forced labor.

  • colleen

    So, what’s the plan?

    They want to disrupt and discredit the blog, the people who run it and they really, really hate the pro-choice women who post here.
    It’s an election year.
    Also, they’re here because they genuinely enjoy verbally abusing and demeaning pro-choice women. It’s like a group hobby with them, complete with sockpuppets.

    I like this blog and enjoy the articles and most of the people who post in the comments section but I must say that it’s clear that these folks are fairly expert trolls and aren’t arguing in good faith. My concern is that they will destroy the blog if they’re allowed to continue to stink the place up. Nobody enjoys watching people they like and respect being treated with the contempt and viciousness these trolls dish out daily and I am no exception.

    I gotta say that, since school let out, they’ve succeeded in making the comments section not just a boring read but also a genuinely disgusting display of some of the worst aspects of humanity. My sense is that in replying to one of their comments (which are designed to misinform, enrage and abuse) one only invites further abuse. That’s the game.

  • jenk

    It should not be easy to get an abortion. It shouldn’t be for a woman and if men had the option it should not be for men. Procreation is not a joke and people need to take it more seriously. In NY all you say does not apply. In other states they have more sense. I wish NY had the same restrictions.

     

    It also should not be cheap. It is an elective medical procedure which half of the country feels is morally akin to murder. Taxpayers should not be forced to fund this. If you don’t want to be pregnant, don’t have sex. Very few people who get an abortion were raped or are in danger of dying.  Most either chose to have unprotected sex or the protection failed, a consequence which everyone knows is possible. If there were proof otherwise the pro-choice movement would be shouting it from the rooftops. Yes there are always exceptions, but we cannot make the rules based on exceptions.  Expecting no counciling because one in thousands of  women are exeptions is not right.

    That goes for men AND women. If abortion were not legal and a woman could not just walk away from a child, I would not support the ability of a man to do so. The only reason I support anyone walking away is because the law supports women doing so legally.

     

  • jenk

    I agree. I would agree for both men and women.

     

    But everyone supports women having an out and men being on the hook. A man can use a condom and condoms fail. A woman can use the pill and the pill fails. How is there any difference?

     

    I used those examples, even though the percentages that we know of are very small, to make the point that men are socially and legally on the hook regardless of their choices or lack thereof. Probably 1% or so of pregnancies are aborted due to dire threat to a woman’s health, yet we protect her health in these cases, as most people feel we should (even most pro-lifers). If we are going to make rules based on exceptions, we must do so equitably.

  • crowepps

    If you will go back to my post and reread carefully, it will become clear to you that the post containing those words referenced someone else altogether, posting on another board altogether, and was a response to his posts, still available in the comments on the article reachable through the link, which were indeed exactly that – vulgar and foul-mouthed.  His views on how everything in the universe including all his own problems were the fault of women was remarkable similar to your own.

     

    My POINT in posting it was that SOME of us make an effort to comply with the stated rules on this board, and therefore are NOT  as confrontational or nasty as we have been in the past on other boards.

     

    Excellent use of the thesaurus, by the way!  Even if the sentence itself didn’t make much sense.

  • jenk

    It may have happened in a single case, probably where the rapist was well connected and rich,  but most dads who are good, loving and proven fathers cannot even get custody-I doubt a rapist has a chance in hell. There is a case right now where the mother lied when putting the daughter up for adoption that the father was not involved. He found out what she was doing and within one month tried to get custody of his own daughter (rather than her going to a stranger) and guess what? Two years later he still does not have her and has only seen her a couple of times dispite trying. The courts would rather a baby go to a stranger than to her father. I have a hard time believing that when 85% of all custody cases go to mom that a rapist has much chance of getting custody. It would be an utter fluke.

    Women are not forced to pay child support. Female non-custodial parents have a far worse record for paying child support as a percentage, and they rarely if ever are incarcerated for not doing so. The courts routinely turn a blind eye to mothers who fail to pay support.

    Women can and do walk away from born children via adoption or legal abandonment. Incubation aside, women still have two ways to legally walk away after birth. At that point the man and woman have exactly the same stake in the situation.

     

    This stopped being about the kids the moment abortion came into the debate, which was from the beginning. This is about parent rights. I personally, as I have said, think the kids should come first, but I will not support one gender getting all the choices and the other not having any.

     If you truly wanted to make this equitable, you would force mothers who give their babies up for adoption to be forced to pay child support for 18 years.

     

    Actually, now that I think about it, this is a great solution. It benefits the kids, and is equal for both men and women. All parents will support their born babies, whether they choose to be a part of the baby’s life or not. I think the average is 17% of the income, before taxes. How is that for a solution?

  • squirrely-girl

    JenK – I appreciate the passion but I’m going to still have to disagree with you on this…

    Yes, a man cannot be physically involved in the pregnancy in the same way the woman is. Yet in the US he IS physically involved, it just is spread out over 18 years.

     

    I haven’t been talking about PARENTING… I’ve been talking about PREGNANCY. There IS a difference between the two. At any rate, both parents have the opportunity (and expectation?) of being involved once the child is born. But until that time, the physical consequences and thus decision making rests with the woman. Again, I’m not trying to negate men’s feelings and contributions, as I’m married with a son and my husband is SO BEYOND helpful and involved. But… with the exception of pulling a muscle in his back helping me up off the floor once, his physical  commitment to the pregnancy was negligible. All of the physical risks were assumed by ME and anything that could have “gone bad” would have happened to MY body, not his

     

    More than one person has mentioned this here before – non psycho men who helped create a pregnancy and want to be involved with the woman and child’s life ARE generally considered in the decision making process. If a man is being excluded from the process and not given any kind of voice… well then I think we should take a look at that specific situation and the individual players involved instead of assuming that the “whole system” is broken… because whether you’re willing to acknowledge it or not, there ARE some men who deserve absolutely, positively, no part of the decision making process. 

  • jenk

    You too. Basil is ready to harvest…mmm pesto!

  • crowepps

    You know, it is absolutely remarkable to me how often after a long discussion it turns out that what the person REALLY objects to all those people out there daring to have sex when they don’t want to be pregnant. 

     

    Of course, this ipso facto makes pregnancy and children into the ‘punishment’ for having sex, which may be have a connection to all those protests about how if women can get abortions children will disappear, an opinion that appears to be rooted in the idea that kids are so loathsome and destroy one’s happiness so thoroughly that nobody can imagine anybody wanting to have them voluntarily.

     

    Personally, I happen to like children myself, and find time spent with them very enjoyable, but I guess my tastes aren’t universal.

  • squirrely-girl

     I would guess most of the rapes could have been prevented with some common sense awareness and precautions such as pairing up with friends when out at night. 

     

    Your example is perpetuating the myth that most rapes occur when “walking home alone at night” or are perpetrated by strangers. This is NOT true. Reality is such that most rapes occur between acquaintances. Sadly, most rapists, even the ones that you trust(ed) and consider(ed) friends, don’t walk around with a giant red “R” on their foreheads for easy identification. Rapes aren’t prevented by the victims. So yes, most of us will consider your statements to be victim blaming. 

  • jenk

    A thought just occured to me which may clear this up a little. So far the main thrust of this debate has been that women incubate the baby/fetus so this must be a debate about women’s autonomy over her own body. Because men cannot incubate, they cannot ever be in an equal position and thus have no reproductive rights other than not having sex (the ones who are molested are statistical outlyers and thus not considered relevant). Women face the physical danger in pregnancy and childbirth thus all decisions relevant to the pregnancy and birth are to be hers.

     

    Abortion involves dialating the cervix and scooping out the contents of the uterous. Kangaroos give birth to an embryonic stage baby, and it travels to the pouch where it continues to develop until it is fully formed. Eventually we will likely have the technology to do the same-remove the embryo and implant it into a synthetic uterus.

     

    So hypothetically, say we have this ability. For the same exact physical experience for the mother we can either abort in pieces or remove whole the baby and put it in an artificial incubator. There is no difference and no additional danger to the mother. A DNA test, able to be processed in one day, would be required for all fathers.

    I

     

    In my hypothetical case, does dad have the legal right to have the baby incubated and assume full responsibility for the baby immediately if the mother chooses to not be pregnant via abortion/transplant?

    Does the mother have a choice or say in whether the abortion she wants becomes a transplant since it does not affect her physically?

    Would there be ramifications if a woman failed to notify the father prior to an abortion?

     

    I am really curious on what everyone here, including the guys, think about this. I really am not sure what to expect, as this just all popped in my head this morning. Darn You-tube and nature videos!

     

  • crowepps

    most dads who are good, loving and proven fathers cannot even get custody

    We had a really long discussion about this a ways back and did quite a bit of research and discovered three things:

    Many cases are now settled by a voluntary agreement of the parents to share custody equally.

    Shared custody is awarded in approximately twenty percent of all divorce child custody cases.  Seventy percent of all child custody cases name the mother as the custodial parent. The father is named the primary caregiver less than ten percent of the time.

    http://www.divorce-lawyer-source.com/html/custody/shared-custody.html

    I cannot track down the link to the stat right now — busy day — but as I recollect, most fathers either don’t ask for custody in the first place or when they do want it fail to fight for it.  Those fathers who actually do go to court and fight for custody do succeed in getting it half the time.

  • bei1052

    Ugh, Bei.  Here, let me provide a scenario so that you can CLEARly understand this time.  A man gets a vasectomy, he does not consider the woman’s feelings on whether he should get one or not.  That is perfectly acceptable to me.  Why?  Because it is HIS body he is making the decision about.  Hmmm, now how does your comment about equality getting invoked ONLY when it suits the woman to do so fit with your theory, *now*?  Pretty fallaciously, huh?  Because you are trying to equate two things that are never equated anywhere else.

     

    Do you know what the female equivalent of a vasectomy is? It’s a tubal ligation, not an abortion. Vasectomies/tubal ligations are done to prevent conception from occurring. If a woman wants to have a tubal ligation, then she should be able to get one. Before you accuse others of engaging in a fallacy, make sure you’re not engaging in one yourself. In short, please try again.

  • bei1052

    Besides, I DO believe crowepps already addressed this.  What is the point of admitting that men have feelings towards their ‘children’ unless you want to make the claim that this should provide them with more of a say over a woman’s body (which is granted nowhere else and does not approximate equality of any kind).  If you just want to acknowledge that men have feelings about them, too, so what?  We never said they didn’t have them and it’s rather pointless to simply state it that way, anyways.

     

    You contradict yourself left and right.

     

    So you say that there’s no point in admitting that men have feelings towards their ‘children’ unless you want to make the claim that this should provide them with more of a say over a woman’s body, yet you turn around and assert that you’re not saying that those men don’t have those feelings, which would mean you’re admitting that men have feelings towards their ‘children’ and as a result should provide them with more of a say over the woman’s body then the woman has.

     

    How’s that work?

  • crowepps

    I would guess most of the rapes could have been prevented with some common sense awareness and precautions…

    I refuse to go through life guarded and wary.

    Could you explain just what the difference is you perceive between “common sense awareness” and being “wary”? And between “precautions” and being “guarded”?

     

    Your assertion that the rape is probably the fault of the victim for not being ‘aware’ and not taking ‘precautions’ ASSUMES that she has to be aware because she has to watch out for potential rapists and that she has to take precautions against being vulnerable because some man might try to rape her.

     

    Then you turn around and say that she shouldn’t think of ALL men as potential rapists.

     

    Are you under the impression that the “potential rapists” are dyed blue or something? They look just like all the other men. You can’t tell which ones are which until they ATTEMPT TO RAPE YOU at which point it’s too late to be ‘aware’ or ‘take precautions’.

  • crowepps

    Is this something new the ProLifer’s are trying out to see if it works?

     

    That came up a copule weeks ago and there was quite a long discussion about it.  Personally, considering the complexity of reproduction and that the placenta/embryo need a whole working body with all the appropriate organs and glands (thyroid/adrenal/etc) that can be coopted and controlled during reproduction, I think it’s pretty unlikely an artificial uterus will ever be developed.

     

    It’s possible, however, that they could figure out a way to remove the placenta/embryo from the woman and insert it in the man who wants to be a parent so that it could coopt and control his organs and glands instead, and I certainly think men should have an absolute right to volunteer for that and women who don’t want to or can’t safely remain pregnant should comply.

  • squirrely-girl

    …and honestly, I’m not completely sure where I stand on this. 

     

    I think the primary problem you’d run into is cost. This hypothetical incubator would likely be expensive and require some kind of financial screening to ensure the costs were covered through “birth.” Likewise, if there were some overriding reason for why the woman wouldn’t want the man to take “ownership” it should be considered, as in cases of abuse or rape. As to “ramifications” – I’m generally opposed to criminalizing most aspects of reproduction purely on principle. But as long as the physical involvement were the same as that of an abortion, I don’t think I’d have a problem with this… outside of looking at ZBEFs as commodities to be bought and sold.

     

     

  • prochoiceferret

    Isn’t it funny how no one ever paid much mind to men’s feelings before they became an excuse to control women’s bodies?

  • crowepps

    I agree — in cases of rape the man shouldn’t get this option because it’s the same thing as stealing or forcing her to contribute her egg.  And in my personal opinion, rapists make poor fathers.

  • crowepps

    yet you turn around and assert that you’re not saying that those men don’t have those feelings, which would mean you’re admitting that men have feelings towards their ‘children’ and as a result should provide them with more of a say over the woman’s body then the woman has.

    The problem arises at the “and as a result…provide them…a say over the woman’s body”.

     

    Okay, granting that men have those feelings.  Those are the men’s feelings and they absolutely have every right to feel that way.

     

    Their ‘feelings’ have nothing whatsoever to do with what the woman does and don’t give them “a say over the woman’s body”.  She doesn’t have any responsibility to change her behavior or give up control of her body based on his FEELINGS.  Why should she?

     

    Would you insist that because some girl decides she LOVES a guy and she FEELS she wants to have his baby, that he’s obligated to have a child with her because those are her FEELINGS and they should allow her more of a say over HIS body?  I don’t think so.

  • crowepps

    Isn’t the whole point of keeping women restricted to the home or in ‘modest’ clothing the man’s FEELINGS of jealousy and possessiveness about some other man potentially looking at her body?

  • bei1052

    The problem arises at the “and as a result…provide them…a say over the woman’s body”.

     

    Okay, granting that men have those feelings.  Those are the men’s feelings and they absolutely have every right to feel that way.

     

    Their ‘feelings’ have nothing whatsoever to do with what the woman does and don’t give them “a say over the woman’s body”.  She doesn’t have any responsibility to change her behavior or give up control of her body based on his FEELINGS.  Why should she?

     

    Would you insist that because some girl decides she LOVES a guy and she FEELS she wants to have his baby, that he’s obligated to have a child with her because those are her FEELINGS and they should allow her more of a say over HIS body?  I don’t think so.

     

    Didn’t read what Arek-whatever (Sorry. Don’t remember her name) wrote out, did you? It’s nice to see how you totally disagree with what she stated.

  • prochoiceferret

    So are you saying a woman shouldn’t be allowed to have an abortion because “she can’t afford the child”, which constitutes the reason for a large percentage of abortions? It only seems fair if you’re going to tell a man that he can’t absolve himself of parental duties because he can’t afford a kid, you do the same to the woman.

     

    Imagine a world…

     

    …where everything is equitable and fair…

     

    …from the perspective of deadbeat dads.

  • bei1052

    Isn’t it funny how no one ever paid much mind to men’s feelings before they became an excuse to control women’s bodies?

     

    It’s only funny if you ignore the fact that there’d be no reason to consider men’s feelings if women couldn’t abort a child a man wants.

     

    I wonder what happened to that whole “human element/respecting other’s feelings” diatribe that people here like to go on about? Or is that one of those “only applies if you’re a female” kind of things?

  • lbsimon

    Isn’t the whole point of keeping women restricted to the home or in ‘modest’ clothing the man’s FEELINGS of jealousy and possessiveness about some other man potentially looking at her body?

     

    Careful, Crowepps, your self-described “open flame” resentment is coming to the surface … once more. A remark like that may apply to Muslims these days, but that’s as far as it goes.

  • lbsimon

    Besides, I DO believe crowepps already addressed this. [So what? Crowepps is not an authority of any kind, and, for that matter, neither are you. Isn't she the one who posted "Sometimes You Have To Say It Twice" three separate times?  What's the problem with re-hashing the point, besides silly snobbishness on your part?] What is the point of admitting that men have feelings towards their ‘children’ unless you want to make the claim that this should provide them with more of a say over a woman’s body (which is granted nowhere else and does not approximate equality of any kind) [Aside from feminist ideological indoctrination, this statement is inane and proves nothing].  If you just want to acknowledge that men have feelings about them, too, so what?  We never said they didn’t have them and it’s rather pointless to simply state it that way, anyways. [These two statements express what can only be called a sociopathic outlook on men in general.]

  • crowepps

    Don’t know very many evangelical Christians, do you?  Or Mormons?  Or Orthodox Jews?  You might want to google ‘modest clothing’.  A typical sample:

    “If style & type of clothing is something you’re wrestling over in your mind, or if you’re feeling convicted about dress, and what in this world should a Christian woman be wearing, then pray, discuss these things with your husband.  Many will have ideas and convictions about what *you* should wear, but what matters most is what the LORD is directing and what your husband prefers. “

    http://www.achristianhome.org/ModestFeminine/ModestyFeminineAttireIndex.htm

    Oddly enough, while there are sites with “modest clothings” for Islamic men, Amish men and Mormon men, I didn’t see any at all for Christian men.  Maybe they just ‘discuss these things with their wives who have ideas and convictions about what they should wear since what matters most is what the Lord is directing and their wives prefer”.

     

    I was talking about ‘tradition’, you know — which generally speaking is not referencing “these days”.

     

  • crowepps

    And I think you are misintepreting it. 

    What is the point of admitting that men have feelings towards their ‘children’ unless you want to make the claim that this should provide them with more of a say over a woman’s body (which is granted nowhere else and does not approximate equality of any kind).  If you just want to acknowledge that men have feelings about them, too, so what?  We never said they didn’t have them and it’s rather pointless to simply state it that way, anyways.

    Submitted by Arekushieru on July 6, 2010 – 6:42am.

    I don’t see anything in that post that AGREES that you are right to want to make that claim.  Your post in response stated:

    …you’re not saying that those men don’t have those feelings, which would mean you’re admitting that men have feelings towards their ‘children’ and as a result should provide them with more of a say over the woman’s body then the woman has.

     

    How’s that work?

    Submitted by Bei1052 on July 6, 2010 – 3:10pm.

    Yes, she agreed that the man has ‘feelings’.  She asked what was the point of the claim that that is true?  She asked if YOU were claiming that men’s feelings would result in some rights over the woman’s body.  So far as I can see, you still haven’t answered that question.

     

    My post stated my position – the man may HAVE feelings and he certainly has every right to feel what he feels, but nothing necessarily follows from that so far as the woman’s behavior.  His having his feelings isn’t something she needs to address but instead something which he needs to deal with himself.  Women should recognize and respect men’s feelings but they have no mandate to ignore their own feelings in order to make men ‘happy’ by doing whatever it is the men want them to do – whether that’s aborting the pregnancy or continuing it.

  • crowepps

    If you just want to acknowledge that men have feelings about them, too, so what?  We never said they didn’t have them and it’s rather pointless to simply state it that way, anyways.

    [These two statements express what can only be called a sociopathic outlook on men in general.]

    Why sociopathic?  Because it’s women’s JOB to tend to men’s emotional needs even if that means ignoring their own?

    If a woman ‘feels’ she wants to have an abortion, or has an ‘emotional connection’ and wants to complete a pregnancy, and a man doesn’t do exactly what she wants, does he have a “sociopathic outlook on women in general”?

  • arekushieru

    Of course, Bei, continue to twist people’s words around if that makes you feel better.  YOU are the ones that made this claim, now I, and others, are asking what point (which is what I’m ACTually discussing, not what you would like to preTEND I’m discussing) are you trying to make?  None?  Then I’m asking, why bring it up, hmmm…?  We are asking you a question, one you conTINue to fail to answer.

     

    Rather, you pretend that I’m saying that a man who has feelings for his potential offspring would have more say over a woman’s body, so I am attempting to deny that he does have feelings, so contradicting myself when I say that we have already acknowledged he does have feelings.

     

    Try again. 

  • arekushieru

    [So what? Crowepps is not an authority of any kind, and, for that matter, neither are you. Isn't she the one who posted "Sometimes You Have To Say It Twice" three separate times?  What's the problem with re-hashing the point, besides silly snobbishness on your part?] >>

     

    It’s funny but this points out how your comment about whether or not I make mistakes is kinda hypocritical.  Given your track record I’m not expecting you to admit it, here, either, even after you finish reading this post, after all. 

     

    Uh, yeah, and if you didn’t notice it was a double/triple post in response to someone else’s double post. 

     

    Where, in there, did I ever say she was an authority?  I was simply stating something that she had said, that Quentin had OBviously bypassed.  Durrrr….  *falls sideways*

     

    <<[Aside from feminist ideological indoctrination, this statement is inane and proves nothing]>>

     

    Y’know, I don’t understand how promoting equal rights is indoctrination.  You still haven’t explained that.  And you still continue to fail to understand that the default position of declarative statements without supporting evidence is the opposite of the declarative statement.  Therefore no supporting evidence as to why it is either not equal rights or should still be considered indoctrination, means that what I said isn’t indoctrination (especially since I already provided evidence), but that your declarative statement very well could be.  It is only a theory, or rather an opinion, in this case, until proven true, after all.

     

    How is it inane?  Or is this just another unsupported declarative statement…?  Hmmm…?

     

    <<[These two statements express what can only be called a sociopathic outlook on men in general.]>>

     

    Since I could have made the same kind of statement about women just as easily as I did about men, in that first part, there,  <<If a woman ‘feels’ she wants to have an abortion, or has an ‘emotional connection’ and wants to complete a pregnancy, and a man doesn’t do exactly what she wants, does he have a “sociopathic outlook on women in general?“>> (point proven, thanks, crowepps) and the second part acknowledges that men can/may have feelings, you are making some rather ODD assumptions from them.  But I’m coming to expect that from you, unfortunately.

     

    And I am ASKing for the *point*.  There was none, after all.   So he wasn’t ‘re-hashing’ anything, OF course.

     

     

     

  • arekushieru

    Um, actually, it’s pretty pertinent since,  I explained WHY they are related, something I have previously stated numerous times,?  The right to bodily autonomy = the right to bodily autonomy, after all.   You are equating ambiguous ‘feelings’ with the right to bodily autonomy, without providing any similar scenarios where this equation might hold true (which is another thing that went completely over your head, LB.  It’s basic logic 101 to provide comparable aNALogies and counterclaims.  So not MY ‘specifications’ but basic LOGIC’s), nor stating what difference it would make even if these feelings were acknowledged (hence my question about the ACTual point of all this), let aLONE explaining how this grants men more rights over a woman’s body than anyone else has over another’s.   You and your ‘cohorts’ simply do nothing but state over and over that there is no such right without providing any evidence as to why this is the case. 

     

    There is no such thing as the right to life that PLers would like to provide to feoti.  See what I did there?  I made a declarative statement but it is one I have ALso supported numerous times.  I have YET to hear a counterclaim from any of you to explain why this is untrue.  Hmmm….

  • arekushieru

    Umm, were we reading different commentaries, because I got something TOtally different…?  Afaik, he did acknowledge that men have these feelings.  They were the ones who supported their girlfriends even though they may, indeed, have had these feelings.  He publically shamed the ones who were expressing completely DIFFERENT kinds of feelings.  The ones who were expressing tones of possessiveness, objectification, grand-standing, which have NOTHING to do with whether one feels traumatized by this act or not.  And, AS I explained previously, these kinds of feelings are ones the author of this thread would more easily have viewed than Mr. Bauer .

  • crowepps

    Came back to this after thinking about it for a while

    outside of looking at ZBEFs as commodities to be bought and sold.

    There isn’t any question of the ZBEF being a commodity to be bought and sold.  Instead, what is happening is that the process of pregnancy itself is made into an ‘industrial process’ and commodified.  Ending the tradition of women contributing their blood and bone while completing the process ‘piece-work’ at home for free, pregnancy will be mechanized and the costs can be paid by the person who says it’s vitally important to them.

     

    I can just imagine Focus on the Family sending out fundraising letters about their “Sponsor a Fetus” program where pregnancies removed at four weeks go through the industrialized process on donations and the 10’s of thousands of resulting children can be assigned by lottery to various ProLife families to be brought up.  After all, having decided to bring them into the world, they get the responsibility of keeping them for the next 18 years.

     

    I do find it kind of ironic that people who have been protesting that it’s an outrageous imposition for men to have to come up with a couple hundred bucks a month to support their kids because women can ‘choose’ abortion without getting their men’s permission, or ‘choose’ birth without getting their men’s permission, might have that conudrum solved by having the women able to outsource the entire process so that Daddy gets the alternative option of paying some medical corporation $100,000 for mechanical gestation.

  • bei1052

    Um, actually, it’s pretty pertinent since,  I explained WHY they are related, something I have previously stated numerous times,?  The right to bodily autonomy = the right to bodily autonomy, after all.   You are equating ambiguous ‘feelings’ with the right to bodily autonomy, without providing any similar scenarios where this equation might hold true (which is another thing that went completely over your head, LB.  It’s basic logic 101 to provide comparable aNALogies and counterclaims.  So not MY ‘specifications’ but basic LOGIC’s), nor stating what difference it would make even if these feelings were acknowledged (hence my question about the ACTual point of all this), let aLONE explaining how this grants men more rights over a woman’s body than anyone else has over another’s.   You and your ‘cohorts’ simply do nothing but state over and over that there is no such right without providing any evidence as to why this is the case.

     

    Just what the heck are you talking about?

     

    There is no such thing as the right to life that PLers would like to provide to feoti.  See what I did there?  I made a declarative statement but it is one I have ALso supported numerous times.  I have YET to hear a counterclaim from any of you to explain why this is untrue.  Hmmm….

     

    Yes, the right to not be killed doesn’t exist. The only declarative statements” you’ve made are something along the lines of “People on an organ waiting list can’t demand an organ transplant, so the right to life doesn’t exist!” which is completely and utterly non-sensical, as it fails to distinguish between positive and negative rights.

     

  • bei1052

    Yes, she agreed that the man has ‘feelings’.  She asked what was the point of the claim that that is true?  She asked if YOU were claiming that men’s feelings would result in some rights over the woman’s body.  So far as I can see, you still haven’t answered that question.

     

    It would mean the exact same thing your argument based on the woman’s feelings mean.

     

    *hint hint, wink wink*

     

    My post stated my position – the man may HAVE feelings and he certainly has every right to feel what he feels, but nothing necessarily follows from that so far as the woman’s behavior.  His having his feelings isn’t something she needs to address but instead something which he needs to deal with himself.  Women should recognize and respect men’s feelings but they have no mandate to ignore their own feelings in order to make men ‘happy’ by doing whatever it is the men want them to do – whether that’s aborting the pregnancy or continuing it.

     

    All right. So let me make sure I understand this correctly.

     

    Men can’t have control over the woman’s body, but the woman can have control over the unborn’s body. Men’s feelings are irrelevant when it comes to abortion, but women’s feelings completely relevant to the abortion. Women don’t have to do anything to make the man happy, but the man has to do that which makes the women happy (on pain of punishment, even). Now, I can ask you how you justify the aforementioned, but I already know how you’ll justify it– “the woman is the one who gets pregnant, so only she can decide”. Unfortunately, that’s not a justificaion– at all– for women are not capable of parthenogenesis. Of course, you ignore this, and then try to claim– as you like to put it– “special rights” for the woman based on something which only affects women (which is ironic, as if I tried to grant rights to men based on the fact that they can’t get pregnant, you’d scream about misogyny and how I hate women and whatever).

     

    So what happened to that equality spiel you like to go on about? Simple. You threw it in the trash. Why? Because it’s not about equality. You, as you usually do, make all these arguments for why women should be able to do X, yet if we apply those same arguments to men, they’re suddenly nonsensical.

     

    But I’ve pointed this out to you many times, and I’m fairly sure that about five other people have pointed out something similar, yet you’ll just ignore it all the same.

  • crowepps

    Yes, the right to not be killed doesn’t exist. The only declarative statements” you’ve made are something along the lines of “People on an organ waiting list can’t demand an organ transplant, so the right to life doesn’t exist!” which is completely and utterly non-sensical, as it fails to distinguish between positive and negative rights.

    Well, actually, in the analogy of organ transplants, giving the “right to life” to a ZBEF at the stages where 95% of abortions happen is analogous to giving a “right to life” to the organ involved in the transplant and insisting that the kidney, lungs or heart have ‘civil rights’.

     

    Both the ZBEF and the transplant organ have ‘unique DNA’, both are ‘alive’, and neither can survive unsupported outside a human body which would mean that surely both have “the right not to be killed”.  The problem is, there is no ‘civil right’ that I know of that entitles either ZBEF’s or organs to coopt somebody else’s metabolism to support them.  Which is why so many laws focus on ‘viability’ as the bright dividing line for the State to intervene.

  • crowepps

    Men can’t have control over the woman’s body, but the woman can have control over the unborn’s body.

    Yes, that’s right. Since the ‘unborn’ is in the process of cannibalizing her body to construct itself, and she is the only one whose health is at risk, she is the only person in the situation with the right to choose between removing the ZBEF in self-defense or allowing it to remain.

    Men’s feelings are irrelevant when it comes to abortion, but women’s feelings completely relevant to the abortion.

    The man’s feelings are highly relevant to himself and he has every right to choose between being involved and supportive or to disagree, state his disagreement, end the relationship entirely and refuse further involvement because he disagrees based on those feelings. The woman, however, is the one who has the right to choose what happens to her body and therefore her feelings are the only ones relevant to whether an abortion actually occurs.

    Women don’t have to do anything to make the man happy, but the man has to do that which makes the women happy

    No, he doesn’t, and I never stated that. Men do not have to ignore their own feelings or do things they don’t want to do in order to make women ‘happy’. Both men and women should be totally and completely responsible for their own emotions and stop trying to shove the responsibility for their feelings off on other people in an effort to manipulate them.

     

    “Do what I say or I’ll hit you” is abusive and so is “Do what I say or I’ll cry and whine and complain if you really loved me you’d want to do this for me.” Why the heck do so many people seem to think it’s ‘normal’ for adults to behave like they’re still in kindergarten?

  • arekushieru

    Interesting thoughts.  I’ve had this come up quite often within debates on FB.  And I responded to Paul within a similar context.  I believe that it is only a viable solution as long as the financial, medical/physical and emotional investments are no more prohibitive than abortion’s, at the most.

  • julie-watkins

    I think it likely that, in broadest possible terms, a poor person is more likely to be killed than a rich person … unless the “rich” person is a kept person (family member or servant) that a rich person considers a possession.

    All this divide and conquer stuff just makes it easier for the people making the real decisions (where’s the dam going to be made, who’s thrown off their land, where the next war/excuse for warprofits is going to happen, which way to “grow” the prison population to “grow” the prison-industrial complex profits, who’s going to get foreclosed, which safety regulations aren’t going to be enforced, etc., etc.) to keep on with their agendas.

    Girls get trained to be servants, that a “real” women will always help and be giving, whatever’s expected of her.

    Guys get trained that a “real” man gets to do what he wants. And the guys that don’t win (because “winner takes all”) are losers. That could be a reason why men attack each other: reducing the competition. 

    It would be better, for those of us being used as income-generators for the powers that be, to resist all the “divide & conquer” BS and work for real social justice.

     

  • crowepps

    I can see such a development creating a lot of other issues as well.

     

    Certainly women who were at a high risk of complications or who had demanding careers would welcome it, since they could outsource the risk and time involved.  The expense, however, would likely create a two-class system (as surrogacy is beginning to do now) where well-off women could have all the babies they wanted and poorer women would have to do it the hard way and continue to take the risks.

     

    Then what do you do in a case where the bill isn’t being paid?  Hold the neonate as surety until they cough up the dough?

     

    What if the woman sunders any legal connection by surrendering the BZEF because the man says he wants it and then he changes his mind?  Or drops dead before it’s finishing ‘cooking’?  Does the person who stands as parent have to designate an alternate ‘parent’ who will ‘take delivery’ if he/she isn’t around at the time?

     

    Who gets to make decisions when, as in regular in-body reproduction, there turn out to be flaws in the process?  Are there going to be periodic quality control inspections with an opt-out clause if major fetal problems become apparent?  Is the industrial medical firm going to guarantee results?  Be liable for murder if the electricity goes off and deaths occur as a consequence?  What insurance company would be willing to ensure a process that is known to likely have a minimum 10% failure rate?

  • quentin0352

    I find it interestign that you did not feel women who rape or molest woudl be poor mothers or that they should not have custody. Much less the theft of sperm in the cases I linked to which you felt were not important enough to actually address.

     

    As for the suggestion of JenK, I say that if technology would allow it, then allow either or both parties to walk away within a specified period of time like women have now.

     

    Beyond that, the majority of the argument I see is that men are abusive brutes who should have no rights or feelings towards their children except at the will and demands of the mother. If she wants him involved, then she is in charge of when, where, how much and what capacity, if she does not want the child then he should not care about that either and should be stricvtly supportive of her desires. Now if we reversed the demands of being supprtive and controlling we would see that as abusive against women but for some reason many here seem to think it is acceptable to be abusive and controlling in that manner over men.

  • arekushieru

    Yup, after all, a specific organ donor only has complete “control” over who uses his body and when and how it is used but no other.  Is it the woman’s fault she requires more specific control over someone else’s body in order to facilitate that direction?  Uh, no…?  Since last I checked women didn’t ‘choose’ to have a uterus grown and developed within their bodies.

  • crowepps

    I find it interestign that you did not feel women who rape or molest woudl be poor mothers or that they should not have custody.

    I agree, women who rape or molest would be poor mothers and shouldn’t have custody.

     

    As for the rest of your post, I’m not going to bother to respond, because frankly, I’m really tired of dealing with the daily representative from Men Are Always Innocent And It’s Always Evil Women’s Fault.  I’m sorry that happened just when it was your ‘turn’ here, and I’m sure somewhere buried in your post is something worth responding to, but I’m having a high-pressure day and I still have another 10 pages to transcribe and 90 pages to proof and print before I can go home.

  • arekushieru

    No, he doesn’t, and I never stated that. Men do not have to ignore their own feelings or do things they don’t want to do in order to make women ‘happy’. Both men and women should be totally and completely responsible for their own emotions and stop trying to shove the responsibility for their feelings off on other people in an effort to manipulate them.

     

    “Do what I say or I’ll hit you” is abusive and so is “Do what I say or I’ll cry and whine and complain if you really loved me you’d want to do this for me.” Why the heck do so many people seem to think it’s ‘normal’ for adults to behave like they’re still in kindergarten?>>

     

    Here is an excerpt from one of crowepps previous comments.  Doesn’t sound to me like she’s saying anything NEAR what you’ve claimed has been said.  You, Bei and LB simply keep missing the point.  The point being “What IS your point?”  I hope you’ll enlighten us… eventually, preferably before you decide to twist our words out of all recognition, again.

  • bei1052

    Yes, that’s right. Since the ‘unborn’ is in the process of cannibalizing her body to construct itself, and she is the only one whose health is at risk, she is the only person in the situation with the right to choose between removing the ZBEF in self-defense or allowing it to remain.

     

    Number one, I think you need to re-enroll yourself in a basic biology class. Number two, as I’ve pointed out no less then a gajillion times for you all ready, the underwhelming minority of abortions are done because of “health risks”. I know that this fact bothers you, but it’s worth repeating: the overwhelming minority of abortions are not done for any reason linked to the woman’s health. That’s an undeniable fact.

     

    The man’s feelings are highly relevant to himself and he has every right to choose between being involved and supportive or to disagree, state his disagreement, end the relationship entirely and refuse further involvement because he disagrees based on those feelings. The woman, however, is the one who has the right to choose what happens to her body and therefore her feelings are the only ones relevant to whether an abortion actually occurs.

     

    … … …

     

    So you did precisely what I said you’d do? Go figure. Anyway, let me explain to you why your argument is flawed. Your entire argument rests on the notion that because it’s the woman’s body, she can do the unborn as she wants. Now, let’s ignore the fact that this totally fails to address how no women is capable of parthenogenesis, and how she isn’t doing to her body, but rather the body of someone else (the unborn). Instead, let’s focus on the fact that “Because it’s her body” needs to be defended. You typically try to defend the “Because it’s her body” line with something along the lines of, “Because she’s taking the risks in pregnancy, she should be allowed to have an abortion”. That would be fine, except you argue that a woman be allowed to have an abortion even if there were absolutely no health risks involved in the pregnancy, which ultimately causes your argument to fall back on the “Because it’s her body” line, which you still haven’t explained why that should be a reason to allow an abortion.

     

    So, in short, you’re justification for abortion is the reason by which abortion should be legal. It’s like trying to ask someone to defend their position only to have them respond with, “Because I said so” over and over again.

     

    No, he doesn’t, and I never stated that. Men do not have to ignore their own feelings or do things they don’t want to do in order to make women ‘happy’. Both men and women should be totally and completely responsible for their own emotions and stop trying to shove the responsibility for their feelings off on other people in an effort to manipulate them.

     

    No, actually, he does. Notice how you left out the part closed out by parentheses? Probably not, but I’m calling it to your attention.

     

     “Do what I say or I’ll hit you” is abusive and so is “Do what I say or I’ll cry and whine and complain if you really loved me you’d want to do this for me.” Why the heck do so many people seem to think it’s ‘normal’ for adults to behave like they’re still in kindergarten?

     

    That’s great and all, but that has absolutely no bearing on anything I typed out.

  • wendy-banks

    It is directed at men AND women who visit the board to instruct women in what our behavior should be, because they “know what’s best”, and what’s REALLY important isn’t our replaceable and disposable selves but rather the ZBEF.

    Yeah, I get pretty flaming PO’d about that myself.

  • crowepps

     the underwhelming minority of abortions are done because of “health risks”.

    Abortions done because of health emergencies are done AFTER the risk has impacted her and is threatening her health or life.  Abortions are also done BEFORE the health risk threatens the woman because the doctor knows, just for instance, that it WILL impact her later (as when her water breaks but no infection is yet present).  In addition, over 600 women die every year from complications of pregnancy NOW.

     

    I don’t think it’s my business to interfere in her decision about whether she needs an abortion on an emergency basis after the health ‘risk’ is killing her or in her decision about whether she chooses abortion proactively because she’s not willing to take the chance a health risk will arise later.  The reasons for her decision are none of my business and they aren’t any of your business either because it’s HER body and if she doesn’t want to continue being pregnant, it’s HER choice. 

     “Because she’s taking the risks in pregnancy, she should be allowed to have an abortion”. That would be fine, except you argue that a woman be allowed to have an abortion even if there were absolutely no health risks involved in the pregnancy,

    There is no pregnancy which is absolutely guaranteed to be 100% risk free.   If the odds are that only 1 time in a 1000 a particular complication will arise, the chance of that complication arising in THIS pregnancy is still 50-50; either it will or it won’t.  20% of pregnancies spontaneously abort WHICH IS A HEALTH RISK so the odds are actually always a lot shorter than that.

     

    She’s the only one who has to pay with her health or life if she takes that chance and the number comes up, and so she’s the only one who gets to decide whether she’s willing to do so.

    Notice how you left out the part closed out by parentheses? Probably not, but I’m calling it to your attention.

    Are you talking about (on pain of punishment yet)?  Since I had no clue what the heck you meant by that, I didn’t respond to it.  Obviously, if the man is NOT responsible for her feelings AND has a right to his own feelings, then there isn’t going to be any “pain of punishment” is there?

     

    You need to make up your mind whether you are speaking for the ‘rights’ of the man involved who claims to have an emotional attachment to “his child” or for the fetus itself.  You keep mixing the two up, and your claim that the man involved should represent the fetus as well as himself rings rather hollow when in other posts you insist he should also have the right to decide he doesn’t want to be its father and have the option of rejecting fatherhood to save money.

  • prochoiceferret

    Number two, as I’ve pointed out no less then a gajillion times for you all ready, the underwhelming minority of abortions are done because of “health risks”. I know that this fact bothers you, but it’s worth repeating: the overwhelming minority of abortions are not done for any reason linked to the woman’s health. That’s an undeniable fact.

    Isn’t it funny how anti-choicers think that pregnancies, even healthy ones, can be devoid of health risks? Or that they have to personally approve of the motivations and circumstances by which women exert control over their own bodies?

     

    That would be fine, except you argue that a woman be allowed to have an abortion even if there were absolutely no health risks involved in the pregnancy, which ultimately causes your argument to fall back on the “Because it’s her body” line, which you still haven’t explained why that should be a reason to allow an abortion.

    Notice how anti-choicers are incapable of grasping the concept of women owning their own bodies. It’s not even that they refuse to acknowledge this fact—it’s that their brains are physically incapable of processing it. It’s like asking someone to visualize a 6-dimensional hypercube; it just doesn’t work.

     

    We have to keep this highly-specific mental disability in mind when talking with anti-choicers. They are capable of leading highly productive and enriching lives, as long as they steer clear of reproductive rights and associated public policy. Being anti-choice need not be a (social) death sentence!

     

    So, in short, you’re justification for abortion is the reason by which abortion should be legal. It’s like trying to ask someone to defend their position only to have them respond with, “Because I said so” over and over again.

    Normal logic is very frustrating for anti-choicers. Whenever you see an anti-choicer going in circles on a straightforward issue of bodily integrity or self-ownership, try distracting them with a soft toy or some small, shiny object.

     

    That’s great and all, but that has absolutely no bearing on anything I typed out.

    Please, be kind to the anti-choicer. They may not think like you or me, but they still hate it when their wages are garnished.

  • ahunt

    Once again….if the rights of the BZEF are supreme…then any act or behavior that potentially harm/ends the pregnancy is socially suspect/criminal.

  • lbsimon

    You, Bei and LB simply keep missing the point.  The point being “What IS your point?”  I hope you’ll enlighten us… eventually, preferably before you decide to twist our words out of all recognition, again.

     

    The point is and has always been the addiction to sophistry on the part of, first, Crowepps, and now you; to wit …

     

    1) Ignoring anything for which you don’t have a counterpoint, rebuttal or refutation.

    2) Deflecting, rather than engaging, the attempt to dialogue.

    3) Using a repertoire of responses that are largely limited to comparing what has been written with a.) something irrelevant, b.) something you have surreptitiously modified, or c.) something you have pulled out of thin air and subsequently interjected into the debate.

    4) Heavy reliance on finger-pointing and blame-laying techniques, intended to deflate the other party, as a substitue for receptivity and subsequent ratiocination. 

     

    [If you could refute the other's point you should. Instead, you rely on trying to make that person out to be some kind of an unworthy opponent ... a bully, a whiner, a jerk, a child etc. ... usually by insinuation and implication.]

     

     

     

  • prochoiceferret

    1) Ignoring anything for which you don’t have a counterpoint, rebuttal or refutation.

    2) Deflecting, rather than engaging, the attempt to dialogue.

    3) Using a repertoire of responses that are largely limited to comparing what has been written with a.) something irrelevant, b.) something you have surreptitiously modified, or c.) something you have pulled out of thin air and subsequently interjected into the debate.

    4) Heavy reliance on finger-pointing and blame-laying techniques, intended to deflate the other party, as a substitue for receptivity and subsequent ratiocination.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if anti-choicers stopped doing all this? I know, I know, it’s their nature and all, but… man, wouldn’t that be refreshing?

  • lbsimon

    In short, IQ tests are actually pretty useless for much of anything …

    that’s what people who are jealous of the gifted always claim; as well as people who have never taken any of the tests involved.

     

    ahunt – are you familiar with what is tested?

     

     

  • jenk

    I never thought about the idea that they would be sold on a commodities market. Really is a side topic. Of course only the bio dad or mom would have the say in removing a baby/fetus to be incubated, but that could be overturned. Didn’t mean to open up a can of worms on that one. I can see Focus on the Family doing that-making a law that a woman can choose to abort intact for adoption; I would be in line to donate and possibly raise one or two of the babies. My boys are nearly grown now, I miss having young children.

    I have never said this was about money. This is about bodily autonomy from forced pregnancy/delivery or forced labor, and parental rights. If a man wants to keep his baby and it is physically possible without inpeding the bodily autonomy of the mother, we all seem to agree he would have the right to do so.

     

     

    Likewise, if he does not want a child he should have the same window of opportunity a woman does to opt out of the physical imposition of parenthood. Where women have two windows (abortion  and adoption/abandonment) men have one, but to me the one window would be sufficient since they only have one physical imposition (working).

     

    If one does not agree to a man’s right to ‘paper abort’, which really is more akin to putting the baby up for adoption, then women should not have that ability either. She would have the ability to abort, however once a baby is born a woman should be held financially responsible for the baby regardless if she chooses to be in that child’s life at all. She can abandon or adopt out the baby, but she must pay 17% of her income to the child until that child is 18.

    Seems to me that may cause more abortions and punish Christian/pro-life women disproportionately, but no option is without its consequences.  There is no good option other than for people to take more care in when, if and how they have sex. And that is like shutting the barn door after the horses are out.  Course if it keeps the cows in…….:-~

     

  • jenk

    Also, child support/visitation is about more than a “couple hundred bucks a month”. I think that is a huge issue with fatherhood issues, is this complete lack of understanding or compassion for the father’s position. I am going way off topic here, but I feel this is relevant.

     

    Men who are actively involved in their children’s life are something like 80-90% likely to pay support in full and on time. Men who choose to be and are allowed to be involved. Sometimes the father is the problem, sometimes the mother is the problem standing in the way of active fatherhood.

     

    Most men who don’t pay are below poverty level. It is not that they won’t pay it is that they cannot pay.

     

    Can you imagine only seeing your children every other weekend? How can you possibly be actively involved when you don’t see them?

     

    Can you imagine another woman, whom you have no choice nor information about being there with your kids every single day, acting as their mother? Dads go through this with other men all the time. Unfortunately, the two groups most likely to abuse children are mothers and their boyfriends. Even in cases where the mother and or boyfriend are abusing the child, it is unlikely anything will be done about it.

     

    Can you imagine how hard it is when your weekends are cancelled or moved, how devistating that must be, even if it doesn’t happen that often?

     

    Can you imagine being near or under poverty level and having nearly 20% of your income taken off the top prior to taxes (that is only 1 child, it can go as high as 40% for 3 or more). At 40% pretax you can see 60% of your take home or more gone. That is not a measly couple hundred bucks. Your kids finally come to see you for a weekend and you live in a hotel or a dumpy apartment and have no money to go do things and struggle to even buy food.

    Can you imagine having money, and still 17% comes off the top. Your ex spends it on her home, car, etc, when you know that a toddler or even a teen does not cost anywhere near that much to raise. My husband would be on the hook for over $2600 a month if both our boys were under 18.  That is half his take-home, btw. There is no way that if I only put that towards my sons and not myself I would need that much. Yet how many women put any extra into a savings account for their children?  Can you imagine handing over that much money to your ex and having no accountibility for how it is spent?

    Or what if your ex moves? You then either move too, and risk not being able to pay support which comes with a jail sentance, or you don’t get to see your children.

    Or what if you are hurt on the job, or get laid off? The court will more likely than not refuse to change your order, and you will have your unemployment garnished at the original amount, which could be as high as 60% of your income. You can be put in jail for being unable to pay.

    I know single mothers go through much of similar issues with money, custody issues, exes dating, etc. The difference is women have in most cases the choice to be there in the first place. Even just in divorce, ~80% of divorces are initiated by women. So they had the choice to be divorced in most cases as well. Doesn’t make these issues easy, but having a choice is a huge factor.

     

    And everyone has sympathy for single mothers, it is in our social consciousness to have consideration for how hard it is on single mothers. But single dads get no such sympathy. They are labeled, shamed, belittled and devalued. We don’t even use the term single dads, we use the term ‘visitor’ or dead beat. We don’t have parental time, we have visitation. Can you imagine being relegated to a visitor in your child’s life?

    And all of this with no choice for most men.

    Life is hard for everyone. We consistantly put one group up as sympathetic and worthy of rights and aid and downplay the other group as too privilaged to need rights and aid. The problem is the second groups is, by and large, NOT privilaged at all. Shouldn’t we  see all people as worthy of rights and aid?

     

  • quentin0352

    VERY well put Jen!!

     

    Here is a link to the latest report on the statistics you mentioned with visitation and child support. I noticed you only had the information from the 1993 report which there have been some changes since. There IS a strong relation to child access and payment of support though and if you look at the reasons it is not paid it is usually that they can’t or the other parent doesn’t want it and etc. The info is on page 8 af the report linked below.

    http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-230.pdf

     

    This is a link with information in an easy format and the references to it all. It shows what I pointed out earlier in that fathers are only supposed to care and be involved when, where, how and IF the mother wants them to be. Fathers appear to have no value with mothers and society in general except to do as told and FEEL as told by the mothers of their children.

     

    http://www.childrensjustice.org/stats.htm

     

    • 37.9% of fathers have no access/visitation rights. (Source: p.6, col.II, para. 6, lines 4 & 5, Census Bureau P-60, #173, Sept 1991.)
    • “40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the non-custodial father’s visitation on at least one occasion, to punish the ex-spouse.” (Source: p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing Fulton) Frequency of visitation by Divorced Fathers; Differences in Reports by Fathers and Mothers. Sanford Braver et al, Am. J. of Orthopsychiatry, 1991.)
    • “Overall, approximately 50% of mothers “see no value in the father`s continued contact with his children….” (Source: Surviving the Breakup, Joan Kelly & Judith Wallerstein, p. 125)
    • Only 11% of mothers value their husband’s input when it comes to handling problems with their kids. Teachers & doctors rated 45%, and close friends & relatives rated 16%.(Source: EDK Associates survey of 500 women for Redbook Magazine. Redbook, November 1994, p. 36)
    • “The former spouse (mother) was the greatest obstacle to having more frequent contact with the children.” (Source: Increasing our understanding of fathers who have infrequent contact with their children, James Dudley, Family Relations, Vol. 4, p. 281, July 1991.)
    • “A clear majority (70%) of fathers felt that they had too little time with their children.” (Source: Visitation and the Noncustodial Father, Mary Ann Kock & Carol Lowery, Journal of Divorce, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 54, Winter 1984.)
    • “Very few of the children were satisfied with the amount of contact with their fathers, after divorce.” (Source: Visitation and the Noncustodial Father, Koch & Lowery, Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 50, Winter 1984.)
    • “Feelings of anger towards their former spouses hindered effective involvement on the part of fathers; angry mothers would sometimes sabotage father’s efforts to visit their children.” (Source: Ahrons and Miller, Am. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 63. p. 442, July `93.)
    • “Mothers may prevent visits to retaliate against fathers for problems in their marital or post-marital relationship.” (Source: Seltzer, Shaeffer & Charing, Journal of Marriage & the Family, Vol. 51, p. 1015, November 1989.)
    • In a study: “Visitational Interference – A National Study” by Ms. J Annette Vanini, M.S.W. and Edward Nichols, M.S.W., it was found that 77% of non-custodial fathers are NOT able to “visit” their children, as ordered by the court, as a result of “visitation interference” perpetuated by the custodial parent. In other words, non-compliance with court ordered visitation is three times the problem of non-compliance with court ordered child support and impacts the children of divorce even more. Originally published Sept. 1992

    As for thoe one most likely to abuse the child, page 29 on this report.

     

    http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm07/cm07.pdf

     

    Until we reconize as a society and many individuals here see it, we will continue to treat men with no reproducitve rights and strict responsibilities based strictly on the wants, needs and desires of the mothers. As a custodial father I have seen how we are treated by society and the courts where even basic laws and constitutional rights are not relevent or accepted. Judges and others even have bragged or stated that men have no rights period and any constitutional rights we have should be ignored. If women were treated in this manner, those who are ignoring it here and even argue to keep it would be up in arms and rightfully so but since it is against men instead of women as a gender, they insult and attack or blame men who are trying to gain actually equallity for BOTH genders in these matters.

     

    And if any think this is acceptable, I suggest going to http://www.HurleyMustGo.com and reading what is publicly allowable. When it takes the death of an infant with no investigation on it, tons of pictures showing abuse, kids begging for help to be protected from an abusive mother and numerous official reports showing this to finally a child being sodomized for a father to have rights to his children, then something is seriously wrong as we now put the rights of the mothers and their wants and desires ahead of even protecting children, the laws in place on protecting them and their rights to a decent life. 

  • bei1052

    Abortions done because of health emergencies are done AFTER the risk has impacted her and is threatening her health or life.  Abortions are also done BEFORE the health risk threatens the woman because the doctor knows, just for instance, that it WILL impact her later (as when her water breaks but no infection is yet present). 

     

    That’s great, but totally has no bearing on anything I ty ped out.

     

    In addition, over 600 women die every year from complications of pregnancy NOW.

     

    And? I hope this isn’t going to be one of those things where you turn around and argue that because a woman can die from complications arising from pregnancy that she should be allowed to have an abortion for any reason she wants totally unrealted to those complications. Because that would be asinine, and would be like arguing that I should be allowed to shoot my neighbor for any reason because she might one day go crazy and try to hack me up with a machete.

     

    I don’t think it’s my business to interfere in her decision about whether she needs an abortion on an emergency basis after the health ‘risk’ is killing her or in her decision about whether she chooses abortion proactively because she’s not willing to take the chance a health risk will arise later.

     

    Did you just, like, totally ignore how the majority of abortions aren’t done because of any health risk?

     

    The reasons for her decision are none of my business and they aren’t any of your business either because it’s HER body and if she doesn’t want to continue being pregnant, it’s HER choice.

     

    You’re not even trying now. You’ve just fallen into the “I’m-going-to-repeat-the-whole-‘my-body-my-choice’-line-and-hope-Bei1052-doesn’t-point-out-that-reciting-empty-rhetoric-an-argument-does-not-make”.

     

    I ask why a woman should be able to have an abortion. You say because it’s her body. I ask why it being “her body” (which it isn’t), entitles her to be able to have an abortion. You say because it’s her body. I ask why it being “her body” (which it isn’t), entitles her to be able to have an abortion. You say because it’s her body. I ask why it being “her body” (which it isn’t), entitles her to be able to have an abortion. You say…

     

    See the problem there? Of course you don’t, but I’ll point it out again. You have no argument. It’s why you simply keep repeating the same thing without even bothering to explain why it being “her body” leads to her being able to have an abortion, and are treating the idea that because a woman’s body is “hers”, that she should be able to have an abortion just because.

     

    I could apply that logic elsewhere. In fact, I think I will. Watch. I should be able to kill you, because my body is my own and I should be able to do with it as I please. You agree with that, right?

     

    *shrugs*

     

    Probably not, but that’s why it’s so funny. As it is, at least you were kind enough to somehow drop the whole “health risk” angle and admit that it doesn’t matter why the woman wants an abortion, as you’d support her decision no matter what it was.

     

    There is no pregnancy which is absolutely guaranteed to be 100% risk free.   If the odds are that only 1 time in a 1000 a particular complication will arise, the chance of that complication arising in THIS pregnancy is still 50-50; either it will or it won’t.  20% of pregnancies spontaneously abort WHICH IS A HEALTH RISK so the odds are actually always a lot shorter than that.

     

    She’s the only one who has to pay with her health or life if she takes that chance and the number comes up, and so she’s the only one who gets to decide whether she’s willing to do so.

     

    …I spoke too soon.

     

    I’d say you’re grasping at straws, but that’d be giving you too much credit. I know I’ve pointed this out to you a gajillion times before, but only 4% of all abortions are done because of risks to the mother’s health. In case math isn’t your strong point, that leaves 96% of abortions that don’t fall into the aforementioned category. That’s ninety-six percent (spelled out for you).

     

    You’re engaging in intellectual dishonesty at worst, and obfuscation at best, and you’re doing it for no other reason then the fact that you can’t acknowledge the point being made here because it blows a huge hole in your argument. The simple, and undeniable fact, is that the majority of pregnancy pose no health risks to the mother, and that the absolutely overwhelming majority of abortions are done absent any medical reason at all. I know it, you know and anyone who knows anything about abortion in the U.S. knows it.

     

    So, as I commonly ask, just who are you kidding? I mean, really. Who do you think you’re kidding? Yourself, maybe. And maybe a few of your pro-choice buddies around here, but that’s about it.

     

    Are you talking about (on pain of punishment yet)?  Since I had no clue what the heck you meant by that, I didn’t respond to it.  Obviously, if the man is NOT responsible for her feelings AND has a right to his own feelings, then there isn’t going to be any “pain of punishment” is there?

     

    It means exactly what it said. You’re a smart lad, so you should have been able to figure it out.

     

    You need to make up your mind whether you are speaking for the ‘rights’ of the man involved who claims to have an emotional attachment to “his child” or for the fetus itself.  You keep mixing the two up, and your claim that the man involved should represent the fetus as well as himself rings rather hollow when in other posts you insist he should also have the right to decide he doesn’t want to be its father and have the option of rejecting fatherhood to save money.

     

    Or, and bear with me here, I’m simply applying the same arguments to the man that you love to throw out for the women. What’s good for the gander is good for the goose, correct? Or, as is the case, is this one of those “one-way street” things?

     

  • bei1052

    Isn’t it funny how anti-choicers think that pregnancies, even healthy ones, can be devoid of health risks?

     

    I’ll give you a pellet or whatever it is ferrets eat if you can find me where someone stated the above.

     

    Or that they have to personally approve of the motivations and circumstances by which women exert control over their own bodies?

     

    And here I was under the mistaken impression that abortion was a woman exerting control over the body of someone else.

     

    Notice how anti-choicers are incapable of grasping the concept of women owning their own bodies. It’s not even that they refuse to acknowledge this fact—it’s that their brains are physically incapable of processing it. It’s like asking someone to visualize a 6-dimensional hypercube; it just doesn’t work.

     

    How do you own your own body? The only way this would be possible would be for you to exist before you exist (dualism and all that), and that’s just silly.

     

    …Plus, as I point out often, no one has absolute control over their bodies. But you ignore it just as often, which makes me wonder whether or not you live in this reality or anyone I’m familiar with.

     

    We have to keep this highly-specific mental disability in mind when talking with anti-choicers. They are capable of leading highly productive and enriching lives, as long as they steer clear of reproductive rights and associated public policy. Being anti-choice need not be a (social) death sentence!

     

    You think common sense is a mental disability? Well, that explains a lot.

     

    Normal logic is very frustrating for anti-choicers. Whenever you see an anti-choicer going in circles on a straightforward issue of bodily integrity or self-ownership, try distracting them with a soft toy or some small, shiny object.

     

    What is this “norma”l logic you speak of? If self-evident statements and unjustified claims constitute “normal” logic, then I’m happy to engage in that which is abnormal ^_^

     

    Please, be kind to the anti-choicer. They may not think like you or me, but they still hate it when their wages are garnished.

     

    I figured you would have sharpened your wit in your time away but, alas, dreams don’t come true.

  • prochoiceferret

    I ask why a woman should be able to have an abortion. You say because it’s her body. I ask why it being “her body” (which it isn’t), entitles her to be able to have an abortion. You say because it’s her body. I ask why it being “her body” (which it isn’t), entitles her to be able to have an abortion. You say because it’s her body. I ask why it being “her body” (which it isn’t), entitles her to be able to have an abortion. You say…

    It’s like watching the robots in that one Star Trek episode going “does not compute… does not compute… illogical… illogical…”

     

    (That was right before they exploded, of course, so you may want to stand back…)

  • bei1052

    It’s like watching the robots in that one Star Trek episode going “does not compute… does not compute… illogical… illogical…”

     

    (That was right before they exploded, of course, so you may want to stand back…)

     

    No worries. I don’t explode :)

     

    Anyway, are you saying that the justification for why something should be can be the reason originally which you attempting to justify in the first place? Because if you are, then I obviously overestimated ferrets intellectual capacity.

  • crowepps

    Having a busy day again and can’t answer this all right now, but I did just want to ask for clarification:

     I ask why it being “her body” (which it isn’t), entitles her to be able to have an abortion.

    If it isn’t ‘her body’ from which the placenta is being detached, to whom do you assert that it belongs?

    Are you talking about (on pain of punishment yet)?  Since I had no clue what the heck you meant by that, I didn’t respond to it.  …

     

    It means exactly what it said. You’re a smart lad, so you should have been able to figure it out.

    Well, unfortunately I could not figure it out and still cannot figure it out, so it would be very helpful if you would explain exactly what you did mean by rephrasing.  It just plain doesn’t make any sense to me at all.

  • julie-watkins

    I’m replying to the first part of your comment. I think the child support system is a symptom of much of what is wrong about how USA goverment works. It’s a Golden Rule thing: big business has the Gold, and they get to make the laws (profits! profits!). I would rather my taxes go to social spending than Business/War/Prison Industry profits. More social spending give us better safety nets (it used to be much better 30 years ago) but social programs are always cut first, rather than money that goes to corporate welfare cheats. And one of the excuses is to say it’s not the government’s responsibility, it’s deadbeat parents!!!

    I appreciate that you’re complaining about the government, but there are some people who come here and say it’s the woman’s fault not government not doing it’s job. I think family law could be improved, but I wouldn’t want a “reform in name only” which leaves everyone — men, women and children — more vulnerable.

    Edit: I had posting problems this morning. This is supposed to be in reply to JenK’s post at 8:58 am.

  • arekushieru

    Yeah, pretty much.

  • equalist

    If the costs and risks of the procedure to the mother were the same, I think a lot of women who abort would be more than willing to sign up for this procedure.  I don’t believe that it would end all abortions completely, but I think it would make a dent.  I also think that if that procedure were available, men who would fight to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will should be forced to carry the unwanted or health risking pregnancy to term themselves.  If a man is so dead set on his child surviving to birth against the will of the woman who carries it, then he should be more than willing to carry the child himself.

  • equalist

    If the costs and risks of the procedure to the mother were the same, I think a lot of women who abort would be more than willing to sign up for this procedure.  I don’t believe that it would end all abortions completely, but I think it would make a dent.  I also think that if that procedure were available, men who would fight to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will should be forced to carry the unwanted or health risking pregnancy to term themselves.  If a man is so dead set on his child surviving to birth against the will of the woman who carries it, then he should be more than willing to carry the child himself.

  • arekushieru

    Jen, I know of a man from China, whose wages were below the poverty line, yet always made sure to pay his child support on time for the child who still lived in China with his mother, whether or not he had enough money left to pay his rent, while he lived in Canada. 

     

    Regardless, women are typically on a much lower income scale, yet I rarely hear anyone complain about her inability to pay child support if she doesn’t have primary custody or about the lower wages she receives even if she was granted primary custody.  Considering that, I really don’t think men have any right to complain about paying child support whether or not they do have full custody or about how MUCH they have to pay.  Hmmm….  Methinks someone just protests too much.

     

    This is in reference to JenK’s male-centred view of child support.  While I appreciate she may be referring to the lack of government accountability, she seems to be referring to the idea that it can only be attributed to the male side of the equation, which is NOT true. 

  • jenk

    Actually, no organ in the human body will ever become an independant organism. A fetus will. A fetus is basically a parasite during the pre-birth stage, and no arguement has ever passed muster which claims a parasite is not a living thing.

  • jenk

    Not sure where this came up, but Christian men aren’t really in need of figuring out what clothing to wear. Male styles for Christian men in the US are all pretty much the same-no crazy colors except Hawiian shirts (which are about as unsexy as you can get!), shorts down to the knees, t-shirts or polo shirts, etc. Only in subcultures such as inner cities or the gay community do you see any real variation in clothing style. We all know how people react to a speedo.

    Men have far greater social restrictions on clothing in the US than women do.

    The purpose for women to care about their clothing is to not lead men into sin through their dress or behavior. Men leading women into sin via their clothing really isn’t much of a threat.

     

    My opinion of course.

  • prochoiceferret

    The purpose for women to care about their clothing is to not lead men into sin through their dress or behavior. Men leading women into sin via their clothing really isn’t much of a threat.

    Instead of hounding all women to dress a certain way, why don’t we just confine (Christian) men to their homes? If they are incapable of controlling themselves just because of how other people choose to dress, they’re probably not the kind of person you want going out and about in public anyway.

     

    We all know how people react to a speedo.

    Granted, it sort of depends on what’s inside the Speedo….

  • equalist

    A friend of mine has two children with his ex.  His ex has custody and refuses visitation, or at most promises to have the children at a specified location at a specified time and then doesn’t show up or call to let him know she won’t be there with the children.  This man has been unable to work because of medical issues for the last four years, and yet still has nearly 400 dollars in court ordered child support to pay per month with no income.  His disibility claims have been denied because he cannot afford a regular physician, the free clinic is full, and the word of emergency room doctors two or more times a month apparently aren’t good enough.  He covers his expenses at the kindness of friends and family, and does not choose not to pay his child support, the funds simply don’t exist to pay the child support with.  Until he ran out of items to put up for sale, he sold everything he owned, vehicle, electronics he could gather as scrap to put every penny towards child support and now has nothing left to call his own, yet the back child support is still racking up at an astronomical rate.  When he brought to the court’s attention that at the time support was ordered and continuing, he was homeless, in the process of a disibility claim, and without employment due to health reasons, he was told that it wasn’t the court’s problem.  This is not a singular situation, it’s something that happens and the courts simply don’t care about the situation of the father.  I agree that if a man is capable of paying child support and doesn’t, then something should be done.  But when a man cannot support himself with his best efforts, then allowances should be made regarding child support.

  • equalist

    If more was done to support minimum income men who owe child support, then more child support would be getting paid to custodial parents.  In South Carolina, legal aid will assist a woman seeking child support or seeking help in negotiating her child support arrangement if she is the non custodial parent.  The same program will not provide such assistance to men on either side of the custody and child support situation.  A woman with children can easily get assistance from various government programs, but a man attempting to provide support to his children is not eligible for any such programs that could greatly help him make those payments.  The government programs are a great idea, except in that they only provide assistance for a portion of the needy population and not for all who require such assistance.

  • jenk

     

    Why sociopathic?  Because it’s women’s JOB to tend to men’s emotional needs even if that means ignoring their own?

    I must point out that the original author of the blog post made it clear he thought this was exactly what men should do-tend to women’s emotional needs even if it meant ignoring their own.

    It is interesting you would be so indignant at the thought of it going the other way yet failed to have a problem when it was men catering to women.

  • jenk

    You are right that child support is not just a male issue. I would say, though, that since ~85% of all cases go to just the mother, and another ~10% or so are joint shared custody, that overwhelmingly it is fathers who are on the hook for child support.

     

     

    We would be shocked at a system which expected women to go hungry in order to support her children.  We would (and do) offer support in the form of WIC, food stamps, school lunch programs, and other government subsidies to help single mothers feed themselves and their children. But when men are struggling you’re suggesting he suck it up and starve? Of course that is exactly what many men do, but to pretend that is acceptable is just pretty heartless.

     Women have it hard, so do men. Women’s income reports do not include many extras such as child support, WIC, free lunch programs, etc which add up. No, they are not rolling in the dough, but they are far from homeless.

     

  • crowepps

    Actually, having had a grandmother who was so egocentric and selfish and narcisistic and such an emotional abuser that she drove BOTH of her husbands to suicide in order to escape her, my indignation is for both genders of drama queens/kings who believe their ‘emotions’ entitle them to jerk people around.

     

    I went back and reread the original article, and you know what, the author said absolutely nothing about the men “ignoring their own” emotional needs. He said instead instead:

    Likewise, the first group of men, those who were in the clinic with their girlfriends, holding their hands, comforting them or even making them laugh, displayed real love and commitment between two people. For the most part, you could tell they had come to a decision together and were there to support each other.

    I certainly don’t see anything in “had come to a decision together” that asserts they must have only done so by ignoring their own needs. Other couples who felt “real love and commitment” and who “had come to a decision together and were there to support each other” were probably in the waiting room at the obstetrician because they had decided to complete the pregnancy.

     

    Assuming what other people’s emotions ‘really are’ is a bad idea.

  • crowepps

    At the point in the pregnancy where most abortions are done, the fetus isn’t capable of being “an independant organism” and its capability of doing so is still uncertain.  If a woman is willing to risk health problems so that it can so I think that’s great.  Since she is ALREADY an independant living organism, if she is not willing to do so I think it would be immoral to force her to do so.

  • crowepps

     Men leading women into sin via their clothing really isn’t much of a threat.

    That is an excellent point.  It’s been my experience that as a general rule, men lead women into sin via money.  Perhaps while the Lord and the husband get to choose the woman’s clothes, the Lord would prefer his paychecks go right into the wife’s hands so that she can monitor what it’s spent on and he can’t divert any of the money to corruption.  That sounds fair.

  • crowepps

    Actually, I’m shocked that 75% of fathers don’t even ASK for custody, often because they don’t feel capable of doing the day-to-day tasks which their children need, like meals cooked and clothes washed and hair brushed.  It is interesting to speculate whether if they knew how to and regularly did those things for their children before the split, they might still be married.

     

    By the way, one of the very first custody dispute cases I worked on, almost 30 years ago now, was a case of a father seeking custody because the mother was a good mother but unreliable because of her temper when drinking.  The man did not say nasty things about her or assert she didn’t love their child or accuse her of abuse, he instead proved that he had always done 50% or more of meeting the child’s needs and asserted that he was a more fit parent and the Court awarded him physical custody with visitation for the mother.

     

    I have seen a lot of cases where the man wants full custody or wants shared custody but then when the details are gone into he is not actually talking about ‘daddy taking care of’ as opposed to ‘mommy taking care of’ but rather REPLACING mommy with a woman who is totally unrelated to the child and with whom the child has no existing emotional connection in the belief that ‘any woman will do’ as mommy and his girlfriend is cheaper than paying support.

    Edited to correct typo

  • wendy-banks

    No sweetie, I can way more than VERBALLY abusive– Let me get my anti-creep stick and I’ll be happy to demo it for you.

  • ahunt

    I have seen a lot of cases where the man wants full custody or wants shared custody but then when the details are gone into he is not actually talking about ‘daddy taking care of’ as opposed to ‘mommy taking care of’ but rather REPLACING mommy with a woman who is totally unrelated to the child and with whom the child has no existing emotional connection in the belief that ‘any woman will do’ as mommy and his girlfriend is cheaper than paying support.

     

    Not too long ago, I did read a research blurb suggesting that men were far more likely to seek custody when another woman was in the picture (Grandma, new wife, girlfriend). The article focused on the lack of confidence men felt in handling the scut alone.

     

    But there is some evidence that this is changing. With more men putting effort into the domestic front, gaining self-assurance, men w/o partners are increasingly willing to go for custody. I’ll see if I can find the article.

  • wendy-banks

    You bet your bippy I do! No one invited the worthless trolls, they only come here to harass and insult– Just like all abusers do.

  • wendy-banks

    Granted, it sort of depends on what’s inside the Speedo….

    Yes maam! I love cute guy watching :) And I’m pretty sure they like being watched…

  • jenk

    As a libertarian I take the opposite view. I don’t think it is the government’s job to run social programs. I believe the only purpose of the Federal Government is to provide leadership, military, maintain the Congress and House to represent the people, create and maintain the legal network from the supreme court system to creating laws. Everything else should be private or state/county.

    *btw I do agree with you about subsidies, especially big ag subsidies which hide the true cost of food and fail the small farmer, but that is another topic**

    Welfare in my opinion should be privatized. A person who is hard on their luck should have to go to their nieghbor, church, or not-for-profit and look someone in the eye, rather than an anonymous government agency. This would keep people accountable and allow us to make better use of the dollars we give. I would willingly give (and do willingly give) money to people who are local who for circumstances out of thier control are on hard times.

     

    I do not appreciate having to support people who don’t bother to work. I should not have to support people who choose to pop out 4 kids from 3 fathers or choose to impregnate have their neighborhood. I should not have to support someone who claims they have no money but has horses and smokes a pack a day. I can choose to give my money to those I feel need it.

    I do not appreciate the government coming in and taking 30% of my income off the top, plus sales tax, school and property taxes, gas taxes, taxes on my utilities and phone, etc.  It will only get worse. And yet for all these taxes the only thing getting fatter is the government. Obama did not make this problem, but he is doing nothing but making it worse with all this spending.

     

     

  • amyc

    Why don’t men and women discuss these things before having sex? If these prolife men are so concerned that their girlfriend will terminate “his” child, then why don’t these men talk with their girlfriends before having sex with them? It seems a simple solution to the problem. There are just a few questions that men (and women) should ask their partner before having sex: Do you use birth control? If so, what kind? What would you do if you got pregnant? When do you plan to start having children?

    These are just some basic questions to get them started. I think it’s ridiculous that these “men’s rights” groups complain about that man’s feelings when their girlfriend has an abortion, but they never stop to think that maybe they should get to know their partner BEFORE having sex with her. It would make the men seem a little more caring and less abusive/territorial about “their” women and “their” babies. Then if the man and woman don’t share the same views then they can end the relationship, or come up with a healthy agreed-upon solution that would work for their particular situation.

    Sometimes it seems like it’s just too much work for men (and women) to ask a few important questions before having sex.

  • bei1052

    No sweetie, I can way more than VERBALLY abusive– Let me get my anti-creep stick and I’ll be happy to demo it for you.

     

    Oh, please do. It gives me something to point towards whenever people here start trying to play the victim card.

  • crowepps

    But there is some evidence that this is changing. With more men putting effort into the domestic front, gaining self-assurance, men w/o partners are increasingly willing to go for custody.

    In Alaska, the custody law is set up with a PRESUMPTION of joint custody, and the parties have to show why it should NOT be equal and the Court has to put specific findings in the order detailing exactly why the Court has distributed custody inequitably — that certainly helps, since it makes everybody stop and THINK about what they’re doing.

  • rebellious-grrl

    I know you do too. Just glad you’re here Wendy. Thanks for the post.

  • crowepps

    maybe they should get to know their partner BEFORE having sex with her.

    Well, if they wait till she’s sober enough to talk, they’ll likely get a lot less sex.

     

    Sorry for the snark, but, come on, getting an abortion after a “relationship of three weeks”?  That isn’t a ‘relationship’, it’s a drive-by

  • equalist

    Now I will admit, these instances happened one in the early 80s and the other in the early 90s.  My mother has been divorced twice.  The first time, she divorced my biological father.  He fought for custody, and using child support and jail as a weapon, she took his parental rights.  Again, this was in the 80s.  In the nineties, she divorced the man who adopted me, and again, he fought for custody and this time, she used child support, alamony, threat of jail time, and threat of taking everything he owned or would own (along with the fact that he was not the biological father, although legally that wouldn’t have mattered) to keep him from fighting to get custody or even visitation.  There are women out there who use the system and the tools in place to protect the children to prevent loving fathers from getting custody or visitation with their children.  It’s wrong, but it happens.  I’ve just found my biological father, and it shouldn’t have taken 27 years for us to find each other, but because of the way the system is set up and because of women that abuse the system, we found ourselves in the position we are in now.

  • equalist

    It only seems fair if you’re going to tell a man that he can’t absolve himself of parental duties because he can’t afford a kid, you do the same to the woman.

    I kind of have to agree with this one.  If the father is truly incapable of supporting the child, then there has to be some kind of out.  Take the case of my friend.  He is unable to financially support himself, much less send support to his children.  Yet if his ex had chosen, she could have easily said “I can’t afford this” and aborted the children.  He has no similar outs despite being in a similar situation, and in the name of fairness, it should truly go both ways.  The important thing is not to remove rights from the mother to balance the equation, but to provide the same rights to both sides.

  • equalist

    Imagine a world…

     

    …where everything is equitable and fair…

     

    …from the perspective of deadbeat dads.

    There is a difference between a deadbeat dad who chooses not to provide support to his children, and a father who desperately wants to be involved and support his children, but is incapable, and there should be a line drawn between the two.  If a man is bringing in enough money to cover the bills and put aside or waste a substantial amount of money on himself afterwards, yet doesn’t support his children, then that is a deadbeat father, and he should be punished.  But the problem comes when the same punishments fall on the devoted father who can’t afford to cover his own expenses living in poverty and can’t put food on his own table much less shell out hundreds of dollars a month he doesn’t have in child supportThis is not a case of a deadbeat dad, but of a man who is taken advantage of by a system with no protections for struggling fathers.

  • arekushieru

    I will come to your house and steal your kidney, then, mmk’?  After all, it IS legal because there IS no right to bodily autonomy.  Oh… wait….  That was just another logic FAIL, that I almost assimilated from a ProLifer.

     

    Btw, stating that not every woman makes a decision concerning her pregnancy regarding health or life risks IS saying that pregnancy is devoid of health and life risks, after all, you must think that these risks arise out of a vacuum, if former is truly the case.

  • arekushieru

    I will come to your house and steal your kidney, then, mmk’?  After all, it IS legal because there IS no right to bodily autonomy.  Oh… wait….  That was just another logic FAIL, that I almost assimilated from a ProLifer.

     

    Btw, stating that not every woman makes a decision concerning her pregnancy regarding health or life risks IS saying that pregnancy is devoid of health and life risks, after all, you must think that these risks arise out of a vacuum, if former is truly the case.

  • equalist

    If there were more programs out there to help those in poverty find jobs, and rise up from the poverty, then there would be more taxable income, thus more taxes, and more relief for the lower and middle class.  As for the upper class, you should remember, what you bring in per week is what some families have to live on for sometimes months or even a year at a time.  The solution to poverty isn’t to hold onto every penny we have and complain that people who work more hours than we do at harder jobs than we have aren’t doing enough to support themselves, but to look at why they cannot support themselves and fix it.

  • arekushieru

    Oh, really, do tell me where he has told us what the point of all this is? 

     

    You mean like declarative statements such as: feminist indoctrination is showing even though I won’t ever tell you why I think that, even though you have shown me how it isn’t indoctrination?

     

    A) Something IS relevant until proven otherwise.  So, your comment about feminist indoctrination was proven IRrelevant.  While you have yet to do so with explaining why the right to bodily autonomy IS irrelevant.  (Come on, I know you can figure out how to debate… eventually, by showing me how it IS irrelevant) B)  See A.  C) Again, see A.

     

    Did you just pull that out of thin air, LB?  After all, the only blame-laying techniques I’ve seen have been perpetrated by… oh, say… YOU…?  You say we don’t want to provide equal rights to men because we want to deny their feelings on a matter.  Um, nope, we have never said we want to deny their feelings.  Here, let me try again and hope you get it, this time.  What does it matter that men have feelings on this subject?  What POINT do you want to make with it?  That they should have more rights over someone else’s body or something completely different?  What?  Please, elucidate, for the first time.

     

    Gee, that last means you just accused others of being a bully, whiner, jerk, etc by insinuation and implication, I do believe….

     

     

  • arekushieru

    Umm, no.  Did you miss the part where I discussed that women are on the financial hook far more often than men beCAUSE of the fact that they get primary custody more often or the fact that they are often from a lower income status than men?

  • arekushieru

    <<This is a link with information in an easy format and the references to it all. It shows what I pointed out earlier in that fathers are only supposed to care and be involved when, where, how and IF the mother wants them to be. Fathers appear to have no value with mothers and society in general except to do as told and FEEL as told by the mothers of their children.>>

     

    All that from a census?  I doubt it since a census very rarely, if ever, deals with emotions, either.

     

    And before you go off on a tangent, notice what I was replying to, FIRST…?

  • rebellious-grrl

    I like a Hawaiian shirt paired with a cool funky hat.

     

    To be serious, men don’t get arrested if they are topless. When it’s 90+ degrees, my 80+ year old neighbor walks around in his shorts only. If I walked around in just a pair of shorts only, sans the top, things would be different. I see men in a lot less clothing than women in the summer.

     

    I do understand about dressing modestly for religious purposes. Last year I participated in “Hijab for a Day.” I wore a hijab for the day to understand the why Muslim women wear the hijab, for modesty.

  • goatini

    Like beating the crap out of the birth mom?

     

    “(he)…has four other children (none of which he has custody of); he has a child endangerment charge on his record; and he has been imprisoned for domestic violence – once pulling the birth mother so hard by the hair that when the police arrived at the house, they discovered bloody clumps of hair all over the floor. So when the mother could not care for baby Vanessa, do you blame her for not listing this man as the father on the adoption papers?”


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-sax/the-battle-for-baby-vanes_b_638486.html

     

    and more:

     

    “Court Records indicated that Mills had multiple drivers licence suspensions on record, several of them for failure to pay child support.”

     

    http://www.wdtn.com/dpp/news/local/dayton/Fighting-for-Baby-Vanessa

     

    Please sign the petition – Ask the courts to do what is right for Vanessa!

    http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/operationvanessa/


     

  • rebellious-grrl

    LB You know what? I do have writer’s cramp. I’m tired. After working all day, then coming home to work in the garden until sunset (to grow food to eat – to save money), and worrying about when my husband will be able to find a job after he was laid off, and trying to figure out how we will stay afloat, I’m tired. I’m tired of your insults, and silly debates. I just want to honestly voice my opinion and listen to what others have to say without being put-down. Really. You can go on insulting me. Frankly I’m too tired to care anymore.

    BTW, I know I’m whining and I don’t give a shit. Goodnight!

  • diaspor

    Let’s say there is a pregant woman who has decided to have an abortion.  The father would like to raise the child.  Is there any acceptable way for him to attempt to influence her to change her mind?

  • rebellious-grrl

    Bei, I suggest you listen to Wendy a little closer. I think what she is saying, and what I can echo, is that, “I’ve heard and been through a lot more abusive crap than you could dream of dishing out.” Victims become strong, and stronger, and become survivors. It gives us a stronger radar in detecting bullshit. I recommend you rethink your preconceived notion of what a “victim” is.

  • quentin0352

    Interesting but it proves my previous point, that you can’t be bothered to actually read the post and the links can you? Nothing in it states the census had anything to do with that link, nothing in the quoted part says anything about that either. The PREVIOUS link above that has information but only some from the census and yet again, nothing in my post stated that was the source.

     

    So, care to read the issues, sources and etc or are you not interested in debate besides an obvious straw man argument about the source of information?

  • emma

    Welfare in my opinion should be privatized. A person who is hard on their luck should have to go to their nieghbor, church, or not-for-profit and look someone in the eye, rather than an anonymous government agency. This would keep people accountable and allow us to make better use of the dollars we give. I would willingly give (and do willingly give) money to people who are local who for circumstances out of thier control are on hard times.

    I really don’t agree with this. The idea behind it is that people who, for whatever reason, need income support, should have to grovel and beg so that those with money can decide whether that poverty-stricken person is sufficiently worthy of assistance. It’s cruel and dehumanising. There is absolutely no reason to humiliate people who are living in poverty – it serves only to make them feel more shit. The stuff about people ‘choosing’ not to work is particularly cruel in the midst of a recession, when there are more applicants than jobs, and people are being laid off for reasons beyond their control.

     

    This is why I loathe the concept of charity. Access to food, shelter, education, health care and so on and so forth should be basic rights, not privileges to be granted by those with money and power. And by the way, far more of Your Tax Dollars are going toward supporting an excessively large military, and funding unjustifiable wars, than to poor people.

     

    Something I really just cannot comprehend is why people who are relatively economically privileged spend so much time complaining about earning enough money to pay higher tax rates and begrudging poor people any social services, rather than being grateful for what they have. It’s like some widespread social/psychopathology. I should be stunned that someone who considers herself ‘pro-life’ begrudges other people basic necessities, health care and so forth, but unfortunately, it’s something I’ve come to expect.

  • crowepps

    This may come as a surprise to you, but this site is about reproductive health and is not actually focused on divorce or custody. One reason that people here are not checking out your links or responding to your long posts is that you are all excited about something that is not in the area of interest of most of the people posting here.

     

    I do have some knowledge of this area, and am aware that the laws have been changing at a rapid pace, and therefore am massively uninterested in talking about what happened 10 or 20 years ago, because it doesn’t have a whole lot to do with what is happening in cases right now. However, if I did want to discuss this issue, I wouldn’t do it here.

     

    Your insistence on focusing on this issue here is a demonstration of what this article was actually about — the assumption that male privilege means that every single issue that comes up for women should be REQUIRED to screen all the possible solutions through what men think and what affect it will have on men and ‘men’s rights’ and what men FEEL about the issue and that only AFTER the men have given the solution their stamp of approval should the women’s views be considered. Women don’t do that anymore, Quentin.

  • bei1052

    Crowepps, you should look up the definition of the word irony one of these days.

  • crowepps

    Good golly, hasn’t anybody ever heard of PERSUASION?

    How about saying something to her like: oh, wow, I am so sorry we ended up in this fix!  I can understand how a pregnancy right now would have a huge impact on your life.  But I’ve always looked forward to being a father and really want to have children and when you told me you were pregnant I had this huge emotional rush of happiness.   Personally I’d really love to raise the child myself.  Is there anything I could possibly do to make the pregnancy easier for you so you would complete it?

     

    He could try going along with her to the abortion counseling sessions as well, and put his emotional investment on the table so the counselor knows his raising the child is an option and can take that into consideration.

     

    All of this assumes, of course, that he is actually in a financial, emotional and social position to RAISE a child – has finished school, has a job, is mentally healthy and doesn’t live in a one-bedroom apartment with five other guys.

  • crowepps

    You know something, I hate to sound like a geezer, but I actually was typing up testimony from one of these guys who beats up his girlfriends the other day and in his final argument he asked the court: “I guess the question is, can a person be immoral and still be a good father?”

     

    Personally, when it comes to “child endangerment” and “failure to pay child support” and physical attacks on other people,  I think the answer is no. 

  • crowepps

    Another thing a lot of people don’t seem to be taking into consideration is that if Dad is paying one-fifth of his income to support his child who lives with Mom, and Mom and child are living together and their expenses, apartment and food and utilities and transportation, are combined, it seems to me that Mom is using 50% of HER income to support the child.

  • bj-survivor

    I respectfully disagree. Women are just as capable of thinking with their genitalia as men. I’ve certainly been guilty of such on more than one occasion. ;)

     

    Women like to look at attractive men just as much as men like to look at attractive women.

  • ahunt

    Just so we are clear, no/low income men with custody are eligble for the same benfits as women.

  • quentin0352

    First one being that the original article equated this as abusive and his attempting to own her body, there are some state laws that this could easily be considered domestic violence no matter how he tries and also the numerous requirements you add to him that women have no need to meet.

     

    So if he want the child and she doesn’t, he has to ignore his own feelings and support her and ONLY her wishes or he is a controlling and abusive male. If he doesn’t want the child and she does, then he needs to “man up” and be responsible for his actions even when condoms are tampered with, stolen from the trash, he is raped while passed out or a boy who is molested.

     

    BTW, in a couple of states they have also declared threatening to leave her for ANY reason while she is pregnant is domestic violence and he is required to support her after the birth or it is considered an attempt to coerce her in to an abortion. Then again, domestic violence has been made so braod that either answer to “Do these jeans make my butt look big?” could qualify in many areas.

  • crowepps

    There was absolutely nothing in the original article that said TALKING was “abusive” but you are so vested in your ‘evil feminists have criminalized being a REAL man’ conspiracy theory that you are way, way off the deep end into paranoia.

     Then again, domestic violence has been made so braod that either answer to “Do these jeans make my butt look big?” could qualify in many areas.

    After that statement, it’s obvious it’s a waste of my time to respond to you.

  • quentin0352

    Face it, this is not paranoia but truth and you just do not like that some men like me are tired of the feminist doctrin which promotes women as superior in rights but wants them as victims of males to avoid having any responsibilities too. I suggest you look up the laws on domestic violence since “emotional abuse” qualifies and can be so bradly defined to be most anything. You also can’t say you are “giving up” since you have failed to actually respond to anything in the first place. To give up would mean you actually attempted to make a debate in the first place which you have not.

     

    As for the laws, most states in the US have “primary aggressor” laws where it isn’t who hit who but also who earns more, is bigger and etc so as to avoid arresting the woman even if she is the violent one. We also have the DoJ saying if women are arrested at a rate higher than they think is proper based on past arrest rates, then it is gender bias. Now arresting almost nothing but men for domestic violence is even cited as a GOOD program to look at so obviously arresting a higher rate than typical for men is NOT gender bias.

     

    Here is what the DoJ states..

    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/intimate-partner-violence/practical-implications-research/ch3/gender.htm

     

    Now compare to the actual rates of domestic violence which they ignore. Also remember that these studies are and have been acceptable for creating laws and guidelines for domestic violence against women but they are suddenly dismissed as unaccepable for things when the studies are of male victims.

    http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/42/15/31.2.full

     

    SO, you try to dimiss thinks as paranoia, do not debate anything provided to you in links from reliable sources except to attack the people who show them and that is your debate. Not a bit of outrage that we will hold a 13-year-old boy who is raped or molested more responsible than a woman in her 30s who rapes him, men can be jailed on false charges for decades and are still held responsible for not supporting thier children instead of the state and false accusers, men can be stabbed or killed in their sleep and are still held up as the abusers and men having zero reproductive rights. Do you not think that if you have the rights, then you should be responsible instead of holding people responsible for the actions of others and no rights at all?

  • quentin0352

    In other words, reproduction rights for men should not be considered in anything at all and his body is at the mercy of her choices? Interesting since I would think this is the RIGHT site since it is about reproductive rights. Or is it that this is only for those who believe women have reproductive rights and men only have reproductive responsibilities?

  • quentin0352

    I see a sudden deflection again. So far the only respo0nses to men being held responsible when molested or raped were that women who are the victims should have the right to abort, that men are supposedly abusive about no matter what they do and a few insults. So since you and crow refuse to even address the inequality and only demand women have MORE of the rights in reproduction, then your previous posts, claims I am on the wrong board for reproductive rights and avoidance of any attempts to find equal treatment displayed your real positions ladies.

     

    I wonder, were you outraged at Mary Winkler or were you supportive of her and her claims? Who do you blame for what happened to the Duke LaCross team members?  What about the laws you say are too old or etc to worry about where boys are held responsible when molested and their predators set free since they are mothers to young infants and jailing them would be a hardship to the child suddenly?

     

    These are issues brought up and you have derided, ignored and insulted those who brought them up but suddenly claim I do not know what you think or believe. Sorry ladies but your actions speak MUCH louded than your claims now. You obviously believe children are the property of women and men are mearly there to provide what she demands and wants at her desires. If not then he is an abusive jerk of some kind for having his own feelings that might differ from what she wants.

  • quentin0352

    The fact is, we have strictly records on him but nothing about the rest. If he is a bad father, then the kid should go to someone who cares about him. But the fact is THE LAWS WERE BROKEN and done so repeatedly. Also I am local to these same courts. My wife has seen how they work too and she is doubtful on a lot of it since I was arrested as a child molestor and almost tried for it just for giving my daughter a hug good-bye after a visit. We also have several cases here going on where women have shot their husbands or boyfriends, some lured a guy over the net and more but not a single one has had a domestic violence charge against them. Heck, wo do not even have a shelter or place that will help them around here.

     

    BTW, I did find out that my losing my employment due to a suspended security clearance from the false charges was NOT a good excuse to have problems paying my support but HER not paying becuase she didn’t want to IS acceptable in these same courts. They have also been busted taking men who have over paid and faking documents to make them behind to the point they were arrested as deadbeats, leaking private information on people against the law and more, In this area it is the gender of the peretrator more than the actual truth or laws that determines what they do.

  • crowepps

    I wonder, were you outraged at Mary Winkler or were you supportive of her and her claims?

    What did Mary Winkler’s crime have to do with reproductive rights?

    Who do you blame for what happened to the Duke LaCross team members? 

    What did what happened to the Duke LaCross team have to do with reproductive rights?

     You obviously believe children are the property of women and men are mearly there to provide what she demands and wants at her desires.

    Children are not PROPERTY and are not OWNED by either of their parents.  They, like all humans, belong to THEMSELVES and their needs are independent of their parents’ needs and should come before the needs of EITHER of their parents.

  • crowepps

    The thing I find pretty weird about your arguments, Quentin, is that you seem to be focusing on child sexual abuse and then trying to wave the ‘victim’ card and say that because perhaps a few hundred (to be generous) boys have been ‘preyed upon’ by older women, that ALL men should be able to disavow their children and get out of paying child support.  This is as silly as trying to make decisions about what 30-year old women should do based on what happens to 12-year old sexual abuse victims.

     

    You may, possibly, hidden somewhere under your antique case law and bizarre events, have a point, but unfortunately, you don’t seem able to avoid the ‘feminists are the source of all evil’ conspiracy theories long enough to make it clear.

     

    ‘Reproductive rights’ is not ONE right – it is a cluster of them.  To discuss only a FEW of them:

     

    There is the right to have sex or to choose not to have sex and to make that choice without having others prevent one from having sex or force one to have sex.  This right is shared equally by both men and women and any attempts to force a person to have sex are illegal, whether the victim is male or female.

     

    There is the right to attempt to conceive or avoid conceiving by using birth control and to make that choice without having others take away that decision and prevent one from conceiving or force/coerce/trick one into conceiving.  This right is shared equally by both men and women and any attempts to force/coerce/trick another person instead of gaining their CONSENT and COOPERATION in mutual conception are flat-out wrong.

     

    There is the right once UNWANTED conception has occurred to continue the pregnancy or to end the pregnancy based on a number of factors that I won’t list.  There is the right once WANTED conception has occurred to guard one’s own health, sanity, life by ending the pregnancy.  This right is shared equally by every ‘person’ who is pregnant.  Men also have this right but it just so happens no man has ever gotten pregnant.

     

    The next right would be the one about controlling labor and delivery, and would also be a right shared equally by every ‘person’ who is pregnant.

     

    Your argument, however, as I understand it, is that if the woman has a right to end the PREGNANCY before the child is born, then a ‘fair’ equivalent would be if the father can end his FINANCIAL LIABILITY after the child is born.  These are not equivalents in any way.  Pregnancy is a biological condition that impacts a woman’s bodily autonomy and if an abortion occurs there isn’t any financial liability for either party.  ‘Women who get abortions’ don’t have any impact whatsoever on financial liabilities because no ‘child’ results from their pregnancies.  Having the fathers of the children born to women who do NOT get abortions opt out of financial responsibility has no impact whatsoever on women who DO get abortions.  It would, however, throw a lot more children into poverty and increase the load on the taxpayer.

     

    I think I really do see what you’re trying to say, that men have a right to CHOOSE whether they want to be fathers, but, again, they need to make that decision at the point where they have actual POWER (at the time they select their partner and choose to use or not use birth control) instead of attempting to use providing/withholding support from their children to try to control the actions of the women involved, which leaves ALL of the power in the hands of the women and reserves to the men only the power to punish them for not choosing what the men prefer.

     

    Your underlying argument is that women should be controlled by men and that argument is the one that is inappropriate for this board.  That argument is the one that isn’t appropriate here and should instead be discussed on your ‘real men measure their manliness by how they control their women and letting the women be free emasculates men’ board.

  • crowepps

    This board is about reproductive rights.

    This board is:

    • not about whether fathers are competent to care for children after they’re born.
    •  not about child molestation except insofar as it results in pregnancy and what should happen to that pregnancy and who should make the decisions for a minor child.
    • not about disputes between parents who have split up acrimoniously unless they are in a dispute about a pregnancy.
    • not about the equitable application of domestic violence laws and who should be arrested except insofar as the DV concerns a pregnancy.
    • not about whether men need domestic violence shelters.
    • not about the equitable application of child support guidelines except insofar as men complain that abortion gives men have a ‘right’ not to support the children who are born.
    • not about the conspiracy theory that men are all victims of the evil castrating feminists.

    FOCUS, Quentin, FOCUS.  If you stop posting long blocks of cut and pasted text about stuff that is peripheral to the subject of this board you might be able to make your point.  Whatever that is.

  • arekushieru

    I was referring ONLY to the census link.  Apparently, you should read what someone has else said before accusing them of not reading. 

  • arekushieru

    How are we promoting women as superior in rights when we say that a woman can control who uses ANY of her organs inCLUding her uterus, even when that decision involves someone else’s life and is a risk based on consent to a previous action, JUST as men may do without fear of reprisal, hmmm…?

     

    We, as well as Gary, have always SAID that men may express their feelings on the subject, what we have said that they should NOT be able to do is insist they be granted a say or express an opinion in such a way that interferes with a woman’s rights. 

     

    Feelings AND opinions ARE different, mmk’.  Something I’ve already stated at LEAST once, for sure to JenK and probably to others, including yourself. 

     

     

  • arekushieru

    OBviously not what I was saying.  A woman has the right to CHOOSE abortion because she has the right to choose WHO uses her BODY and when and HOW it is used, much like everyone else.  Allowing the man to forgo his financial obligations just because of a biological function, and one that is far more burdensome than those obligations, that naturally occurs within the body, which forces a woman into the position of HAVING to choose to fulfill that right (the part you PLers ALways seem to forget), is sexist and, thus, unconstitutional.  Financial obligations are determined by what is BEST for the CHILD.  And a man is afforded the same financial obligations as the woman.  They BOTH must pay financial support if the other is the primary caregiver.  If they aren’t, please provide evidence.  So far, the most of those that HAVE provided ANY evidence to the contrary have been (unsurprisingly) Prochoicers.

  • arekushieru

    That is not equitable.  Men and women do have the same rights.  A position that a woman is placed in against her volition would be further punished by providing reduced financial obligations to the man compared to the woman.

  • arekushieru

    Women can be and are on the financial hook far more often as primary caregivers than the man is.  Women can be financially struggling moreso than men when they are not primary caregivers.

  • amie-newman

    Hi RH Reality Check community,

    As this commenting thread is quite long and intense, we’ve decided to disable commenting on this post from this point on.

    Thanks to all who have contributed to the conversation. Sometimes these threads tend to devolve and there are members of our community who do not feel comfortable with some of the more critical comments. We do not condone or support the use of demeaning, threatening or just plain mean language.

    We are a small staff and are not able to moderate all commenting threads – we rely, to a degree, on our community to let us know when conversations are no longer productive or when someone feels that a particular comment/s should be flagged for its inappropriate language or sentiment.

    Thanks to the RH Reality Check community, by and large, for being such a passionate and engaged group. The comments made on this thread will remain but no new comments will be allowed.

    Amie