But I don't want to be a Dad, costs too much, too much hassle
I ran across this video the other day. It (and a comment posted in another essay) brought back to the forefront of my mind the issue of forced fatherhood.
Women have a right to reject the responsibilities of parenthood by having an abortion. Men do not have a right to reject those parental responsibilities.
In this grand remaking of society pushed by feminism how shall we address this inequity?
Should a man not be able to say, if you want it, you pay for it. I'm not interested in being a parent.
Should men not have a right to walk away for those responsibilities even if married at the time?
A women can have an abortion against the wishes of her spouse in marriage.
Some here have advocated for unlimited abortion on demand at any time during pregnancy. Should not a man be able to walk away from unwanted parenthood at any time in the same manner? Married or not?
I'm very curious what the people here think about this. Ideas presented here have already led me to adjust my position on some things. Maybe you can help me to see this issue more fully.
I think men should be able to end those responsibilities at whim before birth. That seems fair to me. (well, not really sure I agree with that position but I want to argue the point for clarity).
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ9UEr87DWo width:420 height:315]
* I love how she ends this (10:33ish onward)
Comments
Men and women both have a choice as to preganancy:
Don't have unprotected sex unless you want to take a massive risk. And, if you want to take a massive risk, that's on you.
The reason that women have a second choice--and it is by no means as easy a choice as wearing a condom--should be patently obvious: pregnancy is 9 months of their lives, not just the time it takes to ejaculate carelessly. It is also a massive drain on their physical and emotional health, and is sometimes fatal to them. When was the last time a male died in childbirth? Besides, the choice gets narrower every time judicial asses like Scalia or some red state legislature gets another shot at it. And some women suffer unbeatable guilt all their lives from their abortion decision.
Your essays and replies display quite the pattern about women and feminism. Just a few recent ones:
http://caucus99percent.com/comment/229586#comment-229586
My reply http://caucus99percent.com/comment/230162/edit
http://caucus99percent.com/content/people-dont-hard-questions-or-how-fem...
http://caucus99percent.com/comment/241446#comment-241446
I couldn't find your original post on this thread, although I saw it when I posted on that thread myself. http://caucus99percent.com/comment/241446#comment-241446 However, alligator Ed posted at least twice about it, taking issue with your wording. Despite all your rationales for posting as much as you do about women and feminism and in the negative way that you do, I think the underlying issue goes well beyond wording.
Two posts of Ed's commenting on the post of yours that I can't find right now. http://caucus99percent.com/comment/241446#comment-241446
http://caucus99percent.com/comment/241477#comment-241477
And Ed's opening essay on that thread asked only where Caucus99ers fell on a chart supposedly showing whether we were conservative, liberal, libertarian, etc. Not exactly an obvious trigger for the long, anti-feminism rant of yours I saw the day I posted on that thread.
Don't have sex
A woman has unprotected sex and oops, don't worry, don't have to keep it.
Man has unprotected sex, oops, you're stuck buddy.
That appears to me to be reproductive inequality.
Calling this essay anti-woman don't make it so.
This essay is about men's rights.
Would you like to address reproductive equality and men's rights or
do you just want to tell me how bad I am for discussing them?
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
Bull puckies. The decision to abort is not a mere "oops,"
except in some very immature, narrow minds.
Besides, which part of "unprotected" did you not understand? And which part of my first reply detailing why women get a second choice did you not understand?
ETA: BTW, I never called your post anti-woman, either. That claim is as false as the rest of your reply to me. It's not honest discussion to which I am hostile, but tactics like that, which you have displayed to me on other threads, too.
why do you argue that women have a second choice
but men should not?
help me see that HW.
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
Um, as previously stated, my first reply spelled it out.
Sorry, but I've already seen too many of your posts about women, choice and feminism to want to play any further into, or dignify any further, the "I just can't understand" play.
IMHO this is all one big fat red herring
deliberately intended to distract, divide, and drain our energies into issues that are of less immediate relevance than "War or Peace?" and "Climate Change Is Coming".
Not playing that game any more.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Given the posting history of the essayist, I can't disagree.
@HenryAWallace Next he will
Next he will be reminding us the Constitution was implicit that only men were created equal. As in " All men are created equal ".
Gotta agree. Cheap shot at attempted diversion.
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
this is all one big fat red herring
You're right: it is all one big fat red herring.
Made into surströmming.
One big fat red can of surströmming.
And before you think I'm deprecating your objection in any way, open the link!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Or, even closer to home.......
Or, even closer to home, "Why Nothing I Can Reasonably Hope To Do Can Put Me In A Position To Properly Support A Family While Zillionaires Keep Getting Obscenely Richer". (Thank you, Bernie!)
See also this Comment re "red herring" !
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Dear T.O.M., there are larger issues for sure--or are there?
War and peace might be said to be the biggest issue. Perhaps it is. But the macro scale of international armed conflict is intimately intertwined with the "smaller Issue" of individual lives. I won't get into a debate as complex and divisive as When does life begin? But there is no question of the untold misery of death, emotional damage, physical harm on the individual scale which war brings.
Women are the bearers of new life, just as much as when the former child is grown as it was when that child was a baby. To me, this is why the issue is important. It would be a shame if we lost sight of the trees while surveying the forest.
If men feel they should have a "choice" about fatherhood
why are so many of them hell-bent on bringing back forced pregnancy? It has been the wink of an eye that women have been able to make a choice. Fifty years ago, women were routinely punished for having sex - with or without marriage. I was taught in Catholic school that the mother's life was forfeit in favor of saving a baby, regardless of the baby's viability - I called it BS then and it still is. A woman died in Ireland not long ago because they would not remove a dead fetus from her. Ahhh, the good old days, still here in some countries.
If you don't want to be a "dad" get a f**king vasectomy! The men who SHOULD get one are the very same ones who won't because it messes with their head. They need that power to reproduce, yet don't want any of the responsibility for their actions. F**k Off.
That men have no choice is a lie. As I said, there are condoms.
As you said, there are vasectomies.
I've been posting since 2004. I've never seen anyone on the left post like this about women, choice or feminism, not as to content and certainly not as to persistence. At least those on the right who post so negatively about women don't pretend innocence.
men's choices (non-abstinence)
And pills for the purpose (to be taken by men) are coming on-line, too.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
this essay is not about forced pregenacy
or about how things were 50 years ago or what happens in Ireland.
If women don't want to be mom's tie your tubes?
Irony much?
Tell me if you think there is reproductive inequality or not. And explain why? And if you think there is, tell me how you think we can address it.
Cause all I'm hearing so far is man bad, woman suffer, and I don't like you for bringing this up.
If you can add something I'll listen. Maybe you'll help me see the light.
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
The inequality stems from the fact that a man has the
capacity to inseminate a woman whether she wants it or not. Have her tubes tied? That would imply that she is of an age to make such a decision. Even now doctors don't recommend a tubal unless a woman has had children or shouldn't have children. Put young girls on birth control the minute they get their period? Birth Control pills are hazardous to a woman's health and shouldn't be used for long periods of time. Young girls, unless well educated about sex, don't understand the ramifications of unprotected sex. Many are coerced into sex when they are unprepared to deal with it. Most women don't want to contemplate an abortion. The idea that women just get one every few months for the fun of it while having unprotected sex is a male fantasy. Abortion is hard on the body and on the mind, so not your first choice.
Many women agree to having a child with a man who had convinced them that he is Mr. Right, and then gets cold feet and becomes Mr. Wrong. Even married men will start a family and then back out when the reality of fatherhood sets in.
A man has the choice from the beginning. If he is going to have sex, he can preclude the possibility of issue by simply taking precautions. He will suffer no ill effects from using a condom! He can be more thoughtful about the women he chooses to have sex with i.e. mature women who control their own fertility, not target immature women or women with addiction problems. So yes, there is inequality between the sexes when it comes to having children.
Bullshit
--With this, "The inequality stems from the fact that a man has the capacity to inseminate a woman whether she wants it or not." you are automatically painting all women as instant, card carrying, brainless victims.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
Not necessarily
I see your point, but what importer said is literally true. Put sperm and ovum together, and, absent pathology, the result is going to be a fertilized egg, without any act of volition on the part of the woman inside of whose body it's happening. This is true whether the "sperm meeting egg" event is due to consensual sex, rape, or deliberately by artificial insemination.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
Women are raped, beaten, drugged and coerced
into having sex far more often than most of us would like to think. Bill Cosby is a prime example of a father figure who lured women and drugged them for sex. Women probably felt comfortable around him and never thought he was a predator, he'd been at it for years and was able to keep it from going public.
You should start your own thread
--instead of hi-jacking this one. The premise of the essay is based on what appears to be mutual consensual sex. I can only surmise that you are a victim yourself and are going make sure everyone else knows it.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
There is nothing to indicate there is a premise of
consent. It just assumes there is a pregnancy. It doesn't indicate under what circumstances the pregnancy might have occurred.
I know a woman right now in her second trimester whose partner assured her that he had a vasectomy and she had nothing to worry about. When he found out she was pregnant he changed his phone and beat feet for parts unknown.
She's diabetic and facing a high-risk pregnancy but didn't have the heart to have the baby aborted. So I suppose she is just another plotting female trying to ensnare some great guy who had all the right intentions.
Give me a break. I've been privy to a lot of information over my 70 plus years, and not much of it is pretty. If I seem jaded, it is for good reason. If you don't want the responsibility, keep it in your pants.
The poster simply pointed out that rape sometimes
causes pregnancy. I see nothing that portrays all women in any untruthful way.
At least, that's how I read that comment.
asdf
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
thats the first time I've heard this song
what a freaking great song. Seriously thanks for turning me onto it.
I bookmarked it.
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
asdf
We came correct. The response to our coming correct is less than desirable.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Dick will be granted an abortion.
Here's how it's going to work in the future:
1. Jane gets pregnant because she did not responsibly protect her far more powerful reproductive organs. Or, perhaps it was an accident.
2. Jane tells Dick and they share an awful moment of horror. They barely like each other. They agree to share the cost of terminating the quickened protoplasm.
3. A week later, Jane tells Dick she really wants a baby to play with all the time. Dick is busy packing to pursue his scholarship at MIT.
4. Dick files a writ with the court to exercise his Right to an abortion of his relationship with this event.
5. Jane is notified by the court that she has a decision to make. She can abort the protoplasm and move on with her life, or she can have a baby to "play with all of the time." But she cannot entrap Dick for the rest of his life to pay for her whims. Unless Jane was criminally violated or can produce a legally binding contract between Dick and herself, written for the purpose of reproduction, Dick will be granted an abortion from his relationship with Jane. All legal ties between them will be severed.
6. All the choices and rights reside with Jane, since she owns the superior means of reproduction. She is the captain of her own ship.
7. Dick merely has an equal right to an abortion-by-proxy, removing himself from a situation where the exercise of Jane's rights will overshadow and diminish his life and liberty.
It is those women who want to punish Dick because Jane did not responsibly protect her superior means of reproduction and carelessly allowed herself to get pregnant — who are holding back all women from achieving their rights as full human beings.
Educated and mature persons know that with greater power comes greater responsibility.
(Men have no lasting power over the destiny of women's bodies. One day medical science will allow them to implant a uterus of their own to boss around.)
Until women stand tall, take responsibility for their superiority in this matter, and do the right thing, they will continue to be regarded as livestock.
That is as fair as fair can be.
I'm not really sure if your a man or a woman
I should probably already know for sure, because I should be paying attention better. But don't tell me !!!! It don't matter.
I just go by the words.
I don't care who/what wrote it, only if it makes sense.
This proposal seems fair and some small group of people are working to make it so.
Again I bow in respect to your wisdom.
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
DO you realize just what the two of you
sound like out here? "Women will continue to be treated like livestock until THEY own it"? For Fucks sake, do you not see what are very real physical differences in male and female bodies during procreation? Or are you just acting willfully blind as any sanctimonious Tea Bag loon ever thought about being? Men CAN use a condom, period. It does not come with side effects that a birth control pill does so booh fucking hooo on that "hardship." For decades a man had the right to simply walk away from that woman and that pregnancy while welfare or family was just expected to take care of both. As for abortion on demand, I would suggest that if YOU don't want to be a daddy then you'd best be damned glad for that option. But it is MEN mostly who would like to remove that "choice" as Dennis so eloquently put it, so that a woman can have a baby "to play with all the time." I'm not usually given to make charges of misogyny but both of those fucking remarks sure as hell fit the bill.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
And women can keep their legs closed.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
Sure, and men can keep it in their pants, use a condom
or have a vasectomy. The reason that some of the responses are focusing on men's choices is not that the respondents are anti-men. It's that the essay claimed that men do not have a single choice as to reproduction while women have all the choices.
These comments are off the rails
Let's face it, there are conniving people of both genders. There are females who try to trap men with a pregnancy (which I find insane), and there are males who will do and say anything to get laid, especially without a condom because it doesn't feel as good (as if they might die if they don't dip their dick into that particular vagina at that very moment - more insanity).
I don't have the answer, and sure, total abstinence for everyone forever would certainly solve the problem, but, seriously? Keep her legs closed? Too late. Now what?
I'll never understand how we teach our males that getting their dicks wet is some type of never ending mission that must be sought at all times or "you're not a real man."
Then we teach our females that she's a nasty slut who gets to deal with an unintended pregnancy alone, if she doesn't "keep her legs closed" but then she's supposed to keep them wide open once she's married, even if she doesn't want to.
By the way, I trusted two men to pull out during short breaks in taking birth control pills. I say, "I have two I'll pull outs - a girl, and a boy."
And this--
--"Let's face it, there are conniving people of both genders." is why I made that cutting remark.
Unintended pregnancies have been a part of the human condition forever. When it comes to the 'lying about a vasectomy' bit, demand to see some paperwork just as one would or at least should do when it comes to those sensitive questions about std's. Unromantic as it may seem, that's no excuse not to make certain. If the man balks, then there is your answer. Same for women and tubal ligations.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
"Play with a baby all the time?"
Jesus, I don't think I have heard a more simple-minded statement in my life! Anyone who has kids or has been AROUND babies knows that they are not play things, but damned hard work.
They just arrested a 23-year-old "father" the other day in our town for bashing his 12-month-old child's brains out because it wouldn't shut up.
Who are you people?????????????????? Infantile men playing with their p**kers all day and fantasizing about how brain-dead women are? I would suggest you are the ones who don't have a f**king clue and don't want any responsibility, cause you couldn't handle it on a good day.
"Women will continue to be regarded as livestock" Wowza!
Forcing a woman to have an abortion that she does not want could not be more fair?
Good Grief.
You're so much better than this.
Your predictions are highly unlikely as well. If anything, a court would relieve a man of financial responsibility for the child, but I don't see that happening, either. Hell, people all over this country have trouble allowing abortion in cases of incest, other rapes and when carrying to term and/or the birth will kill the mother. And you think they are going to force abortion on a woman who does not want it? Should we force castration on men who rape? How about castration for men who repeatedly have unprotected sex? These are all barbaric suggestions.
This is not hard to understand, from the point of view of society. The men knew the possibility of pregnancy and carrying to term and the legal consequences before hand, yet chose to have unprotected sex anyway, as did the woman. The man and woman are equally responsible for conception.
The woman has an unlimited right to carry to term and a limited right to abort, all of which the man knew when he had unprotected sex. I'm certainly not responsible for their carelessness, nor will anything I do deter either of them from being careless again in the future. Why should I be taxed for their behavior? However, I'd far rather be taxed for it than see even one woman forced to abort or forced to give up a child she carried.
All day long you have been unable to read with
…any comprehension at all.
You have hallucinated conversations that NO ONE had and quoted words and meaning that were never expressed.
Go back and read it again with your brain engaged this time.
Jane is never forced to have an abortion. She keeps the baby. She has expanded human rights to do anything she wants to do.
Think. Think. Think.
Try harder this time.
Duplicate deleted.
Comprehend this.
While I'm glad to learn from this thread who you actually are, for at least two reasons, you would do well to at least pretend to a modicum of civility and a smidge less hysteria, even when you assume (incorrectly) that someone has made a mistake. First, when your best argument against my post is attempting to insult me personally over one part of my post, that only makes you and your position seem really weak. I hate to see you waste you time that way: Your position already seemed weak enough.
FYI, you are as wrong on the facts as you were about what the law will be in the future. Someone did indeed post on this thread that women should have to either get an abortion or, if they choose to carry to birth, give up the newborn for adoption. However, the poster edited. I had never encountered a proposal about reproductive rights that barbaric and heartless before. I could never have imagined such a thing, especially on a leftist board, if I had not read it. Comprehend that.
Oh, and what meaning does your allegedly superior reading comprehension cause you to assign to phrase "in the same manner" in this excerpt from the essay that begins this thread:
Comprehend that.
So I guess then, that you're OK
with even more state interference into reproduction? This all has to be legally mandated, documented and argued in a court of law and you don't see any problems with THAT? Just wow. Why not just make abortion illegal and call that whole thing off then? That way both parties get to "suffer" in bringing and unwanted child into an already overpopulated planet Earth? Yippee, there's fair for ya! And what of that child who now may "get" to be used by both "parents" in their internecine wars for responsibility? What in hell does THAT say to that child, and when does that child even matter in this little hypothetical? The kids only a pawn in the feminism wars over who gets to abort and who does not? Again, Wow.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
The contract should include
Dick doesn't get to change his mind later. He doesn't get to take away the child of a working mother and hand that child over to a new stay at home trophy wife. He can maybe request visiting rights at a later time, which may or may not be granted. Also, birth Mom is not obligated to keep Dick informed about her whereabouts. Mom is completely free to seek advantageous employment in any jurisdiction at all, including overseas, without having to inform Dick, much less having him sign off on the move. Any new partner or wife of Dick's gets exactly no rights whatever vis a vis Dick's offspring from before the marriage or partnership.
Mary Bennett
This is gonna sound really mean.
I agree with Henry on this. If you don't want responsibility of a child, take the responsibility of abstaining, using a condom or vasectomy, or go anal.
Though the last may not be effective as you're beginning to sound like an asshole.
There is no such thing as TMI. It can always be held in reserve for extortion.
If this were the only post on the subjects of women, choice
and feminism that I had seen from this poster in the last few weeks alone, I would not have replied as I did. However, there has been quite the pattern, and always accompanied rationalizations that attempt to make the posts sound innocent. Not buying it. This pattern is not coincidence and it's certainly not innocence.
FYI, you replied to HenryWallace, not to the essayist.
I'll fax you a copy of my Patriarchy membership card
and the minutes of the last reading.
You appear to me to be very hostile towards criticism of feminism and discussion of men's rights.
You may continue your character assassination as you wish.
You'd probably bring more value by explaining your position. And what was that position? Don't have sex?
Have any real world ideas you'd like to share?
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
Henry and others have given alternatives.
You don't seem amenable to them though. Seems you want to have sex your way and others can suffer the consequences your way, too.
There is no such thing as TMI. It can always be held in reserve for extortion.
no they have not
don't have sex is not a reality based suggestion. The vasectomy argument is barbaric and ignores tying ones tubes AND furthermore. They have in no way addressed the issue of forced fatherhood with anything other than make believe land so called solutions.
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
Fatherhood is not forced.
Have your mommy give you the talk...birds, bees, yadda yadda.
And yes, plenty of alternatives were given and rejected by you. Once again you show your desire to act with impunity and expect others to clean up your mess.
When the pain in my head gets to be too much, I quit running into the brick wall.
There is no such thing as TMI. It can always be held in reserve for extortion.
legal fatherhood is forced, by law
and there are great financial and emotional costs involved.
Was there an option I missed? Don't have sex or have a vasectomy.
That's it?
I understand the brick head wall thing trust me.
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
Cheaper to have a vasectomy than tubal ligation.
Also, vasectomies are often reversible years later, tubal ligations not so much. My two nieces are products of a vasectomy reversal (and second or their marriage for each parent); they have half-siblings nearly twice their age.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
River, after our 4th pregnancy
the wife, doctor and I discussed the permanent solution. I suggested to them if I had a vasectomy she'd not know if I was cheating on her. With tied tubes she could cheat on me all she wanted and not get caught. Doc gave me Spock eye until he remembered when he first suggested I get fixed I told him nothing was broken.
We opted for the tubes (any doubt?).
There is no such thing as TMI. It can always be held in reserve for extortion.
Accusing those who disagree with you of your own behaviors
may fool some of the people some of the time, but not me, not this time. You're the one who's been hostile to disagreement. Not even disagreement. The first time you got angry with me was the first time I can recall ever posting to you and my entire post consisted only of these four words: "Women are lawyers, too."
Much as you try to cloak it in lack of understanding, honest discussion, you seem to have issues.
I don't go into essays on crticism of men or women's rights
and denigrate the author because I don't like their views.
Any discussion of men's rights is attacking women isn't it HW.
No wonder feminism is has a popularity problem. poorly.
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
I don't like sexism and I don't like dishonest posting tactics.
That's what I responded to. And only because I've seen both from you more than once. Unlike you, I backed up my statements with links to your posts. Either you are exactly what your very own posts make you seem to be or you are a chronic pot stirrer, or both. As another poster said, it's time to back up your position with something other than ad hominem attacks on those who challenge you.
Old saying: If one person calls you an ass, get offended. If two people call you an ass, get a saddle. It's certainly been more than two on this thread.
I did not denigrate you personally a tenth as much as some of other posters on this thread. Nor have I ever been as rude to you as you have been to me.
Unsolicited advice: You've dug yourself into a hole with a pattern of of posts. Stop digging. Stop playing the innocent, misunderstood victim who just wants to have a sincere discussion about how unfairly privileged women are and how feminism sucks, but keeps getting attacked unfairly and personally simply because others just don't get the rightness of his position. No one seems to be buying it. Look at posts and likes on this thread and get a clue.
BTW, some number of weeks ago, you announced to me that you were going to steer clear of me. I thought that was a great idea. Too bad it lasted only a few days.
you are a lying
and that's enough of this crap.
I replied to SOMEONE ELSE explaining why I didn't use gender neutral language and YOU attacked me and mocked my disabilities.
SHOVE OFF MATE.
http://www.caucus99percent.com/comment/229565#comment-229565
Should I ask admin here to have a talk with you?
seriously. go find someone else to abuse.
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
Those are vile lies from you, dennis1958.
The truth:
on the cusp had posted about her experiences in the legal profession. http://caucus99percent.com/comment/229608#comment-229608
You replied to her with a post of 21 lines about lawyers that totally excluded women. It began and ended as follows: "Without good men, who are lawyers, there would be no justice." and "Seems to me we need more good men or a new system." It used the male pronoun throughout. http://caucus99percent.com/comment/229445#comment-229445
I replied to your post with all of four words: "Women are lawyers too." http://caucus99percent.com/comment/229565#comment-229565 That post of mine was the only reason you had to do any "explaining" on that thread to anyone at all about why you did not type the extra characters that it would have taken to use people instead of men. If you were not replying to that comment of mine your post would have been a total non sequitur.
On the cusp replied to me, saying she is a female lawyer.
You replied to me with a 27-line post justifying the exclusion by saying, in effect, that you had thought about it, but were just too weak to type "people" one or two times instead of "men." However, you also went on about how annoyed you get when someone expects you to use gender neutral language, which belied the rest of your post.
When I pointed out the discrepancy between your claim about being too weak to type six characters and the reality of your long post justifying yourself, you replied, this time, with a 51 line post, again asserting you were too weak, again saying how angry you get when people expect gender neutral language, attacking me, etc. A brief excerpt: "Nor do I support efforts to insist on gender neutral language or most of the tenets of the radical brand of feminism that insists that all male sexuality is objectifying and abusive."
My reply, stated that, looking at your several long posts on that thread, it seemed clear that you were not took weak to type "people" instead of "men." Rather, like me, you typed what was important to you to type: http://caucus99percent.com/comment/230162#comment-230162
The post from another thread, showing that you had confused me with on the cusp. http://caucus99percent.com/comment/230683#comment-230683
Your posts on both the threads linked above speak for themselves, as do mine on both those threads.
Using disabilities as an excuse for the initial problem and now claiming falsely that you were mocked because of your disabilities is shameful and dishonors honest disabled people.
Oh,and it's not your place to tell anyone to shove off a board you neither own nor mod.
know why I replied to the person I did reply to, not you?
It wasn't on accident. It was because I'd already concluded that you're kind of a kook.
AND then, after I replied to someone else, you decided to read me the riot act on proper use of words according to the feminist manifesto AND mocked me for saying part of the reason I didn't use your feminism approved language was my health related disabilities.
This essay isn't about what happened last week and I'm not gonna kiss your ass.
I'm going to have to politely ask you to leave this essay. You've hijacked it from the 1st post down and added NOTHING of value.
Thank you very much.
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
The links in my prior reply prove otherwise, as usual.
Two of those links go to threads on which you posted to me without my posting to you, not exactly avoidance behavior+. Other examples exist, but two should suffice.
Meanwhile, I had posted earlier that you had posted the content of the post in question in reply to my posting only "Women are lawyers, too," even though your reply was technically to a poster named on the cusp, who is a female lawyer. And, as I previously posted, your insistence that I was a female lawyer proved that you had conflated me and on the cusp. And, it's irrelevant anyway. The point was the bogus content of the post in question. The rest came into it only because you kept flailing in an attempt to avoid the actual point. So, your most recent post to me only confirms my statement, while adding more totally gratuitous nastiness. Do you imagine that somehow makes you look better to someone, anyone? If so, congrats, I guess.
I can imagine that having every claim you've made refuted by your own posts would be incredibly frustrating. Making more claims of the same kind doesn't seem to have been helping you, though. Maybe try snap chat? http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/251195-hillary-jokes-a...
Oh, and again, it's not your place to ask me to leave a board you don't own or moderate. But, is is hilarious (though not surprising) that you blame me for the state of a thread that you started and have been shepherding. Look around the thread at the posts from other posters. They far exceed any comment I've made to you on any thread. Stop kidding yourself.
Shut up already HW
I don't even bother to read your crap anymore. Falsehoods, hallucinatory fantasies, illogic, extreme lack of self awareness, changing posts to nullify rebuttals or criticism, hypocrisy, MISANDRY through and through.
I think of old Winston in war who when accused of being drunk by a woman replied 'Yes madam I am drunk, but you are ugly and in the morning I will be sober'.
Look to the mote in your own eye HW.
I just can't take you seriously.
I don't read your crap.
This essay isn't about you.
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
Deleted
More unsupported accusations of your own behaviors, dennis?
Another tantrum?
Barking more orders at me that are not your place?
Sigh. Not much variety.
Fantasies? I supported every claim I made with a link. You did not support a single claim that you made. If anyone is delusional or untruthful, I doubt it's the one who posted the links.
Speaking of which, how about a few links to some of my allegedly anti-male posts? After all, I linked to your posts to support my claims about you. Was it because I posted that men can choose to use a condom after your essay claimed men had no choice at all? That "misandry" on my part? It's not really fair to blame me for that. I learned that from my eighth grade hygiene teacher.
Duplicate.
Duplicate. Content deleted by HenryWallace
If some of us seem hostile, it is because men
have always had rights - a lot more than women over the centuries and certainly today. It's not just children, it's everything else, including wage disparity. Why is it that only people trying to legislate against abortion on all levels are white males, men who have all the power and are hysterical at the thought of having to share that with anyone else. They can't stand the thought of women being able to control their own lives.
Hostile? Yes - just a little.
glad you wrote this, thank you
I know why people are mad at me. Women have suffered terribly all through history. I understand that feminism is working to make things better for women. I completely support that idea. Things have been way to unfair to women for way too long.
I'm all for it being fair and for women having legal equality and opportunity.
It saddens me that any criticism of feminism or women, or any mention of men's rights is soo vehemently attacked as anti-women.
From the surveys I've seen, most people believe in equality but no so much feminism. Isn't that strange?
Men's right does not equal anti-woman. Unless you make it so in your mind.
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
Your tone is the problem here
and really, you sound like a Limbaugh listener, big time. Why don't you go on back to El Rushbo and enjoy all that hate for women he so eloquently spews.
And yes, I guess the "solution" would be no sex, period, end of discussion, but you'd at least best be willing to admit that both sides lose out on that little proposition. And really, how realistic IS that? Isn't that a nice pie in the sky "solution" to your little problem?
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
funny you mention the cigar smoking turd el'rusho
I once stood up at work and said to the 2 guys talking rush crap that
'would you please keep your woman hating, white supremist, neo-Nazi, diarrhea of the mouth to yourselves?! I'm trying to work here'.
I got fired.
The 2 black co-workers there approached me and told me I shouldn't have done that. They said they hoped I didn't mess up their civil suit.
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
I know, henry.
I knew you'd realize who it was meant for after I realized I hit the wrong reply. And it ended up in a better spot in-thread. Had I noticed I might've dropped the @ code, though I'm not sure where that would've put the post.
I think this article has been taken down from the community, anyway.
There is no such thing as TMI. It can always be held in reserve for extortion.
No worries. As far as I can see, the article is still
here.
I have no problem with that. I'd rather know who thinks what and why than assume everyone who posts here is on the same page. I don't mind disagreement on issues. Dishonest posting tactics, however, are something else entirely.
Have you ever heard of a woman getting pregnant on purpose?
How about teenagers too stupid to do a good job of protection, and the female and/or family insists on not murdering the fertilized egg?
I think there is a huge hypocritical and double standard about women and pregnancy. To put it as crudely and heartlessly as you did, all women have to do is not have sex. They make condoms for women too you know. Since when did women get so helpless that its the man's fault if they get pregnant? If they have a choice to abort and don't, your 9 month argument becomes a choice.
As a strong and independent female and a grandmother of three millennial grandsons, I am not sympathetic to the argument of "poor, poor" females getting pregnant and choosing birth without adoption. Everyone has a choice. No reason her's should be his.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Mischaracterizing my comment doesn't invite a good faith
reply from me. However, the essayist claimed falsely that men have no choice at all as to parenthood, only women do. In addition, the essayist made it seem as though abortion were an easy choice, which he underscored in at least one other post of his on this thread. Also, the essay was also about men and women, not minors.
My post said that both men and women have A choice: using birth control. AFAIK, A choice means one choice.
I also said that men and women who have sex without using birth control take a huge risk and abortion is not as easy a choice as using a condom. I also said that women have one additional choice than men have, for good reasons.
And, as another post of mine on this thread said, I would not have responded to the essayist as I did, if this were the first post I'd seen from the essayist on the topics of women, choice and feminism.
I never said no one ever got pregnant accidentally. I never said a thing about women being "poor poor" or weak or victims, I never said what the law should or should not be regarding child support, abortion, etc. I never said men and women should not have additional choices.* I simply said they both do indeed have at least one choice and, for good biological reasons, women have an additional choice, although it's been eroded.
Instead of disagreeing with what I actually posted, your post seeks to attack the content of a post I never made.
As far as forcing a woman to choose adoption if she chooses to give birth, I cannot agree. Discussing monetary and child rearing responsibility for the child is one thing. Forcing women to either abort if they don't want to or give up a child they chose to carry for nine months is unspeakable, IMO.
*However, down thread, you posted: "I think people should stop getting pregnant with unplanned babies. Birth control should be mandatory, and if I were a male, I would want to be the one in control of the situation for me."
Did you even read my comment?
My first and last comment were both about birth control.
Females can get pregnant at 12. I read the essay to be about abortion. The older, more educated, and financially secure a women is when she gets "accidentally" pregnant, the more inexcusable the whole thing becomes.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Deleted.
Edited reply is below.
I'll ask you the same thing, as to both my posts to you.
My first reply on this thread (to the essayist) said none of the things your first reply to me suggests it said. My second post did little but demonstrate that that my first reply on this thread said none of things your first reply to me suggests it said.
As far as females as young as 12 being able to become pregnant, I believe females younger than that have been known to become pregnant. I think I read of one case at 8. IIRC, she was impregnated by an adult family member. However, the essay was not about child pregnancies but about men and women and my reply to the essay was not about child pregnancy, either. And the essay was not about minor females having no choice. Rather the essay claimed that men who have no choice.
Please explain to me exactly what in my posts prompted you to ask me if I know if kids get pregnant or if I've ever heard of pregnancy on purpose or to claim my post was heartless or to imply that my post portrayed women as "poor poor" helpless victims.
Since we seem to be going in a circle, please quote actual language contained in any post of mine on this thread--on this board--on any board--that prompted you to post any of those things to me. Thanks in advance.
It's not just the girls, dkmich
Political incorrect alert! Some may find the following offensive.
Some families, of all possible ethnicities, like having the extra income from teenaged daughter's (or son's girlfriend's) welfare check. There is a incentive to, shall we say, not discourage early intimacy and early sex.
1
Mary Bennett
That Ed's essay was about looking outside the box
and the cute little survey.
He suggested Sargon. An anti-feminist, as viewing.
My comment there was indeed germane to the essay.
If your goal here is to attack me personally rather than address the issues I've put forth, I think perhaps I should ask you to stop. I don't impugn your integrity or motives when I disagree with you.
Seriously, Refute a position, make a position. Or find someone else to abuse.
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
Again, going personal is much more your style than mine.
Some cases in point are posted in my first reply on this this thread. More examples are on this thread, starting here: http://caucus99percent.com/comment/230656#comment-230656 All times, you were responding to a straightforward post of mine with no personal attacks whatever. Sorry, but, as previously posted, accusing me of what you've done to me do ain't working.
I posted that Ed's essay was about where
Caucus 99ers stood politically, based on a certain chart, liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc. I added that Ed's essay was not a typical trigger for an anti-feminist rant. You've contradicted me, reference his mention of Sargon, as though that his mention somehow invited an anti-feminist rant. However, that was not the context.
This was the essay of Ed's in question, in its entirety:
I stand by my description of Ed's post. Facts matter. They don't support your attempts on this thread to justify yourself.
Men should have the right to have
any foreign object or parasite removed from their body.
They should not have the right to remove or force the non removal of such objects from another's body. Nor force the insertion of such objects on another (rape.)
They should have a right to keep any medical condition they have private. But they have no right to my medical information.
If they wish to not have children they should Google how to not get them started.
The end. You're welcome.
Women know how to use google too.
I don't think anyone is supporting forced birth. The issue is also forced parenthood.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
The essay was about men allegedly not having
any choice at all about avoiding parenthood. Eltee pointed out that the essayists claim about men was untrue. Women knowing how to google has nothing to do with it.
I think people should stop getting pregnant with unplanned
babies. Birth control should be mandatory, and if I were a male, I would want to be the one in control of the situation for me. As a female, I always felt that way. No way in hell I was entrusting my reproductive system to anybody but me.
I think science is changing, in my mind anyway, how long a woman should be allowed to abort for non-medical reasons - and I am not speaking about her mental/emotional well being. I don't know how long that is, but it should be looked at again. Medical reasons are a whole other discussion and are not addressed in my comment anywhere.
Whatever period of time it is considered legal for women to abort should be the same amount of time given to males to abort their responsibilities to it. Birth control is a shared responsibility just as sex and parenting are a shared responsibility.
If a man and woman both want the child? Joint parenting and responsibility, no problem.
I a man wants the child and the woman doesn't? - It is her body. This should matter. No one should be forced to incubate and birth a child. If the technology ever gets to the point where a specific fertilized and implanted egg can be transferred to a willing surrogate, that would be a separate discussion.
If the man doesn't want the child and the woman does? At a minimum, the male should be able to abort his rights and responsibilities should the woman choose to carry to term against his wishes. He should be prepared to live with his decision just like woman have had to live with their abortions.
Negligence/Deceit - Can only be changed through the courts.
If a woman gets pregnant and doesn't inform the male and/or deprives him of his right to to parent and/or terminate within the allotted and legal timeframe alloted to abort? The woman and child shall automatically forfeit all claims upon the male. The male may opt for parental rights for one year after the date of discovery.
If the male is informed and fails to respond within the allotted period to abort his rights and responsibilities, he will automatically forfeit them and any and all claims upon the woman and the child.
The best rule for a man and a woman is to each be responsible for their own birth control and destiny. No one should ever rely on another person to protect them from pregnancy and parenthood. Given the high cost of parenting, a divorce rate of 50%, and single parents living with the greatest poverty, children should be wanted, afforded, and carefully planned. They deserve no less.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I'm generally in agreement
I think it's something we should talk about anyway.
The most important message in your post is
thank you
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
My father walked away and never looked back
I've never even met the man. When I was conceived, he was 17 and my mother was 16. I'm told he joined the military and left. My mother and her mother, my grandmother (also a single mom), were left to cope with my unfortunate arrival. Between them, they took on 100% of the responsibilities. The sperm donor, as I call him, never paid a dime in child support or had a thing to do with our lives, ever.
I don't know why you imagine men don't do this. It's laughable. One of the primary reasons I never even considered having a child was that I didn't want to be a single parent, and I'd learned early on that most men didn't stick around. And those that did were usually abusive jerks to their families. I only knew one or two friends growing up who had good dads who were present in their lives and a positive influence.
People would sometimes ask me, don't you wish you had a father? and I'd say no. When my bio mom married a few years later, he didn't want me around -- "someone else's brat" -- so I was raised mostly by my grandma after that. Thank goodness, because my three half-siblings who grew up with him hate his guts to this day. He was a hitter and a tyrant. They envied me for living with grandma.
They don't do it legally.
If your family had taken him to court, he would have had to pay - particularly today. Today, they put them in jail as deadbeat dads.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
The operative word in your post being "today"
this would be legally handled. Back in the day 40 or 50 years ago? Not so much. And that IS part of this whole ugly "discussion" that this Dennis person wants so badly to harp on - things ARE different today and men face more responsibility now.
Do I think a man should be "forced" to have a child he does not want? NO, most emphatically so, and I've warned my own nephew and all his friends as soon as they were old enough to USE the condom no matter what she tells you about birth control, that's simply personal responsibility, along with protection from disease, duh. But how many years have women just been left with kids they had no real choice in conceiving? Abortion wasn't always legal, and most likely, if this guy gets his choice it will no longer be available at all, unless a man signs off for it. FAR more important to punish that slut for having unprotected sex and MAKE her have the baby to prove it and to make sure, sure, sure that poor guy doesn't get saddled with it.
My great grandmother, when pregnant for the 5th time, was told by my great grandfather to "get rid of it" as they could not afford any more kids. She did so, with either a knitting needle or a coat hanger. But hey, that's just the way things were back in the day, too bad for her that SHE didn't protect her "superior" procreation facilities.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Good advice....
My grandsons were told to keep it wrapped no matter what. People just need to be more responsible upfront whether it is marriage or children. Like is tough enough.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I'm not anti-abortion lizzyh7
I struggle with some of the implications of later term abortion, which is why I question on demand abortion up to birth.
I don't want us to go back to the bad old days.
I'll march against any attempt to outlaw abortions, bad legs and all.
This essay is in no way anti-abortion.
It's not about abortion. It's about reproductive equality and men's rights.
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
Sorry you had a rough time, CS.
You appear to have matured well. My uncles wife disappeared shortly after my cousin was born. She was raised by my grandma, mainly because my uncle ran a business, though he was home every night. Everyone pitied the girl so made allowances for her incessant transgressions. Nobody wanted to be around her. She grew up to be a real mess. She was dead before 25, murder, suicide? I don't know if they ever figured it out.
Glad you made it out so much better.
It may be a regional thing. I grew up where half the population was Catholic and the other half a bjillion other christian denominations. Divorce and single parenthood were basically unheard of in real life but seen on TV like Batman and Lost in Space. Then I moved to a place it seemed half the kids had 3 moms and 3 dads along with a plethora of accompanying siblings, half siblings, and step siblings.
Ya gotta figure for every colostomy bag out there, their is at least one decent person.
There is no such thing as TMI. It can always be held in reserve for extortion.
I am often stunned by how good so many people are, as
when hundreds of people donate to replace a stolen wheelchair they heard about on the evening news, for example.
Sadly, I am sometimes also stunned by how awful some people, including parents, can be.
So that's your problem!
Whine, whine.
Just grow up and don't have unprotected sex. You clearly are someone who should not be a dad.
Say that in front of my son or my ex-wife lol
once again this is looking like TOP sunspot.
you could have said something about forced fatherhood.
Is it really proper to enter essays, add nothing, and character attack?
With their hearts they turned to each others heart for refuge
In troubled years that came before the deluge
*Jackson Browne, 1974, Before the Deluge https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SX-HFcSIoU
It takes two to Tango, otherwise it's not a DANCE!
Just maybe we are having this discussion simply because both Men & Women have forgotten what dancing the Tango is all about?
Just saying ...
Pages