The Cold Hard Truth on Equalizing Reproductive Rights

by Featured Guest on March 8, 2012

By Taank

Ah, reproduction, and the rights of men and women regarding it. Seems like folks these days just can’t get enough of wrangling about it, with every side shouting so loud they’ll never hear what anyone else has to say. I started thinking about it pretty much at random the other day, and it occurred to me that I’ve never seen or heard anyone dispassionately lay out the current state of affairs regarding reproductive rights, as well as the various potential fixes available.

Fear not, gentle reader, for today that changes.

Presented for your reading pleasure today, shockingly enough, is a dispassionate summary of the current state of affairs regarding reproductive rights, as well as the various potential fixes available. In the spirit of dispassionitivity (not a real word – I hope), I’m not advocating any of these; I leave that to the comments section (which, I suppose, reveals my blindingly optimistic opinion of human nature in general).

Without further ado, I give you Reproductive Rights: the Gender-Based Overview.

Reproductive Rights Before Pregnancy:
-Women: Choose Not To Have Sex; Use Birth Control
-Men: Choose Not To Have Sex; Use Birth Control

Reproductive Rights Rights During Pregnancy:
-Women: Abort Fetus
-Men: None

Reproductive Rights After Childbirth:
-Women: Surrender child to be supported by state taxpayers via Safe Haven laws (Typically up to 30 days after birth; varies by state)
-Men: None

Based on this brutally simple breakdown, the following simple fixes suggest themselves. Note that the only consideration in this analysis is making the reproductive rights of men and women the same at all stages of the process, regardless of any other considerations. This is not to minimize or discard those other considerations, but rather to illustrate these solutions in the simplest possible terms.

Obviously, reproductive rights before pregnancy are already equal.

To Equalize Rights During Pregnancy:*
Option 1: Require father’s consent to abort a pregnancy
Option 2: Allow fathers to mandate abortion against the mother’s wishes (!)

To Equalize Rights After Childbirth:
Option 1: Eliminate Safe Haven Laws
Option 2: Allow Fathers to surrender parental rights (yes, avoiding child support) within Safe Haven timeframe

That’s it. A simple overview of the current imbalance in reproductive rights, by gender, and the possible ways to fix them. I would greatly admire the testicular fortitude of anyone brave enough to actually suggest any of these fixes in a public forum; I can only imagine the raging shitstorm that would erupt if anyone suggested that fathers should be able to force mothers to abort, even though logically it is one way to give men and women equal rights in that particular area. But anyway, there it is.

Discuss. Or not, as you prefer.

*(It’s also worth noting here that there’s a potential Option 3 for equalizing rights during pregnancy. If we interpret a mother’s right to abort an unwanted pregnancy as the ability to surrender her parental rights and reponsibilities, rather than the literal interpretation of “surgically remove the fetus,” then the third option would allow the father to opt out of fatherhood during pregnancy, surrendering his parental rights and responsibilities. This would allow mothers who were so inclined to keep the baby, although they would know by doing so that they would be solely responsible for providing for that child. Realistically, I don’t think anyone would suggest that option 2 would ever make a viable real world solution, even though logically it does provide men and women with equal rights.)

{ 84 comments… read them below or add one }

GS Jockey March 8, 2012 at 10:24

@ Taank

“To Equalize Rights During Pregnancy:*
Option 1: Require father’s consent to abort a pregnancy
Option 2: Allow fathers to mandate abortion against the mother’s wishes (!)

To Equalize Rights After Childbirth:
Option 1: Eliminate Safe Haven Laws
Option 2: Allow Fathers to surrender parental rights (yes, avoiding child support) within Safe Haven timeframe”

Fascinating idea, that. Seriously.

We could also open another “front” on the war as advocated by the Chateau today; check out this remarkable article:
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/03/07/punishing-single-momhood/

In this case, the point is to argue for demanding that women shoulder their responsibilities rather than shirking the consequences of their choice of single motherhood and having the rest of us pay for it.

I am in favor of both courses; a Clausewitzian pincer movement to move the balance of sexual power back toward the center.

GS Jockey

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3
Emma the Emo March 8, 2012 at 10:24

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 67
Taank March 8, 2012 at 10:29

@Emma: Seems reasonable, if a solution can be found that all parties find acceptable. History suggests that that may be more difficult than it appears on the surface.

Ultimately I suspect you’re correct, in that eventually the situation will evolve to parenthood by contract. If you don’t sign up to be parent, regardless of how much sex you might be having, then the state won’t force those obligations on you. It’s a right women already possess, both during and after pregnancy, as outlined above.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 1
Taank March 8, 2012 at 10:35

@ GS J: Interesting article, but my gut feels a little wonky about the government actively shaming citizens for their personal choices. Yes, single parenthood (not just motherhood, although there are far fewer single fathers) comes with a host of associated issues, but then, most personal choices in life do. Shaming single parents sounds disturbingly like the MSM shouting “man up!” at single men. It’s just another variation of ‘we don’t like the choices you’re making, so you should feel bad. And do what works for us, not what may work for you.’

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 11
Traveller March 8, 2012 at 10:39

- Mandatory paternity tests and the info released to men.
- Men totally free to refuse to pay for child until a predermined time frame after they BECOME INFORMED there was a birth.

Otherwise females could just disappear after a night stand and appear after months with a baby claiming support.
Or in case of deployed soldiers and the female did not say she did not abort.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
anonymous March 8, 2012 at 10:45

the whole “equal rights” movement is really just a play right out of Orwell’s Animal Farm. Everyone is equal, just some are more equal.

in other news, I suspect the child support racket is deliberate social engineering to goose the velocity of money and the GDP. If a husband is a cheap bastard, which many are, or would prefer to be, his wife can either compel him to spend more (on housing, cars, private schools, vacations, spas), or else divorce, and have the state do a strip mining operation. Women (on average) are very good consumers, much to the delight of Wall Street and government bean counters.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 2
Jiu Jitsu Maniac March 8, 2012 at 10:45

I like the idea of opting out of fatherhood during pregnancy. Also cut off government assistance for children born out of wedlock. But not for children of widowed parents.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 5
Opus March 8, 2012 at 10:48

Nice ideas, but unfortunately Western Governments are determined to Pedestalise Western Women and reduce men to Slave Status – consider Cameron’s utterly disgraceful anti-male witch-hunt rhetoric pandering to Women this very day, as you can see on Twitter. My dozen or so counter-tweets do not seem to have had any impact. :( Sadly all the Tweetees seem to think that men are as bad as he says. The sheeple believe everything when they have heard it enough, yet a few seconds calm thought reveal that men are not violent to women and considerably less so than women are to men. Still there are some brave but lone voices, such as myself :) where I have just been banned from a Facebook App, for saying that a linked article from todays Washington Post about International Women’s Day should be banned as Hate-Speech. It really is appalling though. Onwards and Upwards.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 5
Traveller March 8, 2012 at 10:49

Shaming single parents sounds disturbingly like the MSM shouting “man up!” at single men. It’s just another variation of ‘we don’t like the choices you’re making, so you should feel bad. And do what works for us, not what may work for you.’

******
I do not agree, first, single mothers get a lot of parasitic welfare. Second, normal development of a child requires a female and a male figure (not a single and not same sex people).

So it is not a choice without consequences around. I accept without doubt the exceptions, like a widow who does not want remarry.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5
J March 8, 2012 at 10:52

@emma the emo

I understand what you are saying, and to you this might seem logical! So before everyone here blasts you, and I am sure many will blast you, allow me to explain what the actual problem is!

Men don’t want abortion, or equal rights!

What we want is sanity, in an totally insane society! Every vice is being fought for, and every moral cornerstone of civilization is being challenged. Men want to be treated equally, not viewed as a paycheck!

Everyone here understands men can’t have kids! We are tired of being discriminated in family court because of it! Also, if you want to not hear this, then listen up……You can’t tell us to get barefoot in the kitchen, if we can’t tell you the same. You wanted our work, and our jobs, but now you want us to subsidize your chilldcare, and give you the ability to leave us whenever you feel, and take everything earned before, during, and after the relationship fails…by your choice!

Also, if we do raise the kids while you work, you want the ability to dismiss us and keep the kids after divorce. You may not realize that hard core feminists do not want equality, they want power and special treatment. They claim we have always had it, re-read history, we have never had that! Ever!

In otherwords, you don’t get it..read up, before you speak up! You really don’t know what you are talking about here!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 59 Thumb down 5
AAvictim March 8, 2012 at 10:58

I don’t think men should have a right to force an abortion. Of course since the woman can have an abortion the male should be able to “abort” his fathering of the child before birth by not being responsible for child support if they seperate if he were to do so in enough time for this information to help the woman decide if she wants to keep the baby.

If the man wants the child and the woman does not want the child I think it would be hard to set up someting other than a voluntary agreement between the parents. Forcing the woman to have the baby I do not think would work. Of course any such agreement made would most likely be null and void if the woman wanted to not comply later with court bias.

Making a voluntary agreement of this sort would be tough to do with most women I would think. Of course finding a woman worth sharing life in a long term commitment is hard too.

I am against societal controls. I think the main thing a government could do is make the treatment between the two sexes more equal in these decisions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
td9red March 8, 2012 at 10:59

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 38
AAvictim March 8, 2012 at 11:06

@Opus

Even back in grade school when people are less mature it was quite clear that there were more women abusive to men than the other way. Now there were violent boys but they normally saved their violence to pick on on other boys.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2
BachelorLessons March 8, 2012 at 11:08

“To Equalize Rights During Pregnancy:*
Option 1: Require father’s consent to abort a pregnancy
Option 2: Allow fathers to mandate abortion against the mother’s wishes (!)”

Option 3: Give men the right to fill out a form at the hospital and/or local government agencies that- if submitted within 12 weeks (or whatever the abortion time limit is for women) after knowledge of pregnancy- terminates all legal, financial, and biological obligations and ties to the child right down to having his name removed form the birth certificate. Problem solved; men now may “abort” without impacting a woman’s body or free will.

“It’s the same problem as with military: equality would be to either force both sexes into it, or none. The latter might be unworkable, as women can’t fight well and would have to remain in safer positions, if you care about equality and want them to have approximately equal chances of survival as men, not substantially less. But then you’d have to pay them less, too.. Which would be crappy, as women would lose the same amount of time on military for less pay, and time is money.”

@Emma the Emo, your argument doesn’t make any sense. If women aren’t doing the same work as their male counterparts, and aren’t risking their lives int he same way as their male counterparts, why do they deserve to be paid as much as their male counterparts? To use substitution, your argument implies that new recruits (paygrade E-1) should be paid as much as Sergeants (paygrade E-5) despite a new recruit’s deficit in physical, mental, and/or experiential capability.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
Taank March 8, 2012 at 11:08

@tdred:

Well, I was getting myself all wound up to dispute the assertions in your post, then I got to your conclusion – and discovered that I actually agree with you, regarding management of parental rights during/following pregnancy. Kinda deflated me.

While some of the things you equate with the options are quite over the top, they certainly aren’t worth arguing about when we agree on potential courses of action in the end.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
Art Vandelay March 8, 2012 at 11:11

Option 1: Requiring the father’s consent to abort a pregnancy would give a man use and control of a woman’s body for 9 months without her consent. Yet, there is no scenario underwhich women are given the use and control of a man’s body for any amount of time for any reason.

You are forgetting a component here. There is a child’s life in the balance which should be the tie-breaker. If the father forces the mother to carry the child to term she should of course be entitled to compensation.

Of course this kind of law isn’t practical so I’d favor the financial abortion.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3
keyster March 8, 2012 at 11:13

“The only reason why she’d have an abortion anyway, is because she doesn’t want this stuff happening to her body, and the man doesn’t have this direct physical problem.”

This is the idea behind The Affordable Healthcare Act, otherwise known as ObamaCare, otherwise known as The Women’s Healthcare Directive; to mandate insurance companies provide reproductive health services particular to women, at no cost to them.

How can a true Egalitarian Utopia be achieved without government enforcing equality, or fairly compensating women for being BORN with the burden of maintaining female sexual organs, not to mention gestation, birth and breast cancer prevelance. The government is compelled to better “equalize” men and women physically, with free contraception and free “reproductive” services…because ostensibly, being born a woman is not fair.

So the President and his majority Congress pass a bill that specifies women as a select group are entitled to health care freebies particular to the female sex in order to compensate her for Womanhood vis a vis Men. That’s what this is all about…because women not only vote, but they happen to also be in the majority by about 1.5%.

In this context; what’s to stop the government from mandating Feminine Hygiene products be given to all women for free? Perhaps they get a special voucher or a “women’s health” deduction from their income taxes. After all men aren’t encumbered by the “monthly visitor”, so why should women have to be? Shouldn’t men be required to participate in this “female only” expense too? Many men would gladly say “yes”. I mean it’s already oppressive enough that you have to pee while sitting down?

It’s this forced social engineering that defies nature, born out of a philosophy which promotes a government enforced Egalitarian Utopia of balance, justice and absolute equinimity for all–that seeks to end individual liberty, freedom, self-reliance and responsibility…while establishing a Tyrannical State as the authority figure for which everyone depends upon.

Destory the naturally cooperative relationship between men and women.
Destroy the father led sovereign nuclear family.
Destroy the democratic/capitalist system.
Rebuild a Central State Authority from the chaos and ruins.

But FIRST — appeal to the females self-preserving nature and then control the individual men on which she relies, by disenfranchising the non-compliant ones from society. We’re in the midst of phase two right now. It’s a generational slog; the next phases will come much quicker, after Federal insolvency and default, followed by economic collapse.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 8
JAG March 8, 2012 at 11:20

And now, from the great state of Massachusetts, equality takes another step back…

http://articles.boston.com/2012-03-07/metro/31127777_1_child-support-family-court-ivf

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Rebel March 8, 2012 at 11:23

First of all, if you think you have rights, forget that! You have none!
Ref: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E

Therefore, you make your own rights. Just don’t get caught.

If your g\f is preggo and you don’t want that, say nothing, get her on a horse ride or bungee jumping. You know what I mean. Or talk her to death about abortion: it’s up to you to be convincing.

Don’t want kids? Get a vasectomy.
Want kids? Hire a surrogate.

Make your own rights and keep the mouth shut about it.

Reproductive rights? What a silly notion!
The right to a child? Another silly notion!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 6
Somehow Somewhat March 8, 2012 at 11:26

Taank,

Your solutions will assign responsibilities to the women who want all privileges, “rights” and none of the responsibility. They want men to have no right, don’t even think of privileges, and lump all responsibility upon men.

In one country it is illegal to conceive outside marriage. Both men and women are punished equally for bastardy pregnancy. You cannot expect that in a gynocracy, which many Western countries are.

In utopia:

Reproductive Rights Rights During Pregnancy:
-Women: Keep or Kill the Fetus
-Men: Assert or relinquish all parental rights and obligations.

Reproductive Rights After Childbirth:
-Women: Surrender child to be supported by state taxpayers via Safe Haven laws (Typically up to 30 days after birth; varies by state)
-Men: Have 30 days from the day notified of being the father to relinquish the parental rights.

No backdated responsibilities before notification of fatherhood.

Think of it this way:

A woman wants a child, the man does not. The woman keeps the child, man is forced to have responsibilities to the child. (the present situation).
A woman wants a child, the man does not. The woman keeps the child, and she is forced to have responsibilities to the child (no pedestalization).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
poochmule March 8, 2012 at 11:44

Everyone here understands men can’t have kids! We are tired of being discriminated in family court because of it! Also, if you want to not hear this, then listen up……You can’t tell us to get barefoot in the kitchen, if we can’t tell you the same. You wanted our work, and our jobs, but now you want us to subsidize your chilldcare, and give you the ability to leave us whenever you feel, and take everything earned before, during, and after the relationship fails…by your choice!

What J said!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2
doclove March 8, 2012 at 11:49

This a long piece. Please read. I consider my commentary informative and helpful to men as well as adolescent males.

I’ve been saying here for a while now that any man is only regarded as sperm donor who should be forced to pay for the children should a woman become pregnant. I consider women to be at least 51% responsible for their pregnancy when I’m feeling in my most forgiving mood. I consider women to be 100% responsible when not in a forgiving mood at all. Considering all the options, liberty and rights women have that men don’t have then it is best to consider women fully responsible for pregnancies. They know more of when they are fertile or not then men. They have many more birth control contraceptive options than men. There are ways to get these birth control options at a cheaper price. They have abortion as a last resort. They can also insist that men use latex condoms(and spermicidal lubricant) to prevent pregnancy and the sprerad of STDs and get men to comply or there is no sex for the man barring the crime of rape. They can get all but the poorest or most stupid men to buy condoms and spermicidal lubricant. Latex condoms have been known to fail up to a 15% failure rate alone and a 5% failure rate with spermicidal lubricant. Almost all other birth control contraceptives have been known to have a 2% failure rate, but none has the failure rate as high as the latex condom. Planned Parenthood or other government sponsored programs are more for women than men or at least it’s justifiably percieved that way even if erroneous.

As far as I know men are not required to be informed of the woman’s pregnancy and after childbirth. Even if women were required to inform all the men who could be the potential fathers, then good luck enforcing it as we know it’s unlikely. I knew a former British Soldier and civilian contractor in Iraq who was informed by two women that he had an 11 year old White New Zealander daughter and a 2 year old half Thai daughter 11 years and 2 years after their respective births. My sister’s neighbor, a single mom who is one of the 40% American mothers birthing bastards, still hasn’t informed the biological father that he is a father about 6 years later. I don’t know who he is, and he still hasn’t been informed. These 3 women knew how to reach these 2 men, but chose not to do so for a long time or not at all.

Of course it’s true that men have no say over whether woman gets an abortion or does not get an abortion. I’ve known a few men who wanted the women they impregnated to get an abortion, and even a few men who beged the women they impregnated to not have an abortion in my 44 years on this Earth. None of it made a difference because it’s her body and she can choose what to do with it. Men such as Tucker Max do don’t regard abortion as murder of human life, support abortion rights(I do not.), and have urged women who falsely accused him of impregnating them before he knew their accusations were false to have abortions. Morally speaking, I regard abortion as murder of human life, but I as an American man don’t get to choose life over death for any children I sire.

I have one small quibble with this article. Women are supposed to inform potential fathers certainly morally and I believe legally speaking before they give children up for adoption so that the men can have 1st right options to claim the child and be the parent to said child. We all know how that works—-that is IT DOESN’T!!! she can easily say a dead man impregnated her. who will DNA check? Will it even get that far? I think not.

Therefore I am in agreement that once men have been informed of a child’s birth, they should have 30 calender days to renounce parentage. Then they should never be forced to pay child support. Of course, they will have no visitation rights. They will have no rights to claim the child should the mother die. If they want the child, they will have to formally adopt it like anyone else who is a complete stranger looking to adopt children would.

Now you see why I don’t advocate cohabitating(except with female relatives and even here be very careful), marrying or impregnating women. Now you see why I advocate the absolute and proper use and disposal of latex condoms. You should try to be careful who you have sex with. Having sex or any relationship with women can become problematic and disasterous for you even if you try to be careful. You’ve been warned!!!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 1
Nico March 8, 2012 at 12:18

OT: In France, a woman with two kids in a 14yo relationship cheats her partner, then convinces lover to face the cuckold to tell him the truth (she knows it’s a risky business).

Cheated man snaps, knocks out his woman’s lover, cut his cocks with a cutter and flushes it in the loo. Goes to jail.

Then the woman decides to leave the lover and goes back with her man who is now in jail, with refreshed love apparently, because she has a third kid from him and they decide to marry.

Cockless man’s life is a wreck. Ex-cuckold faces 15 years in prison. The woman faces no punishment.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 1
Nico March 8, 2012 at 12:22

The link to the story:
http://www.vanguardngr.com/2012/03/man-slices-rivals-penis/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Rebel March 8, 2012 at 12:25

@doclove

Basically, this is a good set of ideas.

However, I maintain that if a man is truly a MGHOW, he makes his own rules and lives by them. That’s the essence of freedom.

Feminism has FREED men, remember. This is the ONE thing we must not forget: it’s the most important aspect of feminism IMO.

We all agree on this: feminism is highly destructive. Flip the coin and see the other side of it: it’s pure gold!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2
Rocco March 8, 2012 at 12:40

@ Nico

I once had a girlfriend and had a key to her place. We were supposed to be exclusive and although I had a place of my own we sort of lived together.

One night I came home and found her kissing a guy on the couch.

Even at a young age I wouldn’t give her the satisfaction….I walked past and asked from the kitchen if anyone wanted a sandwiche….then I kicked her to the curb.

Rebel is correct, might makes right, only the “State” has rights. Try disagreeing with someone from CPS.

Today the state says that their children are best raised by women…any will do, biologic, foster, lesbian…. males are an impediment and should be kept from children ASAP.

If you don’t know this from reading here and in the MSM your reading comprehension is the problem.

Want to see your kids ripped from you and hate you, marry. Want to raise your child use a surrogate.

Use condoms always, I got my vasectomy 7 years ago…thank god….I know that even in a moment of weakness I cannot be enslaved.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1
doclove March 8, 2012 at 12:45

@ Rebel
Thankyou. I agree. This is why I say what I say. The laws are set up and enforced in such a way where men should only use women as cum dumpsters or avoid them as much as they can. Socially, this is even more true. Virtually noone can avoid women entirely. Either way, be careful. I never would wish this for women to be used as cum dumpsters or avoided as much as possible, but since I am a powerless man not in control of the government’s laws and enforcement nor am I in control of the social norms of my culture, I can only advocate what I said above for myself and other human males.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
td9red March 8, 2012 at 12:49

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 29
etype March 8, 2012 at 12:53

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 26
doclove March 8, 2012 at 13:19

I forgot to add to the 2 commentaries above which I made which is important to note. All of us are slaves to the government whether we like it or not. It’s only getting worse as liberty is chipped away and the U.S. Constitution is increasingly disregarded. Under today’s laws and enforcement, the child in reality belongs to the state under the government no matter how much it by lying says it belongs to the parents. Child Protective Services and other government agencies can disabuse you of this notion if they come knocking at your door. No matter what the rules are or how they are usually enforced, the one or group with the most powerful force wins—-in this case the government, not the individual. The state has decided that women are the primary overseers of the children unless it can be proven that she does something heinously wrong, and there is a very slim chance you can prove that. Men(fathers and lowest regarded slaves) are forced by the state to pay the women(mothers and overseers) for the state’s children(junior slaves) and the women have the discretion to say how the money is spent without any regard to what the men think. the way to avoid harsher slavery for males is to not impregnate females.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
Taank March 8, 2012 at 13:22

@Rebel: What you say is completely true, and makes the present situation just fine for all the men out there – well, the ones that are actually GTOW. Any man interested in any kind of traditional relationship suffers a serious imbalance in repro rights under the current system. You could compare it to suffrage, since once pregnancy occurs, men have no vote.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
White Raven March 8, 2012 at 13:28

I just had a thought. We all know that women are going to end up winning the battle of the free birth control. It’s inevitable. So instead of fighting it, why don’t we embrace it and fight for it under the condition that free vasectomies are included for the men if they decide they want one. At least that way when it’s all over men and women will be on an even playing field.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2
Opus March 8, 2012 at 13:35

@Nico

That (terrible though it is) is a typical ‘let’s you and him fight over me’ with the woman deciding to go with the victor. I can think of at least three occasions in my own life when a woman has (not that bad of course) got or attempted to get me and another man in a situation where we ‘square off’ even if very politely. Yet we are always being told how much women loath violence when it is clear they love it. They not only encourage it between men but encourage men to lose their cool with themselves for the sake of gaining the moral high-ground. Is it any surprise that women love this kind of thing when they are, as between men and women, the sex prone to violent behaviour; but try telling that to the politicians or the police and you will be met by disbelief and accused of mysogyny or as I was the other day on Facebook, of being a ‘sicko’.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 3
Avenger March 8, 2012 at 13:37
Nico March 8, 2012 at 13:40

@Opus

That’s exactly what I thought: female inducing a fight.

There is a popular duo of female singers who came up with a good song on this theme “Battez vous!” (“Fight for me!”). Although it’s in french, the tune is catchy and the video is good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDchKlVQZ4A

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
Rebel March 8, 2012 at 14:02

@ White Raven March 8, 2012 at 13:28
“I just had a thought. We all know that women are going to end up winning the battle of the free birth control. It’s inevitable. So instead of fighting it, why don’t we embrace it and fight for it under the condition that free vasectomies are included for the men if they decide they want one. At least that way when it’s all over men and women will be on an even playing field.”

Raven, I don’t know where you live, but I thought that vasectomy was available for free everywhere.
Where I now live, all you have to do to get one is get a doctor’s appointment and ask for a vasectomy.
In SOME cases, and if you are a very young childless man, a doctor may ask you why, but you can justify your request just by saying that you don’t want children, no matter what.

Women can get all the abortions they want (some women use abortion instead of spending money on birth contol pills: it’s more economical that way, since abortion is free.)

It’s only natural that a man can have a vasectomy upon request.

In addition, you speak of a “battle of the free birth control”. There is no such battle if men decide to GTOW because they don’t give a shit anyway…

See my point?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3
LJ March 8, 2012 at 14:04

@white raven,
What men need is parity. A pill of their own, provided by tax payers just the same. Women will get the contraceptives and further bankrupt the U.S. We could always simply wait until the wild west returns. What an interesting world that will be.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
Anonymous age 69 March 8, 2012 at 14:11

>>Once again there is no scenario under which women would likewise be given control over a man’s body for any given period of time for any reason

Um, I hate liars. So, how does a man pay 20 years of child support for kids hidden from him, and how does a man pay lifetime alimony, without his body being controlled??? Do you women think we men have printing presses in our porn room?

Typical woman with no grasp whatsoever of the true legal and financial status of men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 6
Poiuyt March 8, 2012 at 14:19

There’s a lot of dead childrens souls running about abortion clinics and other areas women dispose of their unwanted pregnancies.

Hitlery and Tina Brown say them dead children demonstrate a manifest right woman have of choosing to reproduce or not. And that back-chat or not, female commission of infanticide is one of womens gains that must be safe-guarded by the police-state.

In other news, female manic-depression, insomnia and hysteria are on the up. That is, more consequential afflictions of abortion, into which Obamacares’ gendered socialism has already sunk the treatments costs.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3
White Raven March 8, 2012 at 14:23

@Rebel – I’m a spring chicken around the manosphere so I may be behind the times, but I have read several blog posts advising men to bite the bullet and pay for a vasectomy because it’s cheaper than 18 years of child support. This would lead me to conclude that they aren’t available for free but I could very well be mistaken.

@LJ – Sure, a pill for men would be great. Unfortunately they aren’t yet available. A vasectomy is the next best thing for a man who knows he doesn’t want any children.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
American March 8, 2012 at 14:30

The current “Womens choice”, and mens finacial responsibility to fund her “choice” is no longer working.
Guys are refusing to have children because of the horror stories they here about “Sperm Trappers”.
“Sperm Trappers” are unscrupulous women who will pull a condom from the trash to inseminate herself; If the man has a good job to pay for her “Choice”.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 7
Anonymous March 8, 2012 at 14:32

White Raven- I’m a member of a large HMO in California. When I was done having children and wanted to get a vasectomy I had to 1) take a 2 hour class, 2) bring in a permission slip from my wife, and 3) wait a substantial cooling off period (I believe it was 6 months) before they would do the procedure.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4
American March 8, 2012 at 14:34

Very soon we will see women of the Gender-Raunch Era will be too old to have children themselves. We will then see a rise of “Baby snatching”, of which a perverted American law enforcement will try and blame on men somehow, but the truth will eventually come out that “baby snatchers” are these violent Gender-Raunch lesbians who never had kids when they were younger.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 15
keyster March 8, 2012 at 14:48

“No one is ENTITLED to the use of someone elses body for any reason, ever, even if the use of that other person’s body is needed to sustain their life.”

No one is ENTITLED to anyone elses money for any reason, even if the use of that other person’s money is needed to support the parent of that person’s child. My money, my choice!

Nine grueling months of gestation and then birth
vs.
18 years x $350 a month = $75K

If given the choice, I’d relinquish entitlement to my body, (and perhaps even the baby).

td9red serves as an example of how feminism has biased the collective conscience of our society to favor women’s reproductive rights over men’s. Don’t blame her personally. She’s as reasonable and rational a person as anyone you’d meet in America today. The indocrination is not just entrenched, it’s an engrained meme.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 3
Taank March 8, 2012 at 14:56

Since the discussion has wandered over into current male options for birth control, specifically vasectomies, let me offer:

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/07/09/male-self-defense-101/

Vasectomies aren’t just for men who are sure they don’t want children. They are also for men who are sure they do want children, but insist on only having them on their own terms.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Taank March 8, 2012 at 14:58

Disclosure: I authored this article, back when I had to pick a name quick to put on it and chose Cato. Still good info in there.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Opus March 8, 2012 at 15:03

@Nico

Nice video and nice song though it goes on too long for my 2’25″ taste. What the video gets absolutely right – the twist – is [Spoiler alert] that instead of the two guys fighting, they go off with each other. Now isn’t that what is happening in the West: The State are making marriage and relationships impossible, as they cave in and appease every counter-productive demand women make and with more hurdles than a game of Super Mario, so much, that eventually the men will turn Homosexual (or turn to Porno or Paedo, or look to the East for Asian women or become Herbivors or Transvestites), and indeed it looks as if within a short time Homosexual marriage will be legal (though not yet compulsory).

In pandering to women, they will always demand so much that men will turn their back one way or another on (as we observe) bad-tempered, ungrateful, opinionated, pox-ridden, promiscous, drunken, foul-mouthed, aging, overweight women who up to that time have been finding themselves or pursuing their career. Then the women will be really unhappy. Until women start again to police their own sex, (as they still did when I was younger) and cease to have in the words of the late Diana, Princess of Wails. ‘three of us in the relationship’ [you, me and the State] powerful men like Obama and Cameron will reveal their Beta credentials by caving in at all times. Clearly granting suffrage to women was always fraught with the risk – now so evident – that women would always be interested in only one thing, themselves or what they wrongly perceive to be in their interest, and would use the same ‘accusations’ of being ‘unhaaapy’ to get those things as they did Suffrage in the first place. Men tend, I suspect to be fairly consistent in their electoral choices and will change allegiance only for good but not selfish reasons, whereas a woamn will always vote for the most handsome politician especially if he promises her whatever she wants, whether that promise is good for them, men or the State generally. And so it goes on, so much so, that (if I have this right) the U.K. are going to make shouting at ones spouse, or raising your voice at her a criminal offence. Yet another incentive not to marry, and as we know the accusation is always taken as the evidence (if DV and Divorce are anything to go by). No wonder the Government are trying to groom children into a Gay lifestyle. Oh to be a future historian – a latter day Edward Gibbon – to rehearse the folly of it all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6
Rebel March 8, 2012 at 15:10

@Taank
“Vasectomies aren’t just for men who are sure they don’t want children. They are also for men who are sure they do want children, but insist on only having them on their own terms.”

Exactly. And keep in mind that a man can always keep some swimmers frozen, just in case.
It has been done many times.

@Raven:

I hope you do not think I was coming down on you, ’cause this is something I never do to a fellow man.
Never.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Tom936 March 8, 2012 at 15:25

Emma the Emo March 8, 2012 at 10:24
Sounds alright, except the pregnancy bit. Why should the sexes have equal rights there? It s a one-sided burden from nature.

But then you d have to pay [women] less, too.. Which would be crappy, as women would lose the same amount of time on military for less pay, and time is money.

Isn’t that a one-sided burden from nature too?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Rebel March 8, 2012 at 15:25

Opus
“No wonder the Government are trying to groom children into a Gay lifestyle. Oh to be a future historian – a latter day Edward Gibbon – to rehearse the folly of it all.”

…or an Arnold Toynbee. or another Tocqueville. Yes!, that would be quite a dream..

…sigh…

You know, I have wasted my life on things like electronics and computers. I really should have been a historian.

Maybe in another life..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
bhwebb March 8, 2012 at 15:34

On the subject of reproductive rights and choice and the absence of such for men, I think we need to be clear as to what it is we are talking about. It is not equality that we are looking for but rather equity. Although Emma the Emo’s response is largely misguided, illustrating a complete lack of understanding of men and the armed forces, she is correct in pointing out the biological differences in men and women in relation to human reproduction. But where Emma goes wrong like so many others is that she fails to acknowledge the equity in human reproduction. Apart from extremely rare genetic anomalies, human reproduction cannot occur without both female AND male biology.

So, despite the fact that women carry the child, both genders are equally important to conception and reproduction. However, Court decisions, public opinion, and policy have ignored biological equity and the equal protections clause of the 14th Amendment, creating an unconstitutional imbalance in legal protections and rights based on gender. The result is an equation following the axiom that women have choice and men have responsibility. We live in a society where women are given unilateral decision making power over human reproduction that often causes considerable collateral damage. Not only for the unborn child (the pro-life argument) but also for the man who can be forced into parental and/or financial responsibility against their will.

Outside of medical necessity or rape and incest, I oppose abortion as I believe it is birth control (by definition of birth control, abortion IS birth control) as a means of avoiding parental responsibility, which over 90 percent of abortions represent (lack of money, not wanting to be a parent). Having said that, I have never and will never advocate for a ban on abortion because I no more want to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her life or body than I want a woman being able to tell me what to do with my life and body.

This is precisely why I believe we need to advocate for equity rather than equality. There are three key reasons why I think this argument is more effective than what Taank proposed (I realize Taank is no advocating for his suggestions but rather throwing some ideas out). First, equitable reproductive rights for men takes into account the biological differences between women and men. Second, it would provide men with similar legal protections, rights, and choices enabling them to make decisions for themselves rather than having decisions made for them by women. Third, and perhaps most important, equitable reproductive rights and choice for men would in now way infringe upon women’s reproductive rights and choice it would simply introduce greater resonsibility (in some cases) to women based on their unilateral decisions.

With equitable reproductive rights and choice, men would still have no say in whether a woman decides to have an abortion or have a child, but men would be allowed to ‘opt out’ of financial and/or parental responsibility for the same reasons women are allowed to ‘opt out’.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4
The First Joe March 8, 2012 at 16:02

@Avenger – that’s because old guys remember when LiLo was pretty and not obviously teeth-gnashingly in-fuckin’-sane. To young dudes she’s like a crazy bag lady, but with money. It’s shocking how much she’s gone downhill in the last five years or so.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
The First Joe March 8, 2012 at 16:25

Advances are being made in male contraception:

http://malecontraceptives.org

Adjudin in particular looks very promising!

http://malecontraceptives.org/methods/adjudin.php

Once we have a pill AND condoms, we can look forward to a time when the correct answer to:
“Ohmigohd, I have no idea how it happened, but I’m pregnant!”
willbe:
“Who’s the daddy? You’d best go tell him… By the way, I’m on the pill and you’re dumped. Bye!”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
The First Joe March 8, 2012 at 16:34

Here’s a little schadenfreude – this guy is number ELEVEN to be tested for the paternity of this incredibly annoying woman’s baby. She is soooo obnoxiously sure she’s finally nailed a sucker to browbeat and nag, that she is in the middle of haranging the guy when Maury announces he is NOT the dad! She starts screaming, he actually leaps up like he’s reborn and dances for joy!! LOLZZ!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okQsrwMhFjU

Fight for mandatory paternity testing!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Nemo March 8, 2012 at 17:31

Off-topic:

The Southern Poverty Law Center has just labelled many MRM sites as “hate sites”.

The Spearhead is one of them.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/myths-of-the-manosphere-lying-about-women

I’m really starting to think that the guys who advocate leaving the USA have a point.

If we complain about feminism, we are tarnished with the same brush as the KKK. Good grief.

Is this society still worth fighting for if free speech itself is about to disappear?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1
Anonymous Reader March 8, 2012 at 18:18

Emma
So maybe it’s better to drop the idea of absolute equality everywhere and focus on what works and what makes people content?

Fifty years too late to have that discussion.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
W.F. Price March 8, 2012 at 18:46

The Southern Poverty Law Center has just labelled many MRM sites as “hate sites”.

The Spearhead is one of them.

-Nemo

Big deal. Since white supremacism is all but nonexistent, they’re just trying to move on to gays and women to find a new market. The SPLC is a mailing list above all, and it’s looking for new supporters.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2
Ted March 8, 2012 at 19:10

The Southern Poverty Law Center says:

“Misogynists in the men’s and fathers’ rights movements have developed a set of claims about women to support their depictions of them as violent liars and manipulators of men”.

Almost right, as far as it goes. They should have omitted “violent” though. Then I could have agreed with them, as far as their statement went.

But the stated “set of claims” is just a subset of the reality, in my mind at least. My claims would go a lot, lot wider. The Southern Poverty Law Center would seem to be somewhat deficient in its reading of the MRM.

However, a couple of lines later, they drop a real clanger:

“What follows is a brief look at some of these claims and what the best science really shows.”

Oh, the “best” science eh? A real give-away that is. We’ve been reading about the “best”research – an unjustified, selective, and usually unattributed value judgment – for decades. The Southern Poverty Law Center continues the best feminist fact-lite wish fulfillment traditions right down to modern times.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Rocco March 8, 2012 at 20:17

It speaks volumes when a former New Jersey state Governer feels he needs to go “undercover” or else no one will help single homeless men in the winter and tell them to die on the street.

And then a “poor” rights organization attacks us.

I think we’re in better company with former Governer Richard Cody.

http://news.yahoo.com/former-jersey-governor-goes-undercover-homeless-man-023749042.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
AAvictim March 8, 2012 at 20:26

The SPCL tries to motivate the hate groups by calling anti-hate groups…well hate groups. SPCL and feminists almost make white supremecists seem sane by comparison.

I am new to here but everything I have read from MRM is that men want to make it clear that woman CAN be violent liars and manipulators and such and are not by default innocent little kids that can do no wrong.

Even if you believe men were oppressors centuries ago and women were oppressed it still does not reason that women should be oppressors now. I did not live centuries ago and neither do these people that want sexist supremacy today.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
Dubcik March 8, 2012 at 21:12

BHwebb excellent post. The MRM should put emphasis on the point that “……..human reproduction cannot occur without both female AND male biology.” The idea that the baby is hers alone, that she has all the choices because she carries the baby for 9 months, falls flat when viewed like this. Men would probably get futher ahead in gaining reproductive rights/choices by advocating equity than responsibility, because to trying to hold women responsible for their choices (to keep, abort, inform, seek financial gain etc. etc.) has not worked.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Bob Smith March 8, 2012 at 21:12

“Otherwise females could just disappear after a night stand and appear after months with a baby claiming support.”

They already do right now. And at least in California the fact that the mother gave an incorrect address in her child support lawsuit does not stop the tolling of the father’s time limit in responding to it. In other words, she can lie and give a false address and when you don’t show up in court (because you never got the notice) you’re stuck with child support. Moreover, even if you could then afterwards prove the child isn’t yours, so what. Actual non-paternity is not a defense.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Anonymous March 8, 2012 at 21:16

@td9red

A question if you’ll indulge me.

You’ve said a few times here that “Nobody is entitled to the use of another person’s body without that person’s consent”.

My question is this. Are you for or against alimony? Alimony is transferring one ex’s (usually the male’s) wealth and paycheque to the other ex (usually the female) against the payer’s wishes. Since the payer’s paycheque must be earned (through the use of their body), it seems to logically follow that alimony is the use of one person’s body against their wishes by another.

I’m curious about your thoughts here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1
evilwhitemalempire March 8, 2012 at 22:17

emo girl
So maybe it’s better to drop the idea of absolute equality everywhere and focus on what works and what makes people content?
****************
like every man own at least 3 women and can do whatever they darn well want with them? that’ll work

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5
DirkJohanson March 8, 2012 at 22:42

The cold hard truth is this: after watching the spectacle that women who have average $160,000 starting salaries upon graduation will now be getting free birth control, no lesscourtesy of Catholic organizations – not to mention that Snooki and the Kardashian sisters will have their co-pays covered by their insurance companies – it is clear to me that the USA is a lost cause.

The checks on female power throughout history are in order to avoid what is happening to the USA. Also, I’ve seen some people say that women are 51.5% of the electorate; I haven’t researched it, but I can’t imagine their voting numbers are that small considering that women live longer, old people vote more, and huge numbers of younger men are in prison in the country with the highest incarceration rate in the world.

The most terrifying thing for the future of the average guy in the American future is that so many women are trumping this birth control thing as if it is just the beginning. Watching the tenor and demographics of the debate, its inconceivable to me that anything will change. Maybe I’m wrong; maybe there will be some watershed event, but I can’t even imagine what it would be.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Cranky March 8, 2012 at 22:48

Let’s face the facts – marriage is dying out, it doesn’t really work anymore, does it? Maybe it’s time to toss parenthood on the trash heap as well. Select perfect human specimens to procreate and raise the offspring in government facilities. But I only dream.

I want to see a Trillion Man March on Washington DEMANDING free vasectomies; demanding that male birth control pill (where is that goddamn thing anyway?); demanding freedom from ridiculous child support laws! Does Planned Parenthood even offer free vasectomies for the low income / uninsured man? I don’t think so; not fair!

Do most men really, really want the “joys” of parenthood? The expense?No they do not! Sure, some like the idea of a son to carry on the name and prove that their junk does indeed work, but is it really all that great? How many guys here wouldn’t mind a few retroactive abortions?

Guys, you’re getting hosed; organize, march, protest! The women did it, why won’t you?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7
W.F. Price March 9, 2012 at 00:02

The most terrifying thing for the future of the average guy in the American future is that so many women are trumping this birth control thing as if it is just the beginning. Watching the tenor and demographics of the debate, its inconceivable to me that anything will change. Maybe I’m wrong; maybe there will be some watershed event, but I can’t even imagine what it would be.

-DirkJohanson

Well, they’re going to have to enforce all the policies that they want to put in place. This is going to be pretty hard, because women’s demands never cease. Eventually, there will be a widespread disregard for reality on their part, and the rules on the part of everyone else. “Security” will step in, and we’ll end up with a somewhat more authoritarian state (not sure to what degree), and an authoritarian leader like Vladimir Putin (or the Anglo equivalent).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
Nemo March 9, 2012 at 01:13

Russia is *still* collapsing inward upon itself because of the destruction of the family unit during Communism. Their birthrate per fertile woman is 1.3. The population is expected to drop from 143 million to about 100 million in fifty years.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/02/one-thing-putin-wants-russians-to-do-like-americans/

This could be the USA soon if our society continues to treat its men as disposable tools.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
V10 March 9, 2012 at 05:24

I’m all for the idea of giving men the right to opt out of fatherhood before the birth, after being duly informed. Renounce all rights and responsibilities and then the ball is in the mother’s court, to abort or raise solo. Everyone goes in with eyes open.

The problem is of course getting it into law. You’re going to have to have an answer for every objection to it, and some of it may involve distasteful sacrifices to win the larger battle.

For instance, require that the father foot the bill for the abortion and relevant doctor’s visits (depending on the health care system of your area), even after renouncing all rights and responsibilities. Put that on the table at the start, so as to forestall any whining about ‘mothers in poverty who can’t afford it’. Better a few months paying for the medical bills than nearly 2 decades paying for child support.

We can’t let the feminists establish any argument or excuse that we can avoid. Better yet, we should cloak it mangina language and talk up how it increases a woman’s freedom to ride the carousel while cracking down on ‘deadbeat fathers’.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
American March 9, 2012 at 05:26

Its interesting the Southern Poverty Law center is now almost all “White Gender-Raunch”, and its statistically “White gender-Raunch” who are raking in all the federal minority grants, and federal minority dollars.
So one could easilly say, and get the facts to prove it; that the “white Gender-raunch Establishment” is actually the black mans nemesis.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7
American March 9, 2012 at 05:36

The Gender-Raunch community is almost an all white community, and they are calling others rascists???

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8
td9red March 9, 2012 at 06:29

@Anonymous

I am in support of temporary alimony under a limited circumstance. That circumstance is where the couple have been married for a long period of time. They as a couple decided that one spouse would not work, but would stay home with the kids. They get divored. I believe the spouse that stayed at home should receive alimony for a period of time to permit them to go to college/training program, something to allow them to get back into the work force.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10
Rocco March 9, 2012 at 07:07

@ td9red

Such seemingly sensible proposals will be voted down by men with more experience than you.

The “temporary” money will be extended because she can’t get her fat arse through the door. She’ll become too “ill” to work in numbers of millions so spousal support will be permanent.

Our country doesn’t see fit to encourage women to have their children even see their fathers, how are they going to make women go to work?

Their not.

I think one of my only contributions here is to speak plainly and simply.

Don’t be a f@cking idiot and get married. Drop those rosey eye glass views of family, that’s a product sold to you in movies and on TV and you think if you follow it you get laid and love.

You get neither, in fact, it’s the best guarentee you’ll get neither.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
Voland March 9, 2012 at 08:35

Safe Haven laws have the odious effect of allowing feminists to advocate for ever more draconian child support laws knowing that their sisters will always be able to avoid the worst consequences of those laws if they choose to do so. It removes even the slightest fear that those laws might be applied to them which in turn removes every last remaining bit of guilt or compunction women have about stripping away men’s money. This is also why so many feminists strongly advocate against men being able to have equal custody or even “adopt” their own children. Not only does it ram home the bitter truth that both parents should have equal custody rights but it also makes clear that both parents have a financial responsibility regardless of whether they can use the children as an excuse for not pulling their weight.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Cpt. Capitalism March 9, 2012 at 13:05

May I suggest not waiting for the politicans to make things equal, and instead make things equal yourself.

Get a vasectomy.

Best $1,200 I ever spent.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Mickey T March 9, 2012 at 14:51

They’ve taken our money, they’ve taken our self respect, they’ve taken our children, they’ve taken our desire to love, they’ve taken our joy in being loved, they’ve taken our desire to have a family, they’ve taken our will to better and survive, they’ve taken our sense of humor, they’ve our desire for human intimacy……………………….and most importantly, they’ve taken our humanity and turned so many of us into the barbarians which they are.

They’ve shown us how to casually use and discard our young for personal gain. And now it’s not much more than a competition of who has more rights, while we have 1.6 million hacked up, dismembered dead babies every year with little regard for their horrific suffering.

I can understand why some would argue, that if there was even a chance of salvation for such immoral and uncivilized culture, it wouldn’t be worth saving anyway.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
American March 9, 2012 at 15:41

Calling ” the Spearhead” a hate site???
Ponder this… If American Gender-Raunch are perverting American law enforcement into “Manufacturing statistics” that are faulty and inflamatory, and its minorities that are most harmed by the “New Perverse inflamations of Americas legal juggernaut”, then its Gender-Raunch that should be considered a “Hate group”.
Modern Gender-feminist rhetoric tells its students that Heter0sexiuals are the greedy, violent, perverted, criminals of the world….Why is this not considered “Hate Speech”??

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
American March 9, 2012 at 15:46

When Gender-Raunch don’t like the fact that the most violent relationships in the US, are lesbian relationships, they just “Pervert” law enforcement into using protocol perversions and semantics games to leave no “statistics”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3
bruno March 14, 2012 at 01:58

The only way to have equal rights is:

- during pregnancy: the child can be born only when both parents agree to let it be born. Otherwise it must be aborted.

- after birth: the person who wants the child can have it, and must also carry the cost. When both want it, they can have it each 50% of the time, and both pay the costs while they have it. When non of the parents wants it any more, it can be raised in a government orphanage.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
bruno March 15, 2012 at 08:44

” – during pregnancy: the child can be born only when both parents agree to let it be born. Otherwise it must be aborted. ”

This means if a woman wants to deliver a baby, she must first have explicit written permission from the biological father.

If she has a baby without his permission, she is in violation of his reproductive rights.
She will be brought before the court as a rapist, and will never receive any benefits for the child.

Equal is equal.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
AnonCoward March 16, 2012 at 17:05

To Equalize Rights During Pregnancy:*
Option 1: Require father’s consent to abort a pregnancy
Option 2: Allow fathers to mandate abortion against the mother’s wishes (!)
=============================================
These two options show me how deep our instincts (or perhaps cultural conditioning ?) go.
Option 2 horrified me completely. Killing a helpless half formed baby! Its worse than murder. But I feel nothing at the idea of a woman aborting her own baby. Im not for it, mind you, but any horror is muted.

I wonder if some men watch their woman abort a child and feel that way and feel completely distraught at learning that they didn’t give a damn either till it happened to them. The cognitive dissonance alone must be a killer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Nergal March 17, 2012 at 21:37

No one is ENTITLED to the use of someone elses body for any reason, ever, even if the use of that other person’s body is needed to sustain their life.

That’s some of the most disgusting life-hating shit I’ve ever heard anyone say. The way you stated it,is actually morally and ethically correct,but a gestating fetus isn’t a group of men trying to run a train on a woman in a bar somewhere. Is that how women think of unborn children? As another fully-formed decision-making person choosing to “use their bodies”? I wouldn’t be surprised if that were the case. The idea is repulsive to my mind,in any case.

It’s a fucking fetus. It isn’t “using your body”,it’s simply attempting to live,the way that fetuses do.

You make your own choices on pregnancy, I’ve got no say there. All I’m saying is that men use each other’s bodies to survive all the goddamn time. Our entire system of masculinity is built on the idea that the most compassionate thing you can do for someone is to sacrifice yourself on their behalf. That level of naked selfishness,the idea that your own life is somehow more important than even the life of a child so young it has never even breathed air,is grossly offensive to me on a spiritual level.Moreover,women use men’s bodies to survive. I know you’ve seen that workplace death stat.

What do you think the 93% who die in the workplace are doing?Do you typically die in a cubicle or producing buildings,drilling oil,hunting large ocean animals,or mining underground? In other words, is it possible they’re producing essentials for modern survival?

You’re using men’s bodies to survive. We all are.If you weren’t,you probably would not be alive right now. If you had to hunt your own boar every time you wanted to eat,you’d probably starve to death or be gored to death in a couple of weeks.Instead,men work and die for you.

Just makes me sick to my stomach that someone could take so much from others and then refuse to give anything back,not even another worker,because “my body is too important”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Truth hurts August 22, 2012 at 09:00

I agree to a certain degree on his posting. But everyone needs to look at reality in HD. Man and women will never come to the same agreement on this issue. Our brains was individually hard wired to a state where men. We think logically and come to the best solutions, that will benefit our species. Women have a poor habit on makeing bad desicions, due to their emotions. No man should never control or hurt a women because we need them. Just as they need us and god made it this way. Men are the dominate species on this earth and have invented basically everything and we didn’t do any of this using emotions. If so sad to say we all will be somewhere rideing horses and hunting with sticks. My point we think logically and everyone either in school or by a parent . Was told about the conisiquenses of sex or was it just men that listen. The way society views it in my eyes is that it’s the mans fault a women that the women got pregnant.like the women is innocent and wasn’t aware if you put something in you will get something out. Women fight so hard to be as equal as men but their selfishness and emotions come out. When reproductive rights is brought up?is that fair to men(no). The government is doing nothing about it because it benefits and sees profit off a women’s emotions. Men should use protection but then you have some women out there that lies about using birth control. Condoms aren’t 100% effective. But a pill or a shot in the arm for a women is and they choose not to take advantage of that. If they had it for men we will be chewing those pills like gum. Not all women are the same but nowadays some women use children for financial gain. This is causing us the tax payers money, because these girls wanna get pregnate. Run to family court get child support and expect gov handouts. Sad to say children are not made by love instead it’s about the money. The comment I strongly agree on that the poster said is. If a man dosnt agree with haveing a child once she told him. The man should have all rights not to support the child and deal with that situation. If she decided to keep the child by her decision then that’s her problem. Nobody should be forced to do anything. Put that law in place I bet the baby boom will slowly decline. These laws treat women as grown children. Just as a man you can use protection and you can make desicions. Well learn to deal with the conisiquenses if you choose to keep a child,that a man dosnt want. I’m not a women basher at all. I’m just tired of always hearing bout bobby drama.from tv to Internet or just rideing the train it’s annoying. Keep your thing away and your legs close.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
washere March 19, 2014 at 13:26

I believe the solution to this whole equity/equality issue is for women (all the women) to decline to have sex with a man until she and he are able or willing to parent children. No government agency (China does this) is going to pull a screaming woman out of her house, rip off her panties, stick a cannula up her vagina and abort her baby….that is barbaric. That’s not going to work. I believe women should teach their children to not have sex with a man who is unable or unwilling to commit to parent children since children can result from sex. That would solve the problem. Men who were willing to parent would get sex, those who were unwilling to parent could do without. Seems simple enough to me. Then the whole reproductive rights issue would be solved.

For men who wanted to have sex without being willing to parent, there are prostitutes available. I believe prostitution should be legalized. A service provided with a written guarantee of “no parenthood required.”
She agrees, he agrees….it’s all good.

I mean, if women and men are just using each other for sex why not have a business that provides sex without consequences, commitment, love or parenthood. It’s an honest, straightforward transaction. No games.

Now to be fair, I guess there would have to be prostitutes for women who want sex but don’t want a boyfriend to go along with that.

Everything being equal, that is.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: